The Meaning of Sacred Names and Babylonian Scholarship: The Gula Hymn and Other Works (Dubsar, 25) 9783963271700, 3963271701

Citation preview

dubsar 25 Bennett • The Meaning of Sacred Names

and Babylonian Scholarship

www.zaphon.de

The Meaning of Sacred Names and Babylonian Scholarship

The Gula Hymn and other works

Elizabeth A. Bennett

dubsar 25 Zaphon

dubsar-25-Bennett-Cover---1.indd 1

20.08.2021 18:13:36

The Meaning of Sacred Names and Babylonian Scholarship The Gula Hymn and other works

Elizabeth A. Bennett

dubsar Altorientalistische Publikationen Publications on the Ancient Near East Band 25 Herausgegeben von Kristin Kleber und Kai A. Metzler

The Meaning of Sacred Names and Babylonian Scholarship The Gula Hymn and other works

Elizabeth A. Bennett

Zaphon Münster 2021

Cover illustration: BM 34399 (Sp. 518), reverse; © Elizabeth A. Bennett & Junko Taniguchi.

The Meaning of Sacred Names and Babylonian Scholarship. The Gula Hymn and other works Elizabeth A. Bennett dubsar 25

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

ISBN 978-3-96327-170-0 (Buch) ISBN 978-3-96327-171-7 (E-Book) ISSN 2627-7174

Table of Contents Preface and acknowledgements .......................................................................

9

Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1.1 Names ................................................................................................... 1.2 Babylonian speculative scholarship ...................................................... 1.3 The Gula hymn ...................................................................................... 1.4 Implications and conclusions ................................................................

13 14 16 18 20

Chapter 2 Babylonian speculative scholarship ................................................ 2.1 Intellectual background ......................................................................... 2.1.1 Lexical tradition .......................................................................... 2.1.2 Bilingual translations .................................................................. 2.1.3 Omen tradition ............................................................................ 2.2 Commentary texts ................................................................................. 2.3 Sacred names and speculative scholarship ........................................... 2.4 Ancient evidence ................................................................................... 2.4.1 Expository texts .......................................................................... 2.4.2 Explanatory works ...................................................................... 2.4.3 Commentary texts ....................................................................... 2.4.4 Akkadian expressions ................................................................. 2.4.5 Speculative interpretation in the Old Babylonian period ............ 2.5 Modern scholarship ............................................................................... 2.6 Text corpus ...........................................................................................

21 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 28 30 34 35 37 39 43

Chapter 3 Speculative scholarship in the text corpus ....................................... 3.1 The speculative techniques ................................................................... 3.1.1 Translation .................................................................................. 3.1.2 Free rendering ............................................................................. 3.1.3 Speculative interpretation ........................................................... 3.2 The speculative methods ....................................................................... 3.2.1 Translation of individual elements ............................................. 3.2.2 Speculative translation ................................................................ 3.2.3 Free rendering and free association ............................................ 3.2.4 Free handling of order ................................................................ 3.2.5 Not all elements used .................................................................. 3.2.6 Determinative given equivalence ................................................ 3.2.7 Element interpreted as determinative .........................................

49 49 50 51 53 64 65 70 71 75 77 78 81

6

Table of Contents

3.2.8 Form freedom ............................................................................. 3.2.9 Plural freely inferred ................................................................... 3.2.10 Emesal ........................................................................................ 3.2.11 Homophony ................................................................................ 3.2.12 Polyvalence ................................................................................. 3.2.13 Homophony and polyvalence together ....................................... 3.2.14 Akkadian homophony ................................................................. 3.2.15 Near-homophony ........................................................................ 3.2.16 Vowels ........................................................................................ 3.2.17 Consonantal groups .................................................................... 3.2.18 Part only of element used ........................................................... 3.2.19 Contrived orthography ................................................................ 3.2.20 Different elements, single equivalence ....................................... 3.2.21 Repeated use of elements ............................................................ 3.2.22 Reduplicated elements ................................................................ 3.2.23 Abbreviation ............................................................................... 3.2.24 Phonological reversal .................................................................. 3.2.25 Graphic interpretation ................................................................. 3.2.26 Older forms ................................................................................. 3.2.27 Multiple possibilities ..................................................................

82 87 88 91 96 99 103 108 109 112 116 117 135 135 142 144 146 147 154 155

Chapter 4 The Gula hymn ................................................................................ 4.1 The texts ................................................................................................ 4.2 The overlap ........................................................................................... 4.3 Overview of the Gula hymn .................................................................. 4.3.1 Synopsis of the Gula hymn ......................................................... 4.3.2 Themes and Motifs in the Gula hymn ......................................... 4.3.3 The Gula hymn as a literary and scholarly composition ............. 4.4 The context of the Gula hymn ............................................................... 4.5 Date of composition ..............................................................................

159 159 161 165 166 167 171 173 176

Chapter 5 The Gula hymn: Critical edition ...................................................... 5.1 The Manuscripts .................................................................................... 5.1.1 K 232+3371+13776 (Ms. A) ...................................................... 5.1.2 VAT 9670 + VAT 9931 (KAR 109+343) (Ms. B) ...................... 5.1.3 BM 36333 (Ms. a) ....................................................................... 5.1.4 BM 34399 (Ms. b) ....................................................................... 5.1.5 BM 37616 (Ms. c) ....................................................................... 5.1.6 BM 75974 (Ms. d) ....................................................................... 5.1.7 BM 76319 (Ms. e) .......................................................................

179 179 179 181 182 182 183 184 185

Table of Contents

7

5.1.8 BM 68611 (Ms. f) ....................................................................... 5.2 Table of Manuscripts and earlier editions ............................................. 5.3 Introduction to the text of the Gula hymn ............................................. 5.3.1 The Manuscripts and the text of the Gula hymn ......................... 5.3.2 Textual variations and orthography ............................................ 5.3.3 Logographic writing ................................................................... 5.3.4 Forms .......................................................................................... 5.4 Transliteration and Translation of the Gula hymn ................................ 5.5 Commentary .........................................................................................

185 186 188 188 188 190 192 194 224

Chapter 6 Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn .................... 6.1 Analysis: Speculative interpretation in the Gula hymn ......................... 6.2 Encoded names ..................................................................................... 6.3 Overview: Speculative techniques and methods in the Gula hymn ...... 6.3.1 Akkadian homophony ................................................................. 6.3.2 Near-homophony ........................................................................ 6.3.3 Unusual writings ......................................................................... 6.3.4 Graphic interpretation ................................................................. 6.3.5 Other features and speculative methods ......................................

337 338 384 391 393 394 396 398 403

Chapter 7 Implications and conclusions .......................................................... 7.1 Babylonian speculative scholarship ...................................................... 7.1.1 A written phenomenon? .............................................................. 7.1.2 Were there any limits? ................................................................ 7.2 The Gula hymn ...................................................................................... 7.3 Babylonian speculative scholarship and Jewish scholarship ................ 7.4 The meaning of biblical names – Babylonian parallels? ...................... 7.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................

405 405 407 411 414 417 421 425

Appendix 1 Copy of BM 34399 (Sp. 518) ........................................................

429

Appendix 2 Temples and shrines found only in the Gula hymn ......................

431

Bibliographical and other abbreviations ..........................................................

433

Bibliography ....................................................................................................

437

Index ................................................................................................................

455

Preface and acknowledgements Babylonian scholarship has many forms and many subjects. This book explores the remarkable ways by which Babylonian scholars in the second and first millennia BCE understood the names of their gods and goddesses and the places sacred to them in a wide spectrum of texts, ranging from explanatory lists to great religious works. Developing and expounding their religious thinking, these extraordinary scholars elucidated the meaning of sacred names, both obvious and hidden, by etymological and other means, using great erudition, sophistication and invention, as this book seeks to demonstrate. This book develops the PhD thesis I submitted to SOAS, University of London, in September 2017, under the supervision of Professor A.R. George. Andrew George suggested that, for this doctoral thesis, I should undertake a study leading to publication of the substantial hymn to the healing goddess Gula, contained in the then-unpublished cuneiform copies in the late Professor W.G. Lambert’s papers in his custody. The focus of this study evolved as it emerged that the Gula hymn shed significant new light on the sophisticated hermeneutic techniques and methods of Babylonian scholarship, which have not themselves, to date, been the subject of extensive study by reference to a significant text corpus. The Gula hymn presented in this book for the first time was identified as a single composition by Lambert, uniting texts published by Ebeling (KAR 109+343) and text in tablets in the Kuyunjik collection of the British Museum, K 232+3371+13776, for the most part previously unpublished. Lambert identified further previously unidentified Babylonian duplicates in the British Museum which supplement the composition contained in KAR 109+343. He made cuneiform copies of all the tablets he identified in the British Museum’s collection which contain the composition. For some time, Lambert understood the composition contained in KAR 109+343 and duplicates to be a syncretistic hymn to Ištar. Entries in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and citations elsewhere (in House Most High (George, 1993), for example) refer this composition in this way, derived from Lambert’s understanding. By 1997, however, Lambert had established the connection which unites the composition as a hymn to Gula. In that year, tangentially and elliptically, and perhaps unintentionally, he linked KAR 109+343 and K 232+ in an unrelated publication, but this seems to have gone unremarked. Lambert was evidently content to allow the “syncretistic hymn to Ištar” to be known and cited as such, pending publication of the united composition, which, in the event, he never progressed. Presentation of the Gula hymn, in my doctoral thesis and now here, provides its first publication. This would not have been possible but for Lambert’s work. Lambert also made significant contributions on the type of Babylonian scholarship discussed

10

Preface and acknowledgements

in this book, not least in his important early observation of the parallel between Babylonian explanatory scholarship and the midrash of rabbinic scholarship known as notariqon (Lambert, 1954–1956). I never knew Lambert, although I saw him on his regular day in the British Museum Study Room. Nevertheless, working with his papers, I have the sense of having made his acquaintance. Lambert was a rigorous and critical scholar, sometimes ferociously so, as Andrew George’s (2015a) Biographical Memoir bears out. I would hope that, nevertheless, there is something in this book that would have met with his approval. I am very grateful to Andrew George for making available copies of Lambert’s then-unpublished cuneiform copies and draft transliterations, critical apparatus and collation notes on KAR 109+343 from Lambert’s folios, and for his insight as to Lambert’s identification of the composition as a whole. Lambert’s cuneiform copies were collated and transliterations, given here in score edition, have been reworked by me. His cuneiform copies have now been published in Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, prepared for publication and edited by George and Taniguchi (2019). I thank Andrew George and Junko Taniguchi for allowing me to use the pre-publication copies. A further piece in the British Museum’s collection has now been identified as belonging to the Gula hymn by Professor Enrique Jiménez and his team in their work on the Electronic Babylonian Literature (eBL) Project at the Institut für Assyriologie und Hethitologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich. I am very grateful to Enrique Jiménez for bringing this to my attention and for so generously suggesting that it be included for publication here, and for his suggestions for the Gula hymn. It is anticipated that the eBL Project may yield further text which may be added to the Gula hymn. A normalised, composite version of the Gula hymn, together with the score transliteration, is to be published in the eBL Project. Quotations from Akkadian texts in this book are given in transcription. The interpretive decisions made in these transcriptions are mine, and may not always be those that the editors of the works would have made. Old readings in Akkadian texts used and minor typographical errors have been adjusted. In transliteration of Sumerian, following the common Assyriological practice where Sumerian texts are not the primary focus, I have not made the distinction between the voiced consonant g and the nasal consonant g (ng) of Sumerian, now conventionally rendered as g͂. The English translation of Sumerian temple names follows the translation in House Most High (George, 1993), where this is given. Elsewhere, all translations given are mine, unless otherwise indicated. Any mistakes or misinterpretations in this book are, of course, my own. I record my thanks to a number of people. First, the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum to study, copy and publish objects in their keeping

Preface and acknowledgements

11

is acknowledged, and I thank the staff of the British Museum Middle East Study Room for their help. Junko Taniguchi digitally inked my copy of the manuscript of the Gula hymn given in Appendix 2 for publication and used in the cover illustration, and my thanks are due to her. I am grateful to my PhD examiners, Professor Mark Geller and Dr Martin Worthington, for their many valuable comments and suggestions, and encouragement. Mark Geller’s observations on the flexibility of Babylonian speculative scholarship caused me to think more widely about what bounds and limitations there might be. Martin Worthington had many helpful, detailed, comments; his particular interest in Akkadian as a spoken language prompted further thought on that (inevitably elusive) aspect. I thank Daniel Schwemer, my first teacher of Akkadian, for a sound and scholarly footing to the start of my studies; Mark Weeden, whose stimulating teaching and workshops ranged widely in space and time across the cuneiform world; Marie-Christine Ludwig for her Sumerian classes and, with Christopher Walker, for their friendly advice and encouragement; and, most particularly, Andrew George for his wisdom, valuable insight, guidance and support in my PhD work and throughout my time at SOAS. I am most grateful to all these for their extraordinary scholarship, and for setting me on the path to the astonishing, absorbing, and rewarding world of Assyriology – something that was intended to be a pastime after a busy life in the legal world of the City of London, and has blossomed into so much more. Throughout all my endeavours which have resulted in this book, I had a further professorial adviser – one not from the humanities and who had thought to have had students off his hands, rather than in his house – my husband, Robert. To him I owe gratitude and much more, for his support in every way. Elizabeth Bennett

1. Introduction

Sacred names held great significance for the Babylonians. The divine world pervaded all aspects of Babylonian life. The written record reflects this in personal names, letters and administrative documents, rituals and incantations, and in literary and scholarly works. In the bilingual culture of ancient Mesopotamia, names of gods and their temples, cities and sacred places were very often both Sumerian as well as Akkadian. These had to be understood and explained to achieve an understanding of the meaning of the ancients’ world. In their quest for meaning, Babylonian scholars explained the straightforward, obvious meaning of sacred names. They perceived also that names might have unobvious, hidden meaning and developed sophisticated interpretive methods to explore and reveal this hidden meaning. These interpretive techniques and methods found their best-known expression in the great exposition of the fifty names of the Babylonian city-god, Marduk, with which the Babylonian creation epic, Enūma eliš, culminates. Explanatory lists and expository texts exhibit the imperative in Babylonian scholarship to explain and interpret sacred names. The exploration of hidden meaning is a hallmark of Babylonian scholarship from the second millennium onwards. The explanation and interpretation of sacred names in an important facet of this intellectual pursuit. The explanatory approach of Babylonian scholars to sacred names has been identified by modern scholars. Lambert and Bottéro have most prominently engaged with this field of scholarship. They and scholars such as Livingstone (1986) and George (1992), amongst others, have demonstrated how the Akkadian explanations and interpretations of sacred names were derived in the works they have edited or examined. However, previous expositions have been largely ad hoc, developed to interpret individual works. There has been no systematic attempt to analyse and describe the range of techniques and methods used by the ancient scholars to explore the meaning of sacred names in a corpus of explanatory, religious and literary compositions. This book seeks to do this. This book provides a systematic description of the techniques and methods of this important branch of Babylonian scholarship, drawn from observation and analysis of a substantial and varied text corpus. To those works in which sacred names are explored can now be added a syncretistic hymn to the healing goddess, Gula. The work has been known as separate compositions, largely unpublished, but was identified by W.G. Lambert as a single composition relating to Gula. The Gula hymn is a very substantial Standard Babylonian hymn which uses a wide range of scholarly

14

1. Introduction

techniques and methods to praise the healing goddess under many names, and in many places. As a scholarly and literary work, the Gula hymn has its closest parallel in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš. The hymn is an important addition to the group of works which explain sacred names and to the corpus of great Standard Babylonian hymns. A critical edition of the composition is presented here, in most part for the first time. 1.1 Names Names and naming practices in the Babylonian world shed light on the ancients’ scholarly quest for meaning in sacred names. In this world, names usually have a clear meaning. Personal names in Akkadian typically took one of several forms. A name could consist of a single noun or adjective, such as Rīmum, “Gift”, or Šamḫatum, “Comely one”, the name of the harlot in the Gilgameš epic (the word also means “prostitute”) but also used more generally as a personal name. A name might have a longer form, often with a divine name as an element of it. Genitive constructions, such as Narām-Sîn, “Beloved of Sîn”, and Awīl-Marduk, “Man of Marduk”, are common; and names may take the form of a sentence, such as Šamašnūrī, “Šamaš is my light”, and Ilī-iqīšam, “My god bestowed on me”. In the Old Babylonian period Sumerian personal names also continued to be in use. Like Akkadian names, these usually had clear meaning, as illustrated by the name dNannaibila-ma-an-šúm, “Nanna has given me an heir”. (For an overview of names and naming, both Sumerian and Akkadian, see Edzard, 2008–2011a). Sacred names and their meaning must be considered with this background in mind. Deities and places sacred to them were known by both Sumerian and Akkadian names which were perceived to have meaning, just as personal names did. Personal names like dNanna-ibila-ma-an-šúm illustrate that a name may impart a real message about its bearer. It is clear that the same applied to sacred names, and accordingly their meaning required to be understood for a proper understanding of the divine world. It is often said by modern scholars that in ancient Mesopotamian belief, a sacred name expressed the very being of its bearer. Lambert expressed this view a number of times, explaining that for these ancients, a sacred name was not merely an identification tag, but, rather, a hypostasis of the person or thing (Lambert, 1982, p.210; 1990, p.215; 1998a, p.192): an expression of a fundamental truth as to its bearer. In this way of thinking, there is a connection between the name and its bearer, and the name is revelatory of the very essence of its bearer. Elsewhere (and somewhat later) in the ancient world, this thinking is explored in Plato’s dialogue Cratylus, expressed as a belief in the “correctness of names” (onomatōn orthotēs).

1. Introduction

15

However, there is no discussion of ideas comparable to ancient Greek philosophical texts in the Mesopotamian world. There is no contemporary text which expounds Babylonian scholarly thinking on sacred names to substantiate that names of deities and their sacred places were understood to express the nature of the bearer. As Jiménez observed, the belief in the connection between a name and its bearer is pervasive in ancient Mesopotamia, but “the theory is only recognisable through its application” (Jiménez, 2018, p.89). The scholarly explanation of sacred names is key evidence of the belief in the relevance of a sacred name to its bearer. Some sacred names are repeatedly interpreted in expositions in which quite different meanings are derived from them, evidently exploring the meaning perceived to be latent in the name and shedding light on the character of its bearer. An outstanding case is the divine name Tutu (dtu-tu), one of Marduk’s names, which is repeatedly explored in Enūma eliš VII 9–34 and in an explanatory God List presented by Lambert (2013, p.154) referred to in this book as the Marduk Names List (for these expositions, see sections 3.2.17.1, 3.2.19.4.1). The evident importance of names and the act of naming in the divine world is vouchsafed in Enūma eliš, which commences and concludes with the concept of naming. The opening lines of the epic narrative speak of the beginning of time: enūma eliš lā nabû šamāmū šapliš ammatum šuma lā zakrat (Enūma eliš I 1–2) When the heavens above had not been named, The earth below had not been called by name Here, naming is usually understood as a term which connotes the act of creation itself: the call into existence. Lambert translated the couplet accordingly: “When heavens above had not been created, and earth beneath had not been created” (Lambert, 1998a, p.192). The association between creation and naming is specifically made by the ancient scholar who drew up the commentary on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII (edited by Lambert, 2013, pp.139–142, as Commentary II). This is described below in section 2.4.3. Explaining the narrative šalšiš imbû, “they named (him) thirdly” (Enūma eliš VII 19), as based on Marduk’s identity as Tutuziku (dtu-tu dzi-kù), the commentarist noted dù as both banû, “to create”, and né-bu⸢u⸣ (intending perhaps nabû, “to call”, or nību, “naming”) to explain imbû, “they named”. Indeed, the association between banû, “to create”, and nabû, “to call”, may perhaps be an expression of a belief in an essential connection between a name and its bearer. As Lambert (1998a, p.192) argued, “Having a name is to exist, and to call something by name is to bring it into being”. The conclusion of the epic celebrates the exaltation of Marduk to the position of supreme deity in the pantheon with the calling of the fifty names given to Marduk. In this lengthy exposition (Enūma eliš

16

1. Introduction

VI 121–VII 139), Marduk’s names are enunciated and interpreted using scholarly techniques and methods examined in this book. The exposition describes the character, attributes and facets of the god, drawn from interpretation of each divine name, as Commentary II demonstrates for Enūma eliš VII. It is evident that, for the scholar who composed Enūma eliš, divine names enshrined, and hence could reveal, the true nature of the deity. Thus, in its celebration of Marduk, this key passage is not simply a literary climax to the narrative; the exposition presents a theology of the god Marduk, derived from the god’s own names. The explanation of names of deities and sacred places is central to scholarly religious thought in the Babylonian world, as evidenced in the preserved written record. Explanatory God Lists record and explain names of deities. Topographical lists name and explain the places sacred to them: their temples, shrines and cities. Such names and their explanations are also embedded in other compositions. Paramount amongst these is the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI– VII, but sacred names with their explanations occur widely in hymns, prayers and religious compositions and in literary compositions, text commentaries and other scholarly works. The quantity and breadth of the surviving textual record attests to the importance attached to the explanation of sacred names in religious thought. A deity might have several names or epithets. Explaining these was critical to the understanding of divine nature and the many characteristics the deity might have. Likewise, the character of sacred places had to be understood for their theological significance and for what this revealed about their patron deities. 1.2 Babylonian speculative scholarship Sacred names, then, required to be understood and explained. Babylonian scholars explained Sumerian sacred names by translating them into Akkadian. They also took the straightforward, obvious meaning of Sumerian names and rendered them more freely in Akkadian. By these two techniques, translation and free rendering, the patent meaning of a sacred name was revealed. In addition, a third technique was used to understand and explain sacred names, which harnessed the rich resources of the bilingual tradition and the vast potential of the cuneiform script and writing system. This technique is termed “speculative interpretation” in this book. In the bilingual culture in which they were steeped, equipped with an expert knowledge of cuneiform, Babylonian scholars perceived that sacred names (both Sumerian and Akkadian) also held other, unobvious meaning, latent and hidden within them. The cuneiform script and its writing system afforded enormous potential. A cuneiform sign may have many different readings, both syllabic and logographic; there are many homophonous signs, which give different ways of writing the same phonological value, each of which may also have

1. Introduction

17

quite different readings. In addition, the flexible syllabification facilitated by the cuneiform writing system offered alternative ways in which a word might be written. These features gave vast scope for Babylonian scholars to explore the meaning of any name or word. Babylonian scholars developed an interpretive technique by which they divided names into parts for interpretation and understood a reading for each separate part. This reading might be as originally written in the name, or some other quite different reading, exploiting the potential of the cuneiform writing system. They applied an etymological approach to these separate parts to produce corresponding Akkadian words, taking advantage of the many different meanings the readings might have in the bilingual tradition. In this way, Babylonian scholars revealed hidden meaning in sacred names. These three explanatory techniques were used to enquire into and explore meaning in sacred names and more widely. “Speculative scholarship” is the general term used for them in this book. The third technique, speculative interpretation, is the focus of one of the main contributions of this book. Although many features of this hermeneutic approach have been recognised previously, this book aims to provide a systematic description of the many methods of this important field of Babylonian scholarship and thus to offer a window on the thinking and work of Babylonian scholars. In chapter 2 this book describes the intellectual background in which Babylonian speculative scholarship has its roots. From the same intellectual and cultural background, ancient scholars developed commentary texts, a genre recently examined authoritatively by Frahm (2011). Although commentary texts are not attested until the first millennium, this field of scholarship has much in common with the scholarly explanation of sacred names; this is examined in section 2.2. Speculative scholarship applied to sacred names is then more fully introduced in section 2.3. A number of texts explicitly evidence that ancient scholars sought to explain the meaning of sacred names, both patent and latent, and the way in which they did so. These texts expressly demonstrate the explanatory connection between sacred names and the Akkadian epithets and attributes applied to them. This ancient evidence is presented in section 2.4, where the practice in the Old Babylonian period is also briefly discussed. Modern scholars have studied the ancient explanation and interpretation of sacred names for the light it shines on ancient scholarship and religious thinking. The etymological approach to sacred names has received particular attention. Bottéro’s extensive study of the commentary on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII (Bottéro, 1977) remains the seminal study on this form of Babylonian scholarship. Of great importance also is Lambert’s early observation that this explanatory technique is paralleled in the midrash of rabbinic scholarship termed notariqon (Lambert, 1954–1956). Modern scholarship is discussed in section 2.5.

18

1. Introduction

To develop understanding of the explanatory techniques and methods of Babylonian speculative scholarship further, this book uses a substantial body of texts. The corpus comprises religious lists and expository works from the second and first millennium, Standard Babylonian religious and literary compositions, including the important exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI and VII, and the Gula hymn presented here. This text corpus is detailed in section 2.6. Chapter 3 examines Babylonian speculative scholarship and the exploration of the meaning of sacred names. It considers the three main techniques by which the ancient scholars explained the meaning of sacred names in the text corpus: translation (section 3.1.1); free rendering (section 3.1.2); and speculative interpretation (section 3.1.3). Translation and free rendering are illustrated in detail here and the features of speculative interpretation are described. The speculative methods are described and illustrated in section 3.2. Here the many sophisticated methods by which sacred names were interpreted and hidden meaning revealed are analysed and illustrated in detail, using the text corpus to develop a detailed classification of the speculative methods used. It does not draw on the Gula hymn itself to illustrate speculative methods, although some aspects of the Gula hymn are noted. The speculative scholarship of the Gula hymn is separately presented in chapter 6. 1.3 The Gula hymn The Gula hymn presented in chapters 4, 5 and 6 is a major Standard Babylonian hymn in praise of the healing goddess, Gula. This important religious composition celebrates and glorifies its goddess under many names and in many places. It is also a most scholarly composition, in which sacred names given to the goddess, her temples and shrines, her towns and cities are explained by speculative scholarship, using the techniques and methods described in chapter 3 and developing them. The work combines two pieces of text which have been known to scholars for many years, but which have remained largely unpublished until now: K 232+3371+13776; and KAR 109+343 and its duplicates. Part of the text has been understood as a syncretistic hymn to the goddess Ištar and it is often referred to in this way in the scholarly literature (as recently, for example, by Westenholz, Goddesses, pp.109– 110). W.G. Lambert identified that the manuscripts contain text which appears to overlap, revealing the work to be not two separate hymns, as previously thought, but a single composition in praise of the healing goddess. Now brought together here in a full modern edition, the Gula hymn (though still incomplete) can be recognised as a major Babylonian hymn, to take its place beside the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi edited by Lambert in 1967 and the other great Babylonian hymns. The Gula hymn is a substantial addition to the relatively small number of literary hymns and prayers to

1. Introduction

19

the healing goddess in Akkadian. A brief overview of the corpus of other compositions pertaining to the healing goddess and a general portrait of Gula can be found in the recent study by Böck (2014), who excluded from consideration the manuscript K 232+3371+13776, part of the Gula hymn presented here. The Gula hymn takes a form which is often called a “syncretistic hymn” because the healing goddess is there identified with other goddesses and thus syncretised with them. The syncretism of female deities has been the subject of an extensive recent study by Westenholz who examined the syncretism of the healing goddesses in some detail (Westenholz, Goddesses, pp.82–86). Syncretism is not discussed generally in this book, save to note that Westenholz’s conclusions have to be tempered in light of the present knowledge that KAR 109+343 is part of the Gula hymn. The Gula hymn makes a rich and significant contribution to the corpus of works in which Babylonian speculative scholarship is deployed. As a scholarly composition, it is an exceptional work, of great erudition and originality. It uses a number of the less common methods of speculative interpretation to explore and explain sacred names, thus depicting the character of the goddess, in her many divine identities and in many settings. Two features in particular distinguish the Gula hymn as an outstanding work in the field of Babylonian speculative scholarship. The first is the inventive interpretation of the graphic form of certain sacred names which the scholar contrives to express in the Akkadian text. Secondly, and most remarkably, sacred names which are not explicitly expressed in the hymn are interpreted in the scholarly speculation. Names, which are not otherwise expressed, are thus encoded in the Gula hymn to reveal the identity of the goddess or of her domain. This is an exceptional departure from the standard practice routinely observed in scholarly expositions in both explanatory and literary compositions, where a sacred name is expressly given and then interpreted. This feature, referred to as “encoding” in this book, is a sophisticated and significant development of Babylonian scholarly hermeneutics. It marks the Gula hymn as a work of exceptional scholarship and also provides an important parallel with the treatment of names in biblical writings which has been largely unremarked on. The Gula hymn was also evidently an important and popular composition in antiquity, as the number and geographical spread of its manuscripts show. The hymn continued to be copied in the late period, attesting to the enduring significance of the work. Chapter 4 introduces the Gula hymn. A description of its texts is given (section 4.1). Lambert’s identification of overlapping text to unite the composition is discussed (section 4.2). An overview of the Gula hymn is presented (section 4.3). The work is set in its context (section 4.4); and the date of the composition is considered (section 4.5). Chapter 5 presents a critical edition of the Gula hymn. Its

20

1. Introduction

manuscripts are described (sections 5.1, 5.2) and the text is introduced (section 5.3). Transliteration (in score form where there are duplicate manuscripts) and translation are presented (section 5.4). Commentary is given (section 5.5), other than as to the speculative scholarship which characterises the Gula hymn. Chapter 6 examines the interpretive techniques and methods of Babylonian speculative scholarship in the hymn. Analysis of the speculative scholarship used there is presented (section 6.1). The encoding of names (the truly remarkable interpretive feature observed in the Gula hymn) is discussed (section 6.2). The interpretive techniques and methods used in the Gula hymn are summarised and the more unusual speculative methods are highlighted (section 6.3). 1.4 Implications and conclusions The book concludes with some extended observations on Babylonian speculative scholarship, drawn from the analysis of the Gula hymn and the text corpus, and the speculative methods presented here. Whether Babylonian speculative interpretation is to be regarded as a written phenomenon and whether it was subject to any constraints or limits are questions which are explored in section 7.1. The importance of the Gula hymn and the contribution it makes to Babylonian literature and scholarship are summarised in section 7.2. The important observations made by Lambert and subsequent scholars of the parallels between Babylonian speculative scholarship and rabbinic scholarship are discussed in section 7.3. Other parallels with Jewish scholarship of particular relevance to Babylonian speculative scholarship are also examined there. How the meaning of names was explained and interpreted in these separate traditions is particularly significant. Similarities in the interpretation of names in biblical writings and in Babylonian scholarship are discussed in section 7.4. Of great interest here is Garsiel’s (1991) work on name derivations in the Bible and his observation of names which are concealed in the biblical text. The remarkable similarity between this feature of biblical scholarship and the encoding of names observed in the Gula hymn is discussed. Some avenues for future research are suggested in the concluding section 7.5. The book closes with some observations on the central place of sacred names and their meaning in the Babylonian world.

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

The central place held by sacred names in Babylonian scholarly religious thought is demonstrated by the very many works of different genres which record and explain them. Scholarly lists and explanatory works, hymns and prayers which praise and petition the gods, and literary works all contain sacred names and descriptions which explain them. The development of the interpretive techniques and methods used by Babylonian scholars in speculative scholarship to explore and explain the meaning of sacred names, both obvious and hidden, was introduced in chapter 1. These will be examined in detail in chapter 3. First, however, this chapter describes the background from which Babylonian speculative scholarship developed and examines ancient and modern scholarship in this field. The intellectual background in which Babylonian speculative scholarship has its roots is described in section 2.1. This field of scholarship has much in common with commentary texts, a genre which is first attested in the first millennium; this is examined in section 2.2. The application of speculative scholarship to sacred names is introduced more fully in section 2.3; the terminology used to describe this in previous modern scholarship is discussed there and the terminology used in this book is explained and given. Primary source material evidences the speculative explanation of sacred names. Scholarly texts explicitly demonstrate that Akkadian epithets and descriptions given to deities and places sacred to them explain their sacred names and show how they do so. This ancient evidence is presented in section 2.4, together with the practice of speculative scholarship in the Old Babylonian period. Modern scholarship which has examined the ancients’ scholarly explanation of sacred names is reviewed in section 2.5. Finally, the text corpus used in this book to describe and analyse the techniques and methods of Babylonian speculative scholarship is detailed in section 2.6. 2.1 Intellectual background Divine and other sacred names in Babylonian religious and explanatory works are a signal aspect of Mesopotamian bilingual culture. Deities were known by Sumerian and Akkadian names; their shrines and temples bore Sumerian names, as well as Akkadian designations in everyday use (see George, Topog.Texts, p.72). The landmark study presenting an overview of this bilingual culture and the Babylonian learning and literature which flowered from it was given by von Soden (1960) and remains valuable. Since then there has been much interest in this bilingualism (for a brief overview and recent contributions, see Fink, Lang and Schretter, 2018). In this bilingual environment three intellectual activities developed in which the scholarly explanation of sacred names has its roots: the lexical tradition, bilingual translations

22

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

and the omen tradition. These activities similarly informed the commentary tradition. In his authoritative study of Babylonian and Assyrian text commentaries, Frahm (2011, pp.12–23) has provided a useful overview of these three fields. Accordingly, the discussion here highlights those aspects of these fields which inform the practice of explaining sacred names. The commentary tradition itself is briefly discussed in section 2.2. 2.1.1 Lexical tradition Of foremost significance for the practice of explaining sacred names is the lexical tradition, now the subject of a full study by Veldhuis (2014). Comprising lists of words and signs which organized and preserved knowledge, dating from earliest days of writing in Mesopotamia, the genre developed considerably in the Old Babylonian period and onwards through the second millennium. Bilingual lists emerged; unilingual Sumerian lists were perhaps treated as bilingual in use (Veldhuis, 2014, p.151). Lists and their use (see Veldhuis, 2014, p.202) imparted knowledge of Sumerian and its writing system. This bilingualism permitted the explanation of Sumerian sacred names in Akkadian, by equations learnt by heart and recorded in such lists. Lexical lists provided sources which supported translation of Sumerian words. Equally important is their organisation and content. Lexical lists exhibit a way of thinking which is replicated in explanatory techniques and methods used to explain sacred names. Lists may be thematic or contain passages with a common word or grammatical element. So, for example, in an extract from the Old Babylonian bilingual list Lu-azlag (MSL XII) given by Veldhuis (2014, p.163), two different Sumerian words meaning “runner” prompt an expression for being fast (lú dùb tuku, “one who has (fast) knees”), which in turn leads to a lengthy section containing phrases based on tuku, “to have”. In such works, the association of related words, ideas and themes which is evidenced in expositions of sacred names has roots. Acrographic lists grouped together entries which share the same initial sign in the Sumerian entry. Thus a single sign, with its different readings, produced a cluster of entirely different Akkadian words, as illustrated by an extract from the word list Izi I (MSL XIII) on an Old Babylonian school tablet, where ḫur is understood as ḫur, mur, ur5, kín and àra (Veldhuis, 2014, pp.167–168; now edited by Crisostomo, 2019, pp.240–241, Izi I 101–121). Such lists exhibit the same methods deployed in the interpretation of sacred names, where a single sign and its different readings (that is to say, the polyvalence of a sign) are exploited to convey different meanings. Some lists, such as Erimḫus (MSL XVII), a bilingual group vocabulary first attested in the Middle Babylonian period, are structured semantically, with related entries giving synonyms or near-synonyms and Akkadian equivalences that are not always straightforward translations of the Sumerian. Nabnītu (MSL XVI), a bilingual

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

23

compilation dating from the same period, contains Akkadian words which are related etymologically or phonologically. Tinney (1989) noted that those features which are employed in organisational principles underlying the bilingual vocabulary Antagal (MSL XVII), (a list known principally from Neo-Assyrian Nineveh), namely, thematic and phonological associations, near-homonyms and polysemes (identified and described in MSL XVII pp.135–142), are manifested also in the practice of explaining sacred names etymologically. The diverse thinking which informs the compilation of many lexical lists is replicated in the intellectual approach to sacred names. Excerpts from another late Old Babylonian acrographic list, Proto-Kagal/Nigga, given by Veldhuis (2014, p.169), which treat Sumerian words and phrases beginning with the sign a, display interpretive methods which are found in compositions interpreting sacred names. Here, as Veldhuis explained, in consecutive entries, the sign a is interpreted syllabically and as a logogram; the same Sumerian phrase is translated by different Akkadian words; alternative parsing of the Sumerian grammar, indicated by glosses, gives different meanings; and, in a sequence commencing a-an, the sign an is interpreted as a syllable and as the divine marker. These interpretive strategies have parallels in the methods described in section 3.2. Lexical lists also exhibit a blurring of distinction between similar consonants (see, for example, MSL XVI pp.34–35 for sequences in Nabnītu with phonetically similar consonants). Glosses exhibit flexible understanding of vowels (exemplified in MSL XIV p.11, replaced vowels in glosses in Proto-Ea). These practices inform the flexible treatment of consonants and vowels for interpretive purposes (see sections 3.2.16–3.2.17, 3.2.19.3–3.2.19.4). Lexical lists contain material of more speculative nature, where correspondences are not straightforward or are unexpected. Nearly 40% of the readable Akkadian glosses to Sumerian entries in Old Babylonian Izi from Nippur are not semantic correspondences (Crisostomo, 2019, p.12). The compound sign list Diri (MSL XV) and the speculative generation of new forms of Sumerian in grammatical lists (MSL IV), all from the Old Babylonian period, also exemplify this (Veldhuis, 2014, pp.182–187, 198–199; see further section 2.4.5). Form too attests to the lexical background which informs the explanatory works examined in this book. As George, Topog.Texts, p.74 observed, the general format of explanatory texts which set Sumerian names and Akkadian interpretations in corresponding columns demonstrates their reliance on the lexical tradition. In the combination of sacred names and epithets woven into hymnic and narrative compositions, the influence of the lexical tradition can still be seen. 2.1.2 Bilingual translations Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual texts evidence translation strategies deployed also in explaining sacred names. Translations from Sumerian to Akkadian were often

24

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

straightforward word-for-word renderings (Lambert, 1999). Free translation or freer rendering of the Sumerian text might also occur, rendering the text more idiomatic, familiar or relevant in the Akkadian environment, as Maul (1997) and Lambert (1999), amongst others, have noted. Translation strategies which took a hermeneutic approach are also evident. Sometimes meaning derived from some alternative reading of the Sumerian text was conveyed (see Frahm, 2011, p.18 for examples from an Emesal composition and a well-known lamentation text); such interpretations are closely similar to the exploration of meaning found in scholarly texts. All these approaches are paralleled in the scholarly interpretation of sacred names. Other unusual bilingual texts from the Old Babylonian period exhibit interpretive strategies which are used in the explanation of sacred names. Finkel (2014b) has drawn attention to an Old Babylonian school translation of a Sumerian temple hymn in which lexical equations between Sumerian and Akkadian were used to give a highly unusual Akkadian translation of the hymn. Finkel (2014b, p.308) judged that this work “was surely the product of teaching translation, meaning and the question of more than one meaning”. Another extraordinary work (to which Finkel likened this school text) is the bilingual composition edited by George as “the Scholars of Uruk” (George, 2009, pp.78–112). Unlike Finkel’s text, in the Scholars of Uruk, the Akkadian composition had primacy and was used as a basis for translation into Sumerian by unusual and scholarly means, resulting in highly unconventional Sumerian writing. As George (2009, p.109) highlighted, the composition uses strategies much used in later Babylonian explanatory scholarship. This composition is discussed further in section 2.4.5. Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual tests, then, have a good deal in common with compositions which explore the meaning of sacred names. 2.1.3 Omen tradition Divination in Mesopotamia was an important activity. Divination prayers and rituals, oracular queries, reports and, above all, omen compendia and commentaries on them make up a vast part of the extant textual record from Mesopotamia; in turn, these have spawned a substantial volume of secondary literature. Three aspects of this enormous subject particularly relevant to the practice of explaining sacred names are briefly mentioned here: the formulation of omen texts; the importance of cuneiform writing in divinatory practices; and the intellectual nature of the activity. Omen texts paired portents with predictions: an observation, framed as a conditional clause (“protasis”), and an outcome (“apodosis”). Apodoses were formulated from their protases using (amongst other things) analogy, allusion, symbolic association, homophony, paronomasia and etymological speculation, (noted by Starr (1983), George (2010), amongst others; illustrated by Noegel, 2007,

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

25

pp.11–18). Like techniques and tools were deployed by Babylonian scholars to explore meaning in sacred names. Cuneiform writing had enormous significance. Mesopotamians conceived their world in terms of writing that might be read and understood, as many modern scholars have observed. Divinatory practices too attest to this. In extispicy and in predictions from physiognomy, lesions, cysts and marks on the exta or face were understood as cuneiform signs for interpretation (George, 2010; Frahm, 2010, 2011). The importance of the writing system in the understanding of names was emphasised by Bottéro (1977, pp.26–27; 1992, pp.97–100). The meaning of the cuneiform signs which expressed the name was explored by Babylonian scholars to arrive at an understanding of the nature and character of its bearer. Omen texts and those compositions which explore sacred names share intellectual common ground. The same scholarly techniques and methods used in the explanation of sacred names underpin the formulation of omen texts. More abstractly, scholars such as Koch (2005), Veldhuis (2006) and George (2013) have stressed the academic nature of omen texts, seeing their value as a window on ancient abstract thought: texts in which “one may speculate about the meaning of things” (Veldhuis, 2006, p.493). Omen texts explored overt and hidden relationships between ominous portents (often theoretical) and ideas, to generate the predictions of apodoses. The exploration of hidden meaning is a hallmark of Babylonian scholarship, generating relationships to explain the universe and its contents (see further, George, 2013, p.xix). The quest for hidden meaning equally characterises the omen tradition and the scholarly explanation of sacred names. 2.2 Commentary texts Commentary texts arose from the cultural and intellectual milieu in which the practice of explaining sacred names and the speculative techniques and methods used to do so developed. Cavigneaux (1987) highlighted the importance of the lexical and bilingual tradition for the development of Babylonian hermeneutics which underpin commentary texts. Sometimes abstruse and difficult, commentary texts are nevertheless revelatory of the ancients’ way of thinking. Commentaries are not attested until the first millennium, but the interpretive techniques and methods used in them, described by Frahm (2011, pp.59–85) and Jiménez (2013), have much in common with those described in this book. Commentarists used etymological means to give speculative interpretations, as highlighted by Durand (1979, p.168ff.) and George (1991). Individual elements of Akkadian words and phrases were isolated and interpreted through the medium of Sumerian equivalences, typically made explicit in the commentary. Names and logograms were similarly treated. This interpretive tool opened up new meaning and associations through which commentarists explained their subject text. Frahm (2011, p.72) noted the frequent

26

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

application of this kind of analysis to divine names in text commentaries, as well as more widely in other scholarly works. Commentaries also explained their base texts by synonyms, paraphrase and other means (Frahm, 2011, pp.59–85). All these are paralleled in scholarly techniques and methods for explaining sacred names. The commentary on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII (Commentary II) sought to demonstrate connections between Marduk’s names and the text itself, in somewhat different form from the form typical of text commentaries (for its very few passages in conventional commentarial form, see Bottéro, 1977, p.15 footnote 34). The expository and interlinear texts which explain sacred names noted in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 in essence belong to the commentary tradition. Commentary II is discussed in section 2.4.3. The text corpus includes these works. In addition to the shared repertoire of interpretive techniques and methods, common to commentaries and works explaining sacred names is the deductive reasoning which pervades Babylonian scholarship. In this way of thinking, one thing may be explained as another through some common intermediary, as noted by Bottéro (1977, pp.23–24) and many others. Thus, by a succession of correspondences, the first element is equated with the last: A=B, B=C, and therefore A=C. By this means, one part of a text or name may be explained as something quite different. The interpretation of a sacred name through homophonous and other readings (described in section 3.2.13) is underpinned by such deductive reasoning. A further feature of the commentary tradition also informs the works in which sacred names are explored. Scholars who compiled commentaries frequently gave alternative explanations of their subject texts. Alternative explanations might be prefaced by šanîš (“secondly”), šalšiš (“thirdly”), and so on: and in a few late texts, the first explanation is introduced by kayyān(u)(sag-ús) (“firm, actual”), indicating a “literal” explanation, when others may sometimes (but not always) be more speculative in nature. However, the listing (with or without such labels) does not seem to imply a hierarchy of meaning: all the explanations were apparently equally sound. As Frahm put it, “they would produce explanation after explanation and regard all of them as equally valid” (Frahm, 2011, p.40). Gabbay (2017) has argued that compilations of multiple interpretations record explanations of the text from different sources. The potential for different scholarly intentions, perhaps simultaneously intended, is quite frequently observed in the text corpus (discussed in section 3.2.27). The multiple explanations of the commentary tradition have a formal parallel in the multiple explanations of sacred names found in explanatory and literary texts. This way of thinking in the commentary tradition is exhibited in these multiple expositions of sacred names. Here too, it may be deduced, the multiple meanings revealed in a sacred name by scholarly means were likewise equally valid in the eyes of the ancient scholars.

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

27

2.3 Sacred names and speculative scholarship In this bilingual culture, Sumerian sacred names were explained in Akkadian by straightforward translation and by free rendering (discussed in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). Babylonian scholars developed a third interpretive technique which divided names into parts for interpretation, exploiting the potential of the cuneiform writing system, with its homophones, alternative readings and syllabary; to these they applied an etymological approach, using the many different meanings these isolated components might have in the bilingual tradition to interpret the name (section 3.1.3). This interpretive technique was not applied exclusively to sacred names. As mentioned in section 2.2, it was widely used in the commentary tradition, a genre which is not attested until the first millennium, where it was applied to names and other words and phrases alike as an explanatory tool. Ancient evidence for this interpretive technique in its application to sacred names is presented in section 2.4. Modern scholars have approached this third explanatory technique ad hoc to particular texts. No consistent terminology for the technique is applied in the secondary literature. “Etymology”, “etymologising” (Lambert, 2013, p.161), “artificial philology” (Livingstone, 1986, p.50) and “speculative etymology” (George, Topog.Texts, p.73) are all used as labels to describe interpretation drawn from components of a name or other word. Frahm (2011, p.70) distinguished between “etymology” (where synonyms and homonyms are used in explanation) and “etymography” (where cuneiform’s different readings are used), acknowledging the distinction is often impractical. Lambert (1954–1956, p.311) noted that the explanatory technique is paralleled in the midrash of rabbinic scholarship termed notariqon. notariqon is one of the canonical series of thirty two middot (“measures”) or techniques of rabbinic interpretation of scripture which have been handed down under the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili (for which see Strack and Stemberger, 1996, p.22ff.). notariqon is a hermeneutic technique in which individual letters or parts of words are interpreted to reveal meaning. Lambert’s observation related to the methods of commentary texts but applies equally to explanations of sacred names examined here. Cavigneaux (1987) took further the discussion of similarity between Babylonian explanatory techniques and Jewish midrashim. Approaching things from the perspective of rabbinic interpretation of scripture, Lieberman (1987) explored cuneiform analogues for the rabbinic technique known as notariqon, citing both Lambert’s observation and Cavigneaux’s work (op.cit., p.180 and p.161 respectively). This will be returned to in chapter 7. The term notariqon is used widely in discussion of explanations in Babylonian and Assyrian commentary texts. Some scholars have adopted the terms midrash or notariqon in discussing explanatory techniques relating to names in Akkadian writings (Hurowitz, 2000, 2010, and others; Hurowitz has termed the explanatory practice “Name Midrashim”).

28

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

Translation and free rendering explain the patent meaning of a name, its obvious, straightforward meaning; the third interpretive technique explains its latent or hidden meaning. All three techniques enquire into and explore meaning; consequently, in this book, all are termed “speculative” scholarship, a term which simultaneously embraces the meaning of its Latin root speculari, “to enquire, look at”, and conveys the sense of speculation or conjecture on the subject matter. All three techniques, too, are etymological, founded on correspondent meanings of the name’s content. The third technique is an interpretive technique which finds meaning in parts of a name, using a wide range of methods. “Speculative interpretation” is the term used in this book for this interpretive technique. These techniques and methods of speculative scholarship are examined in detail in chapter 3, but first the ancient evidence for the practice of speculative interpretation is presented. 2.4 Ancient evidence The connection between sacred names and epithets or descriptions which follow them might be obvious to modern scholars equipped with lexical lists and bilingual texts without further guidance from the ancients. However, in their desire to elucidate and record the meaning of sacred names, ancient scholars produced works which expressly demonstrate the connection between names and the epithets and attributes applied to them. These works simultaneously evidence the scholars’ endeavour to explain the meaning of names, both obvious and hidden, and the way in which they did so. They demonstrate, often explicitly, that meaning was found through etymological means by equating parts of names with Akkadian words and by exploiting the cuneiform writing system. These works are especially valuable for the light they shed on the speculative interpretation of the latent, unobvious meaning of names. Thus the primary source material provides clear authority as to the scholarly practice of interpretation of names from which the techniques and methods of speculative scholarship can be deduced. This ancient authority is given by expository texts, explanatory works and commentary texts. The text corpus examined for this book includes the most important of these. Certain Akkadian expressions also evidence explanatory practices. These are examined in turn below. A brief discussion of the evidence for speculative interpretation in the Old Babylonian period concludes this section. 2.4.1 Expository texts The Babylonian expository text edited by Livingstone (1986) as the Weapon Name Exposition supplies an exposition of the Babylonian scholar’s interpretation of the meaning of the names treated and demonstrates how these interpretations are arrived at. This composition contains nine sections in each of which the Sumerian name of a god or divine weapon is given with an Akkadian interpretation “which is

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

29

semantically appropriate but not the true meaning of the Sumerian” (Livingstone 1986, p.58). Lexical equivalences between Sumerian and Akkadian words are set out in the individual sections to explain the interpretive technique. Livingstone (op.cit., p.58) observed that “Disregarding the true meaning of the Sumerian names, the composer equated their component words or syllables with Akkadian words .… some of which (equations) are valid and some artificial”. The speculative interpretation of the name of Ninurta’s weapon d.gištukul-sag-50, “Fifty-headed weapon” (Livingstone’s translation), as kakku rēštû ša Enlil, “Prime weapon of Enlil”, illustrates how the scholar explicitly demonstrated how the Akkadian interpretation was derived from the elements which make up the name by listing each element of the name with the Akkadian equation made: d.giš

tukul-sag-50 kakku rēštû ša Enlil tukul kakku sag rēštû 50 Enlil (Weapon Name Exposition 13–16) Tukul-sag-50 (Fifty-headed weapon) Prime weapon of Enlil tukul weapon sag prime 50 (Enlil’s divine number) Enlil giš

Seven other expositions follow the same pattern; an eighth name (l.25), patently similar to the preceding name, is not explained. The last name, Lisi (dli9-si4), has three separate interpretations, each explained in this format (ll.36–42). Although not all of the scholar’s intentions are clear, in most cases the justification for the interpretation can be followed (Livingstone, 1986, p.60). Another expository text demonstrates that Zababa’s epithet “Lord of the Lands” is given by his name. Here too, the name and the Akkadian description are followed by a line in which the scholar expressly relates the Akkadian epithet to elements of the divine name (for explanation of the etymological correspondences, see Lambert, 1989, pp.217–218): d

za-ba4-ba4 bēl(en) mātāti(kur-kur) ina šumēšu q[abi] za bēlu ba4-ba4 mātā[tum] (Smith College text 110 (S 3) 1–2) Zababa “Lord of the Lands”, so s[aid] by his name za “Lord” ba4-ba4 “Lands”

The scribe of another Babylonian work edited by Livingstone (1986) as the Kettledrum Ritual makes plain in the writing used the etymological link between divine name and epithet. The logograms which are used to write the epithets repeat elements of the divine name, explicitly showing how the explanatory description derives from the name, illustrated in the following extracts:

30

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

Name

Description

Translation

d

zi-sum-ma

nādinat(sum)at napišti(zi) Anim

who gives Anu life

d

šu-zi-an-na

gāmilat(šu-gar)at napišti(zi) Anim

who spares the life of Anu

d

kù-sù

ša mê(a)meš ellūti(kù)meš idû(zu)ú

who knows pure water

(Kettledrum Ritual, 10–12 extracts) Writing kù zu (l.12), the scribe clearly signals that zu, which may also be read sú, interprets sù in Kusu (dkù-sù), demonstrating that this element of the divine name is interpreted through a homophonous sign (sú), and understood with another reading of that sign (zu) (section 3.2.13). Another expository work seeks to explain why Sîn is called “Lord of Decisions” with an exposition which, although not based on etymology, makes the reason clear by logographic writing: [dS]în(30) bēl(en) purussê(eš-bar) e-šú 30 2 e-ni be-el Sîn is “Lord of Decisions (en-eš-bar)”. eš is 30; 2 is -ēni, which is also lord (en) (i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a, extract; Livingstone’s translation) The scholar’s reasoned explanation is supplemented by the writing eš-bar (purussû), “decision”. This logographic writing includes the sign eš which writes Sîn’s divine number 30 (as the scholar explains), and hence his name. Derivation of the epithet from the divine name is thus explicitly demonstrated by the writing used. 2.4.2 Explanatory works Six explanatory works provide unequivocal ancient evidence as to the scholarly interpretation of names: E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 174–175 Tintir I 5–7 Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 7′–8′, 12′–13′ Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 Marduk Names List K 2107+ In these works, ancient scholars revealed their scholarly practices by means of interlinear explanations or expositions of names using unorthodox and contrived orthographies, or both. Amongst these, the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, is an extraordinary work, which provides outstanding authority that, for the ancients, a name might have both obvious and hidden meaning, and as to the speculative

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

31

techniques and methods by which such meaning could explored and uncovered. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, interprets é-sag-íl, the name of Marduk’s temple in Babylon, in fourteen different ways. First, in ll.1–2, the scholar translates é-sag-íl straightforwardly. The scholar then recasts the writing of é-sag-íl, using contrived orthographies from which an Akkadian interpretation of the name is generated; and, between those lines containing the recast name and Akkadian explanation, supplies an explanation for each interpretation which equates readings from the recast name with words in that interpretation (ll.3–30). ll.31–34 interpret èš-gú-zi, a literary name for é-sag-íl and synonymous with it (HMH 274), also with interlinear explanation. The contrived writings demonstrate how the scholar arrived at the Akkadian interpretations; the interlinear explanations justify them lexically (George, Topog.Texts, p.75). The resultant interpretations bear no relation to the straightforward meaning of é-sag-íl. As George commented, considerable ingenuity and learning are evident in this work. Although much reconstructed and restoration is sometimes problematical (see George, Topog.Texts, p.75), the E-sagil Commentary nevertheless provides clear evidence as to the interpretive techniques and methods used. The extraordinary exposition explicitly demonstrates by its inventive orthography how a name might be treated. The orthography exploits the versatility of the cuneiform system, using alternative syllabification and signs with homophonous or near-homophonous readings. The interlinear explanations demonstrate the etymological nature of the Akkadian interpretation and evidence how elements of the contrived writing may be understood in the exploration of meaning. The scholar even amplifies the commentary by noting a homophone: [é-sa4-an-gí]l bītu nibīt Anim u Enlil [sa4 nibīt]u an danum gíl(KUR4) : kur denlil (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 29–30; reading [é-sa4-an-gí]l, not [é-sa4-an-gi]l) House called by name by Anu and Enlil [sa4 namin]g an Anu gíl(KUR4) kur = Enlil gíl, read as kur4, is kabtu, “important, honoured”, a well-attested epithet of Enlil, and sufficient of itself to generate mention of Enlil in the Akkadian interpretation. The scholar adds the homophone kur, “mountain”, which regularly signifies Enlil, perhaps both to clarify the reading required for gíl and, as George, Topog.Texts, p.388 commented, to point to the additional potential given by the homophone. Together, the creative writings and the handling of the elements of the contrived spellings exposed in this work permit the scholarly methods to be analysed and described. Section 3.2 draws on this composition extensively. A list of Assyrian temples supplies further explicit evidence. Two interpretations of é-sa-bad, the name of Gula’s temple in Aššur, are given:

32

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

é-sa-bad bīt petât uzni House of She of the Open Ear é: bētu sa: naṣāru bad: qubūru bīt nāṣir qubūru (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 174–175) é: House sa: watch over bad: grave House which watches over the grave The first interpretation, bīt petât uzni, “House of She of the Open Ear”, appears to be conventional (George, Topog.Texts, p.331; and see section 6.1 on l.89′ of the Gula hymn); the second interpretation is explained by correspondences, like the explanations given in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5. sa as naṣāru, “to watch over”, appears to be known only here; bad as qubūru, “grave”, probably relies on the association of the sign BAD with death (George, Topog.Texts, p.464; section 3.2.3). Hence the explanation yields evidence of both etymological and wider interpretive practices. Expositions which deploy contrived orthography in place of the usual spelling of a name comprise evidence from the ancients as to their interpretive practices, even where, unlike the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, no commentary is given. Babylon’s name Šuanna is interpreted in Tintir I 4–7, first as emūq šamê, “the might of the heavens”, (which renders šu-an-na in l.4), then as nūr šamê, “the light of the heavens”, markas šamê, “the bond of the heavens”, and nibīt šamê, “called into being by the heavens”, (ll.5–7, George’s translation). The key to the Akkadian interpretations in ll.5–7 is given by contrived spellings of Šuanna (šu-an-naki) as sian-naki, sa-an-naki and sa4-an-naki: si equates to nūru, “light”, sa to markasu, “bond”, and sa4 to nabû, “to name”, from which nibītu derives. The explicit variation of the name’s first syllable gives the composer’s justification for the interpretations, etymologically derived from the contrived spellings (see George, Topog.Texts, pp.243–245). So, too, unorthodox spellings of é-kiš-nu-gál as é-kéš-dnun-gal and éká-èš-nun-gal (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 12′–13′) explicitly demonstrate the scholar’s realisation of é-kiš-nu-gál for the etymological interpretation made there. In the same work contrived writings of giškiri6-maḫ as ⸢ki-ir⸣-rù-maḫ and ki-ér-⸢maḫ⸣ (ll.7′–8′) evidence the scholar’s interpretive intentions and methods, although the Akkadian interpretations themselves are substantially missing. Another list of Nippur’s temples provides further ancient authority, with other explicitly contrived orthographies by which the scholarly intentions are made clear. Here é-kur is perhaps written é-ku-ú-ru (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 1′ [é-ku-ú]-ru). In the same list, é-kiùr (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 2′–4′, perhaps to be read é-ki-uru12, George, Topog.Texts, p.452), is also written [é]-ki-ur4 (l.5′), ⸢é⸣-ki-ú-ru (ll.6′–8′) and ⸢é⸣-kiu-ru (ll.9′–10′). As George, Topog.Texts, p.163 noted, “in both cases the ceremonial name is written in each line in a way that is clearly intended to show how the Sumerian has been broken down phonetically for analysis”.

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

33

Some explanatory lists contain multiple explanations for the same name (so, Tintir I 1–3, where tin-tirki is explained as Babylon, by three different descriptions; and the Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 11′–16′, in which é-šu-me-ša4 appears with six different explanations). This clearly points to the Akkadian explanations being derived from the Sumerian name in different ways, notwithstanding that the texts do not contain any commentary or other indication to show how the different descriptions arise. The explanatory list of Marduk’s names presented by Lambert (2013, p.154) and referred to here as Marduk Names List provides invaluable evidence as to the ancients’ interpretive techniques and methods. Some names are straightforwardly translated: d

lugal-en-an-ki-a bēl ilānī ša šamê u erṣetim šar ilānī ša šamê u erṣetim (Marduk Names List 19) Lord of the gods of heaven and earth, King of the gods of heaven and earth

Others are more freely rendered. dzi-ukkin is napšat napḫar ilānī, “Life of all the gods” (l.29): zi is “life” (napištu); ukkin means “assembly”, interpreted here as the divine assembly and rendered by napḫar ilānī, “(of) all the gods”. Some names are interpreted more than once. Lugalšuanna (dlugal-šu-an-na), restored by Lambert, is variously described in ll.9–18 (ll.9–12 are fragmentary). The god is repeatedly termed bēlum, “lord” (ll.13–17); bēlum is rarely used in other lines in this list and here clearly translates lugal, “king”, (lexical evidence supports the equation of lugal and bēlum, see CAD B 191). Akkadian interpretations, set together, expose their obvious derivation from dlugal-šu-an-na, as ll.13–16 illustrate: bēlum ā[šir šamê]e u erṣetim Lord who [supervises heaven] and earth bēlum āšir ilānī Lord who supervises the gods Lord who shows favour to the gods bēlum gāmil ilānī bēlum ša emūqāšu šaqâ Lord whose strength is pre-eminent bēlum is lugal; gamālu, “to show favour”, and emūqu, “strength”, correspond to šu (CAD G 21, E 157), and ašāru, “to supervise”, šú (see section 3.2.14); šamû, “heaven”, and šaqû, “pre-eminent”, equate to an (CAD Š/II 16 šaqû), and ilu, “god”, is dingir, another reading of an. The repetitious exposition, with its obvious correspondences between elements of the Sumerian name and their very common Akkadian equivalences, set out in consecutive lines, clearly evidences that the Akkadian phrases are intended by the ancient scholars as explanations of the divine name based on etymological interpretation of it. Closely similar names with their closely similar explanations in consecutive lines of the Marduk Names List explicitly reveal the etymological basis of the Akkadian

34

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

interpretation. This is clearly demonstrated by the following extract from ll.31–32 which describe Šazu-Suḫrim and Šazu-Suḫgurim: d d

suḫ-minrim muballû ayyābī He who destroys the enemy [suḫ-g]ú-minrim muballû napḫar ayyābī He who destroys all the enemy

gú differentiates the names, napḫar differentiates the descriptions. gú would obviously account for napḫaru, “totality”, even absent ample lexical evidence that indeed gú equates to napḫaru (CAD N/I 292; suḫ is bullû ša napištim, “to extinguish life”, Antagal VIII 176 MSL XVII p.175; ri-imlagab ayyābu, “enemy”, Ea I 39 MSL XIV p.178; min, the ditto sign, appears to designate a grouping of names). (Likewise, in ll.34–35, though broken, it is evident that the scholar interpreted two other divine names having this model). Particularly rich evidence of scholarly methods is provided by the exposition of the name Tutu (dtu-tu) in this list. Artificial writing of the god’s name “gives explicit indications of the technique used”, as Lambert (2013, p.161) commented. Here Tutu is first written as dtu-tu (l.21), its orthodox orthography, and then rendered as ddu11-du11, dtu6-tu6, ddù-ṭu, ddu-du (ll.22–25) and d tu6-kù (l.27), each followed by an Akkadian description. The exposition clearly shows how the ancients might understand a name so as to derive meaning from it. The contrived orthography evidences how consonants might be interchanged within a group and homophones could be freely implied to explore a name’s hidden meaning. The writings make plain that the Akkadian descriptions have an etymological basis, derived from the different signs. 2.4.3 Commentary texts The commentary on the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII presented by Bottéro (1977) and Lambert (2013, pp.139–142, 167–168) is key evidence for the ancients’ approach to sacred names. It probably originated in Babylon (Lambert, 2013, p.139); the surviving manuscripts are from excavations of the Kuyunjik mound at Nineveh. Lambert’s designation “Commentary II” is adopted throughout this book to refer to this work. Commentary II does not explain words and phrases from its subject text in the same way as most commentaries. It presents readings and equates them with Akkadian words from the text of Enūma eliš VII, with only rare further explanation of the subject text in the character typical of most commentaries (see Bottéro, 1977, p.15 footnote 34). Its clear purpose was, in Lambert’s (2013, p.167) description, “to explain every word and particle as derived from the names upon which they follow”. Indeed, as Lambert commented, so closely does Commentary II account for the exposition in Enūma eliš VII that it can be used to restore the text. Commentary II is unequivocal authority that ancient scholars interpreted and explored the meaning of names; and did so through etymological means by equating

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

35

parts of names with Akkadian words. It provides valuable evidence as to what is permissible in this endeavour. Changes of vowels and consonants and approaches to syllabification are evidenced in the exposition. Readings “with no genuine orthographic or phonetic connection” (Lambert, 2013, p.167), in modern scholarship as least, were deployed in the explanation. Commentary II also supplies supposed correspondences between Akkadian words and Sumerian elements not otherwise, or rarely, attested elsewhere. Commentary II’s explanations may not always express what was actually intended as the text of Enūma eliš VII was developed. Other explanations of the derivation of the text from divine name are possible in some instances, as illustrated by different analyses provided by Lambert (2013, pp.488– 489). As Foster (2005, p.437) observed, Commentary II exemplifies the approach of a learned Mesopotamian reader to the composition. The preservation of Commentary II in Ashurbanipal’s library in two separate manuscripts clearly evidences that this scholarly text was valued in antiquity. Consequently, Commentary II provides authoritative ancient evidence for the scholarly interpretation of sacred names. Other commentaries explain names in the same manner in the course of observations on their subject texts. A commentary on the composition now known as the Babylonian Theodicy explained the identity and nature of the birth goddess, explicit in her name Mame (dma-me): ma banû(dù)u, “to create”, me nišū(un)meš, “people” (Babylonian Theodicy Commentary 21; ed. Oshima, 2014, p.445; Frahm, 2011, p.72). Thus, according to the commentary’s analysis, her name itself expresses Mame’s role as the creatrix of mankind. Lambert (2013, p.161) noted that isolated examples of the same kind occur throughout Babylonian text commentaries, attesting to the ancients’ practice of finding meaning in names. 2.4.4 Akkadian expressions Ancient scholars deployed certain expressions which expressly signalled that a description was understood to be etymologically derived from the name itself. In Sumerian writings, this is marked by the phrase mu-ni-gin7 or mu-bi-gin7, “as his(its) name (indicates)”. The Akkadian phrase most commonly used to flag that an etymological derivation is understood is the phase kīma šumīšūma (šumīšāma), which may be translated as “according to his(her) name” or “as his(her) very name (says)”. Two straightforward examples (both from the text corpus examined here) illustrate the use of this expression: d

a-šá-ru ša kīma šumīšūma īšuru ilānī šīmāti (Enūma eliš VII 122) Ašāru, who, as his very name says, mustered the gods of destinies

The composer interprets the divine name Ašāru (da-šá-ru) as ašāru, “to muster, organise”, and expressly points to the supposed etymology of the name with the phrase kīma šumīšūma, “as his name says”. Likewise, the Gula hymn presented in

36

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

chapter 5 points to the commonly supposed etymology of Zarpanītum (zēru, “seed”; banû, “to create”) which expresses the very nature of the goddess: Zarpanītum ša kīma šumīšāma banât zēri [ .. ap]âti (Gula hymn 21) Zarpanītum, who, as her very name (says), creates the seed [ .. ] of the teeming peoples A useful collection of the instances of these phrases known to him (including two from the Gula hymn) has been assembled by Jiménez (2018, 2019). All are from entirely serious contexts. As Jiménez highlighted, however, the same expression occurs in Akkadian disputation literature, a genre in which two opponents, (typically, two usually speechless entities, such as plants or animals), each offer arguments to assert one protagonist’s superiority over the other. In this essentially lighthearted literature, the techniques of learned texts are deployed to further the argument of the disputation. The composition edited by Jiménez as the Series of the Spider contains a line in which one protagonist provides an explanation of the other’s name to demonstrate the other protagonist’s inferiority; the explanation is introduced by the phrase kīma šumīšūma and derived etymologically, as Jiménez demonstrated (Series of the Spider I 22; Jiménez, 2018, p.94). A different, but evidently similar, phrase is used in Enūma eliš: kīma binûtīšūma. binûtu means “form” and the phrase might be translated “in accordance with his/its form”: ša kīma binûtīšūma ikširu kalû ilānī abtūti (Enūma eliš VI 152) Who, in accordance with its form, restored all the ruined gods Marduk is here manifested as Asalluḫi-Namtila (dasal-lú-ḫi dnam-ti-la); kašāru, “to restore”, interprets the sub-name nam-ti-la, “life”. The phrase kīma binûtīšūma appears to relate to the form of the name, rather than the god, as already noted by Lambert (2013, p.482) and in CAD B 243. The similarity in meaning between kīma šumīšūma and kīma binûtīšūma is confirmed by the variant reading [kīma š]umīšūma, “[according to] his name”, in place of kīma binûtīšūma, contained in a manuscript of this passage from Kiš (see Lambert, 2013, p.119); it seems very likely that the scribe of this manuscript evidently understood the unusual phrase kīma binûtīšūma in this way. The expression kīma binûtīšūma may perhaps be explained as resulting from the close connection between god and divine name made in Babylonian thought, reflected in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš itself in which the expression appears. Gabbay (2016a, pp.90–92) noted like phrases in the commentary tradition: ina (muḫḫi) šumīšu iddaggil, “it is seen (with)in its name”, and ina (libbi) šumi . . . qabi, “it is said (with)in the name”(?), (Gabbay’s translations), are expressions used in contexts where some part or parts of a name generate the commentary interpretation, and self-evidently are closely similar to

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

37

kīma šumīšūma (šumīšāma). Jiménez (2018, pp.91–93) pointed to other expressions used in disputation literature and elsewhere, which link one thing with another through its name (šumu) by perceived etymology: (x) ana šumi (y) zakāru, and (x) ana šumi (y) nabû, “to call (zakāru) / to name (nabû) x after y’s name”. (The expressions noted by Gabbay and Jiménez do not occur in the text corpus examined in this book.) All these phrases are unequivocal evidence that, for ancient scholars, meaning could be, and was, derived from a name by etymological means. 2.4.5 Speculative interpretation in the Old Babylonian period Speculative interpretation of the type evidenced above, characteristic of the works examined in this book, is evidently well-established in Babylonian scholarship in the second millennium. Lambert (2013, p.440) thought the sophisticated etymology of Enūma eliš VI–VII was the product of the Middle Babylonian period which spans the latter half of the second millennium. Scholars such as Bottéro (1992, p.97), Cavigneaux (1987, p.247) and Selz (2002, p.647) have suggested that this explanatory technique is very ancient indeed (“(possibly) as old as the script”, so Bottéro conjectured). The view that this speculative technique had its roots in Old Babylonian scholarship, expressed by Veldhuis (2014, p.220), is supported by evidence from the lexical and omen traditions. Lexical lists from the Old Babylonian period associated words and ideas and explored the different readings of cuneiform signs and their Akkadian correspondences. Old Babylonian exemplars of the compound sign list Diri (MSL XV) and the list Aa (MSL XIV) contain Akkadian correspondences which are evidently speculatively interpretations of given sign forms (see further Veldhuis, 2014, pp.182–187, 222). These supply some of the earliest evidence for the scholarly practice. Crisostomo (2019, pp.152–166) has described interpretive techniques in the lexical corpus, illustrated primarily from the Old Babylonian word list Izi from Nippur. Recent work on the Sumerian glossographic tradition by Sövegjártó (2020, 2021) has sought to demonstrate the function of Akkadian glosses in Sumerian texts and their place in hermeneutic thinking in the Old Babylonian period. Veldhuis has also pointed to the “meaningmaking” of Old Babylonian grammatical lists which speculatively derived forms (see Veldhuis, 2014, pp.219, 194–199), and in omen compendia. Veldhuis highlighted as the “most important and spectacular example of such speculative philology in the Old Babylonian period” the scholarly association between the elementary exercise Syllable Alphabet A and a creation myth (Veldhuis, 2014, pp.220–222, 294–296; see Cavigneaux and Jaques, 2010 for their exposition of this association; and differently, it is only fair to note, Lambert, 2013, pp.350–360, who doubted the connection). Another extraordinary work from the Old Babylonian period is a bilingual composition edited by George as the Scholars of Uruk (George, 2009, pp.78–112).

38

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

This is a monologue in which a learned scribe addresses his wayward son, written in both Sumerian and Akkadian. Although unprovenanced, the tablet’s script and the language and orthography used drew George to conclude that this unusual and important work is indeed from the Old Babylonian period, and not some later archaizing composition. This scholarly composition is the reverse, as it were, of the interpretation of Sumerian by Akkadian which is the subject of the speculative scholarship discussed in this book. In the Scholars of Uruk, it is apparent from the artificial nature of the Sumerian text that the Sumerian version is derived from the Akkadian composition, and in a highly scholarly manner which does not reflect conventional Sumerian writing. Here, as George demonstrated, the Akkadian text was converted into Sumerian, using one-to-one correspondences and translation techniques typically applied in the speculative interpretation of Sumerian presented in this book. This points to the conclusion that speculative interpretation of Sumerian into Akkadian using these methods and techniques much evidenced in later manuscripts cannot have been unknown to scholars in the Old Babylonian period, a conclusion which may be confirmed by the Old Babylonian school translation of a Sumerian temple hymn cited by Finkel (2014b, p.308) (see section 2.1.2). A well-known bilingual work known from the Old Babylonian period of the type often termed Edubba literature, Examenstext A, is commonly cited as referring to the practice of speculative interpretation (so, Maul, 1999, p.14; George, 2009, p.106ff.; Frahm, 2011, p.107). Maul and George singled out one line in particular which appears specifically to allude to this practice: eme-gi7 a-na ì-zu níg-dul-bi ur5-ra bur-ra i-zu-u ina šumeri mala tāḫuzu katimtašu kīam šeṭ[â] tīdê (Examenstext A, Sjöberg, 1975a 140:13) Do you know how to unravel the hidden meaning of all the Sumerian you have learnt? “Unravelling the hidden meaning” of Sumerian indeed seems apt to describe speculative interpretation. However, scant evidence of the exploration of hidden meaning in sacred names in compositions from the Old Babylonian period has been identified by scholars to date (and note Lambert’s firm conviction that sophisticated etymologising which characterises Enūma eliš VI–VII is “not found in Old Babylonian texts at all” (Lambert, 2013, p.444)). An obvious, but controversial, example may lie in the Old Babylonian Atram-ḫasīs narrative in its mythological account of the creation of humanity (Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.58 Atra-ḫasīs I 223–224). Many scholars have understood the name of the god slaughtered to create man, dPI-e or dPI-e-ila, which may be understood as Wê or Wê-ila, as embodying man (awīlum) and god (ilum), whose intelligence (ṭēmum) produced man’s spirit

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

39

(eṭemmum) (for overview of the debate on this controversial issue, see George and Al-Rawi, 1996, pp.149–150). An Old Babylonian literary prayer to Ištar contains a more certain example (George, 2009, p.76:1). Here, Ištar is called sinništum, “Woman”, written [ds]în(suen)-ni-iš-tu-um in the extant manuscript. As George explained, this unorthodox spelling writes sinništum in a way that comprises Sîn (the moon-god, Ištar’s father) and nēštum, “lioness”, (Ištar’s animal). This unusual orthography thus etymologises sinništum to express characteristics of the goddess, an approach comparable with speculative interpretation much used in later Babylonian scholarship. The Old Babylonian period was a time of extraordinary creativity in many scholarly fields. The evidence of speculative interpretation, though relatively slender outside the lexical and omen traditions, suggests that other texts from the period, and further work with an eye to this, will yield evidence of this scholarly practice. 2.5 Modern scholarship Ancient interpretation of sacred names has been studied by modern scholars for the insight it gives into ancient scholarly thinking and practice and religious thought. Interpretations based on an etymological approach have received particular attention. The explanatory practices exposed in the works cited in section 2.4 clearly signal that where works contain sacred names and epithets or descriptions, whether in lists or embedded in compositions, these epithets and descriptions may be similarly derived. Modern scholars have sought to identify where this occurs and explain the ancients’ reasoning. The exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš and its commentary attracted early attention. Böhl (1936–1937) explored the “learned play” (“gelehrte Spielerei”, p.201) on Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI–VII. Informed by Commentary II, Böhl also offered etymological derivations not given by Commentary II. In his edition of the E-sagil Commentary, Köcher (1954–1956) demonstrated its etymological techniques, noting the work’s significance for its speculative theology. Elsewhere at this time, this interpretive technique is mentioned in isolated comment. Lambert (1954–1956, pp.311, 320) noted it in his early edition of Marduk’s Address to the Demons and its commentaries. Lambert’s article is of particular importance for the parallels drawn with rabbinic scholarship and Lambert’s observation of the similarity of this interpretive technique to the midrash of rabbinic scholarship termed notariqon. Lambert (1957–1958, p.400) drew attention to the etymological derivation of divine epithets in a literary context, the narrative poem known as Erra, where he explained descriptions of Erra’s companion, Išum. Bottéro (1977–1978, pp.159–161) identified further similar instances in Erra.

40

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

Bottéro was the first to consider the matter in depth. His discussion of the commentary on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII (Bottéro, 1977) remains the most important and extensive study on the commentary (Commentary II) and of the explanatory practices used there, invariably cited by later scholars in the field. Bottéro sought, for the first time, to consider the “how” and the “why” – “le comment et le pourquoi” – of this type of exegesis and “le mode de vision des choses qu’il implique” (§1). He described in detail how components of Marduk’s names were drawn from them and interpreted by the commentarist, directly and by semantic association (§25); the use of homophones (§9) and alternative readings (§10); the flexible treatment of consonants and vowels (§§11–13). Bottéro’s analysis of the commentarist’s methods is drawn on in chapter 3. His observations on the cultural and intellectual background of the composition (§4), the purpose of this and similar works (§§28–30) and their place in ancient thought (§32ff.) inform this book. Lambert’s (2013) edition of Enūma eliš and its commentaries, the culmination of a lifetime’s engagement with the epic, undoubtedly reflects his thinking over a period commencing before Bottéro’s contribution was published. His edition does not refer to Bottéro’s work on Commentary II but must have known it. Lambert expounded the etymology of Marduk’s name and illustrated the principles by which meaning was read into names by etymological means (pp.160–168), principally by reference to Enūma eliš VI. Lambert noted the like material provided by the E-sagil Commentary, the God List CT 25 49, a list of Marduk’s names (K 2107+) and elsewhere (p.161). He drew parallels for the listing of deities’ names from other literary works (pp.147–149), in particular the Hymn to the Queen of Nippur. His edition of this hymn had already presented and explained the etymological technique underlying the exposition of Ištar’s names (Lambert, 1982, pp.210–214). These works are included in the text corpus examined here (section 2.6). Lambert (2013, p.161) described the ancients’ etymological approach as “pseudo-philology” by contrast with modern methodology. The term “pseudo-philology” inevitably sounds derogatory of the ancient scholars, but, albeit rather bluntly, reflects a comparison with modern philological understanding of Sumerian and Akkadian. His study of Babylonian linguistics (Lambert, 1999) amply illustrates that the ancients’ concept of etymology, whilst different from modern scholarship, was an evidently serious construct. In the intervening years, other scholars have identified explanatory scholarship based on an etymological approach and explained this. Livingstone (1986, pp.49– 52) gave a short description of this etymological approach as an explanatory technique, terming it “artificial philology”, and explained its use in the expository works he edited. Three of these are included in the text corpus (section 2.6). The understanding of ancient scholarly interpretation of names was further advanced by George’s studies of Babylonian topographical texts (George, Topog.Texts; HMH).

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

41

In addition to the topographical works cited in section 2.4, a number of these texts explain the Sumerian names of places, temples and deities with Akkadian interpretations. George, Topog.Texts, pp.73–75 explained that, in Babylonian scholarship, a Sumerian name may be translated straightforwardly, by paraphrase or interpreted by “speculative etymology” which exploited elements drawn from the Sumerian name, outlining this last technique. Its application is explained and analysed in George’s commentaries on these texts; section 3.2 draws on these. From another religious work in literary form, Reiner (1985, pp.112–113, 117– 118) and George, Topog.Texts, pp.90–91, 392–393, both noted how the Babylonian composer of the penitential work ludlul bēl nēmeqi used Sumerian gate-names of the E-sagil complex to effect the penitent sufferer’s return to divine favour as he passes through these gates, expressed in ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 42–53 (ed. Oshima, 2014; IV 79–90, Lambert, 1960). More recently, Lenzi (2015) has discussed the derivation of the text of this passage from these gate-names. Lenzi (p.735) advocated the importance of using the interpretive methods of commentary and explanatory texts when approaching compositions outside these genres. Beaulieu (1995a) identified the same sort of scholarship in a late text from Southern Babylonia in his presentation of a God List from Uruk dated to the Seleucid period which contains an exposition of the names and epithets of the goddess Antu. As Beaulieu explained, the Akkadian epithets of the goddess are derived by philological means. Beaulieu (p.194) noted that the scholarship evident in this late text from Uruk bears marked resemblance to the realisation of the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI–VII, scholarly work accomplished centuries earlier in Babylon. The studies noted above all treat works in which the scholarly explanation of sacred names by their ancient compilers and composers is a significant aspect. Elsewhere modern scholars have identified and explained the ancients’ practice of explaining names through etymological means. Recent contributions most relevant to this book can be briefly noted. Lieberman (1987, pp.179–183) discussed “Noṭariqon-like” hermeneutics in cuneiform in his examination of a Mesopotamian background for rabbinic interpretation (this is discussed further in chapter 7). Almost all of the examples which illustrate his exposition are interpretations of sacred names; amongst these, Lieberman (op.cit., p.179) cited text from l.21 of the Gula hymn presented here. Tinney (1989) identified another example of an etymologically-derived description in the Erra narrative. Stol (1989) remarked on names of astral bodies which are explained in prayers prescribed for recitation in the New Year ritual in Babylon as another example of what Stol called the “sacred ‘philology’ of the Babylonians”. (Passages from these prayers are included in the text corpus (section 2.6)).

42

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

In a review of some aspects of “word play” in Akkadian literature, Hurowitz (2000, pp.73–76) discussed the practice of learned explanation derived from names and allusions to names in texts, with examples drawn from Enūma eliš and the Hinke kudurru. Hurowitz used the term “Name Midrashim” for this, drawing on analogy with name explanations in the Bible and the midrashim of rabbinic scholarship (a parallel drawn nearly fifty years earlier by Lambert (1954–1956)) and highlighting (at p.73) the work of Zakovitch (1980) and Garsiel (1991) on biblical names. Hurowitz (2010) addressed the topic again more extensively in relation to names of gods, kings and places in historical writings, pointing to and explaining reflections of these names in the texts. Many of Hurowitz’s examples of name midrashim in historical texts relate to Akkadian names whose patent meaning is conveyed in the text in some way. Selz (2002) sought to demonstrate that the practice of scholarly etymologising was widespread over ancient Mesopotamia from early times; and that the etymological interpretation of names and words in the first millennium was only a late development of an older and rich tradition. Selz adduced some familiar examples of etymological interpretation of sacred names in his review. In his critical edition of the Gilgameš epic, George (2003, pp.85–87, 139–140) reviewed the varied orthographies of the names Gilgameš and Enkidu and noted unusual writings of those names which could be (and perhaps were) understood in scholarly circles to reveal the nature or some characteristic of the two heroes. Noegel (2007, pp.24–26) noted this explanatory technique, which he characterised as “punning”. “Punning” is now used by some scholars in relation to Mesopotamian compositions to mean, as Worthington (2020, p.25) put it, “the use of similar-sounding words to mobilise a meaning or effect beyond the obvious one”, without any necessary implication of humour. However, this has only very limited applicability to the methods of speculative interpretation, as will be apparent in chapter 3.2; and, in relation to sacred names at least, to use the term “punning” risks trivialising what was undoubtedly a wholly serious endeavour. Uehlinger (2008) referred to the ancients’ exploration of the meaning of gods’ names by etymological speculation in a general study in which he described the Mesopotamian polytheistic system and the names and identities of their gods. Recent contributions to this field of scholarship were made by Jiménez (2018, 2019) in his discussion of philological arguments presented in Akkadian disputation literature to assert one protagonist’s superiority over the other, in which the techniques and language of scholarly texts are used to make the argument. The importance of names on the Mesopotamian world was explored by Radner (2005) in her study “Die Macht des Namens”. Radner noted the power of a name to express the character of its bearer through its writing in ancient scholarly thought. However, the etymology and meaning of names is not the focus of her study, but their realisation in writing. The development of curse formulae to protect inscribed

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

43

names against defacement is described. Building on the premise of a Mesopotamian belief in the parallel between naming and existence, Radner propounded the importance of the written form of a name and its preservation in inscriptions as a strategy for preserving and perpetuating the identity and fame of its bearer. Recent scholarship has turned a particular focus on the commentary tradition and its approaches to the subject texts which prompt comment or are interpreted. As noted earlier in this chapter, this genre has much in common with the practice of interpreting sacred names, and those texts which explicitly signal the ancients’ interpretive intentions (see sections 2.2 and 2.4). Frahm’s (2011, ch.5) description of hermeneutic techniques in Babylonian and Assyrian commentaries contains much that is pertinent to the scholarly explanation of sacred names outside the commentary tradition. Commentary II itself is described by Frahm at pp.114–116. The introductory paper in the Yale Cuneiform Commentaries Project by Jiménez (2013) provides another overview of the hermeneutic techniques used in Mesopotamian text commentaries, both philological and non-philological, with examples from the commentary tradition, which illustrate interpretive strategies and methods which are used equally by ancient scholars in their interpretation of sacred names. In his review of the exegetical terminology of Akkadian commentaries, Gabbay (2016a, pp.90– 92) pointed to technical expressions which found meaning within the name (šumu) of a being or thing. Elsewhere, Gabbay’s extensive work on Akkadian commentaries has drawn valuable comparison between this tradition and early Hebrew exegesis (see Gabbay 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016b and 2017), a correspondence briefly made many years earlier by Lambert (1954–1956) and discussed by Frahm (2011, pp.369– 383) and many others. This is returned to in chapter 7. Modern scholarship has identified the ancients’ explanatory approach to sacred names and considered its purpose. Scholars have identified how Akkadian interpretations were derived, and their lexical basis, ad hoc in individual works. However there has not previously been a systematic analysis or description of the range of techniques and methods deployed by ancient scholars to explore the meaning of sacred names. Using a significant corpus of explanatory and other texts, chapter 3 seeks to provide this. 2.6 Text corpus Works which contain extensive or significant passages in which sacred names are interpreted in Akkadian have been selected for analysis for this book. Expository lists are a key source, together with other explanatory texts. Amongst these, topographical and temple lists are especially important. Literary and religious compositions also contain expositions of sacred names and composition based on them. The exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI–VII is the best known, and most fully developed, of these. These too are included in the text corpus. The

44

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

expository lists selected are bilingual lists: a Sumerian name is explained in Akkadian. Otherwise, the compositions selected for analysis are Akkadian works. Bilingual compositions have not been reviewed, but would be productive for future research. Other God Lists besides those selected for study here could also be examined in the future. Sacred names and epithets or other phrases which interpret them are widely scattered through Akkadian texts, often as isolated instances. It is not, of course, practical to capture these for study here. The composition Erra, for instance, contains a few examples of name interpretation in its narrative which scholars have identified (see Bottéro, 1978, pp.159–161; Tinney, 1989); these are drawn on, but the composition as a whole has not been included in the text corpus for analysis. The Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967), a composition which has many points of similarity to the Gula hymn presented in this book, should also be mentioned, for this too has not been included in the text corpus. Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn is made up of alternating stanzas in which the healing goddess speaks her own praises and extols her spouse, each culminating in the deity’s name, and concluding with Bulluṭsarabi’s own prayer. Although the divine names by which the work is structured are the significant focus of the composition and each stanza is made up of many epithets and descriptions, Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn is not characterised by speculative scholarship for its compositional technique (unlike the Gula hymn edited here), and only occasional instances of interpretation based on sacred names can be seen. Accordingly, the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi does not form part of the text corpus. A very substantial corpus of texts, comprising religious lists and explanatory works from the second and first millennia and Standard Babylonian literary and religious compositions in which sacred names are explained and interpreted, has thus been assembled for analysis. Etymological equations in a number of these works (such as the topographical and temple lists and Enūma eliš VII) were explained by their editors; these have been relied on for the analysis. In other cases, the etymological or other basis of the Akkadian interpretation first had to be identified to take forward the analysis in this book. The methodology adopted is explained in the introduction to section 3.2. The text corpus used is detailed below in tabular form: first, topographical and temple lists; secondly, expository texts; and thirdly, literary and religious compositions, which includes the incantation text often known as Marduk’s Address to the Demons. The first column of each table specifies the work, the edition(s) used, and other publications pertinent to the speculative scholarship exemplified in it. The second column briefly describes the content of the work relevant to this book; a note of significant interlinear comment given in the work or other ancient commentary is made there. The final column records how the work is referred to in this book, where relevant.

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

45

Topographical and temple lists Work Tintir I ed. George, Topog.Texts Explanatory Temple List, Rm 788 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.2 Explanatory Temple List, BM 34850 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.3 Explanatory Temple List BM 34927 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.4 Explanatory Temple List, VAT 17115 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.5 Explanatory List, ed. George, Topog.Texts No.18

Explanatory Temple List, BM 76493+ ed. George, Topog.Texts No.19 Assyrian Temple List, ed. George, Topog.Texts No.20 Temple List, VAT 13817 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.22 Temple List, VAT 10111 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.23 Shrine List, IM 74458 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.25 Topographical List, BM 76777 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.28 Explanatory Temple List, IM 65063 ed. George, Topog.Texts No.31 Geographical Temple List, BM 55476 ed. George (1993) Explanatory Temple List, Bab 45740 ed. George (2008)

Relevant Content

Termed in this book

Names of Babylon

Tintir I

Temples of Babylon

BTT 2

Temples of Babylon

BTT 3

Temples of Babylon

BTT 4

E-sagil Interlinear explanation

E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5

§§1–4 Names of Nippur §5 é-kur §6 Temples of Nippur §11 Four Winds

Nippur Compendium, BTT 18

Temples of Nippur

Nippur Temple List, BTT 19

§4 Temples of Assyria

Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20

Temples of Kiš

BTT 22

Temples of Kiš

BTT 23

Shrines of Uruk

BTT 25

Temples chapels and gates of Borsippa(?)

BTT 28

Temples of Ištar(?)

BTT 31

Temple names from Kiš to Apak

HMH TL6

Adad’s sanctuary at Zabban?

46

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

Other expository texts and explanatory works Work

Relevant Content

Explanatory God List, K 7658+8222 (CT 25 46, 47) K 8519 (STC I 165) K 13337+18107 (STC I 166) K 6538 Lambert (2013, pp.142–143) Explanatory God List, K 1451 (CT 25 49) Explanatory God List, K 2107+6086+Sm 1720 (CT 46 53) Lambert (2013, p.154) Explanatory God List, K 104 reverse 13–39 (V R 43 r.13–39) ed. Pomponio (1978, pp.157– 159) Explanatory God List, MLC 1890 ed. Beaulieu (1995a) i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a, K 170+Rm 520 ed. Livingstone (1986) Weapon Name Exposition, BM 47463 r.i 8–r.ii 16 and duplicates ed. Livingstone (1986) Explanatory work: Ritual for covering a kettledrum O 175 ed. Livingstone (1986) Expository text, Smith College tablets 110 (S 3) ed. Livingstone (1986) ed. Lambert (1989)

Marduk’s names

Termed in this book

Divine names

Marduk’s names

Marduk Names List

Nabû’s names

Antu’s names

Divine names

i-NAM-giš-ḫur-anki-a

Divine weapons

Weapon Name Exposition

Interlinear explanation Divine names

Divine names

Kettledrum Ritual

Smith College text 110 (S 3)

2. Babylonian speculative scholarship

47

Literary and religious compositions Work

Relevant Content

Termed in this book

Enūma eliš VI 121–VII 139 ed. Lambert (2013) Böhl (1936–1937) Commentary, Enūma eliš VII 1–139 ed. Lambert (2013, pp.139–142) Bottéro (1977) Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 52–72, ed. Lambert (1982) ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 42–53 ed. Lambert (1960, as IV(?) 79–90) ed. Oshima (2014), Lenzi (2015) Hymn to Nabû, LKA 16 ed. Ebeling (1952) Hymn to Nabû, BM 34147, ed. Lambert (1978) Royal Ritual composition, K 3446+8830(+) Sm 211(+) K 10282 ed. Lambert (1997) Prayers to Bēl and Bēltīya (Akītu festival, Nisannu) DT 15, DT 109+BM 32485, DT 114, MNB 1848 ed. Thureau-Dangin (1921b, pp.127 – 154), Linssen (2004) Marduk’s Address to the Demons (udug-ḫul tablet 11 10–107) ed. Lambert (1954–1956, 1959– 1960), Geller (2015) Commentaries: BM 47529+47685 Ass.13955gt (A195) ed. Geller (2014, pp.60–68) Hymn to Gula K 232+3371+13776 KAR 109+343 and duplicates Martin (1900) (K 232) Mullo-Weir (1929) (K 232) Ebeling (1918) (KAR 109) Ebeling (1953a) (KAR 343) Edited here: Chapters 4–6

Marduk’s names

Enūma eliš VI 121– VII 139

Ancient commentary on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII 1–139 Ištar’s names

Commentary II

Hymn to the Queen of Nippur

Gate names of E-sagil temple complex Nabû’s names

Hymn to Nabû

Nabû’s names Divine and temple names

Royal ritual composition

Divine and astral names

Prayer to Bēl; Prayer to Bēltīya

ll.301–314 (Bēl) ll.324–332 (Bēltīya)

Marduk’s names (Asalluḫi)

Ancient commentaries on Marduk’s Address to the Demons Divine and temple names, toponyms

Marduk’s Address to the Demons

Gula hymn

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

The scholarly compositions and texts which expressly demonstrate the connection between sacred names and the epithets, attributes and descriptions applied to the named deities and sacred places or things, as analysed by the ancient scholars themselves, have been discussed in section 2.4. These scholarly works and similar explanatory material in the Babylonian and Assyrian commentary tradition, coupled with lexical lists, are the essential source material for understanding the Babylonian practice of explanation and interpretation of sacred names. No Babylonian treatises are available which otherwise describe the exposition of sacred names or discuss the ancient scholars’ thinking and practice. The primary source material discussed in section 2.4 nevertheless provides clear authority for the explanation and interpretation of sacred names from which it can be reasonably inferred that where a sacred name is coupled with some epithet, attribute or description, whether in an expository or other context, it is possible, or indeed often quite probable, that there is some connection between the two, which stems from meaning derived from the sacred name. Furthermore, this scholarly material provides a platform from which how Babylonian scholars derived meaning from sacred names may be deduced, both in relation to those works themselves and other works in which there is no explicit connection between sacred name and some remark associated with it, which together form the text corpus examined here. From analysis of the works in this corpus, a description of the scholarly methodology may be derived. As already noted (section 2.3), three basic approaches were developed by ancient scholars to explain sacred names: translation, free rendering and speculative interpretation. These three basic approaches, or core techniques, are the speculative techniques described in section 3.1 below. The first two techniques, translation and free rendering, are illustrated in detail (sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). For the third technique, speculative interpretation (described in section 3.1.3), specific strategies and methods by which meaning was revealed in, or extracted from, a sacred name by the ancient scholars can be observed. Such strategies and methods are varied and numerous, often exhibiting great erudition and invention; these are described and illustrated in section 3.2. 3.1 The speculative techniques In the compositions examined in this book, three core techniques were deployed by ancient scholars in their exploration of the meaning of sacred names. Names might be explained by translation, by free rendering through free translation or free

50

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

interpretation, or by speculative interpretation through etymological extrapolation from the name and its writing. These three core techniques are examined in turn. 3.1.1 Translation Translation conveyed the obvious, straightforward, meaning of a sacred name. This is often termed “literal translation” by modern scholars. “Literal translation” perhaps suggests that the “real” meaning of the name is rendered. As ancient and modern scholarship evidences, Sumerian names might bear more than one meaning, each perhaps equally “real” to the ancients. “Translation” is consequently preferred here to “literal translation”. By translating a Sumerian name into Akkadian, ancient scholars explained the patent meaning of the name, as they understood it. Translation is the basic explanatory technique deployed, as abundantly evidenced in the text corpus. Just a few illustrations are presented. In the explanatory work which interprets é-sag-íl, the name of Marduk’s temple in Babylon, in fourteen different ways, é-sag-íl is explained by two translations, bītu našâ rēš[i], “House with top elevated”, and bītu ša rēšāšu šaqâ, “House whose top is elevated”, (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 1–2). Both translations are conventional, perhaps traditional, explanations (George, Topog.Texts, p.75), for the second version recurs in other temple lists (BTT 2 1; Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 181). Likewise, in the explanatory work Tintir which expounds the names of Babylon, Babylon’s name Šuanna (šu-an-naki) is explained as emūq šamê, “Power of heaven” (Tintir I 4), a straightforward, albeit unique, translation, comparable with interpretations of šu-an-na elsewhere (see George, Topog.Texts, p.243). Each Sumerian name is straightforwardly translated in another temple list, restored by George from the like sequence in Tintir IV 27–31 (George, Topog.Texts, p.60): [é]-sag bītu rēštû Foremost House [é-me-u]r4-ur4 bītu ša parṣī ḫammu House which gathers the ordinances [é-nun-m]aḫ bīt rubê rabî House of the great prince (Explanatory temple list, BTT 3 r 9′–11′, George’s translation) Many of the explanatory lists in the text corpus exhibit straightforward translations to explain Sumerian names. The occasional mechanical translation is apparent, as in the explanation of é-ki-ág-gá-a-ni, which from its grammar means “His beloved house”, as bīt narāmīšu, “House of his beloved”, (HMH TL6 7, p.53). The Sumerian elements (é “house”, ki-ág-gá “beloved”, a-ni “his”) are translated, but the Sumerian grammar is evidently misunderstood. Other compositions contain the same technique. A hymn to the goddess of Nippur describes Ištar/Inanna, there named Nin-anna, translating the divine name dnin-anna (“Queen of Heaven”) straightforwardly:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

51

d

nin-an-na šarratu šamāme (Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 55) Nin-anna, Queen of the heavens The exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš has much in common with explanatory God Lists (see Lambert, 2013, pp.159ff.) and contains many descriptions which translate the divine names given there. Lugaldimmerankia (dlugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-a) is bēlu ilānī ša šamê u erṣetim kalîšun, “Lord of all the gods of heaven and the underworld”, (VI 141); Šazu (dšà-zu) is mūdê libbi ilānī, “the one who knows the heart of the gods”, (VII 35); Pagalguenna (dpa4-gal-gú-en-na) is ašarēd napḫar bēlī, “Foremost of all lords”, (VII 93). (Identical descriptions of Pagalguenna and Šazu appear in Marduk Names List 5, 28.) The epithets of Lugaldimmerankia and Šazu are slightly amplified (kalîšun, “all of them”, and ilānī “of the gods”, strictly do not correspond to an element in the Sumerian names) but the Akkadian epithets nevertheless essentially simply translate the Sumerian name so as to explain its patent meaning. Likewise, Lugaldurmaḫ is: d

lugal-dur-maḫ šarru markas ilānī bēl durmāḫi (Enūma eliš VII 95) Lugaldurmaḫ, King of the mooring-rope of the gods, lord of the mighty hawser

Lambert (2013, p.489) noted that bēl durmāḫi translates dlugal-dur-maḫ literally, while the first epithet, šarru markas ilānī, offers a freer translation. Both epithets translate the divine name quite closely (for markasu and durmaḫu, see George, Topog.Texts, p.p.261–263). Rather freer interpretation is illustrated next. 3.1.2 Free rendering The second core technique employed by ancient scholars to explain the meaning of a sacred name was to render its obvious, straightforward, meaning more freely than by simple translation. The patent meaning of a name might be expressed by free translation, using synonyms or associated words, or by paraphrase. Sometimes an interpretation which goes beyond free translation is evident. There is not always a clear distinction between these two approaches; they are treated together here, with just a few examples. In a straightforward free translation, a simple synonym is deployed in a temple list to explain é-še-numun, “House of Barleycorn” (HMH 1041), as bīt zēr, “House of seed” (HMH TL6 29). Paraphrase is illustrated in the free translations of temple names contained in another temple list: é-ḫúl-ḫúl-dir-dir-ra bītu ša ḫidâti malû (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 156) (“House of Surpassing Joys” HMH 472) House which is full of joy é-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a bītu ša uṣurāt šamê u erṣetim ina libbīšu uddâ (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 171)

52

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

(“House of the Designs of Heaven and Underworld”) House where the designs of heaven and underworld are revealed In each case, whilst the Sumerian temple name is not directly and straightforwardly translated into Akkadian, the Akkadian description nevertheless reflects its meaning. Likewise, in the exposition of the names of Babylon in the explanatory work Tintir, a description of the city is paraphrased thus: uru níg-gi-na si-sáki kimin(Bābilu) āl kitti u mīšari (Tintir I 17) (“City which administers true justice”) Babylon, city of truth and justice George, Topog.Texts, p.250 noted that the free rendering of the Sumerian name in Akkadian reflects the stock phrase kittu u mīšaru, “truth and justice”. In the same work, ká-dingir-raki, the well-known writing for Babylon, is explained by an extended version of the usual bāb ilī, “Gate of the gods”: ká-dingir-raki kimin(Bābilu) nēreb masnaqti ilī (Tintir I 22) (“Gate of the God(s)”) Babylon, Entrance of the checking of the gods The elaborate paraphrase nēreb masnaqti is itself a stock phrase in literary contexts (George, Topog.Texts, p.255). A stock phrase is also used in a prayer for the king to explain ki-nam-tar-tar-e-dè, “Place for determining destinies”, (a byname for Duku) as parak šīmāti, “Dais of Destinies” (Royal ritual composition 16; George, Topog.Texts, p.287). Thus stock phraseology may be used to serve the free rendering of names. The two techniques of translation and free rendering are sometimes deployed side by side. Lambert (1982, p.211) noted how the great exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš commonly proceeds “by literal translation and by freer paraphrase”, followed by comment. The description of Marduk’s identity as Meršakušu (dmer-šàkúš-ù) illustrates this: d

mer-šà-kúš-ù eziz u muštāl sabus u tayyār (Enūma eliš VI 137) Furious but deliberating, angry but relenting As Bottéro (1977, p.25 §31) highlighted, the Sumerian divine name is first translated, then more freely rendered. The same combination of techniques is illustrated in an explanatory temple list, with a free rendering forefronted, followed by translation: é-galga-sù bītu ša melikšu rūqu ša milka malû (Kiš temple list, BTT 22 4′) (“House filled with Counsel”) House whose advice is profound, which is filled with counsel The temple name é-galga-sù is first freely rendered by paraphrase, then straightforwardly translated. An explanatory God List illustrates the same combination of techniques, explaining the god through the meaning of his name:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

53

d

en-nu-gi bēl erṣetim bēl lā tâ[ri] (CT 25 49 r.3) Ennugi, Lord of the underworld, Lord of No Return

Ennugi is a chthonic deity (Tallqvist, 1938, p.305). bēl erṣetim, “Lord of the underworld”, freely renders the meaning of his name, Ennugi (den-nu-gi), reflecting his association with the underworld; bēl lā târi, “Lord of No Return”, translates the name (lā târi, “Of No Return”, itself an epithet of the underworld). A name could be freely interpreted quite simply. A list which explores the meaning of é-kur, the name of Enlil’s temple in Nippur, in some 19 lines, principally by speculative interpretation, explains é-kur as [bīt] dManungal “[House of] Manugal” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 33′). The interpretation appears simply to reflect that deity’s association with é-kur. Commonly, however, the ancient scholars explained sacred names with descriptions that neither translated nor paraphrased the name but were nevertheless free interpretations derived from its patent meaning. Two explanations from the same list illustrate this. In the first, the plain meaning of the Sumerian name is recast to offer an explanation based on it: é-šùd-dè-giš-tuku bītu ša ikribīšu šemû (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 154) (“House which hears prayers” HMH 1073) House whose prayers are heard The second illustration exploits a play on Marduk’s identity, drawn from the meaning of the temple name: é-tuš-mes bītu šubat Marūduk (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 169) (“House, abode of the warrior”) House, abode of Marduk The Sumerian word mes, “warrior”, is freely interpreted as Marduk, portrayed as the warrior who saved the gods in the Enūma eliš narrative. dmes is a name of Marduk, which no doubt also underpins the interpretation. Similarly, free interpretation is perhaps reflected in the explanation of the name of Kutha’s wall, bàd-u4-gal-má-uru5 (“Wall, Inundation of u4-gal”), as abūb Anzî, “Inundation of Anzû” (HMH TL6 22). abūbu, “flood, inundation”, translates a-má-uru5. George (HMH p.55) suggested that the Akkadian explanation interprets myth to equate u4-gal and Anzû, both defeated enemies of divine warriors in mythology. These last two examples, which identify Marduk and Anzû in their explanations, illustrate that there is not always a clear line between free interpretation of a name and speculative interpretation. Free rendering and speculative interpretation are not always to be distinguished from each other, but are part of a flexible continuum of the explanatory techniques used by the ancient scholars. 3.1.3 Speculative interpretation Speculative interpretation through etymological extrapolation from a name and its writing was the third core technique deployed by ancient scholars in their exploration

54

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

of meaning. Scholars explained the patent meaning of a sacred name (that is to say, its obvious, straightforward meaning) by translation and free rendering, as described above; by speculative interpretation, they explored and explained its latent meaning. Meaning which was not obvious, but hidden in the name, was thus revealed. The potential offered by the cuneiform writing system, with its large number of homophones, different readings of cuneiform signs both syllabic and logographic, and flexible syllabification which permits different ways in which a word could be written, coupled with the rich resource of the lexical and bilingual tradition, made speculative interpretation by far the most productive explanatory technique. Although this book is concerned with the explanation of sacred names, this speculative technique is not, of course, confined to names. It is found throughout the Babylonian and Assyrian commentary tradition as an explanatory tool, as noted in section 2.2. The same scholarly approaches and methods described here are applied in the commentary tradition. In this section the general features of speculative interpretation are noted and some general observations about this speculative technique are made. The methods used in speculative interpretation observed in the text corpus used for this book are described and illustrated in section 3.2. The rich and unusual methods of speculative scholarship which are found in the Gula hymn are separately described in chapter 6. 3.1.3.1 General characteristics The essential characteristic of speculative interpretation of sacred names in this text corpus is that parts of the name are taken for interpretation through equation with Akkadian words. The ancient scholars applied an etymological approach to these separate parts, using the many different meanings they might have in the bilingual tradition and exploiting the potential of the cuneiform writing system, with its many homophones and different readings, to interpret the name. Describing an example of the use of this speculative technique, George, Topog.Texts, p.240 commented that “Such interpretations are achieved only through a disregard of Sumerian grammar and word order ... and belong to that class of etymologizing which seems to modern philology spurious and invalid, but is nonetheless a characteristic feature of Babylonian scholasticism”. In this speculative technique a correspondence is made, directly or indirectly, between a part of a name and an Akkadian word; and, unlike straightforward translation (section 3.1.1 above), indeed the technique is not concerned with reflecting the meaning which would be derived from the Sumerian grammar or word order. It is clear from the serious contexts in which speculative interpretation was deployed that the etymological associations and linkages made by the ancient scholars were, as they saw it, perfectly appropriate and valid for these purposes. Quite simply, they evidently had an understanding of etymology which differs from modern scholarship, a conclusion Lambert pointed to in his account of

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

55

Babylonian linguistics, in which Babylonian ideas on the derivation of words are explored (see Lambert, 1999, pp.225–231). Sacred names typically have a usual orthography (or, very occasionally, orthographies), rarely deviated from in the textual record. This perhaps confirms the significance attached to such names and, importantly, their realisation in the writing system. Nevertheless, the written name might be decoded. For the purposes of speculative interpretation, a sacred name might be recast as to the signs used in its orthography or as to its syllabification, exploiting the rich potential of the cuneiform syllabary. The text corpus provides outstanding examples of explicitly contrived orthographies of sacred names, that is to say, where the spelling of a name in the manuscript explicitly exhibits some unusual form or esoteric feature (sections 3.2.19, 6.3). However, a name might be implicitly understood to have some contrived orthography not realised in the text. Most simply, often the sacred name might be understood to be syllabified differently from the name as it was usually written. These two approaches are termed explicitly contrived orthography and implicitly contrived orthography in this book (see section 3.2.19). Speculative interpretation in the preserved record is clearly a scholarly activity, a sophisticated branch of scribal learning and art. The long lexical tradition evidences the importance of the written form and of the writing system itself as a field of knowledge. In this intellectual milieu, speculative interpretation of sacred names and other words was fuelled by the potential and complexity of the writing system. The influence of the spoken word is difficult to evaluate, of course, but should not be discounted. A name, after all, comprises a series of sounds which are capable of interpretation. The use of homophones is essentially an aural matter, realised in the cuneiform writing system with its consequent possibilities. Perhaps too other elements derived from a name may have been suggested by spoken forms and speech patterns. The form of a sacred name was not a straitjacket, constraining interpretation; not all its parts need be used, nor their order followed. The scholarly speculative interpretation might be based on only one or more parts of the name, to generate some idea characterising, explaining or interpreting its subject. Extrapolating from the meaning uncovered in a name, scholars were free to add comment informed by or freely derived from components of the name and imply other ideas not derived etymologically from it. The exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI–VII takes this pattern (see Bottéro, 1977, p.25 §31; Lambert, 1982, p.211, 2013, pp.166– 167) and provides the outstanding exposition of this speculative technique. 3.1.3.2 Purpose The entirely serious nature of speculative interpretation has been emphasised by Bottéro (1977, p.24 §29), Cavigneaux (1987, p.247), Lambert (1990, p.215), Maul

56

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

(1999, pp.13–14) and many others. Its use in lists of gods and sacred places and in religious compositions proves that speculative interpretation was not a mere game or word-play, punning or some trivial pursuit, but a meaningful endeavour, to be taken seriously. The essential purpose of speculative interpretation was to gain a deeper understanding of things, as recognised and explained by Bottéro (1977, p.26 §32), Maul (1999, p.13), Frahm (2011, p.40) and, more recently, Jiménez (2018, p.87), amongst others. This is self-evident in the commentary tradition, where speculative interpretation is used as a tool to elucidate the text under study, to explain its meaning. Applied to sacred names, it could perhaps be supposed that speculative interpretation served simply to demonstrate the linguistic derivation of the name. However, two things make it clear that this was not the only, and certainly not the primary, purpose of speculation on sacred names. First, the practice in the commentary tradition. The way in which speculative interpretation was used as an explanatory tool in commentaries is clear evidence for the same use of the technique with regard to sacred names in other genres of texts: to elucidate their meaning. Indeed, explanations of sacred names using this technique appear throughout the commentary tradition. Secondly, multiple expositions of sacred names. A number of texts contain multiple expositions of the same name, speculatively interpreted to give entirely different meanings. One such is the explanatory list of Marduk’s names presented by Lambert (2013, p.154), referred to in this book as the Marduk Names List. Multiple expositions of the same divine name in this list are described in section 2.4.2 above. It is clear from such texts that speculative interpretation served the explanatory purpose of exposing a deeper understanding of its subject. A connection between a name and its bearer is a pervasive feature in ancient Mesopotamian thought, as discussed in section 1.1. The practice of speculative interpretation is itself critical evidence of a belief in the relevance of a name to its bearer, such that a name might express the character and functions of its bearer. Speculative interpretation of a name explored, explained and revealed the nature and character of its subject, as the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI– VII incontrovertibly demonstrates. Thus a theology might be expressed, drawn from the deity’s names, as illustrated also by the late text from Uruk edited by Beaulieu (1995a), which contains a theological exposition of the names of the goddess Antu. The explanatory technique was equally applicable to deities and to their temples and cities, as evidenced by the texts which explain the names of the temples of Babylon edited by George, Topog.Texts, as BTT 2 – BTT 5. Thus, Bottéro (1977, p.20 §19; 1992, pp.97–100) explained, by speculation on the name, all the bearer’s attributes and qualities were revealed. By speculative interpretation, the ancient scholars developed and expounded their scholarly religious thinking. Speculative interpretation served other broader religious ideas too. Common beliefs about the gods might be substantiated by speculative interpretation. So, the

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

57

topos of divine protection is understood in the name Šazu (dšà-zu), as the commentarist on Enūma eliš VII explained: ṣ[ulū]lšun rapšu (Enūma eliš VII 38 extract) He is their broad [protection] Commentary II: zu ṣ[ull]ulu to protect zu r[a]pāšu to be wide Traditional ideas might be affirmed. Uzu-mua (uzu-mú-aki), “Flesh-grower”, is, in one tradition, the part of Nippur where life sprang up (George, Topog.Texts, p.443), and an explanatory text which sets out names of Nippur records this: aš[a]r ina libbīšu nišū ibbanâ (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §3 10′ extract) Place in which people were created The scholar here derives the description from the name uzu-mú-aki itself: uzu equates to nišū “people”; mú is understood as mu-udmud banû “to create”; ki as ašru “place” (CAD N/II 283, B 84, A/II 455). Thus, speculatively interpreted, the place name itself can be seen to express, and hence validate, the traditional belief. Mythological ideas might be expressed and relationships drawn out and explained by this technique, as an extract from an explanatory work i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a, edited by Livingstone (1986, pp.30–31, 45–46) exemplifies: [x x den]lil(idim) talīm dEa Nannu ŠEŠ talīm ŠEŠ Enlil is the brother of Ea. Nanna(ŠEŠ-KI) is šeš; brother is šeš (i-NAM-giš-ḫuran-ki-a 4, extract; Livingstone’s translation) Here the scholar uses speculation on the name Nanna, Sîn’s Sumerian identity, to explain and confirm the relationship between Enlil, Ea and Sîn as brothers, by drawing šeš, the Sumerian word for “brother”, from the combination of signs which write the divine name Nanna, ŠEŠ-KI. Speculative interpretation could be used to praise and glorify, as evidenced in religious compositions in the text corpus. The Gula hymn presented in chapter 5 celebrates its goddess, attributing to her the identity of many other goddesses and portraying her as the goddess of cities, temples and shrines across Babylonia. To do so, the scholar-composer uses speculative interpretation to derive this portrait of the goddess. As will be seen in chapter 6, the scholar-composer is particularly inventive in these interpretive methods; some quite remarkable features emerge which mark the Gula hymn as truly exceptional in the field of speculative scholarship. The Enūma eliš narrative is another work which exhibits exceptional speculative scholarship to praise and glorify its god. The composition culminates in the glorification of Marduk by the pronouncement of his fifty names, in text derived by speculative interpretation, to reveal the god’s character. This lengthy passage owes much to God Lists which treat Marduk’s names but is nevertheless fully integrated

58

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

in the literary fabric of the composition. Speculative scholarship might be used to express other religious ideas, as in the composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 42–53, examined by Lenzi (2015). In this great penitential composition, the sufferer is depicted as passing through twelve gates in the é-sag-íl complex in Babylon where, progressively, his redemption is effected in a manner drawn from speculative interpretation of the name of the gate through which he enters. In addition to its exegetical functions, speculative interpretation might serve other religious, ideological and political purposes, as evidenced in the elevation of Marduk, Babylon’s city-god, to supremacy in the pantheon in the Enūma eliš narrative, taken forward in the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names (Michalowski, 1990, pp.383–384; Lambert, 2013, p.243ff.). Similarly, Babylon’s leading theological and cosmological position is asserted and substantiated by speculative interpretation on its identities in the opening lines of the explanatory work Tintir = Babylon. Babylon’s name Šuanna (šu-an-naki) is rendered as si-an-naki for interpretation as nūr šamê, “light of heaven”; here si equates to nūru “light” (CAD N/II 348) and an-na is šamê “of heaven” (Tintir I 5; George, Topog.Texts, p.243). This speculative technique continued to be used for these ends into the late period, as a tablet from Uruk dated to the Seleucid period demonstrates. This text, edited by Beaulieu (1995a) and already mentioned above, contains an exposition of the names and epithets of the goddess Antu. By speculative interpretation, the scholar who compiled this text generated epithets from the names of the goddess to assert the wide powers and authority of the goddess. The composition evidently reflects the newly elevated status of the goddess and her spouse Anu as patron deities of Uruk and serves to validate her new-found status. 3.1.3.3 Sumerian and Akkadian Sumerian and Akkadian were both used for speculation in this scholarly bilingual environment. Sumerian names are the principal subject of speculative interpretation, as the vast majority of examples given in this book illustrate, but Akkadian names too might be interpreted by the same methods, as Lambert (1982, p.211) observed in his edition of the Hymn to the Queen of Nippur. The Akkadian names Girru (or Girra) and Bēl-mātāti underpin the expositions in Enūma eliš VII 115–118, 136–139 (see Commentary II; Bottéro, 1977, p.18 §14). Whether Nēberu (dné-bé-ru) (the name explored in Enūma eliš VII 124–134) was understood as an Akkadian name is unclear; and similarly ambiguous is Nanāya (dna-na-a), described in an explanatory God List as ša manzāssu šaqû, “whose position is lofty” (CT 25 49 r.7: na manzāzu “position” Syllabary B I 276 MSL III p.120). Certainly Akkadian is the name of Anu’s consort, the goddess Antu (an-tum). As Borger (MZL p.249) observed, antum may also be read ìl-tum, “goddess”, a possibility which is exploited in a late text

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

59

from Uruk which contains speculation on Antu’s names (see Beaulieu, 1995a, pp.197, 204 ll.3, 9). The view that “The ancients only played with Sumerian” was trenchantly expressed by Lambert (2013, p.166) in argument on supposed etymologies of the name Marduk. This remark is likely to predate his observation in 1982 as to the interpretation of Akkadian names (see above), but is mentioned here because it was so clearly stated. The view is not borne out by the text corpus, nor by the commentary tradition. Frahm (2011, p.71) noted that in commentaries “the simplest type of etymological analysis is based on Akkadian words only”. By way of illustration, a magico-medical commentary (edited by Civil, 1974, p.332 40–43 and elucidated by Frahm, 2011, p.71 and Gabbay, 2016a, p.77) which explained the rare word ḫurdatu, “female pudenda”, as ḫurri dādi, “hole of love”, exemplifies speculative interpretation of an Akkadian word, albeit not a name. As well as Akkadian names and words being the subject of speculative interpretation, Akkadian was also used as a speculative tool. Homophonous Akkadian words might be used to interpret evidently similar-sounding Sumerian or Akkadian words. This is discussed and illustrated in section 3.2.14. 3.1.3.4 Derivation How ancient scholars derived their speculative interpretation of a sacred name may be obvious. The description of Tintir (tin-tirki), a name or writing for Babylon, as šubat balāṭu, “seat of life” (Tintir I 3), plainly depends on understanding tin as balāṭu, “to live”, “life”, and tir as šubtu, “seat”, a meaning given in several lexical sources, as noted by George, Topog.Texts, p.240. Sometimes, however, there may be more than one explanation of any speculative interpretation, as will be illustrated in section 3.2.27. Such evidently erudite scholars, in full command of their many interpretative methods and of the numerous possibilities offered by the cuneiform script with its inherent ambiguities, would certainly have been alive to this. Examples like those in section 3.2.27 do seem to suggest that here there is not one single analysis, but that several possibilities could be, and were, intended by the ancients. Conversely, it is sometimes unclear how the Akkadian explanation of a sacred name was derived (as commented by, amongst others, Lambert, 1982, p.212; Livingstone, 1986, p.48; George, Topog.Texts, p.447). It may be strongly suspected that the Akkadian text has some origin in the name, because of the context, or unusual expressions or vocabulary, for example, but the ancient train of thought eludes the modern scholar, perhaps because lexical or other evidence is lacking. Lenzi (2015, p.742) rightly observed that, where a connection is unclear, an equivalence unknown to modern scholars is “a very real possibility”; his alternative suggestion that, in some cases where a correspondence is otherwise unknown, the

60

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

scribe “simply made it up” seems very doubtful. In this scholarly milieu, it seems highly improbable that a scholar would simply invent equivalences that had no basis in scribal learning. A number of the equations made by the scholar who composed the commentary on the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII, for example, are known only from that commentary. These must surely be taken seriously. There are other reasons too why it may be difficult, or impossible, to determine how an Akkadian explanation was derived. Speculative interpretation is a complex and sophisticated technique. It often involved considerable ingenuity as well as great erudition and what the scholar had in mind simply may not be followed. Then there are the many possibilities offered by the cuneiform script: the link between a sacred name and its interpretation might involve a chain of homophones and alternative readings, some obscure to modern scholars, but no doubt at the fingertips of a learned ancient scholar. It is also apparent that sometimes scholars might engage in fairly free composition derived from some thought prompted by the name which is not susceptible to a strict lexical equation, as the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš evidences. Moreover, it is not surprising if the ancients’ train of thought cannot always be followed. Ancient scholars no doubt made associations that were real and valid but which are inaccessible today. 3.1.3.5 Repeated interpretations George, Topog.Texts, p.75 noted how the same temple names in three lists (BTT 2, 3 and 4) had few explanations in common (save where they are straightforward translations of the Sumerian name), illustrating the potential of speculative interpretation. The text corpus examined here does contain some repeated interpretations: the same or closely similar interpretations recur in different texts. Some are straightforward, perhaps traditional, translations. So, for example, é-sag-íl is explained as bītu ša rēšāšu šaqâ, “House whose top is elevated”, in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 2, and in two temple lists, BTT 2 1 and BTT 20 §4 181. However, others are speculative and interpret different sacred names. The description of Neanna (dnè-an-na) as ša šaqâ emūqāša, “She whose might is sublime” (Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 61), speculatively interprets the divine name dnè-an-na (nè equates to emūqu “might”, an to šaqû “sublime” CAD E 157, Š/II 16). Essentially the same description renders šu-an-na elsewhere. Marduk by his name Lugalšuanna (dlugal-šu-an-na) is described as the king (lugal) “whose might is outstanding amongst the gods”, ša ina ilānī šaqâ emūqāšu (Enūma eliš VII 101, here šu equates to emūqu “might”, an to šaqû as above; and see George, Topog.Texts, pp.242–243 for other instances where šu-an-na is similarly interpreted). The same phrase ša šaqâ emūqāšu is used to describe Pagalguenna (dpa4-gal-gú-en-na) (Enūma eliš VII 93). Here the phrase appears to be prompted by the elements pa4-gal from the name, for

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

61

the phrase pa4-gal may be understood as aḫu rabû (see Lambert, 2013, p.489); aḫu rabû is a kinship term to denote the eldest brother, but both Sumerian and the Akkadian words may be translated as “great brother”. In such repeated interpretations, a shared scholarly repertoire of interpretive phrases, perhaps even deliberate borrowing, is evident. 3.1.3.6 Context and integration In explanatory lists, speculative interpretation gives an explanation of its subject. Elsewhere an explanation may be tailored to its context and integrated into the composition. Livingstone (1986, p.202) noted how, in a ritual text where the name of the god Kusu (dkù-sù) is interpreted as kù-zu (kù ellu “pure”; zu idû “to know”), an etymologising description of the god is produced which is relevant to the proceedings of the ritual: ša mê(a)meš ellūti(kù)meš idû(zu)ú, “the one who knows pure water” (Kettledrum Ritual O175 12). Another ritual composition contains the names of shrines and their deities, with Akkadian explanations of each, which are used to generate the substance of a prayer for the king (Royal ritual composition 24–29; George, Topog.Texts, p.276). In literary compositions too speculative interpretation is used to produce text which is fully integrated into the composition. In the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi, the speculative technique is deployed to effect the penitent’s redemption as he passes through twelve gates within the é-sag-íl complex. The passage forms a key episode in the return of the protagonist from ills to favour in this great composition and is largely derived from speculative interpretation of the gate-names themselves (ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 42–53, Lambert IV 79–90; see Lenzi, 2015): as Reiner (1985, p.112) put it, “The poet ... finds for each name an application to the progressive restoration of the hero’s state of grace and to his acts of thanksgiving.”. The integration of speculative explanation into a composition is most fully developed and accomplished in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI–VII. The nature and character of the god are expressed through translation, free rendering and speculative interpretation of the names, and embroidered on by the composer’s comments on the god. The pronouncement of Marduk’s fifty names in this extensive and scholarly passage forms a dramatic and theological climax in the Enūma eliš narrative. 3.1.3.7 Layers of meaning For the ancients, sacred names might have many meanings, as evidenced in many of the works examined for this book. Through speculative interpretation the many meanings which a name might convey, latent in the name, were explored and revealed. Lists which explain the same names variously illustrate the rich seam of meaning in a name perceived by the ancient scholars, whose layers could be

62

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

uncovered. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, is a work devoted to the explanation of é-sag-íl, the name of Marduk’s temple in Babylon. It contains two explanations of the patent meaning of é-sag-íl (ll.1–2), followed by fourteen different explanations of its latent meaning, made plain by different orthographies of the name (ll.3–30). Likewise, an explanatory list of Nippur’s temples contains multiple interpretations of the names é-ki-ùr, é-šu-me-ša4, é-me-lám-an-na and é-bára-dúr-gar-ra (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 2′–21′). So too the divine names Lugalšuanna and Tutu are variously explained in a God List (Marduk Names List 9–18 Lugalšuanna, 20–27 Tutu). The text corpus contains many other examples. The revelation of different meanings by speculative interpretation is most fully realised in the multiple characterisations, descriptions and comments derived from Marduk’s divine names in Enūma eliš VI–VII. Layers of meaning in a sacred name might be uncovered by the repeated interpretation of part of the name. This is explained and illustrated in section 3.2.21. Sometimes the same meaning might be understood from different parts of a name (section 3.2.20). So, for example, the exposition of the name é-sag-íl exposes the name as [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl and explains it as bītu nāšû agê šarrūti, “The House which bears the kingly crown”. The scholar explains that both sa12 and aga, drawn from understanding the writing of the name as [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl, correspond to agû, “crown” (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14). Thus, it seems, the meaning distilled from the name is reinforced and corroborated: that é-sag-íl bears the royal crown (nāšû agê šarrūti) is, it seems, proved by the revelation of two elements corresponding to agû “crown” in its name. The same meaning may be derived by more than one speculative means, and there can be little doubt that ancient scholars recognised this. The description of Anu (da-nu) as abi šamê, “Father of heaven” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §11 5′), provides a good illustration. The epithet abi šamê fittingly reflects Anu’s position as both sky god and father of the gods. As will be explained in section 3.2.27, the Akkadian epithet can be speculatively derived from the name da-nu in several ways. This multiplicity of possibilities too, it seems, might serve to confirm and reinforce the validity and truth of the meaning derived from the sacred name by speculative interpretation. 3.1.3.8 Creating meaning By speculative interpretation, ancient scholars revealed hidden meaning. The question arises whether these scholars saw themselves as simply revealing what was latent in a name, by their erudition, insight and ingenuity, or whether by speculative interpretation they sought to create new meaning. The expositions of sacred names seen in the text corpus do tend to suggest that, for the most part, those using this kind of Babylonian scholarship were engaged in finding meaning perceived to be truly inherent in the sacred name and revelatory of the character and qualities of its bearer,

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

63

deploying their mastery of bilingual scholarship and the potential of the cuneiform script with great erudition. However, two things suggest that, sometimes at least, meaning was consciously created: first, unorthodox writings, and secondly, the purpose served by the scholarly speculation. Unorthodox writings of sacred names point to the deliberate creation of meaning. In an explanatory list of Nippur’s temples the unusual writing of é-kiš-nu-gál as ékéš-dnun-gal facilitated the explanation of the temple name as bīt markas Igīgī, “House of the Bond of the Igigi (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 12′). The element kéš (perhaps read as kešda) equates to rakāšu, “to bind”, from which markasu “bond” may be derived (other explanations are possible); dnun-gal is identified with the Igigi gods (see George, Topog.Texts, p.387 p.446). Unorthodox writings which have additional elements inserted in the sacred name even more clearly point to an intent to create meaning. The unusual writing é-è-umuš-a for é-umuš-a, (“House of Command”), Marduk’s cella in é-sag-íl, with its additional element è, enabled the scholar-composer of the Gula hymn to utilise è in speculative interpretation of the temple name and describe the goddess there as mušāpât ṭēmi, “the one who makes manifest the (divine) will” (Gula hymn 85′); è supplies šūpû “to bring forth” (usually pa-è, but abbreviated in this scholarly speculation) realised as mušāpât and umuš is ṭēmu “instruction”. These examples and others discussed in sections 3.2.19, 3.2.19.7 and 3.2.19.8 do seem to demonstrate that meaning was not always truly found in a name, but created by erudite and inventive scholars. Where speculative interpretation serves overtly ideological or political ends (see section 3.1.3.3), the conscious creation of meaning may also be suspected. The explanatory work Tintir = Babylon commences with an exposition of Babylon’s names which serve to declare Babylon’s exalted status. The interpretation of Babylon’s name Šuanna results in explanations in which both unorthodox writings and ideological or political ends are in play. Using unusual spellings for Šuanna (šuan-naki) as si-an-naki, sa-an-naki and sa4-an-naki (Tintir I 4–7), the scholar finds meanings which assert Babylon’s special relationship with the heavens. The conclusion that meaning was consciously created is only to be expected in an intellectual milieu that is self-conscious and assured, as terms for their scribal art such as niṣirti ummâni, “secret lore of the scholar”, make clear. Speculative interpretation was a very rigorous intellectual activity, grounded in the bilingual tradition and directed by lexical lists and learned equations, yet very flexible and productive by virtue of the immense versatility of the cuneiform writing system and the many different interpretative methods that could be used. These methods are now described and illustrated.

64

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

3.2 The speculative methods This section presents the methods used by the ancient scholars in their speculative interpretation of sacred names, as evidenced in the text corpus described in section 2.6. It does not draw on the Gula hymn itself to illustrate speculative methods; the speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn is separately presented in chapter 6. The Gula hymn is especially rich in its scholarly speculation and deploys very many of the methods described here, including a number of the less common methods. As will be seen, two features in particular mark out the Gula hymn as an exceptional work in the field of speculative scholarship. The first is the scholar-composer’s inventive use of graphic interpretation (the method more generally described in section 3.2.25 below). Secondly, and most unusually, very often the names which the scholar-composer speculatively interprets are not the names explicitly expressed in the composition, as is the standard practice elsewhere, but others, encoded in the Gula hymn by speculative means. This is a feature little remarked on elsewhere. The analysis of speculative methods in this section is observational and descriptive. It aims to describe how speculative interpretation was achieved, from analysis of the texts. It should not be taken to suggest that ancient scholars themselves would have analysed what they were doing in the same way; it may be supposed that they would have had an altogether more flexible and fluid view of how they derived unobvious meaning from a sacred name. What ancient scholars certainly had to hand, and doubtless also committed to memory, was a rich variety of lexical and bilingual sources, to which they might have recourse for the purpose of their scholarly compositions, as well as the spoken language itself with its sounds and speech patterns to inform their work. The analysis presented is indebted to the editors of the works in the text corpus where they have identified etymological correspondences underpinning the ancients’ interpretations. Where these are used here, this is, of course, acknowledged, and reference should be made generally to the editions for these etymological correspondences and the lexical evidence for them. Otherwise, in common with the analysis by others, the analysis in this book has been based on correspondences evidenced in lexical lists, bilingual texts and other explanatory works, made accessible by CAD. Lexical and other sources are given in the analysis here and in chapter 6 to evidence equivalences. The identification of an equation by reference to a particular lexical text or other source simply substantiates a correspondence in ancient scholarship; it is not intended to suggest (nor should any suggestion be inferred) that it is indeed this source which has informed the ancient scholar (although, of course, that may well be so in the case of widely attested lists). The analysis presented strives to err on the side of caution. Restored text, save where evidently secure, has been avoided; and conclusions which are suggested or speculative are indicated as such.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

65

In what follows, the speculative methods which parallel the techniques discussed in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (which apply to the sacred name as a whole) are presented first: 3.2.1 Translation of individual elements, 3.2.2 Speculative translation and 3.2.3 Free rendering and free association. These are followed by the explanation and illustration of some basic methods used in speculative interpretation: 3.2.4 Free handling of order, 3.2.5 Not all elements used, 3.2.6 Determinative given equivalence, 3.2.7 Element interpreted as determinative, 3.2.8 Form freedom, 3.2.9 Plural freely inferred and 3.2.10 Emesal. More complex methods are then described and illustrated. The interpretive potential of the cuneiform writing system is a key feature in speculation. The use of homophones and of the many other readings a cuneiform sign might have are amongst the most productive methods of speculative interpretation. These are examined in 3.2.11 Homophony and 3.2.12 Polyvalence. These were often used in combination and homophonous sounds in Akkadian and near-homophony also played a part in scholarly methods, illustrated in 3.2.13 Homophony and polyvalence together, 3.2.14 Akkadian homophony and 3.2.15 Near-homophony. Vowels might be changed and consonants exchanged within consonantal groups. These practices are illustrated from the text corpus in 3.2.16 Vowels and 3.2.17 Consonantal groups. The interpretation of part of a component of a sacred name is discussed in 3.2.18 Part only of element used. In 3.2.19 Contrived orthography speculative methods are examined which, explicitly or implicitly, suppose a spelling of the sacred name which is different from its conventional orthography, as well as some particularly unorthodox writings. Some speculative methods involved some form of repetition: 3.2.20 Different elements, single equivalence, 3.2.21 Repeated use of elements and 3.2.22 Reduplicated elements. Other interesting, but less common, features are illustrated in 3.2.23 Abbreviation, 3.2.24 Phonological reversal and 3.2.25 Graphic interpretation. The use of older forms and writings is discussed in 3.2.26 Older forms. This section 3.2 concludes with some illustrations of the many possibilities which may be inherent in speculation, 3.2.27 Multiple possibilities. 3.2.1 Translation of individual elements The most straightforward of the methods deployed in speculative interpretation of sacred names was to translate individual elements of a name, that is to say, words and syllables taken from the name as given in the ancient text, with an Akkadian word, often evidenced in lexical or bilingual sources. This is characterised in this present analysis as “translation of individual elements”. An element may be given the meaning which it bears in the Sumerian name itself. So, in the explanatory God List CT 25 49 (reverse), the element nin, “lady”, from a divine name is rendered by bēltu, “lady”, in a line where the element zíl is understood

66

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

as kunnû, “to treat kindly”, resulting in the description bēlet taknê, “lady of loving care”: d

nin-zíl-zíl dna-na-a mārat ..... ša manzāssu šaqû bēlet taknê [ .. ] (CT 25 49 r.7) Ninzilzil(le) (is) Nanāy daughter of ..... whose position is lofty, lady of loving care ...

and by bēlu, “lord”: d

nin-ìmma bēl nabnīt bunnanê bēl mimma [šumšu] (CT 25 49 r.2) Nin-imma, lord of the creation of forms, lord of every[thing]

Again, nin is translated by bēlu, “lord”, rather than the expected bēltu, “lady”, and líl by zāqīqu, “breeze”, in the description of the goddess Ninlil (dnin-líl) as bēl zāqīqi, “lord of the breeze” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §11 4′). The epithet is perhaps a true interpretation of the name Ninlil. Likewise, lugal, “king”, is routinely translated by šarru, “king”, or bēlu, “lord”, as illustrated in the literary and religious context of Enūma eliš VII, and expressly set out in Commentary II: d

lugal-dur-maḫ šarru markas ilānī bēl durmāḫi (Enūma eliš VII 95) Lugaldurmaḫ, king of the mooring-rope of the gods, lord of the Mighty Bond Commentary II (extract): lugal šarru king; lugal bēlum lord

dur is here equated with markasu, “mooring-rope”. Lambert (2013, p.489) noted that “Line 95b [the second epithet] translates the name literally, 95a [the first epithet] more freely.” The equation of lugal and šarru occurs in an earlier line which exemplifies how an element of a divine name (lugal) may be translated simply, while the rest is subject to more complex speculative interpretation (this is explained later in section 3.2.19.1 Implicitly contrived orthography): d

lugal-áb-dúbur šarru sāpiḫ epšet Tiāmat nāsiḫu kakkī[ša] (Enūma eliš VII 91) Lugalabdubur, the king who frustrated Tiāmat’s schemes, tore away [her] weapons

Likewise, in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi one element of a name is taken for direct translation (dlamma as lamassu “protective deity”): ina ká-dlamma-ra-bi lamassī iṭṭeḫâ[nni] (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 80; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 43, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-dlamma-ra-bi (the Gate of the Protective Deity ...) my protective deity drew near [me] Retaining their straightforward meaning, elements may be extracted from the name and used in some wider observation. A clear example occurs in the description of Marduk as Narilugaldimmerankia (dna-ri-lugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-a) “Counsellor

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

67

King of the gods of heaven and underworld”, where an (šamû, “heaven”) and ki (erṣetu, “underworld”) obviously underpin the composer’s interpretation: ša ina šamê u erṣetim ittaddû šubatni ina pušqī (Enūma eliš VI 144; ed. Lambert, 2013) Who founded our dwellings in heaven and the underworld in adversity Just four lines earlier in the same composition, elements of the similar name Lugaldimmerankia (dlugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-a) (“King of the gods of heaven and underworld”) are subject to different translation, to characterise the god as: zikrī pîšu nušašqû eli ilānī abbēšu (Enūma eliš VI 140) Whose utterances we exalted over those of the gods his fathers an is here evidently equated with šaqû, “to be high, elevated”, and perhaps also eli, “over”, (an-ta is logographic writing for eliš “above”); dìm-me-er (Emesal Sumerian for dingir ilu, “god”) generates ilānī, “of the gods”, reflecting its straightforward sense in the name. The final element a seems to have been understood as abu, “father”, a common equation but with no relevance to its meaning in the Sumerian name, where the a is a genitive marker. The same abstraction and equation are demonstrated in the explanatory list the Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §11 2′ and 5′, where Ea (dé-a) and Anu (da-nu) are termed abu ilī, “father of the gods”, and abi šamê, “father of heaven”, respectively. These examples illustrate that the phoneme a may be translated as abu, “father”, irrespective of its real meaning or function. The same principle applies to other elements of a given name: any element may be understood with an equation or correspondence known to the scholar, without regard to its meaning or function in the name. Two more of Marduk’s names from Enūma eliš VII illustrate the scholars’ method. First, Enbilulu: d

en-bi-lu-lu bēlum mudeššûšunu šūma (Enūma eliš VII 57) Enbilulu, lord who makes copious provision for them, is he

The elements of the divine name are taken individually as en bēlum, “lord”, lu-lu duššû, “to provide abundantly”, and bi šunu, “of them”, (Lambert, 2013, pp.485– 486). bi is interpreted as the possessive element from Sumerian grammar, and translated accordingly. Marduk’s name Aranunna (da-rá-nun-na), probably meaning “Counsellor of the noble” (Lambert, 2013, p.489), is characterised by translation of elements of his name: ša ana alakti rubûtīšu lā umaššalu ilu ayyumma (Enūma eliš VII 98) Whose noble behaviour no god can equal Commentary II explains that a-rá is alaktu, “way, behaviour”, and nun rubû, “noble”.

68

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Most of the above examples involve well-known equations between Sumerian and Akkadian words. The ancient scholars evidently had a wide range of lexical and bilingual learning to hand, in their libraries and learnt by heart. Translation of elements of a name in the pursuit of speculative interpretation frequently involved much more unusual or obscure equations than those given above, as illustrated by just two examples from explanatory temple lists: [é-gi]š-nu11-gal bīt nūr šamê rab[ûti] (BTT 3 r.5′) House of the light of the great heavens The Akkadian interpretation rests on the correspondence of giš-nu11 with nūru, “light”, and, separately, giš with šamû, “heavens”, as well as the more familiar correspondence of gal with rabû, “great”, (see further George, Topog.Texts, p.384). In another list, the name of Nergal’s temple at Kutha, é-mes-lam, is explained as: bīt Marūduk ša erṣetim (HMH TL6 20) House of Marduk of the Underworld erṣetu, “underworld”, which most commonly renders ki, here translates lam; and mes is understood as dmes, as a name of Marduk. Taking an element from a name without regard to its original context opened up the repertoire of the different meanings the element might have, whether commonplace or obscure, for scholarly interpretation of the meaning of the name. An expository text demonstrates translations of sag in the names of divine weapons by rēštû, “first”, rabû, “great” and pānū, “face”, in consecutive sections: d.giš

tukul-sag-50 kakku rēštû ša Enlil (Weapon Name Exposition 13) Prime weapon of Enlil d me-sag-50 tāḫāzu(mè) rabû ša Enlil (Weapon Name Exposition 17) Great battle of Enlil d.giš tukul-sag-pirig kakku ša pānūšu namrū (Weapon Name Exposition 21) Weapon whose face is radiant Very different interpretations of the same sacred name show the scholars exploiting the different meanings of an element, and thus demonstrating how translation of elements of a name in this way permitted the exploration of the different meanings that a name might convey. An explanatory list of temples characterises E-šumeša (é-šu-me-ša4), Ninurta’s temple in Nippur, in six different ways. Consecutive lines give the different translations ṭēmu, “decision”, and biltu, “tribute”, for the element šu: ⸢é⸣-šu-me-ša4 bītu rikis ṭēmi ilī (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 12′) House, the bond of the decision of the gods

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

69

⸢é⸣-šu-me-ša4 bītu ša ilī ana bilti irku[su] (l.13′) House, which bound the gods to tribute šu is understood as emūqu, “might”, and an as šaqû, “to be high, elevated”, in Marduk’s name Lugalšuanna in Enūma eliš VII: d

lugal-šu!-an-na šarru ša ina ilānī šaqâ emūqāšu (Enūma eliš VII 101) Lugalšuanna, the king whose might is outstanding among the gods

The interpretation of šu-an-na by šaqâ emūqāšu appears to be stock phraseology (cf. Marduk Names List 16; see further George, Topog.Texts, pp.242–243, Lambert, 2013, p.490). The name Lugalšuanna is further interpreted in the next line of the couplet, where lugal, “king”, is rendered by bēlum, “lord”, šu is again translated as emūqu, but an is instead taken as the divine name An, equating to Anum, to produce the phrase bēlum emūq Anim, “the lord, might of Anu” (Enūma eliš VII 102). The scope for different interpretation is demonstrated by a variant manuscript which reads emūqān ṣīrāt, “(his) might is supreme”, in place of emūq Anim. As Lambert (2013, p.490) noted, this manuscript (manuscript K) “takes AN as the adjective ṣīru”. The method of straightforward translation of individual elements of a sacred name by some equated Akkadian word is also applied to names written with some unusual writing or spelling. The equation of such a contrived element with an Akkadian word is, typically, direct translation in such cases, where characteristically the name “is written ... in a way that is clearly intended to show how the Sumerian has been broken down phonetically for analysis”, so George, Topog.Texts, p.163, commenting on BTT 19 1′–10′. In that text, an explanatory list of Nippur’s temples, the contrived writing of é-ki-ùr (“House, the levelled place”), Ninlil’s shrine in ékur, as é-ki-ú-ru is interpreted thus: ⸢é⸣-ki-ú-ru ašar šārikat balā[ṭi] (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 7′) Place of she who bestows life ki (ašru, “place”) is straightforwardly translated and has the meaning it has in é-kiùr; the contrived element ru gives šarāku, “to bestow”. From the multiple extraordinary writings of the name of Marduk’s temple é-sag-íl in one explanatory list, elucidated by interlinear commentary, just one example suffices, where the contrived element aga (agû, “crown”) has its usual meaning in the interpretation derived from the unorthodox writing: [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl bītu nāšû agê šarrūti [s]a12 šarru sa12 agû aga agû íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14) House which bears the kingly crown [s]a12 king sa12 crown aga crown íl to bear

70

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Likewise, the multiple contrived writings of the divine name Tutu (dtu-tu) in an explanatory list exemplify straightforward equation of the artificial spellings with Akkadian words: d

du11-du11 mutakkil ilānī The one who has the gods’ trust d dù-ṭu bāni kala ilānī Creator of all the gods d du-du mutarrû ilānī (Marduk Names List 22, 24–25) Leader of the gods Here, respectively, du11 is takālu, “to trust”, and realised in the D stem tukkulu, “to inspire trust”, dù is banû, “to create” and du is (w)arû “to lead”. Translation of elements of a name with an Akkadian word directly equating to the given element is probably the most common method of speculative interpretation. Very many examples occur in the corpus considered, of which just a few are presented above. 3.2.2 Speculative translation The methods by which parts of a name are taken for speculative interpretation and understood as different elements from those in the usual writing of the sacred name are explored in section 3.2.11 and subsequent sections below. Like the written elements of a name (as illustrated in section 3.2.1), elements derived using speculative methods may be directly translated by equated Akkadian words. Another example from the exploration of the meaning of the name é-sag-íl through contrived writings of the name illustrates: [é-s]a6-an-gil bīt ašarēdu ša melikšu damqu [sa12] ašarēdu sa milku sa6 damāqu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 17–18) House of the leader whose counsel is good [sa12] leader sa counsel sa6 to be good In the second line (BTT 5 18), the scholar demonstrates that the Akkadian description comes from understanding that part of the name written sa6 straightforwardly as damāqu, “to be good” (realised as damqu “good”), and also as the homophonous signs sa and sa12, here understood as sag, another reading of sa12. sa is equated with milku, “counsel”, and sa12(sag) with ašarēdu, “leader”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.389). Thus part of the name is first speculatively interpreted using homophones and other readings (this is described further in sections 3.2.11, 3.2.12) and then translated, revealing hidden meaning. To distinguish this from simple translation of an element as it appears in the usual writing of a sacred name, translation in these circumstances is characterised as “speculative translation” in the analysis presented.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

71

Speculative translation occurs throughout the many examples in section 3.2.11 and subsequent sections. 3.2.3 Free rendering and free association Just as the straightforward translation of a sacred name may be freely interpreted, its speculative interpretation is not confined to straightforward translation or simple correspondence, but may involve free interpretation. An explanation deriving from a part of a name may be freely rendered by synonyms or words associated with the meaning distilled from its elements (termed “les associations sémantiques” by Bottéro, 1977, p.22 §25), or by paraphrase. This is so both as to elements in the name as written and where there is some more complex speculative interpretation. Sometimes a freer association of ideas is evident which goes beyond free rendering. It is not always possible to make a clear distinction between these two approaches; consequently they are treated together here. Most simply, an element of a name may be rendered by a synonym (often, but not always, evidenced as a synonym in lexical or bilingual texts), rather than its usual translation. A temple list which variously explains é-kur, Enlil’s temple in Nippur, usually writes the first element as é in its Akkadian interpretation, doubtless denoting bītu, “house”, or bīt, “house of”, as required (see BTT 18 §5). More unusually, é is rendered in the Akkadian interpretation by words with similar meaning: é-kur maštaki ellu (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 17′) Pure chamber é-kur atman kišitti (23′) Cella of conquest The words which interpret é here, maštaku and atmanu, are equated with bītu in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 258, 256 (ed. Hrůša, 2010); neither is usually written é. Words with similar meaning are used in the evident explanation of one of the names assigned to Ištar of Nippur in a religious composition: [da]-nu-nu bānât ba’ūlāt[i] (Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 69) Anunu, Creatress of mankind Lambert (1982, p.214) noted etymological equations from the elements a and nu: a equates to reḫû, “to engender”, and nu to awēlu, “man”. These are, respectively, freely rendered by banû, “to create” (note too, a-nu-nu (var. sag-kud) ba-ni-a-tum “creatresses” Silbenvokabular A 60 CAD B 94 bānû A), and ba’ūlātu, “people”. The reduplication nu-nu in the divine name readily suggests the plural expressed by ba’ūlātu (reduplicated elements are examined further in section 3.2.22). Free interpretation using a rarer word than the usual translation of the Sumerian element is illustrated in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi:

72

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

ina ká-nam-tag-ga-du8-a i’iltī ippaṭir (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 85; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 48, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-nam-tag-ga-du8-a (the Gate which Releases Punishment), my obligation was released nam-tag is usually understood as arnu, “sin, punishment or penalty”, a near-synonym of the rarer word e’iltu/i’iltu, “obligation, sin” (Lenzi, 2015, p.738). The shared semantic range of arnu and e’iltu/i’iltu is evident in the regular use of both with the verb paṭāru, “to release”. The exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš contains literal translation, freer paraphrase, and comment not necessarily related to the name, as Lambert (1982, p.211) remarked. How comment based on a name may freely interpret an element of it is illustrated in the following line: ša ina rēši u arkati duruššu kunnu (Enūma eliš VII 92) Whose foundation is firm at top and rear Marduk’s name Lugalabdubur (dlugal-áb-dúbur) is interpreted in this line. The composer’s comment derives from the meaning of dúbur, “foundation”; dúbur is usually understood as išdu (Lambert, 2013, p.489), but here as duruššu, a synonym evidenced lexically (see CAD D 198). Similar ideas, rather than synonyms, may be deployed. So, Asalluḫi’s subname Namtila (dnam-ti-la), which usually equates to balāṭu, “life”, is freely rendered by kašāru, “to restore”, as signalled by kīma binûtīšūma, an unusual phrase but evidently similar to kīma šumīšūma, “according to his name”, the phrase which is commonly used to indicate that an etymological linkage was understood (see section 2.4): ša kīma binûtīšūma ikširu kalû ilānī abtūti (Enūma eliš VI 152) Who, in accordance with its form, restored all the ruined gods The naming of Marduk as Nēberu (dné-bé-ru) supplies examples of free interpretation in more complex speculation. likmi tiāmat, “He shall bind Tiāmat” (Enūma eliš VII 132), is an interpretation based on the name explained in Commentary II by ir kamû, “to bind”, and érim tâmtim, “of the sea”, elements derived from dné-bé-ru, although not elements of the name as usually written but contrived from the phonetics of the name. ir is usually šalālu, “to take captive”, rather than kamû, “to bind”, but the verbs clearly express related ideas (Bottéro, 1977, p.22 §25). Even freer interpretation is evident in the equation érim tâmtim. érim is properly “enemy” and corresponds to ayyābu, the usual Akkadian word for an enemy. Bottéro (1977, p.23 §25) explained that the enemy in the Enūma eliš narrative is Tiāmat, accounting for the scholarly interpretation. Perhaps however the composer associated ayyābu, “enemy”, with ayabba, “sea”, (A.R. George, March 2017, private communication). ayabba occurs together with tâmtu in Standard

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

73

Babylonian works (see CAD A/I 221 ajabba). The composer perhaps also had in mind the Sumerian word a-ab-ba, “sea”. Hence, by her very name, Tiāmat was “the enemy”. In preceding lines relating to Nēberu, the contrived element érim with its equation tâmtim is freely interpreted differently: not as the personified deity as in l.132, but as the sea itself. Here, on the authority of Commentary II, interpretive freedom using similar ideas and based on an artificially derived phoneme may be illustrated: mā ša qerbiš tiāmat ītebbiru lā nâḫiš šumšu lū Nēberu āḫizu qerbīšu (Enūma eliš VII 128–129) Indeed, he who, back and forth, crossed the midst of the sea without resting Let his name be Nēberu (“Crossing”), who holds its middle Commentary II (extract): 128 irḪAR qerbu middle érim tâmtim of the sea The commentarist indicates that the element ir is again drawn from Nēberu, identifying irḪAR with qerbu, “middle, interior, inside(s)”. The reading ḪAR (read as mur) is usually understood as ḫašû, “lung”, but here interpreted broadly as qerbu, “the insides”, and hence qerbiš, “midst”, and qerbīšu, “its middle”, (see Bottéro, 1977, p.22 §25, as an example of “les associations semantiques”). Some differing interpretations of the Sumerian word nun illustrate how freely an element could be rendered. nun is usually equated with rubû, “prince, ruler”; it is commonly used to write rubû (CAD R 395ff). An explanatory God List explains a divine name by interpreting nun as šarrū (here in the form šarrānū), “kings”, evidently referring to mortal kings, for which there is lexical evidence, and, perhaps, gods: d

sa-dàr-nun-na mālikat šarrānī u [ilānī ?] (CT 25 49 r.5; restoration, CAD M/I 164) Sadarnunna, counsellor of kings and [gods?]

In the divine context, nun (“the Prince”) is a title often applied to the god Ea, and hence is understood as Ea (CAD R 399; Tallqvist, 1938, pp.170–171). Aranunna (dará-nun-na) is termed mālik Ea, “Counsellor of Ea” (Enūma eliš VII 97), a description which, as Commentary II confirms, understands nun as Ea, and a-rá as milku, “advice”, (a synonym of its more usual reading ṭēmu, “instruction”). A God List interprets the same name (da-rá-nun-na) as mālik Enlil u Ea, “Counsellor of Enlil and Ea” (Marduk Names List 20). nun-na was perhaps understood as a plural (see Lambert, 2013, p.489). The epithet seems to reflect the tradition of Enlil and Ea as brothers, sons of Anu. nun-na is even more broadly rendered in speculative interpretation of the divine name Asaralimnunna (dasar-alim-nun-na) in Enūma eliš VII, characterised as:

74

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

muštēšir têret Anim Enlil Ea u N[inš]īku (Enūma eliš VII 6) Who administers the commands of Anu Enlil and Ea, that is, Ninšīku nun-na here is expressed by the supreme Mesopotamian divine trinity, Anu, Enlil and Ea, an interpretation which perhaps also reflects the equation alim kabtu, “important”, inherent in the rendering. (kabtu is also written idim(bad), writing which also represents Ea and Enlil). In the final illustration, nun is again understood as Ea, in a line which shows even greater interpretative freedom. Deploying contrived writings of é-kiš-nu-gál for speculative interpretation, the compiler of a list of Nippur’s temples derives the explanation of the temple name: é-ká-èš-nun-gal bītu ša ana Apsî petû bābšu (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 13′) E-ka-ešnun-gal House whose gate opens to Apsû Apsû is Ea’s domain; èš-nun, taken from the unorthodox writing of the temple name, means “house of the prince” (Ea), and is hence legitimately, but quite freely, rendered as Apsû (see George, Topog.Texts, p.446). Cosmological interpretation is also exemplified in the temple list which explores the meaning of Enlil’s temple in Nippur, é-kur: [é-kur] [bīt] du6-kù (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 32′) [House of] the Pure Mound du6-kù “Pure Mound” broadly paraphrases kur, “mountain”. Free rendering of the name and free association of ideas are combined in the interpretation of é-kur as bīt du6-kù. The semantic interpretation of the name simultaneously alludes to the theological importance of Enlil’s temple as, like cosmic du6-kù, the place where destinies are decreed. From the text corpus, it can be seen that speculative interpretation may be effected by a free association of ideas which goes beyond some alternative rendering. Some of the illustrations excerpted above exhibit this approach (Tiāmat as érim, the “enemy”, for example). The first two examples below are from texts which expressly make an equation which is neither synonymous nor usually understood. The Assyrian Temple List expressly explains the name of Gula’s temple E-sa-bad with an interpretation which associates death with the grave: é: bētu sa: naṣāru bad: qubūru bīt nāṣir qubūru (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 175) é: House sa: watch over bad: grave House which watches over the grave The sign bad and qubūru, “grave”, are not usually equated. As George, Topog.Texts, p.464 explained, “The equation of bad and qubūru here probably relies on the association of the sign BAD (ug5 and úš) with death.” Freer still is the explanation

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

75

from an expository text where from du4-ba-nu-íl, (translated by Livingstone, 1986, p.57 as “Relentless storm”), the element u4, “storm”, is interpreted by kakku, “weapon”: d

u4-ba-nu-íl kakkašu lā maḫru (Weapon Name Exposition 26) His weapon that cannot be withstood

The devastating effect of storm and enemy weapons readily prompts this free association of ideas (see Livingstone, 1986, p.60, who noted also the characterisation of storms as divine weapons in Enūma eliš IV 41–48). Finally, the wide scope of free association of ideas is illustrated by a late expository text which elucidates a line from the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967, p.122 100): [d]ā’iš abnī(na4)meš dza-ba4-ba4 [abn]u(na4) mulpagru(adda) kī qab[û](dug4-ga)[û] [mulpagru (a]dda) pagar asakki(á-sàg) abnu(na4) asak[ku] (Smith College text 110 (S 3) 3–5; Lambert, 1989 for explanation) “Crusher of stones Zababa” [“Stone”] the corpse-star, as it is said Corpse-[star]: the corpse of Asakku. “Stone”: Asak[ku] This explanation evidently alludes to the myth of Ninurta’s defeat of Asakku, named “Stone” after his death, while the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi refers to the defeat of “stones”, perhaps Asakku’s offspring (Lambert, 1989, p.218). Although no etymological analysis is given, the context suggests speculative interpretation of the divine name, since these lines follow an etymological explanation of the name Zababa (dza-ba4-ba4). Behind this explanatory passage, za can be understood as na4(zá) abnu, “stone”. The reference to the corpse star seems to signal a further perceived etymology between name and epithet. Understanding ba4 (for mātu, “land”) as mâtu, “to die”, seems to underpin the association, perhaps through simple homophony in Akkadian (see section 3.2.14; for alternative explanation, Livingstone, 1986, p.66). Thus, it seems, the commentarist understood the epithet dā’iš abnī, “Crusher of stones”, to be etymologically related to Zababa through perceived allusions to Asakku and the Corpse-star, an artificial etymology which illuminates the free association of Zababa with Gula’s consort Ninurta and the mythical traditions recalled by the epithet dā’iš abnī. 3.2.4 Free handling of order The speculative interpretation of the elements of a sacred name may follow the order in which they appear in the name itself. So, in an explanatory work relating to the ritual covering of a kettledrum, the divine names Šuzianna and Kusu are explained:

76

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus d

ib-gìr-ḫuš dšu-zi-an-na Antu gāmilat(šu-gar)at napišti(zi) Anim d ùr-bàd-da dkù-sù Tutu ša mê(a)meš ellūti(kù)meš idû(zu)ú (Kettledrum Ritual 11– 12, extract) Ibgirḫuš is Šuzianna, Antu who spares the life of Anu Urbadda is Kusu, Tutu who knows pure water The logographic writing in this text reveals the scholarly interpretation: šu-(gar) (gamālu, “to spare”), zi (napištu, “life”) and, obviously, an-na is Anu (realised in the genitive form Anim, just as the Sumerian an-na is a genitive form), together interpret d šu-zi-an-na; kù (ellu, “pure”) and, interpreting sù, zu (edû/idû, “to know”), render d kù-sù. The elements in the Sumerian names are rendered in Akkadian by the scholar in the order in which they appear in the names. However this is very unusual in the text corpus. The Gula hymn contains an extended passage in which the order of the elements of a temple name is respected in the scholar’s interpretation, but this is quite exceptional (see section 6.3.4.4). Much more commonly, the order of the elements of a sacred name is freely handled for speculative purposes. Greater freedom in handling the elements of a name is shown in l.10 of the explanatory work cited above in an interpretation of the name dzi-sum-ma: d

zi-sum-ma Gula Bēlet(nin)-Nippuri nādinat(sum)at napišti(zi) Anim (Kettledrum Ritual 10) Zisumma is Gula, Bēlet-Nippuri, who gives Anu life The elements zi and sum from the name are taken in the reverse order, sum (nadānu, “to give”) and zi (napištu, “life”), as the writing shows; and the sign dingir, which marks the name as a divine name, is perhaps read an, suggesting Anu. Often, of course, speculative interpretation will simply take the normal Akkadian word order and this will account for the order in which the Sumerian elements are handled. The considerable freedom with which the order of the component parts of a name might be handled is amply evidenced by Commentary II’s analysis of the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII. As pointed out by Bottéro (1977, pp.18–19 §16), in speculative interpretation of a name “ ... rien, apparemment, n’obligeait à faire figurer ... toutes ses composantes (de chaque Nom)” (see section 3.2.5) “et encore moins de les aligner dans l’ordre même dans lequel elles pouvaient former le Nom.” The commentarist’s analysis of the speculative treatment of Bēlmātāti in Enūma eliš VII 136–139 strikingly illustrates there was no need to match the order of the assumed parts of the name. Elements are derived by the commentarist from the Akkadian name Bēl–mātāti for interpretation as if they were Sumerian. These are capitalised in the following extract from Commentary II, for clarity:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

77

MA šumu name MA nabû to call A abu father bēl mātāti Enlil Bēl-mātāti Enlil MA zikrī names DINGIR Igīgī Igigi MA nību naming UZU nagbu totality X šemû hear [X] d[Ea] [Ea] X k[abattu] h[eart] LI râ[šu] to re[joice] LI nag[û] to sing LI ḫe[lû] to be cheer[ful] A mā indeed A a[bu] fa[ther] MA šurr[uḫu] to glori[fy] MA zik[ru] nam[e] (Commentary II 136–139) These extracted elements are used “dans le plus parfait désordre”, as Bottéro (1977, p.18 §16) rightly commented. Free handling of the order of elements of a sacred name, whether as written or as derived through any of the speculative methods described in the analysis presented, occurs commonly throughout the corpus. Two further examples suffice to illustrate this. First, from Enūma eliš VI, in speculation on Marduk’s name Marutukku: d

ma-ru-tu-uk-ku lū tukultu māti āli u nišīšu (Enūma eliš VI 135) Marutukku, he shall be the support of the land, city and its people

The scholarly description is founded on taking the name to comprise tuk(k)u, understood as tukul tukultu, “support”, ma mātu, “land”, uru ālu, “city”, and ùku nišū, “people”, (Lambert, 2013, p.165). The speculation disregards the order of the derived components of the name, and manipulates and reuses them (see sections 3.2.19.1, 3.2.21). Lastly, an example from the list exploring the name é-sag-íl which has already been used above to illustrate straightforward translation: [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl bītu nāšû agê šarrūti [s]a12 šarru sa12 agû aga agû íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14) House which bears the kingly crown [s]a12 king sa12 crown aga crown íl to bear The Akkadian correspondences given by the scholar in the interlinear commentary follow the contrived spelling, in reverse of the order in which those correspondences appear in the speculative explanation itself. 3.2.5 Not all elements used As observed by Bottéro (1977, pp.18–19 §16), not all the constituent parts of a sacred name need be used in its speculative interpretation. Speculation on the name Bēlmātāti in Enūma eliš VII 136–139 appears to proceed “sans la moindre trace de BE, TA TI et EN” (Bottéro, 1977, p.18 §16), according to the analysis in Commentary II. Damage in this commentary may conceal some of these missing elements in l.138, but certainly ll.136–137 and 139 proceed without interpretation of be, ta or ti. It is readily apparent throughout Commentary II that not all elements need be used, as, for example, in its analysis of the description of Šazu (dšà-zu):

78

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

mukanniš lā māgirī ṣ[ulū]lšun rapšu (Enūma eliš VII 38) Who subjugates the disobedient, their broad [protection] Commentary II: z[i kan]āšu to submit zi [mā]giri obedient zu ṣ[ull]ulu to protect zu r[a]pāšu to be broad From the divine name dšà-zu, the element zu is used repeatedly, interpreted as zi and zu (repetition and vocalic change are discussed in sections 3.2.21, 3.2.16); šà is unused. The interlinear explanations supplied by the compiler of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, provide further compelling evidence that not all elements need be interpreted, supporting the evidence given by Commentary II. To illustrate this: [é-s]a6-an-gil bīt ašarēdu ša melikšu damqu [sa12] ašarēdu sa milku sa6 damāqu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 17–18) House of the leader whose counsel is good [sa12] leader sa counsel sa6 to be good [é-sa-ág-g]i-il bītu ēpiš kullati rā’im kitti [ág epēšu] gi epēšu gi kullatum gi kittum ág râmu (19–20) House which makes everything, loves truth [ág make] gi to make gi everything gi truth ág to love The Akkadian interpretations are fairly expansive, yet an and gil are unused in ll.17– 18, and sa and il in ll.19–20. The general principle that not all elements need be used can be observed throughout the text corpus. 3.2.6 Determinative given equivalence Certain signs indicate the nature of the words to which they pertain, termed “determinatives” in modern Akkadian grammars. This term is used here, noting that it reflects a modern categorization, which the ancients would not necessarily have recognised. Modern scholarship understands determinatives as graphic devices, which mark the nature of a word, without phonetic value, that is to say, they were not pronounced. Whether, or how far, this was true for the ancients is uncertain. The sign which regularly precedes a divine name and means “god”, dingir, commonly now termed the “divine determinative”, was perhaps regarded as an integral part of the name to which it was attached. Written with a cuneiform sign, this indicator might be interpreted, like any other sign. Commentary II’s analysis evidences that the divine determinative, written with the sign dingir, may be given equivalence in speculative interpretation; it may be read as dingir or as an and interpreted accordingly (see Bottéro, 1977, p.16 §8, p.22 §25). Lambert’s edition shows that, as preserved, Commentary II contains a number

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

79

of clear instances where an equation for the divine determinative is noted, and others that can be restored. In Enūma eliš VII the divine determinative is naturally interpreted as ilu, “god”, exemplified in the description of Asaralim (dasar-alim), where, as frequently occurs, the plural is freely inferred (see section 3.2.9): ilānū ūtaqqû adīršu aḫzū (Enūma eliš VII 4) The gods pay attention and fear him Commentary II (extract): dingir ilum god Epithets which interpret dzi-kù, a sub-name of Tutu, straightforwardly translate the divine determinative as ilu, “god”, and render it more freely as bēlum, “lord”: il šāri ṭâbi bēl tašmê u magāri (Enūma eliš VII 20) God of the fair wind, lord who hears and grants Commentary II (extract): dingir ilum god; dingir bēlum lord Even more freely, accordingly to the commentarist, the determinative is interpreted as Igīgū, Igigi-gods (again, plural), speculatively derived from the name Bēl-mātāti (dbēl mātāti or perhaps his Sumerian name den-kur-kur): zikrī Igīgī imbû nagabšun (Enūma eliš VII 137) The Igigi-gods called all the names Commentary II (extract): dingir Igīgī Reading the sign as an, the commentarist on Enūma eliš VII inferred various different speculative interpretations: as šamû, “heaven”, and kakkabu, “star”, related notions (l.130, probably l.126); ašrum, “place”, explained as ašrum šamû, “heavenly place” (l.135); i[špikku], “stores” (l.65), e[lû] “to go up” (l.83, to produce, as the commentarist indicates, both eliš, “above”, and elâtu, “heights”), [ana], “for” (l.84), i[na], “on” (l.92), and perhaps as Anšar (l.102) (Lambert’s restorations). Commentary II also explains an as “front” (l.127) for its free translation of the rare word kunsaggû, “crossing-point”, as rēšu arkat, “front-back”, to demonstrate its speculative derivation from dné-bé-ru (Bottéro,1977, p.15 footnote 34). With the evidence of Commentary II, then, and applying the same approach, it is clear that the divine determinative is given equivalence elsewhere in the text corpus. As might be expected, this speculative method may be seen in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI. The descriptions of Asalluḫi-Namtila (dasal-lúḫi dnam-ti-la) as ilu mušneššu, “the life-sustaining god” (l.151), and Asalluḫi-Namru (dasal-lú-ḫi dnam-ru) as ilu ellu, “the pure god” (l.156), for example, both appear to interpret the determinative substantivally, as ilu. Similarly, in light of Commentary II’s analysis, explanations in a list of Marduk’s names evidently express the determinative:

80

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus d

tu-tu mu’allid ilānī muddiš ilānī (Marduk Names List 21) Father of the gods, Restorer of the gods

(So too, likewise, Marduk Names List 22–25). Lambert (1982, p.212) noted the interpretation of the determinative elsewhere, rendered by the feminine iltu, “goddess”, in the hymn celebrating the goddess of Nippur: her name dnè-an-na is interpreted as ilat emūq Anšar, “Goddess who is the might of Anšar” (Lambert, 1982, p.198, III 62). The corpus contains few other determinatives, but there are just a few instances in which it can be seen that determinatives other than the divine determinative could also be used in the Akkadian interpretation. mul/múl, the marker which denotes the name of a star or other astral body, is directly rendered by kakkabu, “star”, in prayers to Bēl (Marduk) and his spouse Bēltīya (Zarpanītum) recited in the ritual of the Akītu festival for the month Nisannu, the New Year festival of Babylon. In these prayers, Bēl and Bēltīya are equated with named astral bodies: múl

genna kakkab(mul) kittu u mīšar (Prayer to Bēl 307, extract) Saturn, the star of truth and justice múl ḫé-gál-a kakkab(mul) nuḫšu múl bal-téš-a kakkab(mul) bāltu (Prayer to Bēltīya 328–329, extract) The Abundance-star, the star of plenty Balteša-star, the star of dignity In these lines, the determinative múl is realised by the Akkadian kakkab (written logographically in this text). As Stol (1989) noted, genna (l.307) evidently suggested the Sumerian word gi-na, “true”, and hence the Akkadian word kittu, “truth”, to generate the stock pairing kittu u mīšaru, “truth and justice”; ḫé-gál (l.328), often used to write ḫengallu/ḫegallu, “abundance”, is interpreted by the synonym nuḫšu, “plenty”; and bāltu (l.329), “dignity”, interprets téš, a sign used to write bāštu/bāltu. The expressed reading of múl in these lines gives confidence that elsewhere in these prayers this determinative is given equivalence and fully integrated into the Akkadian interpretation, as illustrated above in the use of the divine determinative in Enūma eliš and elsewhere. In the Prayer to Bēltīya, the goddess is praised as the planet Venus: múl

dil-bad nabât kakkabī(mul) (Prayer to Bēltīya 325, extract) Dilbad (Venus), brightest of the star[s] Again kakkabī realises múl. dil-bad is equated with nabû, “to shine”, in the bilingual wordlist Nabnītu (Nabnītu IVa 274 MSL XVI p.87). The description nabât kakkabī, “brightest of the stars”, is evidently a stock phrase, freely expressing the character of the planet Venus in the firmament (see CAD N/II 148). múl is perhaps interpreted very differently in l.311:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

81

múl

ne-ne-gar ša ina ramānīšu(ní)šu ibbanû(dù)u (Prayer to Bēl, 311 extract) Nenegar-star, the one who was created by himself

Here múl, or its homophone mul (which also writes this determinative), may generate banû, with which it is equated in a lexical list (mu-lumul banû Aa II/6 ii 32 MSL XIV p.291). Strictly, the lexical equation is, it seems, with banû, “to grow” (so CAD B 90 banû B; “gut, schön sein, werden” AHw102b banû II), not banû, “to create”, the meaning given by the logographic writing dùu, but homophonous Akkadian words might be interchanged in speculative interpretation (see section 3.2.14; interpretations using banû in this way occur in E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8 and elsewhere in the text corpus). Another explanation is possible. A NeoAssyrian copy of a group vocabulary equates ne with abu, “father”, and bānû, “creator” (see Thureau-Dangin, 1919, p.167, iii 12–13). Accordingly banû, “to create”, may interpret the element ne from the name. This second explanation of the derivation of the Akkadian description does not preclude the possibility that the determinative is also interpreted here, for it is evident that the same meaning may be understood from different parts of a name, as illustrated further in section 3.2.20. The Akkadian interpretation is otherwise based on understanding the element ne as ní ramānu, “self”, (Lambert, 1954–1956, p.320). Elsewhere, in a list of names of Nippur, it seems clear that ki, the sign which marks a place, is expressed in the Akkadian description by ašru, “place”: uzu-⸢mú-a⸣ki aš[a]r ina libbīšu nišū(ùg)meš ibbanâ ⸢u ašar⸣ têrēti šuklulū (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §3 10′) Uzu-mua the place in which people were created and the place where oracles are perfected The same equation perhaps occurs in l.7′, but the text is very broken. From the evidence of the text corpus, then, it appears that determinatives might be interpreted, in the same way as any other cuneiform sign. 3.2.7 Element interpreted as determinative A determinative attached to a name may be speculatively interpreted, as illustrated in section 3.2.6. Somewhat differently, an element of a name may, it seems, be understood as a determinative and given some equation related to the class of things which that determinative normally marks. So it appears from Commentary II’s analysis of the description of Marduk as Asarre (dasar-re): d

asar-re šārik mīrišti ša israta ukinnu bānû šê’am u qê mušēṣû urqēti (Enūma eliš VII I–2) Asarre, giver of arable land, who establishes plough-land Creator of barley and flax, who causes vegetation to grow

82

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Commentary II (extract): 1 sar mīrištu arable land 2 sar šê’im barley; sar qû flax; sar arqu greenery Here the syllable sar is extracted from asar. Lexical evidence supports the equation of sar (read as nissa or nisig) and arqu/urqu, “greenery”, (see Lambert, 2013, p.484; MZL p.359). Whilst this may inform the commentarist’s analysis, the sign sar itself is used as a determinative which marks plants. This, it seems, lies behind the commentarist’s explanation of sar as mīrištu, “arable land”, šê’u, “barley”, and qû, “flax”, (Bottéro, 1977, p.23 §25), none of which is ordinarily equated with, or marked by, sar, but broadly lie within the range denoted by this determinative. Asarre is likewise termed šārik mīrištu(apin)tu, “giver of arable land”, in a Prayer to Bēl (Marduk) for recitation in the Babylonian New Year festival (see Linssen, 2004, p.220 l.304), where the epithet can be explained in the same way. However it may be readily supposed that this prayer here echoes Enūma eliš VII I, given the ritual use of the Enūma eliš composition in this festival, attested to by the ritual instructions of which the prayer forms part (l.280). This method of speculative analysis is otherwise very rarely observed in the text corpus. It occurs twice in the Gula hymn, where, in each case, like the examples given above, an element of a name is interpreted through a sign which is used as a graphic indicator which denotes plants (see section 6.1, Gula hymn 117′ and 2′′). One further (and different) example may perhaps be seen in the list which explores the temple name é-sag-íl: [é-sa12-a]n-gil bītu šubat rubê Marūduk [s]ag ašābu ⸢gi⸣ rubû gil dmarūduk (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12) House, Dwelling of the prince Marduk sag to dwell gi prince gil Marduk The interlinear commentary does not explain -an- in this contrived orthography, but this is true in ll.13–14 (commenting generally on this work, George, Topog.Texts, p.387, noted that “occasional lapses in consistency between the text and its commentary are features of the work”). dgil is a name of Marduk (George, Topog.Texts, p.387); the determinative sign also reads an. It is tempting to suppose that the contrived writing an-gil is fully reflected in the equation dmarūduk, made in l.12. If so, ll.11–12 contain a further example of an element of the name (again a contrived element) interpreted as a determinative, but here written by the determinative itself. 3.2.8 Form freedom In section 3.2.1 it was noted how, in this speculative technique, an element is extracted from a name for speculative interpretation without regard to its meaning or function. Taking the Akkadian equivalence conveyed by such elements (whether as

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

83

written in the Sumerian name or as understood using the speculative methods described here), the ancient scholar evidently had freedom to use any verbal, nominal or adjectival form drawn from the Akkadian correspondence, or any word cognate or related to it; and was free to imply any grammatical relationship for it in speculative interpretation. Clear evidence for this speculative method is provided by three texts from the text corpus, the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, the Weapon Name Exposition and Enūma eliš Commentary II. In each of these, the compiler explains the etymological equation with a word which can be compared with the form actually used in the composition. The comparison amply demonstrates the flexibility of form which might be given to the equation in its speculative interpretation. Tabular form is used below to show this clearly. A noun or adjective speculatively derived from a name may take any grammatical or syntactic form in the resultant interpretation, as illustrated:

šiptum spell

Form used in Use text kakkabšu his star Predicative subject šipta Object

napḫaru entirety

napḫar

Equation given kakkabu star

agû crown rubû prince šamû heavens rabû great aḫu brother

Object, bound form agê Object, bound form rubê Dependent genitive Dependent šamê rabûti genitive, of the great plural adjective heavens ina ilānī aḫḫēšu Prepositional among the gods, phrase, plural his brothers

Source Enūma eliš VII 126 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 11 Commentary II E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8 E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14 E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12 E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 25–26 Enūma eliš VII 94 Commentary II

In the Weapon Name Exposition, a number is understood as a proper noun: d.giš

tukul-sag-50 kakku rēštû ša Enlil 50 Enlil (Weapon Name Exposition, 13, 16) d.giš tukul-sag-50 Foremost weapon of Enlil 50 Enlil

84

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

In the interpretation of d.gištukul-sag-50, (straightforwardly, “Fifty-headed weapon”), 50 is taken as a writing of the divine name Enlil and understood as if it expressed the genitive case (reflecting a Sumerian construction); this is interpreted in Akkadian as ša denlil(50), “of Enlil”, expressing possession (so too in l.17 dme-sag-50 tāḫāzu(mè) rabû ša Enlil, “Great Battle of Enlil”). Where an Akkadian verb interprets an element of a name, this is typically given in infinitive form, doubtless informed by the practice in the lexical tradition. The infinitive could be realised in a wide variety of verbal forms. The following table illustrates finite forms derived from the equated infinitive (all are drawn from Commentary II on Enūma eliš VII; neither the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, nor the Weapon Name Exposition exhibits such forms):

kânu to be firm

Form used in text ukinnu

uqqû to attend [ḫam]āmu to gather erēbu to enter

likīn ūtaqqû iḫmumu lišēribū

Equation given

šūpû to make appear nabû to name

Grammatical form

Source Enūma eliš VII 1 VII 130 VII 4 VII 104 VII 110

ušāpû

D to establish firmly 3ms preterite subordinated G 3ms precative Dt 3mpl durative G 3ms preterite subordinated Š to introduce 3mpl precative Š 3ms preterite subordinated

ittabi

G 3ms perfect

VII 136

VII 126

Stative forms and adjectives also occur; and an equated adjective may be realised in a verbal form:

aḫāzu to grasp

Form used in text aḫzū

šaqû to be high

šušqu

damāqu to be good

damqu

ellu pure

līlil

Equation given

Grammatical form G 3mpl stative

Source

Enūma eliš VII 4 Commentary II Š to exalt 3ms stative Enūma eliš VII 13 Commentary II G ms verbal adjective E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 17–18 G elēlu to be pure Enūma eliš VII 10 3ms precative Commentary II

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

85

In many cases, the equation expressed by the infinitive is interpreted by a participle, usually in construct state, describing some characteristic of the deity or sacred place:

epēšu to make

Form used in text ēpiš

râmu to love

rā’im

kânu to be permanent ḫamāma to gather

[m]ukīn ḫāmem

dâku to slay

[d]ā’ik

šarāku to give

šārik

aṣû to go out

mušēṣû

banû to create

bān

bašû to exist

mušabši

šalālu to plunder

šālil

Equation given

Stem if different from infinitive

D to establish firmly

Š to make grow Š to create

Source E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20 E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20 E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 33–34 Weapon Name Exposition 7, 9 Weapon Name Exposition 10, 12 Enūma eliš VII 1 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 2 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 9 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 21 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 103 Commentary II

More creatively, the equation made may be interpreted by a derived or related word. Abstract nouns and adverbs are particularly notable in Enūma eliš VII. The examples given in the following table illustrate the rich variety of interpretative possibilities. Not all of the derived or related words are separately attested as having the equation made with the primary word by Commentary II. There is no lexical evidence for the equation of tēdištu, “renewal”, with tu (edēšu, “to be new”), for example. The explanations given by this commentarist evidence that the connections made by scholars in their speculative interpretation may legitimately be understood through lexical and bilingual equivalences for words sharing the same root as a word used in the text, notwithstanding the absence of direct equivalence between the element of the name and that word.

86

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Equation given

Interpreted by:

Source

šarru king

šarrūtu kingship

rubû ruler

rubûtu rulership šurbû very great

adāru to be afraid

adīru fear

edēšu to be new

tēdištu renewal

ellu pure

tēliltu purification

šemû to hear

tašmû attention

kânu to be firm

kittu truth

banû to build

binītu creation, creature

alāku to go

alkatu course

milku counsel

māliku counsellor

nību naming

nabû to call

ašābu to dwell

šubtu dwelling

agāgu to be furious elû to arise

aggiš furiously

qerēbu to be close

qerbiš inside

šaqû to be high

šaqiš on high

E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14 Enūma eliš VII 96 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 98 Enūma eliš VII 96 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 4 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 9 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 19 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 20 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 40 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 113 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 130 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 97 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 137 Commentary II E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12 Enūma eliš VII 12 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 83 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 103 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 109 Commentary II

eliš above elâtu heights

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

87

3.2.9 Plural freely inferred The ancient scholars evidently might freely use a plural form to interpret any equation derived from their speculative activity. In Sumerian an unmarked noun might be taken as singular or plural, a characteristic which gave scholars freedom in its interpretation through translation. This perhaps informed their approach in speculative interpretation, for plurals are freely inferred. In description derived from his name, Lugaldimmerankia (dlugal-dìm-me-er-anki-a), “King of the gods of heaven and underworld”, is described as: šarru ina taklimtīšu ilānī lū šu’durū eliš u šapliš (Enūma eliš VI 142) The king at whose instructions the gods above and below quail The plural ilānī, “gods”, straightforwardly translates dimmer, the Sumerian word itself evidently being correctly understood as plural, whether this is an unmarked or collective form. Similarly, the exposition of names and epithets of Babylon contains the following explanations: uru guruš ní-dúbki kimin(Bābilu) ālu mušapšiḫ eṭlūtīšu uru níg-gi-na ki-ág-gáki kimin(Bābilu) ālu narām kīnātum uru lú-kur4-raki kimin(Bābilu) āl kabtūtu (Tintir I 15–16, 19) Uru-guruš-nidub Babylon, the city which gives peace to its young men Uru-niggina-kiagga Babylon, the city which loves truth Uru-lukurra Babylon, the city of important men guruš eṭlu, “young man”, (l.15) and lú-kur4-ra kabtu, “heavy, important”, (l.19) are rendered as plural in the Akkadian interpretation; níg-gi-na kittu, “truth”, (l.16) is interpreted by the feminine plural kīnātu, “true things”. Interpretations involving elements understood as “all”, “totality” and the like, naturally prompt a plural form dependent genitive in speculation. This is illustrated by the speculative explanation of èš-gú-zi, “House whose neck is raised up”, a scholarly name for é-sag-íl, which equates gú with napḫaru, “entirety”: [èš-gú-z]i bītu nāsiḫ napḫar ayyābī [èš bītu z]i nasāḫu gú napḫaru gú ayyābī (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 31–32) House which eradicates all enemies [èš house z]i to uproot gú entirety gú enemies Similarly, the god Kinma’s epithet muma’’ir napḫar ilānī, “Commander of all the gods” (Enūma eliš VII 107), “presumes the exposition: kin = mu’’uru, gú = napḫaru” (Lambert, 2013, p.490, demonstrating that this interprets the name Qingu, not Kinma). The divine determinative dingir, “god”, is interpreted by ilānī, “of the gods”. So too, a plural noun is naturally inferred where gimru, “totality”, is used in characterising Nēberu (dné-bé-ru):

88

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

kīma ṣēni lir’â ilānī gimrāšun (Enūma eliš VII 131) Like sheep let him tend all the gods Commentary II: ḫar kīma like ri ṣēnu sheep-flock ri re’û to tend dingir ilum god ḫar libbi heart šà libbi heart šà puḫrum totality Commentary II explains that here ir5(ḫar/mur) is derived from Nēberu and seeks to demonstrate by analogous logic that it may be understood as puḫrum, “totality”, synonymous with gimru (the train of thought is that the element ir5 is understood as ḫar(MUR) equated here with libbu, often written as šà, which, Commentary II says, also corresponds to puḫrum, see Bottéro, 1977, pp.23–24 §27). In Commentary II’s analysis, dingir (the divine determinative) is ilum, “god”, from which the plural ilānī is inferred. Where speculation involves an equation with ilum, the plural is readily used, often written logographically in the manuscripts. The exposition of é-sag-íl provides another illustration, where both noun and an adjective are interpreted in plural forms: [é-si-an-g]íl bītu nūr ilī(dingir)meš rabûti(galme[š]) [si nūru a]n ilum gíl rabû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 27–28) House, the light of the great gods [si light a]n god gíl great Where the divine determinative is given equivalence (as in Enūma eliš VII 107 ( kin-ma) and 131 (dné-bé-ru) above), the plural is freely inferred (see section 3.2.6 for other examples). The plural nouns in one further example from Enūma eliš VII illustrate this and the general practice: d

d

gili-ma mukīn ṭurri ilānī bānû kināti (Enūma eliš VII 80) Gilima, who made firm the bond of the gods, creator of permanent things Commentary II: 80 da]-gili-[ma] [da]gili[ma] [g]i [kânu to be firm ...]

Here the epithet mukīn ṭurri, “who made firm the bond”, is derived from dgili-ma by speculative interpretation: gi, drawn from the name, equates to kânu, “to be firm”, realised in mukīn; lexical evidence equates ṭurru and gi-gili(m); gili(m) also corresponds to egēru, “to twist”, expressing the twining of the cosmic ropes (see Lambert, 2013, p.487); bānû, “creator”, interprets ma (explained by Commentary II on Enūma eliš VII 83). The plural nouns ilānī and kināti complete the epithets by speculative interpretation: ilānī, “of the gods”, appears to interpret the divine determinative; kināti, “of permanent things”, evidently reflects gi as kânu, “to be firm”, again, freely interpreted by a plural noun. 3.2.10 Emesal Emesal is a register of Sumerian (sometimes called a dialect or sociolect of Sumerian), used in ritual laments and in the speech of women and goddesses in

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

89

Sumerian literary compositions documented in manuscripts dating from the Old Babylonian period onwards (see Schretter, 1990). Emesal is recorded occasionally in lexical lists, but is most comprehensively treated in the compilation today known as the Emesal Vocabulary, which translates Emesal words into regular Sumerian and Akkadian. The earliest sources of the Emesal Vocabulary are from Assyria in the Middle Assyrian period, but the work may well be Middle Babylonian in origin (see further, Veldhuis, 2014, pp.318–320). Emesal words and forms occur occasionally in the text corpus. The Emesal word for dingir “god”, dìm-me-er, is reflected in the names Lugaldimmerankia (dlugaldìm-me-er-an-ki-a) and Narilugaldimmerankia (dna-ri-lugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-a). Both divine names are speculatively interpreted in Enūma eliš VI 140–146 in passages which straightforwardly translate dìm-me-er as ilānū, “gods”. The exposition of names of Babylon in the explanatory work Tintir I contains other Emesal words and forms, as the following extracts illustrate: tu6 íl-lu ši-ma-al-l[a]ki kimin(Bābilu) ša ana šiknat napištim tâ našû (Tintir I 41) Tu-illu-šimalla Babylon, which recites incantations for all living things ši-ma-al-la, corresponding to šiknat napištim, “living things”, is the Emesal form of zi-gál-la (George, Topog.Texts, p.263). The Emesal form ši for zi napištu, “life”, together with mu-lu, Emesal for lú, “man”, occurs in another name given to Babylon: mu-lu gub ši ma-daki kimin(Bābilu) mukīn napišti māti (Tintir I 43) Mulu-gub-ši-mada Babylon, which secures the life of the land In this straightforward explanation, gub corresponds to kunnu, “to make firm, secure”, ši napištu, “life”, and ma-da mātu, “land”; mu-lu, “man”, is perhaps realised in the masculine participle mukīn. (The Emesal word mu-lu occurs also in Tintir I 27.) Elsewhere in the text corpus, the name of one of E-sagil’s gates featured in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi contains an Emesal form which is interpreted in the Akkadian text: ina ká-a-še-er-duḫ-ù-da uptaṭṭara tānīḫī (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 87; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 50, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-a-še-er-duḫ-ù-da (Gate of dispelling of distress) my distress was dispelled a-še-er is a writing of the Emesal form of the regular Sumerian word a-nir, which equates to tānīḫu, “distress”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.396). The use of Emesal in Sumerian names readily leads to the speculative interpretation of the any sacred name, whether Sumerian or Akkadian, through the Emesal dialect. The ancient commentary on the religious composition now known as the Babylonian Theodicy explained the divine name Zulummar using an Emesal form to interpret its last syllable:

90

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus d

su-l[um-ma]r: didim: ša šalummatu našû: su-lim: šalummatum mar: gar: našû (Babylonian Theodicy Commentary r 33′–34′, Babylonian Theodicy 277; ed. Oshima, 2014 reading su-lim, not su-lim) Sul[umma]r: Ea : bearer of radiance: su-lim (radiance) : radiance mar = gar : to bear

Here mar is understood as the Emesal form for the regular Sumerian word gar, and interpreted as našû, “to bear”, to explain the epithet. Emesal does not appear to be widely used as an explanatory tool in the commentary tradition (for use of Emesal Sumerian elsewhere in the commentary tradition, see Frahm, 2011, notably pp.247, 249, 258). Citing the Babylonian Theodicy commentary, Lambert explained the etymology underpinning the very first description in the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names, where Marduk (damar-utu, dmarūduk) is described as šākin merīti u mašqīti, “who provides pasture and watering place” (Enūma eliš VI 124): this derives from speculative interpretation of the first syllable of the divine name as mar, the Emesal form for gar, and understood as šakānu, “to provide”, (Lambert, 2013, p.165). The same equation, using this Emesal form, clearly recurs in a line of the narrative description relating to Marduk which follows: nišī ša ibnû šikitti napšu (Enūma eliš VI 129) The people whom he created, living creatures mar is again understood as Emesal for šakānu, from which šikittu, “form”, is derived in this variant of the stock phrase šiknat napišti, “living things”. Other parts of the name Marduk (damar-utu, dmarūduk) plainly inform l.129 (rú equates to banû, “to create”, and ùku to nišī, “people”, see Lambert, 2013, p.165, discussing Marduk’s second name, Marukka). These lines thus evidence “the further principle” Lambert adduces, “that Emesal values are freely usable” (Lambert, 2013, p.165). Nevertheless, few unequivocal examples of the use of Emesal as a speculative tool are observed in the text corpus. Two clear instances occur in consecutive lines of the Nippur Temple List, BTT 19, where the same Emesal equation is used to explain the temple name E-Kiur (é-ki-ùr/é-ki-uru12 George, Topog.Texts, p.452), given in the unorthodox orthography é-ki-u-ru: ⸢é⸣-ki-u-ru ašar bēli irreḫû ⸢é⸣-ki-u-ru erṣet bēli gitmā[li] (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 9′–10′) Place where the lord was fathered Land of the perfect lord Here u is read as umun, Emesal for the Sumerian word en, equating to bēlu, “lord”. Elsewhere, Lambert understood an Emesal form in Marduk’s second name, Marukka:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

91

d

ma-ru-uk-ka lū ilu bānûšunu šūma (Enūma eliš VI 133) Marukka he is, the god who created them “Peoples ... are ùku. To create is rú. ... This explains the -ru- in Marukka. Only the ma- remains and this must be ilu. It must be a variant of the Emesal value mu = ilu.” (Lambert, 2013, p.165). It is evident that vowels may be treated flexibly in speculative interpretation (this is illustrated in section 3.2.16); this perhaps underpins Lambert’s analysis here, which treats ma as mu. But Lambert’s analysis is not the only possibility; ilu, “god”, perhaps interprets the divine determinative and no Emesal word was in mind. A similar ambiguity arises as to what prompted the interpretation of the names é-šu-me-ša4 and é-me-lám-an-na in the Nippur Temple List, BTT 19, where an Emesal equation perhaps occurs: ⸢é⸣-šu-me-ša4 bītu rikis ṭēmi ilī (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 12′) House, bond of the gods’ will Thoughout ll.12′–16′ (é-šu-me-ša4) and ll.17′–18′ (é-me-lám-an-na) (similarly, the Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 c é-šu-me-ša4), me is interpreted by ilū, “gods”. Here me may be šamû, “heavens”, a common equivalence, and rendered as ilu, “god”, as George, Topog.Texts, p.453 explained. Alternatively, with the flexibility evidently accorded to vowels, perhaps the Emesal mu “ilu” informs the Akkadian interpretation. There is clear evidence, then, that Emesal was used in speculative interpretation but it is not a tool commonly deployed in the text corpus. Where its use may be suspected, this cannot always be clearly determined. The rarity of the use of Emesal begs the question why this should be so, to which there is no clear answer. Babylonian speculative scholarship was self-evidently erudite and accomplished, drawing upon a wide range of material. Emesal was used in rather restricted compositional settings and this rather specific application may have been a factor. It is in the lexical tradition that Babylonian speculative scholarship has its roots and with which it shares so many features. It is interesting, and perhaps no coincidence, that the great majority of exemplars of the principal Emesal lexical text, the Emesal Vocabulary, comes from Assyria, where it was first found in the Middle Assyrian period, and it is rarely found in Babylonia (Veldhuis, 2014, p.320 noted only two Neo-Babylonian examples). 3.2.11 Homophony The use of homophonous readings to convey other meanings is a key aspect in the methods deployed in Babylonian speculative interpretation, widely observable in the text corpus. The different meanings a homophone might convey and the large number of homophones in the cuneiform script gave rich potential for speculative interpretation. Homophony is exploited where a different sign, homophonous with

92

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

an element of the sacred name as written, is understood; the speculative interpretation uses a meaning given by that homophonous sign. Rather differently, a syllable (or vowel) may be taken from a sacred name in some contrived manner, not reflecting the usual writing of the name, and understood as having one or more readings; it is evident that the scholar was free to select any of the homophonous readings available for the contrived reading, and might use more than one reading, exploiting homophony (this is discussed in section 3.2.19.2). Homophony is also exploited where some part of a name is treated as a homophonous sign, which is then understood as another reading of that sign (termed “polyvalence” in this book, see section 3.2.12) and interpreted accordingly. The speculative method where homophony and polyvalence are combined to effect interpretation is illustrated in section 3.2.13. In the speculative method presented in this section 3.2.11 the point of departure is the sign as written and read in the name, from which a homophonous reading is inferred for speculative interpretation. The text corpus contains some exceptional instances where homophonic etymology is expressly flagged. An expository text explains the divine name Lisi: d

li9-si4 qālû išātam si4 gunû si qalû izi išātu (Weapon Name Exposition 36–38) Lisi : He who burns with fire si4 the gunû (additional wedged) form of si: to burn izi fire The scholar expressly records that si4 is understood as its homophone si, for qalû, “to burn”, an equation not otherwise attested. There was perhaps no such equation; the scholar perhaps had in mind a correspondence with qâlu, “to be silent”, a word readily interchangeable with the homophonous Akkadian verb qalû, “to burn”, to underpin the explanation (suggested by A.R. George, March 2017, private communication; the lexical equations relevant to this are sìg-sìg qâ[lu], “to be silent”, and si šiššu, “silence”, Antagal III 275–277 MSL XVII p.160; for Akkadian homophony, see section 3.2.14). The interlinear explanations of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, demonstrate the use of homophonous readings, as illustrated in the following extract: [é-s]a6-an-gil bīt ašarēdu ša melikšu damqu [sa12] ašarēdu sa milku sa6 damāqu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 17–18) House of the leader whose counsel is good [sa12] leader sa counsel sa6 to be good Here the scholar flags that, in speculative interpretation of this name, sa6 is understood as sa to produce the correspondence milku, “counsel”, as well as

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

93

straightforwardly being understood as sa6 which equates to damāqu, “to be good”, (realised as damqu, “good”). In another interlinear explanation given by the scholar the possibilities offered by homophones are specifically highlighted: [é-sa4-an-gí]l bītu nibīt Anim u Enlil [sa4 nibīt]u an danum gíl(KUR4) : kur denlil (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 29–30; reading [é-sa4-an-gí]l, not [é-sa4-an-gi]l) House called by name by Anu and Enlil [sa4 namin]g an Anu gíl(KUR4) kur = Enlil gíl, read as kur4, is kabtu, “important, honoured”, a description which could naturally be interpreted Enlil. However, by way of further explanation, the commentary notes the homophone kur, “the mountain”, a word which regularly signifies Enlil, and expressly points to the equation made (George, Topog.Texts, p.388). Although not expressly flagged, kur/kur4 homophony is exploited in explanatory descriptions of Enlil’s temple, é-kur; kur is understood as kur4 equated with kabtu and rabû, “great”: [é]-kur [bīt ka]bitti é-kur bīt kabti [é]-kur [bīt šadû]ú rabû (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 18′–19′, 24′) [House of the] honoured lady House of the honoured lord [House of the] great [mountain] The corpus contains very many examples of speculative interpretation through homophony. The equation of -ru- in Marduk’s name Marukka (dma-ru-uk-ka) with rú banû, “to make”, underpins the description of the god as ilu bānûšunu šūma, “the god who created them” (Enūma eliš VI 133). Elsewhere in Enūma eliš, ru is understood as ru and rú, according to Commentary II: aššu ašrī ibnâ iptiqa dannina (Enūma eliš VII 135) Because he created the (heavenly) places and fashioned the underworld Commentary II: ir šū he an ašrum ašru šamû place, heavenly place rudù banû to make dù patāqu to fashion ru dannini danninu erṣetu underworld, danninu = underworld In Commentary II’s analysis, the Akkadian narrative interprets ru as ru, equating to danninu, “underworld”, and as rú banû, “to make”, and patāqu, “to fashion”. From Commentary II’s explanation, it appears that the name which underpins the scholarly speculation is Nēberu (dné-bé-ru, ll.124–134), notwithstanding that l.135 commences a couplet in which the name Bēl-mātāti is declared. Any of the Akkadian equations given by a homophone might be used, as demonstrated in another text where ru is understood as rú, but very differently. E-

94

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Kiur (é-ki-ùr/é-ki-uru12 George, Topog.Texts, p.452) but here written as é-ki-u-ru is explained as: ⸢é⸣-ki-u-ru erṣet bēli gitmā[li] (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 10′) Land of the Perfect Lord From this contrived writing, ru is taken as its homophone rú to facilitate its equation with gitmālu, “perfect”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.453). Likewise, in two explanatory lists šu is understood as šú, with different meanings: [é-š]u-me-ša4 bītu tābik dām ilī[meš] (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 16′) House which sheds the blood of the gods šú (interpreting šu) is here tabāku, “to pour”. In another list Lugal-šuanna is: bēlum āšir ilānī (Marduk Names List 14) The lord who supervises the gods Lambert’s restoration of dlugal-šu-an-na as the name pertinent to this line is assured by the Akkadian explanations in following lines in the same section, which clearly render that name, but the name speculatively interpreted in this line too is certainly d lugal-šu-an-na (lugal supplies bēlum, “lord”, and ilānī, “gods”, may be derived in several different ways, most simply by understanding an as dingir, “god”). Interpreting šu, šú is here ašāru, clearly meaning “to muster, organise, check”, and not the homophonous Akkadian verb ašāru, “to be humble”, (this is discussed further in section 3.2.14). The same equation is made in the Gula hymn 17′′ (see section 6.1). Scholarly speculation on the contrived writing é-ká-èš-nun-gal for the temple name E-kišnu-gal (usually written either as é-kiš-nu-gál or as é-giš-nu11-gal) illustrates how homophony may open meanings beyond the simple correspondence given by one element: é-ká-èš-nun-gal bītu ša ana Apsî petû bābšu (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 13′) House whose gate opens to Apsû The Akkadian description understands gal as gál, from the Sumerian compound gáltag4, which equates to petû, “to open”. The meaning given by the compound is adopted in the interpretation of this rendering of the temple name. The last examples presented here illustrate different homophonic interpretations based on the same element of a divine name, all from Enūma eliš VII in lines supported by the explanations in Commentary II: first, interpretations of é from Dingir-Esiskur; secondly, tu from Tutu. The element é, drawn from Dingir-Esiskur (dingir-é-sískur), is interpreted as è and as e11 in Enūma eliš VII 109 and 114, respectively. First, é as è:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

95

dingir-é-sískur šaqîš ina bīt ikribi lišibma (Enūma eliš VII 109) Dingir-Esiskur, may he sit on high in the House of Prayer Commentary II: [dingir-é]-sískur è šaqû to be high ra ina in é bītu house sískur ikribu prayer ra ramû to occupy ra ašābu to sit In the speculative interpretation in this line, é is correctly translated as bītu, “house”, but is also understood as its homophone è, which corresponds with šaqû, “to be high”, as Commentary II explains, realised in šaqîš, “on high” (CAD Š/II 19 šaqû A erroneously gives é as Commentary II’s reading). é is understood and interpreted as another homophone in the following observation on Dingir-Esiskur: ela šâšu ṭēme ūmēšina lā i’adda ilu mamman (Enūma eliš VII 114) No god but he knows the extent of their days Commentary II: e11 eli more than ra šâšu he ku ṭēmu intention ud ⸢ū⸣mu day ra [l]ā not zu [i]dû to know dingir [i]lum god zu m[amm]an somebody (Reading ud, not du: CAD U–W 139: “UD ⸢u4⸣-mu (coll. W G Lambert)”) Here é is interpreted as e11, usually corresponding to elû, “to go up”, sufficiently close phonetically and in meaning for the commentarist to equate e11 with eli, “on, more than”, which evidently explains ela in the phrase ela šâšu, “apart from him; but he”. The name Tutu (dtu-tu) had particular potential for speculative interpretation, as expositions of this divine name in Enūma eliš VII and in the Marduk Names List show. The potential for interpretation afforded by different readings of the signs used to write the name, consonantal change, and the reduplicated elements themselves will be examined in sections 3.2.12, 3.2.19.4 and 3.2.22. Interpretation of tu through its homophones tu4, tu6 and tu15 is demonstrated here. Tutu-ziukkinna (dtu-tu dzi-ukkin-na) is extolled thus: ai immaši ina apâti epšēta[šu likillā] (Enūma eliš VII 18) He shall not be forgotten by mankind, [may they remember his] achievements Commentary II: ta a-[a] not ku BA!-[šû] [to forget] ta i[na] by ukkin ap[âtum] peoples tu4 epše[tum] deed du8 ku[llum] to hold In Commentary II’s analysis, tu is interpreted as tu4 epšētu, “deeds”, not a usual correspondence of tu4. A resemblance between tum(tu4) and dím (for epēšu “to do” Idu II 327) perhaps underlies the analysis (suggested by A.R. George, March 2017, private communication). tu was readily understood as its homonym tu6, equated with šiptu, “spell, incantation”, illustrated in narrative describing Tutu (dtu-tu): libnīma šipta ilānū linūḫū (Enūma eliš VII 11) Let him make a spell so the gods may rest Commentary II: tu [ban]û to make tu6 šiptum spell dingir il[um] god ti nâḫu to rest

96

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

As Tutu-Agaku (dtu-tu daga-kù), the god is bēl šiptu elletim(kù)tim, “Lord of the pure incantation” (Enūma eliš VII 26), evidently using the same equation. tu may be understood as tu15 in the description of Tutu-Ziku (dtu-tu dzi-kù): il šāri ṭābi bēl tašmê u magāri (Enūma eliš VII 20) God of the fair wind, lord who hears and grants Commentary II: dingir ilum god tuIM šāri wind duḫi ṭâbu to be sweet dingir bēlum lord zi šemû to hear zi magārum to grant Lambert noted the homophonous reading: il šāri ṭābi “is a rendering of tu15-dù” (Lambert, 2013, p.483; for the reading of im as tu15, see MZL pp. 170, 389). Homophony is, of course, essentially an aural phenomenon. It may readily be supposed that the evident ease (apparent in these and very many other like instances in the text corpus) with which one element in a sacred name could be interpreted through another sign which might be used to write the same (or perhaps very similar) sound was not simply grounded in the written form, but informed by spoken sound. The large number of signs which could be used to write the same sound afforded by the cuneiform writing system made homophony a rich speculative tool. 3.2.12 Polyvalence Polyvalence is the characteristic of the cuneiform writing system whereby each sign may have a number of different readings. Like homophony described in the preceding section, polyvalence provided a key tool in speculative interpretation, opening up an extensive and rich variety of other meanings. In this speculative method, the sign presented in the text is understood by a different reading of that sign (whether syllabic, logographic or as a determinative) and interpreted with a meaning given by that reading, thus exploiting the polyvalence of the writing system. Polyvalence is also exploited where, by some contrived means, part of a name is understood as rendered by a sign other than as written and interpreted though some other reading of that putative sign. This is illustrated at the end of this section 3.2.12. The passage from the expository text which flagged homophonic etymology cited at the outset of section 3.2.11 also demonstrates the use of polyvalence to interpret a sacred name: d

li9-si4 qālû išātam si4 gunû si qalû izi išātu (Weapon Name Exposition 36–38) Lisi : He who burns with fire si4 the gunû (additional wedged) form of si: to burn izi fire

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

97

izi, “fire”, (išātu) is another reading of NE, the sign which also has the reading li9. The divine name dli9-si4 is interpreted accordingly, so the ancient scholar demonstrates. The interlinear explanations of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, also provide explicit illustrations, three of which are given here: [é-sag-ìl-la] [ē]kal lalê ilī ša šamê [( x x )] [é-sag ēkallum] la lalû ìl ilu ìl šamû [ x x x] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 5–6) Palace desired by the gods of the heavens [é-sag palace] la desire ìl god ìl heavens George’s restoration of the contrived writing of é-sag-íl here as é-sag-ìl-la is informed by the interlinear explanation which records the equations made by the scholar. For the Akkadian explanation, ìl(an) is read as dingir to supply ilu, “god”; and also as an, meaning šamû, “heavens”. [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl bītu nāšû agê šarrūti [s]a12 šarru sa12 agû aga agû íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14) House which bears the kingly crown [s]a12 king sa12 crown aga crown íl to bear Here sa12(sag) is understood as the reading sag and equated by the scholar with agû, “crown”, and is also understood as its homophone sag4 šarru, “king”. [é-sa-an]-gíl bītu markas šamê rabûti [sa marka]su an šamû gíl rabû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 25–26) House, Bond of the Great Heavens [sa bon]d an heavens gíl great Here the scholar indicates that gíl(lagab) is understood as kur4 rabû, “great”. Elsewhere, although not so explicitly flagged, the scholarly method of speculative interpretation through another reading of a sign is nevertheless clear. Only a very few illustrations of this highly productive speculative method are presented here. In one temple list tuš(ku) is instead read dúr/durum, which corresponds to napalsuḫu, “to fall to the ground”, in etymological interpretation of an Aššur temple name: é-tuš-mes bīt eṭlu ippalassaḫu (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 166) House (where) the warrior lies prostrate Likewise, the choice of the word šagapūru, “majestic”, to describe Asalluḫi (dasallú-ḫi) in the incantation of his name in Marduk’s Address to the Demons (Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 83; ed. Geller, 2015) appears derive from speculative interpretation of the divine name, based on reading asal(asari) as šilig, which has lexical equivalence with šagapūru (Syllabary B II 266 MSL III p.146). Similarly, for an explanation which characterises Nin-imma (dnin-ìmma) as bēl nabnīt bunnannê, “Lord of the creation

98

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

of forms” (CT 25 49 r.2), the compiler of an explanatory God List exploits the reading of ìmma as sig7 (or sa7) to understand banû, “to create”, (Lambert, 2013, p.435) and bunnannû (sa7-alan), “forms”, in the divine name. Another list explains a contrived writing of Tutu (ddù-ṭu): d

dù-ṭu bāni kala ilānī (Marduk Names List 24) Creator of all the gods

The first element of the divine name written here, dù, equates with both banû, “to create”, and kalû, “all, totality”, (so here Lambert, 1999, p.228). However both syllables of the divine name are interpreted by the epithet: ṭu(gín) read tùn also gives kalû (tu-un tùn kaluma, “everything”, Aa VIII/1 117 MSL XIV p.492). In the text corpus examined, the divine determinative dingir is sometimes interpreted by reading the sign as an. An explanatory text realises this as Anu: d

zi-sum-ma Gula Bēlet(nin)-Nippuri nādinat(sum)at napišti(zi) Anim (Kettledrum Ritual 10) Zisumma is Gula, Bēlet-Nippuri, who gives Anu life Enūma eliš VII supplies a number of other examples where the sign an is understood to have other correspondences, as illustrated in section 3.2.6. Interpretive readings of a sign as both a number and as a logogram occur in another explanatory work, which seeks to demonstrate that Enlil is “king of the universe”, as Livingstone (1986, p.48) noted: šū kiššat šar kiššati(šú) 50 Enlil “he is” means “universe”, (so he is) king of the universe: 50: Enlil (i-NAM-gišḫur-an-ki-a 7, extract, Livingstone’s translation) First the scholar reasons that šū, “he is”, is the same as šú which equates to kiššatu, “totality, universe”. kiššatu may also be written by šár, which doubtless prompts the association šar “king of”, and thus proves that the god is king of the universe. The juxtaposition of this with the sign ninnu(50) and Enlil serves to substantiate that Enlil is king of the universe, underpinned by two different readings of ninnu. ninnu(50) is 50, Enlil’s divine number, and the signs d50 write Enlil; ninnu(50) also equates to kiššatu. The scholar’s explanation links both readings of the sign. The same explanatory work illustrates the different meanings of a logogram, explaining didim, a common writing signifying Ea, lord of Apsû: šar Apsî bēl naqbi(idim) 40 Ea King of Apsû, Lord of the deep: 40: Ea (i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a 8, extract) The sign idim(bad) may be used to write both naqbu, “deep”, and Ea. The last examples presented here demonstrate how, from some contrived understanding of

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

99

the usual writing of a name, scholars also inferred another reading, exploiting the polyvalence of cuneiform signs. All are from the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII and are supported by explanations in Commentary II. As Asarre (dasar-re), the god is described as: bānû šê’am u qê mušēṣû urqēti (Enūma eliš VII 2) Creator of barley and flax, who causes vegetation to grow Commentary II: rudù banû to create sar šê’im barley sar qû flax out sar arqu greenery

ma

sar aṣû to go

Commentary II’s analysis demonstrates that sar is extracted from the element asar in asar-re for interpretation and read as ma4, to mean aṣû, to go out, realised in the Š stem participle mušēṣû, “who causes to grow”. A narrative comment inspired by his name relates to Tutu (dtu-tu):

d

aggiš lū tebû linē’ū [irass]un (Enūma eliš VII 12) Though they rise angrily, let them turn [back] Commentary II here notes gaba irtum, “breast”, confirming its restoration in the text in idiomatic use, meaning “to retreat”. Bottéro (1977, p.6) read du8 here, rather than gaba. His reading makes it clear that tu from the divine name is artificially conceived of as du8 and understood as gaba, another reading of du8. (Consonantal change, such as from tu to du8, is discussed in section 3.2.17). Lastly, an observation on Nēberu (dné-bé-ru) illustrates interpretation using other readings of a sign: ša kakkabānī šamāmī alkassunu likīnma (Enūma eliš VII 130) Let him fix the course of the stars of the heavens Commentary II explains likīn, “Let him fix”, with MINdu kânu, “to be firm”. MINdu here signifies radu. In this analysis, the gloss ra evidently interprets ru from dné-béru: ra is here rá(du), but understood instead as another reading of du, gub/gin, which supplies kânu. (Vowel change, as from ru to ra, is illustrated further in section 3.2.16). Exploiting the polyvalence of the cuneiform writing system was a richly productive method of speculative interpretation. The large number of different readings which a given sign might have gave considerable scope for scholarly speculation. Alongside the use of homophony, exploiting polyvalence is one of the key hallmarks of Babylonian speculative scholarship. Homophony and polyvalence might be brought into play together and this is examined next. 3.2.13 Homophony and polyvalence together Ancient scholars used the homophonic and polyvalent properties of the cuneiform script in combination in their speculative interpretation. A sign might be understood

100

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

as a homophonous sign, and then interpreted through any of the other readings that homophonous sign might have. Conversely, a sign might be understood as another of its readings, and interpreted through another sign homophonous with the hypothesised reading. Extended chains of readings could be hypothetically constructed in this way to interpret any part of a sacred name. The method analysed here as separate steps in speculative interpretation is, quite certainly, not how the ancients would have seen their activity. The interchange of homophones and alternative readings was undoubtedly a flexible and seamless intellectual process to learned scholars informed by the spoken sound and fully alive to the potential offered by their script. This is not to deny, however, that considerable erudition and ingenuity were deployed, as evidenced by the sophistication of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5. The speculative method which first implies a homophone in place of the reading in the text and then exploits the polyvalence of the implied reading is shown by the following extracts. First, two lines from Enūma eliš, which explore the name Tutu (dtu-tu): aggiš lū tebû linē’ū [irass]un (Enūma eliš VII 12) Though they rise angrily, let them turn [back] Commentary II notes here íb agāgu, “to be furious”, and íb tebû, “to rise up”. íb is also tu4. For the commentarist, in this line of the narrative, tu is evidently understood as tu4, and interpreted as íb. Again, exploring Tutu (dtu-tu): lū šušqūma ina puḫur ilānī [abbē]šu (Enūma eliš VII 13) He shall be extolled in the assembly of the gods, his [fathers] Here Commentary II has muTU6 p[uḫrum], “assembly”. It appears that the commentarist understood tu as tu6, read mu7, and equates it to puḫru (for further discussion of the equation, see Bottéro, 1977, p.17 footnote 40). Likewise, a line from the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, discussed in an expository text: [d]ā’iš abnī(na4)meš dza-ba4-ba4 (Lambert, 1967, p.122 100; Smith College text 110 (S 3) 3) Crusher of stones, Zababa Livingstone (1986, p.66) noted that the epithet dā’iš abnī is etymologically linked with the divine name Zababa (dza-ba4-ba4), through homophony combined with another reading: za is understood as zá, and read as na4 abnu, “stone”. A compilation which lists names and temples of Nippur yields further illustrations. Nippur’s by-name dur-an-ki, which may be straightforwardly translated as “Bond of heaven and underworld”, is interpreted thus: dur-an-ki bānû abi Enlil (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §2a)

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

101

Begetter of the father of Enlil For this epithet, dur is understood as dúr, which, read as ku, gives banû, “to create”, (ú-guku banû Ea I 137 MSL XIV p.184) (other, less straightforward, explanations are also possible). an is evidently taken as the god An, Enlil’s father, Anu, and rendered in the Akkadian interpretation as abu, “father”. Explaining Nippur’s temple E-kur, kur is first understood as kúr, which is read as pab, corresponding to bukru, “son”: [é]-kur [bīt b]ukur (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 20′) [House of the] son In the same compilation unorthodox writings of the temple name E-kišnu-gal, usually written either as é-kiš-nu-gál or as é-giš-nu11-gal, “allow the etymologist to speculate freely on its meaning” (George, Topog.Texts, p.387 p.446): é-kéš-dnun-gal bīt markas Igīgī (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 12′) House of the Bond of the Igigi In this contrived writing, kiš becomes the near-homophone kéš corresponding to rakāsu, “to bind”, from which markasu, “bond”, may be derived. However, markasu is usually equated with dur or dim, and not written kéš. There is some evidence that kéš(ezen) read as šìr equates to markasu (see CAD M/I 283), as well as rakāsu and riksu, “binding, knot”. This alternative reading may have been understood here. These extracts illustrate where, in speculative interpretation, a homophonous sign is understood and its polyvalence exploited. Elsewhere, polyvalent signs and homophones implied for other readings are exploited. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 29–30 explicitly demonstrates how gíl may be read as kur4, in turn equated with its homophone kur and understood as Enlil (these lines are set out and discussed in section 3.2.11). An expository text gives three explanations of the divine name Lisi (dli9-si4), offering as its second explanation the following: šaniš qālû nīqa Alternatively: he who burns an offering (Weapon Name Exposition 39, Livingstone’s translation) Livingstone (1986, p.60) notes that this explanation follows the ideas demonstrated in preceding lines of the exposition, where li9(izi) is explained as “fire” and si4, “to burn”, (these are discussed in section 3.2.11 above). How nīqu, “offering”, was understood from dli9-si4 may be explained through the combination of polyvalence and homophony: li9(ne) may be read dè; its homophone dé is nīqu (ni-sagdé nīqu Syllabary B II 87 MSL III p.136; Ea III 175, Aa III/3 221 MSL XIV pp.311,338). The same speculative method seems to be deployed in elaboration on the name of a gate in the E-sagil complex in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi where the name ká-u6-de-babbar-ra is interpreted:

102

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

ina ká-u6-de-babbar-ra iddātūya immerā (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 84; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 47, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-u6-de-babbar-ra (the Gate of Bright Wonder) my signs became clear Lenzi (2015, p.741) noted that the sign ud, which writes babbar, “can also be read zalag. If read in this manner, it homonymically anticipates the logographic writing of the main verb of the line, zálag (= Akkadian namāru).” Differently expressed, babbar may be understood through another reading of that sign, zalag (exploiting the polyvalence of the sign) and interpreted through its homophone zálag, which writes namāru, “to shine”, from which immerā, “they became clear”, is derived. Other explanations are possible: zalag and zálag were not always differentiated in the Old Babylonian period (MZL pp.379, 385) and this older practice may have informed the composer’s interpretation; and babbar(ud) is itself equated with namāru (ba-ab-barud namārum ša u4-mu Aa III/3 71 MSL XIV p.334). These alternative explanations are perhaps to be understood as reinforcing the meaning perceived to be embedded in the sacred name. A further illustration of the use of polyvalence then homophony as a speculative method is drawn from the Standard Babylonian hymn to the goddess of Nippur, where names bestowed on Ištar are interpreted speculatively. The third name, Neanna, was understood by Lambert (1982, p.212) as “an orthographic variant of Inanna created specially for its orthography”, which generated the description of Neanna ([d]nè-an-na) as ša šaqâ emūqāša, “She whose might is sublime” (Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 61), (nè equates to emūqu, “might”, an to šaqû, “sublime”, CAD E 157, Š/II 16). The epithet pulḫāt našâ[t], “She is imbued with terror” (Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 63), speculatively interprets the divine name dnè-an-na, although Lambert did not explain this. našât comes from an, through polyvalent and homophonous signs: an is understood as ìl, in turn understood as íl našû, “to bear”. puluḫtu (pulḫātu), “terror”, is ní in lexical lists (CAD P 505). ní is readily understood for nè, interpreting the vowel flexibly (this will be discussed in section 3.2.16). A more complex analysis is possible, informed by the combination of homophony and polyvalence illustrated here: nè becomes né; né reads ni; and ni prompts the homophone ní. Through this chain of implied readings using homophonypolyvalence-homophony, nè may be understood as ní and equated with puluḫtu. A similar extended chain of implied connected readings appears to be at work in the description of Nippur, dur-an-ki, as [š]ubat tēlilti, “Seat of purification” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §2b). Here dur is taken as dúr to give šubtu, “seat”. tēliltu is more complex; again dur is dúr but read as ku and understood as kù elēlu, “to be pure”, from which tēliltu, “purification”, is derived. Again the sequence is homophony-polyvalence-homophony.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

103

The sequence polyvalence-homophony-polyvalence is perhaps evident in an explanatory list: d

šà-sùzu mudê libbi ilānī libbu rūqu ḫi-pí eš-šú (Marduk Names List 28) Šazu, Who knows the heart of the gods, profound heart [...] Lambert (2013, pp.484–485) noted that “a remote heart” (libbu rūqu) is “šà-sù, a well-attested Sumerian phrase expressing profound wisdom.” šà is libbu, “heart”. sù zu produces rūqu, “remote”, lexically attested and written as sud. The gloss sù is not a usual reading of zu. It seems that zu is first read as sú; sú is understood as its homophone sù, which is read sud. Thus, it seems, zu is understood to correspond with rūqu. The immense potential of the writing system with its numerous homophones which might be read in yet another manner means that any analysis may be only one of a number of possibilities, without certainty as to which was intended. It is probable, indeed likely, that, attuned to the immense flexibility of their writing system and with an evident eye to the potential for rich layers of meaning, ancient scholars may have had more than one interpretation in mind. 3.2.14 Akkadian homophony The use of homophonous signs by the ancient scholars to effect correspondences with Akkadian words has been illustrated in sections 3.2.11 and 3.2.13. Homophonous Akkadian words were also used in speculative interpretation. A Sumerian name, or part of it, evidently suggested an Akkadian word for use in the description or narrative based on the sacred name. Most simply, a Sumerian loanword is deployed. Elsewhere some phonetic similarity with the Sumerian elements prompted an Akkadian word. Rather differently, as observed by editors of some compositions in the text corpus, an Akkadian correspondence derived from a Sumerian name might be replaced by a homophonous, or near-homophonous, Akkadian word in the speculative interpretation. Straightforward transposition of a Sumerian name into a loanword which is used in the Akkadian text is readily apparent in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII. Enbilulu-Gugal (dgú-gal) is gugallu, “supervisor”, (l.64). EnbiluluḪegal (dḫé-gál) is mukammir ḫegalli, “the one who heaps up abundance”, (l.68). Sirsir-Malaḫ (dmá-laḫ4) is malāḫu, “boatman”, (l.77). Lugaldurmaḫ (dlugal-dur-maḫ) is bēl durmāḫi, “Lord of the Mighty Bond”, (l.95). From Tutu’s subname dtu6-kù, tu6, the Sumerian word for “incantation”, is directly rendered by tû, “incantation”, in the phrase tâšu ellu, “his pure incantation”, which translates the subname (l. 33). Likewise, elsewhere dtu6-kù is ša tûšu ellet, “the One whose incantation is pure” (Marduk Names List 27).

104

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

In an explanatory God List Ningirimma (dnin-gìrim) is gašan ālikat sulê …, “the lady who goes the road of …” (CT 25 49 r.1). Lambert (2013, p. 432) noted, without further explanation, that this “is merely a play on the signs of the late writing”. Here the element tar is taken from the combination of signs which write gìrim(A-ḪATAR-DU); tar, read sila, is sulû, a Sumerian loanword, “street”, (Proto-Aa 198:2 MSL XIV p.97). The reading sila commonly writes another Akkadian word for “street”, sūqu, not sulû; sulû was surely selected for use in this explanation for its similarity to sila. Speculative interpretation could be based on some perceived phonetic correspondence between Sumerian elements and Akkadian words or forms. An explanatory work expressly evidences this: [I (x x ) dS]în(30) bēl(en) purussê(eš-bar) e-šú 30 2 e-ni be-el [(..)] Sîn is “Lord of Decisions (en-eš-bar)”. eš is 30; 2 is -ēni, which is also lord (en) (i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a 3, extract; Livingstone’s translation) As Livingstone (1986, p.46) explained, en, “lord”, is taken as the Akkadian dual ending -ēni to supply “2”, an equation justified by phonetic similarity. Enūma eliš VI–VII contain other illustrations. The divine name Ašāru (da-šá-ru) is understood as the Akkadian verb ašāru, “to muster”, in the following line: d

a-šá-ru ša kīma šumīšūma īšuru ilānī šīmāti (Enūma eliš VII 122) Ašāru, who, as his very name says, mustered the gods of destinies

The phrase kīma šumīšūma, “as his very name says”, expressly points to the supposed etymology of the name (section 2.4.4). Böhl (1936–1937, p.202) noted the obvious homophony in the verbal form ukinnu, “he established”, pertaining to TutuZiukkinna (dzi-ukkin-na): ša ukinnu ana ilānī šamê ellū[ti] (Enūma eliš VII 16) Who established the sacred heavens for the gods Less obviously, Bottéro (1977, p.22 §25) conjectured that the description of Lugalabdubur (dlugal-áb-dúbur) as nāsiḫu kakkī[ša], “who tore away [her (Tiāmat’s)] weapons” (Enūma eliš VII 91), arose by phonetic association, explaining kakku, “weapon”, as given by understanding dù (derived from dúbur) as kak, another reading of that sign. Asalluḫi’s sub-name Namru (dnam-ru) was evidently understood as the Akkadian word namru, “bright”, freely interpreted as elēlu, “to be pure”: ilu ellu mullilu alaktīni (Enūma eliš VI 156) Pure god, who purifies our behaviour

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

105

ilu ellu, “pure god”, and mullilu, “one who purifies”, here perhaps also interpret the principal name Asalluḫi, suggested by their similar phonetics. The same feature can be detected in the incantation of the name Asalluḫi in Marduk’s Address to the Demons, where the divine name appears to be echoed in the Akkadian descriptions of the god as, for example, ilu ellu, “pure god”, and lē’û, “expert”, (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 10, 11, 49; 23, 100; ed. Geller, 2015; and passim words derived from elû, “to go up”). These descriptions are, of course, both conventional and fitting for Asalluḫi and to echo the divine name is a literary device particularly appropriate to an incantation. However it should not be ruled out that scholarly speculation on the divine name based on phonetic similarity between the Sumerian name and Akkadian words is also at work. A more unusual description from the same composition appears to confirm this: anāku dasal-lú-ḫi ša ašar šillati lā iqabbû anāku (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 45; ed. Geller, 2015) I am Asalluḫi, one who does not speak in the place of blasphemy, am I The phrase ša ašar šillati bears obvious similarities to the phonetics of the divine name Asalluḫi, as well as to its writing, for ašar, “place (of)”, perhaps also interprets asal(asari). Scholars have suggested that similarity of sound may account for the Akkadian words used in narrative derived from gate-names in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi: ina ká-u6-de-babbar-ra iddātūya immerā (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 84; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 47, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-u6-de-babbar-ra (the Gate of Bright Wonder) my signs became clear u6-de seems to be understood as ittu (ittātu/iddātu), “sign (signs)”, perhaps through homophony (George, Topog.Texts, p.393, who also gave an alternative explanation based on graphic interpretation, as did Reiner, 1985, p.117; this is examined in section 3.2.25). Similarly, perhaps, in the same composition: ina ká-a-sikil-la mê tēlite assaliḫ (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 88; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 51, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-a-sikil-la (the Gate of Pure Water) I was sprinkled with waters of purification Lenzi (2015, p.739) was confident that the verb form assaliḫ, “I was sprinkled”, was derived from a-sikil-la. Whilst indeed a possibility (if not entirely compelling), the other illustrations presented here evidence that this is certainly not, as Lenzi asserted, “a unique example of homophony”.

106

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Two further examples suggest speculative interpretation from phonetic similarity between the Sumerian name, or a part of it, and an Akkadian word or phrase. In Enūma eliš VII 6 Asaralimnunna (dasar-alim-nun-na) is muštēširu, “administrator”. The epithet, the Št2 participle of ešēru, “to be straight”, perhaps arose from resemblance between ešēru and the element asar in the divine name. In an explanatory God List Ninimma is: d

nin-ìmma bēl nabnīt bunnannê bēl mimma [šumšu] (CT 25 49 r.2) Nin-imma, lord of the creation of forms, lord of every[thing]

Both epithets express the name of a creator goddess (Lambert, 2013, p.435). The first exploits the reading of ìmma as sig7 (or sa7) to derive banû, “to create”, and bunnannû (sa7-alan), “forms”, for the epithet; the second is a freer rendering of the first. However, the marked similarity between nin-ìmma and bēl(en) mimma suggests that homophony also informs the second interpretation. Ancient scholars also interchanged homophonous Akkadian words in their speculative interpretation. The Akkadian word corresponding to a Sumerian element might evidently suggest a similar Akkadian word to interpret the Sumerian element. Similar Akkadian words could be used interchangeably, it seems, without regard to meaning. Two extracts from the same expository text demonstrate the speculative method: d.giš

tukul-sag-pirig kakku ša pānūšu namrū pirig namru (Weapon Name Exposition 21, 24) Tukul-sag-pirig (Lion-headed-weapon) Weapon whose face is bright pirig bright

Here, it seems, namru, “bright”, corresponds with pirig (“lion”) because of its similarity to nimru, which equates to pirig-tur “small lion” (Livingstone, 1986, p.60). Similarly perhaps: d

u4-ba-nu-íl kakkašu lā maḫru íl maḫāri (Weapon Name Exposition 26, 31) d u4-ba-nu-íl (Unrelenting storm) His weapon that cannot be withstood íl to oppose As Livingstone (1986, p.60) suggested, íl is perhaps equated with [sag(?)-í]l maḫrû, “foremost” (Nabnītu XVI 58 MSL XVI p.143), and interpreted as maḫru, “rival”, given in the text by the infinitive maḫāru, “to oppose”. George identified a like case in the E-sagil Commentary: [é-sa7]-kìl bītu bānû napḫar il[ī] [sa7 ban]û kìl napḫaru ìl i[lu] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8)

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

107

House, creator of all the gods [sa7 to create] kìl entirety ìl g[od] The restoration sa7 respects the phonetics of é-sag-íl, but strictly equates to banû, “to grow” (so CAD B 90 banû B; “gut, schön sein, werden” AHw102b banû II), not banû, “to create”, the meaning required by context (see further George, Topog.Texts, p.387). The same flexible interchange involving banû, but with a different lexical equivalence, occurs in a late text from Uruk which contains speculative interpretation on names of the goddess Antu: d ú

u an-tu4 U Antu

bānât kullat (Beaulieu, 1995a, p.194 5) the one who created everything

The equation úu ba-nu-ú (Aa II/4 19 MSL XIV p.280) is here interpreted as banû, “to create”, not, as strictly required lexically, banû, “well formed” (so CAD B 81), or its verbal form (AHw102b banû II). A further example of this interchange interprets the determinative which denotes a star, múl/mul, in the name múlne-ne-gar as ša ina ramānīšu ibbanû, “the one who was created by himself” (Prayer to Bēl, 311 extract); the lexical equation between mul and banû, is, it seems, with banû “to grow”, not banû “to create”, the meaning given by the logographic writing dùu in this manuscript (this line is discussed more fully in section 3.2.6). In a rather more broken context in a temple list, other similar Akkadian words may be interchanged to interpret a Sumerian element: it appears that númun is interpreted by etellu, “pre-eminent”, in place of eṭlum, “youth” (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 23′; George, Topog.Texts, p.454). Another list interprets the divine name Lugal-šuanna (dlugal-šu-an-na) through the verb ašāru: bēlum āšir ilānī (Marduk Names List 14) The lord who supervises the gods For this description, šu is understood as šú and equated with ašāru. CAD lists four separate verbs: ašāru A “to muster, organise, check”, ašāru B “to be humble” and two more doubtful verbs (CAD A/II 420–422). The context requires ašāru “to muster, organise, check”. The same equation is made in the Gula hymn 16′′–17′′ (section 6.1). CAD attributed lexical evidence for šú as ašāru to ašāru B “to be humble” (CAD A/II 422), although Landsberger was uncertain (ašārum “sich demütigen (?)” Syllabary B II 38 MSL III p.133). AHw 79a ascribed the lexical entries to ašāru(m) I “ordnend überwachen” (CAD’s ašāru A). Which dictionary is correct cannot be resolved by the meaning required in these speculative contexts, given the use of homophonous Akkadian words to interpret Sumerian, which is evidenced beyond doubt in the flexible understanding of banû described above. If CAD is correct in equating šú with ašāru “to be humble”, here too the interchange of homophonous Akkadian words, regardless of meaning, is illustrated.

108

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

3.2.15 Near-homophony Akin to their speculative methods which exploit homophony of signs and words (examined and illustrated above), ancient scholars used near-homophonous readings in their speculative exploration of meaning. An element of a name was understood, sometimes even artificially written, as some near-homophonous reading and interpreted through it. Whilst, without access to the spoken word, this has to be treated with some caution, it is nevertheless obvious from the text corpus (and particularly in some repeated expositions of names) that some writings were nearhomophonous with others, or at least sufficiently similar in sound to represent others, and hence be used to interpret them. The artificial writings of E-sagil in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, which are used in speculative interpretation of the temple name are clearly all nearly homophonous with é-sag-íl. The interlinear explanation of one contrived writing of é-sag-íl specifically illustrates the use of near-homophony, where two readings, kìl and gil, evidently sufficiently similar-sounding, interpret the final syllable: [é-sá]-gil bītu kāšid napḫar qardāmū [sá kašā]du kìl napḫaru gil qardāmu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, 23–24) House which overcomes all adversaries [sá to over]come kìl totality gil adversary The writings ddu-du, ddu11-du11 and ddù-ṭu for Tutu (dtu-tu) (Marduk Names List 22, 24–25) evidently employ near-homophones, so as to represent the divine name. Similarly, the interpretation of Marukka (dma-ru-uk-ka) through ùku (nišū, “people”; Enūma eliš VI 133; Lambert, 2013, p.165) relies on phonetic similarity. Likewise, the shared phonetics of genna/ginna(TUR-DIŠ), which writes múlgenna, “Saturn”, and gi-na, “true”, surely prompted the Akkadian interpretation of Saturn as kakkab(mul) kittu u mīšar, “the star of truth and justice” (Prayer to Bēl 307, extract), as Stol (1989) noted. Syllables could evidently be regarded as sufficiently close notwithstanding a final phoneme. Final phonemes could be inferred: the interpretation of é-šu-me-ša4 as bītu nākis ilī, “House which fells the gods”, understands ša4 as šab nakāsu, “to fell” (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 3′, and p.453). Even a more extended reading could be sufficiently close as to be inferred, so it seems. The description of múlmu-bu-kéš-da (the “Mubukešda-star”) as ša gišḫaṭṭu(gidru) u giškippatu(gúr) nāšû, “the one who carries the sceptre and the hoop” (Prayer to Bēl 302, extract), first understands bu as an alternative reading, gíd, which evidently prompts gidru ḫaṭṭu, “sceptre”. Conversely, phonemes could be ignored: in characterising é-bára-dúr-gar-ra as bītu ša ana bēli ana ṣālti šak[nu], “House which is provided for the lord for combat”, dúr is understood as du14 ṣāltu, “combat” (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 20′, and p.454).

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

109

More flexibly, part of the phonetics of a name might prompt some correspondence which has like phonology, as shown in lines from the incantation of the name of Asalluḫi in Marduk’s Address to the Demons: anāku dasal-lú-ḫi lúbārû(ḫal) purussû pāris ḫalḫallī (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 65; ed. Geller, 2015) I am Asalluḫi, the diviner who gives decisions, the one who assigns destinies Here ḫal, which corresponds to bārû, “diviner”, and is repeated in the word ḫalḫallū, “lots, destinies”, is surely drawn from the phonetics of Asalluḫi, exploiting a similar sound in the name. Likewise, in another line from this incantation, the description of Asalluḫi as ḫā’iṭ lalgar(làl-gar), “the one who watches over the underground ocean” (l.86), exploits the same near-homophony in the name, using lal, a sign which may write ḫiāṭu, “to watch over”, and its homophonous sign làl, taken up in lalgar(làlgar). Two further examples illustrate the considerable scope the speculative method allowed. The contrived writing of é-kiš-nu-gál as é-ká-èš-nun-gal (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 13′) self-evidently exploits near-homophony. Here, nu has an added phoneme and kiš is dissimilated into separate syllables with different vowels for speculation. Conversely, vowels are elided in speculation on E-kiur (éki-ùr/é-ki-uru12, George, Topog.Texts, p.452): [é]-ki-ùr ašru el[lu] (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 3′) Pure place ki generates ašru, “place”; ellu, “pure”, seems to derive from understanding ki-ùr as kù, seemingly exploiting similar sound. The free interpretation of vowels and of consonants within consonantal groups also realise this speculative method. These are discussed and illustrated in the following sections 3.2.16–3.2.17 and in sections 3.2.19.3–3.2.19.4. 3.2.16 Vowels Vowels were treated quite freely in speculative interpretation. The potential for phonetic adjustment opened up a range of meanings, adding to the interpretive scope given by homophones and polyvalent signs. Lambert’s comment (2013, p.166) that “nothing so trivial as a vowel can stand in the way of this kind of interpretation” exaggerates, but the text corpus evidences the considerable freedom taken in interpreting vowels. A clear illustration of the practice lies in Commentary II’s analysis of Enūma eliš VII 40 as interpreting Marduk’s name dšà-zu, from which it is evident that the commentarist considered that the element zu might readily be taken as zu or as zi and interpreted accordingly:

110

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

ša sarti u k[it]tum umtassâ ašruššu (Enūma eliš VII 40) Who distinguished falsehood and truth Commentary II: zu sartum falsehood zi kânu to be true zu m[u]ssû to distinguish, identify zi [aš]rum place There are many other equations given in Commentary II which evidence the flexible treatment of vowels for speculative purposes. As Frahm (2011, p.71) has commented in relation to this same interpretive practice deployed in other Babylonian and Assyrian commentary texts, “The reward for this apparent lack of rigor was that it opened up for the ancient scholars multiple avenues to achieve meaningful association.” In the speculative method illustrated, the point of departure is the name as written in the composition; an element is understood to contain a different vowel and interpreted accordingly. The name is otherwise respected and written conventionally. Vowel changes where some contrived writing of the name is used in the composition, or where some other change to the name is implicit in the speculative interpretation, are discussed and illustrated in section 3.2.19.3. This speculative method is illustrated below in tabular form, to show the interchange of vowels observed in the text corpus. a/i Name

Element

Interpreted as

Source

d

u4-ba-nu-íl

ba

bi šu his

d

ir-ug5-ga

ga

[g]i gimru all

nam

nim zēru seed

Weapon Name Exposition, 26–30 Enūma eliš VII 103 (Commentary II) Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §3 9′

[é-ùru-na]-nam

na

nu(?) nišū people

BTT 3 r.2′

[é-rab-ri-ri] d a-rá-nun-na

ra(b) (or ri ) rá rá

rú binûtu creation rú banû to create rú mašālu to equal

BTT 3 12′ Enūma eliš VII 97 VII 98 (all Commentary II)

nam-bi-tar-[raki]

a/u

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

u/a d

né-bé-ru

ru ru ru

d d

d

!

lugal-šu -an-na tu-tu

šu tu tu

tu-tu

tu tu

ra ša which ra ina in ra lū may he ra ṣabātu to seize ra ša which rá alāku to go rá kânu to be firm ša4 nibûtu naming da šū he da lū may he da šaqû to be high ta in[a] in ta ai not ta in[a] in

Enūma eliš VII 126 VII 127 VII 130 (all Commentary II) Enūma eliš VII 102 Enūma eliš VII 9,10 VII 13 (all Commentary II) Enūma eliš VII 13 VII 18 (all Commentary II)

i/u [é-rab-ri-ri] ri (or ra(b)) d tu-tu zi-ukkin-na zi

d

rú binûtu creation zu [idû to know]

BTT 3 12′ Enūma eliš VII 17 (Commentary II)

u/i d

tu-tu

tu tu

⸢ti⸣ pašāḫu to repose ti nâḫu to rest

d

šà-zu

zu

zi [kan]āšu to submit zi māgiru compliant zi kittu truth zi kânu to be firm zi ašru place zì [nindabû food offerings]

zu zu d

zu-lum

zu

Enūma eliš VII 10 VII 11 (all Commentary II) Enūma eliš VII 38 (Commentary II) VII 39 VII 40 (Commentary II) Enūma eliš VII 85 (Commentary II)

111

112

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

e/i [d]nè-an-na

nè

ní puluḫtu terror

[é-me-l]ám-⸢an-na⸣

lám(ne)

ní palāḫu to revere

[é-te-me-en-an-k]i

te

ti leqû to perform

Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 63 Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 17′ BTT 3 6′

The vowels changes which were not observed are a/e and e/a; i/a (although a/i occurs); i/e (although e/i occurs); and e/u and u/e. An i/a exchange is to be observed in the speculation which equated pirig (“lion”) and namru, “bright”, in the Weapon Name Exposition, 24, by reason of similarity between namru and nimru, which equates to pirig-tur “small lion” (so that nimru is taken as namru), if this reasoning by Livingstone (1986, p.60) is sound. (It is to be noted that the example of a/i exchange from the Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §3 9′ (above) understands nam as nim.) With the exception of a/e, the vowel changes which were not observed in this review of conventionally written sacred names are found in contrived writings in the text corpus and in the Gula hymn. An e/a exchange is made for interpretive purposes in the Gula hymn 108′; an i/a exchange is evidenced in the Gula hymn 20. The i/e exchange occurs in instances where some contrived writing is understood and in the Gula hymn 31. It seems very likely that the interchange between i and e might readily be made, as in the writing system where i and e vowels are represented by the same sign forms, as in ḫi/ḫe, ik/ek and many others. Glosses in the lexical tradition exhibit the same flexibility. An e/u exchange occurs in contrived writings; a u/e exchange is observable in the Gula hymn 35. These vocalic changes are illustrated in section 3.2.19.3 for contrived writings and in section 6.1 for the Gula hymn. Three conclusions may be drawn from the above analysis. First, the paired vowels noted in these tables are readily interchangeable: zi may be taken as zu and vice versa, for example. Secondly, once vocalic change is in play, any homophone which has the new sound may be used: both zi and zì can stand for zu, as evidenced in the table u/i. Thirdly, as is perhaps to be expected, e interchanges with i, but seemingly less readily with other vowels. 3.2.17 Consonantal groups Elements of a name or word could be interpreted as other phonetic values by changes within certain consonantal groups, as observed by many scholars (see, for example, Frahm, 2011, p.71; Lambert, 2013, p.167). This speculative method is clearly evidenced in the text corpus by the explanations in Commentary II and those compositions which contain expressly contrived writings. Section 3.2.19.4 illustrates consonantal changes where a contrived writing is used, or some other change to the

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

113

name is implicit in the speculative interpretation. The more common practice is presented here: an element of a name is understood to contain a different consonant and interpreted accordingly. The name is otherwise respected and is written conventionally. The changes within consonantal groups observed in this text corpus are between the Akkadian dentals d t ṭ, velars g k q and sibilants s ṣ z š. This last is not, to modern scholars, a consonantal group, but s ṣ z and š were evidently regarded as sufficiently similar by the ancients to allow interchange of phonemes. b/p interchange also occurred (see Frahm, 2011, p.71, for an example drawn from the etymological explanation of a commentary text), but does not appear to feature in this corpus, save perhaps for a single instance in the Gula hymn (see section 6.1 Gula hymn 96′). The Akkadian emphatic consonants ṭ q and ṣ do not feature in Sumerian writing. In principle, there seems no reason to suppose that consonantal interchange involving these consonants was not permissible for speculative purposes and the contrived writing of Tutu (dtu-tu) as ddù-ṭu to facilitate speculative interpretation of the divine name (Marduk Names List 24) evidences that it was indeed possible. Nevertheless, changes involving ṭ q and ṣ are rare in the text corpus. 3.2.17.1 d t ṭ The freedom to choose other sign values for interpretation through changes within the consonantal group d t ṭ is demonstrated by speculative interpretation of the name Tutu (dtu-tu) in Enūma eliš VII, as explained in Commentary II. tu is repeatedly understood as an element with the dental d (dù, du8 and du10). Commentary II understood tu as dù in Tutu’s third name, dtu-tu dzi-kù, in the narrative šalšiš imbû, “Tutu-ziku they named (him) thirdly” (Enūma eliš VII 19). The commentarist noted dù as banû, “to create”, and né-bu-⸢u⸣ (intending perhaps nabû, “to call”, or nību, “naming”) to explain imbû, “they named”. Here the commentarist draws on the association between banû, “to create”, and the verb nabû, “to call”, which is used to express the act of creation, as demonstrated in the opening lines of Enūma eliš I (for this concept, see Bottéro, 1977, p.22 §25; Lambert, 1998a, p.192, and 2013, p.469). Commentary II again understood tu as dù in Enūma eliš VII 10, here noting dù sagû, “sanctuary”, not a usual correspondence. By dù, the commentarist evidently had in mind the Akkadian homophone dû (tu’u), “throne platform” (sometimes written as du6), a synonym of sagû (dû (tu’u) and sagû are given together in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 252–253, ed. Hrůša, 2010). Using a different homophone of du to interpret Tutu, tu is understood as du8 in l.12 where, read as gaba, it is irtum, “breast”; and in l.18 where, understood as part of the Sumerian compound šu-du8, it gives kullum, “to consider”, (Bottéro, 1977, p.22 §24; Lenzi, 2015, p.742). Differently again, tu is interpreted as du10 ṭâbu, “to

114

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

be sweet”, to describe Tutu-Ziku (dtu-tu dzi-kù) as il šāri ṭābi, “God of the fair wind” (Enūma eliš VII 20). Commentary II also demonstrates that, for speculative purposes, a consonantal change might be coupled with a vowel change (discussed in the preceding section). Explaining lines which again relate to Tutu (dtu-tu), tu is understood as da (šū, “he” (Enūma eliš VII 9–10), lū, “may”, and šaqû, “to be high” (l.13)). The change t/ṭ is not exemplified in the text corpus, save in the contrived writing ddù-ṭu for Tutu (Marduk Names List 24). 3.2.17.2 g k q Interchange of g and k occurs in the text corpus. Two fragmentary passages from Commentary II appear to evidence that, in the commentarist’s analysis, g could be exchanged with k for speculative purposes. Explaining the name Enbilulu-Gugal (dgú-gal) in Enūma eliš VII 64–65, the Commentary notes kù as nâ[du], “to laud”, and (perhaps) ḫ[egallu], “plenty”. Evidently here kù renders gú from the divine name, despite the uncertainty as to the correspondences given by Commentary II. The interpretation of k as g is evidenced in two passages from the same explanatory list: é-kur bītu mutīr gimil šarri (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 21′) House which returns the king’s kindness Here, kur is understood as gur târu, “to turn”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.444). é-kiš-nu-gálgiš-nu-gál bītu ša kakkūšu lā immaḫḫarū (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 11′) House whose weapons cannot be opposed In this explanation of the temple name, kiš is interpreted as giš kakku, “weapon”, as the gloss giš-nu-gál also suggests. The name of Marduk’s foe from Enūma eliš VI 29–30 is usually read as Qingu, not Kingu (Tallqvist, 1938, pp.342, 437 Qi-in-gu; Lambert, 2013 and others), and likewise Marduk’s name, Irqingu (dir-qin-gu). If so correctly read, the consonantal change q/k occurs for the etymological basis of the description of Irqingu (dir-qingu): muttabbil têrēt napḫari mukīn bēlūti (Enūma eliš VII 106) Who administers all commands, establishes dominion têrtu, “command”, corresponds to kin, rendering qin. Likewise kin is understood for qin in l.107, where the name etymologised and realised in the epithet muma’’ir napḫar ilānī, “Commander of all the gods”, is evidently Qingu (so Lambert, 2013, p.490, citing the equations kin mu’’uru, “to govern”, and gú napḫaru, “totality”), not

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

115

the divine name given in the couplet, Kinma (dkin-ma). The q/k change seems to be evidenced only here in the corpus, if indeed the name is correctly read Qingu. 3.2.17.3 s ṣ z š Consonantal interchange between the sibilants s ṣ and z is not well-evidenced in the text corpus. Interpretation of an element commencing with z by one commencing s seems clear from epithets in two broken lines in a list, restored by Lambert from the same sequence of names in Enūma eliš VII 43–56. dzáḫ-rim and dzáḫ-gú-rim (both divine names names are lost) are characterised as ešû raggī, “who confuses the evil ones”, and ešû napḫar raggī, “who confuses all the evil ones”, respectively (Marduk Names List 34–35). The etymological explanation is given by CAD E 378–379, explaining záḫ as saḫ4 ešû, “to confuse”, gú napḫar, “totality”, and rim raggu, “evil”. saḫ4 may perhaps be read sùḫ, but nevertheless the z/s change is still substantiated. Interchange between s and š is more difficult to identify securely. Akkadian articulation of Sumerian phonology indicates an ambiguity between these phonemes from an Akkadian perspective (evident in the lexical correspondence of both sa6 and ša6 with damāqu, “to be good”). This ambiguity clouds whether this consonantal interchange for speculative purposes is at work. The change s/š is however perhaps observable. The element sù from the gate-name ká-ḫi-li-sù seems to be reflected in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi, interpreted as šu4: ina ká-ḫi-li-sù šēp Zarpanītum annabik (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 90; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 53, ed. Oshima, 2014, reading annabik CAD A/I 9) In ká-ḫi-li-sù (the Gate sprinkled with Luxuriance) I fell at the feet of Zarpanītum Lexical evidence equates abāku, “to overturn”, and šu4: šu-uu a-ba-lu : -ku Aa II/4 48 MSL XIV p.281 (note too in bilingual texts tabāku, “to pour out, lay flat”, šú-šú CAD A/I 9, T 10 notes). The lexical equation supports the reading annabik, “I fell”, rather than annašiq, “I kissed (?)”. Elsewhere s is perhaps also interpreted as š in the description of Asaralimnunna (dasar-alim-nun-na) as muštēširu, “administrator” (Enūma eliš VII 6), where the epithet seems to be prompted by near-homophony between the element asar and the Akkadian verb ešēru, “to be straight”. Conversely, š/s change appears to be illustrated in explanations of é-šu-me-ša4 in temple lists (see George, Topog.Texts, p.453): ša4 is perhaps interpreted as sa riksu, “bond”, and rakāsu, “to bind” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 c; Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 12′–14′), and as sa dāmu, “blood” (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 16′). The Gula hymn displays exchanges within this group: s/š in l.108′; š/s in l.35; and perhaps š/z in l.119′. Interchange with ṣ in evidenced in the Gula hymn (l.112′, where the Akkadian word ṣillu, “shade, protection”, interprets the Sumerian word sila, “street”; and perhaps in l.129′, where ṣerretu, “lead-rope”, may be prompted by

116

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

šarratu, “queen”), but does not appear to be evidenced elsewhere in the corpus. The Gula hymn is analysed in section 6.1. 3.2.18 Part only of element used The cuneiform syllabary gave enormous potential for different writings of sacred names, ripe for speculative interpretation. Unusual and sometimes highly unorthodox spellings of sacred names could be contrived to facilitate scholarly speculation on their meaning. This speculative method and its tools will be described and illustrated in the next section, section 3.2.19, where it will be seen that such contrived orthography typically involved (explicitly or implicitly) alternative syllabification of the usual writing of a sacred name. Somewhat differently, however, it seems that sometimes part only of an element of a sacred name could be taken for interpretation. A phonetic part could notionally be extracted from the element and interpreted. Evidence for this is supplied by the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5: [é-sa7]-kìl bītu bānû napḫar il[ī] [sa7 ba-nu]-ú kìl napḫaru ìl i[lu] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8) House, creator of all the gods [sa7 to create] kìl entirety ìl g[od] The interlinear explanation shows that the contrived element kìl is first used in full as napḫaru, “entirety”; then a phonetic part is extracted from kìl and realised by ìl ilu, “god”. Likewise, gil is used in full to express Marduk’s name, and again, as to part of its phonetics, as gi rubû, “prince”: [é-sa12-a]n-gil bītu šubat rubê Marūduk [s]ag ašābu ⸢gi⸣ rubû gil dmarūduk (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12) House, Dwelling of the prince Marduk sag to dwell gi prince gil Marduk This speculative method also occurs in Enūma eliš, where Lugaldurmaḫ (dlugal-durmaḫ or dlugal-dúr-maḫ) is described as: ša ina šubat šarrūti šurbû (Enūma eliš VII 96, extract) Who is greatest in the abode of kingship Commentary II (extract): lú ša who ku ina in dúr šubtum abode lugal šarru king maḫ rubû important This sub-clause interprets dlugal-dúr-maḫ in all its elements, but lugal is used twice, according to Commentary II: in full as šarru, “king”, and in part as lú, where it is understood as ša, “(the one) who”. The double use suggests that this interpretation is not underpinned by an implicitly syllabified orthography of the name. It indicates that the commentarist might freely use part of the element lugal for interpretation,

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

117

doubtless having in mind the meaning of lugal as the “big man”, lú gal. Similarly, in an interpretation of the name of Nippur’s temple, é-kur in a list: é-kur bītu mutīr gimil šarri (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 21′) House which returns the king’s kindness For the Akkadian explanation, kur is understood as gur târu, “to turn”, and seems also to be broken into u and ur: u, read as umun, equates to šarru, “king”, and ur, equates to gimillu, “favour” (urur5 gi!millu George, Topog.Texts, p.444). This suggests that, rather than an implicit syllabification of é-kur, phonetic parts are extracted from kur for interpretation. Elsewhere, an explanatory work speculates on Enlil’s name didim, to equate Enlil with the mythological figure Narru: íd nāru na-a-ra denlil(idim) River is nāru; narru is Enlil (i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a 4 extract; Livingstone’s translation) Here íd, the logogram for nāru, “river”, appears to be extracted from the writing idim, and then proceeds to link Enlil with Narru by the homophony between nāru and Narru (Livingstone, 1986, p.46). An implicit syllabification of idim seems unlikely. These illustrations suggest that a part only of an element might be taken for interpretation, but it is difficult to be completely confident of this. In many cases, other explanations of the speculative methods at work can be given. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, and Commentary II both illustrate how freely names could be syllabified in speculative interpretation. Not all elements of a syllabified name need be used for interpretation. Hence, by analogy, it is not remarkable that part only of the phonetics of a sacred name might be used. Sometimes perhaps the interpretative element used was regarded as a near-homophone of an element, rather than part of the element. An illustration is, perhaps, the interpretation of dúr as du14, having the correspondence ṣāltu, “combat”, to explain the temple name [é-bára-dú]r-gar-ra (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 20′). Unless the work contains some strong pointer to another conclusion, syllabification may usually be understood as the speculative method where some part of a sacred name is interpreted. This is discussed in the following section. 3.2.19 Contrived orthography Sacred names typically have a usual orthography in Babylonian scholarship, that is to say, a sequence of cuneiform signs with which they are normally written. Some divine names, perhaps particularly of the more prominent deities, have more than one orthography (for example, Ištar may be written dU-DAR, to which modern scholars have ascribed different readings, and diš-tar) and, of course, gods’ names

118

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

could be written by their divine number (d15 for Ištar, for example) or with logograms or other names. The orthography or orthographies used appear to have been fairly fixed and are rarely deviated from, which seems to confirm that real significance was attached to the written form of sacred names. However, for the purposes of speculative interpretation, a sacred name might be recast as to the signs used in its orthography or as to its syllabification, to contrive some other spelling to yield meaning in the name. It may well be that sometimes the spoken form informed the recasting of the spelling of the sacred name, prompted perhaps by syllable boundaries, elisions and other features in speech. Sometimes the spelling of a name in the manuscript explicitly exhibits some unusual form or esoteric feature. However, more often, a sacred name might be implicitly understood to have some orthography which is contrived to be different from its conventional spelling, but is not realised in the text. These two approaches are termed “explicitly contrived orthography” and “implicitly contrived orthography” in this analysis. To describe these approaches as “contrived” is not, in any sense, to disparage the very considerable invention and intellectual virtuosity which the ancient scholars display in this extraordinary aspect of speculative scholarship. The text corpus provides outstanding examples of explicitly contrived orthographies of sacred names, where the spelling of a name in the manuscript explicitly exhibits some unusual form or unorthodox feature, and of the speculative interpretation of such unusual writings. The principal examples of such explicit orthographies occur in compositions which take the form of explanatory lists and are as follows (the sacred name(s) treated are noted in brackets): Tintir I 4–7 (Babylon as Šuanna) E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 (é-sag-íl) Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 7′– 8′, 11′–13′ (giškiri6-maḫ, é-kiš-nu-gál) Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 [1′] 2′–10′ (é-kur, é-ki-ùr/é-ki-uru12) Marduk Names List 21–27 (Tutu) Such writings and their Akkadian explanations provide an invaluable key to the speculative methods used by ancient scholars, from which an analysis of these methods can be distilled. However, contrived writing is itself a method of speculative interpretation, a tool for exploration and creation of meaning. Commenting on the contrived spellings of Šuanna as Si-anna and Sa-anna (Tintir I 4–7), George, Topog.Texts, p.243, noted the scholar’s device: “By these means he finds meanings of Šuanna appropriate to Babylon’s exalted theological and cosmological position.” Explicitly contrived orthographies of sacred names are comparatively rare. More commonly, the realisation of a sacred name in an orthography which is different from its usual writing is implicit. The analysis of the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII provided by Commentary II shows that a writing of a name may be

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

119

notionally recast, broken into syllables for speculative interpretation. This approach is confirmed by analysis of other speculative explanations where no ancient commentary is available. For interpretive purposes, the elements of a name as usually written are not respected. The phonetics are broken down (so, for example, kur, is understood as ku-u-ur for interpretations in the Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 16′); or the name is syllabified differently (so, ir is derived from dné-bé-ru for Enūma eliš VII 128). Specific readings are understood in a morpheme or word thus recast; consequently, the notional recasting of a sacred name contrived for interpretation is treated in this analysis as an implicitly contrived orthography. Contrived writings, explicit and implicit, were interpreted using the speculative methods described in the analysis presented in this section 3.2. Contrived orthography, explicit or implicit, may simply take the form of syllabification. This is considered first in this analysis (section 3.2.19.1). The use of homophones requires special comment (section 3.2.19.2). Sections 3.2.19.3– 3.2.19.6 illustrate the treatment of vowels and consonants in this environment. Sections 3.2.19.7–3.2.19.8 consider some highly contrived writings. 3.2.19.1 Syllabification By understanding a sacred name to be written with syllables different from its customary orthography, scholars opened up for speculative purposes all the meanings those contrived spellings might convey. The cuneiform syllabary offered wide scope for alternative syllabic writings. In the speculative method described here, the exploitation of syllabification for speculative ends is illustrated, first in explicitly contrived orthography, and then where contrived orthography is implicit. 3.2.19.1.1 Explicitly contrived orthography The use of alternative syllabification for speculative purposes is strikingly displayed in the different writings of é-sag-íl contrived by the compiler of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5. The contrived writings seem to interpret the conventional orthography é-sag-íl, rather than the variant é-sag-gíl, as indicated by the explanation bītu našâ rēš[i], “House with top elevated” (l.1, similarly l.2), which translates ésag-íl. With George’s restorations (for the most part reconstructed from the interlinear commentary and from lexical correspondences with the words given in the Akkadian text), the composition exhibits contrived spellings, all (broadly) reflecting the phonetics of é-sag-íl, as shown in the table below (syllables preserved by the interlinear commentary are shown in bold). Even if not all restorations are completely secure (see George, Topog.Texts, pp.75, 387–389 for his observations on this), the preserved text itself illustrates the versatility of the re-syllabification.

120

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

[é-sa-ág-gil] (3) [é-sag-ìl-la] (5) [é-sa7]-kìl (7) [é-sa4-ki]-⸢il⸣ (9) [é-sa12-a]n-gil (11) [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl (13) [é-s]a-an-gi-íl (15)

[é-s]a6-an-gil (17) [é-sa-ág-g]i-il (19) [é-sì-a]n-ki-il (21) [é-sá]-gil (23) [é-sa-an]-gíl (25) [é-si-an-g]íl (27) [é-sa4-an-gí]l (29)

Another explanatory list contains explicitly contrived writings, syllabified for speculative purposes: the “Great Garden” of Nippur giškiri6-maḫ is rendered as ⸢kiir⸣-rù-maḫ and ki-ér-⸢maḫ⸣; the temple é-kiš-nu-gál as é-ká-èš-nun-gal (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 7′–8′, 13′). E-kiur, Ninlil’s sanctuary in Nippur, is usually written é-ki-ùr, probably to be read é-ki-uru12 (George, Topog.Texts, p.452). The name is syllabified as é-ki-ú-ru and é-ki-u-ru (which support the reading é-ki-uru12) and explained accordingly (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 6′–10′). From these explicit examples, two inferences can be made as to the methods of syllabification: first, an element may be broken into phonetic parts and syllabified accordingly; secondly, the morpheme boundary in the name as conventionally written may be disregarded. These are illustrated in turn. (i) An element may be broken into phonetic parts The morpheme sag from the writing é-sag-íl is evidently broken into sa-ág in the Esagil Commentary, BTT 5: [é-sa-ág-gil] [b]ītu narām M[arūduk] [ág narāmu gi]l dm[arūduk] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 3–4) House, loved by M[arduk] [ág beloved gi]l M[arduk] [é-sa-ág-g]i-il bītu ēpiš kullati rā’im kitti [ág epēšu] gi epēšu gi kullatum gi kittum ág râmu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20) House which makes everything, loves truth [ág to make] gi to make gi everything gi truth ág to love The writing of sag as sa-ág is, of course, restored by George in these lines. However, certainly sag is syllabified here. The restoration of ág is assured by the Akkadian correspondences narāmu, “beloved”, and râmu, “to love”; and sa (or a homophone) is required to complete the phonetics. Elsewhere, other instances where an element is broken into phonetic parts for interpretation are preserved. Unequivocally, syllabifying E-kiur (é-ki-ùr/é-ki-uru12), ùr or uru12 is broken down into ú or u and ru

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

121

in a sequence of lines, expressly rendering the temple name syllabified as é-ki-ú-ru and é-ki-u-ru for speculative interpretation (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 6′–10′). In the same composition, kiri6 (from giškiri6-maḫ) is written ⸢ki-ir⸣-rù and ki-ér; and kiš (é-kiš-nu-gál) is broken down as ká-èš (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 7′–8′, 13′). (ii) Morpheme boundary disregarded The inventive orthography of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, evidences that a morpheme boundary in the conventional spelling of é-sag-íl could be disregarded and the name freely re-syllabified. The spellings [é-sa-ág-gil] and [é-sa-ág-g]i-il (ll.3–4, 19–20 where, respectively, ág-gil seems clear and ág-gi certain from the preserved interlinear commentary) show the boundary of sag blurred by consonantal doubling. The phoneme g is thus made available in separate syllables for interpretation. The spellings perhaps reflect (but do not replicate) the common late orthography é-sag-gíl (HMH 967). More commonly, this extraordinary exposition evidences that this scholar was free to disregard the morpheme boundary in the usual spelling of the temple name entirely, breaking the morpheme sag and recasting its phonetics. The spellings [ésa7]-kìl, [é-sa4-ki]-⸢il⸣ and [é-sá]-gil, where k/g is transposed to the last part of the name, demonstrate this: [é-sa7]-kìl bītu bānû napḫar il[ī] [sa7 ban]û kìl napḫaru ìl i[lu] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8) House, creator of all the gods [sa7 to create] kìl entirety ìl g[od] [é-sa4-ki]-⸢il⸣ bītu nābû napḫar isrāt[i] [sa4 nab]û ki-il napḫaru ša isrāti (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 9–10) House, which calls into being all fields(?) [sa4 to cal]l ki-il entirety ša fields(?) [é-sá]-gil bītu kāšid napḫar qardamu [sá kašā]du kìl napḫaru gil qardamu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 23–24) House which overwhelms the enemy [sì to o]verwhelm gi enemy Again, the interlinear explanations support the restored orthographies of the sacred name. The morpheme boundary is again disregarded in the more elaborate orthography [é-s]a-an-gi-íl, where, again, the phoneme g is transposed to the last part of the name and the phoneme n is introduced: [é-s]a-an-gi-íl bītu nāšû šarūru [sa] šarūru íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 15–16)

122

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

House which bears brilliance [sa] brilliance íl to bear Similar orthography is deployed in ll.11–14, 17–22 and 25–30. The writing [é-s]aan-gi-íl and similar spellings illustrate here flexibility in the treatment of the morpheme boundary, as usually written in the sacred name. These orthographies also demonstrate that the scholar’s realisation of é-sag-íl in this way reflects evident understanding of the phonology of the Sumerian name, with its nasal consonant g (g͂). This is discussed in section 3.2.19.5. 3.2.19.1.2 Implicitly contrived orthography The analysis given by Commentary II clearly demonstrates how the commentarist understood the divine names given to Marduk in Enūma eliš VII to be broken into syllables not reflected in the usual orthography for speculative interpretation, which, as the commentarist sought to show, explained each word of the exposition of Marduk’s names there. Bottéro (1977, p.16 §8) explained that many elements identified by the commentarist “ne s’y trouvaient que virtuellement; .... il a fallu, pour ainsi dire, les découper du continu phonétique que forment les divers Noms”. Bottéro’s “découper”, the cutting of these “virtual” elements from names, is here described as implicitly contrived orthography. A few extracts from Commentary II clearly illustrate the syllabification of the name understood by the commentarist, different from the divine name as usually written (and, indeed, as invariably preserved in the Enūma eliš manuscripts). The table below presents the conventional orthography of the divine name and an extract from Commentary II showing syllables (capitalised for comparison, and with glosses where given) and their correspondences, beside the pertinent Enūma eliš line reference. VII 1

d

asar-re

VII 91

d

lugal-áb-dúbur

VII 114

dingir-é-sískur

VII 117

d

girru(BIL-GI)

RU šarāku to grant SAR mīrištu farmland A isratu plough-land siDU kânu to be firm LUGAL šar[ru] king BIR sap[āḫu] to scatter du DÙ ep[ēšu] to do AB tâmti[m] sea BU nasāḫ[u] to uproot duDÙ kak[ku] weapon E11 eli besides RA šâšu he KU ṭēmu intention UD ⸢ū⸣mu day RA [l]ā not ZU [i]dû to know DINGIR [i]lum god ZU m[amm]an somebody GI p[alkû] wide GI u[znu] understanding ru DÙ ⸢e⸣[pēšu] to do GI ḫ[asīsu] wisdom

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

VII 136– 138

d

bēl mātāti

123

(136) MA šumu name MA nabû to call A abu father (137) MA zikrī name DINGIR Igīgī Igigi MA nību naming (138) x šemû to hear [x] d[Ea] Ea x k[abattu] heart LI râ[šu] to rejoice LI nag[û] to sing LI ḫe[lû] to be cheerful

These extracts from Commentary II very obviously represent the divine name. Commentary II contains many other examples. As in explicitly contrived orthography, an element may be broken into its phonetic constituents and the morpheme boundary may be disregarded, illustrated in turn below. (i) An element may be broken into phonetic parts Implicit syllabification of a morpheme into its phonetic parts can be observed from an explanation of the name of Enlil’s temple in Nippur, é-kur: é-kur bītu ḫāmim têrēt ilī (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 16′) House which gathers the gods’ instructions Here é-kur is evidently understood as é-ku-u-ur. é is bītu, “house”; ku is unused, u is understood as ù ilu, “god”, and ur as ur4 ḫamāmu, “to gather”, and as ur5 têrtu, “instruction”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.444). Again, in the same exposition, kur appears to be implicitly broken: [é-ku]r bītu nabû nišī (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 28′) House, which called the people into being As George, Topog.Texts, p.444 explained, here perhaps kur is analysed as gu-ur, with gu understood as gù-(dé) nabû, “to call”, and ur, which corresponds to amēlu, “man”, rendered here by nišū, “people”. (Similarly, in the preceding line, l.27′, unfortunately damaged, kur is perhaps understood as gu (ugu4(ku)) banû, “to create”, and ur, again rendered by nišū, “people”.) Another temple list contains an explanation of é-ki-ùr, implicitly breaking down ùr (which is perhaps to be read as uru12, George, Topog.Texts, p.452): é-ki-ùr bīt ašar balāṭ[u išš]arraku (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 149) House, the place where life is granted Here ùr (or uru12) is understood as u-ru: u balāṭu, “life”, and ru šarāku, “to grant”. The implicit syllabification parallels the explicitly contrived orthography which rendered the temple name as é-ki-ú-ru and é-ki-u-ru noted above (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 6′–10′). The Akkadian interpretation closely resembles the description

124

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

there of é-ki-ú-ru as ašar šārikat balā[ṭi], “the place of the lady who bestows life” (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 7′; George, Topog.Texts, p.460). Commentary II’s analysis that asar of dasar-re is broken into a and sar for interpretation in Enūma eliš VII 1 is given in the table above. asar is again broken and reused in the commentarist’s explanation of the next line, (Enūma eliš VII 2), where the commentarist noted the correspondences rudù banû, “to create”, sar šê’im, “barley”, sar qû, “flax”, masar aṣû, “to go out”, and sar arqu, “greenery”. In a hymn to Nabû in which a number of Marduk’s names and attributes are ascribed to Nabû, the element asar in the same name, dasar-re, is clearly understood as broken in the same way: šalšu šumka dasar-re šitnunu muqattir qutr[i] (Hymn to Nabû 11) Your third name is Asarre, the fighter, who makes smoke Seux (1976, p.135) tentatively, but surely correctly, noted the epithet muqattir qutr[i], “who makes smoke”, as drawn from sar, a logogram which writes qutturu, “to make smoke”. However, there is more speculative interpretation in this line, for šitnunu, “combative, fighter”, appears to reflect another implicit syllabification of asar: sá equates to šanānu, “to oppose”, commonly written sá-sá (CAD Š/I 366). Commentary II also illustrates how dlugal-áb-dúbur is understood as dlugal-ab-dùbir for speculative purposes (Enūma eliš VII 91) (see table above). The divine name d lugal-áb-dúbur is restored by Lambert in an explanatory list from the Akkadian epithets: [dlugal-áb-dúbur ša]r kala timeāti [ ša]r napḫar timeāti (Marduk Names List 6–7) [king] of all the oceans The orthography implied by the explanations is perhaps lugal-ab-dù-bi (so Lambert, 2013, p.489): tâmtu, “ocean” (timeāti, “of the oceans”), corresponding to ab, napḫaru and kala, both meaning “all”, to dù, and bi a Sumerian possessive element. The preserved epithets in these broken lines confirm that dúbur is certainly implicitly broken to give dù. Likewise, asal is perhaps broken down for interpretation in Marduk’s Address to the Demons, underpinning the descriptions of Asalluḫi (dasal-lú-ḫi) as ēṭir kamî, “the one who saves the captive”, and kāmû utukku gallû(gal5-lá), “the one who binds the evil demon” (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 35, 37; ed. Geller, 2015). Here it appears that asal is understood as a-zal, for kamû, “to bind”, has, it seems, the lexical equivalence zal (Aa II/I iii 5′ MSL XIV p.266). The interpretation of (a)sal by zal is readily explained: zal(im) may also be read sál. Further, the consonantal interchange s/z for speculative purposes seems unproblematic (see sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4).

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

125

(ii) Morpheme boundary disregarded The blurring of the morpheme boundary by consonantal doubling (as demonstrated in E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 3–4, 19–20) has not been observed in implicitly contrived orthographies in the text corpus, save in l.68′ of the Gula hymn (this is examined in section 6.1). However, the disregard of the morpheme boundary, as used in the conventional orthography of a divine name, and the recasting of a morpheme’s phonetics is indeed evidenced in Commentary II’s analysis. Two illustrations of this speculative method are presented here. First, pertaining to the divine name Zulum (dzu-lum). The commentarist’s explanation is fragmentary, but the syllables themselves are preserved and evidence the recasting of the morpheme boundary: d

zu[lum], ZU [idû to know] ulKIB [qerbetum meadowland] AN [ana for] DINGIR [ilum god] BA(zu, Bottéro) [palāku to divide] U[L banû to create] (Commentary II: 84) The reading ulKIB is ùl; this implies a syllabification zu-ùl-(um) for zu-lum. The second illustration is given by the commentarist’s understanding of the treatment of the divine name Nēberu (dné-bé-ru). Commentary II’s analysis of lines describing Nēberu contains explanations based on ir5 (Enūma eliš VII 128–129, 131), extracting the syllable from the phonetic continuum of the name and notionally recasting the part of the name that is usually written as bé-ru. Likewise, explaining likmi tiāmat, “He shall bind Tiāmat” (Enūma eliš VII 132), the commentarist extracts both ir kamû, “to bind”, and érim tâmtim, “sea”, from dné-bé-ru, demonstrating once again how freely the conventional orthography might be notionally understood for speculative purposes. 3.2.19.2 Homophony Section 3.2.11 illustrates how an element of a sacred name may be understood as a homophone and interpreted accordingly, in both conventional orthography and explicitly contrived writings. This present section notes speculative methods involving homophones which are specific to explicitly and implicitly contrived writings. Homophones are deployed in some explicitly contrived writings. In an explanatory list Tutu (dtu-tu) is written as dtu6-tu6 (Marduk Names List 23). The contrived spellings of Babylon’s name Šuanna (šu-an-naki) as sa-an-naki and sa4-annaki exploit the homophones sa and sa4 to generate other meanings in the name (Tintir I 6–7). The contrived writings of the temple name in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, appear to interpret the conventional orthography é-sag-íl. In the exposition, the homophones íl, ìl and il are all used to render íl from é-sag-íl. íl, equated with našû, “to carry”, is conventionally written and interpreted in ll.13–16. In ll.5–6 the interlinear explanation confirms that íl is written as ìl(an) for interpretation:

126

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

[é-sag-ìl-la] [ē]kal lalê ilī ša šamê [é-sag ēkallum] la lalû ìl ilu ìl šamû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 5–6) Palace desired by the gods of the heavens [é-sag palace] la desire ìl god ìl heavens Elsewhere in this composition íl is written as il (ll.9, 19, 21), but is not separately interpreted. Where a name is implicitly syllabified for speculation, a reading which reflected the phonetics could be chosen to serve speculative ends, as the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, illustrates. kìl (written ki-il in l.9, where ki-il is also equated with napḫaru, “entirety”) is clearly implicitly broken to supply ìl corresponding to ilu, “god”: [é-sa7]-kìl bītu bānû napḫar il[ī] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8) [sa7 ba-nu]-ú kìl napḫaru ìl i[lu] House, creator of all the gods [sa7 to create] kìl entirety ìl g[od] Further, where some change in the conventional orthography of the sacred name is implicit, more than one reading of the derived phonetic element might be understood, exploiting homophony in the cuneiform system. An interpretation of é-kur which has already been cited above to show that an element may be broken into phonetic parts illustrates that multiple homophonous readings may be implied: é-kur bītu ḫāmim têrēt ilī (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 16′) House which gathers the gods’ instructions For the etymological interpretation, kur is broken into ku (which is not used), u (úu ilu, “god”) and ur, understood as the homophonous readings ur4 ḫamāmu, “to gather”, and ur5 têrtu, “instruction”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.444). The use of two different readings shows that the scholar was evidently free to select any of the homophones available for the contrived syllable to serve speculative interpretation. This is confirmed by Commentary II. Commentary II’s analysis of speculation on the name Asaralim (dasar-alim) in Enūma eliš VII evidences particularly clearly that readings to supply phonetics could be freely selected from the available homophones. The syllable sa is taken from asar and understood by the commentarist as sa, sá and sa5(diri) (Bottéro,1977, p.20 §21): d

asar-alim ša ina bīt milki kabtu šūturu milikšu ilānū ūtaqqû adīršu aḫzū (Enūma eliš VII 3–4) Asaralim, who is respected in the house of counsel, whose counsel surpasses The gods pay attention and fear him Commentary II: dasar-alim, sa bītu house sá milku counsel alim kabtu respected sa atru surpassing sá milku counsel

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

127

dingir ilum god sa uqqû to heed [dir]i-diri adāru to fear [dir]i-diri aḫāzu to take In these two lines, the commentarist understands the syllable contrived from dasaralim as sa, to supply bītu, “house”, and uqqû, “to heed”; as sá milku, “counsel”; and as sa5(diri) adāru, “to fear”, and aḫāzu, “to take”, and, it seems, atru, “surpassing”, (although the equation made is noted as sa, not sa5(diri)), exploiting both homophony and polyvalence in the implicit readings. 3.2.19.3 Vowels The interchange of vowels for interpretation described in section 3.2.16 is borne out also in contrived spellings. Unusual writings which demonstrate the etymological basis of their Akkadian interpretation clearly evidence this practice. The contrived spellings of Babylon’s name Šuanna (šu-an-naki) as si-an-naki, sa-an-naki and sa4-annaki contain vowel change for speculative purposes to find further meaning in the name (Tintir I 4–7, see George, Topog.Texts, p.243). The explicit writing in a list of sacred places of Nippur which creatively manipulates the orthography of sacred names displays how freely the phonetics might be treated. The following table shows the conventional orthography of the sacred name and its spelling contrived for interpretation, and highlights the vowel change made by the scholar: Conventionally

Contrived

Vowel change

Source

giš

kiri6-maḫ

⸢ki-ir⸣-rù-maḫ

kiri6 as ki-ir-rù

BTT 18 §6 7′

giš

kiri6-maḫ

ki-ér-⸢maḫ⸣

kiri6 as ki-ér

BTT 18 §6 8′

kiš as kéš

BTT 18 §6 12′

kiš as ká-èš

BTT 18 §6 13′

é-kiš-nu-gál

d

é-kéš- nun-gal

é-kiš-nu-gál é-ká-èš-nun-gal (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18)

The speculative method of interchanging vowels can also be detected in cases where a rendering of a name which is contrived to differ from its conventional orthography implicitly underlies the speculative interpretation. Examples of vocalic interchange are given below. In all of the following illustrations, the sacred name is implicitly syllabified for interpretation, although the syllable which is subject to vowel change may not be affected by the notional resyllabification (so, for example, dasar-re (Enūma eliš VII 2, Commentary II) is implicitly broken into syllables sar and rú; re is understood as rú). The vocalic interchange evidenced is closely similar to those illustrated in section 3.2.16, but the interchange of e with both i and u is observed.

128

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Vowel Name change a/i [kar-za-gìn-na]

Element

Interpreted as

Source

kar

ki-ár: ki ašru place ár tanittu praise

BTT 3 9′

ùku (nišū people): Enūma eliš VI 133 rendered by -šunu them ra ša whose ina in Enūma eliš VII 128 lā not Commentary II

a/u

d

ma-ru-uk-ka

uk-ka

u/a

d

né-bé-ru

ru

e/i

d

né-bé-ru

d

i/e

d

girru (BIL/NE-GI)

girru

e/u

d

re

i/u

dingir-é-sískur

sískur

u/i

d

dúbur

asar-re

lugal-áb-dúbur

né-bé-ru

ir5 qerbu middle

Enūma eliš VII 128 Commentary II érim t[âmtum] Enūma eliš VII 116 sea, Tiāmat Commentary II rú banû to create zu [i]dû to know m[amm]an somebody dù-bir: dù ep[ēšu] to do kak[ku] weapon bir sap[āḫu] to scatter

Enūma eliš VII 2 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 114 Commentary II Enūma eliš VII 91 Commentary II

The writing ki-ér for kiri6 to render giškiri6-maḫ (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 8′) shows that final vowels might be ignored. Final vowels could also be implied, according to Commentary II. Explaining Enūma eliš VII 112–114 which extols the name Dingir-Esiskur (dingir-é-sískur), the commentarist notes the syllables ru (l.112), ra (ll.112, 114), and ri and rú (l.113), all evidently derived from sískur and interpreted etymologically. Similarly, the part of Commentary II which explains l.138, although very broken, notes correspondences with li, in an exposition which is clearly based on the name Bēl-mātāti; the commentarist evidently derived li from bēl. This speculative treatment of final vowels perhaps parallels contemporary spelling practice.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

129

3.2.19.4 Consonantal groups The writing of sacred names with unconventional orthographies contrived for speculative purposes explicitly evidences the interchange within consonantal groups which is implicit in conventional writings, illustrated in section 3.2.17. In implicitly contrived orthography too consonantal interchange is understood for speculative interpretation, just as it is in conventional writings. Changes within the same consonantal groups are observed: the Akkadian dentals d t ṭ, velars g k q and sibilants s ṣ z š. 3.2.19.4.1 d t ṭ The free interpretation of dentals for speculative purposes is explicitly demonstrated in the Marduk Names List, where descriptions are set beside contrived writings of Tutu (dtu-tu) as ddu-du, ddu11-du11 and ddù-ṭu, etymologically based on these unconventional orthographies of the divine name. t/d change is evidenced in this exposition: d

du-du mutarrû ilānī (Marduk Names List 25) Leader of the gods

Here tu is expressed by du, equated with (w)arû, “to lead”, realised in mutarrû, “leader”, (DUtu-um-ma arû Erimḫus V 196 MSL XVII p.75; cf. ga-DU-DU mutarrû Izi V 129 MSL XIII p.75). tu is expressed by a homophone of du, du11, equated with takālu, “to trust” ([du-ú][KA] takālu Aa III/2 136 MSL XIV p.330): d

du11-du11 mutakkil ilānī (Marduk Names List 22) The one who has the gods’ trust

Both t/d and t/ṭ changes are evidenced. tu is expressed by dù and ṭu in another writing of the divine name: d

dù-ṭu bāni kala ilānī (Marduk Names List 24) Creator of all the gods

dù equates with both banû, “to create”, and kalû, “all”. ṭu(gín), read tùn, also produces kalû (tu-untùn kaluma “everything” Aa VIII/1 117 MSL XIV p.492). Understanding ṭu as tùn underlines the ambiguity inherent in the consonantal change t/ṭ here. In each of these lines, ilānī, “of the gods”, perhaps interprets the divine determinative which prefaces the god’s name. 3.2.19.4.2 g k q The contrived spellings of é-sag-íl given by the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, provide ample evidence for the interchange of g and k for speculative ends. Explanations

130

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

given by the interlinear commentary reinterpret k as g and vice versa, illustrating the fluidity between the voiced and voiceless consonants g and k for this purpose. The change g/k is illustrated by E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–10. Here é-sag-íl is rendered as [é-sa7]-kìl bītu bānû napḫar il[ī], “House, creator of all the gods” (ll.7– 8), and [é-sa4-ki]-⸢il⸣ bītu nābû napḫar isrāt[i], “House, which calls into being all the fields(?)” (ll.9–10), where kìl and ki-il correspond to napḫaru, “totality”. In the artificial re-casting of the usual spelling of é-sag-íl, kìl and ki-il deliver the phonetics of the end of the name. The flexible interchange g/k and k/g is demonstrated by ll.21–22, where the writing ki-il is used to express the phonetics of the name but ki is explained as gi in the interlinear commentary: [é-sì-a]n-ki-il bītu sāpin ayyābi [sì s]apānu gi ayyābi (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 21–22) House which overwhelms the enemy [sì to o]verwhelm gi enemy The seamless interchange of g and k occurs where the contrived element gil is explained by both kìl and gil: [é-sá]-gil bītu kāšid napḫar qardāmū [sá kašā]du kìl napḫaru gil qardāmu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 23–24) House which overcomes all adversaries [sá to over]come kìl totality gil adversary Less explicitly, gi is understood variously in another line: [é-sa-ág-g]i-il bītu ēpiš kullati rā’im kitti [ág epēšu] gi epēšu gi kullatum gi kittum ág râmu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20) House which makes everything, loves truth [ág to make] gi to make gi everything gi truth ág to love gi itself equates to both kullatum, “everything”, and kittum, “truth”. The evidence that g and k are readily interchangeable confirms George’s suggestion that the scholar’s equation of gi and epēšu, “to make”, derives from the correspondence ki-ikì epēšu given by lexical texts (see George, Topog.Texts, p.388); gi is here treated as ki and interpreted accordingly. These illustrations of consonantal interchange are drawn from explicit writing, but the interchange may also be implicit. A k/g adjustment seems to occur to generate the Akkadian descriptions of é-kur, where a contrived writing of kur seems to be implicit:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

131

⸢é⸣-kur bī[tu b]ā[n]û nišī [é-ku]r bītu nābû nišī (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 27′–28′) House, creator of the people House, which called the people into being In these lines, as George, Topog.Texts, p.444 explained, kur is perhaps analysed as as gu-ur, with gu understood as ugu4(ku) banû, “to create” (l.27′), and as gù-(dé) nabû, “to call” (l. 28′), (ur, which corresponds to amēlu, “man”, rendered here by nišū, “people”). The abundant evidence of k/g interchange supports this. Interchange with q is not observed in contrived writings (explicit or implicit) in the text corpus. 3.2.19.4.3 s ṣ z š Evidence for the interchange of sibilants (including, for this purpose, š) is limited in the contrived writings (explicit and implicit) in the text corpus. The exchange š/s is given by contrived spellings of Šuanna (šu-an-naki), which features prominently as the second name for Babylon in Tintir I: šu-an-naki kimin(Bābilu) emūq šamê si-an-naki kimin(Bābilu) nūr šamê sa-an-naki kimin(Bābilu) markas šamê sa4-an-naki kimin(Bābilu) nibīt šamê (Tintir I 5–7) Šuanna, Babylon, power of heaven Si-anna, Babylon, light of heaven Sa-anna, Babylon, bond of heaven Sa-anna, Babylon, called into being by heaven Here šu is interpreted successively as si nūru, “light”, sa markasu, “bond”, and sa4 nabû, “to call”, realised as nibītu, “naming”, (George, Topog.Texts, pp.243–245), thereby asserting and explaining Babylon’s preeminence. Conversely, s is perhaps š in one interpretation of é-sag-íl in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5. The interlinear explanation in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 10 perhaps gives the equation ša isrāti, which perhaps denotes arable land. This correspondence is not attested elsewhere. If the sign is indeed to be read as ša, here s/š change occurs in interpretation derived from sag. However the consonantal change is not certain, for ša may be read as sa20 (George, Topog.Texts, p.387, there sa19). Likewise, s is perhaps interpreted as š in Commentary II’s analysis which explains etymological derivation from the divine name Dingir-Esiskur (dingir-é-sískur): ilānū maḫrīšu lišēribū katrâšun (Enūma eliš VII 110) Let the gods deliver their gifts before him Commentary II: dingir ilum god IGI maḫru front, [t]u erēbu to enter [x] katrû gift

132

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

IGI commonly reads ši. The commentarist perhaps derived ši from sískur, changing the sibilant and understanding ši as igi to account for maḫru, “front”, in the text. Commentary II’s analysis reflects another implicit orthography of Dingir-Esiskur (dingir-é-sískur), in which the change s/z occurs: ela šâšu ṭēme ūmēšina lā i’adda ilu mamman (Enūma eliš VII 114) No god but he knows the extent of their days The commentarist here notes zu as [i]dû, “to know”, and m[amm]a,n “somebody”, evidently deriving zu from sískur. Interchange with ṣ does not appear to be evidenced in contrived orthographies in the text corpus. 3.2.19.5 Nasal consonant g (g͂) The name E-sagil gave opportunity to the composer of the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, for one especially extraordinary speculative approach to its orthography, which further attests to this scholar’s erudition. The nasal consonant g (ng) of Sumerian, now conventionally rendered as g͂ which is contained in this Sumerian temple name (so, “é-sag͂-íl” in transliteration of Sumerian writing), is not normally reflected in Akkadian writing of the temple name, usually rendered é-sag-íl (also written é-saggíl HMH 967). In the contrived writings of the name, the scholar reflects evident understanding of the Sumerian phonology, deployed for speculative interpretation. The g of sag is dissimilated into separate phonemes n and g, clearly illustrated in two almost complete lines: [é-s]a-an-gi-íl bītu nāšû šarūru [é-s]a6-an-gil bīt ašarēdu ša melikšu damqu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 15, 17) House which bears brilliance House of the leader whose counsel is good The same writing appears to be deployed in ll.11–12, 25–30 (restored, George, Topog.Texts, p.80). A further variation occurs in l.21, where the nasal consonant is dissimilated and the voiced consonant g becomes the voiceless k: [é-sì-a]n-ki-il. The dissimilation is even expressed in particularly elaborate writing: [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl bītu nāšû agê šarrūti [s]a12 šarru sa12 agû aga agû íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14) House which bears the kingly crown [s]a12 king sa12 crown aga crown íl to bear George, Topog.Texts, p.387 commented that the syllable an is not noted in the interlinear commentary and seems redundant. However, perhaps phonetically -an(a)ga-íl is understood here, so realising the nasal g͂. The nasal consonant is also

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

133

understood in speculative interpretation in the Gula hymn, but treated differently (section 6.1, Gula hymn 32). This speculative method is not otherwise observed elsewhere in the text corpus. 3.2.19.6 Mimation Commentary II’s analysis relating to Marduk’s name Nēberu (dné-bé-ru) suggests that, for this commentarist at least, mimation (a word-final m) might be implied for speculation. The following extract illustrates this: mā ša qerbiš tiāmat ītebbiru lā nâḫiš (Enūma eliš VII 128) Indeed, he who, back and forth, crossed the midst of the sea without resting Commentary II: ma mā indeed ma māru son ra ša who ra ina in [i]rḫar qerbu middle érim tâmtim sea bu ebēru to cross ra lā not ne nâḫu to rest Referring to the modification of the syllabary in the second millennium by the loss of mimation, Bottéro (1977, p.18 §13) explained Commentary II as reflecting an implied mimation (“pour ainsi parler “virtuel” du M final”) to interpret ru from dnébé-ru. Bottéro read rúm, not érim, and hence saw implied mimation to understand d né-bé-ru as dné-bé-rum in speculation. Nevertheless, Bottéro’s analysis holds good for the reading érim which, artificially understood as éri(m), broadly reflects the phonetics of Nēberu. It is from this m, Bottéro explained, that the commentarist derived ma, to account for mā, “indeed”, (māru, “son”, is unused in the received text). This speculative method is not observed elsewhere in the text corpus. It is unclear whether it reflects a generally recognised speculative practice or, rather, the ingenuity of this commentarist. 3.2.19.7 Additional elements An additional element could be introduced into a sacred name for speculation. This method of speculative interpretation is very rare in the text corpus, but is evidenced in the exposition of contrived writings of é-sag-íl. This is clearly illustrated in one extended writing which has already been cited for its other features: [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl bītu nāšû agê šarrūti [s]a12 šarru sa12 agû aga agû íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14) House which bears the kingly crown [s]a12 king sa12 crown aga crown íl to bear The immediately preceding writing of the temple name [é-sa12-a]n-gil (l.11) highlights that here aga is added for its phonetics and to serve the scholarly speculation. The element an appears otiose, unless to realise the nasal g͂, as is suggested in section 3.2.19.5. Nevertheless, the writing displays the addition of the

134

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

element aga, which further underpins the equation agû, “crown”, in the Akkadian interpretation of the name. Likewise, another addition is evidenced by the interlinear commentary in this composition: [é-sag-ìl-la] [ē]kal lalê ilī ša šamê [( x x )] [é-sag ēkallum] la lalû ìl ilu ìl šamû [ x x x] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 5–6) Palace desired by the gods of the heavens [é-sag palace] la desire ìl god ìl heavens Otherwise phonetically otiose to render é-sag-íl, la is evidently included to give further scope for interpretation, equating here to lalû, “desire”. Writings of sacred names with additional elements to serve speculative interpretation are also to be found in the Gula hymn. These are illustrated and discussed in section 6.3.3. 3.2.19.8 Unorthodox writings This final section on the speculative practice which exploited unusual spellings of sacred names, both explicit and implicit, examines highly unorthodox explicit writings. Contrived orthographies such as é-ki-ú-ru and é-ki-u-ru (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 6′–10′) clearly reflect a straightforward syllabification of the name éki-ùr/é-ki-uru12. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, exhibits great virtuosity with its contrived orthographies of é-sag-íl in its extended exposition of the potential spelling of the temple name. However, a distinction can perhaps be made between writings which are unusual orthographies, and those contrived writings which go beyond merely unconventional spellings of a sacred name. The writings of é-sag-íl as [és]a12-an-aga-íl (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13), of giškiri6-maḫ as ki-ir-rù-maḫ and ki-ér-maḫ, and of é-kiš-nu-gál as é-kéš-dnun-gal and é-ká-èš-nun-gal (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 7′–8′, 12′–13′) recast the form of the sacred name for speculative purposes. These artificial and highly unorthodox writings confirm that some ancient scholars felt free to be manipulate and recast sacred names in their quest for hidden meaning that might be revealed in the name by this speculative means. To these writings may be added Neanna ([d]nè-an-na) (Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 61). The name was so read by Lambert from its speculative interpretation as ša šaqâ emūqāša, “She whose might is sublime”, (nè equates to emūqu, “might”, an to šaqû, “sublime” CAD E 157, Š/II 16) and explained as “an orthographic variant of Inanna created specially for its orthography” (Lambert, 1982, p.212). The Gula hymn too contains some unorthodox writings for scholarly speculation. These are examined in section 6.3.3.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

135

3.2.20 Different elements, single equivalence An Akkadian interpretation of a sacred name may be derived from different parts of the Sumerian name simultaneously. An elaborately contrived orthography of é-sagíl and its explanation clearly illustrates this speculative method: [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl bītu nāšû agê šarrūti [s]a12 šarru sa12 agû aga agû íl našû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 13–14) House which bears the kingly crown [s]a12 king sa12 crown aga crown íl to bear Here, in the interlinear commentary, the scholar demonstrates that agû, “crown”, in the Akkadian interpretation is conveyed in the scholar’s writing of the name by both sa12(sag) and aga. Likewise, perhaps, in the same composition: [é-sa-ág-g]i-il bītu ēpiš kullati rā’im kitti [ág epēšu] gi epēšu gi kullatum gi kittum ág râmu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20) House which makes everything, loves truth [ág to make] gi to make gi everything gi truth ág to love Despite broken text, it seems very likely that epēšu, “to make”, is conveyed by both ág and gi (George, Topog.Texts, p.388). The resultant elaborate order of the syllables which give the equations (ág gi gi gi ág) perhaps confirms the restoration in l.20. Another damaged temple list (restored from Tintir IV, George, Topog.Texts) seems to reflect the same method: [é-rab-ri-ri] bītu rāḫiṣ nēberī (BTT 3 obv.11′) House which floods the crossings raḫāṣu, “to flood”, is derived from both ra (understood from rab) and ri-ri (George, Topog.Texts, p.383). The extraction of the same meaning from different parts of a name in this way suggests a scholarly endeavour to reinforce the meaning conveyed by the sacred name, a counterpart to the uncovering of different layers of meaning commonly observed. Thus, it seems, the meaning revealed in one part of a sacred name by speculative interpretation is corroborated by the revelation of the same meaning in another part of the name, thus proving the truth of the scholarly interpretation. 3.2.21 Repeated use of elements An element of a sacred name could be used more than once for speculative purposes. Lambert (2013, p.165) highlighted this, explaining Marutukku’s description as tukultu māti āli u nišīšu, “support of the land, city and its people” (Enūma eliš VI 135), where tu-uk-ku from dma-ru-tu-uk-ku supplies both tuku(l) tukultu, “support”,

136

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

and ùku nišū, “people”. This explanatory method is paralleled in the commentary tradition, where whole words might be explained more than once (see Frahm, 2011, p.60). Speculative interpretation of names as whole, discrete units is rarely observed in the corpus (a clear example is the interpretation of the divine name Ašāru (da-šáru) as the Akkadian verb ašāru, “to muster”, in Enūma eliš VII 122). However multiple use of the component parts of a sacred name for interpretation occurs widely. As the illustrations presented in this section show, re-using a part of a sacred name enormously expanded the potential for speculative interpretation. The same element of a sacred name might be used more than once, with a related equation on each occasion; or with a different equation. Differently, an element could be used more than once, and treated and understood in quite different ways to generate meaning. These speculative methods are illustrated in turn. In the following analysis, an element is not regarded as used repeatedly where the interpretation merely expresses two reduplicated elements, as, for example, to interpret dtu-tu. Generally, the unit of sense in which an element is considered for analysis comprises a complete line; couplets or more extended passages in Enūma eliš are analysed as to individual lines (just as Commentary II’s analysis proceeds). Where a caesura occurs (typically, this occurs in a line which contains two epithets), the phrases in the parts separated by the caesura are treated separately. 3.2.21.1 Element used repeatedly – related equations An element of a name might be used more than once for speculative interpretation, understood each time with the same reading and interpreted by related equations. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, expressly evidences this in its interpretation of the name èš-gú-zi, a scholarly alternative name for é-sag-íl, and which, like é-sag-íl, has the same straightforward meaning “House whose neck is raised up”: [èš-gú-zi] [bīt]u [m]ukīn kīnim [èš bītu z]i kânu zi kīnu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 33–34) House which makes firm the loyal [èš house z]i to be firm zi loyal Here zi is used twice, as kânu, “to be firm”, and its cognate adjective kīnu, “true, loyal”; the element gú (used to explain the same name in the preceding lines, ll.31– 32) is unused. Elsewhere, clearly too, a temple list interprets the Sumerian word ninda-ba, “food offerings”, twice with related ideas: é-ninda-ba-du8-a bīt naptanū u nidbê (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 172) House of feasts and food offerings ninda-ba is translated by nidbû (nindabû), “food offerings”, and more freely as naptanu, “feast”, a term often used for cultic banquets (George, Topog.Texts, p.464).

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

137

Two extracts from Enūma eliš VII, supported by Commentary II, illustrate the same method. The god Asarre (dasar-re) is: bānû šê’am u qê (Enūma eliš VII 2, extract) Creator of barley and flax Commentary II (extract): rudù banû to create sar šê’im barley sar qû flax In the commentarist’s analysis, sar is here taken from asar in dasar-re; then it is understood as the sign which is used to indicate that a word signifies a plant, and interpreted twice as growing crops, barley and flax (the interpretation of sar as a determinative is discussed in section 3.2.6). Likewise, Lugaldurmaḫ is: an ilānī ma’diš ṣīru (Enūma eliš VII 96, extract) More exalted than the other gods Commentary II (extract): dúr ana beside dingir ilum god maḫ ma’du to be more than maḫ ṣīri outstanding The straightforward meaning of the divine name Lugaldurmaḫ (dlugal-dur-maḫ) is “Lord of the Mighty Bond”, translated by the Akkadian epithet, bēl durmāḫi, given in the preceding line. The commentarist analyses that maḫ is interpreted twice in l.96, equating maḫ with ma’du, “to be more than”, and ṣīru, “outstanding”, words which, though neither related nor synonyms, both convey the sense of something surpassing which is inherent in maḫ, “great, mighty”. A God List contains a more complex illustration of the same method: d

nin-ìmma bēl nabnīt bunnannê (CT 25 49 r.2, extract) Nin-imma, lord of the creation of forms

Here ìmma is understood as sa7-(alan) and equated with the related words nabnītu, “creation”, and bunnannû, “features, forms”, words which appear together in the opening lines of the lexical list Nabnītu I 1–4 (MSL XVI p.50). 3.2.21.2 Element used repeatedly – unrelated equations More commonly in the text corpus an element of a sacred name is used more than once, understood as the same reading but with unrelated equations. Again, the Esagil Commentary, BTT 5, provides clear evidence of this speculative method: [é-sa-ág-g]i-il bītu ēpiš kullati rā’im kitti [ág epēšu] gi epēšu gi kullatum gi kittum ág râmu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20) House which makes everything, loves truth [ág to make] gi to make gi everything gi truth ág to love

138

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

gi is used twice, equating to entirely unrelated matters: kullatum, “everything”, and kittum, “truth”, (for its equation with epēšu, “to make”, gi is probably taken as kì). The element ág too appears to be used twice, with unrelated meanings, as epēšu, “to make”, and as râmu, “to love”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.388). Likewise, elsewhere in the same composition: [èš-gú-z]i bītu nāsiḫ napḫar ayyābī [èš bītu z]i nasāḫu gú napḫaru gú ayyābī (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 31–32) House which eradicates all enemies [èš house z]i to uproot gú entirety gú enemies To explain the name èš-gú-zi, the scholar uses gú twice in unrelated senses, as napḫaru, “entirety”, and as ayyābu, “enemy”. Commentary II similarly evidences many cases where, according to the commentarist, the same element of a divine name in Enūma eliš VII is used more than once to supply different, unrelated meanings. An epithet in the narrative describesTutu-Ziku (dtu-tu dzi-kù) as: bēl tašmê u magāri (Enūma eliš VII 20, extract) Lord who hears and grants Commentary II (extract): dingir bēlum lord zi šemû to hear zi magārum to grant In the commentarist’s analysis, zi is used twice to generate this description, equated with šemû and magārum. The verbs šemû, “to hear”, and magārum, “to grant”, are both words which apply to prayer but are quite different in meaning, albeit theologically related. Narrative concerning Šazu (dšà-zu) illustrates this speculative method twice: mukanniš lā māgirī ṣ[ulū]lšun rapšu (Enūma eliš VII 38) Who subdued the rebellious, he is their broad [protection] Commentary II: z[i kan]āšu to submit zi [mā]giri obedient zu ṣ[ull]ulu to protect zu r[a]pāšu to be wide In this analysis, zu is taken from the divine name for interpretation. The commentator first understands zu as zi, used twice, exploiting a vocalic change illustrated in section 3.2.16; zu itself is understood twice, equated with ṣullulu, “to protect”, and rapāšu, “to be wide”, to generate the comment ṣulūlšun rapšu, “he is their broad protection”, a topos applied to deities. Elsewhere, Marduk in his identity as Agilima (da-gili-ma) is described as āšir šal[g]i, “who controls snow” (Enūma eliš VII 82 extract). Commentary II explains the phrase as given by gil, another reading of gili(m), and used twice, as ašā[rum], “to control”, and šalg[um], “snow”. Commentary II evidences very many other instances where the commentarist identifies a part of the name, which, according to its analysis, is repeatedly used with unrelated meanings. Even lines which preserve only the elements isolated by the

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

139

commentarist and where the equations made by the commentarist are lost evidence this speculative method, for the commentarist gives repeated elements where the corresponding line of Enūma eliš contains only unrelated words (see, for example Commentary II on ll.116, 118). 3.2.21.3 Element used repeatedly – differently understood The description of Marduk by his name Marutukku (dma-ru-tu-uk-ku), as tukultu māti āli u nišīšu, “support of the land, city and its people” (Enūma eliš VI 135), was highlighted at the beginning of this section 3.2.21. This speculative interpretation of the divine name (explained by Lambert, 2013, p.165), in which tu-uk-ku from dmaru-tu-uk-ku supplies both tuku(l) tukultu, “support”, and ùku nišū, “people”, demonstrates that elements of a name might be used more than once and understood in entirely different ways, using any of the speculative methods available. This is amply evidenced in the text corpus; only a few examples can be presented to illustrate the wide potential of this method of speculative interpretation. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, explicitly demonstrates the re-use of elements in different ways to interpret the scholar’s unconventional writings of é-sag-íl. Five extracts from this exposition are given here, each exhibiting, quite differently from each other, how elements from the sacred name as written are used by the scholar more than once, and in different ways. [é-sag-ìl-la] [ē]kal lalê ilī ša šamê [é-sag ēkallum] la lalû ìl ilu ìl šamû (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 5–6) Palace desired by the gods of the heavens [é-sag palace] la desire ìl god ìl heavens Here the interlinear commentary explains that ìl is used twice: first understood as dingir ilu, “god”, then as an šamû, “heavens”, exploiting different readings of the same sign. In the next exposition an element of the writing of the temple name is wholly used, then a phonetic part extracted to supply a different reading: [é-sa7]-kìl bītu bānû napḫar il[ī] [sa7 ba-nu]-ú kìl napḫaru ìl i[lu] (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8) House, creator of all the gods [sa7 to create] kìl entirety ìl g[od] Here kìl(nigin) supplies napḫaru, “entirety”. A phonetic part of kìl, ìl, is then understood as dingir ilu, “god”. Likewise, in another exposition, gil is used fully, where it is understood as a name of Marduk and interpreted accordingly; and gil is also understood as gi, to supply the equation rubû, “prince” (here gi is probably understood as gi7, George, Topog.Texts, p.387):

140

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

[é-sa12-a]n-gil bītu šubat rubê Marūduk [s]ag ašābu ⸢gi⸣ rubû gil dmarūduk (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12) House, Dwelling of the prince Marduk sag to dwell gi prince gil Marduk For the interpretation which appears in l.23, gil is used twice, both as gil, and, with the consonantal change g/k, as kìl: [é-sá]-gil bītu kāšid napḫar qardamū [sá kašā]du kìl napḫaru gil qardamu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 23–24) House which overcomes all adversaries [sá to over]come kìl totality gil adversary Other speculative methods are deployed in the explanation of the sacred name in l.17, where sa6 is both conventionally translated and understood quite differently: [é-s]a6-an-gil bīt ašarēdu ša melikšu damqu [sa12] ašarēdu sa milku sa6 damāqu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 17–18) House of the leader whose counsel is good [sa12] leader sa counsel sa6 to be good sa6 straightforwardly equates to damāqu, “to be good”. The element sa6 is then recycled twice: the scholar exploits homophony, taking sa6 as sa milku, “counsel”; homophony and polyvalence are combined to understand sa6 as sa12, read sag. In this speculative interpretation sag is perhaps understood as an abbreviation of sag-kal ašarēdu, “leader”, (the abbreviated reading sag is attested lexically, George, Topog.Texts, p.388). Although not so explicit as the exposition in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, other lists contain speculative explanations derived from the repeated use of an element, treated differently. A description of é-kur re-uses kur, first with consonantal change k/g, then evidently implicitly syllabified: é-kur bītu mutīr gimil šarri (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 21′) House which returns the king’s kindness Here kur is interpreted as gur târu, “to turn”, and seems also to be broken into u and ur: u, read as umun, equates to šarru, “king”, and ur, equates to gimillu, “favour” (urur5 gi!millu George, Topog.Texts, p.444). The element kur is thus re-used phonetically: as gur, (k)u(r), and (k)ur. In the same compilation, Anu (da-nu) is abi šamê, “Father of heaven” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §11 5′). The element a from the Akkadian divine name is treated as a Sumerian element and is conventionally translated as abu, “father”. This element is used again, differently: šamû, “heavens”, may be derived from an, understanding a different syllabification of da-nu (other

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

141

explanations are possible, see section 3.2.27). The same compilation explains the temple name é-šu-me-ša4: é-šu-me-ša4 bītu rākis eṣmet ilī ana bilāti (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 c) House which binds the bones of the gods for tribute The element ša4 is interpreted twice: first, with consonantal change š/s and understood as the near-homophone sa, equating to rakāsu, “to bind”; then ša4 (du) is evidently understood as an abbreviation for gír-pad-DU, which equates to eṣemtu, “bone”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.453; the same interpretation of this temple name is given in Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 14′). Literary religious compositions illustrate the same speculative method. Just three examples are presented, all from the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII. The description of Asarre (dasar-re) as bānû šê’am u qê, “Creator of barley and flax” (Enūma eliš VII 2), which interprets sar with related meanings, is noted in section 3.2.21.1 above. Commentary II notes that sar is used twice further in Asarre’s next epithet, in different ways: mušēṣû urqēti (Enūma eliš VII 2, extract) Who causes vegetation to grow Commentary II (extract): masar aṣû to go out sar arqu greenery sar is first taken as ma4 aṣû, “to go out”; then, understood again by Commentary II as the determinative sign which marks plants, freely rendered by arqu, “greenery”. The god Aranunna (da-rá-nun-na) is described thus: ša ana alakti rubûtīšu lā umaššalu ilu ayyuma (Enūma eliš VII 98) Whose noble behaviour no god can equal Commentary II: ra ša whose ra ana concerning a-⸢rá⸣ alaktu way n[un] rubû noble nu lā not dù [mašālu to equal] ding[ir ilu god This clearly illustrates how the commentarist understood the components of da-ránun-na to be repeatedly used for speculative interpretation: a-rá is used as a-rá alaktu, “way”, and supplies ra (the Sumerian dative suffix), and, it seems, rú(dù), equating to the verb mašālu, “to equal”, restored from the narrative itself; nun is straightforwardly understood as rubû, “noble”, then broken down to supply nu lā, “not”. In the final example, Marduk is praised as Dingir-Esiskur (dingir-é-sískur): dingir-é-sískur šaqîš ina bīt ikribi lišibma (Enūma eliš VII 109) Dingir-Esiskur, may he sit on high in the House of Prayer Commentary II: [dingir-é]-sískur è šaqû to be high ra ina in é bītu house sískur ikribu prayer ra ramû to occupy ra ašābu to sit

142

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

Both é and sískur from the divine name are used twice. é is understood conventionally as bītu, “house”, and as the homophone è, supplying šaqû, “to be high”. sískur is straightforwardly translated as ikribu, “prayer”, then understood by the commentarist as syllabified to give ra. Commentary II’s double explanation of ra as ramû, “to occupy”, and ašābu, “to sit”, reflects the usual commentary tradition which explains one word with another, as Bottéro (1977, p.15 footnote 34) noted. ašābu, the verb used in the narrative, is synonymous with ramû; ramû equates to ri (Antagal A 210–211 MSL XVII p.188), as the commentarist perhaps had in mind; and hence the same correspondence derived from the divine name accounts for the synonym ašābu. The illustrations presented in this section 3.2.21 amply demonstrate that, in their quest for latent meaning in sacred names, the ancient scholars were not restricted to a single use of a part of a sacred name but might use it many times, in different speculative ways and with all the meanings that this might afford. This approach opened up a flexible and diverse range of possibilities in speculative interpretation and an immensely varied range of meanings in their scholarly speculation. 3.2.22 Reduplicated elements Sacred names which contain reduplicated elements provided the opportunity for certain methods of speculative interpretation especially applicable to them. The most prominent name in this form in the text corpus is Marduk’s name, Tutu. Speculative interpretation of this divine name is especially rich, but other sacred names too evidence their special potential. Most simply, where an element of a sacred name is reduplicated, the syllables may be separately interpreted. Thus, narrative in Enūma eliš VII describes Tutu (dtutu): libnīma šipta (Enūma eliš VII 11, extract) Let him make a spell Commentary II (extract): tu [ban]û to make tu6 šiptum spell Here tu is understood as tu and as its homophone tu6, expressing both elements of the divine name. Although not complete, the analysis given by Commentary II of the part of Enūma eliš VII which relates to Tutu and his sub-names contains further equations which illustrate the separate interpretation of the reduplicated syllables. However, where an element is repeated, it may be interpreted by a plural form. This interpretive practice is clearly informed by knowledge of Sumerian grammar, in which a plural form may be marked by reduplication of nouns and adjectives. The practice can be seen in the explanation given in an expository text which comments on epithets of Zababa and explains his name:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

143

d

za-ba4-ba4 bēl(en) mātāti(kur-kur) ina šumēšu q[abi] za bēlu ba4-ba4 mātā[tum] (Smith College text 110 (S 3) 1–2) Zababa “Lord of the Lands”, so s[aid] by his name za “Lord” ba4-ba4 “Lands”

Understanding ba4 as mātu, “land” (see Lambert, 1989, pp.217–218), the reduplicated ba4-ba4 is explained by the plural mātā[tum], “lands”, reflected also in the logographic writing kur-kur, “lands”, in l.1, a Sumerian formation. Similarly, the explanatory work Tintir I contains a description of Babylon based on its Sumerian epithet: uru billuda-bi suḫ-suḫki kimin(Bābilu) ālu ša pilludûšu nasqū (Tintir I 11) uru billuda-bi suḫ-suḫki: Babylon, the city whose cultic rites are choice suḫ equates to nasāqu, “to choose” (su-úḫku nasāqum Proto-Ea App.2 16 MSL II p.150 16; K4808, K4225 21, Black, 1984, p.149); the reduplicated suḫ-suḫ is translated by the plural form nasqū. Rather differently, elsewhere, it seems that a reduplicated element may be interpreted by the use of the D stem of the equated verb, the verbal stem characterised by the doubling of the middle root letter and which commonly has a factitive or pluralic meaning. The exposition of the name Tutu given in the Marduk Names List contains spellings of this divine name contrived for speculative interpretation, and the unorthodox orthographies which contain reduplicated elements evidence the use of the D stem for their interpretation: d

tu-tu mu’allid ilānī muddiš ilānī (Marduk Names List 21) Father of the gods, Restorer of the gods d du11-du11 mutakkil ilānī (Marduk Names List 22) The one who has the gods’ trust d tu6-tu6 muštallim ilānī (Marduk Names List 23) The one who continually safeguards the gods The epithet in each case is expressed with a D stem participle. Lexical evidence equates tu with alādu, “to beget” (du-utu alādu Aa VII/4 61 MSL XIV p.467); Commentary II on Enūma eliš VII 9 gives tu as edēšu, “to renew”. These are realised in mu’allid, “father”, and muddiš, “restorer”, respectively, each epithet rendering dtutu. du11 corresponds with takālu, “to trust” ([du-ú][KA] takālu Aa III/2 136 MSL XIV p.330), supplying mutakkil, “the one who has (the gods’) trust”, interpreting ddu11du11. muštallim (Marduk Names List 23) appears to derive from šalāmu, “to be well”; the D stem mušallimu, “to safeguard”, is well attested, but Dt and Dtn forms are not. A Dtn form is understood here in muštallim, with iterative sense. The correspondence between šalāmu, “to be well”, and tu6 is obscure; the interpretation of dtu6-tu6 as muštallim ilānī, “the one who continually safeguards the gods”, is

144

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

perhaps based on the equation tu6 šiptu, “incantation”, referring to the incantation which keeps a person well, a routine use of šiptu. The same interpretive method can be found in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII, evident in the analysis of Commentary II. Explaining the description of Enbilulu-Gugal (den-bi-lu-lu dgú-gal) as munaḫḫiš dadmē, “who enriches the world” (Enūma eliš VII 66), Commentary II notes lu-lu na[ḫāšu], “to prosper”, and lu d[admē], “the inhabited world”. The reduplicated syllables of the divine name find expression in the D stem participle munaḫḫiš, “who enriches”. The association of the D stem with Sumerian reduplicated elements can be seen in grammatical lists where, as Black (1984, p.27) noted, forms of the D stem “are normally set against Sumerian forms with reduplicated verb” (see Old Babylonian Grammatical Texts III 151ff., MSL IV p.74, also Old Babylonian Grammatical Texts XI). The speculative interpretation of duplicate elements in a sacred name by a D stem form replicates this scholarly tradition. 3.2.23 Abbreviation Bottéro (1977, p.22 §24) questioned whether some of the elements noted by Commentary II derived from Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII might be abbreviated forms of the Sumerian words which ordinarily corresponded with the Akkadian words given by the commentarist, drawn by abbreviation from the Sumerian, “tirées par abréviation”, as he put it. Bottéro speculated that, for example, ma, which is equated with nasāḫu, “to uproot”, in Commentary II on Enūma eliš VII 82, was drawn from the Sumerian word mar, an Emesal Sumerian form which has lexical equivalence with nasāḫu (Emesal Vocabulary III 80 MSL IV p.34). With one exception, however, Bottéro’s examples could perhaps simply be understood as near-homophones of the Sumerian words, rather than abbreviations of them (nearhomophony as a speculative method is illustrated in section 3.2.15). The exception is the equation of du8 with kullu, “to hold”, in explanation of the narrative in Enūma eliš VII 18: the Sumerian compound šu-du8, rather than du8, would be expected to express kullu. Commentary II’s evident understanding of du8 as šu-du8 illustrates a slightly different scholarly method. Scholars were, it seems, free to understand an element of a sacred name as part of some longer form of writing and interpret it accordingly. George (2009, p.105) highlighted a corresponding practice in the Sumerian translation of an Old Babylonian literary composition in which many Sumerian compound expressions are abbreviated (so, níg for níg-nam, “something”, and ág for ki-ág, “to love”, amongst others), noting that many of the Sumerian compounds used there are similarly abbreviated in lexical lists. The same tradition no doubt informed this speculative method, which, besides (šu-)du8 in Enūma eliš VII 18, is evidenced elsewhere in the text corpus.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

145

The explanatory work i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a demonstrates how one element may be understood as a longer writing: [dS]în(30) bēl(en) purussê(eš-bar) e-šú 30 2 e-ni be-el Sîn is “Lord of Decisions (en-eš-bar)”. eš is 30; 2 is -ēni, which is also lord (en) (i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a 3, extract; Livingstone’s translation) Sîn’s epithet as Lord of Decisions, en-eš-bar, is explained by noting that 30, Sîn’s divine number which writes his name, is eš; eš-bar, “decision(s)”, is understood from eš. The speculative interpretation of a writing of giškiri6-maḫ, Nippur’s “Great Garden”, also illustrates how one element may be understood as some longer form. In the unorthodox writing of the name, ki-ér-⸢maḫ⸣ is explained as bikīt Bēletilī(dingir-maḫ), “Sorrow of Bēlet-ilī” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 8′). The element maḫ in the name is understood as dingir-maḫ, known in Akkadian as the goddess Bēlet-ilī (George, Topog.Texts, p.445). The same list explains é-šu-me-ša4 as bītu rākis eṣmet ilī ana bilāti, “House which binds the bones of the gods for tribute” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §6 c). Here ša4(du) is evidently taken as gírpad-DU, which equates to eṣemtu, “bone” (George, Topog.Texts, p.453; the same interpretation appears in Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 14′). Another temple list explains the name é-šu-me-ša4 differently, but seemingly evidencing the same speculative method: é-šu-me-ša4 bīt gimir parṣī ḫammu (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 152) House which gathers all ordinances Here it seems that šu is taken for šu-nigin napḫaru, “totality”, and interpreted by its synonym gimru (George, Topog.Texts, p.461). Similarly, in the exposition contained in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, an element appears to be understood as an abbreviation of a longer form in speculation on é-sag-íl: [é-sá]-gil bītu kāšid napḫar qardamū [sá kašā]du kìl napḫaru gil qardamu (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 23–24) House which overcomes all adversaries [sá to over]come kìl totality gil adversary As George, Topog.Texts, p.388 noted, the equation gil qardamu, “adversary”, made by the scholar may be compared with the equation of the form lú-gil-gil with qardamu. Abbreviation as a speculative method can be certainly seen in another list which explains Marduk’s name Lugalšuanna (dlugal-šu-an-na) as bēlum gāmil ilānī, “the lord who shows favour to the gods” (Marduk Names List 15, the name securely restored by Lambert from etymological explanations). The compound form šu-gar commonly equates to gamālu, “favour” (see CAD G 21); šu here may be taken as an

146

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

abbreviation of šu-gar. Like those forms mentioned by George (2009, p.105) referred to above, the abbreviated form šu also occurs with šu-gar in the lexical list Nabnītu XVII (J) 141–142 (MSL XVI p.157). Lenzi (2015, p.742) saw the same speculative method in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi in exploration of the gatename ká-silim-ma which generates the narrative: ina ká-silim-ma šulmāna appal[is] (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 81; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 44, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-silim-ma (the “Gate of Well-Being”) I saw well-being Lenzi suggested that appal[is], “I saw”, was derived by reading silim(di) as di, then understood as u6-di, which is equated with palāsu, “to see”, in an Emesal hymn (see Lenzi, 2015 p.742 footnote 50). In Lenzi’s attractive explanation, this complex speculation simultaneously exploits the polyvalence of the cuneiform writing system, deploys Emesal Sumerian, and does so in abbreviated form, all scholarly methods attested in this text corpus. 3.2.24 Phonological reversal Association through reversal of a word’s phonology for explanatory purposes has been occasionally observed in commentary texts. A commentary on the omen series Enūma Anu Enlil, for example, associated the “False Planet” (mullul-la) with Cancer (mulal-lul) in its explanatory exposition, an association based on what Frahm termed the “retrophonic” reading of lul-la “false”, which produces al-lul, the constellation Cancer (K 4292:18, see Frahm, 2011, pp.39, 148). This explanatory technique and the phenomenon of reversal generally in cuneiform culture have been discussed by Beaulieu (1995b). Bottéro (1977, p.22 footnote 49) noted the like “alternance phonétique” in Commentary II’s explanation relating to Tutu’s third name dtu-tu dzikù šalšiš imbû, “Tutu-Ziku thirdly they named (him)” (Enūma eliš VII 19). Commentary II understood tu from the divine name as dù (for this consonantal change, see sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4). The commentarist noted here the correspondences dù banû, “to create”, and dù né-bu-⸢ú⸣ evidently for nabû, “to call, name”, or nību, “naming” to explain imbû, “they named”. The explanation draws on the use of nabû, “to call, name” (and hence “to call into being, to create”), to express banû, “to create” (see Bottéro, 1977, p.22 §25; Lambert, 1998a, p.192; 2013, p.469). The limited evidence from the commentary tradition suggests that Commentary II also reflects here a speculative method which uses phonological reversal: the commentarist signals that imbû (from nabû), “they named”, is explained by understanding dù as banû, phonologically reversed so that dù is interpreted as nabû. The reversal bn’/nb’ is here effected in the Akkadian correspondence, not in the Sumerian elements as in the reversal of mullul-la/mulal-lul. Phonological reversal of

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

147

this type may be seen as akin to the speculative method in which Akkadian words serve speculative interpretation (section 3.2.14). A similar phonological reversal can be seen in the Gula hymn, where the reversal nbt/tbn occurs in the interpretive description (see section 6.1, Gula hymn 89′). 3.2.25 Graphic interpretation The graphic form of a cuneiform sign might be exploited for interpretive purposes. This speculative method is somewhat unusual, and certainly very much less commonly observed than most of the other speculative methods presented in this section 3.2. Lenzi (2015, p.734) termed this speculative method “Etymography”, citing Frahm (2011, p.70). Both Frahm and Lenzi used the term “etymography” to refer to the speculative use of the different readings of a sign; this is termed “Polyvalence” in the discussion and analysis presented here (described and illustrated in section 3.2.12). Lenzi (2015, p.744) also used “etymography” for the interpretation of the writing of the sign form itself. The term “graphic interpretation” is used here for the interpretation of the graphic form of a sign for speculative purposes. Three methods of graphic interpretation are evidenced in the text corpus. Signs which are graphically similar or identical may be understood as the same, and interpreted accordingly (section 3.2.25.1). Very differently, parts of a sign form may be understood separately for speculative interpretation (section 3.2.25.2). The pictorial representation given by the sign form itself may also be interpreted (section 3.2.25.3). These three methods of graphic interpretation are all used and developed further in the Gula hymn. As will be seen, the Gula hymn is especially rich in graphic methods of speculative interpretation, both for the frequency with which they are used and as to the graphic methods themselves. Combinations of signs which write sacred names are taken apart for interpretation. The orthographic arrangement of names is itself interpreted in the text of the composition. Most remarkably, the scholar of the Gula hymn contrived to express the form of sacred names using etymological means. Nothing similar to this has been observed in other compositions in the text corpus (although it may, of course, occur). The originality and invention of the scholar in the use of graphic interpretation are features which, amongst others, mark the Gula hymn as an outstanding work of scholarly speculation. Analysis of the individual lines of the Gula hymn is presented in section 6.1; graphic interpretation in the composition is discussed and summarised in section 6.3.4. The three methods of graphic interpretation evidenced in the other compositions in the text corpus are presented here.

148

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

3.2.25.1 Similar signs Signs which are graphically similar or identical may be understood as being the same sign and interpreted accordingly. An expository text which explains the divine name Lisi (dli9-si4) expressly illustrates that its composer could interpret a sign through a similar, related sign: d

li9-si4 qālû išātam si4 gunû si qalû izi išātu (Weapon Name Exposition 36–38) Lisi: He who burns with fire si4 the gunû form of si: to burn izi fire Here si4 from the divine name dli9-si4 is understood as si, which may be explained simply as homophony (this and the equation of si and qalû, “to burn”, is discussed in section 3.2.11). What is important here, however, is that the scholar expressly records that it is a similar sign form, the gunû (additional wedged) form of si, namely si4, that is understood as si. Modern scholars have detected a re-interpretation of one sign as a similar sign for speculation in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi to interpret the gate-name ká-u6-de-babbar-ra: ina ká-u6-de-babbar-ra iddātūya immerā (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 84; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 47, ed. Oshima, 2014) In ká-u6-de-babbar-ra (the Gate of Bright Wonder) my signs became clear Reiner (1985, p.117), George, Topog.Texts, p.393 and Lenzi (2015, p.741) have all suggested that ittātu/iddātu, “signs”, a word which may be written by the logogram giskim(iskim), may be derived from a graphic re-interpretation of u6, a sign which is written by the signs IGI-É, as giskim(iskim)(AGRIG), which is written by the signs IGI-DUB. Lenzi (2015, p.741) commented, “One need only ignore two horizontals to transform GISKIM (IGI-DUB) into U6 (IGI-É).” (George’s alternative suggestion that u6-de, “wonder”, may be interpreted as ittu, “sign”, through homophony with the Akkadian word is noted in section 3.2.14; both explanations may be at work here). Lenzi (2015, p.743) speculated that graphic similarity also underpinned the Akkadian description in ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 53 (Lambert: IV 90). Other, unambiguous, illustrations of graphic similarity as a speculative method can be found in Commentary II. Lambert (2013, p.167) observed that in endeavouring to explain every word and particle as derived from Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII, Commentary II “accepted values with no genuine orthographic or phonetic connection”. Signs which, to modern scholarship, are quite separate signs might be understood as the same by reason of their graphic form, and interpreted accordingly. So, Commentary II explained narrative as expressing Tutu (dtu-tu) thus:

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

149

līlil sāgīšunūma (Enūma eliš VII 10 extract) May he purify their sanctuaries Commentary II (extract): KU ellu pure dù sagû sanctuary To derive the phrase līlil sāgīšunūma from dtu-tu, the commentarist has understood KU as TÚG, signs unrelated save by their similar graphic form; túg also reads tu9, and hence expresses tu, drawn from dtu-tu. The commentarist then takes KU as its homophone kù to supply ellu, “pure”, (and so, līlil, “may he purify”). Thus līlil is derived from dtu-tu by understanding KU and TÚG as the same sign (for tu as dù, equated with sāgû, “sanctuary”, see section 3.2.17). KU is again interpreted as if a different sign in Commentary II’s analysis of a description of Lugaldurmaḫ (dlugaldur-maḫ/dlugal-dúr-maḫ): ša ina šubat šarrūti šurbû an ilānī ma’diš ṣīru (Enūma eliš VII 96) Who is greatest in the abode of kingship, more exalted than the other gods Commentary II (extract): KU ina in dúr šubtum abode, KU ana beside dúr, rendering dúr/dur from the divine name, is one reading of KU, and straightforwardly equates to šubtum, “abode”. However the commentarist further exploits dúr(ku) to interpret KU as a different sign, ŠÈ (read as šè or éš), to supply both ina, “in”, and ana, “beside”, (Ea I 180; Aa II/4 184–185; MSL XIV pp.186, 285). dúr is thus explained as ina and ana (Lambert, 2013, p.167). A further example can perhaps be found in the speculative interpretation of Marduk’s name Asalluḫi (dasal-lú-ḫi) in Marduk’s Address to the Demons, where ḪI and ŠÁR are understood as the same sign. In this incantation the god proclaims himself: anāku dasal-lú-ḫi ūmu ezzu muṭarrid gallê(gal5-lá)meš rabûti(gal)meš (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 15; ed. Geller, 2015) I am Asalluḫi, the raging storm, who drives away the great demons The description muṭarrid gallê rabûti, “who drives away the great demons”, appears to be derived from the interpretation of ḫi from the divine name, dasal-lú-ḫi. Here, it seems, ḪI is equated with ŠÁR and interpreted in two different ways to generate muṭarrid gallê rabûti. First, šár, read as sár, is understood as its homophone sar, a sign used as a logogram to write ṭarādu, “to drive out”, (CAD Ṭ 50–51; AHw 1380b), realised here in its D stem participle muṭarridu “who drives away”. Then šár straightforwardly corresponds to rabû, “to be big, great”, (Idu II i 71; Gong, 2002 p.82), interpreted by the adjective in gallê rabûti, “great demons”. Other forms derived from rabû occur throughout this incantation and are perhaps also drawn from the divine name dasal-lú-ḫi. Likewise, elsewhere in this composition ḪI is perhaps taken as ŠÁR and interpreted through its homophone šàr (the sign which is also read as lugal, equating to šarru, “king”) in descriptions of Asalluḫi as malku, “prince”,

150

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

(ll.39, 41). The equation of malku with šarru is, of course, well known from the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 1 (ed. Hrůša, 2010). However, distinctions made by modern scholars are not necessarily distinctions that the ancient scholars would have made, for although ḪI and ŠÁR are treated as separate signs in modern scholarship, these signs seem to have had the same name in first millennium lexical sources. This would suggest that, in the first millennium at least, ḪI and ŠÁR were regarded as the same sign (see Gong, 2000, p.112 DUG3). Nevertheless, it seems clear from the evidence given by the explanations given by the Weapon Name Exposition cited at the beginning of this section 3.2.25.1 and by Commentary II that, for speculative interpretation, similarly or identically written signs might be taken as one and the same. 3.2.25.2 Interpretation of sign forms Components which make up a sign form could be understood as separate cuneiform signs for speculative interpretation. This is evident from a number of the compositions in the text corpus. Lambert (2013, p.167) noted the method of etymological speculation where “sign forms are taken to pieces and their parts are used”, citing an explanatory God List, now examined in this text corpus: d

nuska rē’û akil ṭēmi mušāpû [...] (CT 25 49 r.4) Nuska, the shepherd, supervisor of decisions, who makes manifest [...] Lambert explained that the combination of signs which write nuska(PA-TÚG) is “taken apart as pa umuš”, from which akil ṭēmi, “supervisor of decisions”, is speculatively derived (ugula(pa) aklu, “supervisor”; umuš(túg) ṭēmu, “decision”). Unremarked by Lambert, mušāpû, “who makes manifest”, derives from the same speculative method, utilising pa from PA-TÚG: šupû, “to make manifest”, is pa-é in bilingual and lexical texts (so, Erimḫus I 279 MSL XVII p.20), evidently abbreviated for this interpretation. It is reasonable to suppose that the rest of the phrase, now lost, went on to interpret túg from PA-TÚG. In the same line, the description rē’û, “shepherd”, although a stock epithet, here also interprets nuska, but with a different writing of nuska in mind: it evidently comes from knowledge of an Old Babylonian writing of nuska as PA-LU, a combination of signs which together also reads sipa, “shepherd”, (see Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.150). In the same explanatory God List Lambert (2013, p.432) noted “a play on the signs of the late writing” to interpret Ningirimma (dnin-gìrim) as ālikat sulê, “lady who goes the road (of)”, (CT 25 49 r.1). Taken from the combination of signs which write gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR-DU), DU gives alāku, “to go”; TAR, read sila, supplies sulû, “street”. In another explanatory work, the scholar’s exposition specifically exhibits the taking apart of a sign form to serve the scholar’s explanation. ŠEŠ, the Sumerian word for “brother”, is taken from the writing of Nanna(ŠEŠ-KI) to explain and

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

151

confirm the relationship between Nanna (Sîn), Enlil and Ea as brothers (Livingstone, 1986, p.46): [x x den]lil(idim) talīm dEa Nannu ŠEŠ talīm ŠEŠ Enlil is the brother of Ea. Nanna(ŠEŠ-KI) is šeš; brother is šeš (i-NAM-giš-ḫuran-ki-a 4, extract; Livingstone’s translation) The same speculative method occurs to supply the Akkadian description in a list of Nippur’s epithets in the text corpus: [d]u6-šuba āšibat šuluḫ zīmi (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §4 15′) Present (at) the Washing of the Countenance Here šuba(ZA-MÚŠ) is broken down for interpretation: MÚŠ writes zīmu, “countenance”, (CAD Z 119). du6 gives ašābu, “to sit, be present”, (Idu II 26; Gong, 2002, p.79). How šuluḫḫu, “purification rite, washing”, is derived is less clear, unless perhaps suggested phonetically by šu(ba). It is only to be expected that the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI and VII, so rich in speculative interpretation, should also contain interpretation which is based on sign forms. Commentary II is not available in respect of the narrative description of Marduk in his identity as Sirsir (dsirsir) in Enūma eliš VII 70–77, and consequently how the commentarist would have analysed it is unknown. However some lines of this passage appear to be derived from interpretation of graphic form. Lambert noted that the sign sirsir “is most commonly composed of BU-BU-AB”, commenting that ša tiāmat rapašta ītebbiru, “who kept crossing the vast sea” (Enūma eliš VII 74) “may rest on etymology: BU-BU = etebburu, AB = tâmtu” (Lambert, 2013, pp.486–487). The evidence of other texts illustrated in this section substantiates that Lambert was correct in his analysis. Likewise, the description of dsirsir at the beginning of the passage is surely derived from the writing of sirsir as BU-BU-AB: d

sirsir šāpik šadî elēnuš tiāmat (Enūma eliš VII 70) Sirsir, who heaped up a mountain over Tiāmat

Etymological evidence to support this is supplied by a commentary on an astrological omen text which explains BU as šapāku, “to heap up”, (ACh Sin 3:10– 11, at CAD Š/I 415); AB supplies tâmtu, “sea”. Elsewhere in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII similar graphic interpretation may be suspected, in addition to other speculative methods at work. Böhl (1936–1937, p.213) drew attention to the similarity between the name dné-bé-ru and Commentary II’s equation érim(NE-RU) which explains tâmtu, “sea”, and Tiāmat herself (Enūma eliš VII 128, 132). Böhl understood érim as BÍ-RU, but NE-RU similarly suggests the phonetics of né-bé-ru.

152

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

A complex sign form with one sign inscribed within another may be taken apart for interpretation, in the same way as a combination of a sequence of signs. Lambert (1989, pp.218–219) identified this method in an expository text: [dnin-g]ublag(EZENxGUD) bēlu ša isinnīšu [lalû?] (Smith College text 110 (S 3) 6) Ningublag “The lord whose festival is [joy?]” Lambert surmised that an older form of the sign gublag(EZENxLA) is broken down for the interpretation: ezen equates to isinnu, “festival”; la to lalû, “joy”. In discussion of this line, Lambert here cited similarly K 232+ 26, a line from the Gula hymn, where the sign which writes the divine name namma, engur, made up of LAGAB and ḪAL, is broken into these separate signs for interpretation. This line is explained and discussed further in sections 6.1 and 6.3.4.2 (Gula hymn 26). In the incantation of the name Asalluḫi in Marduk’s Address to the Demons, the writing of asal(ASARI) as URUxIGI appears to be broken down and interpreted on two separate occasions. The description of Asalluḫi (dasal-lú-ḫi) as nāṣir napišti, “the one who protects life”, (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 19; ed. Geller, 2015), seems to derive from understanding URU as ùru/ùri(ŠEŠ), which writes naṣāru, “to guard, protect”; and IGI, read as ši, is Emesal for napištu, “life”, (Nabnītu A 71 MSL XVI p.64; Emesal Vocabulary II 189 MSL IV p.25; Aa V/3 122 MSL XIV p.424; see section 3.2.10). The resultant epithet is, of course, entirely apposite to Asalluḫi. A freer approach to this speculative method seems to be evident in another epithet in this incantation, where Asalluḫi is termed labbu Igīgī, “lion of the Igigi-gods”, (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 58; ed. Geller, 2015): here, it seems, breaking down asal(ASARI) into URUxIGI, URU suggests ur to the scholarly composer, corresponding to labbu, “lion”, (ur labbu Urra XIV 62 MSL VIII/2 p.11); IGI is surely realised in Igīgī (dí-gì-gì), “the Igigi-gods”, exploiting the shared phonetics of the Sumerian reading IGI and the divine name. Interpreting parts of a sign separately could be combined with understanding a component of a composite sign as a different sign, unrelated (in modern scholarship) save by graphic similarity (a speculative practice described in section 3.2.25.1). In a list of Nabû’s names, dúmbisag (a name derived from the common description of Nabû as a scribe, for which the Sumerian word is umbisag) is interpreted as aplu Marūtuk, “son of Marduk”, (V R 43 r 28; ed. Pomponio, 1978, p.158; see Lambert, 2013, p.167). For this interpretation, the writing of úmbisag(ŠIDxA) is taken apart. As Lambert pointed out, ŠID is taken as the similar sign MES and the sign úmbisag is understood as MESxA: dmes is a name of Marduk; and a corresponds to aplu, “son”. The interpretation of parts of signs certainly occurs elsewhere, broken out from the sign form for speculative ends. Lenzi (2015, pp.744–748) has tentatively

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

153

suggested how the narrative composition of ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 45–46 (ed. Oshima, 2014; IV 82–83, Lambert, 1960) might be speculatively derived from the manipulation of constituent parts of signs. Finkel (2014a, pp.319–320, 2014b, pp.309–311) identified another example in a medical commentary text from Uruk, SpTU I 49. This serves to explain the disease known as “Hand of a ghost” (šu-gidimma, qāt eṭemmi) by deconstructing the homophonous sign gídim into BAR and U, an approach which Finkel noted is “completely artificial”. It is certainly used in commentaries to the medical omen series Sakikku, elaborately and (rather differently) for its visual effect, as described in section 3.2.25.3 below. The Gula hymn supplies a number of examples, summarised in section 6.3.4.2. The evidence of this text corpus suggests that, whilst it is undoubtedly an unusual speculative tool, the interpretation of constituent parts of signs may be a more common explanatory and speculative method than previously suspected, repaying further study. 3.2.25.3 Pictorial representation Rather different from the etymological approach to the graphic representation of cuneiform signs discussed and illustrated above, the visual representation of signs may generate speculative interpretation: a sign’s pictorial form may be interpreted. Ancient evidence for this approach is given in three commentaries on the medical omen series Sakikku to explain the link between the protasis and apodosis of a diagnostic omen. Each commentary evidently interpreted the sign used as the logogram for narkabtu, “chariot”, (usually gigir(LAGABxBAD) in the first millennium), using an older writing gígir(LAGABxU) (a winkelhaken in a square box), to understand the sign as depicting Ištar as the star Dilbat, residing within the constellation of the Chariot (Auriga). Here Ištar is equated with U; for the commentaries’ explanation, the composite sign (gigir) and one component of it (U) are given separate meanings (interpreting a constituent part of the sign, as described in section 3.2.25.2 above), and the overall visual representation of the sign is interpreted (for full explanation, see George, 1991, p.161; Frahm, 2011, pp.80–81). Bottéro and Foster both saw speculation on pictorial representation in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII. Bottéro noted this in relation to a description of Nēberu (dné-bé-ru) in which, in Commentary II’s analysis, the divine determinative dingir is interpreted: d

né-bé-ru kakkabša ša ina šamê ušāpû (Enūma eliš VII 126) Nēberu is his star, which he made appear in the heavens Commentary II (extract, likewise l.130): [AN] ⸢kakkabu⸣ star

Reflecting on the interpretation of the sign dingir(an) as kakkabu, “star”, given by Commentary II, Bottéro (1977, p.22 §25) drew attention to the early pictographic form of the sign an which resembles a star, commenting that “le pictogramme

154

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

primitif représentait ... une étoile”. It seems very plausible that the commentarist drew on the graphic form of the sign for analysis of this line, as well as the other celestial meanings conveyed by dingir ilu, “god”, and an šamû, “heavens”. Foster saw a pictorial interpretation in the description of Marduk as Gilima (dgili-ma): d

gili-ma mukīn ṭurri ilānī bānû kināti (Enūma eliš VII 80) Gilima, who made firm the bond of the gods, creator of permanent things Commentary II: da]-gili-[ma g]i [kânu to be firm (broken)]

Foster (2005, p.480) noted that “The sign GIL(IM) is two crossed reeds, here explained as a (celestial) linkage and restraint.” Like Commentary II, Lambert (2013, p.487) proposed an etymological explanation, noting correspondences between gili(m) and egēru, “to twine”, and gi-gili(m) and ṭurri, “binding, knot”. The composer’s speculation this divine name perhaps encompasses both of these very different approaches. Pictorial interpretation is also to be found in the Gula hymn. The Gula hymn contains an exceptional instance of speculative interpretation drawn from the pictorial representation of the sign form kiš, which serves to associate the god Sîn with Kiš, the city in which Sîn’s daughter Ištar was patron deity (Gula hymn 98′). This line is explained and discussed further in sections 6.1 and 6.3.4.3. 3.2.26 Older forms Very occasionally it has been observed that some speculative interpretation in the text corpus is based on some older form or writing than was common in the first millennium. Instances of this have been noted in the discussion of graphic interpretation in the preceding section 3.2.25. Lambert and Millard (1969, p.150) pointed out that the characterisation of Nuska (dnuska) as rē’û, “the shepherd”, in an etymological God List (CT 25 49 r.4) is based on an Old Babylonian writing of nuska as PA-LU, together also reading sipa, “shepherd”, and not the more common writing of nuska, PA-TÚG. Lambert (1989, pp.218–219) surmised that, for the explanation of the divine name Ningublag (dnin-gublag) in an expository text (Smith College text 110 (S 3) 6), rather than the then usual writing of gublag(EZENxGUD), an older form of the sign gublag(EZENxLA) was understood for speculative interpretation. Again, (although not part of the text corpus), commentary texts on the medical omen series Sakikku evidently explained the connection between narkabtu, “chariot”, and Ištar through the logogram used to write narkabtu (usually gigir(LAGABxBAD) in the first millennium), but using an older writing gígir(LAGABxU) for their explanation (see George, 1991, p.161; Frahm, 2011, pp.80–81). Likewise, Bottéro (1977, p.22 §25) drew attention to the early pictographic writing of the sign an as a star, kakkabu, in the context of Commentary II’s interpretation of dné-bé-ru kakkabša, “Nēberu is his star” (Enūma eliš VII 126).

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

155

Aside from interpretations based on sign forms, there are perhaps isolated examples where some older form of a sacred name informs the speculative interpretation. A late text from Uruk which contains speculative interpretation of names of the goddess Antu explains the name Ninsianna, attributed to her: d

nin-si4-an-na an-tu4 bēl⸢tu⸣ munamrat šamê(an)e (Beaulieu, 1995a, p.194 8) Ninsianna Antu the lady who illuminates the heavens

Here, si4 from dnin-si4-an-na is understood as si namāru, “to shine”, (Aa III/4 169 MSL XIV p.341), realised in the D stem participle munamrat. This can be accounted for simply as a case of exploiting a homophonous sign in the speculative interpretation. However, Beaulieu (1995a, p.201) noted that the spelling of this divine name common in the Old Babylonian period was dnin-si-an-na, so that the idea of interpreting dnin-si4-an-na as dnin-si-an-na would not have been novel. More clearly, perhaps, the Gula hymn also contains speculation on a divine name which may be informed by an older form of the name. Its speculative description of the goddess Kurribba (dkur-rib-ba) may well be based on knowledge of the alternative spelling of the divine name as dkur-íbib-ba, and of dkur-ra-íb-ba, the name given by the Old Babylonian forerunner to of the God List An: Anum. This is discussed and explained further in section 6.1 (Gula hymn 33). Any issue which involves date is, of course, fraught with difficulties, for the date of a manuscript may well not preclude an earlier date for the composition, or some part of it. Consequently, what may seem to be some scholarly harking back to an earlier time may be no such thing. However it would not be surprising that ancient scholars reflected earlier forms in their speculative interpretations, out of veneration for earlier learning or in the exercise of their own erudition, or both. Accordingly, it must suffice to note the influence of older forms in this field of Babylonian scholarship, and to be alert for other interpretations of this kind. 3.2.27 Multiple possibilities The wide potential of the cuneiform script with its many homophones and alternative readings and their different correspondences, coupled with the extensive range of speculative methods deployed by the ancient scholars may result in there being more than one explanation of any speculative interpretation. Straightforwardly, an Akkadian interpretation may be derived from different parts of a sacred name (whether Sumerian or Akkadian) simultaneously, a speculative method illustrated in section 3.2.20. Elsewhere, explanation may be less clear-cut; multiple possibilities may present themselves. Just three examples are given here to illustrate that different explanations may simultaneously be available to account for the speculative interpretation of a sacred name.

156

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

The first illustration is from an explanatory compilation of material relating to Nippur, where just a brief extract evinces multiple possibilities. Here the god Anu is described as abi šamê, “Father of heaven” (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §11 5′). The description reflects Anu’s theological position as sky god and father of the gods. Even absent etymological explanation, abi šamê would be a wholly fitting epithet for this god. However, the epithet may indeed be explained as a speculative interpretation of the Akkadian divine name Anu (da-nu): the element a is understood as a Sumerian element and conventionally translated as abu “father”; Anu’s Sumerian name An itself supplies šamû, “heavens”. Further, however, šamû may be etymologically derived from da-nu in different ways. šamû may be understood from the divine marker dingir, read as an, equating to šamû. Differently, notionally resyllabified in an unorthodox orthography, da-nu supplies both an and u: an is the common correspondence for šamû, of course, but u also can supply šamû, as lexical evidence demonstrates (bu-ruu šamû Aa II/4:109, ùud šamû Aa III/3:8 MSL XIV pp.283, 332). Or an (šamû) can be simply suggested by the phonetics of a-nu. The divine name hence can be understood to convey šamû in multiple ways. The second illustration is taken from the exposition of Marduk’s name in Enūma eliš VI, which is not, of course, explained by Commentary II. Etymological speculation on his divine name clearly generates narrative relating to Marduk (dmarūduk): nišī ša ibnû šikitti napšu (Enūma eliš VI 129) The people whom he created, living creatures The etymological explanation given by Lambert (2013, p.165) of narrative pertaining to Marduk as Marukka (dma-ru-uk-ka) (Enūma eliš VI 135) is equally applicable to this line to account for its derivation from dmarūduk, reflecting the phonology of the name: mar is Emesal for gar šakānu, “to place”, from which šikittu, “form”, is derived in this variant of the stock phrase šiknat napišti, “living things”; rú equates to banû, “to create”; and ùku to nišī, “people”. Other parts of this name also convey banû: ma (so Commentary II in its analysis of Enūma eliš VII 83) and úgu ku (Ea I 137 MSL XIV p.184). These too may explain ibnû, “he created”, and thus several different explanations are possible for the speculative interpretation in this line. Lambert (2013, p.163) was emphatic that the ancient etymologisers presumed the name Marūduk (dmarūduk) in their scholarly speculation. However, from the phonetics used to generate the line discussed here (and indeed Enūma eliš VI 135, describing Marukka), it is not difficult to suppose that the Sumerian writing of Marduk’s name, damar-utu, also informed the speculative interpretation. Both Akkadian and Sumerian names are perhaps in use, opening up yet another account for the narrative, as illustrated in the next illustration.

3. Speculative scholarship in the text corpus

157

The third illustration of multiple possibilities is from Enūma eliš VII, where Commentary II’s analysis of the exposition of Marduk’s names is available. Bottéro (1977, p.18 §14) observed that Commentary II’s analysis of the passages relating to Girru and Bēl-mātāti (Enūma eliš VII 115ff., 136ff.) encompasses both their Sumerian and Akkadian names. The commentary relating to the Fire-god Girru (dgirru, a name written by the signs NE/BIL-GI, perhaps to be read as gibil6, and understood by Bottéro as dgibil) illustrates this: gi p[alkû] wide gi u[znu] understanding rudù e[pēšu] to do gi ḫ[asīsu] wisdom ir ḫ[ar libbu heart] ir[ x rūqu unfathomable] ra [ša whose] ra [lā not] ni[x lamādu to learn] Commentary II (Enūma eliš VII 117–118) The syllables gi, rú (rudù), ir5 (irḫ[ar]) and ra abstracted by the commentarist clearly reflect the Akkadian name Girru (or Girra). At the same time, gi and ni evidently interpret the writing of the Sumerian name Gibil (NE/BIL-GI). Meaning is fluidly derived from both names, it seems. These examples illustrate that there may not always be a single explanation of an Akkadian interpretation, but multiple possibilities. Sometimes, of course, it may be that modern analysis identifies a possibility that was not in the ancient scholar’s mind, but coincidentally may be reasoned to account for some scholarly speculation. Perhaps not all apparent equivalences were intended or perceived as such by their authors. Nevertheless, the possibility of multiple explanations is so prevalent that it cannot be dismissed as mere chance. The illustrations of speculative methods given in this chapter demonstrate that ancient scholars who engaged in this form of Babylonian scholarship were highly skilled and erudite, thoroughly conversant with the possibilities afforded by the cuneiform writing system, deeply versed in the lexical and bilingual tradition, and flexible and inventive in approach. Such scholars would certainly have been alive to the different possibilities available to them in speculative interpretation. This strongly suggests that several possibilities could be, and were, intended. Alternative explanations may be seen to add to the potential embedded in a name, rather than undermining other explanations. These served to confirm and reinforce the truth of the meaning latent in the sacred name and revealed by the insight and erudition of the ancient scholars, using the speculative techniques and methods described in this chapter.

4. The Gula hymn

The preceding chapters have been concerned with Babylonian scholarship, the meaning of sacred names, and the techniques and methods used to explain these names. The focus now turns to the Gula hymn, a single major composition in praise of the healing goddess. This religious work, celebrating and glorifying its goddess, is also an eminently scholarly composition, in which sacred names – of the goddess, her temples and places sacred to her – are expounded and explained by speculative scholarship, using the techniques and methods described in chapter 3, and developing them. The Gula hymn described, presented and examined here in chapters 4, 5 and 6, was evidently an important and popular composition in antiquity, as the number and geographical spread of its manuscripts show. The Gula hymn combines two pieces of text containing a hymn, or perhaps a prayer, to the healing goddess: K 232+3371+13776; and KAR 109+343 and its duplicates. These have, separately, been known to scholars for many years, although no full edition has been published of either. W.G. Lambert identified that these manuscripts contain text which appears to overlap, revealing the work to be not two separate hymns, as previously thought, but a single composition. Lambert (1997, p.74) implicitly referred to this without explanation in notes on a Late Babylonian tablet containing a wholly unrelated composition. Now brought together here in a full modern edition, this Gula hymn, though still incomplete, can be recognised as a major Babylonian hymn, to take its place alongside the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi edited by Lambert in 1967 and the other great Babylonian hymns. The composition is an important addition to the corpus of literary texts relating to the goddess Gula. At the same time the Gula hymn is a scholarly work of great sophistication and ingenuity, with features not previously observed. A brief description of the texts which make up the Gula hymn and their publication history is given in section 4.1. The basis for Lambert’s identification of their text as overlapping is explained and discussed in section 4.2. An overview of the Gula hymn is presented in section 4.3, which contains a synopsis of the hymn, a summary of its themes and motifs and a discussion of the work as a literary and scholarly composition. Section 4.4 sets the work in its context. The date of the composition is considered in section 4.5. 4.1 The texts K 232+3371+13776 The cuneiform text contained in K 232 was first published by in 1897 (Craig, 1895– 1897, ABRT II, 16–18). Craig’s intended further volume, containing a transliteration

160

4. The Gula hymn

and translation of this text with notes, was never forthcoming. The text was first published some three years later by Martin (1900), in transliteration and translation in French, with a commentary and a new cuneiform copy of the reverse. A transliteration and English translation of K 232, with some notes and a new cuneiform copy, was published by Mullo-Weir (1929), as one of four Hymns to Gula. Although clearly aware of Martin’s work (for he referred to it in relation to another Gula hymn edited in the same article), Mullo-Weir did not cite Martin’s prior edition of K 232. Lambert made cuneiform copies and a draft transliteration of K 232, together with K 3371 and K 13776, the pieces by then identified as joining K 232. Lambert’s copies are now published as No. 63, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019). No edition of the joined tablet has been published to date. KAR 109+343 The cuneiform text contained in VAT 9670 and VAT 9931 was copied by Ebeling (1919), published as KAR 109 and KAR 343. Ebeling (1918, 1953a) published KAR 109 and KAR 343 in transliteration and translation. No critical edition of either has been published to date. Duplicates of the text contained in these pieces have been known for some years. Entries in CAD refer to unspecified duplicates (so, for example, CAD Š/III 442 šīlān “KAR 109:4 …. and dupls.”). Leichty, Catalogue VII and VIII identified pieces in the British Museum as duplicates of KAR 109 (BM 68611 and BM 75974). The editors of MSL XIV (p.431) identified that BM 36333 contained text which duplicates part of KAR 109. Lambert identified BM 76319 and BM 37616 as further duplicates, making copies of the cuneiform text of all the identified duplicates (Nos. 64–68, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi, 2019) and a composite draft transliteration. The duplicate manuscripts extend the text preserved in KAR 109+343 very significantly. Only BM 36333, a school text (Gesche, 2001, pp.238–240), has been published to date. A further unpublished fragment, BM 34399, identified by E. Jiménez and his team on the Electronic Babylonian Literature (eBL) Project (November 2019, private communication), contains text which duplicates text in BM 68611 and BM 75974 (but not KAR 109+343 itself). This text has been variously identified in scholarly literature over the years. Ebeling (1918) identified KAR 109 as a hymn to the healing goddess, calling it a “Hymne auf Baʼû”. CAD refers to the text as a hymn to “Bau” (so, for example, CAD E 7 ebēbu) or, more ambiguously, a “hymn to a goddess” (so, for example, CAD Š/II 442 šīlān). In his edition of the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, Lambert (1967, pp.112, 131) described KAR 109 as “a Bau hymn” and “a syncretising Gula hymn”. The text has also been widely identified as a hymn to Ištar. Lambert himself

4. The Gula hymn

161

thought it to be so, at one stage, as evident from unpublished notes. Referring to unpublished duplicates courtesy of Lambert, and reflecting Lambert’s then identification of the hymn, George, Topog.Texts, p.386 described the composition as a syncretistic hymn to Ištar (so, too, HMH 291 and passim). Westenholz, (Goddesses, p.109 footnote 449) too considered KAR 109+ to be a syncretistic hymn addressed to Ištar. More recently, Böck (2014, p.131) referred to this text as “the great hymn to Ištar”. Lambert’s identification of K 232+3371+13776 and KAR 109+343 and its duplicates as a single composition (section 4.2), if correct, confirms that the composition is indeed a hymn or prayer to the healing goddess. The catalogue entry for No.63 in Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019) describes the composition as a syncretistic hymn to the goddess Gula. 4.2 The overlap The reverse of K 3371, joined to K 232, provides the text which Lambert identified as overlapping with KAR 109+343 and its duplicates. It is “partly very mutilated” (so, British Museum catalogue, Bezold, 1891). By comparison with its obverse, it can be estimated that the reverse of K 3371 would have contained the whole or part of some 29 lines, almost all entirely lost. Only a fragment of the bottom left corner remains, preserving the commencement of five lines, followed by a ruling, the opening of a catchline and a colophon. Lambert’s cuneiform copy of this corner is given in No.63 of Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019), K 232+3371+13776 lower rev., with numbered lines marked 55′ and 60′ (consistent with the line numbering given in the text of the Gula hymn presented in chapter 5). The fragment reads as follows: 1′ ⸢i⸣- [… … …] 2′ a[l- … … …] 3′ a-na [… … …] 4′ a-na x [… … …] 5′ a-na ši-[… … …] (Ruling) 6′ itti(⸢ki⸣) an-[ … … … ] 7′ [libi]r-bi-r[a … … … ] 8′ ṭuppi(⸢im⸣) IdNabû(pa)-[ … … … ] (K 3371 reverse; end) The puzzling BI-R[A] in l.7′ (the opening line of the colophon) is almost certainly a surprising erroneous transposition of -RA-BI, and the broken sign which precedes these is libir, so that the line was intended to commence with the routine formula,

162

4. The Gula hymn

libir-ra-bi, “its original” (A.R. George’s suggestion, March 2017, private communication). The line could be restored by a common colophonic formula to read [libi]r-bi-r[a-gim ab-sar ba-an-è], “[Written and checked according] to its original”, but the line could equally well be restored with another of the many versions of the royal colophons in use at Kuyunjik (as to which, see Hunger, 1968). The scribe’s name is largely missing from l.8′; Nabû, the god of writing and patron of scribes, is a very common theophoric element in scribal names. Lambert identified the fragmentary ll.1′–6′ above which precede the colophon as overlapping with the unpublished duplicate of KAR 109+343, BM 75974, which contains 11 part lines which precede KAR 109+343’s text and a further 36 duplicate lines. The highlighted text below illustrates the overlap of K 3371 reverse ll.1′–6′, set out above, and BM 75974 obverse ll.7′–12′: 7′ ⸢i⸣-šu uz-na šu-⸢tu⸣-rat ḫa-si-[sa] 8′ al-ka-ka-a-ti mu-da-át gúm-mu-rat ši-t[ul-ta] 9′ a-na šip-ṭi u purussê(eš-bar) i-qal-ši da-[num] 10′ a-na ši-mat la šá-na-an iš-te-né-’i-ši den-[líl] 11′ a-na ši-tul-ti nap-ḫa-ri ta-ru-ši dnu-dím-[mud] 12′ itti(⸢ki⸣) an-šár be-lí šu-tu-rat ḫa-si-sa (BM 75974 obverse) l.12′ is the first line of KAR 109+343 and the catchline from K 3371, l.6′, which follows the ruling. The question arises whether Lambert’s identification of the overlap of the two manuscripts, and the consequent identification of their texts as a single composition, is sound. His identification is based on the rather slight remains of six lines. ll.1′–2′ of K 3371 (reverse; end) contain traces only of quite common signs, if indeed correctly identified; ll.3′–5′ commence with the common preposition, ana, “to, for”. Nothing follows ana in l.3′; and not enough follows in ll.4′–5′ to be conclusive. Similarly, l.6′, the catchline, commences with common signs, KI and AN; AN might easily be the marker preceding a divine name, rather than a syllabic value. However, notwithstanding the limited textual evidence, there is an undoubted match between the two manuscripts. The traces in ll.1′–2′ do fit the beginning of BM 75974 obverse ll.7′–8′. The repetition of the preposition ana (ll.3′–4′) corresponds with the like repetition in BM 75974 obverse ll.9′–10′. More compelling evidence is given by l.5′, where a-na ši-[ corresponds with a-na ši-tul-ti in BM 75974 obverse l.11′. In the next line, despite damage in both manuscripts, there appears to be a match: ⸢ki⸣ AN in K 3371 replicates the first two signs in the opening phrase ⸢ki⸣ an-šár in BM 75974 obverse l.12′. Hence, although the individual signs preserved in ll.1′–6′ K 3371

4. The Gula hymn

163

(reverse; end) are commonplace, there is undoubtedly a striking match between these lines and the beginning of BM 75974 obverse ll.7′–12′. A further factor supporting the conclusion that these manuscripts overlap lies in the catchline itself, the first line of the next tablet in the series, preserved in K 3371 l.6′ only as ⸢ki⸣ AN. The Babylonian manuscript BM 75974 has no division or ruling here; its text simply runs on. However, the Assyrian duplicate, KAR 109+343 picks up the work at this point with the first line of the tablet, partially restored from its duplicate, BM 75974. This arrangement of the text in KAR 109+343 is of particular significance, for, if Lambert’s proposition is correct, KAR 109+343 commenced with the same line as the next tablet in K 3371’s series. This coincidence in the formal arrangement of the two texts from Assyria (K 232+3371+13776 from Kuyunjik, and KAR 109+343 from Aššur; see section 5.1), in conjunction with the matches described above, seems sound evidence supporting Lambert’s identification of the texts contained in K 232+3371+13776 and BM 75974 and its duplicate KAR 109+343, as overlapping; and hence his identification of two texts, previously thought to be entirely independent hymns, as from the same composition. The textual evidence for Lambert’s remarkable identification of these texts as a single composition, although based on a relatively small fragment, thus seems compelling. The substance of the texts of these manuscripts fully supports Lambert’s identification. The Kuyunjik manuscript K 232+3371+13776 and the Aššur manuscript KAR 109+343 with its Babylonian duplicates contain much material that is thematically related. Stock epithets and routine accolades applied to a goddess that can be found in many hymns and prayers cannot, of course, serve as evidence of unity of the work, and material of this sort can be discounted. However there are a number of distinctive passages and motifs which point to the texts forming a single work. The line numbers given in what follows are as given in the text presented in chapter 5. After its opening section, K 232+3371+13776 contains a passage in which the great gods, Anu, Enlil and Ea, bestow on the goddess competence in their respective spheres as her own divine qualities (K 232+3371+13776 obverse, ll.11– 16). This passage is paralleled and extended in ll.57′–65′ of the united composition, given by KAR 109+343 and duplicates, where the work describes how Anu, Enlil and Ea (there called Nudimmud) look to the goddess for her expertise in their special spheres. Elsewhere in the work, the goddess is depicted in the subterranean deep, associated with Duku (K 232+3371+13776 obverse, ll.50–52); the same themes and material are recombined and reused in ll.69′–70′, supplied by KAR 109+343 and duplicates. Two very broken passages also seem to share a common theme, despite the damage. Both ll.1′–7′ (K 232+3371+13776 reverse) and ll.7′′′–10′′′ (BM 37616 reverse) appear to have a pastoral setting for the goddess; and like ll.1′–7′, ll.7′′′–10′′′

164

4. The Gula hymn

and preceding lines appear to have a narrative style which distinguishes them from much of the composition. At a more detailed level, the motif tê ša šupšuḫi, “the incantation for relieving” (K 232+3371+13776 reverse, l.28′), is reprised in ina têša ušapšaḫ namrāṣa, “With her incantation she relieves suffering” (l.121′, supplied by duplicates of KAR 109+343); other material is also perhaps replicated. However, most significant to the evidence for unity of the composition are the lengthy passages which comprise expositions of divine names and sacred places. In the first of these, ll.18–40, given in K 232+3371+13776 obverse, the goddess is identified with different goddesses, listed by name. In the second passage, ll.75′– 20′′, supplied by KAR 109+343 and duplicates, the goddess is associated with cities, temples and shrines across Southern Mesopotamia and portrayed as goddess of each. As in ll.18–40, the goddess is identified with other goddesses, who are here sometimes, but not always, expressly named. Structurally, these passages complement each other, notwithstanding their very different length. Both contain an exposition of the goddess’ identities and her characteristics, first by name (ll.18–40) and then by place (ll.75′–20′′). Compositionally, both passages are characterised by scholarly speculation which generates the Akkadian text (this is analysed and explained in chapter 6). In both, the goddess’ name and nature are understood and explained using the speculative techniques and methods described in chapter 3, and others besides. Thus, material, motifs, structure and, importantly, compositional technique which extensively deploys scholarly speculation combine to support Lambert’s remarkable identification of these texts as a single composition, using the textual evidence. The goddess of K 232+3371+13776 is, of course, the healing goddess, named as Ninisinna in the opening lines and unambiguously described in l.27′ff. Her name “Gula” can be confidently restored in l.8′ on the reverse of this tablet. The healing goddess cannot be so clearly identified as the composition’s goddess from the text contained in KAR 109+343 and its duplicates, for the scholar’s purpose in this text was to identify the composition’s goddess with a panoply of other Mesopotamian goddesses. However, KAR 109+343 (reverse) contains the striking line kanūt Bau kullat adnāti, understood in the edition presented here as “Bau, beloved of all the world” (l.15′′, also largely preserved in the duplicate BM 37616). It seems that the scholar here names Bau as the goddess of the composition, using another of the principal names by which the healing goddess was known. On the textual evidence and their substance, then, the two texts K 232+3371+13776 and KAR 109+343, with its duplicates, can be securely identified as a single composition in praise of the healing goddess, as Lambert concluded.

4. The Gula hymn

165

4.3 Overview of the Gula hymn The uniting of K 232+3371+13776 and KAR 109+343, with its duplicates, and its consequent identification as a single composition in praise of the healing goddess calls for an overview of this substantial work, before presenting the critical edition: to provide a brief synopsis of the composition (section 4.3.1), to summarise its principal themes and motifs (section 4.3.2), and to discuss the work as a literary and scholarly composition (section 4.3.3). First, whether this religious composition is a hymn or a prayer should be addressed. One single line of the preserved text has a word that might be read as a personal reference to the composer of the work, and hence mark the composition as a prayer: the writing diš-ta-ri (l.15′) might be understood as ištarī, “my goddess”. However the form diš-ta-ri can be accounted for in other ways; and nowhere in the remainder of the preserved text is there any reference to the worshipper, or anything to indicate that the composition is a prayer. It may be that, were the conclusion of the work to come to light, it might be found to contain a stanza in which the composer directly addresses the goddess as her supplicant, as, for example, in the concluding lines of the work Lambert called the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967, pp.128–129 188–200). For the moment, this still incomplete composition is understood as a hymn to the healing goddess Gula. The composition is of a type usually termed a “syncretistic hymn” because its goddess is identified with named goddesses and the patron goddesses of cities and temples, and thus syncretised with them by the hymn. The syncretism of female deities has been the subject of an extensive recent study by Westenholz (Goddesses) and the syncretism of the healing goddesses is specifically treated (Westenholz, Goddesses, pp.82–86). Accordingly, it is not proposed to discuss this subject generally again here, save to say that, to the extent that they are based on and argued from KAR 109+, Westenholz’s conclusions on the syncretism of goddesses with Ištar and Ištar’s position as all-powerful divine entity (op.cit., pp.109–110, pp.134–135) have to be tempered in light of the present knowledge that KAR 109+ is not a hymn to Ištar, but part of the Gula hymn. However it is not clear what, if any, new conclusions can safely be drawn from the Gula hymn as to the position of Gula herself. Certainly, the Gula hymn demonstrates that it was perfectly appropriate to laud the healing goddess in the expansive terms that the hymn does; and that it was not untoward to identify the healing goddess with Ištar, as the hymn repeatedly does by portraying its goddess as the goddess in Babylon, Kiš, Nippur and elsewhere, in places sacred to Ištar. Nevertheless, whether, or how far, the Gula hymn expresses scholarly religious thought as to the syncretisms of its goddess and her consequent position in scholarly religious belief is uncertain. It is clear that Gula did not generally take on or usurp Ištar’s position in Babylonia. The Gula hymn perhaps

166

4. The Gula hymn

simply expresses a scholarly literary conceit, in praise of the composition’s goddess, reflecting a form of composition evidently popular in scholarly circles. 4.3.1 Synopsis of the Gula hymn The Gula hymn commences with a short section in praise of the goddess, apparently in fairly conventional terms, in which she is named as Ninisinna (ll.1–6). There follows a passage which relates the bestowing of powers on the goddess, and the specific divine attributes given to her by the great gods Anu, Enlil and Ea, each from within their respective spheres of competence, are recited (ll.7–16). The assignment of powers to the goddess is followed by an extensive, self-contained section which records the names given to her by Marduk, there called Lugaldimmerankia, “King of the gods of heaven and earth”, (ll.17–41). Twenty three, or perhaps twenty four, names bestowed on the goddess are listed in the passage. A number of these names are traditional identities of the healing goddess, such as Nintinugga (l.31) and Ninkarrak (l.32); but others, such as Zarpanītum (l.21), name quite different goddesses, with whom the healing goddess is here syncretised. The composition turns again to praise of its goddess, as in its opening lines, before the text breaks off. Where the composition resumes, its goddess appears to be depicted in an agricultural or pastoral setting, where her life-giving qualities are perhaps expressed (ll.1′–7′). The following lines continue in praise of the goddess, evidently first in a ritual setting (ll.8′–42′). Her name is unfortunately missing, but can be confidently restored as Gula (l.8′). A conventional image is given of a thoughtful but all-powerful deity (l.24′), who absolves transgressions (l.25′) and is attentive to her supplicants’ prayers (ll.26′–27′), before the composition turns to the deity’s special role as goddess of healing (ll.26′–31′). Some 17 lines are partly or wholly lost (l.34′ff.). Where a duplicate of KAR 109+ securely takes up the text, the goddess’ omnipotent powers are extolled, it seems (ll.51′–56′); and the divine spheres of the supreme divine triad, Anu, Enlil and Ea, (here named Nudimmud), and other deities are attributed to her (ll.57′–65′). In a transition to a key part of the composition, the work turns to named temples and shrines in Nippur and Babylon sacred to Enlil and Marduk respectively, to which attributes of the goddess are coupled (ll.66′–70′). The pre-eminent and universal authority of the goddess is asserted in a stanza of four lines which concludes the section and introduces what follows (ll.71′–74′). The remainder of the preserved text to l.20′′ is devoted to praise of the goddess which combines a demonstration of her universality and an exposition of her identity and characteristics. She is associated with cities, temples and shrines spread across Southern Mesopotamia and portrayed as goddess of each (ll.75′–20′′). All the major cult centres of Southern Mesopotamia feature in this lengthy exposition and are

4. The Gula hymn

167

treated as the goddess’ own. The goddess is associated first with the great cult-centre of Nanna-Suen (Sîn) at Ur, where she is equated with the moon-god’s consort, Ningal (ll.75′–77′). Descending the divine hierarchy, the work turns to the sun-god Šamaš in Sippar, where the goddess is identified with his consort, Aya (ll.78′–79′). In ll.81′–90′, the composition turns to Babylon and its temples and shrines, starting with its principal sacred place, é-sag-íl, the temple of Marduk, city-god of Babylon. Towns and temples in the vicinity of Babylon including Borsippa (l.91′) and Kiš (l.98′), and other places whose location can be presumed to be nearby, are associated with the goddess, before the work turns to the great temples of Nippur (ll.91′–123′). Nippur, the great cult-centre of Enlil, and its temples are associated with the goddess in an extended passage, similar in length to the section treating the great temples of Babylon (ll.124′–131′). The composition continues with further towns and temples and its geographical focus switches to Malgium and Dadmuš before the text breaks (ll.134′–139′). When the text resumes (taken up by the reverse of KAR 109+), yet more towns and sacred places are ascribed to the goddess, through Northern Babylonian, as far east as Dēr. The last town named before the text breaks again is the southern city of Karkara, cult-centre of the storm-god Adad, where it may be supposed that the goddess is identified with Adad’s consort, Šala (l.19′′). The remainder of the preserved text is rather fragmentary. However, it seems clear that further towns and their sacred places are not named here, but the hymn continues in praise of its goddess, celebrating her in different spheres and different places. The goddess is depicted as having power in the special sphere of Erra, god of war and pestilence (ll.2′′′–4′′′) and again shown in an agricultural setting (ll.7′′′–10′′′). The last lines of the preserved text have the underworld and the Apsû as their setting before the text breaks off (ll.11′′′–15′′′). 4.3.2 Themes and Motifs in the Gula hymn The themes and motifs which appear in the Gula hymn may be considered from two perspectives: first, themes and motifs which are conventional in Akkadian hymns and prayers; and secondly, those core themes which pervade and characterise the Gula hymn and provide unity to the composition. As will be seen, these core themes develop the conventional theme of the supremacy of the composition’s goddess, to proclaim her universal reach and pre-eminence in all places and in all spheres, but first conventional themes and motifs which appear in the composition are noted below. As is to be expected, the Gula hymn contains many themes and stock motifs which are common to hymns, prayers and other literary compositions of a religious nature, deployed in the composer’s praise of the goddess. Typically, these themes and motifs are expressed in stock language and conventional phraseology. Common

168

4. The Gula hymn

themes and motifs as they appear in the Gula hymn are illustrated in what follows, but many of these recur in the composition and the references to them are not exhaustive. Like many other hymns and prayers, the Gula hymn depicts its goddess as a supreme and powerful deity with all-encompassing powers vested in her by the great gods themselves (ll.7–16 and passim), credited with creating the universe (l.5) and authority over the cosmos (ll.52′–54′), and creating destinies (l.55). She is, of course, very wise, an attribute expressed in the conventional expression rapšat uzni, “she is of profound intelligence”, at the outset of the composition (ll.2, 4) and reiterated (for example, ll.60′, 62′); and her wise counsel is sought by other gods (ll.57′, 86′). The profound and inaccessible nature of a god’s thoughts and the special ability of a god to know the minds of others are stock themes which are encapsulated in the expression of the goddess’ ability to comprehend the intentions of Anu (l.119′). Conventionally too, the goddess is a deity who may be angered but is then relenting (l.32′), a compassionate and merciful goddess (ll.35, 32′), both common themes in Mesopotamian tradition. She is attentive to her supplicants (ll.27′, 116′) and watches over them (l.2′′); but punishes the disobedient and intransigent (ll.3′′, 9′′). Conventional theological statements, in conventional language, are made as to the ability of a deity to absolve wrongdoers of their misdeeds (ll.25′, 4′′) for whom, when reconciled with the god, path and way are made straight (l.19′). The protective aspect of a deity is a routine theme in Mesopotamian religious thought and is expressed in a number of lines of the Gula hymn, often in conventional motifs, such as characterising the goddess as shepherd of her people (l.31′), or as providing shade (l.113′). Sometimes an unusual image is deployed to express divine protection, as in l.96′ where the goddess is depicted as one who spreads out a hunting net to trap the enemy. Akin to the grant of a deity’s protection is the divine provision of abundance for the people, and the topos of plentiful provision too recurs (ll.88′, 109′). The motif of divine radiance which pertains to deities is used in the hymn, as well as the expression of qualities of beauty and allure commonly attributed to female deities (ll.4, 84′). Where the Gula hymn speaks of its goddess in her role as healing goddess, descriptions and phrases routinely found in hymns and prayers to the healing goddess are used: inamdin bulṭu, “she gives health/life” (ll.27′, 87′), and the similar phrases qā’išat napišti balāṭi, “she who grants a life of good health” (l.120′), and šārikat napišti, “she who grants life” (l.1′′), describe the healing goddess elsewhere. The phrase šipat balāṭi, “spells for good health” (l.28′), is used to refer to the healing goddess’ remedial incantations; šipat balāṭi and closely similar expressions occur widely elsewhere in Standard Babylonian compositions pertaining to healing. In her persona as Nintinugga, the healing goddess is characterised as muballiṭat mīti, “one

4. The Gula hymn

169

who brings the dead back to life” (l.31), a topos routinely applied to the healing goddess. Many other standard motifs and expressions besides these are to be found in the Gula hymn; indeed, it is hard to think of a topos applicable to a deity that does not feature in this lengthy composition. The themes and motifs in the hymn are traditional and conventional; but in many cases they are derived by scholarly speculation. This is often effected by straightforward rendering of some sacred name, as, for example, in the description of the goddess Amautuanki as divine creatress (l.24, explained in section 6.1). Very often too, the expression of a topos is achieved through erudite speculative interpretation, as in l.77′, where, identified as the goddess of the temple é-giš-nu11-gal, (“Alabaster House” or “House of Great Light”), in Sippar, the goddess is depicted as protector of her people and light of the heavens (l.77′, explained in section 6.1). The core themes of the Gula hymn which pervade and characterise the composition are two-fold: the universality of the goddess; and her pre-eminence in all spheres. These themes, universality and pre-eminence, are twin manifestations of the supremacy of the composition’s goddess, captured and summarised in four lines of the hymn: gašrat šamê u erṣeti ilat pāṭ gimri eliš u šapliš šurbat ilūssa ina ṣītaš u šīlān šitakkunū kipdūša ina māḫāzī ešrēt ilānī šutanūdū zikrūšu She is all-powerful over heaven and earth, goddess of everything, Above and below, her divinity is surpassing, In east and west, her plans are in place everywhere, In the cultic centres, the shrines of the gods, her names are extolled endlessly. (Gula hymn 71′–74′) The theme of universality is obvious and striking, marked in particular by the lengthy passages in which divine names and sacred places are set out. Twenty three, or perhaps twenty four, divine names are given and are attributed to the goddess as her own (ll.17–41). Whilst some are traditional identities of the healing goddess, others are not. Thus, the hymn asserts, the composition’s goddess is all these named goddesses. This syncretism serves, for the purposes of the Gula hymn at least, to extend the identity of the goddess, to take on the persona of other goddesses in their spheres. The universality of the goddess is most clearly expressed through the temples, cities and other places named in the Gula hymn. The principal temples and cellas of Enlil in Nippur and Marduk in Babylon (ll.66′–70′) are associated with the goddess

170

4. The Gula hymn

before the composition turns to the lengthy exposition in which cities, towns, temples, and shrines across Southern Mesopotamia are identified with her (l.75′ff.). All the major cult centres are included, and many others besides. A number of the temples or shrines named (and two of the towns) are known only from this composition (these temples and shrines are listed in Appendix 2). In every place, the goddess is portrayed as the goddess of each. As in the naming passage, the goddess is syncretised with the goddess associated with the named place (whether its patron deity, or the spouse of its patron deity), for although some are places known to be sacred to the healing goddess (such as é-sa-bad, a temple of Gula in west Babylon, l.89′), most are not. It is indeed the goddess’ repeated portrayal as goddess in Babylon, Kiš, Nippur and elsewhere in places sacred to Ištar that has long caused this part of the composition to be identified as a hymn to Ištar. Thus, the composition’s goddess is portrayed as the goddess everywhere. The geographical reach of the goddess’ authority asserted in the passage set out above (ll.71′–74′) is depicted as extending below the earth, for (although fragmentary) it is evident that where the composition breaks off, the setting is the netherworld and the Apsû. The pre-eminence of the goddess of the Gula hymn is a core theme which, like her universality, pervades the composition. The pre-eminence of the subject deity is, of course, a commonplace in hymns and prayers, and the motif of the grant of the deity’s all-encompassing powers by the great gods is conventional. In the Gula hymn this motif is worked further to apply to the powers of other patron deities, granted to the goddess from their respective spheres of special competence; from this, the conceit that the goddess wields the patron deity’s powers, perhaps even acts as proxy for the deity, is developed in the hymn. The goddess is portrayed as the equal of the other deities in their spheres, or their superior (ll.7–16, 57′–58′, 60′–65′, 4′′′ and 7′′′). The great gods Anu and Enlil are depicted as needing her guidance in fields in which they are, in tradition, the supreme deities (ll.57′–58′). Indeed, although the text is broken, her indispensability to the patron deity is made explicit, for, the hymn says, matters within the sphere of Lugalnirgal (Ningirsu) cannot take place without her (ina balīša l.8′′′). The conceit that the goddess wields the patron deity’s powers runs through the exposition of the cities, towns and temples (l.66′ff.), although not so obviously expressed as in the earlier passage because the patron deity is not usually named. Here the goddess is aligned to the functions of the patron deity and wields his powers. By way of illustration, in tradition, the storm-god Adad is responsible for irrigation, essential for Mesopotamian agriculture; mudeššû, “provider”, is an epithet of the storm-god, reflecting this tradition. In é-nam-ḫé (“the House of Plenty”), the temple of Adad in Babylon, it is the goddess who is portrayed as the provider, bēlet nuḫši mudeššât ḫiṣba, “the lady of plenty, the one who provides abundance” (l.88′). The

4. The Gula hymn

171

conceit runs through the passage, the composer of the hymn attributing to the composition’s goddess the functions of Marduk (l.85′), Nabû (l.92′), Sîn (l.98′), Enlil (l.101′ and l.127′), Ninurta (l.119′), Anu (l.119′) and Tišpak (l.2′′). The device is the counterpart of the identification of the goddess with other goddesses: where a goddess is the patron deity of some special sphere, the goddess of the composition assumes that goddess’ powers by syncretism with her. By these means, the hymn contrives to portray the powers of the goddess as embracing all competences: creatress, mistress of destinies and learning, pastoral goddess and warlike deity, and, of course, the healing goddess; and pre-eminent in each sphere, and in every place. The core themes of the universality and the pre-eminence of its goddess pervade the composition and are unifying threads which make up the fabric of the Gula hymn. 4.3.3 The Gula hymn as a literary and scholarly composition The Gula hymn is a long literary hymn which, in very large part (in the preserved text, at least), is underpinned and generated by scholarly interpretation; accordingly, it falls to be assessed as a literary and scholarly composition. The hymn is, perhaps, not especially distinguished as a work of literature; but as a scholarly work, it is quite remarkable. Features which characterise the Gula hymn as a literary work are features commonly observed in Standard Babylonian hymns and prayers. Lines are selfcontained units of sense and, generally, the hymn has no regular couplet or other structure which pervades it. Some structures characteristic of poetry and certain patterns can be observed, albeit to a limited extent. A number of lines are chiastic (ll.22′, 25′ and 27′, for example); indeed, it seems probable that the opening lines of the Gula hymn were chiastic in construction. Repetition and parallelism in subjects and themes are deployed as stylistic devices, as in the passage where the divine qualities attributed to the goddess from other deities are recited (ll.57′–65′). Similarly, elsewhere the composer uses syntactic parallels and achieves patterns in the construction of lines, to literary effect (ll.30′–33′, 66′–74′). Other features characteristic of poetry can be observed. The word order normal in prose is inverted quite frequently, sometimes in combination with chiastic structure in the line, as exemplified in the description of the goddess as alkakāti mūdât gummurat šit[ūlta], “she knows how to proceed, she has complete mastery of deliberation”, (l.56′), the word order giving a pattern A–B–B–A. As to the use of language for high literary effect, there is little evidence in the Gula hymn of the use of features which characterise the high literary form of Babylonian usually termed the “hymno-epic dialect” (“der hymnisch-epische Dialekt”, von Soden, 1931, 1933a) or “hymno-epic idiom” (so, Lambert, 1959–1960, p.49). Some “hymno-epic” features are used only sparingly, and others not at all. There are only two lines in the

172

4. The Gula hymn

preserved text which may contain shortened forms characteristic of this idiom, and both are in damaged context (l.55 ši-mat-su-[un]: šīmassun, “their destinies”, and l.24′ ma-la ⸢lib-bu⸣-uš: mala libbuš, “as she chooses”). Such hymno-epic forms appear to be a very rare stylistic device in this composition, in contrast, perhaps, with other long Standard Babylonian literary hymns and prayers. Verbal forms in the rare ŠD stem are another characteristic feature of the hymno-epic idiom and just a very few ŠD stem forms are used in the hymn. Two clear ŠD forms are [u]šnammaru, “she makes bright” (l.43) and ušpatti, “she opens”, (l.20′); mušparirrat, “she who spreads” (l.96′) may also be analysed as a ŠD form. Examples of elevated language and style do occur in the hymn. Rare words are used (such as arattû, “glory”, in l.107′) and words are used in one of their less common meanings (so, in l.16, riksu, “binding”, means a corpus of knowledge); and there are perhaps occasional archaisms, for high literary effect (ll.76′, 99′). Unusual expressions also occur (such as šamû rabûtu, “the vast heavens”, in l.77′, and āšibat tašīlti, “the one who dwells in delight”, in l.90′), but it should be cautioned that sometimes rare words and unusual expressions are the product of scholarly speculation, and not necessarily crafted primarily for literary effect. Other rare verbal forms are used, the unusual forms giving an elevated stylistic effect. The stative šutanūdū in the phrase šutanūdū zikrūšu, “her names are extolled endlessly”, (l.74′) does not appear to be otherwise attested, and may be best understood as a Štn stem form. D stem forms abound and their use with transitive meaning instead of G stem forms is notable, seemingly chosen as more expressive than the ordinary G stem, as Kouwenberg (1997, pp.187–188) has suggested. D stem participles and alliterative cognate nouns are used to evident effect in phrases such as muganninat ganūnū, “she who keeps the storage rooms secure”, (l.99′) and muza’’izat zīzā[tim], “she who distributes shares”, (l.127′). Again, such forms are often derived (as here) in speculative interpretation. Elsewhere in the composition, however, the composer clearly crafts the composition with the sound of the words in mind, as, for example, in the phrase uṣurāt iṣṣurī (l.17′), signifying divine communications through birds, and the alliteration in tamīt itmû (“the oath which people swore”) and its echoing by ta’’ittu (“the report”) (l.23′). Whilst the Gula hymn indeed displays literary and poetic features, the literary merits of the composition are difficult to assess fairly. The hymn contains stock phraseology and standard accolades and, although skilfully developed, its themes and motifs are, by and large, drawn from a repertoire that is common in hymns and prayers. The description of the healing goddess herself (ll.24′–32′) is perhaps most pleasingly poetic in style and effect: ll.24′–29′ are chiastic; ll.30′–32′ each contain four balanced descriptions, to attractive effect. Appraisal of the literary merit of many other descriptive passages in the Gula hymn is hampered by damage. The

4. The Gula hymn

173

preserved text is, for the most part, a highly scholarly work, rather than literary, Babylonian in content and thought. The composition in ll.18–40 and ll.75′–19′′ is generated by scholarly speculation on divine and sacred names, using techniques and methods which characterise Babylonian scholarship, described in chapter 3. The scholarly speculation forces the choice of vocabulary; the work is consequently sometimes repetitious (as, for example, mušapšiḫat, “she who soothes”, used in close proximity in l.25, l.31 and l.35) and marked by sudden shifts and unusual expressions which are sometimes jarring. The form and content of these lengthy passages is akin to explanatory lists, to the inevitable detriment of the composition’s literary qualities. As a scholarly work, however, the Gula hymn is an exceptional work, of great erudition and originality. By speculative interpretation, the scholar-composer explores and explains the character of the goddess, depicting her in many guises and many settings. The scholarly interpretation sometimes produces a description that is a topos, thus stating and substantiating common perceptions and religious beliefs concerning the deity; elsewhere more unusual observations result from the scholarship. The scholar is erudite and inventive in the use of interpretive methods. The scholarship is distinguished by a keen eye for the graphic possibilities in the sacred names which are explored, which the scholar contrives to interpret and express in the Akkadian text. Most remarkably however, departing from normal practice, the scholar interprets names which are not explicitly expressed in the hymn, in the scholarly speculation. Names which are not otherwise expressed are thus encoded in the composition; these names reveal the identity of the goddess or of her domain in the setting. This feature, termed “encoding” in this book, is a sophisticated and significant development of scholarly hermeneutics and marks the Gula hymn as a work of exceptional scholarship. Analysis of the speculative scholarship deployed in the Gula hymn is presented in chapter 6. 4.4 The context of the Gula hymn The importance and popularity of the Gula hymn in antiquity is clear from the number of duplicate texts (one a school text, evidencing its use in the scribal curriculum) and their diverse provenances (from Kuyunjik and Aššur in Assyria, and Sippar and Babylon in Babylonia, see section 5.1). The hymn continued to be copied in the late period, as shown by the Late Babylonian fragment BM 34399, attesting to the enduring significance of the composition. A brief look at the broader context in which the Gula hymn can now be set is in order: as a hymn, amongst other Akkadian hymns, and, in particular, as a syncretistic hymn, with antecedents of its core theme of universality in Sumerian compositions; and as a scholarly work. First, of course, the Gula hymn is a substantial addition to the body of extant Akkadian literary compositions in praise of the healing goddess.

174

4. The Gula hymn

The healing goddess (whether named as Gula or in another of her identities) is the subject of a relatively small number of Akkadian literary hymns or prayers, as well, of course, as a number of healing spells and incantations addressed to her (as to which see the recent study by Böck, 2014, pp.78–79). The early study by Nikel (1918, pp.27–31) first drew together references to literary texts about Gula then known to him, which included the text K 232, published by Craig (1895–1897, ABRT II, 16–18), which forms part of the Gula hymn. Mullo-Weir (1929) added other hymns to the Gula corpus; Frankena (1957–1971) and Mayer (1976, p.387) listed further prayers and incantations. To these must be added the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsarabi, edited by Lambert in 1967. For a brief overview of the corpus of literary hymns and prayers, see Böck (2014, pp.9–10), although Böck excluded K 232+ from her count, taking the view that it is not a Gula hymn at all, but a hymn to Marduk (this is discussed in section 5.5 in the note on l.17 of the Gula hymn). Böck’s exclusion is unwarranted; the overwhelming internal evidence is that K 232 is indeed part of a hymn to the healing goddess. The Gula hymn is a major addition to this corpus. It forms a parallel, albeit in quite different form and compositional techniques, to the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, by reason of its presentation of its goddess in different guises, and, indeed, its length. Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn takes the form of self-praise by its goddess (a well-attested feature in Akkadian hymns), with alternating stanzas extolling the goddess and her spouse, and is not characterised by scholarly speculation like the Gula hymn presented here. Nevertheless, in their different ways, both hymns are works of evident scholarship and great learning. In the wider corpus of Standard Babylonian hymns and prayers, like the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, the Gula hymn is on a par with the great Standard Babylonian hymns to Šamaš (Lambert, 1960), Nabû (von Soden, 1971), Šarrat-Nippuri, the “Queen of Nippur” (Lambert, 1982) and Marduk (Lambert, 1959–1960, pp.61–66; more recently edited by Oshima, 2011, pp.216–270) and the great prayer to Ištar (Zgoll, 2003, pp.42–54). With over 222 partly preserved lines so far identified and more lost in breaks, the Gula hymn is evidently rather longer that the 200 lines characteristic of the great hymns such as the Šamaš hymn and Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn. A distinctive sub-group of Standard Babylonian hymns and prayers, as it were, is formed by syncretistic hymns and prayers in which, as in the Gula hymn, the names or aspects of different deities are attributed to a single deity. The number of such hymns and prayers attest to the importance and popularity of this kind of composition, in learned circles, at least. A list of such syncretistic texts (including KAR 109+343, part of the Gula hymn) has been compiled by Oshima (2011, pp.391– 395), together with a brief overview of them and discussion of their different characters. Oshima noted that, whilst the majority of the texts he identified are dedicated to Marduk and Ninurta (together, of course with, the exposition of

4. The Gula hymn

175

Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI 121–VII 136, which follows the same principle as these texts), like KAR 109+343, a number of these syncretistic hymns and prayers are addressed to female deities. Now substantially extending the text comprised in KAR 109+343, the Gula hymn is a significant member of this body of compositions. As a syncretistic hymn, the Gula hymn has obvious parallels in the great syncretistic Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967) and a syncretistic hymn to Ištar (Lambert, 2003–2004), perhaps a rather later composition. The description of a goddess under various names in different cities and temples presented in the Gula hymn has a particularly close parallel in the Sumero-Akkadian hymn to Nanāy edited by Reiner (1974). The Nanāy hymn takes the form in which the goddess speaks her own praises. In the most fully preserved part of this syncretistic hymn, the goddess Nanāy portrays herself as Ištar in Borsippa, Uruk, Daduni, Babylon and Ur; in further fragmentary stanzas, it is evident that she identifies herself with other great goddesses, their temples and cities (see Reiner, 1974, p.232 for a table listing these identities). Reiner (1974, p.221) noted the similarity in theme between the Nanāy hymn and KAR 109, a theme which is further expounded in the other manuscripts of the Gula hymn which duplicate and continue the text contained in KAR 109. In their wide-ranging theological and geographical sweep, the parallel between the Nanāy hymn and the Gula hymn is striking. The antecedents of the compositional motif in which the ubiquitous dominion of a deity is proclaimed lie in Sumerian literature. The recitation of the names of cities, temples and their deities is a stylistic feature common in Sumerian lamentations (for which, see Cohen, 1988). A number of Sumerian compositions list Inanna’s sacred places. In the Sumerian story of Inanna’s descent to the Netherworld, for example, the composition relates how, at the outset of her journey to the underworld, Inanna abandons named cities and temples sacred to her; indeed, one source for the composition further elaborates the motif to add a further eight cult-centres deserted by the goddess’ departure (ETCSL 1.4.1 ll.6–13; see Lapinkivi, 2010, p.58). The same feature is to be found in the so-called é-éš-dam compositions, OECT 1 pp.16– 19 pl.15 and pl.16, and similar works (see Bergmann, 1964, pp.1–14; Römer, 1969, pp.109–110). Most notably, in its similarity to the Gula hymn by this compositional motif, the Sumerian hymn of self-praise to Inanna known as Inanna F asserts Inanna’s mastery over heaven and earth, culminating in a passage which lists Inanna’s cities and temples which Inanna declares to be her own, asserting her geographic reach (Römer, 1969, pp.97–114 and 2001, pp.149–158; ETCSL 4.7.6, especially ll.21–33; for further Sumerian and Akkadian parallels, see Reiner, 1974, p.221). The composer of the Gula hymn adopts the Sumerian compositional strategy, skilfully combining it with scholarly speculation to explain Sumerian and Akkadian names for the composition.

176

4. The Gula hymn

As a scholarly work, the Gula hymn takes its place amongst those works in which sacred names are explained in Akkadian by scholarly means, which has been drawn together as the text corpus in this book. Those parts of the Gula hymn that are characterised by scholarly speculation (ll.17–41, which interpret divine names, and l.75′ff., which treat places and temples) have much in common with explanatory lists in the text corpus. The passage at ll.17–41, in particular, contains little besides an Akkadian explanation of each divine name and closely resembles explanatory God Lists such as the Marduk Names List and the explanatory God List K 1451. The exposition of places and temples (l.75′ff.), which parallels topographical and temple lists, is given a much more literary treatment, which sets the hymn amongst the literary and religious compositions in the text corpus. Typically in this passage, instead of an explanation of the named setting itself (as in an explanatory topographical or temple list), the hymn gives an explanation of the goddess’ character, drawn from the place or temple name. This device has its closest parallel in the short passage from the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi in which the Sumerian gate-names of the é-sag-íl complex are interpreted by the Babylonian composer to generate a description of the penitent’s return to divine favour as he passes through those gates (ludlul bēl nēmeqi V 42–53, Lambert IV 79–90; for discussion of this passage, see Reiner, 1985, pp.112–113, 117–118; George, Topog.Texts, pp.90–91, 392–393; and Lenzi, 2015). However the passages characterised by scholarly speculation are much more sustained in the Gula hymn than elsewhere in the literary compositions in the text corpus, with the exception of the lengthy exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI 121–VII 136. The Enūma eliš exposition itself has a background in God Lists, as Lambert (2013, pp.149–154) demonstrated, and provides the outstanding exposition of speculative scholarly interpretation of divine names, fully integrated into a literary setting. There is, to date, no hymnic work of comparable compositional form to the Gula hymn. It is with the Enūma eliš exposition that the Gula hymn has the closest parallel as a literary and scholarly work. Both exhibit scholarly interpretations of great ingenuity and learning. Like the Gula hymn, Enūma eliš reflects names which are interpreted but not explicitly expressed, “encoded names” as they are termed in this book, but rather fewer and somewhat differently from the unobvious names which are subliminally encoded in the Gula hymn (see further section 6.3). 4.5 Date of composition The Gula hymn contains few clear indications as to the date of its composition. Names provide some clues. Ninisinna, the name given to the hymn’s goddess in its opening lines (l.3), is the usual name of Isin’s goddess in the Old Babylonian period and is little used thereafter (Edzard, 1998–2001b). However, of course this does not

4. The Gula hymn

177

reliably indicate a date of composition in the Old Babylonian period for the hymn. The Gula hymn is a work which explores the identities of the healing goddess, with evident erudition. It is only to be expected that an ancient name of the healing goddess, an important one of her many identities, would have a place in this scholarly work. As a compositional device too, the ancient name serves to signal her veneration from ancient times, thus proclaiming the goddess’ elevated status. Other divine names in that part of the composition where the composition’s goddess is associated with Kiš and its temples (ll.98′–107′) provide pointers as to dating. The imagery at the outset of the passage (ll.98′–100′) identifies the goddess with Ištar, the principal goddess of Kiš and, in the Old Babylonian period, known as the spouse of the city’s patron deity, Zababa, with whose temple she is linked in ll.99′–100′. However in ll.101′–107′ the composition’s goddess is equated with Ninlil in Ḫursag-kalamma, the eastern city area of Kiš, a cult-centre with a very ancient association with Ištar. é-kur-ní-zu, the temple named in l.106′, is the name of Ninlil’s sanctuary at Ḫursag-kalamma, as is known from a brick inscription of the local governor under the Chaldean king of Babylonia, Merodach-baladan II (c721– 710 BC), and may perhaps also have been the later name of é-ḫur-sag-kalam-ma (for the brick inscription, see Walker, 1981, p.64, no.75 and Frame, 1995, pp.141–142, B.6.21.2001; more generally, see HMH 690 and Westenholz, Goddesses, p.112). Temple lists and other texts evidence that in the first millennium Ištar was seen as a manifestation of Ninlil in Ḫursag-kalamma (see HMH 482). Allusions and lexical equivalences appear to reflect and confirm the dual identity of the goddess of ll.101′– 107′ as Ištar-Ninlil, with references to both names skilfully woven into the passage by its composer (see the commentary these lines, and particularly l.105′ and l.107′, in section 6.1). Westenholz (Goddesses, p.112) inferred that Merodach-baladan may have imposed the cult of Ninlil on that of Ištar in Kiš. If so, the references to Ninlil in this section of the Gula hymn would suggest a composition date in the NeoBabylonian period, perhaps around 700 BC. Westenholz’s inference is difficult to substantiate, and runs counter to Merodach-baladan’s own claim to have maintained the cult places of Babylonia, which seems to have some truth (see Brinkman, 1964, pp.13–18). Whilst the inscription from Merodach-baladan’s reign and other sources certainly evidence that Ninlil was associated with Ḫursag-kalamma in the first millennium, the historic background implicit in ll.98′–107′ is firmly grounded in earlier times, with its clear allusions to Ištar (ll.98′–100′). It may be that the Gula hymn itself reflects an earlier tradition in which Ištar is conflated with Ninlil that leads to the position recorded in the first millennium sources. One other divine name, this time a reference to Marduk, also generally informs the question of the historic context in which the Gula hymn was composed. Lugaldimmerankia (Marduk) is named as the god who bestowed on the goddess her

178

4. The Gula hymn

names (ll.17–41). Lugaldimmerankia, “King of the gods of heaven and earth”, is the fifth name given to Marduk in the exposition of his names in Enūma eliš VI 139– 142; it is a title by which Marduk was known from at least the late second millennium BC. More significant, perhaps, is that Marduk alone appears to be the name-giver, and not a trio of great gods, as appears in similar name-giving passages in the Standard Babylonian Hymn to the Queen of Nippur (Lambert, 1982, p.198 III 52ff.) and in Enūma eliš itself. This would tend to suggest that the Gula hymn was composed in the period which saw the elevation of Marduk to head of the Babylonian pantheon, celebrated in his portrayal as the preeminent god of Enūma eliš. As to other internal evidence, the outstanding feature of the Gula hymn is its scholarly exposition of divine and sacred names. The type of scholarship displayed in the composition has roots in the Old Babylonian period (section 2.4) but has no parallel in literary works of that period in such developed form as here. Speculative scholarship is generally thought to have flowered in the latter part of the second millennium BC, the Middle Babylonian period. In its extensive and sophisticated exploration of sacred names in a literary setting, the closest parallel to the Gula hymn is the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI–VII, to which no certain composition date can be assigned, but is perhaps Middle Babylonian, as many scholars think (see, for example, Lambert, 2013, p.444; for a re-examination of the question of the evolution of the Enūma eliš composition, see Dalley, 1997). From its scholarly content, the Gula hymn seems likely to be the product of much the same period.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

A critical edition of the Gula hymn is presented in this chapter. Section 5.1 describes the manuscripts which make up the Gula hymn. A table of these manuscripts and their publication history is set out in section 5.2, together with a brief note on earlier editions of K 232 and KAR 109 and KAR 343. An introduction to the text, its orthography and forms, is given in section 5.3. Section 5.4 contains a transliteration of the Gula hymn in score form where there are duplicate manuscripts and presents a translation of the composition for the first time. The transliteration has had the benefit of Lambert’s drafts but has been prepared anew, updating and correcting readings. Not all Lambert’s suggested restorations have been accepted; other readings and a number of additional restorations have been suggested (see section 5.5). Section 5.5 contains commentary notes on the composition, other than as to the speculative scholarship which characterises the Gula hymn. Sacred names are explored and explained using speculative techniques and methods described in chapter 3 and developing and expanding them. Most remarkably, names which are not explicitly expressed in the composition are interpreted and, by this scholarly means, are encoded in the Gula hymn. The speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn forms a substantial topic in its own right and accordingly is separately explained and discussed in chapter 6. 5.1 The Manuscripts 5.1.1 K 232+3371+13776 (Ms. A) The pieces K 232, K 3371 and K 13776, now joined, are part of the British Museum’s Kuyunjik collection, from excavations of the Kuyunjik mound at Nineveh on behalf of the British Museum in the 1840’s and 1850’s, led by Austen Layard and, subsequently, Hormuzd Rassam, where many thousands of tablets, believed to be from the royal libraries, were recovered. The low registration number K 232 makes it possible to be more specific about the archaeological provenance of the pieces than is usual with Kuyunjik tablets. Reade (1986b, p.213) commented that “Only the numbers K 1–278 (with a few exceptions caused by subsequent renumbering) were allocated in the 1850s; we can be sure that the great majority of tablets bearing these low numbers were found during Layard’s 1851 excavations in the South-West Palace at Kuyunjik, notably in the area of Rooms XL and XLI.” The joining pieces K 3371 and K 13776 must come from the same location. These Neo-Assyrian pieces were separately catalogued by Bezold (1889). K 232, which forms the lower section of the joined tablet, was described as a fragment from

180

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

the middle of a clay-tablet with rather large pieces broken out on both sides: “The obverse 40 lines, in 2 sections, and on the reverse 51 lines, in 2 sections, partly very mutilated, with Assyrian characters, a good many of them being defaced and not quite easily legible”. Bezold’s line count for the reverse is difficult to understand. K 232 reverse, as currently preserved, extends to 42 lines only. Craig (1895–1897, ABRT II, 17–18) copied 38 lines, omitting 2 lines after l.11. Martin (1900) and Mullo-Weir (1929) copied 40 lines. Bezold’s number appears to be incorrect. Bezold identified K 232 as “Part of a mythological text, perhaps of a prayer or a hymn”, noting that several lines on the obverse begin with the names of different gods. K 3371, comprising the upper part of the tablet including its top edge and left corner, was described as an upper portion, left half, containing 29 lines on the obverse and 7 lines on the reverse (Bezold, 1891). The British Museum online catalogue (BMOC) for K 3371 records only “29 lines of inscription”. The fragmentary 8 lines on the reverse discussed in section 4.2 are not referred to. Bezold identified the piece as a “Portion of a hymn addressed to the Goddess (dnin) of (i-siin)”. K 13776 was described as a fragment of the lower portion of a tablet, containing 8 lines of text on its obverse only, identified as “Part of a religious text” (Bezold, 1893). By 1960, it had been identified that K 232 and K 3371 joined (see Barnett (1960), list of fragments rejoined). K 13776 appears to have been joined subsequently, partially filling a gap in the lower left of K 232 obverse. The joined piece K 232+3371+13776 is 20.1 cm long, 8.7 cm wide and 3.2 cm thick (BMOC). It is not a complete tablet: the right corner, which would have contained 24 part lines, is missing; the bottom of the tablet is broken away and an indeterminate number of lines is missing. The obverse of the assembled piece contains 58 lines, a number of which are complete, or nearly complete, divided into three sections by rulings. Although the number of lines missing between where the obverse breaks off and the reverse takes up the text cannot be determined, the shape of the tablet suggests that not many lines are wholly lost. The reverse is much less well preserved than its obverse. Large pieces of the upper piece, K 232, are broken away from both upper and lower parts. The inscription on K 3371, which forms the bottom left of the reverse, including the bottom left corner of the tablet, is almost wholly lost, save for the beginning of the last 8 lines. The reverse of the joined pieces contains 42 lines, a number badly damaged, divided into two sections by rulings. A lacuna follows, in which 12 lines are wholly lost. At the end of the tablet, the traces of the start of 5 lines are preserved, followed by a ruling and the beginning of 3 further lines, comprising a catchline and a colophon. For the text and discussion of the catchline and colophon set out in K 3371 reverse, end ll.6′–8′, see section 4.2. Cuneiform copy: No. 63, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019).

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

181

5.1.2 VAT 9670 + VAT 9931 (KAR 109+343) (Ms. B) Like K 232+3371+13776, VAT 9670 and VAT 9931 are Neo-Assyrian pieces from Assyria. Now in the collection of the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin, these pieces come from excavations at Aššur by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft between 1903– 1913, directed initially by Robert Koldewey and then by Walter Andrae. From the careful records kept, Pedersén (1985, 1986) constructed a survey of the archives and libraries found. Detailed information is hence available as to the provenance of these pieces. VAT 9670 and VAT 9931 come from a private house in the north eastern part of Aššur to which Pedersén assigned reference number N3. The house and the tablets found there are described in detail by Pedersén (1986, pp.34–41). N3 contained a library and an archive of administrative documents belonging to men, two or three of whom had the title nargallu, chief singer or musician, the best attested of whom is Aššur-šuma-iškun (Pedersén,1986, p.37). These pieces were amongst some 29 unbaked clay tablets found in the entrance shaft to a grave chamber under a floor of one room of the house, where they had probably fallen (Pedersén’s group E, pp.34, 39). Hymns and prayers are particularly well represented. Pedersén (1986, p.36) listed approximately 15 identified hymns, noting that three of these contain “theological elaborations” in the form of lists of different names for the deities to whom the compositions were addressed: Nabu, Nana and, (referring to these pieces), Baba, the healing goddess now usually known as Bau. VAT 9670 and VAT 9931, published separately by Ebeling (1919) as KAR 109 and KAR 343, were subsequently identified as joining pieces. KAR 343 is the top right corner of the tablet. Its obverse contains part of the first 15 lines of text; its reverse is broken. KAR 109 is from the upper part of the tablet. Its obverse contains 26 lines of text, virtually all complete, divided into two sections by a ruling. The joined pieces supply the whole or part of 36 lines of text on the obverse. The reverse of KAR 109 contains 16 lines, virtually all complete, divided into two sections by a ruling, before it breaks off. The whole of the text on the obverse of these pieces is duplicated by BM 75974 (section 5.1.6). BM 68611 (section 5.1.8) duplicates the last 18 lines of the obverse; the fragments BM 76319 and BM 36333 duplicate small sections of the obverse (sections 5.1.7 and 5.1.3, respectively). The duplicates BM 75974 and BM 68611 together supply some further 40 lines of text before they break off. Thus it is apparent that a very substantial number of lines is lost between where the obverse of KAR 109 breaks off and its reverse commences. The first 10 lines KAR 109 reverse have no duplicate so far identified. The remaining six lines are duplicated in BM 37616 (obverse), which continues with further five lines, much broken, before it breaks off. Cuneiform copy: Ebeling (1919, KAR 109 and KAR 343)

182

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

5.1.3 BM 36333 (Ms. a) The fragment BM 36333 (80-6-17, 59) belongs to a collection excavated for the British Museum during Hormuzd Rassam’s absence, generally under the supervision of the British Consul General in Baghdad, or his deputy (Reade, 1986a, p.xix). It came in a consignment of five cases for which no dispatch inventory has been traced. The receipt inventory refers only to Babylon, but the consignment should have contained material from Babylon and the Nabû Temple at Borsippa, found between about October 1879 and January 1880; it also contained material from Kuyunjik (Reade, 1986a, p.xxx). Reade (1986a, p.xx) concluded that the great majority of tablets found during Rassam’s absence must have come from Babylon itself. The piece is a portion from the left edge of a Late Babylonian school exercise tablet, containing excerpts from several texts, separated by rulings. One side, perhaps the reverse, published as CT 12 30, contains excerpts from the lexical text Ea Tablets VI–VIII (MSL XIV, pp.431, 447,477). The other side contains an excerpt from the magical series udug-ḫul-a-kam utukkū lemnūtu, “evil demons”, (Gesche, 2001, p.238; Geller, 2015, Tablets 13–15, 60–62), followed by text identified in MSL XIV, p.431 as duplicating KAR 109 18–21. Gesche (2001, pp.238–240) copied and edited the preserved text. ll.7'–10' of the obverse (so, Gesche) supplies four half-lines duplicating text contained in BM 75974 and BM 68611, as well as in KAR 109. Citing George (1993), Gesche (2001, p.238) identified the excerpt as part of a hymn to Ištar. Cuneiform copy: No. 68, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019). 5.1.4 BM 34399 (Ms. b) The fragment BM 34399 (Sp. 518) is included in Leichty, Finkel and Walker’s Catalogue of Babylonian Tablets (Leichty, Catalogue IV–V) which presents all tablets from Babylonia in the British Museum’s collection excavated, purchased or donated between 1821 and 1881. BM 34399 was part of the very large group of tablets known as the Sp. 1 collection, purchased from the dealers Spartali & Co. on or about 29 March 1879, having passed through the hands of other dealers (see Reade, 1986a, p.xv). Many of these tablets were dug up by local people for sale to dealers, and there is consequently uncertainty as to their provenance. According to BMOC, BM 34399 is from Babylon, and is a late Babylonian manuscript. The piece is 5 cm long and 4.5 cm wide and is from the left edge of the tablet. The more damaged face of the piece preserves traces or part of 10 lines, extending to perhaps no more than a quarter of the original line in each case. From its text (if correctly placed in the Gula hymn), this is the obverse of the tablet, and the piece is very close

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

183

to the bottom left corner of the obverse. The reverse preserves traces or part of 12 lines. The scribal hand in this manuscript appears to be far less practised and professional than that evidenced in the script of Ms. d or Ms. f. The reverse has a vertical scoring which passes through its first four lines as if to mark columns, but for no apparent purpose; quite extensive areas of erasure in ll.4'–7' are left uninscribed, but with no loss of the expected text given by duplicates. This suggests that BM 34399 is perhaps a practice or school tablet. Leichty, Catalogue IV–V identified the piece as “Omens; extispicy” but it has now been identified by E. Jiménez and his team on the Electronic Babylonian Literature (eBL) Project (November 2019, private communication) as containing text which duplicates text found in other manuscripts of the Gula hymn. BM 34399 duplicates text preserved in BM 75974 (reverse) and BM 68611 (Ms. d and Ms. f, sections 5.1.6 and 5.1.8, respectively). The text on BM 34399 appears to have progressed from obverse to reverse at a very similar point in the composition to that in BM 68611. It seems that the formal arrangement of the text in BM 34399 may have been rather similar to that in BM 68611. Cuneiform copy: No copy has been previously published. A copy is now given in Appendix 1. 5.1.5 BM 37616 (Ms. c) The Late Babylonian fragment BM 37616 (80-6-17, 1373) comes from the same consignment as BM 36333 (section 5.1.3) and is probably from Babylon. The piece is from the left edge of the tablet. Lambert (unpublished notes) considered that it came from near the top of the tablet as to the obverse and, correspondingly, near the end of the reverse. It has been fractured in two, vertically; sections of each face have broken away and the piece has been reassembled. The piece has evidently suffered greater damage since Lambert copied it. BM 37616 obverse preserves traces or part of 11 lines of text; its reverse contains traces or part of 15 lines. Lambert alone seems to have identified this piece as duplicating KAR 109. Comparison with KAR 109 shows that BM 37616 contains approximately half a line of text at its maximum extent. The obverse (ll.1′–6′) overlaps with the last six lines of KAR 109 reverse and continues with similar text. The reverse contains rather different material before it breaks off. Cuneiform copy: No. 67, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019).

184

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

5.1.6 BM 75974 (Ms. d) The piece BM 75974 and the pieces BM 68611 and BM 76319 (sections 5.1.8 and 5.1.7, respectively) are all included in Leichty’s Catalogues of what is known as the Sippar collections of the British Museum (Leichty, Catalogue VI and VII). The provenance of each is given in BMOC as “Sippar?”. Whilst there is some uncertainty about their provenance, George and Bongenaar (2002, p.55) noted that “It is well known – but worth restating – that though many thousands of tablets in what have become known collectively as the Sippar collections come from sites other than Sippar, nevertheless the overwhelming majority, in a total of nearly 38,500 items, stems from that town.” BM 75974 (A.H. 83-1-18, 1334) appears to have come from a consignment of five cases from Hormuzd Rassam’s excavations at Abu Habba (Sippar), Babylon, Borsippa and Nineveh under dispatch inventory dated 18 October 1882 (Reade, 1986a, p.xxxiv). This consignment was divided into two for registration: the pieces from Assyria being entered as 83-1-18 and the material from Babylonia as A.H. 831-18 (Reade, 1986a, pp.xxvii, xxxiv). Rassam’s report recorded that “This is the last collection from the explorations in Assyria and Babylonia”, describing this consignment as containing only 850 “very small pieces of inscribed clay” from Abu Habba (see Walker, 1988, p.xii). Reade (1986a, p.xxxiv) noted that the A.H. 83-118 collection “contains about twice as many tablets or tablet fragments as were received in the consignment.” It seems questionable whether BM 75974, a substantial piece, was part of the consignment in January 1883, despite its accession number. A much larger consignment, comprising 18 cases containing material from Abu Habba and elsewhere, was delivered in December 1882. Reade (1986a, p.xxxiii) noted that none of these pieces can be specifically identified, commenting that “Some were probably entered under A.H. 83-1-18”. BM 75974 was perhaps one such piece. BM 75974 is 5.625 inches long and 3.375 inches wide (BMOC). It is the lower part of a single column tablet, apparently breaking off close to the bottom edge, since its duplicate BM 68611 reveals only one line is completely missing. BM 75974 obverse preserves 47 lines. Its first and last few lines are fragmentary; otherwise many lines are complete, or nearly complete. The reverse preserves 43 lines or part lines, many complete, or nearly complete. Leichty, Catalogue VIII, identified the piece as Neo-Babylonian, a duplicate of BM 68611, BM 68069 (82-9-18), BM 36106 (Sp. III 654) and KAR 109, described as a hymn to a goddess. Leichty thought the piece to be nearly complete. BM 68069 and BM 36106 are not part of this composition. BM 68069 and joined pieces are a syncretistic hymn to Ištar, subsequently published by Lambert (2003–2004); BM 36106 is an astronomical text. BM 75974 supplies the principal text for a significant proportion of the composition. It provides the bridge between K 232+3371+13776 and KAR 109+343

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

185

(see section 4.2) and supplies text not otherwise known. Its obverse overlaps with the whole of the text of KAR 109+343 obverse, breaking off in the same line as KAR 109. BM 75974 duplicates the whole of the text in BM 68611 (section 5.1.8), save for one line entirely lost from BM 75974 where its obverse breaks off. It duplicates the text preserved in the fragment BM 76319, and in the fragmentary school-text BM 36333 (sections 5.1.7 and 5.1.3, respectively). The obverse of BM 75974 contains rulings after l.17' and l.26'. Both rulings are replicated in the fragment BM 76319; the ruling after l.17' is replicated in KAR 109. (BM 68611, described in section 5.1.8, does not duplicate this section.) Cuneiform copy: No. 64, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019). 5.1.7 BM 76319 (Ms. e) The fragment BM 76319 (A.H. 83-1-18, 1687) appears from its acquisition number to have been part of the same consignment as BM 75974 (section 5.1.6). This small piece much more closely fits Rassam’s description of the materials from Abu Habba as “very small pieces of inscribed clay” (Rassam, report 18 October 1882, see Walker, 1988, p.xii). The piece is 1.875 inches long and 1 inch wide (BMOC). Only one side of the piece preserves text, the other side being damaged. The fragment covers 15 lines of text, but largely preserves the middle of the lines, which the scribe has left uninscribed, dividing the lines on either side. The fragment preserves, at most, a couple of signs on either side of this calligraphic division. Leichty, Catalogue VIII listed the piece as a Neo-Babylonian literary text. Lambert alone seems to have identified this fragment as duplicating KAR 109 and BM 75974. This remarkable identification of this largely uninscribed piece attests to Lambert’s extraordinary talent. The piece contains two rulings, likewise preserved in BM 75974; it appears that these two manuscripts, apparently from the same provenance, shared the same arrangement. KAR 109 preserves the second ruling only. Cuneiform copy: No. 65, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019). 5.1.8 BM 68611 (Ms. f) The fragment BM 68611 (A.H. 82-9-18, 8610) is part of a collection excavated by Hormuzd Rassam, despatched to the British Museum in a consignment of 12 cases and two “parcels” under an inventory dated 20 July 1882, all but one of the cases being from Abu Habba (Reade, 1986a, p.xxxiii). Leichty, Catalogue VII identified BM 68611 as a Neo-Babylonian duplicate of KAR 109 and of BM 75974 (Leichty, Catalogue VIII). It is probably a Late Babylonian manuscript. BM 68611 is 7.62 cm

186

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

long and 7.62 cm wide (BMOC), from the left edge of the tablet. It includes part of the bottom of the obverse and, although more damaged, the top of the reverse. The obverse preserves traces or part of 25 lines; the reverse, 22 lines. Many lines are nearly complete (confirmed by its duplicates). The piece provides 19 lines of text or traces which overlap of KAR 109 obverse before KAR 109 breaks off. The whole of the text in BM 68611 duplicates BM 75974 (section 5.1.6), with the exception of one line only, missing from BM 75974 obverse where it breaks off. The reverse of the piece contains a ruling after l.21′ which BM 75974 does not. Cuneiform copy: No. 66, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019). 5.2 Table of Manuscripts and earlier editions Brief particulars of the manuscripts comprising the Gula hymn, their publication history and a note of the lines these manuscripts supply are set out in the table below. A short comment on the earlier editions of parts of this composition is called for. Editions of K 232 (part of the text contained in the manuscript designated here as Ms. A) were published by Martin (1900) and Mullo-Weir (1929). Both editions are now very elderly and a number of their readings and translations are no longer correct. Neither editor had the benefit of K 3371 and K 13776, the pieces now joined to K 232. Differences between those editions and the edition presented in this chapter 5 are not comprehensively noted in the commentary on the Gula hymn in section 5.5, but are referred to there where these contribute to the discussion of the text. Many of the citations in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary which refer to this part of the composition are drawn from Mullo-Weir’s edition (although not always attributed to him), with the readings and translations he gave. They differ from those presented here, for the reasons given above. Editions of KAR 109 and KAR 343 (the manuscript designated here as Ms. B) were published by Ebeling in 1918 (KAR 109) and 1953 (KAR 343). Importantly, KAR 343 had not then been identified as joining KAR 109. Ebeling’s observations and suggested restorations to KAR 343 are largely superceded by the addition of the joined piece. Again, a number of Ebeling’s readings and translations have been updated in the edition presented here.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

187

Table of Manuscripts Ms.

Museum Number

Bibliography of cuneiform texts and previous editions

Lines on obverse

Lines on reverse

Assyria Nineveh A

K 232+3371+13776

1897 J.A. Craig ABRT II 16–18 (K 232) 1900 F. Martin (K 232) 1929 C.J. Mullo-Weir (K 232) Lambert Folios No.63 **

1–58

1′– 42′ 55′– 60′ colophon

Aššur B

VAT 9670+9931

1919 E. Ebeling, KAR 109 (VAT 9670) 1919 E. Ebeling, KAR 343 (VAT 9931) 1918 E. Ebeling (KAR 109) 1953a E. Ebeling (KAR 343)

60′–96′

1′′–15′′

BM 36333 (80-6-17, 59)

2001 P. Gesche pp.238–240 Lambert Folios No.68 **

87′–91′

–

b

BM 34399 (Sp.518)

(None)

93′– 102′

105′– 116′

c

BM 37616 (80-6-17, 1373)

Lambert Folios No.67 **

10′′– 20′′

1′′′–15′′′

BM 75974 (A.H. 83-1-18, 1334)

Lambert Folios No.64 **

49′–95′

97′–139′

e

BM 76319 (A.H. 83-1-18, 1687)

Lambert Folios No.65 **

62′–76′

–

f

BM 68611 (A.H. 82-9-18, 8610)

Lambert Folios No.66 **

78′– 102′

103′– 126′

Babylonia Babylon a

Sippar? d

** Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One, George and Taniguchi (2019).

188

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

5.3 Introduction to the text of the Gula hymn 5.3.1 The Manuscripts and the text of the Gula hymn Ms. A appears to have been the first tablet in a series which contained the Gula hymn. Its opening lines are partly preserved in the opening lines of Ms. A. Where the obverse of that tablet breaks off in l.58, an unknown number of lines is missing before the text resumes on the reverse, but the shape of the tablet suggests that not a great deal is wholly lost. The lower reverse of Ms. A is severely damaged. After the merest traces in l.42′, measurement and comparison with the obverse indicate that some twelve lines are wholly lost from Ms. A. Eight further lines are badly damaged: traces of the beginning of five lines, a ruling, and the first few signs of a catchline and colophon are preserved at the end of Ms. A (see section 4.2). Ms. d supplies eleven part lines (six of them nearly complete) which would have preceded the ruling preserved at the end of Ms. A. It is estimated that six lines are missing between l.42′ of Ms. A and where Ms. d commences to take up the composition. The lines in the text presented in section 5.4 are numbered accordingly. Ms. d, Ms. f, Ms. e, Ms. a, Ms. b and Ms. B (obverse) between them then supply the text of the Gula hymn to l.139′, where the reverse of Ms. d breaks off. An unknown number of lines is lost before Ms. B (reverse) takes up the composition again (l.1′′). At ll.10′′–12′′, Ms. c supplies just a few signs at the beginning of the lines; by ll.13′′–14′′, overlapping text between Ms. B and Ms. c securely identifies Ms. c as a duplicate manuscript, although Ms. c preserves no more than the first half of each line. When Ms. B breaks off at l.15′′, Ms. c supplies a further five part lines and traces on its obverse and 15 part lines and traces on its reverse before it too breaks off. The number of lines missing in the break between obverse and reverse of Ms. c cannot be determined. Where the reverse of Ms. c (ll.1′′′–15′′′) takes up the composition, fragmentary though its text is, the passage does not contain material which would suggest that it is part of the conclusion of the Gula hymn. It seems probable that this already substantial composition continued somewhat further. In all, the preserved, or partly preserved, text of the Gula hymn runs to some 222 lines so far identified. A further six lines may certainly be estimated to be lost following l.42′. With the indeterminate number of lines lost where the manuscripts break off at ll.58, 139′, 20′′ and 15′′′, it is evident that the Gula hymn was a composition of very substantial and unusual length, rather longer than the 200 lines typical of major Babylonian hymns. 5.3.2 Textual variations and orthography The text of the Gula hymn is remarkably uniform across its manuscripts. Too little of the overlapping text in Ms. A is preserved for any comparison with Ms. d and Ms. B. As to the other manuscripts, there is very little variation between manuscripts,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

189

either between the Assyrian Ms. B and its Babylonian duplicates or between the Babylonian manuscripts themselves. In their formal arrangements, there is some divergence between the exemplars as to rulings made by their scribes. The preserved text contains very few rulings but, whilst there is some agreement between manuscripts, there is not complete consistency, even between exemplars from Babylonia. The Babylonian manuscripts Ms. d and Ms. e have a ruling after l.65′, where the Assyrian Ms. B does not. All three contain a ruling after l.74′, where a passage clearly ends. A ruling appears after l.123′ in Babylonian Ms. f, but not in Ms. d; and after l.14′′ in Ms. B (which has led scholars such as Westenholz (Goddesses, p.109) to take l.15′′ as the final line or subscript of the hymn there), but not in Babylonian Ms. c which continues the composition. The vast majority of variants between the manuscripts are orthographic. Differences in syllabification occasionally occur (so, for example, šur-bat (l.72′) in Ms. d and na-šat (l.92′) in Ms. f, where Ms. B reads šur-ba-a[t] and na-šá-at, respectively), and in the use of logographic writing (discussed separately in section 5.3.3 below). There are differences between the manuscripts in the writing of just a few of the temple names. The temple in l.77′ is given by Ms. d as é-giš-nu11-gal, where Ms. B has é-kiš-nu-gál, an older spelling of the name. Both Babylonian manuscripts Ms. d and Ms. f (though damaged) name the temple in l.80′ as é-ḫi-lid inanna, where the Assyrian Ms. B has é-ḫ[i-l]i-diš-tar; and the temple in l.117′ is given as é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár in Ms. d and as é-ga-nun-na-šár-šár in Ms. f. The variant readings in l.85′, é-umuš-a and dnin-é-umuš-a, given by Ms. f where both Ms. d and Ms. B have é-è-umuš-a and dnin-è-umuš-a suggest that the scribe of Ms. f intended to reflect the conventional spelling of the name of Marduk’s shrine, é-umuš-a, rather than the unorthodox writings é-è-umuš-a and dnin-è-umuš-a evidenced in the other manuscripts. Two toponyms known only from the Gula hymn are rendered in different spellings in the manuscripts: šá-an-da-lip-úrki (Ms. d; likewise Ms. b, which reads šá-an-da-lip-⸢úr?⸣⸢ki?⸣) and šà-an-di-lip-úr (Ms. f) (l. 114′); and ša-dun-niki (Ms. d) and urušá-dun-niki (Ms. f) (l.116′). Both place names are subjected to elaborate scholarly interpretation in the composition, as explained in section 6.1. The evident opportunity afforded for speculative interpretation of these names calls into question whether either toponym was indeed as presented in the manuscripts. Two unusual variant writings in these manuscripts should be mentioned, which occur in consecutive lines of the Gula hymn. In l.91′, the spelling sì-qar-š[á] or, alternatively, sè-qar-š[á], “her name”, occurs in Ms. d, where Ms. B has zi-kir-šá (Ms. f is broken). The orthography sqr for zkr is an old spelling found in texts from the Old Babylonian period, and occurs occasionally in later literary and royal compositions. In l.92′, Ms. B and Ms. f contain older forms for the word lē’u, “writing board”, in the phrase understood as lē’u kitti, “writing board of truth”, where

190

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

Ms. d does not. The three manuscripts each preserve a different writing of lē’u. Ms. d has a phonetic spelling ⸢giš⸣le-’i or ⸢giš⸣le-’u. Ms. B (gišle-u5) and Ms. f (gišle-u5-UM) contain older writings, understood as logographic writings (see CAD L 156; Borger, MZL, p.262 no. 85). These writings are discussed further in section 5.5 in the commentary on l.91′ and l.92′. It is suggested that, by these archaising spellings, the scribes sought to embellish and impart an elevated, high literary character to their manuscripts. Only exceptionally is there any suggestion of divergences between the manuscripts which may point to the possibility of different traditions between the manuscripts. Usually this arises where the text is damaged and variant traditions between the manuscripts seem possible, but are obscured by the damage: for example, the possibility that the catchline in Ms. A may have referred to a different god rather than Anšar, as preserved in Ms. d, is discussed in the note on l.60′ in section 5.5. The most compelling instance of some separate tradition occurs in l.93′, where the Assyrian Ms. B (and probably also the Babylonian Ms. d) reads na-bit dingirmeš, “most brilliant of the gods”, whereas Ms. f, also Babylonian, appears to have contained a variant reading na-bit an-šár, “the one appointed by Anšar”. Ms. f’s variant, if it be such, would be a very rare instance of an alternative tradition evidenced in the surviving manuscripts. 5.3.3 Logographic writing Ms. A contains largely syllabic writing and not a great deal of logographic writing is used. The logograms which are used are, for the most part, the very common writings, such as dingir (ilu, “god”), lú (amīlu, “man”), unmeš (nišū, “people”) and ešbar (purussû, “decision”). The paraphernalia and media of divination rituals listed in l.17′ are written with logograms, just as they might commonly be written in a ritual text from the first millennium. Routinely in Ms. A an and ki are used to write šamû (heaven) and erṣetu (earth), respectively, almost always marked with a phonetic complement. It is all the more striking therefore that, in an unusual inversion of the pairing, erṣetu is written logographically and the poetic word for heaven, šamāmū, is used, as syllabic writing makes explicit, to describe the goddess Memesigga as šápi-kàt erṣetim(ki)tim šá-ma-mi, “she who formed the earth (and) heaven” (l.34). In a very damaged passage at the beginning of the reverse of Ms. A, erṣetu (in the accusative case) is written er-ṣe-ta (l.3′), the only example of the syllabic writing of the word in the preserved text of Ms. A. The syllabic writing may serve to confirm that erṣetu is to be understood here to refer not to the earth in a cosmic sense (as is evidently meant when the logograms an and ki appear together), but to the ground itself (see the note to l.3′ in section 5.5). Elsewhere, the scribe uses the logograms šumeš kùmeš to write the description qātī ellēti, “pure hands”, in the scholarly

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

191

exposition of divine names in ll.18–40, as if to point to the derivation of this description from the goddess’ name dšu-zabar-kù (l.27). Like Ms. A, Ms. B, the other manuscript from Assyria, displays relatively few logographic writings, and where logograms are used, these are common writings. Noteworthy, however, is the ambiguous writing ina uru-ki-ág⸢d⸣[inanna] (l.4′′). The combination uru-ki-ág-dinanna simultaneously writes the toponym Raqnana and may be read as individual logograms, to give the phrase ina āl(uru) nāram(ki-ág) d [Ištar(inanna)], “in the town dear to [Ištar]”, thus rendering the meaning of the Sumerian name for the town (further discussed in the note on this line in section 5.5). By contrast, the scribe of the Babylonian manuscript Ms. d displays more frequent use and a wider range of logographic writings than evidenced in the other exemplars. So, for example, Ms. d uses the logogram gašan where the duplicates Ms. B and Ms. f have the syllabic spelling be-let (“lady”, ll.88′, 91′ and elsewhere); dùat where Ms. B and Ms. f have ba-na-at (“she who creates”, l.82′); and writings such as mu-šá-ma (šumī(mu)-šá-ma, “her very name”, l.102′), sipa-ti (rē’û(sipa)-ti, “of shepherdship”, l.117′) and ziti (napišti, “of life”, l.119′). The other principal Babylonian manuscript, Ms. f, shows a marked preference for syllabic writing where duplicates have logograms. For example, Ms. f has šá-ad (“mountain”, l.106′) and ma-a-ti (“of the land”, ll.119′, 122′) where Ms. d writes these words with the logogram kur; and Ms. f has i-na, (“in”, passim) routinely, where both Ms. B and Ms. d use the AŠ sign to write this word. In a number of broken contexts it is nevertheless clear that Ms. f’s text was syllabic, where duplicates are not. The other Babylonian manuscripts Ms. a and Ms. c appear to be unremarkable in their use of logographic writing, so far as can be judged from the text preserved. Very occasionally, Ms. B, Ms. d and Ms. f diverge and display three different writings of the same thing. The different writings of lē’u, “writing board”, in l.92′ have been noted above: gišle-u5 (Ms. B), ⸢giš⸣le-’i or ⸢giš⸣le-’u (Ms. d) and gišle-u5-UM (Ms. f). Similarly, all three manuscripts have different renderings of the divine title Bēlet-Bābili (“Lady of Babylon”) in l.86′: be-let tin-tirki (Ms. B), dmùš tin-tirki (Ms. d) and be-let ká-dingir-raki (Ms. f). Without considerably more evidence, no sound inferences can be drawn about the textual history of the manuscripts from these differences. Conversely, however, in l.108′ an apparent scribal error is common to both Ms. d and Ms. f where the first word in both manuscripts is ANe. This is evidently an error as to the phonetic complement e, which prompts the reading šamê, “heavens”; emended to ANat by Lambert, first word is plainly to be read as dingirat, to supply the reading ilat, “goddess”, as the context requires. Wherever preserved, ilat is otherwise written syllabically (i-lat) in both manuscripts (ll.71′, 105′, 107′). The identical evident corruption here in both Ms. d and Ms. f suggests a common source for these Babylonian manuscripts.

192

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

5.3.4 Forms Like many first millennium manuscripts, the manuscripts of the Gula hymn contain inflected endings and forms which are incorrect by the standards of earlier grammar. Only very occasionally do these manuscripts contain forms which are puzzling or unusual. Occasionally too, some difficulty may be reconciled by understanding the writing preserved as a spelling or form which is unconventional in traditional grammar. These are commented on in the notes in section 5.5, where they arise. Three features are noted here: some unexpected case endings; redundant final vowels; and confusion of feminine and masculine pronominal suffixes. Ms. A, from Kuyunjik, contains the greatest number of instances of unexpected case endings. Nominative singular forms which exhibit an ending in -i occur in l.24 um-mi (“mother”) and l.15′ diš-ta-ri (“personal goddess”). Similarly, the subject of the sentence in l.21′ is šàbi-šá (“her heart”); an -i vowel seems to be implied by the phonetic complement bi, to give a reading libbiša, where libbaša is the expected form. Redundant final vowels appear to be written by the scribe of Ms. A in two instances. The phrase nu-um-mu-ra qutrinni (l.11′) appears to be a genitive construction, understood here as “the kindling of the censer”; the unexpected -a in nummura seems best explained as a redundant final vowel, the scribe writing CV for C. Again in l.31′, re-’-a-ta appears to be a spelling with a redundant final vowel on the feminine stative rē’ât, “she shepherds”. Masculine pronominal suffixes are very occasionally used for feminine suffixes in the manuscripts. Invariably the pronoun called for is the feminine pronoun “her”, whether as the object of a sentence or as a possessive pronoun, as is to be expected in a hymn to a goddess. In first millennium manuscripts such as these, the masculine pronominal suffix may be found where, in earlier grammar, a feminine form would be used. For the most part, the manuscripts of the Gula hymn exhibit feminine pronouns, as found in traditional grammar. In Ms. A, the feminine pronoun is used throughout. Very largely, Ms. d and Ms. B use the “correct” pronoun. Strikingly, in ll.66′–74′, masculine pronouns occur in Ms. d and Ms. B, but in different lines:

66′ 67′ 68′ 69′ 70′ 72′ 73′ 74′

Ms. d šu-bat-[s]u par-ṣu-[ ? ] šu-bat-sa mi-lik-šá te-re-ti-šá i-lu-us-sa ⸢kip⸣-du-ša zik-ru-šú

Ms. B šu-bat-sa par-ṣu-šá [šu]-bat-sa [mi]-lik-šu [te-re]-tu-šu ⸢i⸣-lu-us-⸢sa⸣ [kip-d]u-šá zik-⸢ru⸣-šá

Translation “Her abode” “Her rites” “Her abode” “Her counsel” “Her commands” “Her divinity” “Her plans” “Her names”

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

193

For comparison, the writings of Ms. d and Ms. B are set out here, the bold text marking forms where the masculine pronominal suffix is used. It might be hoped that this short passage, sufficiently well preserved for comparison in both manuscripts (one from Babylonia and the other from Assyria), might provide a small window on scribal practices in this respect. The scribe of the Babylonian Ms. d appears to write šu-bat-[s]u, “his abode”, in l.66′ in the phrase rēštat šubassu, “supreme is his(her) abode”, but, two lines later in l.68′, writes the same word with the feminine suffix šu-bat-sa, in the phrase šubassa gašrat, “powerful is her abode”. The scribe’s writing of the masculine suffix on zik-ru-šú (l.74′) in the phrase šutanūdū zikrūšu, “his(her) names are extolled endlessly”, may have been influenced by the vowel colour in the phrase, but neither vowel colour nor the available space seems to be a factor for the writing in l.66′. The scribe of the Assyrian manuscript Ms. B makes a different choice in l.74′. Ms. B’s writing [têrē]tūšu (l.70′) is perhaps conditioned by vowel colour in this word, but what influenced the writing [mi]likšu (l.69′) is unclear; and in adjacent lines the scribe of Ms. B uses the feminine suffix. It is difficult to be certain what factors motivated the writing chosen by either scribe in each manuscript, still less the different choices made by the two scribes. It may be supposed that differences in the spoken language in the respective provenances of the manuscripts had influence. Elsewhere, the preserved text of Ms. d has one further instance of the masculine suffix in place of the feminine form: qar-na-a-šú in the phrase šagapūrā qarnāšu “his(her) horns are mighty”, to complete l.108′ (preserved only in Ms. d). Here too, there seems no compelling reason for the writing. The scribe of other principal Babylonian manuscript, Ms. e, appears to use the feminine suffix routinely. The only departure from this practice is in l.113′, where the scribe writes gissu-šú to render ṣillašu, “his(her) shade”. The writing was perhaps prompted by some phonotactic influence from the Sumerian word, gissu, but certainly also constrained by space in the very cramped line. In this line, the scribe of Ms. d writes the logogram with the feminine suffix, gissu-šá. The apparent flexibility in the use of the masculine pronominal suffix for the feminine leaves open the question whether the writing of the masculine suffix was always conditioned by some factor, or whether the distinction between the forms was unimportant in the first millennium and a matter of personal choice for the scribe.

194

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

5.4 Transliteration and Translation of the Gula hymn 1 A1

[m]u-ki-na-at [ … … … ]

2 A2

⸢rap⸣-šat uz-ni b[a-na-at x x x mu- … … ]

3 A3

d

4 A4

rap-šat uz-ni ba-na-a[t x x x ] mu-⸢ x⸣ -[ … … ]

5 A5

ib-ni-ma anú u ki⸢tim⸣ x[ … … ]

6 A6

mim-ma ma-la šu-ma na-bu-u ba-̕ -u-[la-ti? … ]

nin-ì-si-⸢in⸣k[i … … … ]

Ruling follows 7 A7

is-qet nap-ḫa-ri us-si-ka x[ … … ]

8 A8

ku-ul-lat dí-gì-gì ki-gal-la-šu-nu x[ … … ]

9 A9

ur-ti da-nu-ú-ti šip-ṭa u eš-bar [ … … ]

10 A 10

mar-kás ane u kitim an-na u ul-[la … ]

11 A 11

⸢ru⸣-bu-u ra-bu-tum da-nu-um den-líl ⸢ù⸣ [dé-a … ]

12 A 12

du-un-na iš-ruk-ši da-nu-um ḫi-im-mat par-ṣ[i … ]

13 A 13

ug-dam-mir-ši den-líl da-ád-me kul-lat te-n[é-še-e-ti]

14 A 14

a-te u mil-ki dé-a lugal zu:ab uš-pa[l-ka-a-ši]

15 A 15

igi-gállu-ut gim-ri ni-ṣir-ti zu:ab pi-r[iš-ti … ]

16 A 16

⸢pu⸣-ḫur bil-li up-šá-še-e ri-kis né-mé-qí [ … ]

Ruling follows 17 A 17

d

lugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-a ina pu-ḫur dingirmeš x[ … ]

18 A 18

d

pa4-nun-na-ki šar-rat nap-ḫar ane u kitim m[u- … ]

19 A 19

d

nin-bára-ge-sì šar-rat šar-ri na-di-na-[at šip]-ṭi

20 A 20

be-let na-ba-li šá-ru-ur kul-la-ti né-bat gi-m[ir pa-rak]-ki

21 A 21

d

zar-pa-ni-tum šá ki-ma šu-mi-šá-ma ba-na-at ze-ri

[x x a-p]a-a-ti

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

195

Translation 1 She who makes firm [ … … … ], 2 She is of profound intelligence, she is [beautiful …., she … … ]. 3 Ninisinna [ … … … ], 4 She is of profound intelligence, she is beautiful [….], she [ … … ]. 5 It was she who created heaven and earth [ … … ], 6 Everything that has a name, mankind [ … ]. 7 The fortunes of everything (s)he assigned [ … … ], 8 The cultic stations of all the Igigi [ … … ], 9 The supreme divine orders, judgment and decision [ … … ], 10 The bond between heaven and earth, “yes” and “no” [ … ]. 11 The great rulers, Anu, Enlil and [Ea, … ], 12 Anu gave her strength, the array of divine powers [ … ], 13 Enlil gave her full power over the inhabited world, all of mankind, 14 The ability to discover and advise, Ea, king of the Apsû, opened wide [to her]. 15 The wisdom of the universe, the secret lore of the Apsû, the secret knowledge of [ … ], 16 All the complex magic procedures, the collected wisdom, [ … ]. 17 In the assembly of the gods Lugaldimmerankia [gave her names]. 18 Panunnaki, queen of all of heaven and earth, [who

… ],

19 Ninbaragesi, the king’s queen, who gives [divine judgment], 20 Lady of the dry land, the radiance of the universe, the brightest of all of the [shrines], 21 Zarpanītum, who, as her very name (says), creates the seed [….] of? the teeming peoples,

196

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

22 A 22

d

ama um-me ane u kitim bi-nu-ut ⸢an⸣-šár

23 A 23

d

ma-me-e ba-nit par-ṣi ta-lim-ti ⸢d⸣[as]ar?-alim!(GÌR)

24 A 24

d

ama-ù-tu-an-ki um-mi ba-na-at ane u ki⸢tim⸣ a-li-da-at dingir[meš?]

25 A 25

d

šu-zi-an-na mu-kin-na-at ṭè-em dingir u lú m[u]-⸢šap⸣-ši-ḫat

d

šeš-[ki]

26 A 26

d

engur nap-ḫar pi-riš-ti dingirmeš mu-še-⸢ni⸣-qat an-[šár]

27 A 27

d

šu-zabar-kù šumeš ⸢kù⸣⸢meš⸣ [n]a-ram-ti dingir u lug[al]

28 A 28

d

nin-kar-nun-na qa-rit-⸢ti⸣ [x]-⸢e⸣? ra-’i-mat dUD-u18-l[u]

29 A 29

d

nin-sún be-let ⸢muš⸣-pa-li šá ina ane man-za-as-sa šal-ṭ[u]

30 A 30

⸢dnin-gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR⸣-DU) mul-li-la-at muš-ši-pat dingir u lú

31 A 31

d

nin-tin-ug5-ga be-el-tu mu-šap-ši-ḫat gi-⸢mir⸣ unmeš

mu-bal-liṭ-ṭa-at lúúš 32 A 32

d

-- A

nin-kar-ra-ak be-let rik-si ⸢up⸣-šá-še-e e-pi-šat nik-ka-si a-re-e la-ba-⸢at⸣ uz-za-at ⸢ù⸣ mu-ma-’ -ir-rat

33 A 33

d

kur-rib-ba ka-ši-⸢da-at⸣ ek-ṣu-ti ⸢mu⸣-nak-ki-rat uz-za-a-ti

34 A 34

d

me-me ba-nit par-ṣi dme-me-sig5-ga šá-pi-kàt kitim šá-ma-mi

35 A 35

d

ama-šu-ḫal-bi um-mu re-mi-ni-tum mu-šap-ši-ḫat zu-um-ri

36 A 36

d

udug-sig5-ga ba-nit kak-ki na-di-na-at dalad dum-qí

37 A 37

d

lamma-sig5-ga šá-pi-kàt kitim mu-šat-li-⸢mat⸣ dlamma dum-qí

38 A 38

dingir-maḫ ⸢ṣi-rat⸣ ⸢dingir⸣⸢meš⸣ ⸢ni-bu⸣-ut an-šár

39 A 39

d

nin-maḫ ⸢x⸣[ … ]x dnin-ša[r]

40 A 40

d

sig4-za-[gìn-na … ] mu-šak-li-lat ta-lit-t[i]

41 A 41

be-let [dingirmeš šar-rat d]ù da-ád-me

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

197

22 Ama, the mother of heaven and earth, creature of Anšar, 23 Mamê, who created divine powers, sister of Asar-alim, 24 Amautuanki, the mother who created heaven and earth, who gave birth to the god[s], 25 Šuzianna, who establishes the instructions for god and man, who soothes Sîn, 26 Namma, all the secret lore of the gods, the one who suckled An[šar], 27 Šuzabarku, pure hands, loved by god and king, 28 Ninkarnunna, valiant one of [….], the one who loves Utaulu, 29 Ninsun, the lady of the low-lying places, whose position in heaven is commanding, 30 Ningirimma, the one who purifies, who weaves spells for god and man, 31 Nintinugga, the lady, who soothes all the people, who brings the dead back to life, 32 Ninkarrak the lady of bandages (and) ritual procedures, she who makes calculations, --

She is a lioness, she is fury, she is the ruler.

33 Kurribba, who overwhelms the dangerous, who repels ferocity, 34 Meme, who created divine powers, Memesigga, who formed the earth (and) heaven, 35 Amašuḫalbi, the compassionate mother, who soothes the body, 36 Udugsigga, who creates weapons, who supplies a protective šēdu-spirit of good fortune, 37 Lammasigga, who formed the earth, who bestows a protective lamassu-spirit of good fortune, 38 Dingirmaḫ, most exalted of the gods, the chosen one of Anšar, 39 Ninmaḫ [ … ] (of?) Ninšar, 40 Sigzaginna [ … ] who grants perfect offspring, 41 She is the Lady of [the gods, the queen of all] the inhabited world.

198

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

Ruling follows 42 A 42

mu- [ … … ]⸢x⸣ ma-ḫa-zi

43 A 43

x[ … … u]š-nam-ma-ru i-ṣar-ru-ru ameš nag-bi

44 A 44

[ … … ] i-ba-’u

45 A 45

x[x x an]e u kitim eš-[bar?…] ⸢e⸣-liš ù šap-liš

46 A 46

[x x x]-ma?-šá e-liš šik-na-a[t na-piš-ti mit]-ḫa-riš šá-di-id-ma

47 A 47

x[x (x) x]x šá-lum-mat-sa gu-um-[mu-rat si-ḫi]-ip kal da-ád-me

48 A 48

x[x (x) x] ⸢é⸣? ki-gal dí-gì-gì x[x x] dUD-u18-lu

49 A 49

te-ret [x x] na-gab kul-la-ti šá-r[u]-ru-šá zi-zu

50 A 50

qé-reb là[l]-gar pi-riš-ti dingirmeš te-[re-t]u-šá ḫa-am-mat

51 A 51

a-šar ši-t[ul]-ti u eš-bar šu-[ba]t-sa du6-kù

52 A 52

[n]a-bit i-la-[a-tim] ⸢be-let mim-ma⸣ [šum]-⸢šu⸣ a-ši-bat ru-ba-a-t[i]

53 A 53

[x]x x [ … … ]x mit-ḫur-[tum?]

54 A 54

[ … … ]x mas-da-ra na-šat gi ⸢dub⸣-[ba]

55 A 55

[ … … ]-⸢e⸣ i-šam ši-mat-su-[un]

56 A 56

[ … … -a]t? ni-bit-[sa]

57 A 57

[ … … ] x-KU ⸢lam⸣-d[a-at]

58 A 58

(traces)

Unknown number of lines missing 1′ A r1′

[x x gi?/ še?-g]u-né-e UD-x [ … … ]

2′ A r2′

x x[x (x) x]-ti dnin-ši-k[ù? … … ]

3′ A r3′

x[x x x]x-ta er-ṣe-ta [ … … ]

4′ A r4′

x[x x x m]u-sa-re-e lug[al … … ]

5′ A r5′

x[x x x]x-am še-gu-x[ … … ]

6′ A r6′

x[x x x ri]-ta u maš-qí-ta [ … … ]

7′ A r7′

x[x x x]x na-piš-ti x[ … … ]

Ruling follows

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

199

42 The one who [ … … ] sanctuaries, 43 [ … … ] she makes bright, the waters of the deep sparkle(?), 44 [ … … ] they went along, 45 [….] of heaven and earth, decision? [ … ] above and below, 46 Her [….] extends over [living] things everywhere, 47 [….] her radiance, it envelopes the full extent of the whole world. 48 [….] the cultic stations of the Igigi, the [….] (of?) Utaulu, 49 The decree of [….], the totality of everything, her rays are split in two. 50 In the heart of the subterranean deep, the secret of the gods, she gathers to herself her commands, 51 Duku, the place of deliberation and decision, is her abode. 52 The chosen one of goddesses, mistress of everything, she dwells over queens, 53 [ … … … ] everything, 54 [ … … ] constantly holding the stylus, 55 [ … … ] she decrees their destinies, 56 [ … … ] the invoking of her, 57 [ … … ] [she is] learned. 58 (traces) Unknown number of lines missing 1′ [….] (of?) the raised temple(s)?/ the grain crop(s)? [ … … ], 2′ [ … ] Ninšiku [ … … ], 3′ [ … ] the earth [ … … ], 4′ [ … ] the garden of the king [ … … ], 5′ [ … ] the grain crop [ … … ], 6′ [ … ] pasture and watering place [ … … ], 7′ [ … ] of life [ … … ].

200

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

8′ A r8′

d

9′ A r9′

UD x[(x)]x KUR DA KUR [ … … ]

[gu-la] ba-nit nap-ḫa-ri [ … … ]

10′ A r10′

ḫé-nun⸢šu⸣ tuk-kan eš-bar x[ … … ]

11′ A r11′

ina na-de-e nu-um-mu-ra qut-rin-ni š[u- … … ]

12′ A r12′

a-šar ri-kis ì-giš ki-i ni-iš qa-ti x[ … … ]

13′ A r13′

ni-ṣir-ti da-nim den-líl u dé-a [ … … ]

14′ A r14′

a-šar d30 dutu diškur i-šak-[ka-nu kit-ta?]

15′ A r15′

kám-su-ma dingir u diš-ta-ri i-par-ra-⸢su⸣ [ … ]

16′ A r16′

d

17′ A r17′

ina qut-rin-ni ì-udu uzu udu ú-ṣu-rat mušenm[eš ...]

18′ A r18′

ina di-ni u eš-bar ma-ḫar-šá x[ … ]

19′ A r19′

a-šar sa-li-me-šá ṭu-du u pa-da-nu šu-te-[šu-ru]

20′ A r20′

uš-pat-ti uz-ni-ši-na ár-kàt-si-na i-[par-ra-as]

21′ A r21′

i-nu-šu šàbi-šá i?-te-liṣ uš?-[ … ]

22′ A r22′

⸢dal⸣-ḫa ú-ṣu-ra-a-te šu-ta-bu-la te-r[e-(e)-tu]

23′ A r23′

ta-mit it-mu-u ta-’ -it-tum ḫal-x[ … ]

24′ A r24′

ši-i-ma muš-ta-lat ma-ṣa-at ma-la ⸢lib-bu⸣-uš

25′ A r25′

uš-ta-pe-él gíl-lat-si-na i-paṭ-ṭar ar-ni

26′ A r26′

be-let re-e-ši ut-nin-⸢ni⸣ a-na ši-si-it ḫa-an-ṭa-at

27′ A r27′

i-šem-me tés-lit unmeš i-nam-din bul-ṭu

28′ A r28′

i-nam-din te-e šá šup-šu-ḫi ši-pat ti-la

29′ A r29′

i-paṭ-ṭar ri-kis nam-ra-ṣi mu-ru-uṣ ta-az-bil-ti

30′ A r30′

ap-kal-lat ba-ra-at muš-ši-pat mu-us-sa-at ka-la-ma

31′ A r31′

sa-ni-qat re-’-a-ta a-ši-rat muš-ta-lat

amar-utu en ne-me-qí i-šad-da-[ad … ]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

8′ [Gula], creatress of everything, [ … … ], 9′ (uncertain) 10′ Abundance, the bag of decisions [ … … ], 11′ When placed, the kindling of the censer [ … … ], 12′ The place of preparation of oil, according to the “lifting of the hand” [ … … ], 13′ The secret (place?) of Anu, Enlil and Ea [ … … ], 14′ Where Sîn, Šamaš (and) Adad place [truth?], 15′ Personal god and goddess are kneeling, they block?/decide? [ … ], 16′ Marduk, lord of wisdom, pulls? [ … ]. 17′ With incense, tallow (and) the flesh of a sheep, divine communications through birds [ … ], 18′ In the proceedings and decision before her [ … ], 19′ Where there is reconciliation with her, the path and way are made straight, 20′ She opens their ears, she determines their future. 21′ Then? it is her desire, she rejoiced? [ … ], 22′ The divine intentions are confused, the instructions ambiguous, 23′ The oath which people swore, the report [ … ]. 24′ But she is thoughtful, she may do as she chooses, 25′ She removes their misdeed(s), she dispels (their) wrongdoings, 26′ She is the lady of joy (and) prayer, who hurries to a cry, 27′ She listens to the prayers of the people (and) she gives health, 28′ She gives the incantation for relieving, the spell for good health, 29′ She releases the hold of the affliction, a long illness. 30′ She is a wise woman, a diviner, one who weaves spells, one who ascertains everything, 31′ She is the one who controls, shepherds, supervises, is thoughtful.

201

202

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

32′ A r32′

sa-ki-pat se-k[e-rat] ⸢e-ni-na-at⸣ re-me-na-at

33′ A r33′

mu-x-[ … ]⸢ṣa⸣-bi-ta-at mu-paṭ-ṭi-rat

34′ A r34′

[ … … ]x na-as-ḫur-šá

35′ A r35′

[ … … ] ši-⸢tul⸣-šá

36′ A r36′

[ … … ] ⸢d⸣í-gì-gì

37′ A r37′

[ … … mu]š?-ta-KUR

38′ A r38′

[ … … ]x-da da-ád-me

39′ A r39′

[ … … … ]-di?-šá

40′ A r40′

[ … … … ]x-let

41′ A r41′

[ … … … ]-rat

42′ A r42′

[ … … … ]x

Six lines estimated to be missing 49′

d 1′

(traces)

50′

d 2′

[ x x x x D]U A ME IM x[ … … … ]

51′

d 3′

[ x (x) d]UD-u18-lu qar-rad ⸢dingir⸣⸢meš⸣ x[ … … ]

52′

d 4′

ú-ṣ[u]-rat šá-ma-mi ⸢ká⸣ [(x)] x x[ … ]

53′

d 5′

ri-kis ka-la-ma nab-nit zu:ab am[eš] ⸢i⸣-x[ … ]

54′

d 6′

tam-ta uš-ra-qa-am ina idim illume ú-⸢gap⸣-pa-[áš]

55′

A r55′

⸢i⸣- [ … … … … ]

d 7′

⸢i⸣-šu uz-na šu-⸢tu⸣-rat ḫa-si-[sa]

A r56′

a[l- … … … … ]

d 8′

al-ka-ka-a-ti mu-da-át gúm-mu-rat ši-t[ul-ta]

A r57′

a-na [ … … … ]

d 9′

a-na šip-ṭi u eš-bar i-qal-ši da-[num]

A r58′

a-na x[ … … … ]

d 10′

a-na ši-mat la šá-na-an iš-te-né-’i-ši den-[líl]

A r59′

a-na ši-[ … … … ]

d 11′

a-na ši-tul-ti nap-ḫa-ri ta-ru-ši dnu-dím-[mud]

56′ 57′ 58′ 59′

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

203

32′ She is the one who pushes aside, who [wards off?], who punishes, is merciful, 33′ She [ … ], she takes hold, she undoes. 34′ Her attention [ … … ], 35′ Her deliberation [ … … ], 36′ [ … … ] the Igigi, 37′ (uncertain) 38′ [ … … ] the world, 39′ [ … … ] her [ … ], 40′ (too fragmentary) 41′ (too fragmentary) 42′ (too fragmentary) Six lines estimated to be missing 49′ (traces) 50′

(uncertain)

51′

[….] (of?) Utaulu, most valiant of the gods, [ … … ],

52′

The plan of the heavens, the gate of [ … ],

53′

The bond of everything, the product of the Apsû, the waters she [ … ],

54′

The ocean she empties, in the deep she makes the floods huge.

55′

She possesses wisdom, she is supreme in understanding,

56′ She knows how to proceed, she has complete mastery of deliberation. 57′

For judgment and decision Anu heeds her,

58′

For incomparable decrees Enlil constantly seeks her out,

59′

For counsel on all matters Ea (Nudimmud) guided her.

204

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

Ruling in Ms. A, followed by catchline (A 60′) 60′ A r60′

⸢ki⸣ an- [ … … … ]

B1

[ … … … ] ḫa-si-sa

d 12′

⸢ki⸣ an-šár be-lí šu-tu-rat ḫa-si-[sa]

Ms. A : two partlines of colophon follow 61′ B 2 62′

63′

64′

65′

[ … … … ]-šá ṣi-i-ru

d 13′

ki [de]n-líl mu-šim nammeš ši-ma-tu-šá ṣi-[x]

B3

[ … … … ]-si-sa pal-kàt

d 14′

⸢ki⸣ dé-a lugal zu:ab ḫa-si-sa pal-[ká]t

e 1′

[…………] ab ḫ[a?-…………]

B4

[ … … … ]-ta-at mil-ka

d 15′

ki damar-utu en né-me-qí a-ta-át mil-⸢ka⸣

e 2′

[…………]-qí ⸢a?⸣-[…………]

B5

[ … … ] pa-lu-šá maḫ-ri

d 16′

ki dag pa-ti-iq kul-lá-ti AŠ ŠA AŠ maḫ-ri

e 3′

[…………-ku]l?/-u]l?-lá-ti […………]

B6

[ … … ]-za-at a-nun-tú

d 17′

ki dnin-urta qar-rad dingirmeš šú-ḫu-za-át a-nun-ta

e 4′

[…………-r]ad dingirmeš š[ú?-…………]

Ruling follows in Ms. d and Ms. e, but not in Ms. B 66′

67′

68′

B7

[ … … ]-at šu-bat-sa

d 18′

é-šár-ra šu-bat dingirmeš reš-ta-at šu-bat-[s]u

e 5′

[………… dingi]rmeš […………]

B8

[ … … -m]u-ru par-ṣu-šá

d 19′

é-kur ⸢ki⸣-iṣ-ṣa el-la gúm-mu-ru par-ṣu-[x]

e 6′

[…………-e]l?-la g[úm?-…………]

B9

[ … … ]-bat-sa gaš-rat

d 20′

é-sag-íl é-gal dingirmeš šu-bat-sa gaš-[x]

e 7′

[………… dingi]rmeš šu-ba[t …………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

205

60′ By leave of Anšar, the lord, she is outstanding in wisdom,

61′

By leave of Enlil who decrees destinies, her destinies are supreme,

62′

By leave of Ea, the king of the Apsû, she is of great wisdom,

63′

By leave of Marduk, lord of wisdom, she ascertains (divine) counsel,

64′

By leave of Nabû, who fashioned everything, her rule is preeminent,

65′

By leave of Ninurta, most valiant of the gods, she is well versed in combat.

66′ The é-šár-ra (the House of the Universe), the seat of the gods – supreme is her abode, 67′

The é-kur (the House, the Mountain), the holy shrine – perfected are her rites.

68′ The é-sag-íl (the House whose top is raised high), the palace of the gods – most powerful is her seat,

206

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

69′

70′

71′

72′

73′

74′

B 10

[ … … ]-lik-šu lam-da-at

d 21′

du6-kù pi-riš-ti dingirmeš mi-lik-šá lam-da-[x]

e 8′

[………… dingi]rmeš mi-li[k …………]

B 11

[x x x x x-ša]t uz-[x x (x)]-tu-šu ḫa-am-⸢mat⸣

d 22′

é-ḫal-an-ki é kiš-šat uz-ni te-re-ti-šá ḫa-am-[m]a

e 9′

[………… u]z-ni te-r[e-…………]

B 12

[x x] ⸢ane⸣ ù UDtim ⸢i⸣-lat paṭ gim-ri

d 23′

gaš-⸢rat⸣ [a]n u ki i-lat paṭ ⸢gim⸣-ri

e 10′

[…………] i-lat […………]

B 13

[e]-liš u ⸢ù⸣ [š]ap-liš šur-ba-a[t] ⸢i⸣-lu-us-⸢sa⸣

d 24′

⸢e⸣-[liš] ù šap-liš šur-bat i-lu-us-sa

e 11′

[…………] i-l[u?-…………]

B 14

[(x?) ṣ]i-taš u ši-⸢la⸣-an ši-tak-ka-n[a x-d]u-šá

d 25′

ina ṣi-taš u ši-la-an ši-tak-ku-nu ⸢kip⸣-du-ša

e 12′

[…………] ši-t[ak-…………]

B 15

[x] ma-ḫa-zi eš-ret dingirmeš šu-ta-x-[x] zik-⸢ru⸣-šá

d 26′

ina ma-ḫa-zi eš-ret dingirmeš šu-ta-nu-du zik-ru-šú

e 13′

[………… me]š šu-t[a-…………]

Ruling in Ms. B, Ms. d and Ms. e 75′ B 16

76′

77′

[ina ú]riki dnin-gal a-ḫat dingirmeš gal⸢meš⸣

d 27′

ina úriki dnin-gal a-ḫat dingirmeš galmeš

e 14′

[…………] a-[…………]

B 17

[d]nin-gi-kù-ga be-let gim-ri kùtu mu-⸢ub⸣-bi-bat ki-⸢x⸣ [(x)]

d 28′

d

e 15′

[………… k]ùtim m[u?-…………]

B 18

[ina] é-kiš-nu-gál na-ṣi-rat kiš-šat unmeš nu-úr ane gal⸢meš⸣

d 29′

ina é-giš-nu11-gal na-ṣi-rat kiš-šat ni-ši zálag ane galmeš

nin-gi-kù-ga be-let gim-ri kùtim mu-ub-bi-bat ki-nu-ti

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

207

69′ Duku (the Pure Mound), the secret place of the gods – she is learned in her counsel. 70′ The é-ḫal-an-ki (the House of the Secrets of Heaven and Earth), the house of all wisdom – her commands are gathered together. 71′

She is all-powerful over heaven and earth, goddess of everything,

72′

Above and below, her divinity is surpassing,

73′

In east and west, her plans are in place everywhere,

74′

In the cultic centres, the shrines of the gods, her names are extolled endlessly.

75′

In Ur (she is) Ningal, the sister of the great gods,

76′ (She is) Ningikuga, lady of all the cultically pure, the one who cleanses the just (of sin), 77′ In the é-giš-nu11-gal (the Alabaster House), she protects all the people, the light of the vast heavens.

208

78′

79′

80′

81′

82′

83′

84′

85′

86′

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

B 19

ina KIB-NUNki uru ṣa-a-ti nu-úr an u ki dingir u lú

d 30′

ina zimbirki uru ṣa-a-ti zálag an u ki dingir u lú

f 1′

[…………] ⸢uru⸣ ⸢ṣa⸣-⸢a⸣-⸢ ti?⸣[…………]

B 20

ina é-babbar-ra da-a be-let maš-ta-ki mu-kil-lat rik-si

d 31′

ina é-babbar-ra da-a gašan maš-ta-ki mu-kil-lat rik-si

f 2′

[…………] ⸢d⸣a-a be-let maš-ta-ki ⸢mu⸣-[…………]

B 21

ina é-ḫ[i-l]i-diš-tar šu-nu dun-ni-sa-i-di šá-muḫ-tú TI ul-sig7v-ga

d 32′

ina é-ḫi-li-dinanna šu-bat dun-ni-sa-i-du šá-muḫ-tú dul-sig7-ga

f 3′

i-n[a] [x x]-⸢li⸣-dinanna šu-bat du-un-ni-sa-i-d[i …………]

B 22

ina ká-dingir-raki né-reb dingirmeš dnin-gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR-DU)

d 33′

ina ká-dingir-raki né-reb dingirmeš dnin-gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR-DU)

f 4′

i-n[a] [k]á-dingir-raki né-reb dingirmeš x[…………]

B 23

ina é-sag-íl de4-ru6? ba-na-at ri-ḫu-ti

d 34′

ina é-sag-íl de4-ru6 dùat ri-ḫu-ti

f 5′

i-na é-sag-íl de4-ru6 ba-na-at r[i?-…………]

B 24

ina ká-silim-ma ka-bat-ti an-šár be-let taš-me-e u sa-li-me

d 35′

ina ká-silim-ma ⸢ka⸣-bit-ti an-šár be-let taš-me-e u sa-li-me

f 6′

i-na ká-silim-ma ka-bit-ti an-šár be-let […………]

B 25

[ina] ká-ḫi-li-sù ku-uz-ba ul-lu-ḫat mu-na-me za-̕ a-na-at

d 36′

ina ká-ḫi-li-sù ku-uz-ba ul-lu-ḫat bu-na-ma za-na-át

f 7′

i-na ká-ḫi-li-sù ku-uz-ba ul-lu-ḫat b[u?-…………]

B 26

[ina] é-è-umuš-a dnin-è-umuš-a erasure mu-šá-ba-at ṭè-me

d 37′

ina é-⸢è⸣-umuš-a dnin-è-umuš-a mu-šá-pat ṭè-e-mi

f 8′

i-na é-umuš-a dnin-é-umuš-a mu-šá-x[…………]

B 27

[ina] é-tùr-kalam-ma be-let tin-tirki ma-li-kàt dí-gì-gì

d 38′

ina ⸢é⸣-[x x -m]a? dmùš tin-tirki ma-li-kát dí-⸢gì⸣-gì

f 9′

i-na é-tùr-kalam-ma be-let ká-dingir-raki ma-[…………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

209

78′ In Sippar, most ancient city, (she is) the light of heaven and earth, of god and man, 79′ In the é-babbar-ra (the Shining House), (she is) Aya, the mistress of the house, who holds the (cosmic) bonds. 80′ In the é-ḫi-li-dinanna (the House of the Luxuriance of Ištar), the shrine of Dunni-sāʼidi, (she is) Ulsigga, the voluptuous one. 81′

In Babylon, the gateway of the gods, (she is) Ningirimma,

82′ In the é-sag-íl (the House whose top is raised high), she is Eru (Zarpanītum), the one who creates sperm. 83′ In the ká-silim-ma (the Gate of Well-being), venerated by Anšar, (she is) the lady of sympathy and mercy. 84′ In the ká-ḫi-li-sù (the Gate sprinkled with Luxuriance), she is laden with allure, she is covered in loveliness, 85′ In the é-è-umuš-a (the House of Command), (she is) Nineumuša, the one who makes manifest the (divine) will, 86′ In the é-tùr-kalam-ma (the House, Cattle-pen of the Land), (she is) Bēlet-Bābili, the one who counsels the Igigi,

210

87′

88′

89′

90′

91′

92′

93′

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

a 8′

ina é-nam-ti-la […………]

B 28

ina é-nam-ti-la bu-na-né-e šar-ḫat i-nam-din bul-ṭu

d 39′

[ … ]-⸢na⸣-an-né-e šar-ḫat i-nam-din bul-[ṭ]a

f 10′

i-na é-nam-ti-la bu-un-na-an-né-e ⸢šar⸣-ḫat i-[…………]

a 9′

ina é-nam-ḫé be-[…………]

B 29

ina é-nam-ḫé be-let nu-uḫ-ši mu-deš-šá-at ḫi-iṣ-ba

d 40′

[x x x (x)] gašan nu-uḫ-ši mu-deš-šat ḫi-iṣ-[x]

f 11′

i-na é-nam-ḫé be-let nu-⸢uḫ⸣-šú mu-deš-šá-at […………]

a 10′

ina é-sa-bad pe-t[a-…………]

B 30

ina é-sa-bad pe-ta-at uz-ni na-ba-at ta-bi-ni

d 41′

[x x x p]e-ta-át uz-ni na-bat ta-bi-[x]

f 12′

i-na é-sa-bad pe-ta-a-ti uz-ni na-ba-at […………]

a 11′

ina é-ki-tuš-gir17-z[al …………]

B 31

ina é-ki-tuš-gir17-zal šu-bat né-eḫ-ti a-ši-bat ta-šil-ti

d 42′

[x x x x]x-zal šu-bat né-eḫ-ti a-ši-bat ta-šil-[x]

f 13′

i-na é-ki-tuš-gir17-zal šu-bat né-eḫ-ti a-š[i?-…………]

a 12′

[x x] ⸢x⸣⸢ki⸣ ⸢d⸣[…………]

B 32

ina bár-sipaki dnin-zíl-zíl-le be-let tak-né-e zi-kir-šá

d 43′

[ … d]⸢nin⸣-zíl-zíl-le gašan tak-né-e sì-qar-š[á]

f 14′

i-na bár-sipaki dnin-zíl-zíl-le be-[le]t tak-n[é-…………]

B 33

ina é-zi-da na-šá-at gišle-u5 kit-ti i-na-áš-ši re-e-šá

d 44′

[ … ] ⸢x⸣le-̕ i kit-ti i-na-áš-ši re-e-šá

f 15′

i-na é-zi-da na-šat gišle-u5-UM ⸢kit⸣-ti i-⸢na⸣-[…………]

B 34

ina dil-batki na-bit dingirmeš ka-bit-ti ma-a-ti

b 1′

⸢ina⸣ dil-bat k[i …………]

d 45′

[ … ]⸢meš⸣ ka-bit-ti ma-a-ti

f 16′

[i]-na dil-batki na-bit ⸢an⸣-⸢šár?⸣ ka-bit-ti […………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

87′

211

In the é-nam-ti-la (the House of Life), noble in appearance, she grants life,

88′ In the é-nam-ḫé (the House of Plenty), (she is) the lady of plenty, the one who provides abundant produce,

89′ In the é-sa-bad (the House of the Open Ear), she is attentive, she calls the shelter into being,

90′ In the é-ki-tuš-gir17-zal (the House, the Abode of Joy), the abode of calm, she is the one who dwells in delight.

91′

In Borsippa, Ninzilzille, the compassionate lady, is her name,

92′ In the é-zi-da (the True House), she holds the writing board of truth and lifts the head. 93′

In Dilbat, (she is) most brilliant of the gods, the most important in the land,

212

94′

95′

96′

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

B 35

ina é-i-bí-da-num ⸢d⸣[(x)]-é-gal mu-ṣab-bu-u da-nim

b 2′

ina é-i-[bí-da-num …………]

d 46′

[ … … ] ⸢gal⸣ mu-ṣab-bat da-n[im]

f 17′

[i-n]a é-i-bí-⸢d⸣⸢a⸣-n[um x x]-⸢é⸣-gal m[u-…………]

B 36

[ … … -r]at? ma-a-me

b 3′

be-let BU-[…………]

d 47′

[ … … ] ⸢ma⸣-⸢a⸣-[ … ]

f 18′

[x x] ⸢BU⸣ ⸢x x⸣ m[a-a-m]e?

B 37

(traces)

b 4′

muš-te-š[ir? …………]

f 19′

[mu]š-pa-ri-ir-rat še-et za-a’-i-ri a-ši-bat […………]

97ʹ b 5′

[i]⸢na⸣ é-gal-m[aḫ? …………]

d r1′

[ … ] ⸢lamma?⸣ [x x x x ma]-al-[ki]

f 20′

⸢i⸣-na é-gal-dlamma-lugal uš-šu-bat […………]

98ʹ b 6′

[ina] kiš⸢ki⸣ n[am-…………]

d r2′

[ … ] ⸢d⸣30 ⸢šá⸣-⸢x⸣-⸢x⸣ dma-š[um?]

f 21′

[i]-na kiški nam-rat it-ti d30 šá-qu-x[…………]

99ʹ b 7′

[ina] é-dub-b[a …………]

d r3′

[ … ] ⸢iš⸣-pik-ku mu-gan-ni-na-at ga-nu-nu

f 22′

[i]-na é-dub-ba be-let iš-pik-ku mu-gan-ni-na-[…………]

100ʹ b 8′

[ina] ⸢é⸣-me-te-⸢ur⸣-[sag …………]

d r4′

[x x]-⸢ me⸣-⸢te⸣-ur-sag šu-lu-kát ana si-mat qar-ra-d[i]

f 23′

[i-n]a ⸢é⸣-⸢me⸣-te-ur-sag šu-lu-kát a-na ⸢si⸣-[…………]

101ʹ b 9′ d r5′

[(ina)] [ḫur-s]ag-kalam-[ma …………] [ina ḫur]-sag-kalam-ma mu-zak-ki-rat giš-ḫurme unmeš kuri u ma-ti-t[an?]

f 24′

[x x x]-kalam-ma ⸢mu⸣-zak-ki-rat ú-ṣu-rat […………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

213

94′ In the é-ibbi-dAnum (the House Anu called into being), (she is) Bēlet-ēkalli, the one who gazes on Anu.

95′

The lady of [ … she is?] Mame?,

96′ She is the one who spreads the hunting net for the enemy, she dwells [in? … ]. 97′ In the é-gal-dlamma-lugal (the Palace of the King’s Protective Deity), she makes the [ruler] flourish. 98′ In Kiš, she shines bright by leave of Sîn, (she is?) high as the Su[n-God?],

99′ In the é-dub-ba (the Storage House), (she is) mistress of the store, who keeps the storage rooms secure, 100′ In the é-me-te-ur-sag (the House Worthy of the Hero), she is as befits a hero, 101′ [In the ḫur]-sag-kalam-ma (the Mountain of the Land), she declares the destinies for the people of the mountains and [all] countries,

214

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

102ʹ b 10′

[…………] ⸢IM?⸣ […………]

d r6′

[d]nin-líl šá gim mu-šá-ma mu-du-tu šá-da-a u kur BE x

f 25′

[x x x x k]i-ma šu-mi-š[á?-m]a mu-da-a-tum šá-d[a-…………]

103′ d r7′ f r1 104′ d r8′ f r2 105′ b r1′

[š]a šá-ad kur ú-ṣur-ta-šá reš-ta-t[i] [x x x x] ⸢ú⸣-[ṣu]r-ta-šá […………] gašan sumat numun mu-šaq-qat re-e-š[u] [x x] ⸢na⸣-⸢di⸣-⸢na⸣-⸢at⸣ numun m[u-…………] (traces)

d r9′

qa-rit-tu le-e’-it dingirmeš i-lat ì-lá-a-ti

f r3

⸢qa⸣-⸢rit⸣-ti le-e’-it dingirmeš […………]

106′ b r2′

[x] (traces é?) ⸢kur⸣-ní-zu kur […………]

d r10′

ina é-kur-ní-zu kur pu-luḫ-ti ka-ši-da-at sar-ra-a-ti

f r4

i-na é-kur-ní-zu šá-ad pu-luḫ-[…………]

107′ b r3′

[x x] ta-na-da-[a]t be-[…………]

d r11′

i-lat ta-na-da-a-ti be-let a-rat-te-e šar-rat d15meš

f r5

i-lat ta-na-da-a-ti be-let a-rat-⸢te⸣-⸢e⸣ ⸢šar⸣-r[at …………]

108′ b r4′

[x]⸢e⸣ ta-⸢mi⸣-[t]i be-le[t …………]

d r12′

ANe ta-mi-ti be-let bi-ri šá šá-ga-pu-ra qar-na-a-šú

f r6

[A]Ne ta-mi-ti be-let bi-ri šá šá-ga-pu-r[a …………]

109′ b r5′

[x]-[d]i-⸢na⸣-⸢at⸣ erasure [na]p?-ḫar […………]

d r13′

na-di-na-at nap-ḫar ṭuḫ-di ina qé-reb é-mes-lam

f r7

na-di-na-at nap-ḫar ṭuḫ-di i-na qé-reb ⸢é⸣-[…………]

110′ b r6′

[x]-ùru-ama?-⸢ki?⸣ erasure x[…………]

d r14′

ina é-ùru-ama-ki um-mi da-ád-me na-ṣi-rat ma-a-ti

f r8

i-na é-ùru-ama-ki um-mu da-ád-me na-ṣi-rat […………]

111′ b r7′

[x] ⸢é⸣-dim-[ga]l-an-na [ma]r-kás šá-[…………]

d r15′

ina é-dim-gal-an-na mar-kás šá-ma-mi dùit dingir u lú

f r9

i-na é-dim-gal-an-na mar-kàs šá-ma-mi ba-ni-it […………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

215

102′ (She is) Ninlil, who, as her very name (says), knows the mountain and the land? [….], 103′ Whose design for the mountain of the land is age-old. 104′ (She is) the lady who bestows seed, the one who gives support, 105′ (She is) the valiant one, most able of the gods, goddess of goddesses.

106′ In the é-kur-ní-zu (the House, the Fearsome Mountain), mountain of terror, she is the one who defeats falsehood, 107′ (She is) the goddess of praise, the lady of glory, the queen of goddesses.

108′ (She is) the goddess of oracle enquiry, the mistress of divination, whose horns are mighty. 109′ She is the one who provides all-abundance within the é-mes-lam (the House, Warrior of the Underworld), 110′ In the é-ùru-ama-ki (the House which guards Heaven! and Earth), (she is) the mother of the world, the one who protects the land. 111′ In the é-dim-gal-an-na (the House, Great Bond of Heaven), (she is) the bond of the heavens, the one who created god and man.

216

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

112′ b r8′

ina du10-garki erasure ⸢šu⸣-bat n[é-…………]

d r16′

ina du10-garki šu-bat né-eḫ-ti na-ṣi-rat ka-⸢lu?⸣ re-bit

f r10

i-na du10-garki šu-bat né-eḫ-ti [na]-ṣi-rat ka-la […………]

113′ b r9′ d r17′

ṭa-a-bi gissu-⸢šú?⸣ ina é-[…………] ṭa-ab gissu-šá ina é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga mu-ṭib-bat sa-am-sa-am erasure MA? x PI

f r11

ṭa-ab gissu-šú ina é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga mu-ṭi-b[at s]a-am-sa-a[m …………]

114′ b r10′

be-let šá-an-da-lip-⸢úr?⸣ k[i …………]

d r18′

be-let šá-an-da-lip-úrki ina qé-reb šá-ma-mi ka-liš pu-uq-qu-ši

f r12

be-let šà-an-di-lip-úr i-na qé-reb šá-ma-mi ⸢ka⸣-[…………]

115′ b r11′

šar-rat é-gu?-la […………]

d r19′

šar-rat é-gu-la be-let igi-sáe kul-la-ti galtu si-ma-ak-ki

f r13

šar-rat é-gu-la be-let igi-sáe kul-la-ti ra-[…………]

116′ b r12′ d r20′

x (x) ⸢uru?⸣⸢šá?⸣-[…………] ina ša-dun-niki mu-dam-me-qat na-ki-da-át be-let ì-giš u ga d

f r14

nin-ì-gara10

i-na urušá-dun-niki mu-dam-mi-qat na-ki-da-át be-let ⸢ì⸣-[…………]

117′ d r21′ f r15 118′ d r22′ f r16 119′ d r23′ f r17 120′ d r24′ f r18

ina é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár ma-li-lat ši-iz-bi u ḫi-me-ti šu-muḫ sipa-ti i-na é-ga-nun-na-šár-šár ma-li-lat ši-iz-bi u […………] ina már-daki ḫi-rat lugal na-šu-⸢ú⸣ a-bu-bi i-na urumár-da ḫi-rat šar-r[i …………] ina é-igi-kalam-ma zitì kur la-mi-da-át ṭe-em da-nim i-na é-igi-kalam-ma na-piš-ti ma-a-ti la-m[i-…………] ṭa-bi ṣu-lul-šá ina é-zi-ba-ti-la qa-i-šat zitì tin ṭa-ab ṣu-lul-⸢šá⸣ ina é-zi-ba-ti-la q[a-…………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

217

112′ In Damru, place of peace, she is the one who protects all the thoroughfares, 113′ Pleasant is her shade in the é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga (the House whose Shade is pleasant), she is the one who makes sweet the drum? [of? ….].

114′ (She is) the lady of Šandalipur, in heaven, they pay her full attention,

115′ (She is) queen of the é-gu-la (the Big House), mistress of all the offerings, the great one of the sanctuary. 116′ In Šadunni, (she is) Ninigara, the one who grants favour, who is concerned, mistress of oil and milk,

117′ In the é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár (the House which provides a profusion of milk and ghee), she is the one who takes her fill of milk and ghee, the plentiful product of pasturage. 118′ In Marad, (she is) the wife of the king, the bringer of the flood, 119′ In the é-igi-kalam-ma (the House, the Eye of the Land), (she is) the life of the land, the one who comprehends the intention of Anu, 120′ Sweet is her protection in the é-zi-ba-ti-la (the House, breath of life?), she is the one who grants a life of good health.

218

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

121′ d r25′ f r19 122′ d r26′ f r20 123′ d r27′

ina te-e-šá ú-šap-šaḫ nam-ra-ṣa a-si-i pi-i-šá ina é-gašan-tin-na i-na te-e-šá ú-šap-šá-aḫ n[am?-…………] mu-ub-bi-bat kur ina UD-UD-AGki šu-bat-sa el-let mu-ub-bi-bat ma-a-ti ina […………] ina é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na a-šar ta-ni-iḫ-ti unmeš kur i-bal-lu-ṭa qé-reb-šá

f r21

i-na é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na a-ša[r …………]

Ruling follows in Ms. f, but not in Ms. d 124′ d r28′ f r22 125′ d r29′ f r23 126′ d r30′ f r24

ina dur-an-ki mar-kás an u ki ru-bu-tu dx[(x)] x ⸢i⸣-na dur-an-ki mar-kàs an⸢e⸣ […………] ina é-kur é nammeš ab-rak-ka-tu galtu d[x (x)] x [x x x]-kur é ši-m[a-…………] a-šar ḫa-am-mu-ti-šá du-ru-us-sa reš-tu-ú šu-bat-sa ⸢é⸣-[ki-ùr] […………]-⸢am⸣-m[u?-…………]

127′ d r31′

ina é-šu-me-ša4 kal-lat den-líl mu-za-i-za-át zi-za-a-[tim]

128′ d r32′

ina é-bára-dúr-gar-ra šu-bat né-eḫ-ti bi-nu-ut den-líl ⸢be?⸣-l[et? x x (x)]

129′ d r33′

d

un-gal-nibruki d50-át-tim ṣer-ret gim-mir x[ … ]

130′ d r34′

ina é-úru-sag-gá mu-kin-na-át i-šit-ti unmeš n[a-ṣi-rat x x (x)]

131′ d r35′

d

nin-pa4-nìgin-gar-ra gašan nap-ḫar ṣi-it dutuši a-ši-bat

šu?-x[ … ] 132′ d r36′

šar-rat pu-lu-uk da-ád-mi gašan bára-⸢dumu⸣ki na-ram šàb[i dnin-urta]

133′ d r37′

ina é-ní-gal-zu:ab ta-kam-mu nam-ri-[ir-r]u-šá et-mu-d[a? … ]

134′ d r38′

mu-šá-pat gim-ri ina qé-reb ma-al-gi-i šá BI [ … ]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

219

121′ With her incantation she relieves suffering, her speech is physician in the é-gašan-tin-na (the House of the Lady of Life). 122′ She is the one who purifies the land, in Larak, her abode is pure, 123′ In the é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na (the House, Bedchamber which soothes the heart), the place of calm, the people of the land recover inside it.

124′ In dur-an-ki(Nippur) (Bond of Heaven and Earth), the bond of heaven and earth, (she is) the princess, [divine name], 125′ In the é-kur (the House, Mountain), the house of destinies, she is the great steward, [divine name], 126′ The place where she is head of the family, her most ancient dwelling, é[ki-ùr] (the House, [Levelled Place]) is her abode, 127′ In the é-šu-me-ša4 (the House ….), (she is) the daughter-in-law of Enlil, the one who distributes the shares, 128′ In the é-bára-dúr-gar-ra (the House, Dais of the Throne), the abode of peace, creation of Enlil, the lady? [of? … ], 129′ (She is) Ungal-Nibru, Ninnuattim, the lead-rope of the whole of [ … ], 130′ In the é-úru-sag-gá (the House, the Foremost City), she is the one who established the store-house of the people pro[tectress of ….], 131′ (She is) Ninpanigingara, lady of all the east, who dwells [in … ]. 132′ (She is) the queen of the boundary marker of the inhabited world, the lady of Parak-māri, beloved of [Ninurta]. 133′ In the é-ní-gal-abzu (the House of the Awesome Splendour of the Apsû), her splendour is …., collected? [ … ]. 134′ She is the one who makes everything glorious in Malgium, whose [ … ],

220

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

135′ d r39′

d

136′ d r40′

ina da-ád-muški šar-[rat] ⸢šá⸣-ma-me šu-bat x[ … ]

137′ d r41′

d

138′ d r42′

x x x BÀD A D[I? … ] UR ŠI dingirme[š … ]

139′ d r43′

(traces)

šar-rat é-è-an-ki [š]u-pu-tú an u ki i-[ … ]

sig5-ga mu-x x x x dlamma x[ … ]

Unknown number of lines missing 1′′ B r1′

šá-ri-kàt na-piš-ti[m x … … ]

2′′ B r2′

d

3′′ B r3′

ina é-sikil-la ki-iṣ-ṣi kù ⸢la⸣ ma-gi-ri še-ret-sa [na-ši]

4′′ B r4′

ina é-dadag-lál mu-ub-bi-bat ḫi-ṭa-a-ti ina uru ki-ág ⸢d⸣[inanna]

5′′ B r5′

ina du6-kù šu-bat tap-šu-uḫ-ti mu-ub-bi-bat ka-la-[ma]

6′′ B r6′

ina ki-ib be-let er-ṣe-ti pi-riš-t[i an ]

7′′ B r7′

mu-ni-iḫ-ḫa-at!(ṢI) ka-liš ta-a-a-rat

8′′ B r8′

ina é-nun-maḫ ṣi-rat ru-be-e ra-bi-tu ma-al-ki

9′′ B r9′

da-ab-rat šap-ṣi a-ši-pat di-nik-tiki

10′′ B r10′ c 1′ 11′′ B r11′ c 2′ 12′′ B r12′ c 3′ 13′′ B r13′ c 4′

ú-kul-la ba-nit ri-i-ti ḫa-i-ṭa-at kul-la-⸢ti⸣ x[ … ]

ḫa-a-a-ṭa-at kul-la-ti bi-nu-ut é-gu-la ḫ[a-…………] nam-tar ma-al-ki be-let UD-NUNki nam-ta[r m]a-⸢al⸣-k[i …………] d

nin-líl unmeš la-mas-si é-nam-zu

d

en-lí[l-a]t unmeš […………]

bi-rit ṣip-pa-a-ti dšar-rat-de-erki bit-sa gaš-rat bi-rit ṣip-pa-a-ti dša[r-…………]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

221

135′ (She is) queen of the é-è-an-ki (the House of Heaven and Earth), most splendid in heaven and earth [ … ]. 136′ In Dadmuš, she is queen of the heavens, abode [ … ], 137′ (She is) Qibî-dumqī, the one who [….], Lamassu [ … ], 138′ [….] (of?) the gods [ … ], 139′ (traces) Unknown number of lines missing 1′′ She is the one who grants life [ … … ], 2′′ (She is) Ukulla, who created the pasture, who watches over everything [ … ]. 3′′ In the é-sikil-la (the Pure House), the pure sanctuary, the disobedient [bears] her punishment, 4′′ In the é-dadag-lál (the House, clean ….), she is the one who cleans away sins, in the town dear to [Ištar], 5′′ In Duku (the Pure Mound), the abode of repose, she is the one who purifies everything, 6′′ In Eššeb, she is the mistress of the earth, the secret [of heaven], 7′′ She is the one who soothes, merciful in every way. 8′′ In the é-nun-maḫ (the House of the Exalted Prince), she is exalted over princes, the greatest of the rulers. 9′′ She is fierce to the intransigent, (she is) the exorcist of Diniktu, 10′′ She is the one who watches over everything, the creature of the é-gu-la (the Big House). 11′′ (She is) the fate of princes, the lady of Adab?, 12′′ (She is) Ninlil of the people, the protective spirit of the é-nam-zu (the House of Knowledge). 13′′ Among the orchards, (she is) Šarrat-Dēr, she is powerful as to her house.

222

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

14′′ B r14′

ina é-dim-gal-kalam-ma mar-kás kur te-lil-ti šá-ki-na-at ki-di-ni

c 5′

ina é-dim-gal-kalam-ma mar-kás m[a-…………]

Ruling follows in Ms. B, but not in Ms. c 15′′ B r15′ c 6′

ka-nu-ut dba-ú kul-lat ad-na-a-ti ri-kis ma-a-t[i] ka-nu-ut dba-ú kul-lat ad-n[a-…………]

16′′ c 7′

ina é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 x[…………]

17′′ c 8′

a-ši-rat ⸢as⸣-mat šá-ma-mi x[…………]

18′′ c 9′

ina é-maḫ x šik-n[a-at …………]

19′′ c 10′

ina imki a-⸢x⸣[…………]

20′′ c 11′

⸢d?⸣ x[…………]

Unknown number of lines missing 1′′′ c r1′

[x x x x x x x (x)]⸢d⸣ša[r-rat …………]

2′′′ c r2′

[x x x (x)]x ta-ḫa-zi […………]

3′′′ c r3′

[x x (x)]x GIŠGAL É/KID gišpan iš-x[…………]

4′′′ c r4′

[x]x šag-gaš-ti it-ti dèr-ra […………]

5′′′ c r5′

[š]i-i-ma dna-ru-du x[…………]

6′′′ c r6′

ka-nu-ut an-šár a-x[…………]

7′′′ c r7′

it-ti dlugal-nir-gál la? […………]

8′′′ c r8′

ši-pir lúengar u kul-li-zi A[Ḫ-…………]

9′′′ c r9′

ina ba-li-šá ul ip-pe-ta-a x[…………]

10′′′ c r10′

šá dí-gì-gì ḫar-ra-an-šú-nu […………]

11′′′ c r11′

né-reb ga-an-ṣ[ir] x x x[…………]

12′′′ c r12′

šá ma-al-ki šu-ut kitim […………]

13′′′ c r13′

šá na-aḫ-[b]al ká ap-si-i […………]

14′′′ c r14′

šá be/miṭ-r[a]-a-ti x x x[…………]

15′′′ c r15′

a-na x x x[…………]

Ms. c breaks off

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

223

14′′ In the é-dim-gal-kalam-ma (the House, Great Bond of the Land), the bond of the land, of the purification rites, she is the one who puts in place divine protection. 15′′ Bau, beloved of all the world, (she is) the bond of the land. 16′′ In the é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 (the House of the Firmament of Heaven and Perfect Me’s) [ … … ], 17′′ She is the one who organises what is proper in the heavens [ … … ], 18′′ In the é-maḫ (the Exalted House) [….] [living] things? [ … … ]. 19′′ In Karkara [ … … … ], 20′′ (traces) Unknown number of lines missing 1′′′ [ … … ] Šarrat-[ … ], 2′′′ [ … ] of battle [ … … ], 3′′′ [ … ] (uncertain) the bow (s)he? [ … ], 4′′′ [….] of slaughter by leave of Erra [ … … ], 5′′′ But she, Narudu, [ … ], 6′′′ Cherished by Anšar [ … ], 7′′′ By leave of Lugalnirgal, not? [ … ], 8′′′ The work of the farmer and the ox-driver [ … ], 9′′′ Without her, [ the … ] were not opened, 10′′′ Of whom the path of the Igigi [ … ], 11′′′ The entrance of Ganṣir/Ganzir [ … ], 12′′′ The one of the princes of the netherworld [ … … ], 13′′′ Whose lock the gateway of the Apsû [ … … ], 14′′′ Whose swamps?/channels? [ … … ], 15′′′ To [ … … … ]

224

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

5.5 Commentary General notes on the Gula hymn are presented in this section 5.5. The speculative scholarship on sacred names which characterises and informs the composition is presented in chapter 6; section 6.1 contains detailed analysis of individual lines. The marking [§6.1] at the end of a paragraph in this section 5.5 indicates that section 6.1 has a note on the speculative scholarship in the relevant line. Certain notes in the commentary presented in this section 5.5 refer to names “encoded” in the Gula hymn. These are names which are not explicitly expressed in the composition, but are interpreted by scholarly speculation and, by this means, are implicitly expressed by, and thus encoded in, the text of the Gula hymn. This significant development of scholarly hermeneutics is explained and discussed in sections 6.1 and 6.2. In the text presented above, each quarter-line lost is marked by three stops ( … ), where this can be estimated. 1–6 A short section of six lines in praise of the goddess, apparently in fairly conventional terms, opens the Gula hymn. Notwithstanding the loss of the right hand section of Ms. A, it appears that the composition commenced with two very similar couplets, the second couplet starting with the name of the goddess, Ninisinna. It is possible, but not certain, that at the outset of the composition, the divine name Ninisinna is speculatively interpreted. [§6.1] 1 mukinnat, “she who makes firm”, perhaps introduced a general epithet, attributing to the goddess a role in the establishment of the order of the universe, anticipating ll.5–6. Nothing in the preserved text of the composition supplies text that might convincingly be restored here. [§6.1] 2 and 4 The opening phrases of l.2 and l.4 evidently replicate each other. The syntax of rapšat uzni, “she is of profound intelligence”, in which the feminine adjective in the construct state precedes a substantive in the genitive, was discussed by Reiner (1984, p.179) who noted that all examples of this construction known to her express an inherent quality. For more recent discussion, see Wasserman (2003, pp.45–60, particularly at pp.50, 53) and Mayer (2015, p.190). The same construction occurs in l.89′ (petât uzni, “she is attentive”). The idiom parallels the Sumerian idiom g͂éštudag͂al, with which it has lexical equivalence in the bilingual list Proto-Kagal Section E 46 (MSL XIII p.87), the Sumerian words g͂éštu, “ear”, and dag͂al, “to be wide”, corresponding to the Akkadian uznu and rapāšu respectively, hence “broad wisdom”. It is a conventional expression, used of gods, particularly Nabû and Marduk (Tallqvist, 1938, p.176) and, less commonly, of kings (von Soden 1960, p.164). Perhaps surprisingly, the only example pertaining to a goddess given by CAD R 166 is this passage.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

225

3 Lambert (unpublished draft transliteration) proposed the restoration of the beginning of this line to read dnin-ì-si-⸢in⸣-[ki -na mu-ki-na-at ... ],“Ninisinna, who makes firm”, to echo the opening phrase of l.1. Lambert’s restoration was doubtless prompted by the clear repetition of the second line of each couplet. The repetition of a couplet in which a general epithet in the first couplet is made specific in the second couplet by the name of a god is a stylistic feature of Sumerian compositions which was adopted and widely used in Akkadian hymns (Falkenstein and von Soden, 1953, pp. 41–42; for some examples, see Rubio, 2009, p.59 and, more recently, Metcalf, 2015, pp.22–23, 60). Thus, although the text is too fragmentary to be absolutely certain, in all probability, this section commenced with a pair of matching couplets. 4 ba-na-a[t] is taken as the feminine stative of the adjective banûm (banât), “she is beautiful”, a routine attribute of goddesses. There is a lacuna of perhaps three signs before what appears to be a further participial attribute, commencing mu-, where l.4 breaks off. The gap presumably contained some further attribute, or perhaps some relational accusative pertaining to banât, paralleling the construction in the phrase rapšat uzni, “she is of profound intelligence”. ba-na-a[t] might alternatively be understood as bānât, the feminine participle of the G stem banû, “to create”, in the construct state, (“she who creates/created the ...”), anticipating ll.5–6. With this reading, the dependent genitive would fall in the lacuna. Which meaning was intended is uncertain. “She is beautiful” is selected here; it seems marginally preferable to understand l.4 as enumerating the goddess’ intellectual, physical and other qualities. [§6.1] 5 The verb and its objects are transposed, in ibnīma šamû(an)ú u erṣetim(ki)tim, “it was she who created heaven and earth”, inverting the usual word order found in prose, to poetic effect. The effect of the enclitic particle -ma on the verb ibni, “she created”, is unclear; notwithstanding the broken text, it seems unlikely that coordination (its usual function) was intended. It is perhaps a case where the force of -ma is to limit the verb to its subject and it is so understood here (see George, 2003, pp.791–792 for observations on the frequent use of -ma in poetry on verbs that have no obvious need for coordination). [§6.1] 6 The last sign visible in l.6 is a wedge, taken as u. The partly-preserved word is restored as ba-’-u-[la-ti], “people, mankind”, (A.R. George’s suggestion). A verbal form, parallel with ibni “she created” (l.5), perhaps completed l.6, the verbs framing the couplet. The editors of CAD read the broken word rather differently, suggesting ba-’i-[lat], the feminine of bā’ilu, “ruler”, translating l.6 as “DN ruling over whatever bears a name” and erroneously citing the line as commencing Ninisinna (CAD B 30–31). The broken sign could perhaps be lat, but it is unclear whether

226

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

CAD’s reading derives from the traces or is simply a suggested restoration. How l.6 might then conclude is difficult to envisage. ba’ūlatu, a literary word appropriate to this type of composition (see CAD B 185), better suits the traces and is accordingly preferred. This short section evidently closed with an expression of the goddess’ allencompassing powers, a topos which is a core theme of the composition. 7–16 The next ten lines form a passage, marked off by rulings in Ms. A, which relates the bestowing of powers on the goddess. ll.7–10 are too broken to comprehend their full sense. In ll.12–16 the specific gifts given by the great gods Anu, Enlil and Ea, each from within their respective spheres of competence, are enumerated. The notion that the goddess owes her powers to the great gods is a topos which occurs in a number of hymns and prayers (see, for example the great Standard Babylonian prayer to Ištar, STC II pl.76: 18–19; ed. Zgoll, 2003). ll.12–16 are similar to ll.139–148 of the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967) in particular, devoted to Gula herself, where the favours granted to her by Antu, Anu, Enlil and Ea are described. There, as here, the passage devoted to the skills conferred by Ea is most fully developed. 7 us-si-ka is from the D stem of esēqu, “to carve, make a drawing”. von Soden (AHw 249a) commented that the D stem is mostly written with a k (“meist k geschr.”). CAD E 332 gives the D infinitive as ussuqu, and cites only this line with a k spelling. It is often difficult to be sure of orthography. Here, however, KA is certain. The essential meaning of esēqu is “to cut, incise”. In the D stem, usually coupled with isqu, “lot, share”, or its plural isqēti (as l.7), esēqu has the transferred meaning “to apportion”, apparently referring to the notching of tally-sticks (isqu) (CAD E 332). isqēt napḫari ussika (translated here as “the fortunes of everything (s)he assigned”) is another expression of the phrase mussiq isqēti (“the one who apportioned lots”) and similar phrases noted by CAD E 332, explained there as referring “to that aspect of divine power which establishes and determines the nature, quality and purpose of all the universe and its components”. ussika is understood here as the 3cs preterite form, with the ventive morpheme a(m). CAD E 332 reads this as us-si-ka-aš-[šum], translating the line “he apportioned for her the ‘lots’ of everything” (this requires the reading us-si-ka-aš-[ši], not us-si-ka-aš-[šum]!). This reading is not borne out by collation. The sign which follows KA is uncertain, but it cannot be confidently read as AŠ. Whether the subject of the verb is “he” or “she” is not clear. It is possible, and indeed probable, that the theme of the goddess’ cosmic powers in the opening section continues at l.7, and it is the composition’s goddess who is responsible for the order of the universe described in ll.7–10. A parallel can be found in Ninkarrak’s description of her powers in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi:

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

227

ana ilāni gimrīšunu anamdin isqa (Lambert, 1967, p.120 64) To the gods, all of them, I grant (their) portions ll.7–10 are conventional expressions of the exercise of divine power. The passage bears a number of similarities to the opening passage of a first millennium incantation to Ea, Šamaš and Asalluḫi (Læssøe, 1956, pp.61–62 1–13), now understood to be an extended version of an incantation from the mīs pî ritual (AlRawi and George, 1995), where the deities’ power to determine destinies, found cultdaises and fix decisions is recited in very similar language to that used here. Accordingly, ll.7–10 may express the general competence of one or more of the great gods in determining the order of things before the composition turns to the specific powers bestowed by Anu, Enlil and Ea. 8 The dependent genitive phrase kullat Igīgī, “of all the Igigi”, precedes its governing noun kigallu, “cultic station”, and is resumed by the possessive suffix šunu, “their”, in reversal of usual word order. This construction, largely confined to poetry, has the stylistic effect of forefronting the mention of the gods. 9 From the Old Babylonian period onwards, ûrtu occurs in a cosmic context with the meaning “rules”: so, ur-tì erṣeti ša tāmuru qibâ, “Tell me the rules of the underworld which you saw” (Gilgameš XII 91; ed. George, 2003). This is the meaning given in CAD U–W 255, citing l.9. Commonly, however, ûrtu simply means “order, command” and is so used in Standard Babylonian texts (see CAD U–W 255). CAD A/II 151 adopted this meaning, citing this line: “the orders of the highest divine rank”. This seems the most appropriate sense in the context. The abstract noun anūtu literally expresses the position of Anu, the supreme god. The use of the word may perhaps indicate that the subject of some or all of ll.7–10 is indeed Anu. The phrase šipṭa u purussâ(eš-bar), “judgment and decision”, is a commonly used parallelism. 10 markas šamê(an)e u erṣetim(ki)tim, the “bond of heaven and earth”, is well known as the cosmic cable which links the separate parts of the cosmos; the function of the markasu, “bond, rope”, as a means of control when used in its cosmic sense is wellattested. For discussion of these, see George, Topog.Texts, pp.244–245, 256–257, 261–262. Thus markasu (and the related word riksu, “binding”) expresses both the concept in which the universe is understood to be bound together, and the notion of a means of control over the universe. The motif is deployed elsewhere in the composition (ll.53′, 79′, 111′, 124′, 14′′ and 15′′). The phrase anna u ul[la], “yes” and “no”, confirms that “control” is the intended sense. The scope and finality of divine will, characterised by the giving of “yes” or “no” answers, is demonstrated in a namburbi ritual text:

228

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

ša annašu anna ullašu ulla (CT 34 8:22; ed. Maul, 1994, p.381) Whose “yes” is “yes”, whose “no” is “no” Although its full sense is lost, l.10 clearly speaks of complete mastery over the universe. The power to control the universe by holding the cosmic bond is a topos applied to a number of different gods, including the healing goddess herself in a divination prayer (Reiner, 1960, pp.31–32 4–5, 24–25), as noted by George, Topog.Texts, p.262. Whether l.10 described powers vested in Ninisinna, or portrayed the scope of the authority of the great gods named in the following lines, is unclear. 11 Lambert’s restoration dé-a is confirmed beyond doubt by l.14, where Ea is named. rubû, “prince, ruler”, is widely attested as an epithet of very many gods (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.170–171; CAD R 399). The phrase rubû rabûtum, “the great rulers”, does not appear to be attested for Anu, Enlil and Ea together, but it is entirely appropriate to them, the supreme triad of Mesopotamian deities. l.11 perhaps concluded with a verb, now lost. 12 Here Anu, the omnipotent father of the gods, grants strength and divine power. In the Agušaya poem, an Old Babylonian praise poem to Ištar, dunnu, “power”, is a characteristic of Ištar, given to her by Ea (Agušaya A vii 4; ed. Groneberg, 1997, p.81). In that composition and elsewhere, dunnu denotes both physical strength and violence. This seems a strange attribute for the healing goddess, and perhaps a parallel with Ištar is implicit. parṣū, equivalent to the Sumerian term me, are the fundamental divine powers which regulate the natural order of things. This is the meaning which seems most appropriate in the context of this passage. l.12 accordingly both evidences these to be within Anu’s gift and expresses the width of the powers attributed to this goddess. 13 CAD Ḫ 191 cites and translates ll.12 and 13 as if continuous text (save for one missing syllable) completed by ugdammirši, the verb with which l.13 commences: “Anu gave her strength, ḫimmat par[ṣī] ugdammirši he gave her the complete collection of parṣu” (and similarly CAD P 197). This is misleading. Approximately a quarter of a line is missing at the end of l.12, in which text is almost certainly lost. Formally, enjambement of two lines in the way required by CAD does not appear to be a feature of this composition. Further, the obvious sense is that ll.12 and 13 are discrete units, each dealing with the actions of a different god. The subject of ugdammirši, “he gave her”, is not Anu, but Enlil. ll.13–16 reflect the tradition, recorded in the opening sequence of the Old Babylonian Atram-ḫasīs narrative (Atraḫasīs I 13–18; ed. Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.42), that the universe was divided into three between Anu, Enlil and Enki/Ea, with Enlil taking control of the earth and

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

229

Enki/Ea the Apsû. Hence in l.13, Enlil vouches control of the earth’s inhabitants to the goddess. te-n[é-še-e-ti], “humankind”, to complete l.13, is Lambert’s restoration. It forms a natural parallel with dadmū, which expresses the settlements of the inhabited world and their occupants. 14 The composition turns to the sphere and domain of Ea, king of the Apsû, šar(lugal) apsî(zu:ab). atê u milkī (rendered here as “(the ability) to discover and advise”) is an unusual phrase. atê, the accusative form of the infinitive (w)atû(m), “to discover”, is apparently defectively written (a-te, where a-te-e might be expected). atû appears twice in the lexical series Erimḫuš: I 201 DI-pà-da a-tu-u (MSL XVII p.18) and at V 132 pà a-tu-ú (MSL XVII p.73). atû and milku, “advice”, are attested in two bilingual texts used together as nouns. In the Exaltation of Ištar IV 47–48 (ed. Hruška, 1969, p.489), DI-pà-da KA-ḪI is equated with a-ta mil-ki ṭeme-e, “discovering, counsel, forethought”; in a bilingual incantation (OECT 6 pl. 4 K 4897:3–4), gal-an-zu DI-pà-da is equated with [er]-ši a-ta mil-ki. In both bilingual texts, atû is equated with DI-pà-da (now read sá-pà-da), as in Erimḫuš I 201; in each, as in l.14, the form of atû is not written in full (prompting a-ta-(a!) AHw 1493b). The expression atê u milkī perhaps has a frozen form. Neither CAD nor AHw cites any other example of atû and milku used together as nouns. (In l.63′ of this composition, atû is used with milku in an active construction atât milka, “she ascertains counsel”). atû is used here in l.14 as the object of the finite verb, meaning “to search out and find”, as in Gilgameš XI 317 ut-ta ayyīta, “what would I find?”. Unlike ut-ta (which might be G stem or D stem, see George, 2003, p.893 note 208), a-te in l.14 is unambiguously G stem. uš-pa[l-ka-a-ši], “he opened wide [to her]”, is Lambert’s restoration. šupalkû, “to open wide”, the Š stem of napalkû, “to be wide open”, is here used figuratively (compare palkâ uznu, “vast in understanding” (Enūma eliš I 18), and similar expressions). 15 The restoration pi-r[iš-ti], “secret”, (adopted in CAD B 229 billu B) seems secure, forming a parallel to niṣirti, “treasure, secret”. Both words reflect the sense of secret, protected lore. So restored, it is apparent that l.15 comprises three separate parallel phrases, (and not as supposed at CAD I–J 40 igigallu and N/II 276 niṣirtu where the broken word is not read and (in the latter entry) a missing verb (“he gave her”) implied). pir[išti šamāmī], “the secret know[ledge of the heavens]”, might perhaps be restored, forming a counterpart to niṣirti apsî(zu:ab), “the secret lore of the Apsû”, and expressing the range of cosmic wisdom implicit in igigallūt gimri, “the wisdom of the universe”. However there is no close parallel to provide strong support for this restoration.

230

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

16 The composition turns to matters appertaining to the goddess’ role as healing goddess to conclude this section (it is understood more generally at CAD B 229: “all the complexities of magic, the sum total of learning”). l.16 contains a striking number of unusual words, or words used with uncommon meanings. puḫru, “assembly”, is rarely used to describe a collection of inanimate objects (see CAD P 492–493). Its more typical use is exemplified in l.17, ina puḫur ilānī(dingir)meš, “in the assembly of the gods”. billu is also an unusual word, separately entered in CAD B 229 billu B with the meaning “complexity, intricacy”, where this line alone is cited. billu occurs in Neo-Assyrian texts as a component of a metal alloy, and in Middle Assyrian and Nuzi contexts, where it appears to be a mixed beer (see AHw 126a, CAD B 228–229 billu A). The word implies an admixture or intermingling, and is related to the verb balālu, “to mix”. balālu has a number of extended meanings in both G and D stems; a transferred meaning of “to make complex” is not clearly attested. Although commonly used of malevolent spells, upšāšû, “magical procedures, sorceries”, clearly bears a more neutral meaning here, referring to ritual and magical procedures (so, CAD U–W 190), as in l.32. billu, “admixture, intermingling”, applied to upšāšû in the phrase billi upšāšê, (“an intermingling of magical procedures”), is a graphic and unusual expression which seems best understood as conveying the complexity of ritual procedures for healing. riksu, “binding”, is used in one of its less common meanings. By transferred meaning it means, as here, an assemblage or corpus of knowledge (see CAD R 351). A verb, with the sense “he gave (to her)”, doubtless concluded l.16. 17–41 In this extensive, self-contained section, the goddess is given names. Twenty three, or perhaps twenty four, names bestowed on the goddess are listed in the passage. Three compositions brought together by Lambert (2013, pp. 147–148) list names for their deities in literary contexts: a bilingual hymn of self-praise (Reisner, 1896, p.109 57ff.) lists seven names of Ištar; a Hymn to Nabû (LKA 16 9–16; ed. Ebeling, 1952) sets out eight names for Nabû; and an incantation to Lamaštu (Thureau-Dangin, 1921a, p.198) lists seven names. Ninurta’s names are proclaimed in the Anzu narrative (Saggs, 1986, pp.25–28). The Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967) gives names for the healing goddess and her spouse, in a very different format from these compositions. The closest parallels to ll.17–41 are in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VI 121–VII 136, and of Ištar’s names in the Standard Babylonian Hymn to the Queen of Nippur III 52ff. (Lambert, 1982). In these two passages, names given to the deities are explained using the same scholarly techniques and methods deployed in this composition. In both these passages, the divine names are assigned by the great gods: Anšar, Laḫmu and Laḫamu to Marduk, and Anu, Enlil and Ea (perhaps together with others) to Ištar. This composition is notably different: Marduk, the preeminent god of Enūma eliš,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

231

alone appears to be the name-giver. For the most part, each line of this section is devoted to a separate identity. There is one couplet (ll.19–20); and one line contains two names (l.34). The construction is almost invariable: lines commence with the divine name, followed by a description of the goddess, very much in the manner of an explanatory God List. The scholarly interpretations which generate the text in this part of the composition are explained in section 6.1. 17 Lugaldimmerankia is the fifth name of Marduk given in Enūma eliš VI 139–142, a title by which Marduk was known from at least the Second Isin Dynasty (Lambert, 2013, p.272). The missing text almost certainly included a finite verb to effect the name-giving. Böck (2014, p.10 footnote 13) took this line as the beginning of this hymn. The reference to Marduk appears to underpin Böck’s comment that “Though K.232 includes a rather long list of epithets of the healing goddess, the text is not a Gula hymn” and her conclusion (op.cit., p.82, note on l.4) that K 232+ is a “Marduk hymn”. Böck appears to have taken no account of the contents of the joining piece, K 3371. Although Marduk’s name recurs at l.16′, the overwhelming internal evidence is that this composition is a hymn to the healing goddess. 19 K 3371 and K 232 join in this line, where K 232 supplies the last syllable of l.19, the sign DI. na-di-na-[at] and [šip]-ṭi are Lambert’s restorations to supply the break. Although nādinat šipṭi, “who gives divine judgment”, is satisfactory as to syntax and sense, perhaps more text is lost in the break. The line is quite cramped, compared with many other lines of K 3371. There is evidently enough space for 3 signs before šip-ṭi but no obvious phrase in combination with šipṭi presents itself. [§6.1] 20 nābalu is attested in historical writings and in literature from the first millennium as meaning “dry land”, usually contrasted with the river or sea. There is no contrast here, prompting CAD N/I 21 to suggest “goddess of the mainland (?)”. nābalu speculatively interprets the divine name Ninbaragesi and the word was clearly selected for that purpose; it is not necessary to suppose any alternative meaning. šarūru, “radiance”, is used from the Old Babylonian period onwards to refer to the divine radiance of deities (see CAD Š/II 143); in l.20 it is used as an epithet, apparently generated by scholarly speculation. Lambert’s restoration gi-m[ir parak]-ki, “of all the shrines”, is supported by lexical correspondence with elements of the divine name. Jiménez (2018, p.98) has suggested a more extended restoration, to read nebât gim[ir āšib para]kki, translating this as “most brilliant of al[l who dwell on a da]is”. It is not clear how this would have been written. There does not appear to be any trace before -ki. There is enough room for gi-m[ir a-šib pa-rak]-ki, using syllabic spelling, as is typical of Ms. A, but the broken sign mir and ki are both generously written (as indeed is the rest of the line) and, in comparison, the required

232

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

signs in the break would be quite cramped. This tends to tell against this proposal, and in view of this doubt, Lambert’s restoration is included in the text presented. However, Jiménez’ proposed restoration yields good sense and may be rendered as “most brilliant of all who sit on thrones”. Understood in this way, the restored epithet recalls the description of Ninbaragesi in l.19 as šarrat šarri, “the king’s queen”, and is consequently perhaps preferable to Lambert’s suggestion; and as Jiménez (2018, p.98) has demonstrated, it can be supported by lexical equations based on the divine name Ninbaragesi. Jiménez (May 2021, private communication) has suggested that, alternatively, né-BAD (nebât) may be read né-med (nēmed, the construct state of nēmedu, “support”), a reading underpinned by lexical equation based on the divine name. In this reading, the goddess is “the support of all the shrines” or, adopting the restoration proposed by Jiménez (above), “the support of all who sit on thrones”. The sense and sentiment of the reading nēmed are perfectly appropriate. However, the reading nēbat (also underpinned by lexical equation) gives the pleasing balance between the epithets šarūr, “the radiance of”, and nēbat, “most brilliant of”; nēbat is according preferred here. [§6.1] 21 Like Mullo-Weir (1929, p.9), Lambert restored the final word as [a-p]a-a-ti (apâti). The preceding word is lost in the break. The preserved signs are quite cramped and perhaps two signs are missing. apâtu, “numerous, teeming”, is attested in adjectival use with nišū (or unmeš), “people”, and alone, as a substantive, to mean “teeming peoples, humankind”, (see CAD A/II 168–169). These separate uses make restoration of the missing word particularly uncertain. Another adjective or verbal form to give a phrase parallel with banât zēri, “who creates the seed”, seems probable, but a noun phrase with nišū, “people”, in apposition to zēri, “seed” is also possible. [§6.1] 22 A divine name is clearly required to complete l.22. ⸢an⸣-šár is Lambert’s reading. AN, though broken, is clear; the final sign is intact. This necessitates that the two signs are very well spaced, but the preceding part of the line is also generously written and the restoration seems compelling. [§6.1] 23 talīmtu, “sister”, is usually, if not exclusively, applied deities, and occasionally to gods, despite its feminine form (see George, Topog.Texts, 64:14 and p.334; and generally CAD T 94, AHw 1310a). The final name in l.23 straddles the damaged join between the two pieces; it was read by Lambert, with apparent reservation, as ⸢d⸣[as]ar?-GÌR (alim!?). The copies of Craig (ABRT II 16 5) and Mullo-Weir (1929, p.10 5) both show an undamaged asar (as Mullo-Weir too read). The traces now remaining do not unambiguously suggest asar. GÌR is clear, but alim does not appear

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

233

to be written with GÌR alone. Litke (1998, p.90, commenting on An: Anum II 189– 190) noted that alim is written GÌRxAxIGI in K 4332, A+IGI+GÌR in YBC 2401 and GÌRxIGI in AO 5376 (see also MZL p.184). Accordingly, the name Asaralim is by no means certain, and the relationship term, talīmtu, “sister”, does not certainly resolve the matter. Asaralim is a name of Marduk, known from Enūma eliš VII 3 and a number of sources. [§6.1] 24 um-mi, “mother”, is nominative singular, exhibiting an ending in -i (see George, 2003, p.439 for like spellings in manuscripts of the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic from Kuyunjik, like this Ms. A). The end of l.24 perhaps contained a divine name, reading dingir as the divine determinative, as Mullo-Weir (1929, p.17) speculated. However, a reading of dingir[meš] (ilānī, “of the gods”,) well suits the [§6.1] overall sense of l.24 and its explanation of the name, dama-ù-tu-an-ki. 25 CAD Ṭ 92 ṭēmu cited this line under the general meaning “(divine) counsel, deliberation, will” in a sequence where ṭēmu is translated as “decision” or “order”. ṭēm ili is a common phrase, often understood as “the will of the god” (so, ṭè-em ilī as-ḫ[ur], “I sought the will of my god”; Babylonian Theodicy 72, ed. Oshima, 2014, p.154). Coupled with amīlu, “man”, in the phrase here ṭēm ili(dingir) u amīli(lú), it is evident that this meaning is inapposite, but the sense is elusive. As elsewhere in the composition, an unusual phrase indicates it is generated by speculative interpretation, here interpreting the divine name. [§6.1] 26 Lambert read dingir[meš] at the end of l.26. dingir is very boldly written and, in comparison, meš would be very cramped. Further, repetition of dingirmeš, (ilānī, “of the gods”) in this line seems trite and unconvincing. The reading an-[šár], “Anšar”, is proposed, which would better suit the spacing. Namma (dengur) is a mothergoddess associated with cosmic water (see Lambert, 2013, pp.427–436). The image of Namma suckling the primordial god Anšar, who owed his being to the union of Apsû and Tiāmat, according to the tradition recorded in Enūma eliš I 1–12, is entirely appropriate. [§6.1] 28 Lambert proposed qa-rit-⸢ti⸣ [an]⸢e⸣, to restore the damage where K 3371 and K 232 join, giving the epithet “valiant one of heaven”. All that remains of Lambert’s suggested ⸢e⸣ is the final upright. The space is very short, as comparison with the writing ane in l.29 shows; the restoration is accordingly unconvincing. No obvious alternative presents itself from the dictionaries’ citations of qardu (feminine qarittu), “valiant, heroic”. It seems almost certain that the key to the missing sign lies in the divine name, Ninkarnunna. nun could perhaps be restored, to read qaritti rubê, “valiant one of the prince”, serving to interpret the divine name and simultaneously

234

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

paralleling the final epithet rā’imat Utaul[u](dUD-u18-l[u]), “the one who loves Utaulu”. dUD-u18-lu (Utaulu) is a name of Ninurta, recorded in the God List An: Anum I 205 (ed. Litke, 1998). Ninurta, as Enlil’s son, is readily understood as a prince. [§6.1] 29 bēlet mušpalī, “lady of the low-lying places”, is an unusual epithet. mušpalū is used in relation to a goddess in an Old Babylonian bilingual text: mūlê mušpalī . . . šutābulum kûmma Ištar (van Dijk, 1957, p.77:10; ed. Sjöberg, 1975b) It is in your power, Ištar, to interchange ... high and low-lying places In l.29 mušpalū, “low-lying places”, forms a counterpart to the deity’s position of authority in the heavens (ša ina šamê(an)e manzāssa šalṭu, “whose position in heaven is commanding”). šalāṭu, “to be in authority”, is occasionally attested in relation to deities. Nudimmud is described as ša abbêšu šaliṭšunu, “Who has authority over his fathers”, (Enūma eliš I 17). In a Neo-Assyrian historical text šalāṭu is combined with manzāzu, “position”, and said of Ninlil: ša itti Anim u Enlil šitluṭat manzāzu (Aššurbanipal Annals ix 77; ed. Streck, 1916, II p.78) Who is as authoritative in rank as Anu and Enlil The vocabulary used in l.29 is driven by etymological equivalences.

[§6.1]

30 Only traces of the upper wedges of the first few signs and the final sign DU remain of the divine name. Lambert’s restoration ⸢dA-ḪA-TAR⸣-DU (dnin-gìrim) is put beyond doubt by the epithets preserved, and on etymological grounds. Ningirimma is known as a goddess of purification and exorcism. Her name given in the God List An: Anum I 354 (ed. Litke, 1998) is da-gúb-ba, a deified holy-water vessel (and surely not, as Lambert, 2013, p.432, “Divine Censer”), epitomising her role in purification rites, to which mullilat, “the one who purifies”, refers. Forms of *wašāpu/uššupu are mostly found in magic texts; it means “to cast magic spells”. CAD’s only citations of the feminine form are from this composition, given here in the phrase muššipat ili(dingir) u amīli(lú), “who weaves spells for god and man”. This unusual word recurs at l.30′ (see note there). [§6.1] 31 The power of a deity to bring the dead back to life is a topos, often applied to the healing goddess, and expressed in the epithet here muballiṭat mīti(lúúš), “she who brings the dead back to life”. In the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, a mere glance from the goddess suffices: ina nīš īnāya mītu iballuṭ (Lambert, 1967, p.120 86)

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

235

By my glance, the dead person revives Similarly, it is said of Ištar in the great Standard Babylonian prayer to her: ašar tappallasi iballuṭ mītu (STC II pl.78: 40; ed. Zgoll, 2003) Wherever you look, the dead person revives The topos was frequently applied to Marduk, amongst other gods (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.67–68; CAD M/II 141). In l.31, as well as expressing the topos, both [§6.1] epithets interpret the divine name dnin-tin-ug5-ga. 32 riksū and upšāšû are here translated “bandages (and) ritual procedures”, appropriate to a healing goddess. These words are juxtaposed in l.16, in appositional phrases. Perhaps, as in l.16, collections of knowledge are meant, not bandages. CAD’s different translations of ēpišat nikkassī arê are all unsatisfactory: “she who computes multiplications” (E 214 epēšu); “who calculates tables” (R 348 riksu); and, under the meaning “mathematical table, ephemeris”, “who calculates the a.” (A/II 312 arû). So, similarly, Mullo-Weir (1929, p.11 14) “who casteth up the reckonings of multiplication”. The Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi contains a similar phrase, in a description of Nanše, measuring the land: šiprussu nāšât qan ṭuppi ēpišat nikkassī (Lambert, 1967, p.118 42) Who carries the stylus in her work, who does the accounting arû also are perhaps referred to in Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn: asâku bārâku āšipāku ša ina a-a-re-e ḫīṭāku (Lambert, 1967, p.128 183) I am physician, diviner, exorcist, as to .... I examine The plene writing of the first vowel in a-a-re-e makes it doubtful that this is arû. Lambert was unsure of the meaning (“I look over him who is in ……”). Foster (2005, p.590) understood the word as arû, “calculations”: “I, who am expert in calculations,”. Ninkarrak is not generally associated with any accounting function. Like the first epithet in l.32, this difficult phrase is generated by speculative interpretation of the divine name, dnin-kar-ra-ak. This single line 32 seems complete as it stands, paralleling preceding lines. However, it appears to be extended by the part line that follows, consisting of three feminine singular stative forms, preceded by an uninscribed space. Lambert considered this to continue l.32; so, too, CAD’s citations M/II 195 mumaʼiru and U– W 394 uzzu, where Ninkarrak is understood as their subject. CAD L 23 labbatu quotes part of this line, noting that labbatu, “lioness”, is “Attested only as an epithet of Ištar”, which is plainly incorrect. [§6.1]

236

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

33 ekṣu is a by-form of akṣu, “brazen, dangerous”, found in Standard Babylonian literary and royal texts (CAD A/II 281–282). uzzatu, “anger”, is an abstract noun, used from the Old Babylonian period onwards. The plene writing uz-za-a-ti suggests a plural form, parallel with ekṣūti, “the dangerous”. The word uzzatu does not appear to be attested elsewhere in a form that is unambiguously plural. CAD offers two translations of munakkirat uzzāti, neither very satisfactory: “who expels furies” (CAD U–W 393) and “turns away furious attacks” (CAD A/II 282 akṣu). The numberless abstraction “ferocity” is adopted in translation here. [§6.1] 34 Breaking the pattern set in the preceding lines, this line contains two divine names for the goddess. It is the only line in this section which clearly does so (l.39, unfortunately broken, may also have done so, although this seems unlikely in view of its evident similarity to l.38). šapāku, “to heap up”, is used in a cosmic sense here and in l.37 in the identical phrase, šāpikat erṣeti(ki)tim, “who formed the earth”. Unusually, the normal order of the pairing of heaven (an, šamû) and earth (ki, erṣetu) is reversed in l.34. This rare reversal is found in a Standard Babylonian prayer to Ištar: ûrti erṣeti(ki)tim u šamāmī (STC II pl.76:13; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.42) The commands of earth and heaven (The earlier version of this composition from a manuscript from Boğazköy contained the same phrase: ûrti erṣetim(ki)tum u šamê(an)e (KUB 37 (36 + 37):16′; ed. Reiner and Güterbock, 1967, p.259 and Zgoll, 2003, p.55). In l.34, the unusual order is perhaps conditioned by šapāku, “to heap up”, more commonly found with earth (erṣetu) than sky, and by metrical considerations, placing šamāmī (here spelled syllabically šá-ma-mi), “heaven”, with its long (stressed) penultimate syllable, rather than erṣeti, at the end of the line, as is typical of Babylonian poetry (see Helle, 2014, p.61 on this characteristic; Helle’s article provides a useful recent overview of metre and rhythm in Akkadian poetry). [§6.1] 35 The characterization of a deity as merciful is a stock feature of hymns and prayers. The topos recurs at l.32′; so too, the healing goddess in her guises as Ninigizibarra (l.89) Ninsun (l.169) and Ninlil (ll.178, 187) in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967). The motif of a goddess as “merciful mother” characterises mother-goddesses such as Bēlet-ilī and Išḫara (Tallqvist, 1938, p.23) and is applied to Gula in hymns addressed to her (so, BMS 6:71; ed. Ebeling, 1953a, p.46). In l.35, a stock image is used in theological explanation of the divine identity, generated by speculative interpretation of her name, dama-šu-ḫal-bi. mušapšiḫat, “she who soothes”, the Š stem participle of pašāḫu, “to rest”, is used for the third

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

237

time in 11 lines (ll. 25, 31 and 35), generated by speculative interpretation. The consequent repetition seems somewhat clumsy. [§6.1] 36 bānīt kakkī, “she who creates weapons”, is not a standard divine epithet, a telltale sign in this composition that the phrase explains the divine name, Udugsigga (dudug-sig5-ga). Likewise, nādinat dšēd(alad) dumqi, “she who supplies a protective šēdu-spirit of good fortune”, interprets Udugsigga. [§6.1] 37 The repetition of šāpikat erṣeti, “she who formed the earth”, used above in l.34, is forced by speculative interpretation. The identical wording is yielded by a different etymology. Outside Neo-Assyrian royal texts, where the divine gifts bestowed on a king are a topos, šutlumu, “to bestow”, is characteristically found in prayers (see CAD Š/III 402–404; Mayer, 1976, p.298 note 90). A Standard Babylonian prayer to Nabû illustrates the desire for the presence of protective šēdu and lamassu spirits and the use of šutlumu in that context: šēd dumqi lamassi dumqi lirrakis ittīya šutlimamma tašmâ u magāra (BMS 22:19–20; ed. Mayer, 1976, p.474) May a good guardian deity and a good protective spirit attend me And grant that I be heard and accepted mušatlimat dlamassi(lamma) dumqi, “who bestows favourable protective lamassuspirits”, interpreting dlamma-sig5-ga, conveys the goddess’ beneficent grant and perhaps implies a gift bestowed through prayer. [§6.1] 38–40 To conclude the list of names bestowed, ll.38–40 are devoted to birthgoddesses. 38 Only the divine names are intact in l.38. ṣi-rat dingirmeš is securely restored from the traces. ṣīru and ṣīrtu, “exalted, supreme”, are commonly attested as applied to deities and their attributes from the Old Babylonian period onwards (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.157; CAD Ṣ 210–213). The phrase ṣīrat ilānī, “most exalted of the gods”, explains the divine name dingir-maḫ, thus confirming the reading. The damaged second description is more difficult. Lambert tentatively suggested ⸢né-bu⸣-ut, from nebû, “bright”, usually applied to astral deities. However Dingirmaḫ does not appear to be associated with brilliance, nor is there any obvious etymological equivalence to support nebû. ⸢ni-bu⸣-ut, suggested by A.R. George, is adopted here. nibûtu, “naming”, seems to be attested only in Enūma eliš VII 102 and, although broken, in its commentary (Commentary II 102, explaining the name Lugalšuanna), used in the same phrase proposed here, nibût Anšar. Lambert (2013, p.490) commented that here “nibīt would be the usual form”. nibītu, “naming”, has the meaning “(one) nominated

238

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

by (a deity)”, and hence “chosen by”; like nibīt Anšar, the phrase nibût Anšar may mean “chosen one of Anšar” and is so translated here. The restoration ⸢ni-bu⸣-ut is not entirely secure. Although fitting the remaining traces, the two signs ni-bu would be rather cramped in a line otherwise very generously spaced. It is however perhaps supported by speculative scholarship. (See notes on ll.52 and 93′ for discussion of similar phrases). [§6.1] 40 The divine name is securely restored by Lambert as dsig4-za-[gìn-na], a name of Bēlet-ilī: dsig4-za-gìn-na dbe-let-ì-lí (An: Anum I 186; ed. Litke, 1998). sig4, the Sumerian word for “brick”, here refers to the brick used as a birthing stool to aid childbirth (see Stol, 2000, pp.118–122). Its importance is clear from its prominence in the account of the birth of mankind in the Old Babylonian Atram-ḫasīs narrative, where the brick is set in place between the pieces of clay: [ina b]irīšunu ittadi libitt[i], “[Between] them she set the brick” (Atra-ḫasīs I 259; and similarly the Neo-Assyrian version S iii 6; ed. Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.60; see too Atra-ḫasīs I 294, S iii 15, pp.62–64). If the typical pattern of ll.18–38 was maintained, an epithet explaining the divine name followed, now completely lost. The meaning of mušaklilat tālitti, the epithet which concludes l.40, is ambiguous. The phrase is cited in CAD Š/III 225 šuklulu, grouped with other citations having the meaning “to grant full measure”; in this sense, mušaklilat tālitti, “who grants offspring in full measure”, perhaps may be understood to speak of the grant of the children that a family should properly have. Under tālittu (CAD T 96), mušaklilat tālitti is translated “who grants perfect offspring”. This is adopted in the translation presented here, in view of the birthing brick’s role in bringing about successful delivery. Perhaps both nuances are implicit in the Akkadian epithet. [§6.1] 41 The section appears to culminate in a description of the goddess’ overall destiny. Lambert suggested [um-m]i dadmē in partial restoration of the gap, perhaps informed by the naming of birth-goddesses in the immediately preceding lines (ll.38–40). The phrase ummi dadmē, “mother of the inhabited world”, is unusual. It occurs in l.110′ where the phrase speculatively interprets the temple name set out there (see section 6.1) but it does not seem to be otherwise attested and Lambert’s suggestion is unconvincing, both as a phrase and in context. The restoration bēlet [ilānī(dingir)meš šar-rat kal(d]ù) dadmē, “the Lady of [the gods, the queen of all] the inhabited world”, was suggested by A.R. George. kalû, “all”, is written dù in the Neo-Assyrian period and this both fits the traces and supplies a common expression in kal dadmē, “all the inhabited world”. However, this writing of kalû is not very common (see CAD K 87–91); and at l.47 kal dadmē is written with the KAL sign. Logographic writing is not widely used in this manuscript, save for common writings, such as an

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

239

“heaven” and ki “earth”. The restoration is perhaps not entirely secure, but the sense is entirely appropriate and is a fitting conclusion to the passage. 42–58 The remaining lines of the obverse of Ms. A are rather damaged and an unknown number of lines are missing where the tablet breaks off. It is clear that the composition turns again to praising its goddess, but the poetic structure of the passage, which might provide a key to understanding, is hard to discern, owing to the damage. ll.43 and 44 may form a couplet, but it is impossible to be sure. ll.45, 46 and 47 appear to speak of the universality of the goddess’ influence and perhaps belong together. Thereafter, the text is perhaps arranged in couplets before it breaks off. 43 The preserved signs are much more cramped than in all but the most tightly written lines of K 232+ (such as l.31); it seems that much is lost from l.43. The verbal form [u]š-nam-ma-ru is from the ŠD stem of namāru (“to shine”), meaning “to illuminate”. Used particularly of the power of Šamaš and Girra, the fire god, to illuminate darkness (see CAD N/I 218), the verb is also used of Ištar and her radiance: gaširtu ša šarūrūša uš-nam-ma-ru iklēti (Perry, 1907, pl.4:5; ed. Ebeling, 1953a, p.128) The mighty one whose rays illuminate the darkness Verbal forms in the rare ŠD stem are a characteristic feature of the high literary form of Babylonian usually termed the “hymno-epic dialect” (“der hymnisch-epische Dialekt”, von Soden, 1931, 1933a) or “hymno-epic idiom” (so, Lambert, 1959–1960, p.49; for further literature on this literary style, see note on l.55). For discussion of the ŠD stem, see Kouwenberg (1997, pp.271–277, 336–340; 2010, pp.334–337). Without the words which precede, the form uš-nam-ma-ru is ambiguous. It is translated here as a feminine form “she makes bright”, understood to be subordinated; but it could equally well be a plural form. ṣarāru can mean “to flow or drip” (CAD Ṣ 105–106 ṣarāru A; AHw 1084b “tröpfeln”); Mullo-Weir (1929, p.10 26) adopted this meaning. It also means “to flash or sparkle” (CAD Ṣ 106–107 ṣarāru B; AHw 1084b “funkeln”). Although ṣarāru is mainly attested of stars, its juxtaposition with uš-nam-ma-ru suggests that illumination is the theme of l.43. The image of the illumination of the darkness of the depths is contained in an Old Babylonian incantation for a woman in labour: ina mê tiamtim ruqūtim … ašar … qerbīssu la uš-na-wa-ru īn šamšim (YOS XI 86 7–10; ed. van Dijk, 1973) In the unfathomable waters of the sea … whose interior the eye of the sun cannot illuminate

240

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

The power of the composition’s goddess to illuminate the mê(a)meš nagbi, the waters of the nagbu, the subterranean deep which is the cosmic realm of Ea, is an image entirely appropriate to this passage. 45 Lambert’s restoration [an]e is plainly secure, giving the standard pairing of ane (šamê) u kitim (erṣeti) “heaven and earth” and paralleled by the adverbial phrase eliš u šaplis, “above and below”. The phonetic complements e and tim indicate that the phrase šamê u erṣeti is either a dependent genitive or was preceded by a preposition. Only the initial traces remain of the first word, with space only for two or three signs before ane. Any restoration would be purely conjectural. Similarly, what preceded eliš u šaplis is uncertain. eš-[bar], (purussû, “decision”, presumably in the accusative), may not be correct. There is clearly some parallel sense between the beginning and end of l.45, but there does not seem to be syntactic parallelism. A participle or some other verbal form seems required to supply one or both gaps in l.45. 46 This line presents a number of difficulties, due in part to damage. The feminine possessive suffix -ša, “her”, indicates that the missing subject is some attribute of the goddess. šadidma is the G stem 3ms stative of šadādu, with the enclitic particle -ma, signalling that the subject is a masculine form. šadādu, “to drag”, is frequently used with the masculine noun nīru, “yoke”, in a figurative sense. It is occasionally said of divine sway more generally: šādid nīr ili … (Babylonian Theodicy 240; ed. Oshima, 2014) He who bears the god’s yoke …. nīru does not fit the remaining traces in Ms. A and must be discounted. No other attribute or quality that would be apposite here is regularly attested with šadādu. šikna-a[t na-piš-ti mit]-ḫa-riš, “living things everywhere”, is Lambert’s suggested restoration. šik-na-a[t] is secure. The common phrase šiknat napišti, things “endowed with life”, hence “living things”, seems obvious, but it is doubtful whether there is enough room to accommodate all these signs, unless this part of l.46 was very cramped. The phrase šiknat napišti is attested in the Late Babylonian Erra narrative with napišti, “life”, written logographically by the sign ZI (Erra I 137 šikna-at zitim, I 177 šik-nat zitim; ed. Cagni, 1969). zi might just fit the space here, but logographic writing is uncommon in this manuscript. Mullo-Weir (1929, p.12) tentatively proposed [ma(?)]-ḫa-riš, translating maḫariš šadidma as “in front(?) it is pulled”. šik-na-a[t, supplied by K 13776 since Mullo-Weir’s edition, makes his restoration less likely, but it should not perhaps be discounted entirely. With Lambert’s restorations, l.46 contains two adverbs, eliš, “above”, and mitḫāriš, “everywhere” and the phrase šiknat napišti which is formally capable of

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

241

being the accusative object of šadidma (for the active meaning of statives, see GAG § 77 e). The two adverbs make the syntax of the line awkward. eliš seems to be read with šiknat napišti, “over living things”, but is rarely attested in prepositional use (AHw 202a “selten Prp.”). An example may to occur in the exposition of Marduk’s names: bānû erṣetim eliš mê (Enūma eliš VII 83) The creator of the earth over the water von Soden evidently thought the text incorrect (AHw 202a “e-liš! mê"). eliš is perhaps best explained in l.46 as eli, the form eliš induced by the phonetics of šiknat. In this context, šadidma seems best understood intransitively, meaning “to extend” or “to stretch”, so cited at CAD Š/I 29, albeit with other citations which relate to areas and boundaries: hence, eliš šiknat napišti mitḫāriš šadidma, “(it) extends over living things everywhere”. The force of the enclitic -ma is not entirely clear. 47 šalummatu, “radiance”, is a term for the awesome radiance characteristic of deities, like melammu, puluḫtu and rašubbatu (CAD Š/I 283), all words which denote awe-inspiring divine radiance. šalummatu frequently refers to the aura surrounding the deity itself. So, Ištar is described, in a Standard Babylonian prayer to her, set within a medical ritual: bēltu ša šalummatu ramât rašubbatu labšat (Hauptritual A IIa 40; ed. Farber, 1977, p.130) The Lady who is cloaked in radiance, clothed in splendour The feminine possessive suffix -ša, “her”, in l.47 confirms that šalummassa is the goddess’ radiance. Formally, šalummassa, “her radiance”, may be nominative or accusative. The structure of what follows perhaps suggests that l.47 was chiastic and it is so understood here. The restorations in l.47 are Lambert’s. Although siḫip kal dadmē, “the full extent of the whole world”, is not cited in CAD or AHw, siḫip dadmē, “the extent of human habitations”, is an established expression, found in the great Standard Babylonian Šamaš hymn in the very similar phrase kal siḫip dadmē, rendered by Lambert as “so far as human habitations stretch” (Lambert, 1960, p.134 153). Thus restored, l.47 expresses the common motif of divine splendour which covers the world. 48 The first sign preserved in l.48 is perhaps é. é-ki-gal is not a known temple or shrine associated with the Igigi gods. The only known sanctuary with a similar name is ki-gal-la, Ningišzida’s seat in the é-sag-íl at Babylon (HMH 593). The reading é is therefore doubtful. l.8 refers to the Igigi gods and their cultic stations (ki-gal-lašu-nu); hence, ki-gal is understood in l.48 as the construct state of the noun kigallu

242

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

and taken with di-gì-gì, “the cultic stations of the Igigi”. Without the benefit of K 13776, Mullo-Weir (1929, p.12) proposed the restoration [ra-’i-mat] dUD-u18-lu (as in l.28), “[the one who loves] Utaulu”, to supply the break. The trace remaining does not support this, but the missing text may indeed have referred to the goddess, as Mullo-Weir thought. 49 The apposition of the broken opening phrase têret [x x] to the phrase nagab kullati makes it clear that têrtu refers to the divine will relating to the order of the cosmos (see CAD T 363). Although nagbu commonly means the “underground waters” which are the realm of Enki and his Akkadian counterpart Ea, in l.49 nagbu means “totality”, a poetic term used from the Old Babylonian period onwards (CAD N/I 111 nagbu B). The lexical series Erimḫuš lists nagbu in a group with kullatu, napḫaru and kiššatu, all terms for “totality” (Erimḫus V 43–46 MSL XVII p.68). The ancient commentarist to the Babylonian Theodicy apparently considered the word unusual, explaining that nagab was equivalent to napḫar, “totality, all”, in the phrase gimil nagab nēmeqi, “favoured with all wisdom” (Babylonian Theodicy 57 and Commentary obv.22, see Oshima, 2014, pp.445–446). The tautological expression nagab kullati, “the totality of everything”, does not appear to be otherwise attested, but similar expressions in which two words for totality are combined abound (see CAD K 505–506 kullatu). A similar phrase occurs in the list of the corpus of the lore of the exorcist often known as the “exorcist’s manual”, known from first millennium copies: kullat nagbi nēmeqi niṣirti kakugallūti (KAR 44 r.7) “all the knowledge, the secret of the exorcist” (CAD N/I 111; similarly understood at CAD K 506 “the entire range of wisdom”) In this context it seems likely that scholarly exploitation of the ambiguity of the meaning of nagbu is at work in its application to knowledge, the particular preserve of Ea, lord of the cosmic depths. Very little remains of the second sign of šá-r[u]ru-šá, (Lambert’s restoration), “her rays”, but there is no obvious alternative. The sense is elusive. 50 lalgar is equated with the Apsû in the synonym list malku = šarru I 291 (ed. Hrůša, 2010); for other attestations, see Horowitz (2011, pp.307, 313–314) and HMH p.26 note 187. The identification of lalgar, the subterranean water, as a cosmic region is implicit in l.50, where lalgar is characterised as pirišti ilānī(dingir)meš, “the secret of the gods”, where the goddess marshals her divine powers. te-[re-t]u-šá, “her commands”, is Lambert’s restoration, assured by the frequent attestation of têrētī with ḫamāmu, “to collect”, the verb used to express the gathering in and mastery of powers and functions which is commonly attributed to deities (see George,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

243

Topog.Texts, pp.321–322; CAD Ḫ 59). The meaning of têrtu as a divine decree which gives order to the cosmos is well attested (CAD T 365). A very similar phrase occurs at l.70′ têrētīša ḫam[m]ā, “her commands are gathered together” (Ms. d), where Ms. B’s variant reading, now damaged, may have been essentially the phrase here. 51 The restorations of the broken signs are Lambert’s. ll.50–51 seem to form a couplet, for Duku (du6-kù) (l.51) forms a clear parallel with lalgar (l.50). The names frame the couplet. A Standard Babylonian šu-íla prayer to Nabû contains the same parallel, noted by Horowitz (2011, p.316): mukīl markas lalgar pāqid du6-kù-ga ašarēd Igīgī āšir Anunnakī (Mayer, 1990, p.461 7–8) He who holds the bond of lalgar, who oversees Duku, Foremost of the Igigi, supervisor of the Anunnaki Like lalgar, Duku is synonymous with Apsû in the synonym list malku = šarru I 290 (ed. Hrůša, 2010). The same equivalence is given in the list now known as Explicit Malku II 178 (ed. Hrůša, 2010). See Lambert (2013, p.305, footnotes 9, 10) for other passages where the same parallel occurs. l.51 describes Duku as ašar šitūlti u purussê(eš-bar), “the place of deliberation and decision”. The same tradition is reflected in the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII. Ea, lord of the Apsû, is named in the passage as “lord of Duku” (Lugalduku), where he takes no decision without his son Marduk, Dumuduku “son of Duku”: d

dumu-du6-kù ša ina du6-kù ūtaddašu šubassu el[let] dumu-du6-kù ša balīšu purussû lā iparrasu dlugal-du6-kù (Enūma eliš VII 99– 100) Dumuduku, who renews for himself his pure dwelling in Duku, Dumuduku, without whom Lugalduku makes no decision.

d

These lines are clearly based on the identification of Duku with the Apsû (Lambert, 2013, p.305). This is somewhat different from the tradition reflected in a bīt rimki incantation edited by Borger (1967), which placed Duku at the mountain of sunrise, although the description in this incantation of this mountain as šad nagbi, “mountain of the deep”, surely betrays some common strands (see Woods, 2009, pp.203–204; George, 2013, p.8 for recent discussion). 52 The restorations are Lambert’s. Enough remains in l.52 to make them reasonably secure. [n]a-bit i-la-[a-tim] is ambiguous. Formally, na-bit could be understood as the feminine construct state of the adjective nebû/nabû, “shining, bright” (CAD N/II 148), and the phrase translated as “brightest of the goddesses”. Alternatively, the

244

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

form may be understood as the construct state of the feminine verbal adjective of nabû, “to name”, and translated as “chosen one”: nabīt ilātim, “the chosen one of goddesses”. This seems preferable in context and is adopted here. (See notes on ll.38 and 93′ for discussion of similar phrases). Although the epithet bēlet mimma šumšu, “mistress of everything”, does not seem to be specifically attested, the goddess Ninimma, Enlil’s scribe and a creation-goddess who is also identified as a healing goddess from the Middle Babylonian period onwards, appears to be described as bēl mimma [šumšu], “master of everything”, in an explanatory God List (CT 25 49 r.2; see Lambert, 2013, p. 435). In l.52 the epithet perhaps expresses the goddess’ preeminence and implies the creative powers attributed to her in the opening passage of the composition (l.5). rubātu, “princess, queen”, is a description commonly applied to goddesses (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.171–172; CAD R 393). rubātu appears to be usually written without a plene vowel when in the singular (see CAD R 392–393). With the ending -ti, a genitive plural form seems to be suggested by ru-ba-a-t[i], but the phrase āšibat ru-ba-a-t[i], “she dwells over queens”(?), seems awkward. 53 Only the partially preserved final word in l.53 remains, which might be read mitḫar-[tum] or mit-ḫur-[tum]. The meaning is uncertain. “Conflict”, “harmony” (both meanings of mitḫurtum) and “everything” (mitḫartum) are all possible translations (see CAD M/II 135, 138; AHw 662). 54–58 The remaining lines are too fragmentary other than to give the general flavour of this part of the composition. The obverse of the tablet breaks off in l.58. An unknown number of lines are lost before the reverse resumes the text. 54–55 masdaru, “duration, permanence”, is an unusual word, which appears to be used adverbially only. In literary contexts, it occurs twice in the great Standard Babylonian hymn to Šamaš, in both cases understood as “constantly”: in the phrase ina masdari and, without any preposition, mas-da-ra (as in l.54) with a variant reading mas-da-ri (Lambert, 1960, p.132 123; p.134 134). It is attested also in a Standard Babylonian hymn to Nabû: ginâ masdari ištarāniš iqâl (von Soden, 1971, p.52, ii 90) He constantly, unceasingly, respected his personal goddess The epithet preserved in l.54, nāšât qan(gi) ṭuppi(dub-ba), “holding the stylus”, is also applied to Gula depicted in the guise of Nanše in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsarabi: šiprussu nāšât qan ṭuppi ēpišat nikkassī (Lambert, 1967, p.118 42) Who carries the stylus in her work, who does the accounting.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

245

In the same hymn, Gula herself is portrayed as possessing the stylus, an aspect, or perhaps a symbol, of the wisdom given to her by Ea: Ea ina apsû nēmeqšu igmura qan ṭuppu ina qātīšu išruka (Lambert, 1967, p.124 144–145) Ea in the Apsû fully endowed me with his wisdom, He gave me the stylus from his own hand. In l.54 the description appears to be used in relation to the power to ordain destinies (išâm šīmassun, “(s)he decrees their destinies”, l.55), where the subject of the verb išâm is lost, but seems likely to be the goddess. In tradition, divine determination of destinies took place in Duku. The cosmic location of ll.54–55 is surely Duku, recalling l.51 šubassa du6-kù, “Duku is her abode”. ši-mat-su-[un] is Lambert’s restoration. The resultant form šīmassun, “their destinies”, is one of the very few examples of the use of the pronominal suffix in apocopated form in this composition (cf l.24′). The shortened form is a feature of the “hymnisch-epische Dialekt” (von Soden, 1931, 1933a; Groneberg, 1972), the “hymno-epic dialect” or “hymno-epic idiom”, and is an archaism (so, Lambert, 1959–1960, p.49). For more recent discussion of this idiom and the forms used in it, see Groneberg (1978–1979, 1985), Hess (2010, pp.102–104), Kouwenberg (2010, pp.14–15) and Lambert (2013, pp.34–44). This element of high literary style frequently occurs at the end of the poetic line in Standard Babylonian poetry, as here, perhaps conditioned by rhythmic considerations. 56–57 ⸢lam⸣-d[a-at], “she is learned”, is Lambert’s proposed restoration of the last partly legible signs of K 232 obverse. Both Martin (1900, p.98 40) and Mullo-Weir (1929, p.13 40) similarly read lam da. If correct, an association with Ea, the god of wisdom, may underlie the passage from l.50 (and perhaps, even earlier, from l.43, where nagbu, the subterranean deep which is Ea’s realm, is mentioned). 1′–7′ Only a part of the first seven lines is preserved where the text resumes. Part only of the first two(?) signs in l.2′ and of the first sign in ll.3′–7′ is preserved, too little for identification. The first sign in ll.4′–6′, and perhaps also in l.7′, may be the same sign, and perhaps the lines commenced in the same way. There is room in the break before the preserved text for three or four signs. The last half of each line is missing. ll.1′–7′ appear to contain rather different material from the obverse. l.6′ unambiguously refers to a pastoral setting. Although very fragmentary, the adjacent lines, taken together, also seem to suggest an agricultural or pastoral context in which the text can be understood. A pastoral theme is not entirely alien to the healing goddess, as evidenced by the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi. This hymn contains agricultural motifs: the passage describing Gula in her identity as the goddess Nanše

246

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

is devoted to the deity’s role in relation to crops and fields (Lambert, 1967, p.118 35–43). Here Nanše is associated with the ploughing of the fields, culminating in a description of the goddess which contains some obscure terminology, evidently pertaining to cultivation: bēlet quppi zēri epinni ḫarbu kakki u rēdî (Lambert, 1967, p.118 40) Lady of the basket, the seed, the seed plough, the …..-plough(?) and the lead ox(?) The equation of Gula with Nanše is unexpected, perhaps arising through the equation of Nanše’s brother Ningirsu with Ninurta, both named as the healing goddess’ spouse in the hymn, as Foster (2005, p.585 n.1) speculated. The composer of that hymn evidently saw no difficulty in the alignment of these goddesses and their function. Consequently, a pastoral setting would not appear to be out of place in this Gula hymn. More generally, the reverse of Ms. A contains much material that is thematically related to the content of the obverse; there seems no reason to suppose that the reverse of K 232+ is not a continuation of the composition. 1′ The alternate restorations [gi-g]u-né-e and [še-g]u-né-e were suggested by Lambert. Both are Sumerian loan-words, here evidently written syllabically. gigunû, “raised temple”, is attested from the Old Babylonian period in both historical and literary texts (see CAD G 67–70). It refers to a religious structure, and hence might be appropriate to a hymn or prayer. šegunû is a much rarer word. Outside lexical texts, it is principally attested in the protases of omens in meteorological and astrological omen series, where it denotes some cereal crop (see CAD Š/II 260–261). In the lexical context, it appears in a list of barley crops in the Nippur forerunner to the series Urra XXIII–XXIV (MSL XI 124 Section 11:29). In the ancient commentary to the omen series šumma izbu, šegunû is equated with ṣaḫḫaru, a late term which is understood as some grain or minor crop (Izbu Commentary 559; ed. Leichty, 1970). In l.5′ še-gu- can be read, but the next sign is unclear. Nevertheless, this perhaps supports a reading of [šeg]unê in l.1′ in preference to [gig]unê. Either reading could be a genitive singular, or, in the case of gigunê, an accusative or genitive plural. šegunû does not appear to be certainly attested in the plural. 2′ Lambert tentatively restored the broken divine name as dnin-ši-k[ù], a name or epithet of Ea (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.145 niššīku and p.408 (there read Nin-igi-kù), Cavigneaux and Krebernik, 1998–2001h Niššīku, CAD N/II 282–283 niššīku, and the explanation given by Lambert and Millard, 1969, pp.148–149). In Standard Babylonian literature, dnin-ši-kù occurs in conjunction with the divine name, supporting Lambert and Millard’s view (op.cit., p.148) that dnin-ši-kù is simply another writing of niššīku (perhaps meaning “prince”):

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

247

d

nin-ši-kù Ea ittīšunu tamīma (Gilgameš XI 19; ed. George, 2003) With them Prince Ea was likewise on oath

Hence, if correctly restored, dnin-ši-k[ù] was perhaps followed by dé-a. The question arises whether a reference to Ea, if indeed correct, tells against the conclusion that the passage ll.1′–7′ has a pastoral context. In Sumerian tradition, Ea’s counterpart, Enki, had a role in making the Mesopotamian land fertile, as recounted in the composition now known as Enki and Ninḫursanga (ed. Attinger, 1984). In Akkadian tradition, Ea’s role in the creation and protection of humanity has its clearest expression in the Old Babylonian Atram-ḫasīs poem; his association with agriculture is less clear than Enki’s. 3′ The impression that ll.1′–7′ set a pastoral context seems to be reinforced by erṣe-ta. In Standard Babylonian compositions, erṣetu, “earth”, commonly has a cosmic meaning and qaqqaru is the more common term for the ground itself. erṣetu too also means earth, soil or ground (CAD E 312–313). It is plausible that this is the sense intended here. er-ṣe-ta is the only example of the syllabic writing of erṣetu in the preserved text of K 232+. Elsewhere it is written KI, with the phonetic complement tim (ll.5, 10, 18, 22, 24, 34, 37 and 45). In all but ll. 34, 37 and 45, kitim is paired with an (šamû, “heaven”), also written with a phonetic complement; in l.45 an can be confidently restored. In all lines where an and ki appear together, a cosmic sense for erṣetu is clear. In ll.34 and 37 the word occurs in the phrase šāpikat kitim, “she who formed the earth”, referring to the formation of a part of the cosmos. l.34 also refers to the heavens, unusually written syllabically (šá-ma-mi) there. Were it not for the spelling šá-ma-mi in l.34, it would appear that wherever a cosmic meaning is intended, logographic writing is used by this scribe. This observation may inform l.3′, where it is clear that erṣeta is not preceded by any writing of šamû or šamāmū, (“heavens”), the usual order where heaven and earth are mentioned together (but see l.34, where the usual order is reversed). Perhaps the syllabic writing serves to confirm that erṣetu is to be understood here to refer to the ground itself. 4′ [m]u-sa-re-e (Lambert’s restoration) seems secure. In light of l.6′, musarû is understood as a garden (CAD M/II 233 musarû B), rather than the identical, more common word (CAD M/II 232–233 musarû A) which pertains to inscriptions, particularly royal inscriptions. But for the overall context, musarû A, “(royal) inscription”, might otherwise be suggested by the next sign, which appears to be lug[al], “king”. Lambert’s unpublished papers indicate that he thought lugal (šarri, “of the king”) unsatisfactory, proposing luga[l-u/ú-ti] (šarrūti, “of kingship”), or, rather differently, ša[r-ra-ti], “of the queen”. Mullo-Weir (1929, p.13 3) too read the broken sign ŠA[R]. ša[r-ra-ti], “of the queen”, is attractive in the context of this

248

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

composition, perhaps referring to the goddess, but the traces better support lugal. šarratu, “queen”, does not appear to be written with lugal alone without the female determinative, which is absent here (see CAD Š/II 72–75). ša[rrati] is accordingly unconvincing, and the reading lug[al] is not certain. musarû, meaning “garden”, is attested in lexical and bilingual texts, as well as in literary and historical compositions and in the incantation series Šurpu: ina musarê la innerrišu (Šurpu V–VI 62; ed. Reiner, 1958) (this garlic) which will not be planted in a garden 6′ The combination of rîtu and mašqītu, “pasture” and “watering place”, is well attested (see CAD R 390 rītu, M/I 383). The phrase was restored by Mullo-Weir (1929, p.13 5) who proposed [ri-i]-ta, reflecting the long first vowel. Mullo-Weir supposed that l.6′ perhaps commenced with feminine participle; the accusative forms suggest that a finite verb is lost. 7′ The only preserved word, napišti, “of life”, suggests that an expression of lifegiving qualities drew the passage to a conclusion. 8′–51′ Notwithstanding a number of obscurities, ll.8′–51′ evidently continue the theme of praise to a goddess, whose name is unfortunately missing, but whose identity as the healing goddess is unambiguously confirmed in ll.26′–31′. Thus the unity of obverse and reverse of Ms. A as a single composition is put beyond doubt. Although a substantial part of ll.10′–23′ is preserved, the loss of the end of each line severely hampers understanding. They appear to reflect a ritual context. The praise of the deity is clearly in evidence once again from l.24′. The text becomes fragmentary at l.33′ but it seems reasonably certain that this theme continued. When, at l.51′, the duplicate Ms. d becomes available to supply the text with which the reverse of K 232+ would have concluded, the composition is devoted to the goddess’ praise. The poetic structure of ll.8′–23′ is difficult to discern. Where the composition turns to the praise of the goddess at l.24′, each line is a complete unit of sense. Although some patterns can be observed (notably the stative forms in ll.30′–34′), no regular structure is evident. 8′ The epithet bānīt napḫari, “creatress of everything”, points to the conclusion that AN, with which l.8′ commences, is a divine determinative, and that a goddess’ name is missing. Her identification as the healing goddess is assured by l.24′ff. The missing name cannot be Ninisinna, for there is room for only two signs. The restoration d[gu-la] is proposed here, with some confidence, supported by lexical

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

249

equivalences implicit in the epithet bānīt napḫari. The attribution to the goddess of powers as universal creatress parallels the theme of ll.5–6. [§6.1] 9′ The generous spacing of the signs suggests that only a few signs are missing from l.9′. Nevertheless, l.9′ remains as elusive as it was to Martin (1900, p.104 8) “Ud…. šad du šad” and Mullo-Weir (1929, p.14 8) “….ŠAD DA LAT(?)”. 10′ Although perhaps only a few signs are lost, these are critical to understanding this obscure line. ḫé-nun is clear; ⸢šu⸣ is understood here as a phonetic complement, confirming the reading of the logogram ḫé-nun as nuḫšu, “abundance”. The syntactical position of nuḫšu in the line is unclear. Similarly, both the syntactical position of tukkan purussê(eš-bar) and its meaning are uncertain (a literal translation, “bag of decisions”, is offered). tukkanu, the leather bag used by the diviner (bārû) in the Standard Babylonian divination rituals edited by Zimmern (1901), is also attested as a receptacle for precious objects (CAD T 456). The special association of the tukkanu with the healing goddess is evidenced in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi. It is the container for the goddess’ own precious objects: her healing spells and incantations. As Ninigizibarra, the goddess dons the bag: ezḫēku tukannu ša šipāt balāṭu (Lambert, 1967, p.120 81) I strap on the leather bag with its spells for good health The section of this hymn which identifies Gula with Ninlil makes it clear that the bag is one of the essential tools of her practice as physician: ezḫēku tukannu naglabu quppû sadrāk (Lambert, 1967, p.128 180; revised CAD T 457) I regularly strap on the leather bag, the scalpel (and) the knife It is by no means clear that the same association is in play in l.10′. The phrase tukkan purussê, although not apparently attested elsewhere, suggests the world of divination, a sphere with which the healing goddess is also connected. In the Standard Babylonian rituals of the diviner, Gula is described as bēlet purussê(ešbar), the “mistress of the decision” revealed in the extispicy (Zimmern, 1901, 75:38; 98:6). In l.30′ of this composition, the healing goddess is described as a diviner (bārât). The meaning of l.10′ is elusive. 11′ Express references to equipment and materials used in ritual preparations here and in ll.12′ and 17′ seem to make it clear that, at l.11′, the composition refers to ritual procedures in which the goddess plays a decisive role (l.18′). The passage seems to be an exposition of the powers of the goddess in which the tools of a ritual and its setting are described. The deployment of such practical details in a devotional

250

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

composition is amply illustrated in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967, p.118 35–43, p.120 79–89). Martin (1900, p.106) understood nu-um-mu-ra as an imperative (“fais briller”, “make bright!”) but this is not the expected form of the singular (nummir) or the plural imperative (nummirā). nu-um-mu-ra qutrinni appears to be a genitive construction, with the D stem infinitive of namāru, nummurum, “to make bright, ignite”, as the governing noun; the phrase nummura qutrinni is understood as “the kindling of the censer”. The unexpected final vowel -a in nummura seems best explained as a redundant final vowel (for examples of such writing in the Kuyunjik manuscripts of the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic, see George, 2003, p.442). Mullo-Weir restored the line thus: … nummura qutrinni šu-[uṣ-ṣu-na ti-di-e], “…how to fire(?), how to cause incense to be smelt she knoweth” (Mullo-Weir, 1929, p.14 10). The goddess is the subject of very many lines in this composition. However, Mullo-Weir’s proposal seems contrived and is unconvincing. 12′ rikis šamni(ì-giš) evidently describes the preparation or other treatment of oil (ìgiš), in the place appropriate for performance of nīš qāti, the “lifting of the hand”, the ritual performance of prayer. riksu is regularly attested to refer to ritual preparations (see CAD R 351–352), most commonly in ritual instructions themselves. Mullo-Weir (1929, p.15 12) read the last partly preserved sign as t[u-. His restoration of the rest of the line was based on a misreading of what preceded and is generally unsafe. His reading t[u- is reflected in CAD R 352; too little remains for this to be secure. 13′–14′ These lines were omitted from ABRT II 17. They were included in the copies made by Martin (1900, p.143f 11bis and 11ter) and by Mullo-Weir (1929, p.14 12– 13). 13′ niṣirtu is a term for some secret thing, often knowledge or lore (see CAD N/II 276–277). In the Standard Babylonian composition which tells how Enmeduranki, the legendary king of Sippar, was first taught divination, divination by means of oil and water is described as niṣirti Anim Enlil u Ea, “a mystery of Anu, Enlil and Ea” (Lambert, 1998b, p.148 13). The identical phrase in l.13′ may be coincidence, but a number of allusions in the following lines suggest a divination context. However, this is not the only possible interpretation. Less commonly, niṣirtu is attested to refer to a secluded or private location (CAD N/II 276). The repetition of ašar (“the place where…”) in ll.12′ and 14′ might suggest that l.13′ refers to some secret place of the great gods. The sense is elusive without the rest of the line.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

251

14′ The supposition that a divination ritual is the context in which the goddess’ intervention is sought is supported by the mention of the divination gods Šamaš (dutu) and Adad (diškur), together with the moon-god Sîn (d30), a god also associated with divination (see the Old Babylonian nocturnal prayer presented by Wilcke, 2007, pp.228–229). Lambert too evidently understood this passage to have a divinatory context: to complete l.14′, he proposed i-šak-[ka-nu ṣa-ad-di]. Thus restored, l.14′ might be translated “Where Sîn, Šamaš and Adad place (their) signs”. Whereas Lambert’s i-šak-[ka-nu], “they place”, looks reasonably secure, ṣaddu, “sign”, is a relatively uncommon word, which appears to be used principally of ominous signs of heavenly bodies, and typically attested with kullumu(m) or its Š stem šuklumu(m), “to show, reveal”, rather than šakānu(m), “to place” (CAD Ṣ 56–57, K 523–525). There is Old Babylonian evidence for the use of kittam šakānum, “to place truth”, to express the revelation of divine will in divination (so, the extispicy prayer edited by Goetze, 1968, p.25 12–13; and see further George, 2013, pp. 1–5). Accordingly, kitta, “truth”, seems preferable to ṣaddi, reflecting a well-attested expression. 15′ The logographic writing (an) masks the form of ilu, “god”; without the plural marker meš, it is probably a singular form. Formally, iš-ta-ri could be a plural noun, “goddesses”, but the parallelism of an and iš-ta-ri suggests that personal god and goddess are referred to. The final vowel of iš-ta-ri might mark a first person singular possessive suffix (so, ištarī, “my goddess”). However, nowhere in the preserved text of this composition is there any personal reference to the supplicant. The form seems best understood as displaying a final -i for the nominative singular (similarly, l.24 um-mi). 16′ It seems very likely that the subject of l.16′ is Marduk, lord of wisdom, (dmarūduk(amar-utu) bēl(en) nēmeqi), but what he is doing is much less certain. The polyvalence of the KUR sign gives the potential for a number of different readings for the partly preserved verbal form i-KUR-DA-[x]. Verbs that occur in lexical contexts or in restricted forms only, or whose meaning is not understood (such as sadāḫu, for example), have been discounted; others, such as madādu, “to measure” or “to avoid”, can be ruled out on grounds of sense. The theme vowel apparent from -DA also limits the range of possibilities, if it is to be taken seriously. šadāḫu, “to walk”, is used in an inscription from Nabonidus’ reign to describe Bunēne, preceding the sun god Šamaš (Schaudig, 2001, p.387 2.9.1 ii 33–35) and might make good sense here, but is ruled out by its i/i theme vowel. Martin (1900, p.104 13) tentatively read i-šaṭ-ṭa-[ru]. Although [ru] is doubtful, išaṭṭar, “he writes”, is a possible reading. However, the sense is not obviously appropriate, and writing is more closely connected with Nabû than Marduk. Lambert’s reading and restoration i-šad-da-[ad], “he pulls”, is preferred. šadādu, “to pull, draw”, requires a direct object; in context,

252

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

the object of šadādu might be expected to be nīru, “yoke”, giving a common figurative expression, sometimes said of a deity’s influence (CAD N/II 262). Lambert tentatively suggested nīrša, “her yoke”, to complete l.16′. There is not a great deal of room to accommodate this. nīrša is also doubtful in this context. Notwithstanding the topos of devotional compositions in which the subject deity is expressed to be supreme (a feature illustrated in this composition in ll.7–16, 52′–65′ and elsewhere), it nevertheless seems improbable that Marduk, the supreme god of the Enūma eliš narrative, could be portrayed as drawing another’s yoke. If correct, it would be an extraordinary image. 17′ With its references to the paraphernalia and media of the diviner, l.17′ securely refers to the world of divination. Both Martin and Mullo-Weir so understood the line, translating uṣurāt iṣṣurī(mušenm[eš ...]) as “les augures des oiseaux” (Martin, 1900, p.105 14) and “bird-omens” (Mullo-Weir, 1929, p.16 6, explaining his translation at p.18 31 as “Lit. ‘designations made by birds’”). Birds were indeed one of the many divinatory media used. Portents might be observed through observation of their movements, or inspection of their bodies and internal organs. uṣurtu can refer to lines or patterns (on the skin, liver and the like); M. Worthington (January 2018, private communication) has suggested that uṣurāt iṣṣurī refers to the flight paths of birds, an observable phenomenon. However, the phrase uṣurāt iṣṣurī does not occur in the omen literature, as might be expected. More commonly, uṣurtu is regularly used to refer to divine intentions. In a šu-íla prayer, Enlil is bēl šīmāti u uṣurāti, “lord of destinies and designs” (KAR 68 15 and duplicates; ed. Ebeling, 1953a, pp.20–23; and see further Seux, 1976, p.188 footnote 23). uṣurāt iṣṣurī may be taken to refer to divine plans communicated through birds, in the divinatory context. The obscure phrase combines words evidently selected for their similarity of sound. The mention of lipû(ì-udu), “fat” or “tallow”, is more difficult. Unlike the other listed items (qutrinnu, “incense”, and šīr(uzu) immeri(udu), “flesh of a sheep”), it is not a common divination medium. The observation of the presence of fat is a feature of omen compendia (for example, see CAD L 302) and l.17′ perhaps refers to this aspect. 18′ The use of the language of a law court in descriptions of a deity’s power to determine the petitioner’s position is a topos of Babylonian prayer. The generous spacing of the signs which write ina dīni u purussê(eš-bar) maḫarša, “in the proceedings and decision before her”, suggests that very little is missing at the end of the line. Possible restoration of l.18′ is discussed in the note to l.20′. 19′ This line is cited in CAD under padānu, “way”, salīmu, “peace, amity”, and ṭūdu, “path”. The citation under padānu (CAD P 3) reflects Mullo-Weir’s reading

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

253

ašar salīme ša ḫarrānu u padānu šutē[šurā], “In the place of peace, where way and path are made straight” (Mullo-Weir, 1929, p.16 18). The citations under salīmu and ṭūdu are closely similar, save that Mullo-Weir’s reading ḫarrānu is corrected to ṭūdu, (as read by Martin, 1900, p.104 16), and the verbal form is restored as šutē[šurū] (CAD Ṭ 121). In all these readings, šá is understood as the determinative pronoun ša, introducing a relative clause. ašar salīme is treated as a noun phrase, in apposition to what follows: “a peaceful place, where ….” (CAD Ṭ 121); or, as Mullo-Weir understood it, with a prepositional meaning inferred: “in the peaceful place, where ….” (CAD S 101), “in the place of reconciliation, where ….” (CAD P 3). Lambert understood šá as the 3rd person singular feminine possessive suffix, “her”, reading sa-li-me-šá “her amity”, hence “reconciliation with her”. This is adopted here. ašar is understood as a conjunction introducing a verbless sentence. The reading ašar salīmēša, “where (there is) reconciliation with her”, results in a selfcontained line, as is typical of the composition. The wish to be reconciled with the gods and enjoy their grace is a commonplace in Babylonian prayer. A šu-íla prayer to Ištar illustrates: uqe’’i rēški līšira salīmu (BMS 8:8; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.195 1:27) I have waited for you, may reconciliation come to me Other examples are given by Mayer (1976, pp.242–243); and see also CAD S 102– 103 salīmu. Similarly, the image of the path made straight for the worshipper expressed in l.19′ is a frequent topos. The healing goddess Bau in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi declares: ana muštē’û alkakātīya ušeššer urḫu (Lambert, 1967, p.122 108) For the one who seeks my ways, I make the path straight The image is regularly expressed by ešēru, “to be straight”, (see CAD E 352–360). The restoration of the Št1 stative form šutē[šurū] or its feminine form šutē[šurā], expressing the passive (AHw 255b) “are made straight”, is compelling. padānu and ṭūdu are both attested as both masculine and feminine nouns and either a masculine or a feminine stative form is possible. 20′ The idiom uznī petû, (literally, “to open the ears”), can be translated as “to inform” (so CAD P 352–353). A more literal translation is given here, to suggest the deity’s power to make her supplicants receptive to her. The verb ušpatti, “she opens”, is the rare ŠD stem of petû in the 3rd person singular of the durative, the vocalic ending -i (rather than -a) of the durative and the preterite being the same in this period (see GAG Verbalparadigma 32 note 26 “jB Form wie Prt.”). Verbal forms in the rare ŠD stem are a characteristic feature of the “hymno-epic” style (see note on l.43, where a ŠD form is also used). However, the ŠD stem is attested elsewhere with

254

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

uznu, “ear”, in the same idiomatic use (see CAD P 353). The great Standard Babylonian hymn to Šamaš contains a line in which the expression is used: ša ad[nā]ti Šamaš uz[nī]šina tušpatti (Šamaš hymn 149; ed. Lambert, 1960, pp.121–138) To humankind, Šamaš, you give revelation The idiom is repeated at l.153 of the same hymn, in a couplet that contains the two motifs deployed here in1.20′: ana šār erbetti arkassina taparras kal siḫip dadmē u[z]nīšina tušpatti (Šamaš hymn 152–153; ed. Lambert, 1960, pp.121–138) To all four points of the compass, you determine their future As to all of the inhabited world, you give revelation In ll.149–152 of the Šamaš hymn, the possessive suffixes resume the feminine plural noun adnātu, “people”. In 1.20′ uznīšina, “their ears”, and arkassina, “their future”, exhibit a feminine plural possessive suffix (-ši-na, -si-na), although no feminine plural noun appears in the preserved text. It is not usual to infer some wholly unexpressed feminine form; an indefinite subject or object is usually expressed by a third person masculine plural form, not a feminine form. l.18′ seems the line most likely to have contained an appropriate feminine plural noun to which uznīšina and arkassina refer. The resumptive possessive pronouns of l.20 perhaps point to the restoration in l.18′ of a form of nišū, “people”, written unmeš (as appears in l.27′) in the available space, with a verbal form of which unmeš is the subject or object. MulloWeir (1929, p.16 19) tentatively proposed i-[par-ra-as], “she determines”, to complete l.20′. The restoration is supported by ll.152–153 of the Šamaš hymn and is compelling. 21′ This line presents a number of difficulties. The first three signs of the line appear to be i-nu-šu. inūšu is an adverb meaning “at that time, then” attested in independent use, but more commonly found in main clauses which follow some subordinate temporal expression (see CAD I–J 162–163, AHw 384b). This sense is not obvious here. Lambert thought that the signs perhaps read i-nu la. The absence of any subordination marker in the preserved text requires that the phrase inu lā, “when not”, introduces a verbless construction, in normal grammar. inu lā libbiša īteliṣ (“when it is not her desire, she rejoiced”) gives no convincing sense. A third possibility is that šu was written in error for ma, and inūma, “when”, was intended, as proposed by Martin (1900, p.104 18). Again, a verbless subclause, inūma libbiša, “when it is her desire”, would follow, which gives better sense than the negated reading inu lā libbiša. In each reading, šàbi-šá (libbiša, “her desire”) is the subject.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

255

The vowel implied by the phonetic complement bi is not the expected vowel before the possessive suffix when, grammatically, a nominative case is required: libbaša is the expected form, not libbiša. For examples of the “wrong” case vowels before pronominal suffixes in manuscripts of the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic from Kuyunjik, like this Ms. A, see George (2003, p.440). i-te-liṣ is not certain. Two small verticals follow the -i sign; the sign may be ia, though not well written, or ZÍ, which makes no sense. The form īteliṣ, “she rejoiced”, is suggested by its proximity to libbiša (šàbi-šá). elēṣu, “to swell”, and libbu are attested together as an expression in literature from the Old Babylonian period onwards. The phrase īliṣ libbašūma (“his heart rejoiced”) occurs in Old Babylonian Gilgameš texts to describe the drunken Enkidu (Pennsylvania tablet iii 104; ed. George, 2003, p.176) and Gilgameš’ delight in the favourable interpretation of his first dream on his way to the Cedar Forest (OB Schøyen2 24; ed. George, 2003, p.234). In Enūma eliš II 154 īliṣ libbašūma describes Marduk’s reaction to Anšar’s acceptance of his offer to challenge Tiāmat. Martin (1900, p.105 18) understood this line similarly, taking the words together (“Lorsque son coeur se réjouit”). The lack of the subordinating marker -u on īteliṣ tells against Martin’s interpretation. Martin’s assessment of the line as “Ligne irréductible” remains true. The several difficulties indicate that l.21′ is corrupt. 22′ The restoration of the final word as têrēti, “instructions”, was proposed by both Martin (1900, p.104 19) and Mullo-Weir (1929, p.16 21). The final syllable is restored here as -tu, (te-r[e-(e)-tu]), having regard to the space available and the writing te-[re-t]u-šá in l.50. uṣurtu and têrtu are terms commonly found in extispicy texts and scholars have understood l.22′ in that light. In CAD D 44–45 this line is translated “the signs (on the liver) are confused, the forecasts are mixed up”. Similarly, têrēti was translated “omens” by Mullo-Weir (1929, p.16 21) and in CAD A/I 28. šutābulā is the Št2 stative form of (w)abālu, “to bear”, in 3rd person feminine plural. In the context of the observation of ominous signs this Št2 verb is attested to mean that the positive and negative indicators are equivocal (see CAD A/I 28, where this line is cited). It is so understood here, and uṣurtu and têrtu are understood in the translation presented as “divine intention” and “instruction”. The vocabulary used in l.22′ seems to confirm, as suggested by ll.14′ and 18′, that divination is the ritual context of this passage. 23′ Mullo-Weir (1929, p.16 22) appears to have understood itmû as a G stem perfect form of awûm/amû, “to speak”, introducing a passage of direct speech. Although formally possible, the G stem of awûm is otherwise attested only in Old Assyrian; in later periods only the Gt and Št stems occur (see GAG § 106 x). itmû is better understood as a G stem preterite of tamû, “to swear”. Thus identified, its object ta-

256

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

mit must be its cognate noun tamītu, an oath, not tāmītu, an oracular enquiry, which the context might otherwise suggest. tamīt itmû in this line is so understood at CAD T 123. Grammatically, the verb forms a relative clause. Whilst the form could be 3rd person singular with the subordination marker -u, the 3rd masculine plural form seems more likely, perhaps expressing an indefinite subject (“the oath people swore”). ta’’ittu, “information, report”, is an unusual word, attested from the Old Assyrian period onwards and more commonly found in letters. It is a noun of the taprīst pattern (GAG § 56 l), related to the meaning of the D stem of na’ādu, “to draw attention to” (see GAG § 107 r and CAD N/II 5). ta’’ittu may have been selected for its sound, echoing tamīt itmû. Its meaning in l.23′ is unclear, owing to the loss of the end of l.23′. Mullo-Weir understood the last complete sign ḫal as a logogram, restoring ḫalḫ[al], which he read pir[ištum], “secret”. The equivalence of ḫal and pirištu is attested in the lexical series Ea (Ea II 269 MSL XIV p.258) and elsewhere. Although pirištu in a plural form is perhaps written ḫalmeš in the composition known as the Marduk prophecy (Borger, 1971a, p.5 5), the usual logogram for pirištu is ad-ḫal. Logographic writing is rare in Ms. A, save for common usages. pirištu is written syllabically in ll. 26 and 50, and probably also in l.15. The suggestion yields no clear sense and is unconvincing. No obvious restoration presents itself. 24′–33′ Ten largely complete lines follow, of which ll.25′–31′ are wholly preserved. A conventional image is given of a thoughtful but all-powerful deity (l.24′), who absolves transgressions (l.25′) and is attentive to her supplicants’ prayers (ll.26′–27′), before the composition turns to the deity’s special role as goddess of healing. 24′ muštālat (also in l.31′) is the 3rd person feminine singular stative form of the Gt stem participle of šâlu (“to ask”), meaning “one who deliberates”. The epithet is applied to gods, particularly Marduk (see further Tallqvist, 1938, pp. 10, 49, 171 and 220; CAD M/II 283–284). In the incantation series Šurpu, the patient’s personal goddess is described as dištaršu muštāltumi, “His goddess, full of concern” (Šurpu V–VI 14; ed. Reiner, 1958). It appears to be attested to describe a specific goddess in this l.24′ alone. Craig, Martin and Mullo-Weir copied the last sign they could read in this line as ŠU (l.21 in ABRT II 17, and Martin 1900, p.143f; Mullo-Weir, 1929, p.15 23). Mullo-Weir understood this as kat, reading ma-la-kat. This reading is reflected in each citation of this line in CAD (M/I 166 malkatu, M/I 345 maṣû, M/II muštālu), where it is understood as “she is queen/queenly”. The final sign of l.24′ can be seen to be uš and, from the traces, Lambert proposed the reading ma-la ⸢libbu⸣-uš, “as she chooses”, adopted here. Used with the verb maṣû, “to correspond, suffice”, the phrase is an established expression from the Old Babylonian period onwards. In the Erra narrative, Erra instructs Išum:

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

257

miṣi mala libbuk (Erra IV 138; ed. Cagni, 1970) Do as you wish! The ending -uš exhibited in the form libbuš is a feature of high literary “hymno-epic” style which is otherwise largely absent from this composition (see l.55, also in restored text). For discussion of the ending -uš, see Lambert (2013, pp.40–41); for the literature on this literary style, see note on l.55. 25′ In l.25′ (and again in ll.27′–29′) the normal prose word order is inverted and the verb forefronted, to striking effect (for word order in hymnic literature, see Groneberg, 1987, pp.175–179; in epic texts, see Hecker, 1974, pp.120–138). uštapêl is from the Št2 stem of šupêlu, “to overturn”, noted in CAD Š/III 322, citing this line, as the “reciprocal (?) -t- form”. In Neo-Babylonian, uštepêl is found in the durative with an active meaning (GAG § 109 k; AHw 1280a, Gt2). uštapêl, “she removes”, is so understood here. The -ta- infix perhaps shows Assyrian influence (GAG § 109 k). gillassina, “their wrongdoings”, exhibits the feminine plural possessive suffix, as in l.20′ (uznīšina, arkassina, “their ears, their future”), and clearly refers to the same subject. paṭāru, “to loosen”, is commonly used with arnu, “guilt”, to express a plea for forgiveness (see CAD A/II 297; P 298–299 for numerous examples). The topos is illustrated in the great Standard Babylonian prayer to Ištar in language closely similar to l.25′: puṭrī arnī šērtī gillatī u ḫiṭītī (STC II pl.82 81; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.46) Absolve my misdeed, my offence, my wrongdoing and my crime 26′ The translation of bēlet re-e-ši utninni as “The lady of joy (and) prayer” is essentially the same as Mullo-Weir’s (1929, p.16 25) and follows CAD R 381 rîšu, “exultation”, where this line is cited amongst only three examples. Lambert referred to this line in discussion of the apparently similar expression in a Standard Babylonian fable: re-e-ši unnini ša Nisaba (Nisaba and Wheat r. IV 21; ed. Lambert, 1960, pp.168–175). Lambert argued (op.cit., p.331) that “A homophonous root r’š must exist, an approximate synonym of utninnu (“prayer”)”. He suggested this might occur in the lexical series Nabnītu, where níg.me.gar is equated with ri-šá-a-tu (Nabnītu IVa 232 MSL XVI p.85), since níg.me.gar is also equated with qa-a-lum (Nabnītu III 173 MSL XVI p.65), which Lambert rendered “pay attention”. On this basis, he translated the phrase re-e-ši unnini ša Nisaba, “Attention and prayer to Nisaba”. Lambert’s suggestion that re-e-ši is in some sense synonymous with utninnu is appealing in view of their juxtaposition in this line, but it is conjectural and consequently is not adopted here. ḫanṭat is the 3rd feminine singular G stem stative of ḫamāṭu, “to be quick”, the form exhibiting the consonantal combination nṭ in place of mṭ (see GAG § 31 f).

258

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

27′ teslītu, “appeal”, regularly occurs with šemû, “to hear”, to express a deity’s acceptance of a petitioner’s prayer (see CAD Š/II 284–285; T 370). teslīt nišī(un)meš, “the prayers of the people”, here evidently refers to pleas for good health, as the composition turns to the goddess’ special function as the goddess of healing. 28′ tê ša šupšuḫi, “the incantation for relieving”, as read by both Martin (1900, p.104 25) and Mullo-Weir (1929, p.16 27), is quite clear, and was also read by Lambert. The reading given in CAD T 441 tû, tê ša nablaṭi (“incantation for healing”), cited there as collated by Lambert, is not correct. Like the goddess in this composition, the healing goddess in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, as Ninigizibarra, is equipped with šipat balāṭi, “spells for good health”, carried in her leather bag (Lambert, 1967, p.120 81). šipat balāṭi(ti-la) and closely similar expressions occur widely elsewhere in Standard Babylonian compositions pertaining to healing, notably in hymns or prayers to Marduk (see further CAD Š/III 87). This common phrase encapsulates a functional description of the incantations deployed in the healing process. 29′ namrāṣu is understood by both CAD N/I 236 and AHw 728b as having only the general meaning of difficulty or hardship, rather than a specific meaning of ill-health, notwithstanding its derivation from marāṣu, “to fall ill”. paṭāru, “to release”, and riksu, “bond”, are attested together in relation to illness (see further CAD R 349). The express context of l.29′ is sickness, as is made plain in muruṣ tazbilti, translated here as “long illness”. namrāṣu perhaps means “sickness” here, as Mullo-Weir (1929, p.17 28) thought, translating namrāṣu as “disease”. The common root of namrāṣi and muruṣ, mrṣ, is made plain by their juxtaposition; both sense and sound are exploited in l.29′. tazbiltu is a noun of the taprīst pattern (GAG § 56 l), related to the meaning of the D stem of zabālu (“to carry”) which, applied to a patient or a disease, means “to linger” (CAD Z 4). In the written record at least, tazbiltu seems to be an uncommon word, attested in Old Babylonian extispicy contexts, apparently meaning “delay” or “prolongation” (CAD T 302). It appears to be otherwise found only in the expression muruṣ tazbilti used here and only twice elsewhere (CAD T 302; T 495 tuša). The protective curse formula of the Neo-Babylonian copy of a royal inscription from the thirtieth year of Aššurbanipal’s reign contains an imprecation to Gula to inflict malady: ina muruṣ tazbilti napištašu liqti (Aššurbanipal B; ed. Nassouhi, 1924–1925, p.104) May his life come to an end through a prolonged illness A Standard Babylonian prayer to Marduk contains the same phrase: ša ina muruṣ (var. murṣu) tazbilti (var. tazbiltum) iqtû izūbu (Oshima, 2011, p. 233 24′)

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

259

He who suffered from a prolonged illness (and) ebbed away These contexts perhaps suggest that muruṣ tazbilti may have been a common expression in the spoken language. The combination rikis namrāṣi muruṣ tazbilti used in l.29′ bears some similarity to the phrase used to explain the title of the prognostic and diagnostic omen series sa.gig (sakikku) given by an ancient commentary: sakikku (sa-gig) rikis murṣu (sakikku I commentary; ed. George, 1991, pp.152– 153) Sakikku: a knot of illness Similar expressions occur in other prognostic omen commentaries and elsewhere (see further George, 1991, p.162). Noting that what a “knot of illness” signified is not clear, George suggested that it might be the physical manifestation of a disease, which evidently binds the illness to the sufferer. Conceivably this is what is meant in l.29′. 30′ apkallat, a loan word from the Sumerian abgal, “sage”, is the 3rd feminine singular stative, “she is a wise woman”. It is an epithet of the healing goddess in the second of two prayers set out in a ritual context in a first millennium text from Sultantepe, where the (unnamed) goddess is described as apkallat ilānī, “the gods’ wise woman” (STT I 73 23; ed. Reiner, 1960, p.32). The first prayer appears to have contained parallel text (Reiner, 1960, p.26; Mayer, 1976, pp.387–388, lists these prayers as Gula 6). The epithet appears to occur elsewhere only in a prayer to Damkina, described as apkallat Anunnakī, “the Anunnaki’s wise woman” (BMS 4:13; ed. Ebeling, 1953a, p.28). Likewise, bārât is the stative form of bārītu, the feminine form of bārû, “diviner” (CAD B 112 and AHw 107b). muššipat repeats the epithet given to Ningirimma in l.30. AHw 1484a understood uššupu, (the D stem of (w)ašāpu(m)), as “durch Beschwörung heilen”, to “cure” by exorcism (CDA 436). It is similarly understood in CAD M/II 236 mussû, citing this line and translating muššipat as “an exorcist”, and in CAD U–W 406 wašāpu, where uššupu is rendered “to conjure” and muššipat “the conjurer”. The essential meaning of wašāpu is “to cast a spell” (see CAD U–W 406), reflected in the cognate noun šiptu, “spell”. muššipat, “one who weaves spells”, accordingly here seems to echo šipat balāṭi, “spells for good health”, (l.28′), reflecting the goddess’ special power to formulate healing spells. mussû (wussûm), “to identify, distinguish”, is regularly found in Standard Babylonian literature in the context of distinguishing between good and bad, truth and falsehood, as, for example, in the explanation of Marduk’s name Šazu: ša sarti u k[it]tum umtassâ ašruššu (Enūma eliš VII 40)

260

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

Who distinguished between falsehood and truth l.30′ is cited at CAD M/II 236 amongst other examples with this sense. Thus understood, it seems that mussât, “one who ascertains everything”, conveys the goddess’ ability both to ascertain all matters and to discern their merit. mussât is interpreted differently in AHw, citing this line, where mussât is identified as the D participle of esû III, a verb of uncertain meaning (AHw 250b and 1554b, where given as “bewirken?”). The corresponding entry in CDA 81 equates G and D stems and translates mussât kalama in this line as “(Gula) who brings everything to pass”. CAD E 338 esû A and B offers no translation for this verb. The meaning “to cause, bring about” attributed by AHw/CDA is based upon this present line and one other doubtful attestation only (KAR 128 r.14) and is conjectural. CAD’s interpretation is adopted here. l.30′ is notably similar in structure and content to the description of the healing goddess in her persona as Ninlil in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi: [a]sâku bārâku āšipāk ša ina a-a-re-e ḫīṭāku (Lambert, 1967, p.128 183) I am physician, I am diviner, I am exorcist, as to .... I examine 31′ sanāqu, “to supervise, control”, is attested as a characteristic of gods, rather than goddesses, sometimes in the sense of controlling conflict (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.149 and CAD M/II 137 mitḫurtu). Elsewhere it reflects a deity’s control of the universe, as in a piece of first millennium wisdom literature, where Nabû is termed sāniq kiššat šamê u erṣeti, “who controls all heaven and earth” (DT 1 53; ed. Lambert, 1960, pp. 112–115), or of the gods themselves (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.149 and CAD S 139). It has this latter meaning in a Neo-Assyrian inscription as an epithet of Tašmētu, Nabû’s consort, described as sāniqat Igīgī Anunnakī, “who controls the Igigi (and) the Anunnaki” (Falkner, 1952–1953, p.306 36). l.31′ contains the only other cited instance of sanāqu characterising a goddess. Unusually, no object is expressed. Here sāniqat expresses a general quality (“she is the one who controls”), consonant with the characteristics given in the remainder of the line. re-’-a-ta appears to be a rare example in this manuscript of a spelling with a redundant final vowel on this feminine stative rē’ât, “she shepherds”, writing CV for C. (Another example appears to occur in l.11′.) An alternative explanation is that in this Kuyunjik manuscript, the CV sign may be used to express VC, a feature of Neo-Assyrian writing (see Deller, 1962). It is thought that such spellings in the first millennium reflect the influence of Aramaic writing practice (see Gelb, 1963, pp.151–152; George, 2003, p.350). The image of a deity as a shepherd is a common topos (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.164–165 and CAD R 302, 309–310). When said of a goddess, it is Ištar to whom the image is usually applied. In the great Standard Babylonian prayer to her Ištar is bēlet šamê u erṣeti rē’ât nišî apâti, “Lady of heaven and earth, shepherdess of humankind” (STC II pl.77 27; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.43). muštālat, “she is thoughtful”,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

261

repeats the attribute with which l.24′ commenced. The unusual word may have been selected for its sound and rhythm; the repetition perhaps marks the end of the passage. 32′–33′ The severe damage to the remainder of Ms. A starts in l.32′. What remains suggests that ll.32′–33′ comprise a couplet of two syntactically parallel and balanced lines, made up of stative forms with contrasting meanings. 32′ se-k[e-rat] ⸢e-ni-na-at⸣ are Lambert’s restorations. The meaning of se-k[e-rat], if correct, is elusive. sekretu, usually understood to refer to a high-ranking, perhaps enclosed, woman (see CAD S 215–217), seems improbable here. An active verbal form seems required. sekēru, “to block”, (CAD S 210) is principally used of closing off watercourses. It does not appear to be attested with transferred meaning but, if a wider meaning could be understood, this would provide an appropriate counterpart to sākipat, “one who pushes aside”, a verb used for driving away evil demons and the like (see CAD S 72–73). The translation of sēkerat as “one who wards off” is put forward tentatively. ⸢e-ni-na-at⸣, though much damaged, is supported by the traces. enēnu has three separate entries in AHw 217 and four in CDA 73 and CAD E 162– 165. “To pray” and “to sin” can be discounted. “To grant favour” (CAD enēnu C; AHw enēnu I) is plainly appropriate to the context. However, the juxtaposition of ēninat and rēmēnât, “one who is merciful”, both supports Lambert’s restoration and strongly suggests that enēnu B (AHw enēnu II), “to punish”, is the intended sense. The ability of a deity to switch from punishment to mercy is a common theme in Mesopotamian tradition, reflected in the Sumerian personal name mer-šà-kúš, “angry (then) relenting” (see Lambert, 2013, p.480), and widely attested in Standard Babylonian literature. The clearest expression of the belief is found in the opening lines of the penitential poem ludlul bēl nēmeqi (Tablet I 1–36) and the concept underpins the whole of that composition (see Lambert, 1960; George and Al-Rawi, 1998; and, most recently, Oshima, 2014). The motif also occurs in the Standard Babylonian Hymn to the Queen of Nippur: agāga târa nakru[ṭu . . ] [m]amman ul ile’’i [. . . ] enēna rêma rummâ [. . . ] mamman ul ile’’i [. . . ] (Lambert, 1982, p.196 III 19–22) To become angry, relent, have mercy . . , No-one but she can . . . To punish, be compassionate, pardon . . , No-one but she can . . . enēna rêma in the quoted passage closely corresponds to ēninat rēmēnât.

262

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

33′ Six, or perhaps seven, signs are lost from the first part of l.33′. Mullo-Weir (1929, p.17 32) proposed mu-kal-[li-mat ittāti] “the revealer of signs”. However, the second sign is incomplete and KAL, though possible, is not secure. Where the text resumes, Mullo-Weir (1929, p.15 32) copied ZA BI, reading ṣa-bi-ta-at. The earlier copies, ABRT II 18 and Martin (1900, p.143f), suggest that ZA was then missing and BI broken. From collation, it is apparent that the two upper wedges of ZA remain and BI is largely intact. ṣābitat, “she who grasps”, seems secure, contrasting with mupaṭṭirat, “she who releases”, although the meaning is obscure. Mullo-Weir (1929, p.18 notes 37–38) understood the context as forgiveness and implied abbūtu (“fatherhood”) with ṣābitat, with the idiomatic meaning “to intercede” (CAD Ṣ 24). The evident contrast between ṣābitat and mupaṭṭirat is lost in such an interpretation. Both ṣabātu, “to seize”, and paṭāru, “to loosen”, commonly occur in the context of some affliction whose grasp can be released. The healing goddess was believed to have the power to inflict maladies as well as alleviate them, as is well evidenced in curse formulae. ṣābitat mupaṭṭirat perhaps reflects this belief. 34′–42′ The preserved final words of ll.34′–35′ nasḫurša, “her attention”, and šitūlša, “her deliberation”, indicate a couplet structure in which the goddess is further described. Mullo-Weir (1929, p.17 33) proposed [rēmēnitum ša ṭābu] nasḫurša: “The merciful, whose reconciliation is good”. Any restoration of l.34′ is speculative. Craig, Martin and Mullo-Weir all copied the penultimate sign of l.35′ as LAGAR. Although abraded, a further wedge is visible, suggesting the sign is not LAGAR, but DUL. The reading ši-tul-šá accordingly seems secure. The feminine endings in ll.39′–41′ (-šá, -let and -rat) suggest the passage continued with praise of the goddess. It is estimated that six lines are missing between l.42′ (Ms. A) and where Ms. d commences, with traces only (l.49′). 50′ This line may perhaps refer to water, reading the signs A ME as ame, logographic writing for mû, “water”, rather than the usual ameš. The abbreviated plural marker me occurs in l.54′ (illume). 51′ There is room for perhaps two signs and the divine determinative before UDu18-lu, a name for Ninurta, used elsewhere in the composition. In l.28 the goddess is described as ra’īmat dUD-u18-lu, “the one who loves Utaulu”. Perhaps something similar appeared here. qarrādu, “hero”, is a stock description of the warrior god Ninurta (Lambert, 1967, p.116 9 and passim; Tallqvist, 1938, pp.162–162; CAD Q 140–142). 52′ The context given by ll.55′–65′, in which the goddess’ omnipotence is praised, seems to confirm that ll.52′–54′ speak of the goddess’ powers in relation to the

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

263

universe. In a cosmic context, uṣurtu denotes the design of the cosmos or the divine ordinances that regulate it. The last legible sign appears to be ká (bābu, “gate”). In Mesopotamian thought, the heavens were conceived of as having gates through which the sun, moon and astral bodies and the gods entered (Horowitz, 2011, pp.266–267). Hence it seems that l.52′ refers to the spatial design of the heavens. 53′ rikis kalāma, “the bond of everything”, plainly refers to the “bonds” of the cosmos (CAD R 348 and see further the note above on l.10). rikis kalāma is an epithet of Nabû in an explanatory list of his names (V R 43 r. 30; ed. Pomponio, 1978, p.158). In l.53′ too it appears that the expression refers to the goddess herself, embodying the means by which the universe is held together and controlled. Bau is similarly described in l.15′′. nabnīt apsî(zu:ab), “the product of the Apsû”, is in syntactic apposition to rikis kalāma, and hence likewise refers to the goddess, so it seems. nabnīt apsî does not appear to be otherwise attested as an epithet of this deity or, indeed, any other. The healing goddess is known in tradition as the daughter of Anu, not Ea, lord of the Apsû. The description nabnīt apsî perhaps serves to associate her with the Apsû to explain her powers over the waters (ameš) of the deep (idim, nagbu) in ll.53′–54′; and perhaps implies the wisdom enabling her to exercise these powers (cf. l.15 where the secrets of the Apsû are imputed to the goddess). 54′ ušraqqâm is the 3cs durative of the Š stem of riāqu (CAD R 176 râqu, “to be empty”) with the ventive suffix, literally, “she causes to be empty”. uš-ra-qa-am is a defective spelling, not reflecting the double consonant; the force of the ventive element is not clear. As the daughter of Anu, the healing goddess’ association with the sea is well known from incantations which recite how the seven daughters of Anu draw sea-water to extinguish diseases (for which, see Goetze, 1955; Landsberger and Jacobsen, 1955; and Farber, 1990). Perhaps, too, a link between the sea and the healing goddess is implicit in the identification of the healing goddess with mother-goddesses (explicitly made in this composition at ll.22–24, 38–40 and elsewhere). The primordial role of the sea, personified as Tiāmat, as creatrix is described at the outset of the Enūma eliš narrative (for recent discussion of the sea as the medium of creation, see Katz, 2011, pp.127–129). mīlu, “flooding”, (here in the plural, written illume) commonly refers to the seasonal flood of the rivers (see CAD M/II 69–72). mīlu gapšu, “flood water risen in spate”, often occurs in contexts where devastation is contemplated. This is the evident meaning of the apodosis of an Old Babylonian omen: mīlum gapšum illakam (YOS X 25 58) A huge flood will come

264

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

However, perhaps the life-giving properties of the flood, rather than its destructive powers, are in contemplation in l.54′. The seasonal riverine flooding was essential for irrigation in Mesopotamian agriculture, illustrated by the passage in the Standard Babylonian version of the Atra-ḫasīs narrative where Enlil commands famine to be inflicted on the teeming population by withholding the flooding, in which, as in l.54′, the inundation is said to come from the nagbu, “the deep”: issakir šapliš ul iššâ mīlu ina nagbi (Atra-ḫasīs S iv 54; ed. Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.110) Below (the river) was blocked up, the flood did not rise from the deep The nuance of ugapp[aš], “she makes huge”, is perhaps simply the causing of the swelling of the waters needed to inundate the land. l.54′ is perhaps evidence for an association between the sea and flooding (see Horowitz, 2011, pp.336–341 for the relationship between the sea and the Apsû, rivers and groundwater and the Apsû). The line graphically describes the immense power of the deity over profound cosmic forces. 55′–65′ ll.55′–56′ form a transition to a passage of nine lines in which the divine spheres of various deities are associated with the goddess. In both material and structure the passage is similar to ll.7–16, and particularly ll.11–14, in which the great gods confer their special gifts on the goddess. Like ll.11–14, this passage commences with Anu, Enlil and Ea (ll.57′–59′). The goddess herself is the subject of ll.60′–65′, in which she is portrayed as the equal of the deities named at the outset of each line, or perhaps even their superior, in their respective spheres. 55′–56′ ll.55′–56′ take up and expand the motif of rapšat uzni, “she is of profound intelligence” (l.2). šu-[tu]-rat ḫa-si-[sa] (l.55′) is Lambert’s restoration and is secure. šūturat ḫasīsa, “she is outstanding in wisdom”, recurs in l.60′, where, although the final syllable -sa is missing in Ms. d, ḫasīsa is fully preserved in Ms. B. mūdû, “knowing”, conveys the meaning of being especially knowledgeable (“expert”) and consequently describes many deities (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.86–87; CAD M/II 164– 167). Marduk is termed mūdê alkakāti, “expert in how to proceed” (CT 17 12 29, a bilingual incantation, restored from KAR 123 8; and in KAR 104 24, a Standard Babylonian hymn to Nabû). alkakāti mūdât, “she knows how to proceed”, does not appear to be found elsewhere to characterise a goddess. The reading gúm here and in l.67′ was suggested by R. Borger (manuscript note to Lambert’s unpublished draft transliteration). gummurat, a D stem 3fs stative form, is understood here in the sense of “to control”, a meaning of both G and D stems of gamāru (CAD G 27, 30). Kouwenberg (1997, p.181) observed that the G and D stems of gamāru seem to be interchangeable in almost all meanings, without

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

265

observable differences. Older Akkadian grammars commonly ascribed to the D stem an intensive function, signifying a more forceful or prolonged action, perhaps involving plurality of subjects or objects. GAG (§ 88 f and h) and other grammars have not adopted this general approach (see Kouwenberg, 1997, pp.4–12 for an overview of the scholarly discussion). More recently, Kouwenberg (op.cit., p.179) concluded that, whilst for certain verbs the D stem expresses a more intensive action than the G stem, “the balance of evidence suggests .... that the D stem can only indicate such a nuance in fixed, idiomatic expressions” (see further Kouwenberg, op.cit., pp.176–178). In his analysis, gamāru is not such a verb, but rather has “(no) obvious association with plurality, intensity or similar notions” (Kouwenberg, 2010, pp.276–277). However, as Kouwenberg (1997, p.179) commented, “it is generally very difficult to establish differences between degrees of intensity on independent grounds” where G and D stems are used in similar circumstances. This observation is in point here, and Huehnergard’s more general comment, drawing on Kouwenberg’s work in 1997, that “the D stem may also denote heightened transitivity, expressing greater effect on the object” (Huehnergard, 2011, p.257) is illuminative. The use of the D stem gummurat perhaps reflects that this composition’s goddess is not merely “in control”, but “in complete control”. The setting is one in which this meaning may be expected, but the nuance is not capable of objective verification. The restoration of a form of šitūltu to complete l.56′ is Lambert’s suggestion. šitūltu, “discussion, deliberation”, is evidently seen as a distinctive facet of the goddess in this composition. In l.51 the goddess’ abode Duku is ašar šitūlti, “the place of deliberation”; likewise, ana šitūlti, “for counsel”, in l.59′; the related word with the same meaning šitūlu appears in l.35′. The coherent sense of ll.55′–56′, thus restored, supports Lambert’s suggestion, restored here as šit[ūlta] (rather than šit[ūlti], as Lambert proposed), syntactically parallel with the accusative forms preserved in ll.55′–56′. 57′–59′ Enough remains of the divine names to be certain that, as in ll.12–14, these are the supreme divine triad, Anu, Enlil and Ea, here named Nudimmud (Lambert’s restorations). Like ll.12–14, each line refers to a sphere of the named god. The parallelism of the scope of ll.57′–59′ is reinforced by their construction, commencing identically, even as to phonology (ana ši- ), and concluding with the divine name. The evident sense of the prepositional phrase formed with ana, “for”, is that the senior deity turns to the goddess for guidance in the matter. 57′ The composer first asserts the goddess’ influence in relation to Anu’s role as supreme decision-maker. The pairing of šipṭu, “judgment”, and purussû(eš-bar), “decision”, occurs also in l.9, in broken context. The unequivocal association of šipṭu

266

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

and purussû with Anu here in l.57′ supports the supposition that Anu is indeed the subject of some or all of ll.7–10. 58′ l.58′ reflects the tradition of Enlil as the purveyor of those divine decrees which determine the order of all things, encapsulated in the address to him in a Standard Babylonian šu-íla prayer as bēl šīmāti, “Lord of destinies” (KAR 68 15 and duplicates; ed. Ebeling, 1953a, p.20). ištene’’iši is the 3cs durative of the Gtn stem of še’û, “to seek”, with the 3fs accusative pronominal suffix. The Gtn stem gives the evident nuance of repeatedly seeking out the goddess for advice, “(Enlil) constantly seeks her out”, a sense that is a near-parallel of iqâlši, “(Anum) heeds her” (l.57′). lā šanān (“without equal” CAD Š/I 367) expresses the peerless (and perhaps also unchallengeable) nature of the divine decrees, an appropriate description of Enlil’s commands. In the context of this composition, a further nuanced interpretation of ana šīmāt lā šanān, “for incomparable decrees”, is possible. l.58′ may be understood to express the conceit, in praise of the goddess, that it is by reason of the goddess’ influence that Enlil’s decrees are unrivalled. 59′ l.59′ asserts the part played by the goddess when Ea, god of wisdom, dispenses wise counsel. ta-ru-ši is preserved in Ms. d alone. The reading seems suspect on a number of counts. The form seems best explained as the 3ms stative of tarû (“to fetch, bring along” CAD T 245), with the 3fs accusative pronominal suffix; tarû is a secondary form, related to (w)arû(m) “to lead” (GAG § 103 d, CAD T 249), and hence ta-ru-ši is translated here as “(Ea) guided her”. The G stative does not appear to be attested, save here, if the reading is sound. The -u vowel is perhaps unexpected. Although the usual final vowel of the 3ms stative of III-weak verbs in the G stem is -i, some III-weak verbs with the theme vowel u, such as zakû “to be pure”, display a u form in the stative (GAG § 105 f). tarû, also a u class verb, may behave in this way. An active meaning for the stative form is required, but this is a regular, if less common, function of the stative in Standard Babylonian literature and elsewhere (for recent discussion of the function, see Kouwenberg, 2010, pp.170–176). In a detailed description of the active stative (there termed “permansive”), Rowton (1962) assembled many examples from Old Babylonian and Standard Babylonian sources. Although Rowton’s interpretation has been subject to criticism (see Kouwenberg, 2010, p.170), his study is valuable for its numerous examples. From these very many attestations, it is apparent that the incidence of the stative (itself a pronominal construction) with a suffixed pronoun is relatively rare. Letters supply a number of the examples (so, the forms kašdākki and kašdākkaI, “I will be with you”, and puḫḫurūšunūti, “they assembled them”, GAG § 77 d and e, all from Old Babylonian letters), perhaps indicating a vernacular usage. An Old Babylonian divination prayer has the form na-ši-ku-um, evidently to be understood as našiakkum (or perhaps

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

267

našêkkum), “I hold up for you” (see Goetze, 1968, p.29 25). Here too the divination prayer perhaps reflects ordinary language. Examples do occur in literary contexts. The major Standard Babylonian wisdom compositions contain the following: šarkūš nullâtu (Babylonian Theodicy 284; ed. Oshima, 2014, p.166) They heap slander on him ana ša iqbû aḫulap ḫamussu mūtu (ludlul bēl nēmeqi I 96; ed. Oshima, 2014, p.82) Death comes quickly to anyone who says “mercy” Neither Oshima nor Lambert (1960) commented on these stative forms. The scholarly work Tintir = Babylon commences with an explanation containing a similar stative form: tin-tirki Bābilu ša tanādāti u rīšāti šarkaš (Tintir I 1; ed. George, Topog.Texts) Tintir, Babylon, on which glory and celebration are bestowed These literary and scholarly examples indicate a different register of language for these forms in the later period. From Rowton’s examples (op.cit., nos.156, 160, 192 and many others; see too Kouwenberg, 2010, p.233 note 77) it appears that, where the enclitic pronoun does occur on third person stative forms, it is often linked to the stative by the ventive morpheme, as in the Standard Babylonian prayer to Ištar: adi mati bēltī bēlū dabābīya nekelmûinnīma (STC II pl.79 56; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.45) How long, my lady, will my enemies glower at me? The comparative rarity of the simple stative form with suffixed pronoun casts doubt on whether ta-ru-ši is correct. The parallelism of ll.57′–59′ strongly suggests that a finite verb form with a feminine pronominal suffix is called for before the divine name, corresponding in meaning with iqâlši (l.57′) and ištene’’iši (l.58′). taruši does not seem satisfactory, either as to form or meaning. It seems likely that -ši, “her”, is correct, but ta-ru- may be corrupt; no obvious emendation presents itself. 60′–72′ The end of ll.60′–72′ is preserved by KAR 343, edited and translated by Ebeling (1953a, pp.140–141). The join of KAR 343 and KAR 109 (together, Ms. B) had not then been identified, nor were the Babylonian duplicates available to Ebeling. His observations and suggested restorations are largely superceded. 60′ itti(ki) in l.60′ and, identically, in ll.61′–65′ might perhaps be understood in its usual meaning “with”, in the sense of “together with”. This does not seem quite apposite. The lines are illuminated by the special meanings identified in CAD I–J 303. In an Old Babylonian letter (PBS 7 53 20) ittīkāma is understood by CAD as

268

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

“it is within your power”. With this is compared an extract from a bilingual hymn to Šamaš: marṣa [bulluṭ]u ittīka ibaš[ši] (IV R2 17 37, recopied by Abusch and Schwemer, 2011, pl. 77, 79; ed. von Soden, SAHG) It is in your power [to heal] the sick The idiom occurs elsewhere in religious texts (so, V R2 50 i 77f., duplicate LKA 75 r.10f. again pertaining to Šamaš, see CAD I–J 303). Similarly, itti in the phrase itti ilim in an Old Babylonian omen compendium (YOS X 46 ii 42–44) is understood in CAD I–J 303 as “with the consent (of the god)” (so too AHw 405a “mit Willen von”, noting that this meaning is less usual; see CAD I–J 303 for other examples from extispicy texts from the Old Babylonian period onwards). Likewise, there are a few instances in Old Babylonian texts and elsewhere where itti is used to express the agent in passive constructions, typically deploying stative forms (see Kouwenberg, 2010, p.259). Informed by these examples, it seems clear that prepositional phrase introduced by itti here expresses the will and agency of the great god in the matter; and accordingly ll.60′–65′ convey that the composition’s goddess wields her powers on the authority of the patron deity of those powers. The conceit that the goddess wields the patron deity’s powers is a recurrent motif of the composition (see, for example, ll.85′, 88′ and passim). šūturat ḫasīsa, “she is outstanding in wisdom”, makes it clear that the goddess is expressed to be on a par with, or is perhaps even seen as a proxy for, the patron deity. Anšar is a primordial deity, best known from Enūma eliš I 12–14 as the father of Anu. As a member of the most venerable generations of the Mesopotamian pantheon, it is not surprising that wisdom is attributed to him, reflecting a topos of religious texts. It is however surprising that Anšar is followed in ll.61′–62′ by Enlil and Ea. Anu, rather than Anšar, might have been expected to precede these two gods, the composition thus returning at ll.60′–62′ to the divine triad of ll.57′–59′. l.60′ recapitulates the theme of l.57′, just as ll.61′–62′ reprise the themes of ll.58′–59′. The evident symmetry between the two passages is jarred by the mention of Anšar. anšár is preserved in Ms. d alone, clearly written. The name is lost from Ms. B. Ms. A preserves only itti(ki) AN, the opening of the catch-line. Whilst this may reflect itti(ki) an-[šár], replicating Ms. d’s reading, it cannot be ruled out that AN is the divine determinative; and that the Kuyunjik manuscript Ms. A may have read itti(ki) d [a-num]. If so, Ms. d preserves a variant, or perhaps corrupt, reading. The unexpected reference to Anšar may be explained another way. In some texts Anšar is identified with Anu, as Lambert (2013, p.422) noted. In the bilingual composition now known as the Exaltation of Ištar, da-nu is given where the Sumerian text has anšár (Hruška, 1969, p.484 III 33–34); likewise, their consorts Kišar and Antu are equated in III 39–40. The same equation is reflected in God Lists. The God List An:

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

269

Anum I 9–10 (ed. Litke, 1998) equates Anšar and Kišar with Anu and Antu. A fragment of a related God List (see Lambert, 1969, p. 476) glosses Anšar with Anu: anda-nu-šár (CT 24 49, K 9349E 7). For other texts which equate Anšar and Anu, see Lambert (1982, p.212; 2013, p.422) and Reiner (1996). Accordingly l.60′ may reflect a scholarly tradition which equated Anu with Anšar. Thus understood, ll.60′– 62′ parallel ll.57′–59′ and the symmetry between the passages is intact. 61′ The composition turns once again to the sphere of Enlil, “who decrees destinies”, mušīm šīmāti(nam)meš. Neither Ms. d nor Ms. B fully preserves the end of l.61′. Ms. d preserves šīmātūša, where Ms. B (KAR 343) has only ]-šá; Ms. B supplies ṣīrū, where Ms. d has only ṣi-[. ṣīrū, “supreme”, is frequently used in the stative (see CAD Ṣ 210); it is so understood here. The masculine form is unexpected with the feminine noun šīmātūša, “her destinies”, and Ms. d may have concluded with the feminine form, ṣīrā. Conversely, it is possible that Ms. B contained a masculine plural noun as subject, rather than šīmātūša. However, where both Ms. d and Ms. B witness the text, there are only minor differences (usually orthographic) between them. Accordingly, a variant reading seems unlikely. First millennium manuscripts commonly contain inflected endings which are incorrect by the standards of earlier grammar, in verbal forms as well as nouns. The form ṣīrū can be explained as just such a case. 62′ Ea is given his traditional epithet šar(lugal) apsî(zu:ab), “king of the Apsû”. The description of the goddess as ḫasīsa palkât, “she is of great wisdom”, resembles the description of Ea (Nudimmud) himself as palkâ uznu ḫasīs, “vast of understanding, wise” (Enūma eliš I 18). It serves to confirm that ll.60′–65′ contain the conceit that the goddess is at least the equal of the named deities. 63′ As in l.16′, Marduk (damar-utu) is described as bēl(en) nēmeqi, “lord of wisdom”. Ms. d supplies atât, the 3fs stative of (w)atû(m), “to discover”, here an active stative. The reading atât milka, “she ascertains (divine) counsel”, disposes of [kab]tat milka, “influential in counsel”, proposed by Ebeling (1953a, p.140 4), and the suggestion in CAD P 67 palkû that the phrase parallels ḫasīsa palkât (l.62′). 64′ Unlike the routine divine descriptions of ll.61′–63′ and 65′, pātiq kullati, “the one who fashioned everything”, does not appear to be a stock epithet of Nabû (for Nabû’s many epithets, see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.380–384). patāqu (“to fashion”) is said of many deities and in a range of expressions, with particular application to mother-goddesses and the creation of progeny (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.156–157; CAD P 274–275). The sole citation pertaining to Nabû is in this sense, where it appears in an acrostic hymn to Nabû to celebrate Nebuchadnezzar II:

270

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

[bun]nannê amēlūti šiknatu napištu iptiq nabnī[tu] (Strong, 1898, p.156 r.4; ed. Oshima, 2014, p.475 24) He fashioned the features of mankind, the appearance of living creatures, all creation Unusual epithets in this composition are a tell-tale sign that some scholarly speculation is at work, and, indeed, pātiq kullati speculatively interprets the writing [§6.1] of the divine name as dag, the writing contained in Ms. d. Ms. B supplies pa-lu-šá where Ms. d has AŠ ŠA AŠ, from which no obvious reading can be derived. palû, “period of office”, is widely attested to mean the reign of a king. It is much less commonly used, as in l.64′, to refer to divine supremacy, so occurring principally in omen texts and personal names (see CAD P 73). Both Ms. d and Ms. B preserve maḫ-ri. maḫrû “first” (*maḫrīum GAG §§ 56 q, 70 a; AHw 585b) is sometimes attested to denote primacy in status (see CAD M/I 109), a meaning appropriate here. maḫrī seems best explained as a stative form. It is unexpected that the qualities attributed to the goddess in l.64′ do not reflect Nabû’s special divine sphere (writing and wisdom), paralleling the pattern of ll.61′–63′ and 65′. palûša maḫrī, “her rule is preeminent”, is perhaps best explained as an allusion to Nabû’s supreme status in the pantheon alongside his father Marduk (for Nabû’s ascendancy, see Lambert, 2013, pp. 275–277). The comparative rarity of palû in a divine context and the general subject matter, rather than a specific sphere of divine interest, perhaps suggest that pa-lu-šá is suspect, particularly in light of the clear corruption in Ms. d. 65′ The passage concludes with the contribution of Ninurta, the warrior god and spouse of the healing goddess, whose relationship with her forms the structural motif of the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967). A principal meaning of šūḫuzu, the Š stem of aḫāzu (“to seize”), is “to teach” (CAD A/I 180–181). šūḫuzat, the 3fs stative, conveys that the goddess is schooled in the art of battle. The unusual word anuntu is given as a synonym for qablu (“battle”) in the Akkadian synonym list an = šamû, known from first millennium copies from Assyria, a compilation that also contains the more common synonym anantu (LTBA 2, 2 ii 36 anantu, 50 anuntu; duplicate LTBA 2, 1 iv 42′, 56′; see further Hrůša, 2010, p.1; Veldhuis, 2014, p.361). anuntu is evidently “elevated” language, attested in historical and literary texts (CAD A/II 150). Ištar is ēpišat anunti, “wager of battle”, in a Standard Babylonian prayer to her (KAR 92 r 10), found also in a ritual context (see Mayer, 1976, p.392 “Ištar 24”). CAD’s citation compares this Ištar epithet with the part of l.65′ preserved in KAR 343 6 (Ms. B), given as [...]-ṣa-at a-nun-tú. The clear implication that KAR 343 refers to Ištar is now superceded by the identification of this composition as a hymn to the healing goddess. The warlike image of the healing goddess is paralleled

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

271

in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi where, as Bau, she proclaims herself qarradāku, “I am a warrior” (Lambert, 1967, p.122 100). The same theme is touched on in this composition in l.28 and appears to have been treated at greater length in ll.2′′′–4′′′. 66′–74′ This passage of nine lines forms a transition to a key part of the composition. Here the work turns to named temples and shrines, to which attributes of the goddess are coupled. ll.66′–69′ name temples in Nippur and Babylon sacred, respectively, to Enlil (ll.66′–67′) and Marduk (ll.68′–69′), two of the principal deities of the preceding lines. l.70′ concerns é-ḫal-an-ki, a shrine in Marduk’s temple. A stanza of four lines (ll.71′–74′), in which the pre-eminent and universal authority of the goddess is asserted, concludes the section. This passage was presented in transliteration and translation by Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 7–15), with restoration “based on BM duplicates”. Oshima did not identify the manuscripts he used: presumably Ms. d, identified by Leichty Catalogue VIII as a duplicate of KAR 109; and perhaps also Ms. e. There are small differences between Oshima’s transliteration and ll.67′ and 74′ presented here. Whether these indicate that Oshima had recourse to some further exemplar(s), or are to be explained in some other way is not clear. 66′–70′ The construction of ll.66′–70′ appears to be asyntactic. To each sacred place a description is ascribed; juxtaposed against each is some accolade of the goddess. The effect is strikingly disjointed, but evidently nevertheless associates the goddess with the named place. ll.66′–70′ are akin to the extended passage which follows at l.75′. As there, ll.66′–70′ offer scholarly explanation of the Sumerian names. [§6.1] 66′ rēštu, “first, foremost”, also signifies something ancient or primordial, and is so used of sanctuaries (CAD R 275). rēštat conveys both the pre-eminence and the antiquity of the goddess’ abode. šubassa, “her abode”, Ms. B’s reading, is adopted here, where the word is broken in Ms. d (which supplies the rest of l.66′) but appears to read šu-bat-[s]u, “his abode”, using the masculine pronominal suffix in place of the feminine suffix (cf. l.69′, and see section 5.3.4 for some observations on the use of the masculine suffix in this way in these manuscripts). [§6.1] 67′ kiṣṣu (used also in l.3′′) is explained as a synonym for bītu (é), “house, temple”, in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 262 (ed. Hrůša, 2010), with other terms which refer to sacred areas (I 252–264). The principal meaning of kiṣṣu appears to be as a chamber within a sacred building. In Enūma eliš I 79, it is the place where Bēl (Marduk) is conceived. CAD K 445 notes that in Standard Babylonian royal and literary compositions kiṣṣu is used as a poetic word for “temple”. It is attested in a number of texts as an epithet of named temples or shrines,

272

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

as here (see CAD K 444). The descriptions of the sanctuaries in l.66′ and ll.68′–70′ are all genitive constructions, with the noun in the construct state in apposition to the named sanctuary. In l.67′ a simple noun phrase, kiṣṣa ella, “the holy shrine”, describes é-kur. The descriptions are nevertheless syntactically parallel in function. The construct state masks the grammatical case in ll.66′, 68′–70′; the -a case vowel in l.67′ (given by Ms. d and Ms. e, not preserved in Ms. B) suggests an accusative ending, where a functionally accusative form is difficult to construe. It seems better to understand the final vowels of kiṣṣa ella as a writing of the nominative singular ending. Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 8) transliterated the final phrase of this line as núm-mu-ru par-ṣu-ša, which he translated as “bright are her cultic ordinances”. The verb form is broken in Ms. B, but fully preserved in Ms. d. According to Borger (MZL p.455), the reading núm for the sign form LUM occurs in the Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian periods, appearing perhaps once only later in ḪAR-gud (Murgud), a lexical composition and commentary text from the first millennium which treats the thematic list known as Urra (see further Frahm, 2011, pp.249–253; Veldhuis, 2014, pp.363–366). ḪAR-gud contains an explanation relating to Mars: mul ḫul lum-núm min (ḪAR-gud Recension B, VI; MSL XI 40 30) Evil star “Evil” ditto Oshima’s reading núm-mu-ru seems unlikely. Moreover, CAD contains no attestation of numurru, “to brighten”, with parṣu, “cultic ordinance”, in this way. As in l.56′, the reading gúm (LUM), suggested by Borger, is adopted here, reading gummurū. The use of parṣū with gummuru is well attested (CAD G 30, P 197). Accordingly Lambert’s reading gummurū parṣūša, “perfected are her rites”, is superior to Oshima’s suggested reading. In Oshima’s version, the final word of l.67′ is par-ṣu-ša. Ebeling’s copy of KAR 343 shows the final sign as -šá. The sign is broken away from Ms. d. Oshima’s duplicate sources are not specified; it is unclear whether his reading derives from some other source. [§6.1] 68′ ēkal(é-gal) ilī(dingir)meš (or the later rendering, ēkal ilānī), “Palace of the gods”, is a common epithet of é-sag-íl (see further George, Topog.Texts, p.386, referring also to this line), which appears to have a perceived etymological background. gašru, “powerful”, is routinely used to describe gods and their powers (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.77–78, CAD G 57–58). Although the characterisation a sanctuary as “mighty” does not seem unexpected, CAD’s citations contain no instance of gašru as a description of a sacred building (see now also l.13′′, for similar phrase bīssa gašrat, “she is powerful as to her house”). The uncommon description points to the phrase šubassa gašrat, “powerful is her seat”, offering an etymological explanation of the temple name é-sag-íl, as indeed it does. [§6.1]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

273

69′ Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 10) read the sacred name as du5-kù. This would be an unusual spelling for Duku, in place of the standard orthography du6-kù. The first sign, preserved in Ms. d alone, is a Babylonian form of du6, providing the conventional reading du6-kù. Oshima construed pirišti ilānī(dingir)meš as a dependent genitive, governed by du6-kù (“Pure Mound”), translating the opening phrase as “The holy mount of the secrets of the gods”. The pattern set in the passage suggests otherwise. It seems preferable to understand pirišti ilānī as in apposition to du6-kù, (hence, “the secret place of the gods”), in parallel with the construction of ll.66′–68′ and 70′. The setting of l.69′ may be understood as the cosmic Duku itself (so George, HMH 178, referring to this line). The context set by the adjacent lines 68′ and 70′ is é-sag-íl in Babylon, the temple which, in tradition, was the replica of Apsû (so, meḫret Apsî, Tintir IV 1; ed. George, Topog.Texts) on earth. Duku was the name given to Marduk’s seat in ub-šu-ukkin-na in é-sag-íl (see George, Topog.Texts, p.271). milikša lamdat, “she is learned in her counsel”, which echoes l.63′ itti Marūduk bēl nēmeqi atât milka, “by leave of Marduk, lord of wisdom, she ascertains (divine) counsel”, would seem to confirm that l.69′ refers to Marduk’s seat in é-sagíl. Ms. B has the variant [mi]likšu (and likewise in l.70′, [têrē]tūšu), the masculine pronominal suffix -šu written for the feminine suffix -ša (cf. l.66′). See section 5.3.4 for some observations on the use of the masculine suffix in this way in these manuscripts. [§6.1] 70′ Although both are damaged, the Babylonian and Assyrian manuscripts appear to contain different versions of l.70′, Ms. d reading têrētīša ḫam[m]ā, “her commands are gathered together”, while Ms. B seems to read [têrē]tūšu ḫa-am⸢mat⸣, “she gathers together her commands”, (for Ms. B’s variant [têrē]tūšu, see note on l.69′). In conventional grammar, the nominal case endings are not correct in either manuscript, if indeed the verbal form is as set out. This is not unusual in manuscripts of this period (see George, 2003, pp.439–441). However, the occurrence of two different verbal forms (feminine plural and feminine singular), each non-congruent with its preceding noun (in conventional grammar), but which would have been “correct” had it been preceded by the noun form of the other manuscript, perhaps suggests some corruption, rather than alternative versions. Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 11) has têrētīša ḫamm[at], the noun of Ms. d and the verb of Ms. B. His translation (“her instructions are gathered”) reflects Ms. d rather than the text he presented. Whichever reading concludes l.70′, it closely resembles têrētūša ḫammat, “she gathers her commands”, in l.50. Indeed, ll.69′–71′ contain and recombine themes and material used in ll.50–52. é-ḫal-an-ki is the seat of Zarpanītum in é-sag-íl and this line is cited in that connection by George, Topog.Texts, pp.270–271 (also HMH 448). Thus understood, the focus of the conclusion of this group of named temples is the seat of a goddess

274

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

and the goddess of the composition is perhaps identified with the goddess of the sanctuary, prefiguring the motif of l.75′ff. However, another interpretation is possible, for é-ḫal-an-ki is also the name of the seat of Ea in é-sag-íl (HMH 449; George, Topog.Texts, p.273). The description of é-ḫal-an-ki as bīt(é) kiššat uzni, “the house of all wisdom”, points in favour of the identification of the shrine in this l.70′ as the seat of Ea, god of wisdom. With this can be compared the similar rendering of the name of Ea’s temple in Aššur: é-géštu-maḫ-šu-du7 bīt uzni ṣīrte šuklulu bīt Ea (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 151) Perfect house of sublime wisdom: the temple of Ea Understood in this way, ll.66′–70′ refer to places sacred to Enlil, Marduk and Ea, reprising (albeit in a different order) ll.61′–63′ where Enlil, Ea and Marduk and similar material feature. [§6.1] 71′ KAR 109 becomes available at l.71′ with its first clear part-line (KAR 109 2) to provide, with KAR 343 (together, Ms. B), nearly 25 lines, duplicated in whole or part by Babylonian examplars. gašrat, “she is powerful”, is supplied by Ms. d. Used only three lines earlier (l.68′), gašru is here deployed in its most common use, to describe a deity. Amongst goddesses, it is most commonly applied to Ištar, as evidenced by the citations in CAD G 57. The great Standard Babylonian prayer to Ištar illustrates the topos where, in a passage thematically akin to ll.71′–74′ here, she is addressed: gašrāti malkāti šumūki ṣīrū (STC II pl.75 4; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.42) You are powerful, you are queen, your names are sublime Phonetic complements in Ms. B indicate that gašrat is qualified by the phrase that follows. Ms. B reads ⸢ane⸣ ù UDtim where Ms. d has [a]n u ki. Ms. B’s UDtim could be read tâmtim (so Ebeling, 1918, p.49 1), to provide a variant reading gašrat šamê u tâmtim, “she is all-powerful over heaven and the ocean”. The pairing of heaven and ocean is unusual. It seems more likely that UD is a simple error for KI (erṣetu “earth”) in this stock phrase and that the reading of Ms. d, gašrat šamê(an) u erṣeti(ki), “she is all-powerful over heaven and earth”, is correct. (M. Worthington, private communication, January 2018, has remarked that confusion between UD and KI is suggestive of an ancestor manuscript to the Assyrian Ms. B in Babylonian script, which, he observed, is hardly surprising for an Assyrian exemplar.) Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 12) translates ilat pāṭ gimri as “the goddess of the border of all”, reflecting the essential meaning of pāṭu, “border, boundary”. The word pāṭu is principally used in practical contexts relating to land (CAD P 305–310). At CAD P 309 3f, the expression pāṭ gimri, meaning “entire extent”, is noted. Whilst the other examples given there are from Assyrian historical writings, this line is also cited.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

275

The idiom is apt to l.71′, a context in which the universal influence of the goddess is emphasised. Ebeling (1953a, p.141 12) so understood the phrase, rendering it “Göttin des Alls”. The translation “Goddess of everything” is offered here. 72′ The beginning of l.72′ is missing from Ms. B and damaged in Ms. d. Ms. B can be confidently restored to read [e]-liš u(!) ù [š]ap-liš, as did Ebeling (1918, p.49 2), the scribe certainly making a small slip in this line. In Ms. d, u šapliš is clear, LIŠ having a Babylonian sign form. The initial traces in Ms. d are consistent with ⸢e⸣[liš]; the restoration of Ms. d to give the stock phrase eliš u šapliš, “above and below”, is compelling, even without Ms. B’s support. Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 13) read here ⸢e⸣-lat ù šap-lat. CAD’s entries for elâtu “upper part” (E 77– 79) and šaplâtu “lower part” (Š/I 464–465) do not contain any evidence to support the phrase elât u šaplât, which appears to result from a misreading of LIŠ. The conclusion šurbat ilūssa, “her divinity is surpassing”, conveys the supremacy of the goddess’ power and status. 73′ CAD Š/II 442 šīlān cited this line from KAR 109 and duplicates, courtesy W.G. Lambert, where it is given as ina ṣītaš u ši-[la]-an šitakkan[u] (var. ši-tak-ku-nu) xdu-ša. l.73′ appears to commence with ina (written by the AŠ sign) in Ms. d. The beginning of l.73′ is broken in Ms. B but Ebeling’s copy (1919, KAR 109 4) suggests that there is not enough space for [ina ṣ]i-taš and it is probable that Ms. B omitted ina. Oshima presented l.73′ as follows: ṣi-tàn u ši-la-an ši-tak-ku-nu k[i]p-du-ša “From the sunrise and sunset (i.e. from the east to the west), her p[l]ans are all over.” (Oshima, 2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 14) Oshima favoured ṣītān over Lambert’s ṣītaš, perhaps in light of the homophonous pairing ṣītān u šīlān thereby achieved at the beginning of l.73′, paralleling the homophonous pairing in l.72′ (whether Oshima’s elât u šaplât or eliš u šapliš is read). ṣītan and ṣītaš, both meaning “at the rising (of the sun)”, are separately entered in CAD Ṣ 215 from the evidence of the syllabic spellings ṣi-ta-an and ṣi-tan in NeoAssyrian inscriptions and ṣi-ta-áš (BMS 9 r 41, a šu-íla prayer to Zarpanītum). CAD noted under ṣītaš that the spelling ṣi-TAŠ (the UR sign) might be read ṣi-tàn. AHw 1106a gives ṣītān and ṣītaš together. AHw’s entry reflects doubt as to the reading tàn for TAŠ, as does Labat, 1994, Index p.272 (“tàn?”). Borger (1996, p.24) discarded the reading tàn for the UR sign (so too in MZL, p.431 no.828). The doubtful reading tàn is rejected in the text presented here in favour of the common value taš, and the translation reflects Ms. d’s text, ina ṣītaš u šīlān, “in east and west”. šitakkunū is Ms. d’s clear reading. Ms. B perhaps has šitakkan[ā] (perhaps an Assyrianising form), implying a feminine plural subject. The Gtn stem of šakānu,

276

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

“to put”, deployed in the stative šitakkunū provides a distributive nuance (cf. Kouwenberg, 2010, p.416 § 3), underlining the spread of the goddess’ influence, “(they) are in place everywhere”. The final word, given at CAD Š/II 442 šīlān as x-du-ša, is damaged in Ms. d and broken in Ms. B. To restore l.73′ Lambert considered both qurdū, “heroic acts”, and ṣaddū, “symbols”, (unpublished draft transliteration). Both suit the context, but neither is a compelling reading of the traces in Ms. d. Oshima’s suggested restoration k[i]p-du-ša is consistent with the traces. kipdū, “plans”, is an unusual word, attested in literary and scholarly texts. The very few citations in CAD K 396–397 suggest that kipdū usually refers to the plans of men, rather than gods. In the great Standard Babylonian hymn to him, Šamaš is addressed: [š]a napḫar mātāti šūt šunnâ lišānū [t]īdi kipdīšina (Šamaš hymn 49–50; ed. Lambert, 1960, p.128) All the lands of different tongues, you know their plans In a number of the extracts cited by CAD, kipdū refers to the wicked or secret schemes of an adversary. It is so used in Enūma eliš VII 44: mušappiḫ kipdīšunu, “who frustrates their plans”, (see further CAD K 396–397). kipdū does not appear to be attested to refer to benevolent divine intentions, the sense required in l.73′. Nevertheless, the use of an unusual, perhaps elevated, word in a devotional composition such as this might be expected. Oshima’s restoration is an attractive proposal and is adopted here. 74′ Ms. d supplies the complete line. Despite its consistent use of the feminine pronominal suffix in ll.68′–73′ (but not in l.66′), Ms. d has the masculine suffix on zikrūšu, where Ms. B has zikrūša (zik-⸢ru⸣-šá) (see further, section 5.3.4). Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 15) has zik-ru-[š]a. The source of his reading is unclear. In the translation presented here, ešrēt ilānī(dingir)meš, “the shrines of the gods”, is understood to be in apposition to the preceding noun māḫāzī, “cultic centres”, rather than as a dependent genitive (so Oshima, see below). Thus understood, l.74′ parallels the construction with which ll.66′–70′ commence. šutanūdū is the 3mpl stative of what is understood by AHw 705a-b and Kouwenberg (2010, pp.407–408) as the Št stem of nâdu(m), “to praise”. von Soden (GAG § 107 r) noted that the G, D and Št stems of nâdu(m) may all bear the same meaning. The Št stem seems to be rarely used and the stative šutanūdū does not appear to be otherwise attested (see CAD N/I 104; AHw 705a/b). The stative form points to šutanūdu being regarded as a Št2 stem (the Št1 “bildet keinen Stat.” GAG § 94 b). Streck (1994, p.176) and Kouwenberg (2010, pp.407–408) so classed it. It does not seem necessary or appropriate to understand šutanūdū here in the very specific meaning given by AHw 705a “in Welchselgesang preisen” (“to sing praises antiphonally”). It is evident from the

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

277

context that šutanūdu has the meaning “to praise repeatedly”, as proposed in CAD N/I 103–104. This iterative sense suggests that šutanūdū may be better explained as from the Štn stem, rather than the Št2 stem, the forms being indistinguishable. Oshima (2011, p.394, KAR 109+343 15) translated this line “In the shrines of the temples of the gods, [h]er words are repeatedly praised”. In his translation, “her words”, zikrūša/zikrūšu, form a parallel with “her plans”, kipdūša, in l.73′. However, zikru also means “name” and, by extension, “fame” (CAD Z 112–116). It is preferable to understand šutanūdū zikrūšu in this sense, (so, “her names are extolled endlessly”), in light of the lengthy exposition of cult centres and divine names which follows at l.75′: the names by which the goddess is known in those cult centres are praised unceasingly. Understood in this way, l.74′ simultaneously concludes ll.66′– 74′ and introduces the next major section of the composition. The rare form šutanūdū and the reversal of normal prose order afford elevated language and style to conclude the passage. 75′–20′′ The remainder of the preserved text, until the reverse of Ms. c takes up the composition, is devoted to praise of the goddess of the composition and combines a demonstration of her universality and an exposition of her identity and characteristics. She is associated with cities, temples and shrines across Southern Mesopotamia, and portrayed as goddess of each (for temples and shrines known only from this composition, see Appendix 2). The aspects of the deity presented there derive from the associations made. This part of the composition parallels the earlier section which presents the names given to the goddess and her attendant divine qualities (ll.18–40), although significantly more extensive. As there, the goddess is syncretised, or at least identified, with other goddesses, who in ll.75′–20′′ are sometimes, but not always, expressly named. As in ll.18–40, her name and character in each setting are understood and explained using scholarly speculative techniques. In very large part, the content and vocabulary of the passage are a function of these explanatory techniques. Scholarly learning and religious thought are fused to explore the identity and character of the goddess and to express devotion to her. At l.78′ Ms. f becomes available for 49 consecutive lines. No complete line is preserved, although some are almost complete. Ms. f provides much to supplement the text supplied by Ms. d when the obverse of Ms. B breaks off. ll.75′–79′, 81′–82′ and 86′ were presented in transcription and transliteration by Westenholz, (Goddesses, pp.109– 110), using Ms. B only. 75′–77′ The goddess is associated first with the great cult-centre of the moon-god Nanna-Suen (Sîn) at Ur (úriki), where she is equated with his consort, Ningal. The divine name Nin-gikuga (l.76′) is the second name of Ningal given in the God List An: Anum III 27–28 (ed. Litke, 1998; and see further Cavigneaux and Krebernik,

278

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

1998–2001d). The kinship term aḫatu, “sister”, is used as a designation of status in the Amarna letters and only occasionally elsewhere (see CAD A/I 172–173). Nevertheless, the description of Ningal as aḫat ilānī(dingir)meš rabûti(gal)meš, “the sister of the great gods”, (l.75′), a scholarly interpretation of her name and her city’s name, seems to declare her elevated divine status, rather than indicating her divine genealogy. [§6.1] 76′ Here again, Ms. d preserves the line in full. Both Ms. d and Ms. e preserve the same phonetic complement in kùtim (Ms. B has kùtu), indicating a genitive form of the adjective ellu(kù), “pure”; sense requires a plural form. From the entries in CAD E 102–106, the feminine plural adjective ellētu does not appear to be used as a substantive noun, “pure things”. kùtim is therefore understood here as the masculine plural ellūti. With this reading, the form gim-ri in the phrase bēlet gim-ri ellūti, “lady of all the cultically pure”, must be explained. The plural gimrū is rarely attested (CAD G 76–78); the noun phrase gimrī ellūti hence seems unlikely. gimir would be expected as the construct state in l.76′, rather than gimri. A few similar forms occur in the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic (see George, 2003, p.443(ii) “segolate” nouns with Auslaut -i in the construct state). A further example, also with gimru, “all”, seems to occur in the Enūma eliš narrative: gimri têrētīya šū littabbal (Enūma eliš VII 142) Let him take charge of all of my commands gim-ri may reflect late spelling practice, perhaps influenced by crasis with ellūti (CVC-CV for CVC-VC; see George, 2003, pp.432–433). It may however instead be explained as an example of the use in literary style of the Old Akkadian genitive construct (see Hasselbach, 2005, p.183; George, 2003, pp.810–811 n.16), the archaising form intended for elevated effect. Ms. B has be-let gim-ri kùtu which Westenholz (Goddesses, p.109) understood as bēlet gimri elletu, which she translated as “mistress of all, the pure one”. In this reading, gimri is simply the genitive singular noun and requires no further explanation. However, the writing kùtu may denote the genitive plural, rather than the nominative singular, as Westenholz transcribed. The Babylonian manuscripts’ kùtim seems a more compelling indication of the intended case ending. mubbibat, “the one who cleanses”, (or indeed the masculine form mubbib) is not a stock divine epithet, although it occurs elsewhere in this composition (ll.122′, 4′′ (with the same sense as l.76′) and 5′′) prompted, as here, by association or perceived etymological equivalence. It is now clear from Ms. d that the closing phrase of l.76′ in Ms. B reads mubbibat kī[nūti], “who cleanses the just”, and not, as Westenholz thought, mubbibat erṣeta(ki), “who purifies the earth”. Thus established, the phrase supports the reading ellūti, “the cultically pure”, parallel in syntax and sense with

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

279

kīnūti, “the just”, and resulting in a balance to the line which occurs elsewhere (cf. l.79′). [§6.1] 77′ The name é-giš-nu11-gal, the form of the temple name given by Ms. d, is capable of different interpretations. The Sumerian word giš-nu11-gal, loaned into Akkadian as gišnugallu AHw 293a, CAD G 104–106 (perhaps to be read ašnugallu, see Stol, 1986, p.357) is believed to refer to alabaster. Thus, the temple name may be understood as “Alabaster House”, a name which, as Edzard (1997, p.163) commented, makes “perfect sense for the sanctuary of the god of glistening light”. é-giš-nu11-gal may also be understood as the “House of Great Light”, similarly befitting the temple of the moon-god. For this name, see further, George, Topog.Texts, pp. 319–320, commentary on Tintir IV 24 in relation to the temple of the same name in Babylon, where George also discussed the writings of the name and the reading of ŠIR (read nu11 in the temple name) for nu in UD.GAL.NUN orthography, an orthographic style from the Early Dynastic period in texts from Fara and Abu Ṣalābīkh (see Lambert, 1981, p.83 and, generally on such writing, Krebernik, 1998). Ms. B contains the variant spelling é-kiš-nu-gál. The meaning of this older spelling (see HMH 653) is obscure. Edzard (1997, p.163) suggested that this name was no longer understood by the end of the Old Babylonian period, the writing é-giš-nu11-gal arising in its place as a product of etymological speculation. The different writings may stem from different orthographic traditions of the Early Dynastic period (George, Topog.Texts, p.163). These two orthographies of the temple name inform the separate characterisations of the goddess given in l.77′. The scholarly realisation of the deity’s character through speculative interpretation results in divine descriptions which are commonly used. The protection afforded by the gods, expressed with naṣāru, “to guard, protect”, is a regular topos. In an incantation prayer known from first millennium copies, Marduk is termed nāṣiru napišti amēlūti, “the one who protects the life of humankind” (KAR 26 13; ed. Mayer, 1999). Many other deities are similarly described (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.142–143; CAD N/II 39–40). Likewise, nūru, “light”, (written zálag in Ms. d), is a stock epithet (Tallqvist, 1938, pp.133–134; CAD N/II 348–349). Applied literally to solar and astral deities, nūru is, as here, also used figuratively: in the same incantation prayer, Marduk is nūru kibrāti, “light of the world” (KAR 26 17; ed. Mayer, 1999). However, as George (1986, p.136) noted, the phrase šamû rabûtu, “the vast heavens”, is a rare literary expression occurring in only a very few texts, among which are the inscription of Sennacherib describing the tablet of destinies (ṭuppi šīmāti) held by the god Aššur edited by George (1986, p.134 8) and the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, where it occurs in an obscure epithet describing Ninurta (Lambert, 1967, p.120 70). In l.77′ the unusual phrase šamê(an)e rabûti(gal)meš, “of the vast heavens”, is generated by scholarly explanation of the temple name. [§6.1]

280

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

78′–79′ Descending the divine hierarchy, the composition turns from the moon-god in Ur to the sun-god Šamaš in Sippar. Where Ms. d has UD-KIB-NUNki (zimbir), the common writing of Sippar, Ms. B has the variant KIB-NUNki. The place name does not appear to be abbreviated in this way (see Rép.géogr. III, pp.205–208) and the variant seems to be erroneous. ṣâtu, “distant time”, realised in the description āl(uru) ṣâti, “most ancient city”, appears to be a term applied especially to Sippar (see CAD Ṣ 118), attested in a number of inscriptions from the Old Babylonian period. A clay nail from Ḫammurapi’s reign edited by Gelb (1948, p.269 13–14) bears an inscription in which, like here, Sippar is called āl ṣiātim, “primordial city”, (see also the inscription edited by Goetze, 1965, p.121 12). In the Standard Babylonian Erra narrative, Sippar is likewise āl ṣâti (Erra IV, 50; ed. Cagni, 1970), a line which expressly recalls the tradition of its ante-diluvian origins. ll.78′–79′ form a couplet in which the goddess is equated with Šamaš’ consort, Aya (bēlet (gašan, Ms. d) maštaki, “Mistress of the house”, l.79′). It is clear from the context that the subject of l.78′ is the goddess, not Šamaš, as supposed in CAD N/II 348 (citing KAR 109 9). The characterisation of the goddess as nūr (zálag, Ms. d) šamê(an) u erṣeti(ki) ili(dingir) u amīli(lú), “the light of heaven and earth, of god and man”, resembles the description in l.77′ (nūr šamê rabûti, “light of the vast heavens”) but results from very different etymological interpretation. The description is entirely apposite to identify her with Aya, a goddess who personified the early morning light, evident in her Sumerian identity, Šerida, whose name may be understood from šērtu (“dawn”) as “Dawn Goddess” (Powell, 1989; Krebernik, 2009–2010). Divine control of the universe by holding its cosmic bond, often expressed by markasu, is a topos, deployed elsewhere in this composition (see note on l.10). The motif is expressed in l.79′ with the semantically related word riksu, “bond” (as in ll.53, 15′′). [§6.1] 80′ Dunni-sā’idi seems to have been a town not far from Babylon and evidently within its administrative sphere, as appears from an administrative document containing a list of temples in and around Babylon edited by George, Topog.Texts, pp.222–226. The preserved text of this document does not mention the shrine named here, but reveals that there was a temple of Gula there: bīt Gula ša Dunnu-sā’id (George, Topog.Texts, p.224 22) Temple of Gula of Dunnu-sā’idi Dunni-sā’idi is thought to lie between Sippar and Babylon (see Rép.géogr. III p.56). This seems to be supported by this composition, which places its temple between temples of Sippar (ll.78′–79′) and Babylon (l.81′ff.). The temple named in l.80′ is the first of several temples known only from this composition. The Babylonian manuscripts Ms. d and Ms. f give the name of the deity in the temple name as Inanna

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

281

(MÙŠ) where Ms. B has Ištar (diš-tar). Ms. B contains a small error later in the line (cf. also l.78′), where TI is written instead of the divine determinative. Its reading in l.80′ is thus not wholly sound, and the Babylonian manuscripts’ rendering of the temple name as é-ḫi-li-dinanna is consequently perhaps more reliable. The goddess Ulsigga is identified with Ištar in the God List An: Anu ša amēli: d

ul-si-ga min(Ištar) ša šamê u erṣeti (An: Anu ša amēli 88; ed. Litke, 1998) Ulsigga (Ištar) of heaven and earth

The same identification appears in a damaged section of the God List An: Anum ([dul]-⸢sig7⸣-ga IV 3 (ed. Litke, 1998) and elsewhere (see George, Topog.Texts, p.222 note 4). šamuḫtu is the feminine form of the adjective šamḫu, “luxuriant, lush; prosperous” (CAD Š/I 312). The verb šamāḫu, “to flourish” (CAD Š/I 288), commonly denotes extraordinary stature and beauty, as illustrated in the description of the young Marduk’s superlative physique as šamḫat nabnīssu, “Magnificent his stature” (Enūma eliš I 87). The lexical equivalence which generates šamuḫtu in l.80′ also supplies kuzbu (l.84′), a word which commonly denotes sexual allure (CAD K 614–615). This characteristic is clearly reflected in the name of the harlot in the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic, Šamḫat (see discussion George, 2003, p.148). šamuḫtu in l.80′ refers to the luxuriant physical allure of Ištar, reflected also in her Sumerian name Ulsigga. [§6.1] 81′–90′ The composition turns to Babylon and its temples and shrines, commencing with its foremost temple, é-sag-íl, sacred to Marduk, city-god of Babylon. 81′ The description of Babylon (ká-dingir-raki) as nēreb ilānī(dingir)meš, “gateway of the gods”, is closely similar to the more extended exposition of the name in the explanatory list of the names of Babylon: ká-dingir-raki kimin(Bābilu) nēreb masnaqti ilī(dingir)meš Ka-dingirra Babylon, the entrance of the mustering of the gods (Tintir I 22; ed. George, Topog.Texts) The equation of the healing goddess with Ningirimma occurs also in l.30, but the mention of Ningirimma here is unexpected, as Westenholz (Goddesses, p.110 n.455) observed. Ningirimma’s presence in Babylon is evidenced only in two contexts known to Westenholz: the mīs pî and pīt pî rituals in the é-kar-za-gìn-na, the temple of Ea within the é-sag-íl complex, involved Ningirimma, according to inscriptions of Esarhaddon (Borger, 1956, p.89 21–24, p.91 §60 10ff.); and she is named in the New Year ritual (Thureau-Dangin, 1921b, p.142 377 380; Linssen, 2004, pp.222, 231). Ningirimma is not otherwise especially associated with Babylon. The

282

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

prominence given to Ningirimma, at the outset of this passage, suggests a particular connection with Babylon not known from elsewhere. [§6.1] 82′–85′ Four lines are devoted to the temple of Marduk, framed by the name of the temple as a whole, é-sag-íl (l.82′), and his cella within it (l.85′). The two gates, kásilim-ma (l.83′) and ká-ḫi-li-sù (l.84′), are also coupled in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi: ina ká-silim-ma itti Marūduk annamir ina ká-ḫi-li-sù šēp Zarpanītum annabik (ludlul bēl nēmeqi IV 89–90; ed. Lambert, 1960, now V 52–53, ed. Oshima, 2014; reading as CAD A/I 9 abāku B) In ká-silim-ma (the Gate of Well-being) I met with Marduk In ká-ḫi-li-sù (the Gate of Abundance) I fell at the feet of Zarpanītum The pairing of the names in the above passage and in ll.83′–84′ underpins George’s restoration of a text known from Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian copies which lists the gates of é-sag-íl (BTT 7, 2′–3′; George, Topog.Texts p.401). 82′ Erua is a well-known name of Marduk’s spouse, Zarpanītum, evidenced in a God List known from first millennium copies: d

e-ru-⸢ú⸣-a dzar-pa-ni-tum d e-ru MIN (CT 25 35 obv.13–14// 36 obv.12–13) (For further citations, see George, Topog.Texts, p.336). The description bānât (dùat, Ms. d) riḫûti, “the one who creates sperm”, is closely similar to bānât zēri, “the one who creates the seed”, in l.21, where it refers to Zarpanītum. Both epithets are scholarly realisations of the different divine names, offering an interpretation of the character of the goddess. [§6.1] 83′ kabtu (f. kabittu), “important, respected”, is a common divine epithet (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.107; CAD K 26), which recurs in l.93′. Anšar features in divine epithets elsewhere in this composition (ll.22, 26, 38, 6′′′, perhaps also l.93′). Whilst the description of the goddess as esteemed by one of the most venerable of gods, kabitti Anšar, “venerated by Anšar”, is entirely appropriate to proclaim her greatness, Anšar (or indeed Anu, see note on l.60′) is not especially associated with ká-silim-ma, a gate of Marduk’s cella in é-sag-íl. As elsewhere, the unexpected allusion is the result of speculative interpretation. tašmû, “attention, listening”, and salīmu, “reconciliation, favour”, (and related words) are commonly used in devotional compositions to express divine grace (for numerous examples, see CAD S 102, T 374 tešmû). The description of the goddess as bēlet tašmê u salīme, “lady

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

283

of sympathy and mercy”, simultaneously interprets ká-silim-ma and contains the stock language of prayer. [§6.1] 84′ Ms. d provides bu-na-ma where Ms. B has mu-na-me. Although broken, Ms. f also appears to have b[u-na-ma]. The evident parallelism in meaning between būnāma za’nat, “she is covered in loveliness”, and kuzba ulluḫat, “she is laden with allure”, serves to confirm that Ms. d’s bu-na-ma is indeed the intended reading. Ms. d’s reading disposes of the supposition that Ms. B’s mu-na-me is a writing or corruption to be understood as melammē, “divine radiance” (as it is at CAD E 80 elēḫu; Z 48 zânu). būnāma is understood in the translation presented as the accusative (perhaps dual) of būnu, “goodness, loveliness”, a word which both means “goodness” and refers to the face or outward appearance, usually referring to good looks (AHw 138b būnu(m) II; CAD B 320–322 būnu A and B). The enclitic -ma may add emphasis to the word; its full force is unclear. Parallel to kuzba ulluḫat in both syntax and sense, būnāma za’nat expresses a motif commonly used in praise of a goddess. An Old Babylonian hymn describes Ištar in similar terms, coupling za’ānu, “to be adorned”, and kuzbu, “allure”: šāt mēleṣim ru’āmam labšat za’nat inbi mīki’am u kuzbam (Thureau-Dangin, 1925, p.172 5–6) She is the one who thrills, clad in seductiveness She is adorned with appeal, charm, allure Likewise, in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, Gula herself speaks of being nurtured by Antu: uzainanni kuzbī (Lambert, 1967, p.124 140) She adorned me with allure The sexual appeal of the goddess, evidently an important feature, is highlighted elsewhere in that composition (Lambert, op.cit., pp. 122–124 118–125; p.126 160– 167). l.84′ identifies the goddess with Zarpanītum, for ká-ḫi-li-sù was the gate of Zarpanītum’s cella é-dàra-an-na. Like ká-silim-ma (see section 6.1), the name ká-ḫili-sù was also used to refer to the cella itself (George, Topog.Texts, pp.393–394). It seems likely that it is so used here. [§6.1] 85′ Ebeling (1918, p.50 15) read the name of the shrine é-è-KU-a, Marduk’s cella within é-sag-íl, as é-è-umuš-a and the goddess’ name, correspondingly, as dNin-èumuš-a (see too George, Topog.Texts, pp.389–390; HMH 1176). The unusual orthography of the shrine name as é-è-umuš-a, with its additional element è, occurs in Ms. d and Ms. B, but not in Ms. f which contains the conventional orthography, é-umuš-a. The unusual spelling and the reading umuš (which understands KU as

284

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

TÚG) can both be accounted for by the scholar’s analysis of the names, reflected in the divine epithet mušāpât ṭēmi, “she who makes manifest the (divine) will”. Ms. B’s reading mu-šá-ba-at is likewise understood as a writing of the participle of šūpû(m), “to bring forth” (see CAD A/II 203 apû A). The scholarly interpretation mušāpât ṭēmi (explained in section 6.1) suggests that Ms. d and Ms. B are better witnesses of the intended text in l.85′. Indeed, the variant reading of the divine name as dnin-é-umuš-a in Ms. f perhaps betrays that the scribe of Ms. f was conscious of the unorthodox spellings of these sacred names as é-è-umuš-a and dnin-è-umuš-a and sought to correct them in the manuscript. Whereas the shrine name was readily amended to its usual orthography, the divine name was perhaps more puzzling; its additional element è was perhaps addressed simply by rendering it as é to reflect the conventional spelling of the shrine name: hence, dnin-é-umuš-a, “Lady of é-umuša”. The reading umuš is not supported by all scholars. Others instead read the cella name é-tuš-a (so, for example, Borger, MZL, p.352). The same element occurs in a writing of Marduk’s name, understood by Lambert (2013, p.152 K 4209 etc.10, a Neo-Assyrian copy of a God List) as dtuš-a (for further references see Borger, MZL, p.425); and in the name of Marduk’s processional barge gišmá-(u5)-KU-(a). The lexical list Urra gives the name of Marduk’s barge as gišmá-KU-a (Urra IV 306, MSL V p.177). Variants from Ugarit and Kuyunjik which write the final morpheme as -ša and -šá point to a reading of KU which has a final /š/ (see further George, Topog.Texts, p.273). The writing of the sign in forerunners of this list from Nuzi and Ras Shamra with three horizontals only (“a clear KU” Lambert, 1997, p.74) led Lambert to argue that “This requires a reading tuš ..... whatever the problems of meaning”. Lambert expressly gave no weight to the evidence of this l.85′, terming it “untrustworthy” in view of the etymological treatment of the line presented here as l.25. This reading, and the lexical equivalence of tuš and (w)ašābu(m), “to sit, dwell”, evidenced in lexical lists (so, Ea I 141 MSL XIV p.184) inform the dictionary entry matušû “(sum. Fw.) ‘Sitzboot’, Prozessionsschiff v Marduk in Babili” (AHw 1574b). Without further evidence, the reading of the name of Marduk’s cella and his barge cannot be unequivocally resolved. The divine epithet in l.85′, mušāpât ṭēmi, undoubtedly points to the reading umuš. It cannot be ruled out that the scholar exploited the writing system to read tuš as umuš and interpret accordingly (see section 3.2.25 for similar instances). However, the reading umuš, supported by the evidence from Ugarit and Kuyunjik referred to above, cannot be lightly dismissed. Further, it seems more meaningful to understand the cella as the place from which Marduk issued his directives (umuš, ṭēmu “instruction”) for the universe, as this line would suggest, rather than simply where he resided (tuš, (w)ašābu(m), “to dwell”). In mušāpât ṭēmi, “she who makes manifest the (divine) will”, the scholar appropriates the power to proclaim such commands to the composition’s goddess,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

285

aligning the goddess to the functions of Marduk himself. The reading understood by Ebeling and George is adopted in the transliteration presented here. [§6.1] 86′ l.86′ identifies the goddess with Ištar of Babylon, Bēlet-Bābili. The three manuscripts exhibit notable variety in the expression of the divine identity, rendering it as dmùš tin-tirki (Ms. d), be-let ká-dingir-raki (Ms. f) and be-let tin-tirki (Ms. B). The reading bēlet in both Ms. f and Ms. B, where Ms. d has dmùš, provides further evidence for the reading of dmùš as dnin (bēltu) as suggested by George, Topog.Texts, p.307. Neither Ms. f nor Ms. B contains a divine determinative before bēlet, as is often the case (cf. é-tur-kalam-ma as bīt dbe-let-bābili(tin-tir)ki, “temple of BēletBābili”, Tintir IV 8; ed. George, Topog.Texts). These exemplars seem to convey the title “Lady of Babylon”, rather than a divine name. The description of a deity as the counsellor of other gods is a common topos (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.128–129, CAD M/I 164 māliku for numerous examples). l.86′ (KAR 109 17) is cited with this meaning for mālikat Igīgī, “the one who counsels the Igigi”, by both CAD M/I 164 and AHw 595a māliktu(m). It is not a description commonly applied to Ištar, who is known for her impetuosity, rather than for wise counsel. ma-li-kàt may be interpreted as derived from a by-form of malkatu, “queen” (CAD M/I 166 malkatu B; AHw 595b), which routinely describes Ištar. Westenholz (Goddesses, p.110) so understood it: “queen of the Igigi-gods”. This interpretation is to be preferred, but in view of the ambiguity, the dictionaries are followed in the translation presented here. [§6.1] 87′ In é-nam-ti-la, the temple of Enlil as Bēl-mātāti in Babylon, the scholar perhaps identifies the goddess with Enlil’s spouse Ninlil, identified with the healing goddess in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967, pp.126–128 178–187). bunnannû, “features” (translated as “appearance” in this l.87′), commonly refers to the face (CAD B 317–318). šarḫu, “splendid”, is a stock description used to express the nobility or magnificence of a deity, as the many examples given in CAD Š/II 61–62 illustrate (see too Tallqvist, 1938, pp.230–231). bunnannê šarḫat, “noble in appearance”, can be understood as celebrating the nobility of the goddess’ features (so, citing this line as KAR 109 18, CAD B 319, Š/II 62). Perhaps, however, like nabnītu, with which it shares lexical equivalence (Nabnītu I 1–2 MSL XVI p.50 and elsewhere), bunnannû alludes more generally to the deity’s appearance or stature. inamdin bulṭu (bul[ṭ]a, Ms. d), “she grants life”, here generated by speculative interpretation, repeats the description of l.27′. [§6.1] 88′ The storm-god Adad, patron god of é-nam-ḫé, is termed mudeššû ḪÉ-GÁ[L], “provider of plenty”, in a šu-íla prayer to him (BMS 21, set out in Schwemer, 2001, pp.666–667 12), reflecting his responsibility for irrigation (for Adad as gugallu,

286

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

“irrigation controller”, see Schwemer, op.cit., p.708). Adad’s epithet mudeššû encompasses the separate descriptions of the goddess in l.88′, which serve to align the goddess with Adad’s competences. The conceit that the goddess wields the patron deity’s powers, deployed elsewhere in this composition, is evident here too. Generated by interpretation of the temple name, the qualities attributed to the goddess express the perennial concern for a plentiful harvest and its divine provision. Both are common features in Mesopotamian writings, as illustrated in a gate name in the Assyrian town Dūr-Šarru-kēn which contains the same language as l.88′, Ninlil-mudeššât-ḫiṣbi, “Ninlil who provides abundance”, (Fuchs, 1994). [§6.1] 89′ l.89′ relates to Gula herself in her temple in Babylon. The syntax of petât uzni (like the similar phrase rapšat uzni in l.4) has been discussed by Reiner (1984, p.178) and Wasserman (2003, pp.50, 53) (see too Mayer, 2015, p.190). The expression petû uzni is said of many other deities (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.156; CAD P 339, U 370– 371). The idiom is understood in CAD P 339 as “wise” and, similarly, at CAD N/I 34 “intelligent”, both citing this line (KAR 109 20). This meaning is often certain, as in a Standard Babylonian šu-íla prayer where Nabû is termed petû uzni rapaštu, “exceedingly wise” (Nabû 4; ed. Mayer, 1976, p.476 46). However, this meaning is not always so clearly applicable. A more literal translation, describing one whose “ear” (uznu) is “open” (petû), is illuminative. petû uzni seems apt to signify a deity who listens to a supplicant’s prayers, as this goddess does (cf. l.27′ išemme tēslīt nišī(un)meš, “she listens to the prayers of the people”). petât uzni in this line is so understood at CAD T 27 tabīnu, where it is translated as “she is attentive” (see also George, Topog.Texts, p.331). This sense is adopted in the translation presented. The phrase petât uzni may, however, simultaneously convey the goddess’ attentiveness, perception, compassion and wisdom. The strained shift in sense effected by the final phrase nābât tabīni, “she calls the shelter into being”, is forced by the scholar’s speculative interpretation of the temple name. nābât is rendered “she names” in CAD’s citations of this line (CAD N/I 34; T 27; similarly, AHw 1298b “die benennt”). nabû, “to name, invoke”, is widely used to express the act of creation (see Lambert, 1998a): “to call into being”. This meaning seems most fitting in l.89′, as proposed by George, Topog.Texts, p.331. tabīnu, a rare word, usually refers to a shelter for shepherds and their flocks (CAD T 27). Citing this line, CAD T 27 declined to translate tabīnu (“the t.”). The word can be readily understood as an image reflecting the protective aspect of the temple. Pastoral vocabulary (rē’û, “shepherd”, for example) is commonly used with transferred meaning to connote divine protection. The protective nature of a temple is occasionally conveyed by the temple name itself, notably exemplified in é-gissubi-dùg-ga, “the House whose Shade is pleasant” (l.113′). The concept is evidently

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

287

reflected also in the temple name é-tùr-kalam-ma, “the House, Cattle-pen of the Land” (l.86′), a name which replicates the motif expressed by tabīnu here. [§6.1] 90′ The temple of Ištar as Bēlet-Eanna, Lady of Uruk, concludes the section treating the temples of Babylon. As elsewhere in this composition (cf. ll.66′, 68′), šubtu is understood in the translation presented as the “seat” or dwelling of the deity, an abode of peace (nēḫtu). The phrase šubat nēḫti, “abode of peace” (and the similar šubtu nēḫtu, “peaceful abode”), is commonly used to express security, widely attested in royal writings and elsewhere (see CAD N/II 150–151 nēḫtu, nēḫu; Š/III 182). šubat nēhti here may convey both tranquillity and, as in l.89′, the protective nature of the temple. āšibat tašīlti is supplied by Ms. B; Ms. d preserves the same phrase, save for the final sign, which is lost. The coincident evidence of the two manuscripts suggests that a reading tašīlti, “ delight”, was not intended. The participle āšib/āšibat, “who dwells”, is commonly coupled with some physical or cosmic location, as a genitive construction (see CAD A/II 396–397); its use with an abstract noun, as here, is exceptional. The unusual expression āšibat tašīlti, translated here as “she is the one who dwells in delight”, (perhaps a reduction of āšibat šubat tašīlti, “occupant of an abode of joy”) may be intended for elevated effect (note, similarly, the unusual phrase āšibat rubâti in l.52). Lexical and bilingual texts evidence that tašīltu(m) expresses joy and festivity. A first millennium tablet from Assyria contains part of the Akkadian synonym list an = šamû in which ulṣu, ḫidūtu (both meaning “joy” CAD U–W 86, Ḫ 183) and tašīltu are synonymous (LTBA 2, 1 vi 13′– 15′). Likewise, a commentary text on the omen series šumma ālu explains gir17-zal as tašīlti and ḫidūti (CT 41 29 5). In a bilingual hymn to Lammašagga, the temple name [é i-lu gi]r17-zal is rendered as bīt nigûtim ša tašīltam malû, “house of joyous song, filled with joy” (Sjöberg, 1974, p.162 5; further restored, George, Topog.Texts, p.317). tašīltu is used to signify festivity in a religious context in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi. In a passage that seems to refer to sacred marriage, the healing goddess, identified with Ninsun, declares: ina erēbīya tašīlāti (Lambert, 1967, p.126 166) When I enter, there is celebration For further citations pertaining to festivals, see CAD T 287. Elsewhere, tašīltu is attested as a characteristic of temples themselves. A Standard Babylonian šu-íla prayer to Ninurta describes é-kur as bīt tašīlāti, “house of joy” (Ebeling, 1953a, p.24 16); in a writing of Nebuchadnezzar II, é-sag-íl is šubat tašīlātum, “abode of rejoicing” (PBS XV 79 31), a phrase semantically similar to āšibat tašīlti in l.90′. For further examples, see George, Topog.Texts, pp.316–318; CAD T 287. In these

288

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

contexts, there seems no compelling reason to understand tašīltu in any different sense, notwithstanding its translation in CAD T 287 “splendor” and, similarly, AHw 1338a “etwa Pracht(entfaltung)”. The description of a temple as bīt tašīlāti, “house of joy”, can be readily understood as an allusion to its function as a place for the jubilation that accompanied religious festivals (see George, Topog.Texts, pp.246– 247, 316–317). tašīltu is so understood in the translation presented. The scholar’s choice of vocabulary in l.90′ is entirely driven by the elements of the temple name. [§6.1] 91′–123′ The composition turns to towns and temples known to lie in the vicinity of Babylon, or whose inclusion in these lines suggests their proximity to Babylon, before focussing on the great temples of Nippur. Cultic links between Babylon and nearby towns, such as Borsippa (l.91′) and Kiš (l.98′), are evidenced in the first millennium (see George, 2000, p.260). The grouping of towns in this part of the composition with centres known to have close cultic ties with Babylon may evidence the extent of the cultic network centred on Babylon. 91′–92′ These lines form a couplet in which the goddess is identified with the spouse of Nabû, patron deity of Borsippa, in his temple there, é-zi-da. Ninzilzille is a name of Nanāy (Stol, 1998–2001). Ebeling (1918, p.50 21) read the name as dnin-tag-taggúb (similarly Tallqvist, 1938, p.419; cf. AHw 1344b dnin-TAG-TAG). The reading zíl-zíl for TAG-TAG is indicated by glosses in the God List An: Anum: d

TAG (zi-iz-⸢zil⸣)-TAG (An: Anum III 78; ed. Litke, 1998)

The reading zíl-zíl is supported by the reading of the final sign of the divine name in l.91′ as li/le (for this reading and the identification of Nanāy and dzíl-zíl/Ninzilzille see further Lambert, 1966, p.45; Richter, 2004, p.306). The image of Nanāy as the major goddess of Borsippa implicit in l.91′ is also expressed at the outset of the bilingual syncretistic hymn to Nanāy where the goddess Nanāy herself declares: mārat Sîn telītu aḫat Šamaš talīmtu ina Barsipa ḫammāku (Reiner, 1974, p.224 2) I am the clever daughter of Sîn, the sister of Šamaš, in Borsippa I am head. The same hymn associates Nanāy with é-zi-da (Reiner, 1974, p.227 29–30), where Nanāy is expressly identified as the wife of Nabû, rather than Tašmētum (for discussion of Nanāy’s ascendancy over Tašmētum in the official cult of Borsippa, see Waerzeggars, 2010, p.21). taknû is a noun of the taprīs pattern related to the meaning of the D stem of kanû, “to show care” (CAD K 540 kunnû). bēlet taknê in the God List entry CT 25 49 r.7 is translated by CAD as “the honoured lady”, reflecting a meaning of kunnû in which

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

289

mortals pay care to a deity. In other attestations, where the context is clearer, taknû imparts the essential meaning of kunnû, and refers to care taken, “loving care”, reflected in “etwa ‘liebevolle Betreuung’” (AHw 1344b teknûm). bēlet taknê is consequently understood in l.91′ as the lady who shows care: “the compassionate lady”. taknû seems rarely to have been applied to describe animate things. This present line (KAR 109 22) and the God List entry CT 25 49 r.7 account for two of the three such instances cited at CAD T 84. The unusual use of the word results from speculative interpretation of the divine name, evidently reflecting the same tradition which CT 25 49 r.7 evidences. Ms. d contains two variants: gašan, where Ms. B and Ms. f use syllabic writing of bēltu, “lady”; and the spelling sì-qar-š[á] or sè-qar-š[á] (Ms. B zikirša; Ms. f is broken), “her name”. The orthography sqr for zkr is an old spelling found in texts from the Old Babylonian period, which is visible in spellings of verbal forms such as i-sa-qa-ra-am, “he said to him” (Gilgameš OB Ishchali, George, 2003, p.264 40′); see CAD Z 16–22, AHw 1503b–1505a; GAG § 30 c. The spelling sqr occurs occasionally in later literary and royal compositions where, as in Ms. d, sì-qar appears as the construct state or bound form (see CAD Z 112–166 zikru). The archaising spelling would seem to be intended to impart a high literary style to the manuscript. [§6.1] With evident reservations, Ebeling (1918, p.50 22) read “lê’u(!) balāṭi” “der Lebenstafel(?)” for the phrase in Ms. B presented here as gišle-u5 kit-ti (lē’u kitti, “writing board of truth”). The translation “tablet of life” appears in CAD L 159, citing this line (KAR 109 22), beside the transliteration GIŠ.LI.U5.UM TI. It is clear that both Ebeling and CAD understood TI as a logogram for balāṭu, “life”. Where Ebeling read UM, Lambert read kit-. The reading kit-ti, “of truth”, is put beyond doubt by Ms. d, which has a clear Neo-Babylonian KID. The writing of lē’u, “writing board”, in Ms. B that puzzled Ebeling can now be understood as gišle-u5 (see CAD L 156). The three manuscripts each preserve a different writing of the word. Ms. d has a phonetic spelling ⸢giš⸣le-’i/’u. Ms. B (gišle-u5) and Ms. f (gišle-u5-UM) contain older writings, understood as logographic writings (see CAD L 156; Borger, MZL, p.262 no. 85). gišle-u5-um, equated with lē’u, occurs in the lexical list Urra IV 2 (MSL V p.151), indicating that it was believed to be a Sumerian word. The old orthography in Ms. f and Ms. B (but, unlike l.91′, not in Ms. d) again seems intended to convey a higher literary style. The expression lē’u kitti (or any parallel phrase with ṭuppu, “tablet”, rather than lē’u, “writing board”) does not appear to be otherwise attested. The concept of a “writing board (or tablet) of truth” does not appear to occur elsewhere. A related concept may occur in a Neo-Babylonian hymn to é-zi-da which describes Nabû: ṣabitma qan ṭuppu kittu (Köcher, 1959, p.239 15)

290

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

He grasps the stylus of truth What lē’u kitti signified is obscure. Likewise, the meaning of inašši rēša is unclear. rēša nasû, literally “to raise the head”, is found in several different idiomatic meanings (see CAD N/II 107–108), none of which clearly suits the context. The translation given in CAD L 159 “She (Bau) is checking” is an interpretation linked to the incorrect reading “tablet of life” and is unconvincing. Nabû’s role as the scribe of Marduk and bearer of the tablet of destinies is well-documented; it is encapsulated in his description in a colophon from Aššurbanipal’s libraries as: tāmiḫ lē’i ṣābit qan ṭuppi šīmāte (Hunger, 1968, p.102, n. 328 2) The one who grasps the writing board, who takes hold of the stylus of destinies For other similar descriptions, see Pomponio (1978, pp.181–182). The similarity of this and the extract from the é-zi-da hymn above to the motif of l.92′ is obvious. Here, as elsewhere in the composition, the scholar aligns the goddess, identified as é-zi-da’s goddess, with the competences of Nabû, the temple’s god, achieved in language that owes much to speculative interpretation. [§6.1] 93′ The Late Babylonian piece Ms. b, identified by E. Jiménez and his team on the Electronic Babylonian Literature (eBL) Project, appears to duplicate the composition here on its more damaged face. Only one quarter (at most) of each of the first nine lines is partially preserved. Its first two lines, read by E. Jiménez as ina dil-batk[i and ina é-i-[ , duplicate the start of ll.93′–94′. Other coincident readings serve to place its text at ll.93′–102′. Its third line supplies text missing from other manuscripts (l.95′). Its fourth and perhaps fifth lines are not certainly paralleled in ll.96′–97′. The other face of Ms. b, which certainly duplicates ll.106′–116′, perhaps has the appearance of being from the obverse of the tablet. It might be wondered whether the rather fragmentary text belongs elsewhere in the Gula hymn. In light of the coincident readings, it is placed here. ll.93′–94′ form a couplet in which the goddess is identified with the goddess of the temple of Uraš at Dilbat. In the other manuscripts, Ms. B preserves both lines, subject to a small amount of damage; Ms. f has most of l.93′ and much of l.94′; Ms. d preserves only the final part of each line. na-bit ilānī(dingir)meš is Ms. B’s reading (so KAR 109 and Ebeling, 1918, p.50 24). Ms. d has only the final sign of this phrase, partly preserved, which appears to be meš, consistent with Ms. B’s reading. nabīt can be taken as a form derived from the adjective nebû, “shining, bright”. Both CAD N/II 148 and AHw 774b so understood na-bit here (KAR 109 24) and this is reflected in the translation presented here: “most brilliant of the gods”. nebû is frequently used to describe stars and astral deities, notably Venus (dil-bad), the astral aspect of Ištar. Tallqvist (1938, p.134) too so understood na-bit, commenting that this line concerns “Bau (als Ištar) in Dilbat”.

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

291

Ms. f may have contained a different reading. The second element of the epithet is partially broken away, leaving only the heads of the signs but the final sign does not appear to be meš. Lambert read an-šár. With this reading, na-bit may be understood as the construct state of the feminine verbal adjective of nabû, a verb whose essential meaning is “to name”, and which bears a wide range of meanings. Although it is difficult to be certain of the precise nuance, nabīt Anšar is perhaps “the one appointed by Anšar”. The identification of Anšar with Anu in some texts is noted above (see note on l.60′). Understood as Anu, the epithet points forward to the temple name in l.94′, é-ibbi-Anum (“the House Anum called into being”). Hence nabīt Anšar, if correct, has some attraction over the more prosaic nabīt ilānī. (See note on ll. 38 and 52 for discussion of similar phrases). The damage to Ms. d and Ms. f makes it difficult to be confident that Ms. d read na-bit dingirmeš, where Ms. f contained the variant na-bit an-šár. If this is indeed correct, it is noteworthy that the Assyrian Ms. B and Babylonian Ms. d agree, whereas Ms. f, also Babylonian, contained a variant reading. Ms. f’s variant, if it be such, would be a very rare instance of an alternative tradition evidenced in the surviving manuscripts. The different readings may point to a miscopying rather than relaying a separate tradition. kabtu, “important”, a common divine epithet already used in l.83′, is deployed here in the phrase kabitti māti, “the most important in the land”, in the scholar’s speculative interpretation, whilst producing an epithet that is appropriate to praise the goddess. [§6.1] 94′ The first element of the divine name is missing in all manuscripts. Lambert’s restoration d[Nin]-é-gal seems certain. This name, with a partial Akkadian explanation, appears in the God List An: Anum in the retinue of Inanna/Ištar: d

Nin-é-gal Bēlet ēkalli(é-gal) (An: Anum IV 100; ed. Litke, 1998)

The goddess appears to have been identified with Inanna in literary texts in Sumerian from the Old Babylonian period (see further Richter, 2004, p.368; for Nin-é-gal (Bēlet-ēkalli) generally, see Behrens and Klein, 1998–2001; Richter, 2004, pp.368– 371, 482–483). If l.93′ refers to Ištar in her astral aspect, as Tallqvist (1938, p.134) thought, ll.93′–94′ reflect a literary and religious tradition in which Ištar and Bēletēkalli (Nin-é-gal) were identified. As Richter (2004, p.368) noted, however, in another tradition, evidenced in greetings formulae in two Old Babylonian letters (AbB 3 61 and TIM 1 27), Nin-é-gal and Uraš were spouses. Documents from the first millennium show that Nin-é-gal had a cult-centre in Uraš’ temple in Dilbat (see Unger, 1938). l.94′ appears to reflect this tradition also. Variant readings of the epithet are preserved: mu-ṣab-bu-u (Ms. B) and mu-ṣab-bat (Ms. d). Ms. B’s muṣab-bu-u suggests confusion between BAD(bat) and BU-U, a combination of superficially similar shape. muṣabbât, the construct state of the feminine participle

292

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

of ṣubbû, “to observe”, seems superior. CAD Ṣ 227 noted that “the basic connotation of (ṣubbû) is suggested by the Sumerian correspondences which all stress the seeing from afar (sù-ud)”, a view which is comprehensive. Hence ṣubbû can mean to look intently at all aspects, as CAD’s cited attestations demonstrate. As well as offering an interpretation of the temple name, the phrase muṣabbât Anim, “the one who gazes on Anu”, perhaps reflects a religious tradition in which Uraš is a manifestation of Anu. [§6.1] 95′ Ms. d (obverse) and the readable text of Ms. B (obverse) break off with l.95′; Ms. f contains only broken traces. Ms. b alone supplies the opening of the line, belet BU-, “lady of …”. This fits well into the gap in Ms. f and BU- accords with the traces there. Whilst mention of Bēlet-ēkalli (Nin-é-gal) would be fitting in the context of l.94′, with its reference to Nin-é-gal, and l.96′, which surely refers to a temple of Bēlet-ēkalli, this appears unlikely. What the goddess is “lady of” is not clear. Only the last three signs at the end of the line can be read securely: ma-a-me (Ms. B), preceded by a sign Ebeling (1918, p.50 25) read as mar, but which may be -rat, expressing a feminine ending, but does not appear to be an/dingir. Ms. d reads ⸢ma⸣-⸢a⸣-[ ], consistent with Ms. B’s reading; Ms. f is more fragmentary, preserving only traces of (part)-signs, which perhaps might be read m[a-a-m]e. Mame is a mother-goddess with whom the goddess is identified in l.23. The name is usually written with a divine determinative, dma-me-e, as in l.23 (and see Krebernik, 1993– 1997, pp.504–505); its absence casts doubt on the reading. 96′ Lambert’s unpublished collation notes indicate that, where it breaks off here, Ms. B preserves a few more broken (though illegible) traces than Ebeling showed in KAR 109. In Ms. b, the first two signs of the line are muš-te. Its reading was perhaps muš-te-š[ir, as suggested by E. Jiménez (private communication, January 2021), presumably taking a feminine form, “she who directs”. The text of Ms. b appears to have differed from Ms. f, which supplies almost the complete line. [mu]š is Lambert’s restoration in Ms. f, to supply [mu]š-pa-ri-ir-rat. šuparruru, “to spread out”, is entered in the dictionaries as an independent verb (AHw 1278b–1279a; CAD Š/III 317–318). How šuparruru may be analysed is controversial (see Kouwenberg, 2010, pp.340–341; Goetze, 1945, p.248; von Soden, 1950, p.331 and GAG § 109 e). It has been analysed as the ŠD stem of parāru, “to be dissolved”, (Huehnergard, 2011, pp.462, 525). Kouwenberg (op.cit., p.341) understood šuparruru as a causative form, related to naparruru, “to be dispersed”, (contra, von Soden, 1951, p.261). Kouwenberg indicated that the participle is not attested. mušparirrat, “who spreads”, here in l.96′ now fills that gap. šuparruru is found in literary texts to express, as here, the spreading of a hunting net:

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

293

ušparrirma bēlum sapārašu ušalmīši (Enūma eliš IV 95) The lord spread out his hunting-net and made her entrapped šētu, rather than sapāru, is the word used for hunting-net in l.96′. Attested from the Old Babylonian period, it appears to be an everyday word, but often used, as here, in transferred meaning as an image (CAD Š/II 340–341). Although mušparirrat šēt zā’irī, “she is the one who spreads the hunting net for the enemy”, expresses divine protection, a commonplace in devotional compositions (cf. ll.89′, 113′), the divine description is not itself a stock phrase. It seems certain that the epithet provides a clue to the identity of the setting. The very specific character of this epithet suggests the sacred setting may be identified, with some confidence, as é-sa-pàr, “House of the Net”, rather than the temple named in l.97′, é-gal-dlamma-lugal (“the Palace of the King’s Protective Deity”). é-sa-pàr is known as a temple of Bēlet-ēkalli “probably at Dilbat” (HMH 949), the same deity and town as feature in ll.93′–94′. It was perhaps part of the temple of Uraš at Dilbat mentioned in l.94′, é-ibbi-Anum, (Behrens and Klein, 1998–2001, p.346). This coincidence seems to confirm that l.96′ indeed refers to the goddess of é-sa-pàr, as well as further supporting the location of é-sa-pàr as Dilbat. If the identification is correct, it is to be expected that é-sa-pàr would be expressly named, as is typical in the composition. It seems unlikely that é-sa-pàr can be restored to supply the loss at the end of l.96′ after āšibat, “she dwells”. Only rarely does a temple name occur at the end of a line (ll.109′, 121′). Further, there is perhaps not enough room for é-sa-pàr, certainly not preceded by ina, “in”, which is consistently written syllabically in this manuscript (Ms. f). It seems probable that the concluding phrase conveyed something different (cf. l.52 āšibat rubâti, l.90′ āšibat tašīlti). Following the typical pattern of l.75′ff., the temple name would be expected at the beginning of a line. The very slight traces that remain in l.95′, coupled with the text supplied there by Ms. b, do not seem to support the restoration of é-sa-pàr there. Further, it is not obvious what connection Mame (if the reading is correct) had with é-sa-pàr. The proposition that the setting of l.96′ (and perhaps l.95′) is é-sa-pàr is hence not without difficulty. However, the possibility that, rather than interpreting an expressed name, the epithet mušparirrat šēt zā’irī encodes the name é-sa-pàr as the goddess’ temple in l.96′ cannot be ruled out. This is discussed in section 6.1. It would be unusual; divine names and toponyms are alluded to in this way in this composition, an exceptional feature in the scholarly speculation of the Gula hymn which will be explained and illustrated in section 6.2. [§6.1] 97′ Only Ms. f certainly preserves the temple name é-gal-dlamma-lugal, known only from this line. The temple is evidently not part of the Kiš group (l.98′ff.), for, in the formulaic style of this section, the place name marks the start of a passage (so, ll.75′,

294

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

78′, 81′ etc.). It may perhaps be in Dilbat (cf. ll.83′–90′ where free-standing lines in the pattern of l.97′ list further temples of Babylon). Its place in these lines suggests a location within the general vicinity of Babylon (as noted in HMH 317). ešēbu, “to grow luxuriantly”, and uššubu, its D stem with like meaning used here, are rare words for which the dictionaries list few citations (CAD E 352; AHw 253b, 1555a). Mostly applied literally to plants, the verb is attested figuratively in a curse attached to a royal proclamation from Ugarit: bītu lā iššib (Nougayrol, 1955, 76a 11) The house shall not flourish! In l.97′ uššubat, the D stem fs stative used transitively, “she makes [the ruler] flourish”, is used figuratively. As elsewhere, the selection of an unusual word is driven by its lexical equivalence to serve the scholar’s explanatory technique. The reverse of Ms. d provides -al- in Lambert’s restoration of [ma]-al-[ki] to complete the line, a restoration which the well-known lexical equivalence of malku, “ruler”, and šarru(lugal), “king” makes incontrovertible. [§6.1] 98′–107′ The composition is devoted to Kiš and its environs, before turning to Kutha in l.108′. The progression is natural, given the proximity of Kiš, Ḫursag-kalamma and Kutha, but may reflect some established geographical order. George (HMH, p.50) observed that the same sequence occurs in two temple lists, HMH TL4 12–15 and HMH TL6 1–27, noting that Kiš and its temples are followed by Kutha in the most common standard litanies of Babylonian cult centres. 98′ The place name Kiš, preserved in Ms. b and Ms. f, confirms that l.98′ is to be read with what follows. Here the scholar identifies the composition’s goddess with the principal goddess of Kiš and spouse of the patron deity of Kiš, the warrior god Zababa, a goddess who is not named in ll.98′–100′. In the Old Babylonian period, Zababa’s spouse seems to have been Ištar. Lambert (1967, p.111) noted that the two are named as chief deities of Kiš in an inscription of Samsu-iluna (YOS IX 35) and date formulae reveal that they shared a temple (Ḫammurapi 36; Samsu-iluna 22; Ammī-ṣaduqa 15). Later, Zababa’s spouse is usually the healing goddess Bau. The Middle Babylonian God List An: Anum records this later tradition: d

za-ba4-ba4 šu ba-ú dam-bi-munus (An: Anum V 49–50; ed. Litke, 1998) Zababa (the same) Bau, his wife

d

In the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, Zababa’s wife is the healing goddess in her persona as Ninigizibarra (Lambert, 1967, pp.120–123 79–100). The motifs deployed

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

295

in l.98′ identify the goddess in l.98′, and hence ll.99′–100′, as Ištar, an astral deity and, in one tradition, the daughter of the moon-god, Sîn. itti Sîn, (the god’s name clearly written in Ms. d and Ms. f by his divine number d30), seems best understood in the same way as the like phrases in ll.60′–65′: “by leave of Sîn”. Radiance is a stock attribute of the moon-god, epitomized in his description in a Standard Babylonian prayer to him: Sîn ilu ellu namru (Perry, 1907, p.23 1) Sîn, the pure and shining god The goddess’ radiance in her astral aspect, Venus (dil-bad) (and perhaps her divine radiance generally), expressed in namrat, “she shines bright”, is hence an attribute allowed to her by her father Sîn himself. namrat itti Sîn, “she shines bright by leave of Sîn”, simultaneously serves to refer to a religious tradition as to her divine genealogy, thus perhaps portraying her radiance as an inherited characteristic, and replicates the conceit expressed by ll.60′–65′ which is a recurrent motif in this composition. Save for his relationship with Ištar, Sîn does not appear to have a particular association with Kiš, as he does with Ur. It is striking that he is named here, and not in ll.75′–77′ which pertain to Ur. The nature of this composition suggests that scholarly speculation which prompts Sîn’s name underpins l.98′; an explanation is suggested in section 6.1. The final phrase of the line is not fully preserved in the manuscripts. šaqû, “high, elevated”, is a common divine epithet (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.229–230; CAD Š/II 17–19). The form is broken, but, in keeping with the pattern of the composition, seems likely to describe the goddess. dma-š[um] is Lambert’s tentative restoration of the final word, partly preserved in Ms. d alone. dmāšu, the word which refers to twin gods (CAD M/I 401–403), is identified in star lists with two constellations: the greater twins (probably the Gemini pair) Lugalirra and Meslamtaea, explained in one text as Sîn and Nergal; and the lesser twins Alammuš and Ningublaga (V R 46, no. 1 obv 4–7; CT 33 1 i 5–6). A further explanatory list enumerates seven such pairs (see George, Topog.Texts, p.366, where the texts are set out). māšu also appears in Old Babylonian and Standard Babylonian incantations where, paired with Maštum (Ištar) and together described as the children of Sîn, it is a name of the sun-god (see CAD M/I 402). If dma-š[um] is indeed correct, an image that refers to the sun-god in parallel with the moon-god seems more obvious than a reference to a constellation. Thus interpreted, l.98′ would contain a rare instance of Mašum without Maštum. Understanding the goddess of ll.98′–100′ as Ištar supports the identification of dmaš[um] as the sun-god, for thus understood, Mašum and Maštum (Ištar) are indeed together, and the apparent absence of the usual pairing is accounted for. The context and parallelism tend to confirm that a reference to the sun-god is intended and this is accordingly tentatively offered in the translation presented. [§6.1]

296

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

99′ The exploration of Kiš’ temples naturally commences with the temple of Zababa. This temple’s name has often been read as é-kìšib-ba (so, RLA II 321). Attestations of the temple name in Neo-Assyrian script demonstrate the correct reading is é-dubba (for further references see George, Topog.Texts, p.471; Borger, MZL, pp.349– 350). This reading is further confirmed in l.99′ by the epithets the scholar gives to the goddess which explore the meaning of the temple name é-dub-ba as “the Storage House”. išpikkū is used to mean the yield or produce of the land, illustrated in the explanation of Marduk’s name Enbilulu-Gugal: bēl ḫegalli ṭuḫdi išpikī rabûti (Enūma eliš VII 65) Lord of abundance, plenty, plentiful produce In other texts, išpikkū refers to their storage containers. So, the house of a rich man is characterised by išpikkīšu šapkū, “his storage bins piled high” (Gilgameš VII 159; ed. George, 2003). The editors of CAD noted that “of the two meanings ... ‘storage bin or jar’ is restricted to literary texts” (CAD I–J 259). The epithet bēlet išpikkū (the -u vowel writing the genitive plural) is perhaps better understood to refer to receptacles, rather than their contents. The translation of bēlet išpikkū as “mistress of the store” reflects the ambiguity of the Akkadian word. ganānu, “to shut in”, and its D stem with like meaning are usually attested in contexts which speak of troops being encircled or confined (CAD G 40; AHw 280a/b). Kouwenberg noted the frequent use in literary texts of the D stem of verbs which are transitive in meaning in both G and D stems. Commenting that the D stem has a “stylistic affinity with such texts”, Kouwenberg (1997, pp.187–188) suggested that “This is doubtless related to its marked character: it is longer in form and less common in use; therefore, it is less ordinary and more expressive than the average G stem” (similarly GAG § 88 f Anm.). The phrase muganninat ganūnū, “who keeps the storage rooms secure”, illustrates this. The imaginative transferred use of the D stem feminine participle and its alliterative effect in combination with ganūnū are deployed to elaborate on the goddess’ attributes in é-dub-ba. In texts from the Old Babylonian period ganūnu, a Sumerian loan-word, is used to mean a storage place, the meaning apposite to l.99′; in later texts, it appears more commonly to refer to living quarters (for examples, see CAD G 42–43). The word was perhaps selected for archaising effect. [§6.1] 100′ The sacred name is damaged in all three manuscripts. Sufficient remains to be confident that it is, as Lambert read, é-me-te-ur-sag, “the House Worthy of the Hero”, the cella of Zababa in é-dub-ba. The context and the explanation of the name realised in the description of its goddess unequivocally confirm it. šūluku, Š stem of alāku (“to go”) is used in the stative with ana, as here, to mean “to be fit, appropriate for” (CAD A/I 327). šūlukat describes the goddess herself, “she is fitting (for)”. Its

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

297

use with simtu, “appropriate characteristic”, has a parallel in an inscription from the reign of Nabonidus which speaks of a shrine: papāḫi ... ša ... ana simat ilūtīšunu rabīti šūluku (Schaudig, 2001, p.404 2.11 1 iii 13–16) A shrine ... as befits their great divinity qarrādu, “hero”, is a routine divine epithet, of particular application to warrior gods (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.162–164; CAD Q 141–142). Amongst the gods charged with protecting Ḫammurapi’s laws in the epilogue to their inscription, Zababa himself is invoked as qarrādum rabium, “great hero” (CH R XXVII 81–82; ed. Borger, 1979). [§6.1] 101′–105′ The composition turns to the ancient cult-centre of Ištar in Ḫursagkalamma, the eastern city area of Kiš. Temple lists and other texts evidence that in the first millennium Ištar was seen as a manifestation of Ninlil in her temple here (see HMH 482). ll.102′–105′ appear to reflect and confirm this. Whilst Ninlil is named (l.102′), ll.104′–105′ seem to allude to Ištar as Zarpanītum, and perhaps to Ištar herself. 101′–103′ The extended etymological speculation which spans ll.101′–103′ shows that they belong together. The beginning of l.101′ is missing, but the lexical equivalences in play at the end of l.101′ (preserved in Ms. d) secure Lambert’s restoration of the beginning of the line as [ina ḫur]-sag-kalam-ma. There is not enough space in either Ms. d or Ms. f (nor, it seems, in Ms. b) for [ina é-ḫur], which would certainly denote the temple. The determinative ki is regularly used in Ms. d and Ms. f to mark toponyms (cf. ll. 93′, 98′); its omission here indicates that ḫur-sagkalam-ma is indeed here the temple itself. muzakkirat, the construct state of the fs participle, is derived from zukkuru, the D stem of zakāru (“to declare”), which seems to have the same meaning as its G stem. It appears to be rarely attested, found mostly in Standard Babylonian literary compositions. It occurs in the weighty opening passage of the Enūma eliš narrative, when no god existed: šūma lā zukkurū (Enūma eliš I 8) Nor were called by name For other examples, see Kouwenberg, 1997, p.235; CAD Z 21. The use of zukkuru here seems to mark a high literary style, bearing out Kouwenberg’s observations on the literary use of such D stems (see note on l.99′). The plural uṣurāti, “plans, designs”, is indicated by Ms. d giš-ḫurme (Ms. f ú-ṣu-rat). It is curious that this scribe writes the plural marker here in abbreviated form (me), but writes the marker in the common form meš in unmeš, the logogram which immediately follows in the phrase

298

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

nišī(un)meš šadî(kur)i “of the people of the mountains”. Ms. d appears to have contained one further sign after ma-ti, largely lost, prompting Lambert’s suggested restoration ma-ti-t[an]. mātitān appears to be a word attested only in Standard Babylonian and late texts. Scholars have analysed mātitān, “all countries”, somewhat differently. CAD M/I 411 characterises mātitān as an adverb, “everywhere; all countries (as collective)”. Its adverbial use is clear in the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi: ayyāte epšēti šanâti mātitān (ludlul bēl nēmeqi II 10; ed. Oshima, 2014) What strange deeds everywhere! The phrase šadî u mātitān in l.101′, if correctly restored, is attested in late texts, often in contexts referring to the produce of the land ḫiṣib šadî u mātitān, “produce of the mountain region and all countries”, (see CAD M/I 412). In this and similar constructions, mātitān is understood in AHw 633a/b as a genitive form (see also GAG § 61 q). The Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 192 (ed. Hrůša, 2010) contains the correspondence mātitān = mātāti (“of the lands”), which appears to understand mātitān in similar manner. The description of the goddess in l.101′ may reflect a tradition evidenced in a šuíla prayer where Ninlil is described as ilat šīmāti, “goddess of destinies” (BMS 19 r.34). However, the form and theme of l.101′ are characteristic of the composition. The description is a speculative interpretation of the temple name itself, ḫur-sagkalam-ma (“the Mountain of the Land”), in which the goddess, as Ninlil, is identified with the sphere of her spouse Enlil, the purveyor of destinies, who had a ziqqurat in ḫur-sag-kalam-ma (see HMH 772) and whose epithet the “Great Mountain” (see CAD Š/I 57) is echoed in the temple name. [§6.1] 102′ The expression kīma šumīšāma (written as gim mu-šà-ma in Ms. d and syllabically in Ms. f), “as her very name (says)”, explicitly signals some etymological interpretation. Ms. d preserves mu-du-tu where Ms. f has mu-da-a-tum (mūdâtum), the feminine participle of edû(m)/idû(m), “to know”. mu-du-tu is therefore understood as mūdûtu, “knowing”, an alternative form of the feminine participle (see CAD M/II 163), rather than mūdûtu, “knowledge”. The syntax of this part of l.102′ is difficult and the uncertain reading of the end of l.102′ hampers understanding. ša-da-a appears to be accusative singular, šadâ, “mountain”. Linked by the conjunction u, the word written by KUR, mātu, “land”, (clear from the stock phrase and the etymological interpretation), must be in the same case as šadâ. The phrase šadâ u KUR, “mountain and land”, appears to be a direct object or an accusative of respect. Where mūdû(m) means “knowing (something)”, this is usually expressed in construct state followed by a dependent genitive, save in fixed expressions such as mimma šumsu, “(knowing) everything”, (see CAD M/II 165–

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

299

166). Ms. d’s mu-du-tu could perhaps be explained as a writing of the construct state (CV-CV for CV̅C mūdût) and šadâ as a genitive singular (for similar writings see George, 2003, pp.439 g, 440 a). Ms. f’s mu-da-a-tum may also be explained as a late writing of the construct state. An alternative approach is to understand mūdûtu separately (“wise,”), and šadâ u KUR with what follows. The difficulties are not thereby resolved, for the reading of the remainder is uncertain. The generous spacing of the signs suggests that very little is lost from l.102′. The translation is given with reservations, in light of these uncertainties. [§6.1] 103′ The triplet ends with a further description of the attributes of the goddess in which she is credited with the design of the mountains themselves. Praising a deity by attributing creative powers in respect of the universe is a common topos, deployed elsewhere in this composition (cf. ll.5, 52′–54′), but in l.103′ the motif arises out of further interpretation of the temple name, ḫur-sag-kalam-ma. uṣurtu, “design”, is deployed in a different sense from its meaning in l.101′ where the divine plans, or destinies for the people are clearly intended, but the overall effect of the scholarly speculation in ll.101′–103′ is rather repetitive. The last sign in l.103′ is perhaps -ti, as Lambert thought (reš-ta-t[i]). The CV sign may be understood as standing for a consonant alone, reading rēštât. rēštû, “first”, can mean primordial, as well as preeminent (CAD R 274). A temporal sense seems appropriate to the creation of the landscape but, as in l.66′, both nuances are implicit in the Akkadian word. [§6.1] 104′ bēltu(gašan) nādinat(sum)at zēri(numun) (Ms. d), “the lady who bestows seed”, may refer to the aspect of Ninlil in which she is characterised as the “great mother”, as illustrated in a bilingual prayer known from first millennium copies where she is so termed: ummu rabītu (Cooper, 1970, p.60 14). However, nādinat zēri closely resembles bānât zēri, “who creates seed” (l.21 Zarpanītum), and bānât riḫûti, “who creates sperm” (l.82′ Eru(a), a name of Zarpanītum). Both Zarpanītum and Eru(a) are sometimes identified with Ištar, the goddess of é-ḫur-sag-kalam-ma, where, in first millennium sources, she is manifested as Ninlil (HMH 482; see further section 6.1). re-e-š[u] is Lambert’s restoration; the final sign is almost wholly missing. šuqqû coupled with rēšu is an idiom which means “to pay attention; support” (CAD Š/II 23, citing mostly literary contexts; and citing this line (Ms. d), Beaulieu and Mayer, 1997, p.165). mušaqqât rēšu, “the one who gives support”, is a further example of the use of the D stem in literary context noted above (l.99′). The phrase is a fitting divine epithet which simultaneously realises the scholar’s speculative interpretation. [§6.1] 105′ qarittu, “the valiant one”, lē’it ilānī(dingir)meš, “most able of the gods”, and ilat ilāti, “goddess of goddesses”, are drawn from stock language routinely applied to

300

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

various goddesses, as demonstrated by the many examples compiled by Tallqvist (1938, pp.161–162 qardu, pp.115–116 lī’û, p.16 iltu); and see CAD I–J 89–90, L 160, Q 129–130. Lexical equivalences would seem to encode Ninlil’s name in l.105′, while the Akkadian text seems to point to Ištar. The warlike Ištar is routinely qarittu, “heroic, valiant”. In an Akkadian synonym list, they are synonymous: qarittu dIš[ta]r (malku = šarru VIII 109; ed. Hrůša, 2010) In the Old Babylonian praise composition to Ištar known as the Agušaya poem, she is qarattum Ištar, “valiant Ištar” (Agušaya B ii 15; ed. Groneberg, 1997, p. 85). The first line of a šu-íla prayer, known from several duplicates, addresses her as qarittu Ištar (Ištar 1, Mayer, 1976; ed. Zgoll, 2003, pp.191–203). In the Agušaya poem, she is also lē’it ilī, “most able of the gods” (Agušaya B ii 12, 16; ed. Groneberg,1997, p.85); and elsewhere, see CAD L 160). The description of Ištar as ilat ilāti occurs in the incipit of the Standard Babylonian version of the great prayer to her: ušallīki bēlet bēlēti ilat ilāti (STC II pl.75:1; ed. Zgoll, 2003, p.42) I beseech you, lady of ladies, goddess of goddesses An earlier version of this great prayer, found at the Hittite capital Boğazköy, almost certainly contained the same phrase (see Reiner and Güterbock, 1967, p.257). Taken together, it is surely Ištar with whom the scholar identifies the goddess by these epithets. Whether the epithets are intended allusions to well-known compositions, such as those mentioned above, is uncertain. The repertoire of motifs used is too general for a conclusion to be drawn, but familiarity with great literary works, coupled with a desire to embed scholarly allusions in the composition, can be expected of so evidently erudite a scholar as this. [§6.1] 106′–107′ The scholar’s speculative interpretation of the temple name in l.106′ confirms that ll.106′–107′ form a couplet. šad (kur, Ms. d) puluḫti, “mountain of terror” (l.106′), translates é-kur-ní-zu, “the House, the Fearsome Mountain”, and may be read in apposition to it, characterising the sanctuary itself (cf. l.90′ šubat nēḫti). However, with rare exceptions (as l.90′), descriptive phrases refer to the goddess. šadû, “mountain”, is a common epithet of Enlil in particular, and other gods also (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.221); šad puluḫti perhaps here personifies the goddess. Thus understood, the epithet, with its particular association with Enlil, perhaps serves to identify Ninlil as the goddess of é-kur-ní-zu in Ḫursag-kalamma, as is known from a brick inscription from the reign of Merodach-baladan II, the Chaldean king of Babylonia (see HMH 690). sarrāti, the plural of sartu, “falsehood” (see AHw 1031), is preserved by Ms. d alone. The unusual plural abstract noun has been preferred by the scholar over sarrūti, “criminals”, which would have served the

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

301

etymological speculation equally well. sarrāti was selected, perhaps, as “elevated” language. tanattu, “praise”, derived from nâdu (“to praise, celebrate”), is attested from the Old Babylonian period onwards; its plural tanādātu (CAD T 168, AHw 1318b) is used in l.107′. ilat tanādāti, “goddess of praise”, seems to convey a goddess whose praises are glorified. The same epithet appears to have been applied to Ištar (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.17; AHw 1318b; CAD T 169). arattû is a rare word whose meaning is given in CAD A/II 238 as “excellent”. In AHW 66a it is understood simply as the gentilic “aus Aratta”. Lexical entries evidence the equivalence of arattû with tanattu and its variant tanittu. With this in mind, it is clear that, here in l.107′, arattû is used as a synonym of tanattu. So understood, the two epithets, ilat tanādāti, “goddess of praise”, and bēlet arattê, “lady of glory”, are balanced as to syntax and meaning; and both speculatively interpret the temple name. šarratu, “queen”, is a routine divine epithet, alone or with attributive terms. šarratu ilātim, “queen of goddesses”, a phrase with the same meaning as šarratu ištarāti(15)meš in l.107′, describes Ištar in the Old Babylonian Agušaya poem (Agušaya B vi 12; ed. Groneberg, 1997, p.87; for further examples, see Tallqvist, 1938, p.238; CAD Š/II 74–75). The expression šarratu ištarāti does not appear to be attested elsewhere. The phrase suggests that the goddess here is Ištar, as indeed does the scribe’s writing 15meš, which uses the divine number which writes Ištar’s name. If bēlet, “lady”, in the phrase bēlet arattê may be understood to suggest Ninlil (see section 6.1), l.107′ perhaps alludes to Ištar in her manifestation as Ninlil (see HMH 482). é-kur-ní-zu may also be the later name of Ištar’s temple é-ḫur-sag-kalam-ma (see HMH 690) and the question arises whether ll.106′–107′ reflect this. The pattern of this part of the composition (l.75′ff.) is an exposition of the different towns and sacred places in which the goddess is revered. Sometimes a temple and shrines within it are treated (as in ll.82′–83′), but always, it seems, the scholar describes distinct locations, rather than the same sacred place by different names. Consequently, it seems unlikely that é-kur-ní-zu and ḫur-sag-kalam-ma are one and the same in this composition. [§6.1] 108′–110′ Lexical equivalences seem to relate l.108′ and ll.109′–110′. Here the scholar celebrates the composition’s goddess as goddess of Kutha, the principal cultcentre of Nergal, a god of death and warfare and lord of the underworld. 108′ The first word in both Ms. d and Ms. f is ane (šamê, “heavens”). Although the first sign is lost from Ms. b, the sign e is partially preserved, indicating that this manuscript too read ane. This suggests some common source for all three manuscripts, for here there is evidently a shared scribal error as to the phonetic complement e. Here, an should be read as dingir, and its phonetic complement should

302

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

be at (Lambert’s emendation): ilat(dingir)at, “goddess”, is plainly required as a counterpart to bēlet, “lady”, as in l.107′. The scholar celebrates the goddess as patroness of divination. Although, among other goddesses, the healing goddess is sometimes associated with divination (as appears in ll.10′–22′), this characteristic does not point to any obvious identification of the deity. The unusual word šagapūru, “mighty”, is explained in two Akkadian synonym lists by terms signifying a warrior or hero. malku = šarru I 30 (ed. Hrůša, 2010) equates it with qarrādu, “warrior”; an = šamû, the shorter, but similar, list known from first millennium copies from Assyria, appears to explain šagapūru as git[mālu], “perfect, noble”, commonly an epithet of warrior gods and kings (LTBA 2, 2 iii 3). AHw 1126b suggested that šagapūru may be related to gapāru, “to be superior”. šagapūru is attested as an epithet of deities, particularly warrior gods (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.221), and noted as such in CAD Š/I 65. It is clear from l.108′ that šagapūru may also apply to divine attributes, as Mayer (1994, p.112) noted, citing this line. Notwithstanding the absence of plene writing of its final vowel, šagapūrā is taken here as the fpl stative, the grammatically appropriate form to its subject qarnāšu, “his(her) horns”. Preserved only in Ms. d, qarnāšu appear to be dual. As elsewhere in Ms. d (cf. l.74′), the masculine possessive suffix is used, rather than the feminine. The sense of šagapūrā qarnāšu, “his(her) horns are mighty”, is obscure. qarnu is used of those deities who are likened to a butting animal. A Standard Babylonian hymn to Nergal, sometimes associated with the bull (see Seux, 1976, p.84 n4; Wiggermann, 1998–2001a, pp.223–224), describes him thus: nāš qarnī(si)meš eddēti (Nergal 8 3; ed. Böllenrücher, 1904) Who bears pointed horns qarnu also describes astral deities, evidently referring to their appearance (see CAD Q 137–138). Horns are a symbol of divinity, as illustrated in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi where the goddess’ spouse Lugalbanda is portrayed: apir agâ ša qarnī karpaṣāti (Lambert, 1967, p.126 171) He wears a crown with magnificent horns It appears that qarnu may be used with transferred meaning (CAD Q 140 “power”; AHw 904b “Kraft”). Whatever the image conveyed by šagapūrā qarnāšu, this transferred sense is surely implicit in l.108′. As elsewhere, the unusual phrase suggests that it results from scholarly speculative interpretation. [§6.1] 109′ The synonym list an = šamû lists ṭuḫdu with nuḫsu and ḫiṣbu: ḫé-gal ṭuḫdu ḫé-nun-na nuḫsu ma-dam ḫiṣbu (LTBA 2, 2 iii 61–63)

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

303

All are synonyms for abundance, and are often used in combination. In a Standard Babylonian šu-íla prayer, Marduk is: Marūduk bēl ṭuḫdi ḫegalli mušaznin nuḫsi (BMS 12 11; in Oshima, 2011, p.356) Marduk, lord of abundance and plenty, who provides plentiful harvest This and many other contexts (see CAD Ṭ 122–123) make plain that ṭuḫdu very often relates to the plentiful yield of crops. The scholar speculatively interprets the temple name é-mes-lam to refer to vigorous growth; the resultant divine epithet expresses the topos of divine provision of abundance. l.109′ replicates the motif found in l.88′, generated by entirely different etymological speculation. Although pleonastic phrases using napḫaru, “entirety, all”, are common, formulated to express totality (CAD N/I 294), napḫar ṭuḫdi, “all-abundance”, does not appear to be otherwise attested. Again, the unusual phrase signals scholarly speculation: napḫar ṭuḫdi encodes the name of é-mes-lam’s city, Kutha (see section 6.1). Occasionally, Kutha appears to be used as a name for the underworld itself. In the Akkadian composition often known as Ištar’s descent to the Underworld, its gatekeeper welcomes Ištar to the underworld: erbī bēltī Kutî(gú-du8-a)ki lirīški (Lapinkivi, 2010, l.40) Enter, my lady, let Kutha rejoice in you See Lapinkivi (2010, p.57) for discussion of the identification of the underworld as Kutha in this context. Lapinkivi noted an incantation against apparitions, also from Neo-Assyrian sources, which more clearly identifies Kutha with the underworld: anāku ul allak ana Kutû(gú-du8-a)ki puḫur eṭemmī (CT 23 15–22; LKA 81; in Scurlock, 2006, p.185 3) I do not go to Kutha, assembly-place of ghosts l.109′ affords further evidence for the transferred use of Kutha, the name of Nergal’s earthly abode, as a name for his kingdom of the underworld. Thus understood, the encoded toponym can be seen to be a further play on the temple name é-mes-lam, “the House, Warrior of the Underworld”, which reflects Nergal’s domain. [§6.1] 110′ The sacred name, preserved identically in Ms. d and Ms. f, is written é-ùruama-ki, not é-úru-ama-ki, a small slip by Lambert which informed HMH 1201 and HMH 1206 incorrectly. The unusual writing of é-ùru-an-ki, the ziqqurat of Kutha, as é-ùru-ama-ki serves the scholar’s speculative interpretation. ama (ummu, “mother”) in é-ùru-ama-ki may also serve to encode the name of the goddess with whom the scholar identifies the composition’s goddess as the underworld goddess known variously as Mamma, Mammi and Mammītum (Krebernik, 1987–1990; Lambert, 1973, p.356), one of the several different goddesses known in different traditions as

304

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

Nergal’s spouse (see Wiggermann, 1998–2001a, pp.219–220). Some scholars distinguish this goddess from the mother-goddess Mame/Mami (see Krebernik, 1987–1990, pp.330–331). Krebernik (1993–1997, p.516) nevertheless presumed some alignment with the mother-goddess’ role for the underworld goddess, perhaps in relation to stillborn babies. Whether they were entirely separate goddesses is unclear (see Lambert, 1973, p.357). If indeed l.110′ alludes to the underworld goddess, an association with the mother-goddess is clearly countenanced in the scholarly speculation. The goddess in l.110′ is depicted in the earthly world. The epithets draw on stock imagery used elsewhere in the composition (cf. ll.24, 35 ummu, “mother”; 77′ nāṣirat, “she who protects”), derived nevertheless from speculation on the temple name. [§6.1] 111′ markas šamāmī, “bond of the heavens”, replicates the description found in l.10 and l.124′, the routine epithet being an inevitable product of interpretation of the temple name. The celebration of the goddess as universal creatrix is a topos already deployed (cf. l.24), but is generated here by etymological analysis of the temple name, é-dim-gal-an-na. The temple é-dim-gal-an-na is known only from this composition, thought likely to be in or near Kutha or to be a secondary cult-centre of Nergal, since this line follows the section on Kutha (so HMH 164). The text itself yields further evidence to support this. First, where a toponym occurs in ll.75′–123′, it almost always introduces a section (cf. ll.75′ Ur, 78′ Sippar and passim). Hence ina Damru, “in Damru” (l.112′), can be expected to mark a new passage, with l.111′ concluding the section relating to Kutha. Secondly, bānīt(dù)it ili(dingir) u amīli(lú) (Ms. d), “she who created god and man” (l.111′), corresponds in meaning to ummi dadmē, “the mother of the world” (l.110′), and similarly perhaps provides a clue to the identity of the local goddess: although generated by scholarly speculation, the description bānīt ili u amīli, perhaps, like ummi dadmē, also alludes to Nergal’s spouse Mamma/Mammi/Mammītum, thus identifying é-dim-gal-an-na as sacred to Nergal. [§6.1] 112′–113′ The composition turns to é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga, sanctuary of Sîn, located in Damru by this passage. Scholarly speculation on names, extended over two lines, confirm that ll.112′–113′ is a couplet. For the reading of ḪI-GARki as du10-garki (Damru), see MSL IX p.171, 338, amending the lexical list Urra IV 338 (MSL V p.179). šubat nēḫti, “place of peace”, repeats the description deployed in l.90′, signifying a place of security and protection, a motif which, expressed in different ways, pervades the couplet. nāṣirat, “she who protects”, is a common divine epithet, which perhaps serves to encode in the text the names of both Sîn and his consort Ningal. The repetition of nāṣirat (used in l.110′) may perhaps have poetic effect, but

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

305

rather it illustrates the limitations inherent in a work driven by scholarly compositional techniques. [§6.1] l.113′ continues the topos of divine protection. It is unsurprising that in the harsh sun of Mesopotamia the word for shade, whether in Sumerian (gissu) or Akkadian (ṣillum), should develop the transferred meaning “protection” from an early date. Personal names in Akkadian in the Old Akkadian period reflect the image: Ṣi-lúmd Sú-en, “In the protection of Sîn” or “Sîn is protection” (UET 1 11 2), refers to the protection of the patron deity of ll.112′–113′. In an Old Babylonian version of the Gilgameš epic, even the sun-god is entreated: ṣil[l]am šuku[n elīya] (Gilgameš OB III 221; ed. George, 2003, p.204) Place (your) protection [over me]! The protective aspect of a temple noted at l.89′ finds perhaps its most vivid realisation in the name é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga, “the House whose Shade is pleasant”, singled out by Edzard (1997, p.163) in this connection. Old Babylonian personal names Ṭāb-ṣillum “Sweet is the shade” and Ṭāb-ṣillašu “Sweet his shade” (see CAD Ṭ 28) evidence that ṭāb ṣilla(gissu)-ša (Ms. d), “pleasant is her shade” (l.113′), expresses a common topos. The end of l.113′ is marred by damage. In Ms. f, what follows [s]a-am-sa-a[m] is lost. In Ms. d, there is perhaps an erasure partly overwritten by a sign Lambert read as MA after sa-am-sa-am, (consequently, perhaps to be read samsamma); two further signs follow to complete l.113′, the final sign read by Lambert as PI. samsammu is a Sumerian loan word otherwise known only from lexical lists (CAD S 121). In the thematic list Urra, samsammu is evidently a bird (mušen): [za-am-za-am mušen] [šu] (Urra XVIII 279 MSL VIII p.141, restored from a manuscript from Ugarit RS 20.32:189) If a bird were intended in l.113′, the determinative mušen would be expected after samsammu; however, the traces there do not support mušen, attractive though the image would be. In ḪAR-gud (Murgud), a lexical composition and commentary text from the first millennium on Urra (see further Frahm, 2011, pp.249–253; Veldhuis, 2014, pp.363–366), samsammu is explained as lilissu, a type of drum (CAD L 186): urudu

za-am-za-am šumu lilissu (ḪAR-gud Recension A, II 191 MSL VII p.153, corrected at MSL VIII/2 p.141) za-am-za-am is known from Sumerian attestations as a musical instrument, or a musical composition associated with it. In the royal hymn now known as Urnamma A, it is mentioned in a group of instruments: tigi2 a-⸢da⸣-ab gi-SU3 za-am-za-am-ĝu10 (Urnamma A 187; ed. FlückigerHawker, 1999)

306

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

Flückiger-Hawker (op.cit., p.133 and commentary, p.178) translates these as “My tigi- and adab- instruments, my .... flutes and my zamzam instruments”. lilissu, its Akkadian equivalent given by ḪAR-gud (Murgud), occurs in a variety of texts from the Old Akkadian period onwards. It was evidently made of copper; a number of attestations refer to its use in ritual (see CAD L 186–187). An indication of its sound (evidently very loud) is given in the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic where Gilgameš urges on Enkidu against Ḫumbaba, the guardian of the cedar forest: [kī]ma lilissu lū šapu r[igimka] (Gilgameš IV 241; ed. George, 2003) Let [your cry] be loud [as] a kettledrum A meteorological omen text likens the thunder of the storm-god Adad to the lilissu drum: rigimšu kīma lilissi iddi (Adad 11 16; ed. Virolleaud 1907–1909) He gave out a noise like a kettledrum Humour or irony appears to have no place elsewhere in this devotional composition; it must be supposed that the instrument (or perhaps, despite the scant lexical evidence, a musical work) had a pleasing sound, made so by the scholar’s goddess. [§6.1] 114′–115′ The toponym šá-an-da-lip-úrki is given by Ms. d, which preserves ll.114′– 115′ in full. (Likewise is the reading in Ms. b, šá-an-da-lip-⸢úr?⸣ k⸢i⸣). Ms. f has the variant orthography šá-an-di-lip-úr, without the place marker ki. The place and its temple é-gu-la are known only from these lines. Its position in this composition suggests that, like Damru, it was a town near Babylon. kališ, “everywhere, in every respect”, is attested from the Old Akkadian period onwards, found later largely in literary or scholarly texts (see CAD K 73–74). In l.114′ it seems best understood with puqqūši, “they heed her”, as an adverb of respect. puqqu (“to heed”), a verb found only in the D and Dt stems, appears to be particularly used, as here, to mean to pay attention to the gods, illustrated by the overwhelming majority of the citations in CAD P 512–514. Kouwenberg (2010, p.278) observed that puqqu, in common with other D tantum stems “denote activities that are inherently durative or repetitive”. puqqū, here in 3mpl stative form, is deployed for its lexical equivalence in scholarly interpretation of the toponym. ina qereb šamāmī kališ puqqūši, “in heaven, they pay her full attention”, conveys the supreme and enduring authority the scholar’s goddess commands in heaven itself, a pervasive theme of the composition. [§6.1] igisû (igi-sá), a Sumerian loan word, is explained in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru IV 234 (ed. Hrůša, 2010) as bilat māti, literally, “tribute of the land”, which can be understood from many contexts as a tax or imposition (see CAD I–J

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

307

41–43). The Akkadian synonym list an = šamû explains igisû as šulmānu, “gift”, (LTBA 2, 2 r i 61), in a section where ṭātu and tāmartu, words for monetary gifts, are equated with šulmānu (LTBA 2, 2 r i 61–63). The words igisû and šulmānu occur together, perhaps in hendiadys, in the Enūma eliš narrative where the gods send Marduk gifts upon his defeat of Tiāmat: igisê šulmānī ušābilū šunu ana šâšu (Enūma eliš IV 134) Gifts (and) presents they sent to him This context indicates these are celebratory gifts; it seems likely that igisû has like meaning in l.115′. The final accolade of l.115′ praises the composition’s goddess as rabītu(gal)tu simakki, “the great one of the sanctuary”. simakku is a relatively unusual word, explained as šubat ili, “abode of the god”, in the list malku = šarru I 284 (ed. Hrůša, 2010). That it is a truly special term is suggested by its appearance in the key passage in Enūma eliš where Marduk receives kingship and the allegiance of the other gods ina simakkīšu, “in his cella” (Enūma eliš V 105). As elsewhere, l.115′ both interprets the temple name and appears to encode the name of its (otherwise unknown) goddess. [§6.1] 116′–117′ Like the setting of ll.114′–115′, ša-dun-niki and its temple é-ga-ì-nun-šáršár (Ms. d’s reading) are known only from ll.116′–117′. Ms. f preserves variants of both names, reading urušá-dun-niki and é-ga-nun-na-šár-šár respectively. dummuqu, the D stem of damāqu “to be good”, commonly has the factitive meaning of its G stem, “to make good”. Although mudammeqat, “she who makes propitious”, is an appropriate divine epithet, dummuqu usually has a direct object when it bears this meaning (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.82–83; CAD D 62). dummuqu also means “to act well”, with variously nuanced meaning. Widely attested in letters and more formal documents to mean “to show favour”, its application to the divine sphere is illustrated in personal names like the Old Babylonian name Ea-mudammiq, “Ea shows favour” (CT 6 42 31; for this meaning of dummuqu see CAD D 62–63; Kouwenberg, 2010, p.273). This sense is adopted in the translation presented. nakādu, “to throb”, describes the beating of the heart. A line from the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic uses nakādu literally in a literary context: ilput libbašūma ul inakk[ud mimmāma] (Gilgameš VIII 58; ed. George, 2003) He felt his heart, but it was [no longer] beating Its secondary meaning, “to worry”, is evidenced in letters from the Old Babylonian period onwards (CAD N/I 153–154). Although attested in later historical writings and inscriptions, nakādu meaning “to worry” does not seem to have been a literary word, or applicable to deities. Nevertheless, mudammeqat nākidat seems best

308

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

understood to express the goddess’ gracious favour and solicitude: “she who grants favour, who is concerned”. The unusual epithets suggest that they result from scholarly speculation. The description of the goddess as bēlet šamni(ì-giš) u šizbi(ga), “mistress of oil and milk”, very evidently interprets the divine name dnin[§6.1] ì-gara10. é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár, “the House which provides a Profusion of Milk and Ghee”, and its variant é-ga-nun-na-šár-šár reflect the use of dairy produce as offerings for divine meals, recorded elsewhere (see George, Topog.Texts, p.398 24; CAD Š/III 149–150 šizbu), a use confirmed in the description of the goddess here as mālilat šizbi u ḫimēti, “the one who takes her fill of milk and ghee”. é-ì-gára, “House of Butterfat”, (HMH 499) is also known as a temple of Ninigara, the goddess with whom the scholar’s goddess is expressly identified (for similarly named temples, see HMH 290, 500–501; for Ninigara, Cavigneaux and Krebernik, 1998–2001b). The rare verb malālu is explained as akālu (“to eat”) in a first millennium commentary on the omen series šumma izbu (Commentary 423; ed. Leichty, 1970). Extispicy texts show that malālu has the nuances of “to consume fully, eat one’s fill” (CAD M/I 160). An Old Babylonian omen text contains the apodosis: šatammû ēkallam imallalū (YOS X 25 63) The officials will eat the palace clean. The use of mālilat to interpret šár-šár, the reduplicated element of the temple name which conveys abundance, confirms this nuance. šumuḫ rē’û(sipa)-ti, “plentiful product of the pasture”, the phrase in apposition to šizbi u ḫimēti, “milk and ghee”, is not an established expression but a description crafted to interpret the temple name in l.117′. šumḫu, “luxuriance”, a noun related to šamāḫu, “to grow luxuriantly”, also reflects the notion of abundance contained in the temple name. rē’ûtu, so often found in literature with transferred meaning, here refers to a shepherd’s true occupation, the pasturing of his flock. [§6.1] 118′–121′ In ll.118′–119′ the composition turns to Marad, a town between Babylon and Nippur, and Ninurta’s temple there. In ll.120′–121′ two further temples are named, presumably in or near Marad, before the work turns to Larak. 118′ The goddess is identified as the wife of Ninurta: ḫīrat šarri(lugal), “wife of the king”. Which goddess is referred to is not clear, for her name is not given in ll.118′– 119′. Both Gula and Bau were known in tradition as Ninurta’s spouse; the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi illustrates other possibilities (Nintinugga, Ninkarrak, Ungal-Nibru; Lambert, 1967, p.116 8, p.120 67, p.124 129). The masculine form nāšû indicates that nāšû abūbi, “the bringer of the flood”, refers to Ninurta. (For the case vowel -û in the construct state of participles of III-weak verbs, resulting in the form nāšû

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

309

(rather than nāši or nāš) see GAG § 64 i.) Ninurta appears to be equated with the deluge in the God List An: Anum VI 174 (ed. Litke, 1998; cf. also the God List CT 25 12 iii 16). For the personification of Ninurta as abūbu, “the Flood”, see Tallqvist (1938, p.3). nāšû abūbi is an epithet which evokes Ninurta’s traditional association with flooding and irrigation (see Annus, 2002, pp.123–133), as becomes clear in l.119′. [§6.1] 119′ napišti māti (zitì kur, Ms. d), “the life of the land”, used here to characterise the goddess herself, appears in a lipšur litany from the first millennium, where it describes the Euphrates: Purattu lipšur (min) napišti māti (Reiner, 1956, p.136 49) May the Euphrates, the life of the land, absolve! Elsewhere too the phrase is applied to watercourses which sustain the country and its peoples (see CAD N/I 302–303), so vital to ancient Mesopotamia. napišti māti may be clearly understood here as personifying the goddess as the force sustaining the land. The epithet aligns the goddess with the attributes of her spouse Ninurta as bringer of the flood, nāšû abūbi (l.118′), replicating the conceit deployed elsewhere in the composition (cf. ll.85′, 88′ and passim). lāmidat ṭēm Anim, “one who comprehends the intention of Anu”, exploits two standard themes: the inaccessibility of divine thought and the special ability of a god to know the minds of others, themes illustrated in two lines from ludlul bēl nēmeqi: Marūduk mimma ina libbi ilī ibarri ilu ayyumma ul ilammad ṭēmšu (ludlul bēl nēmeqi I 31–32; ed. Oshima, 2014, p.80) Marduk sees what is in the hearts of the gods No god can comprehend his intention As daughter of Anu, the healing goddess is readily characterised as comprehending her father’s intentions. The goddess is thus aligned with the senior deity, a recurrent motif in the composition. The somewhat abrupt shift signals that the phrase is forced by the scholar’s explanatory technique. [§6.1] 120′ é-zi-ba-ti-la, evidently in or near Marad, is known only from l.120′. Its name suggests that it was sacred to the healing goddess, for a temple of the same name existed in Borsippa, which belonged to Gula (HMH 1234). The description of its goddess as qā’išat napišti(zi)tì balāṭi(tin), “one who grants a life of good health”, confirms that the goddess of this temple was indeed the healing goddess. The name under which she was worshipped here is not evident from l.120′.

310

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

ṣulūlu and ṣillu, both meaning “shade, protection”, appear in consecutive lines in the lexical series Erimḫuš in which, as Veldhuis (2014, p.234) put it, words “within the same realm of meaning” are associated (Erimḫuš II 148–149 MSL XVII p.34). ṭāb ṣulūlša, “sweet is her protection”, is synonymous with ṭāb ṣillaša, “pleasant is her shade” (l.113′), both phrases expressing the goddess’ benevolent protection, a common topos. qā’išat napišti balāṭi, “one who grants a life of good health”, echoes inamdin bulṭu in ll.27′ and 87′ (which may alternatively be translated as “she gives health” and “she grants life”), a fitting epithet for the healing goddess. The same description appears in a bilingual incantation set in a medical prescription for urinary complaints known from Neo-Assyrian sources, én dgu-la nin an-ta-gal [an-ú]r-ta nam-ta-é, “Incantation: Gula, great lady, when you go forth from [heaven’s] horizon”, edited by Geller (2005, pp.90–93) and, more recently, by Böck: rubātu ṣīrtu qā’išat napišti balāṭi attīma (Böck, 2014, p.84 20) Exalted princess who bestows a life of good health, are you The description, if not routine, appears to have been one from a palette of epithets applied to the healing goddess. In l.120′ the scholar contrives to derive this description from the temple name. The repetition of napišti, “life” (ll.119, 120′) is forced by the scholarly interpretation. Ms. f contains a tiny wedge clearly written above ina(aš), “in”, in this line, which is noted in Lambert’s cuneiform copy. [§6.1] 121′ The closely similar themes of l.121′ and the preceding line suggest that l.121′ may be read with l.120′ and concludes the section pertaining to Marad. The temple é-gašan-tin-na, “House of the Lady of Life”, is known only from l.121′. The name, coupled with the description of its goddess, leaves no doubt that its patron deity is the healing goddess herself. ina têša ušapšaḫ namrāṣa, “with her incantation she relieves suffering”, reprises the motif deployed in l.28′, tê ša šupšuḫi, “the incantation for relieving”, using the same vocabulary. asî pīša, a predicative construction “her speech is physician”, is an unusual expression. There seem to be few parallels, but one may be found in a striking description of the guardian of the Cedar Forest, Ḫuwawa, in an Old Babylonian Gilgameš narrative, which is taken over and repeated in the Standard Babylonian version of the Gilgameš epic. Here pûm, “speech”, and napīšum, “breath”, are used, in the same construction: pīšu girrumma napīssu mūtum His speech is fire and his breath is death (Gilgameš OB III 111–112; ed. and translated, George, 2003, and p.209 notes) In l.121′ speculative scholarship appears to be at work in the unusual description. [§6.1]

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

311

122′–123′ The scholar celebrates the goddess in Larak, a town whose location is uncertain (for the reading of UD-UD-AGki as larag (Larak), see Knudsen, 1967, p.62, Hallo, 1971, p.65, and MZL pp. 164, 382). Its position in this composition between Marad and Nippur perhaps suggests a locality west of Nippur, rather than in the vicinity of Isin, as suggested by Richter and others (Richter, 2004, p.263). Its patron deity was Pabilsag, spouse of the healing goddess (see Richter, 2004, pp.263– 265). mubbibat is also used as an epithet in ll.76′, 4′′ and 5′′. Here, as in l.5′′, mubbibat is best understood as “she who purifies”. The motif of freedom from impurity is repeated in the closing phrase, describing the goddess’ seat in Larak as šubassa ellet, “her abode is pure”. [§6.1] é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na is known only from l.123′. Its name “the House, Bedchamber which soothes the heart” surely indicates é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na to be sacred to both Pabilsag and his spouse. In a departure from the composition’s usual format, l.123′ describes the temple, not its goddess. Whether tanīḫtu (tanēḫtu), “relaxation” (CAD T 171; AHw 1318b), or the rarer tānīḫtu (tānēḫtu), “distress” (CAD T 171; AHw 1319a), nouns in the taprīst pattern related to the meaning of the D stems of nâḫu (“to rest”) and anāḫu (“to be tired”) respectively, should be understood in the phrase ašar ta-ni-iḫ-ti, “place of relaxation/distress”, might be in question; either sense might suit a place where the sick seek succour. Lexical correspondences drawn from the temple name make it clear that tanīḫtu/tanēḫtu, “relaxation”, is meant. qerebša, “inside it”, is used prepositionally to complete the sentence nišī(un)meš māti(kur) iballuṭā, “the people of the land recover”. The fs possessive suffix -ša seemingly refers to ašar tanīḫti as if the feminine noun tanīḫtu alone were expressed. [§6.1] 124′–131′ ll.124′–131′ treat Nippur, the great cult-centre of Enlil, and its temples. This extended passage is of similar length to the section treating the great temples of Babylon (ll.81′–91′), indicating the parallel religious significance of the two cities accorded to them in this composition. 124′ dur-an-ki is both a well-known by-name for Nippur and the name of the ancient sanctuary of Ištar there. In this composition, passages are typically introduced by a place-name (cf. l.75′ Ur, l.78′ Sippar). Consequently, dur-an-ki seems best understood as Nippur itself (for earliest attestation of this by-name and its later use, and discussion of its meaning, see George, Topog.Texts, pp.261–262). The stock description markas šamê(an) u erṣeti(ki), “Bond of heaven and earth”, renders the toponym and alludes to the tradition of Nippur’s position as the centre of the universe. Thus understood, l.124′ parallels l.81′, which introduces the goddess in Babylon. rubūtu, “princess”, is a description principally applied to Ištar, although not confined to her (see CAD R 401). It appears in the Standard Babylonian Hymn to the Queen of Nippur, usually considered to celebrate Ištar (so Lambert, 1982,

312

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

pp.178–179, whilst nevertheless noting that “the character and identity of the Queen of Nippur are complicated subjects”). Its goddess is described as: taknīt Mami teliyatu rubūtu (Lambert, 1982, p.202 III 30) Cherished by Mami, the wise one, the queen The last legible sign of l.124′ is AN, which is perhaps to be read as the divine marker preceding the goddess’ name, which is partly broken away and its last sign is damaged, making its reading uncertain. [§6.1] 125′ The characterisation of é-kur, Enlil’s temple in Nippur, as bīt(é) šīmāti(nam)meš, “house of destinies”, reflects Enlil’s role as the purveyor of destinies (cf. l.58′); it may perhaps specifically recall Enlil’s shrine there, du6-kù, known as the place where destinies are determined (HMH 179). bīt šīmāti may have been a standard epithet of é-kur, as evident from a Standard Babylonian šu-íla prayer to Adad where the same description occurs (BMS 21 60, see Schwemer, 2001, p.670 10). Like l.124′, the end of l.125′ appears to have contained the name of the goddess with whom the scholar identifies the composition’s goddess, now lost. The context might suggest Ninlil, Enlil’s consort, but this is not supported by the traces; moreover, Ninlil does not appear to be known elsewhere as abrakkatu rabītu(gal)tu, “the great steward”. abrakkatu, “steward, housekeeper”, written syllabically in Ms. d which alone preserves it but elsewhere sometimes written logographically as munusagrig (CAD A/I 31–32), appears in several texts as the title of a goddess. The God List An: Anum contains two instances: d

namma ama den-ki-ga-ke4 munusagrig zi é-kur-ke4 (CT 24 20 17, in Lambert, 2013, p.418 = An: Anum I 27–27a; ed. Litke, 1998) Namma, mother of Enki: the steward, life of é-kur

d

en-šá-lu-lu-a munusagrig-maḫ dnina-ke4 (SpTU III 107 63; ed von Weiher, 1988) d en-šá-lu-lu-a: great steward of Nanše A bilingual incantation describes Nin-ni-ga-sa (thought to be Ningublag’s wife, Ninigara) as abrakkatu (var. abrakkati) saniqti, “disciplined steward”, (Ebeling, 1953b, p.376 43). Other compositions attribute the epithet abrakkatu to the healing goddess. In the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, Ninkarrak declares: mārāku kallāku ḫirāku u abrakkāku (Lambert, 1967, p.120 65) Daughter, bride, wife and steward am I A bilingual incantation to Ninisinna includes amongst deities identified or associated with the healing goddess:

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

313

d

ama-šu-maḫ-a agrig é-kur-ra-ke4 dMIN abrakkat é-kur (Mullo-Weir, 1929, pp.7– 8 11–12) Amašumaḫa steward of the é-kur In a healing spell known from Neo-Assyrian copies, Ninisinna herself is agrig é-kur (var. arali), “steward of é-kur (var. underworld)” (Böck, 2014, pp.80–81 2). Ninkarrak also is termed abrig é-kur in a lamaštu-incantation (IV R2 56 ii 15; and see further CAD A/I 52). The evidence of these last texts suggests that l.125′ refers to a manifestation of the healing goddess; by what name is uncertain. [§6.1] 126′ Context and the lexical equivalences explained in section 6.1 allow the restoration of the end of l.126′ as ⸢é⸣-[ki-ùr] (probably to be read ⸢é⸣-[ki-uru12], so George, Topog.Texts, pp.277–278). The é-ki-ùr was Ninlil’s sanctuary in é-kur (HMH 636), with the consequent certainty that the scholar’s goddess is here identified with Ninlil. The phrase ašar ḫammūtīša, “the place where she is head of the family”, is closely similar to bīt ḫammūti, the bedchamber of the head of household and his wife (see CAD Ḫ 69–70). In religious buildings, it is the place where the rites of divine marriage are celebrated (George, Topog.Texts, p.452 5′). The feminine possessive suffix -ša in ḫammūtīša (“her family headship”) adds a nuance. Thus, the scholar evidently promotes the goddess above her husband to head the divine household. This conceit is entirely in keeping with the characterisation of the goddess as equal or superior to the great deities, a theme which pervades this composition. CAD D 199 noted that duruššu is a purely literary word with the semantic range of išdu(m) “foundation” which acquired cosmological associations, probably in connection with the temple name é-ki-ùr, the name now restored in l.126′. duruššu, here with transferred meaning, “dwelling”, is evidently deployed for both literary effect and lexical equivalence. rēštû is best understood here as “most ancient”, the same sense as in l.103′, a context which also features Ninlil. Ms. f breaks off here, containing only traces. Ms. d continues the composition for a further thirteen lines before it too breaks off. [§6.1] 127′ é-šu-me-ša4 was the principal cult-centre of Enlil’s son, Ninurta. Here the goddess celebrated is Ninurta’s spouse, the healing goddess herself. Often translated as “bride”, kallatu also means “daughter-in-law”, as here. kallatu is frequently attested as a divine epithet, evoking and defining a goddess’ divine relationships (see the many examples assembled by Tallqvist, 1938, pp.110–111; CAD K 81–82). The healing goddess, as Ninkarrak, is so termed in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, a composition in which her roles as daughter-in-law of Enlil and as spouse are key themes (kallāku Lambert, 1967, p.120 65, see note on l.125′).

314

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

zu’’uzu, the D stem of zâzu, like its G stem, means “to divide, distribute” (CAD Z 82–83). Kouwenberg (1997, p.150) observed that in Standard Babylonian zu’’uzu mostly, although not consistently, means “to distribute”. muza’’izat, “she who distributes”, is so used here with a cognate noun zīzā[tim], “shares” (Lambert’s restoration). This noun is a very rare word. Entered in CAD Z 149–150 as *zīzu C (or *zīztu), and attested only in the plural (as here), only one citation is given, from the bilingual composition now known as the Exaltation of Ištar. As here, the word is used with zu’’uzu: šurrû Anu Enlil u Ea uza’’izū zīzātim (ed. Hruška, 1969, p.484 III 50) In the beginning, when Anu, Enlil and Ea distributed the shares AHw 1533a regarded zīzātu(m) as the very rare plural of zittu(m), “share”. zīzātu(m) may perhaps occur in a mythological composition known from Neo/Late Assyrian and Neo/Late Babylonian manuscripts edited by Oshima (2010) and by Lambert (2013), which refers to Nippur’s temple é-šu-me-ša4, the setting of this l.127′. The composition tells of hostilities between the gods of Nippur and Babylon. In Oshima’s reading and translation, the gods of Nippur’s é-šu-me-ša4 react: [itt]i il(dingir) zīzāt[i] apâti ittaṣû [Wit]h the god of shares of the numerous (people), they have come out (Oshima, 2010, pp.148, 150, l.15) Oshima cited the present line l.127′ in his commentary (op.cit., p.153), which perhaps influenced his reading zīzāt[i]. Lambert read and translated the line very differently: [kīma ḫ]anzizāt[i] apāti ittaṣû [Like] fruit flies they went out through the windows (Lambert, 2013, pp.322– 323, 15) The phrase muza’’izat zīzātim, “she who distributes the shares”, in this l.127′, with its D stem participle, unusual vocabulary and alliteration, is evidently designed for high literary effect. The image surely reflects the distribution of the lots that determine the order of the universe. The description of the goddess as kallat Enlil, “daughter-in-law of Enlil”, although a topos (see CAD K 81–82), serves to align the goddess with Enlil’s role in decreeing the divine order of things, just as elsewhere in the composition she is associated with the functions of other deities. A sanctuary called é-ka-aš-bar-(ra), “House of Decisions”, appears to have been within é-šu-meša4. The name is known only from the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, where the healing goddess, as Ungal-Nibru, speaks of her divine marriage with Ninurta (as Utaulu): ēterub ana ašrīšu elli ana é-šu-me-šú (var. é-šu-me-ša4) ša malû puluḫtu

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

315

ana é-ka-aš-bar bīt purussê ašar têrētu (Lambert, 1967, p.124 126–128) I entered his sacred place Into é-šu-me-ša4, which is filled with terror Into é-ka-aš-bar, house of decisions, place of decrees é-ka-aš-bar may therefore have been a sanctuary of Gula as Ungal-Nibru (so HMH 544). Its name informs this present l.127′ and is perhaps encoded within it. Whether the unnamed goddess of the line is indeed Ungal-Nibru is uncertain. l.127′ seems to contain clues as to the deity’s identity, pointing instead to Bau. [§6.1] 128′–129′ ll.128′–129′ are thematically linked and belong together. Both lines are closely written in Ms. d, the surviving exemplar; perhaps one quarter of each is damaged or lost from its end. Lambert’s reading be-let at the end of l.128′ was evidently tentative. é-bára-dúr-gar-ra is Ištar’s temple in Nippur. The tradition that é-bára-dúr-gar-ra was given to Ištar by Enlil is recounted in the bilingual composition now known as the Exaltation of Ištar (ed. Hruška, 1969, p.489 IV B 33–44) and in the Standard Babylonian Hymn to the Queen of Nippur (Lambert, 1982, pp.200–202 IV 1–15). This tradition informs ll.128′–129′. šubat nēḫti, “abode of peace”, repeats a phrase already deployed in l.90′ and l.112′. A closely similar description of this temple occurs in the Exaltation of Ištar, where it is termed šubat tanēḫtu, “peaceful abode” (ed. Hruška, 1969, p.489 IV 3 42). binût Enlil may perhaps refer to the temple é-bára-dúr-gar-ra itself, but in this composition, like so many other descriptions, it seems preferable to understand the phrase as a description of the goddess. binût Enlil, “creation of Enlil”, perhaps recalls a tradition in which Ištar (if it is she) is Enlil’s daughter, reflected in the Hymn to the Queen of Nippur, where Enlil is identified as her father (Lambert, 1982, p.198 III 60, p.204 IV 72; as are Sîn (p.198 III 71, p.202 IV 26, p.204 71) and Šamaš (p.198 III 56). binût Enlil may also reflect that, by Enlil’s act, she became Queen of Nippur: [iṭ]ḫešimma malkatuš epēša išrukši (Lambert, 1982, p.200 IV 5) He approached her and gave (Nippur) to her to be its queen Both allusions (in reverse order) can be seen to be expressed in the names by which the goddess is celebrated in l.129′. Ungal-Nibru, in Akkadian Šarrat-Nippuri, both names which mean “Queen of Nippur”, proclaims her sovereignty over Nippur. The divine name Ninnuattim (dninnu(50)-át-tim) incorporates Enlil’s divine number 50 (ninnu), by which his name is sometimes written, and thus expressly declares the goddess to be created from Enlil (binût Enlil). The figurative use of ṣerretu, “noserope”, in the imagery of leadership and control is a common topos applied to gods and rulers (see CAD Ṣ 135–136), appropriate to the Queen of Nippur, personified here as “the lead-rope”. Some expression of the universality of her dominance followed in what is now lost from l.129′. [§6.1]

316

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

130′ išittu is translated “treasury” in almost all citations of the word in CAD I–J 243–244. In the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 271–272 (ed. Hrůša, 2010) karû (“grain-store”) and išittu appear consecutively as explanatory terms. It seems preferable to understand išittu in this sense in l.130′, “store-house”. Thus understood, išitti nišī(un)meš, “store-house of the people”, echoes the motif expressed elsewhere (cf. ll.88′, 99′, 109′). The closely spaced signs suggest that here too one quarter of the text is lost at the end of l.130′. See section 6.1 for the proposed restoration n[āṣirat, “she who protects”. [§6.1] 131′ The goddess Ninpanigingara (dnin-pa4-nìgin-gar-ra), named in l.131′, is not known to be associated with é-ùru-sag-gá (l.130)′ and consequently it seems unlikely that ll.130′ and 131′ belong together. Whether l.131′ forms a single unit or should be read with ll.132′–133′, which may go together, is less certain. In its expression of geographical influence, l.131′ is perhaps thematically related to l.132′. Ninpanigingara is known from the God List An: Anum II 60–64 (ed. Litke, 1998) as the spouse of Panigingara, the son of the mother-goddess Dingir-maḫ. Some scholars read these divine names as Panigara and Ninpanigara (so Richter, 2004), reading nìgin as ni9/nig6 (see MZL p.264 92), on the evidence of an Old Babylonian personal name dpa-an-ni-gá-ra-še-mi “Panigara-šemî” (Krecher, 1966, p.128). The reading nìgin better informs the scholarly speculation at work in l.131′ and is adopted here. God Lists identify Panigingara with Ninurta: d

pa-nìgin-gar-ra min(Ninurta) (CT 25 12 r iii 12)

(See further Weidner, 1924/1925 p.72 9a; Lambert, 2013, p.496). Hence Ninpanigingara can be seen to be another manifestation of Ninurta’s spouse. The divine name is speculatively interpreted in l.131′. The resultant description of the goddess as bēlet(gašan) napḫar ṣīt Šamši(dutu)ši, “lady of all the east”, celebrates the geographical reach of the scholar’s goddess, entirely in keeping with the theme of the universality of her influence expounded in this part of the composition. Like ll.128′–130′, l.131′ is quite cramped; perhaps four or five signs are lost at the end. A toponym, sacred name or some other description, perhaps in further speculative exploration of the divine name, evidently concluded l.131′. [§6.1] 132′ The restoration bára-⸢dumu⸣ki (Parak-māri) was suggested by A.R. George (June 2016, private communication). Middle or late Babylonian sources indicate that Parak-māri lay in the vicinity of Nippur (see Streck, 2003–2005, p.334; Rép.géogr. V p.215). Its place in this composition, where it either concludes or follows the passage on Nippur, adds to this evidence. Parak-māri is known as a cult-centre of Ninurta (see Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §8 28′, George, Topog.Texts, p.447). This informs the restoration of the end of l.132′, where nāram libbi(šà)b[i], “beloved of”,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

317

was surely followed by the name Ninurta, or one of that god’s by-names. šarrat puluk dadmī, “queen of the boundary marker of the inhabited world”, again asserts the geographical reach of the goddess’ domain, perhaps thematically linking l.132′ with l.131′. pulukku shares the same meaning as kudurru, “boundary, boundary stone”, (and indeed is attested on kudurrus, see CAD P 510), although there does not seems to be direct lexical evidence of their equivalence. The healing goddess was frequently represented on kudurrus (see Asher-Greve and Westenholz, Goddesses, p.281; Seidl, 1989, pp.23–24) and named in curse formulae protecting them, often together with her spouse Ninurta (Watanabe, 1987, pp.35–40; Paulus, 2014). In her manifestation as Nanše in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, the healing goddess is bēlet kudurri, “lady of the boundary stone” (Lambert, 1967, p.118 43), an epithet of obvious similarity to šarrat puluk dadmī. [§6.1] 133′ é-ní-gal-abzu is known from l.133′ alone. As observed on l.124′, routinely in this composition, where a place-name is mentioned, it occurs at the beginning of a passage. If the scholar follows the scholar’s typical pattern, ll.132′–133′ belong together and é-ní-gal-abzu may be identified as a sanctuary in Parak-māri. The restoration nam-ri-[ir-r]u-šá and the tentative reading of the last partly preserved sign as d[a] are Lambert’s. namrirrūša, “her splendour”, is assured by its lexical equivalence, interpreting elements of the temple name, é-ní-gal-abzu. A late Babylonian commentary on the omen series Šumma izbu explained the related word namurratu, “splendour”, by quoting a passage from the bilingual group vocabulary Erimḫuš which illustrates namrirru to be synonymous with puluḫtu, šalummatu, melammu and namurratu, all terms for the awe-inspiring aura pertaining to deities (Finkel, 2006, pp.140, 143–144). ta-kam-mu, which precedes and apparently relates to namrirrūša, is clearly legible but its meaning is uncertain. A word which is apt to apply to namrirrū is required. katāmu, “to cover”, a verb with similar root, is attested with melammu, “radiance”, and its synonyms (see CAD K 301). ta-kam-mu is perhaps some corruption of a form from katāmu. et-mu-d[a] is also difficult. emēdu, “to lean on”, and etmudu, “collected” (CAD I–J 298 itmudu) do not yield any expected sense, and again the reading may be corrupt. The closely written signs indicate that about one quarter of l.133′ is missing. [§6.1] 134′–139′ The geographical focus switches to Malgium and Dadmuš. The end of ll.134′–138′ is broken away. From the spacing, perhaps only a few signs are lost from each line, but how the lines might be restored is not obvious. l.138′ is very damaged; only traces of l.139′ remain where Ms. d (reverse) breaks off. 134′–135′ Malgium is treated in couplet format. mušāpât, occurring in l.85′, is used again here, derived from identical etymological speculation. The essential meaning

318

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

of šūpû(m) is “to bring forth” (CAD A/II 203 apû A). mušāpât gimri could mean “the creatrix of everything”, a common topos which would be appropriate to this goddess (cf. l.5). However, in l.134′ mušāpât perhaps instead has a meaning related to its cognate šūpûtu, “most splendid”, which occurs in l.135′. mušāpât gimri is accordingly translated here (with AHw 1459b “verherrlichen”, CDA 433 “make glorious”) as “who makes everything glorious”. The divine marker indicates that dšarrat é-è-an-ki (l.135′) is a divine name. The temple é-è-an-ki is known only from l.135′, “probably a variation on é-an-ki” (so George, HMH 240). It is perhaps a writing contrived for speculative interpretation (see section 6.3), but note George’s speculation that the temple of Ištar at Kār-Bēlmātāti might be é-è(UD-DU)-an-ki, as in l.135′, (see HMH TL3 23′ é-x-x-[a]n-ki, and p.42). The cultic calendar BRM IV 25, 24 names the goddess of Kār-Bēl-mātāti as dbēlet(gašan)-é-an-ki, perhaps a name for Ištar (for discussion, see HMH pp.32, 42). dgašan-é-an-ki may be read as dšarrat(gašan)-é-an-ki, akin to the divine name in l.135′ (see George, Topog.Texts, Tintir IV 25 pp.60, 321 for gašan as šarrat in the name Šarrat-Larsa). Šarrat é-è-an-ki is perhaps also a name for Ištar in Malgium, for šūpûtu, “most splendid”, although a stock epithet (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.89; CAD Š/III 328–329) and generated here by scholarly speculation on the temple name, is particularly apt to this astral deity. The last preserved sign of l.135′, i-, suggests that a finite verb may have followed. Finite verbal forms are rare in this part of the composition but a clear example occurs in l.87′. [§6.1] 136′–138′ The name of a temple in Dadmuš, speculatively interpreted, is expected in ll.136′–138′, but where this might fit in these lines is uncertain. šar-[rat] (l.136′) is Lambert’s restoration. It is assured by its evident play on the toponym, as well as its obvious fit. šarrat šamāmī, “queen of the heavens”, is an epithet particularly appropriate to Ištar, as the Standard Babylonian Hymn to the Queen of Nippur illustrates, in the explanation of her first name: Ninanna šarratu šamāmī (Lambert, 1982, p.198 III 55) Ninanna (Inanna), queen of heaven Ištar is known to have had a temple at Dadmuš, é-šaga-ra “House which smites (?) the Wronged” (HMH 1032), and this name may be speculatively interpreted in l.137′, as discussed in section 6.1. The bound form šubat, “abode”, implies that this was followed by a pronominal suffix (with expected form -sa or -su, to refer to the goddess’ abode, cf. l.126′ šubassa, “her abode”, and passim) or a dependent genitive, with some further element to complete l.136′. The traces do not support -sa or -su; the spacing suggests a word-break after šubat. The broken sign is perhaps AN (A.R. George’s suggestion). Thus read, šubat [ilānī(dingir)meš], “abode of [the gods]”,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

319

might be restored, describing the heavens where the gods dwell. Equally, AN may be the marker preceding a divine name, now lost. [§6.1] Qibî-dumqī (dsig5-ga) is the subject of the first half of l.137′, evidently followed by a description commencing with a participle. A similarly balanced phrase, with Lamassu (dlamma) its subject, perhaps concluded l.137′. The sense of the conclusion is elusive. [§6.1] 1′′–20′′ An unknown number of lines is missing where Ms. d breaks off. The reverse of Ms. B contains material so thematically and stylistically akin to ll.75′–137′ that it seems certain that the composition continues there. The context of ll.1′′–2′′ is unclear. The geographical setting of what follows is northern Babylonia. As George (HMH p.42) noted, some of the towns and cities presented in l.4′′ff., (Raqnana l.4′′ and Ḫudādu l.6′′, as well as Dadmuš l.136′), appear in association in geographical lists in II R 50 (MSL XI p.54 26–30) and in the bilingual word list Antagal (Antagal G 185–191 MSL XVII p.226), and in a geographical temple list from Khorsabad (HMH TL3 25′–29′). The Khorsabad list bears particular affinity to the grouping in Ms. B. The same towns and temples feature: Ešnunna, é-sikil-la (l.3′′); Raqnana (l.4′′); Ḫudādu, é-nun-maḫ (l.8′′); Diniktu, é-gu-la (l.10′′); Adab(?), é-nam-zu (l.12′′); and Dēr, é-dim-gal-kalam-ma (l.14′′) occur in proximate grouping in the Khorsabad list (HMH TL3 36′, 29′, 28′, 27′, 26′, 33′ respectively). This may be a natural geographic grouping of northern cities (but see note on l.11′′ as to Adab). The close similarity of the listings suggests that this composition follows a scholarly tradition which these other lists too reflect. 1′′ šārikat napišti, (Lambert’s reading, unpublished collation, KAR 109), “she who grants life”, is a topos particularly applicable to the healing goddess, closely similar to qā’išat napišti balāṭi, “she who grants a life of good health”, (l.120′) and inamdin bulṭu, “she gives health/life” (ll.27′, 87′). This line l.1′′ (KAR 109 r.1) is cited at CAD Š/II 44, where the description is attributed to the goddess Ningal. There is nothing here to support this attribution. 2′′–3′′ Ukulla can be identified as the consort of Tišpak, as appears in the God List An: Anum V 273–274 (ed. Litke, 1998; see further Stol, 2014, pp.64–66, Wiggermann, 1998–2001b, p.331). Tišpak was the patron deity of Ešnunna (Stol, 2014, pp.64–66), where his temple was é-sikil-la (HMH 987). Hence ll.2′′–3′′ belong together. On the basis of these lines, Stol (op.cit., p.66) identified é-sikil-la as Ukulla’s temple also. bānit rīti, “she who created the pasture”, expresses the common topos of a deity as provider, used elsewhere in the composition (cf. l.109′); it is however not a stock epithet, but is the product of scholarly speculation. Further, by using the description bānit rīti, the scholar aligns the goddess with the

320

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

competences of her spouse Tišpak, a chthonic deity associated with vegetation and growth, thus deploying a recurrent theme of the composition. ḫā’iṭat kullati, “she who watches over everything”, also embodies a routine topos. The motif of a deity who watches over everything is a commonplace, reflected in the Old Babylonian personal name Ilī-ḫīṭanni, “My god, watch over me” (TCL 7 10 8). Both descriptions in l.2′′ interpret the divine name. [§6.1] kiṣṣu ellu(kù), “pure sanctuary” (l.3′′, here in genitive form kiṣṣi elli), occurs also in l.67′ and is discussed in the note on the line. Lambert’s draft transliteration indicates that lā, “not”, clear in Ebeling’s copy, is damaged and appeared doubtful. The negative lā ma-gi-ri, “disobedient”, seems demanded by šēressa, “her punishment”. CAD Š/III 326 šērtu B cites this line, translating it “the unsubmissive [bear] her punishment”. The temple name may resolve l.3′′. Examination of how l.3′′ might speculatively interpret é-sikil-la seems to confirm that lā is certainly correct and that, as CAD supposed, the missing verb is našû, “to bear”, regularly attested with šērtu, “punishment”, (CAD N/II 108, Š/III 325–326). A stative form may be restored to complete l.3′′. It is doubtful that there is enough space for na-šu-ú, the expected writing of the 3mpl stative, našû, “they bear”. na-ši (3ms) is accordingly suggested here. lā māgiri is then understood as a masculine singular form, -i commonly writing the nominative singular ending in Neo-Assyrian manuscripts (cf. [§6.1] l.24 um-mi, l.15′ diš-ta-ri, both from Ms. A, the Kuyunjik manuscript). 4′′ é-dadag-lál is known only from l.4′′. mubbibat ḫiṭâti, “who cleans away sins”, reflects the same meaning of ubbubu, the D stem of ebēbu (“to be clean”), as required in mubbibat kinūti, “the one who cleanses the just”, (l.76′). As Reiner noted, the same epithet occurs in the bilingual syncretistic hymn to Nanāy: [ina] Raqanan ina é-gal-ta-bi-ri Ištar mubbibat ḫiṭ[âti] [šāk]inat nūri (Reiner, 1974, p.230 19–20) [In] Raqnan, in é-gal-ta-bi-ri (I am) Ištar, who cleanses sins Who sheds light The lexical evidence adduced by Reiner (1974, p.236; see also HMH p.42), which identifies uru-ki-ág-dinanna as Raqnana, secures that this passage and l.4′′ have common subject matter; and that the use of the phrase mubbibat ḫiṭâti in each is no coincidence, but is generated by scholarly speculation. As George observed, the epithets in the Nanāy hymn “imply knowledge of the name é-dadag-lál” (HMH 139), rather than the obscurely named é-gal-ta-bi-ri referred to in that hymn. Restored by Reiner, the phrase ina uru-ki-ág⸢d⸣[inanna] concludes l.4′′. The writing uru-ki-ág-dinanna is ambiguous, for it conveys the name of the town and, simultaneously, may be read as logographic writing, as the scribe of Ms. B was undoubtedly well aware. The dual reading was surely intended to be understood, for,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

321

were the place name alone intended, a syllabic writing of Raqnana could readily have been used (see, for example, HMH TL3 28′ and p.42). The combination of the signs uru-ki-ág-dinanna might be simply taken as a writing of Raqnana, so that l.4′′ concludes “in Raqnana”. This seems awkward in a line which already commences with the prepositional phrase ina é-dadag-lál, “In é-dadag-lál”, and the significant meaning conveyed by the Sumerian name would be lost. It is accordingly treated in the text presented as logographic writing, thus supplying the meaning ina āl(uru) nāram(ki-ág)⸢d⸣[Ištar(inanna)], “in the town dear to [Ištar]”. The writing of the toponym as uru-ki-ág-dinanna surely reveals the goddess of l.4′′ to be Ištar. [§6.1] 5′′ Several of the great gods had sanctuaries known by names containing the element du6-kù, (see HMH 178–186). é-du6-kù is recorded in the Canonical Temple List as a temple of Ištar (HMH CTL 374). George (HMH 184) tentatively identified this temple with du6-kù here. This composition does not clearly place du6-kù of l.5′′ in Raqnana, but ll.4′′ and 5′′ are linked thematically and commonly a pair of lines is devoted to a town, as occurs only a few lines later (ll.9′′–10′′,11′′–12′′,13′′–14′′). Accordingly, it seems likely that ll.4′′–5′′ form a couplet, set in Raqnana, and the scholar’s goddess is here too identified with Ištar. tapšuḫtu, “rest”, an abstract noun of the taprust pattern from pašāḫu, “to rest”, (GAG § 56 m), appears to be attested principally in Standard Babylonian compositions. It is often specifically used to characterise sanctuaries, as here (CAD T 195). The repetition of mubbibat in ll.4′′ and 5′′ is forced by etymological speculation. In mubbibat kala[ma], restored by Ebeling (1918, p.50 r.50), mubbibat is best understood in the same way as in mubbibat māti, “the one who purifies the land” (l.122′), rather differently from its meaning in l.4′′, where it speaks of absolving sin. [§6.1] 6′′–8′′ The reading of KI-IB as eššeb and the identification of the town as Ḫudādu is facilitated by an entry in the two geographical lists given by George (HMH p.42): [KI-I]Beš-še-eb.ki Ḫudādu (II R 50; MSL XI p.54 28) Ḫudādu (Antagal G 190 MSL XVII p.226) KI⸢eš⸣-še-ebIB (See also CAD Ḫ 222). Ištar’s temple in Ḫudādu was é-nun-maḫ (HMH TL3 28′). This evidence confirms that ll.6′′–8′′ belong together; and that the scholar again identifies the composition’s goddess with Ištar. Ebeling (1918, pp.50–52) restored pi-riš-[ti] to complete l.6′′, translating “ist sie Herrin der ‘Erde des Geheimnisses’”, “she is Lady of the ‘world of mystery’”. This is unconvincing: the phrase bēlet erṣeti, “mistress of the earth”, appears to be a complete unit of sense and grammar. Lambert conjectured that something followed pi-riš-[ti], “secret”, and this is surely correct. Ebeling’s copy suggests that there is room for only one or, at most, two further signs. The restoration an is suggested, writing šamû, “heaven”, read here as šamê, to give

322

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

the phrase pirišti šamê, “secret of heaven”, counterbalancing bēlet erṣeti, “mistress of the earth”. There is some evidence for the combination of pirištu and šamû (CAD P 398–401); the proposed restoration is also supported by the possibility that šamû speculatively interprets the writing of eššeb. [§6.1] A space precedes the first word in l.7′′, which is written mu-ni-iḫ-ḫa-ṢI rather than the expected form mu-ni-iḫ-ḫa-at (Ebeling, 1918) and these two features suggest that l.7′′ may not be entirely sound. nuḫḫu, the D stem of nâḫu, “to rest”, seems best understood here as “to soothe”, thus describing the goddess as muniḫḫat, “she who soothes”. Often attested in the sense of putting the mind at rest, nuḫḫu also occurs in the context of healing (CAD N/I 148–150). In the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsarabi, the healing goddess as Ninigizibarra declares: ellu riksu simma unāḫ (Lambert, 1967, p.120 84) (My) clean dressing soothes the wound In the same passage, Ninigizibarra is also depicted as tayyāru, “merciful”, as in l.7′′: rēmēnāku gammalāku tayyārāku u[ ...] (Lambert, 1967, p.120 88, further restored from BM 62744 and Sm 1036, identified by Lambert in manuscript note to his personal offprint) I am compassionate, kind, merciful ... tayyāru is a word attested principally in relation to gods; it occurs in personal names with a theophoric element from the Old Assyrian period onwards (CAD T 60 tajāru). Related to the verb târu, “to return”, tayyāru, “relenting” and hence “merciful”, encapsulates the concept of divine relentment, central to Mesopotamian religious thought. [§6.1] The celebration of the goddess’ greatness in l.8′′ reflects a topos. The theme is expressed in the great Standard Babylonian prayer to Ištar, using the same adjectives deployed in l.8′′, ṣīrtu, “exalted”, and rabītu, “great”: ēkīam lā rabâti ēkīam lā ṣīrāti (STC II pl.76 17; ed. Zgoll, 2003) Where are you not great? Where are you not supreme? (For further examples, see Tallqvist, 1938, p.157; CAD Ṣ 210–211; and cf. l.38 ṣīrat ilānī, “most exalted of the gods”.) However, comparing the goddess with princes and rulers is not a commonplace, but prompted by interpretation of the temple name, énun-maḫ, “the House of the Exalted Prince”. [§6.1] 9′′–10′′ The identification of é-gu-la as a temple at Diniktu in the bilingual syncretistic hymn to Nanāy (Reiner, 1974, p.228 42) and in a temple list from Khorsabad (HMH TL3 27′) confirms that ll.9′′–10′′ form a couplet. dabru is equated with šamru, “fierce”, in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 53 (ed. Hrůša,

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

323

2010). It occurs in the Enūma eliš narrative in the list of monsters unleashed by Tiāmat: ūmī dabrūti, “fierce demons” (I 143, II 29, III 33, 91). Otherwise dabru is scarcely attested. Similarly, šapṣu is a rare word, meriting explanation as dannu, “strong”, by the ancient commentarist to the Babylonian Theodicy (Commentary obv. 16; see Oshima, 2014, p.444 43). It is used to refer to strong and resistant enemies (see CAD Š/I 481–482). šapṣu, “intransigent”, was evidently selected by the scholar for its lexical equivalence, to interpret the toponym. Ebeling (1918, p.50) read the final epithet in l.9′′ as a-ši-pat, as in the transliteration presented here. CAD’s citations of this line (A/II 397, D 16, Š/I 482) read āšibat Dinikti, “she dwells in Diniktu”; at CAD A/II 397 attention is drawn to the unusual writing a-ši-bát which underpins this reading, āšibat. bát is rare in Standard Babylonian literary compositions (see von Soden and Röllig, 1991, pp.53,17*). The resultant reading āšibat, “she dwells”, has some support, for ašābu, “to dwell”, has a lexical equivalence (ti) which would result in the toponym Diniktu (di-nik-tiki) being fully expressed in speculative interpretation in this line. However, di-nik-tiki is well suggested by the lexical equation for šapṣu (dínig); and āšibat is written conventionally elsewhere in Ms. B (l.90′ = KAR 109 21 a-ši-bat). Ebeling’s reading āšipat, “(she is) the exorcist”, is preferred here over CAD’s unusual orthography. This description is appropriate to the healing goddess of this composition (cf. the related word muššipat, “one who weaves spells” ll.30, 30′), and [§6.1] perhaps also encodes her name, dme-me. AHw 343b identified ḫa-a-a-ṭa-at (l.10′′) as the G participle of ḫiāṭu(m)/ḫâṭu “to watch over” (for similar spellings containing -a-a- in G stem participles, see Mayer, 2003a, p.303). This spelling of ḫā’iṭat is unexpected in this manuscript (Ms. B); the same phrase occurs eight lines earlier, written ḫa-i-ṭa-at kullati, “who watches over everything” (l.2′′). ḫa-a-a-ṭa-at is perhaps simply a variant spelling, displaying scribal virtuosity. Alternatively, it may be explained as a nominal form having parrās form. The parrās form signifies habitual practice (GAG § 55 o), an intensifying sense particularly appropriate to ḫiāṭu(m)/ḫâṭu. Hence, ḫayyāṭat, “she is the watchful one”, conveys the sense of the goddess’ continual concern. binût é-gu-la, “creature of the é-gu-la”, like binût Enlil, “creation of Enlil” (l.128′), characterises the goddess as the creation of the sanctuary itself. Citing this line, CAD B 243 named its goddess as Ningal, an unwarranted conclusion. The patron goddesses of Diniktu are Ninkilim and the mother-goddess, Bēlet-ilī or Ninmaḫ (see Reiner, 1974, p.235; Rép.géogr. V p.82). Reiner identified the goddess of é-gu-la of Diniktu as Nissaba, wife of Ḫaya. ll.9′′–10′′ perhaps encode the identity of Ḫaya himself. [§6.1] 11′′–12′′ nam-tar is perhaps a logographic writing for šīmtu, “fate”, since the construct state of namtaru, “fate”, is rarely attested (CAD N/II 247). If so, the deity’s

324

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

first epithet is perhaps šīmti malkī, “the fate of princes”, rather than namtar malkī. The unusual epithet is forced by scholarly speculation. UD-NUNki is usually understood as a writing of the name of the southern Babylonian city, Adab. A composition in Sumerian which tells of the exploits of Lugal-anne-mundu, king of Adab, names é-nam-zu as a sanctuary there (Güterbock, 1934, pp.41–43). As George (HMH p.43) noted, the inclusion of a southern city in this group of towns in a part of northern Babylonia is unexpected. This unexpected inclusion is replicated in the geographical temple list from Khorsabad (HMH TL3 26′), if é-nam-zu there is the sanctuary named in l.11′′ here and Adab is to be restored, as George supposed. The arrangement of the cities and towns traversed in this composition from l.81′ff., where they can be identified, reflects their geographic proximity to each other. Consequently, notwithstanding the coincidence of the temple name é-nam-zu, it seems improbable that UD-NUNki in l.11′′ is to be identified with the southern city Adab. Without other firm evidence, the question remains open. [§6.1] On the evidence of Ms. B, the goddess of ll.11′′–12′′ appears to be named as Ninlil (dnin-líl), who is not otherwise known to be associated with é-nam-zu. Where Ms. B has dnin-líl, the Babylonian Ms. c partly preserves the variant den-lí[l-a]t (Lambert’s restoration), a writing of the noun illilatu, “goddess of the highest rank”, an accolade designating its goddess as supreme (CAD I–J 85; AHw 203b Elli(l)la/ītu). According to CAD, illilatu may also be written by dnin-líl. CAD’s evidence for this appears to be this line in Ms. B, CAD comparing the phrase den-líl-at nišī(un)meš with dnin-líl nišī(un)meš here. Ms. c’s variant reading (not cited by CAD) suggests that this may indeed be correct. Apart from the reading in Ms. c, the phrase den-líl-at nišī(un)meš appears to be attested only in an incantation in a namburbi ritual, where Ištar is addressed as: ellil(den-líl)-at nišī(un)meš ilat zikkarī (Ebeling, 1955, p.180, 15). Supreme goddess of the people, goddess of men (The citation in CAD I–J 85 illilatu is to the same text.) Ms. c’s reading is perhaps superior to Ms. B’s clear reading. The celebration of the composition’s goddess as a deity of highest rank is entirely appropriate; and perhaps Ms. B indeed presents a writing of illilatu, as CAD supposed, rather than expressing the name Ninlil. If indeed the goddess of ll.11′′–12′′ is not Ninlil, the identity of the deity needs to be sought. é-nam-zu is known to be sacred to the mother-goddess Bēlet-ilī (HMH 855, discounting the reference there to this line, cited as KAR 109 r.12). ll.11′′–12′′ may [§6.1] perhaps encode her identity as dnin-nam-tar-tar-re. 13′′–14′′ The geographical focus turns eastwards to Dēr, where the goddess is equated with Šarrat-Dēri, spouse of Ištarān, patron deity of Dēr. The unusual word ṣippātu is explained by kirû, “garden”, in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

325

II 118 (ed. Hrůša, 2010). The formal meaning of ṣippātu is perhaps “rows”, lines of planting collectively understood in the dictionaries as a garden or orchard (see Mayer, 2003b, pp.382–389; Hrůša, 2010, p.217). Two readings of the word preceding ṣippātu are possible: bi-šit and bi-rit. Lambert’s draft transliteration of Ms. B indicates that the word is written with an unexpected small single upright between the two signs, apparently in error. Corruption might be suspected (be-let, “lady of ...” could be readily inferred), but the same word is preserved in both the Aššur manuscript, Ms. B, and the Late Babylonian manuscript, Ms. c. bišit ṣippāti might mean “the yield of the orchard” (see CAD B 269 bišimtu). However there does not appear to be any lexical or bilingual equation exploited in l.13′′ to point to bišimtu. Likewise, birītu, “space, distance between”, has no obvious lexical equivalence used here. The more common word birīt, “among”, provides a less strained meaning and is accordingly adopted here. [§6.1] The image markas māti, “bond of the land”, parallels like expressions with markasu or riksu (both meaning “bond”) found in ll.10, 53′, 79′, 111′ (where some of the same speculative etymology is deployed), 124′ and 15′′. For the “bond” of the land as a description applied to the deity herself, see l.53′. Although broken, Ms. c evidently contained syllabic writing m[a-(a)-ti] in l.14′′ where Ms. B has the logogram kur (mātu); Ms. B supplies the remainder of the line. tēliltum is used from the Old Babylonian period onwards to mean purification rites (CAD T 328–329). If te-lil-ti is indeed the genitive of tēliltum here, some preceding word is missing, perhaps a participle (as in Enūma eliš VII 19 mukīl tēlilti, “who maintains purification rites”), or a noun. The explanatory God List CT 25 49 r.1 (see Lambert, 2013, p.432) describes Ningirimma as bēlet tēlilti, “mistress of purification rites”. This phrase is adopted here and , “mistress”, is inserted to resolve the grammatical issue, but it is not entirely satisfactory, since neither bēltu nor tēliltu appears to interpret a sacred name or toponym, as would be expected. The writing error in l.13′′ and the apparent omission from l.14′′ point to something amiss in Ms. B. Perhaps, rather than tēlilti, telīti (for telītu, “expert lady”) was intended, as a simple accolade of the goddess, the subject of l.14′′. The case ending in -i for the nominative singular is a common writing in first millennium manuscripts (as displayed in l.24 ummi, l.15′ ištari, both Ms. A, the other Assyrian manuscript). LIL does not appear to have a reading of lix (see Borger, 1971b, p.66 and Mayer, 1976, p.449 on the reading lix in CAD B 126 bâru); perhaps l.14′′ evidences otherwise, and te-lix-ti, should be read, rather than te-lil-ti. telītu is a divine epithet usually, but not exclusively, applied to Ištar (see Tallqvist, 1938, pp.115–116; CAD T 327–328 tele’û; AHw 1345a). telītu is sometimes written an-zíb (see CAD T 327– 328). In this composition telītu(an-zíb) might perhaps allude to birīt ṣippāti, “among the orchards” (l.13′′), thus referencing the goddess (AN/dingir) in the orchards (ṣip(ZIB)-pa-ti) (see further section 6.1). This coincidence serves to confirm the

326

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

reading birīt ṣippāti in l.13′′ and lends support to the possibility that telītu, not tēliltu, was intended in l.14′′. kidinnu is a term for a symbol conferring divine protection and divine protection itself. In l.14′′ the goddess herself is credited with placing the mark which confers her protection. CAD K 343 cited this line (KAR 109 r.14) as an atypical context in which kidinnu occurs. In this composition, the unusual use of a word is invariably a tell-tale indicator of scholarly speculation, as is indeed the case. [§6.1] 14′′–15′′ A ruling follows l.14′′ in Ms. B; Ms. B contains one further line only before it breaks off. Westenholz (Goddesses, p.109) described l.15′′ as the “final line or subscript” of the hymn set out in KAR 109, speculating that it “could be the incipit of another poem”. Ms. c now resolves the position. There is no ruling in Ms. c between l.14′′ and l.15′′; and l.15′′ itself appears simultaneously to interpret the temple names in l.14′′ and l.16′′. Although only partly preserved, ll.16′′–19′′ contain material thematically and stylistically the same as the preceding text presented. It seems certain that Ms. c, at least on its obverse, continues the composition set out in Ms. B; and l.15′′ neither marks the end nor effects the beginning of a hymn. It seems that the scholar here names Bau as the goddess of the composition, using another of the principal names by which the healing goddess was known (cf. l.3 Ninisinna and, if correctly restored, l.8′ Gula), although Bau is not the name speculatively interpreted in the line. For discussion of the reading of the divine name Bau, see Marchesi (2002), Richter (2004, pp.118–119) and, more recently, Rubio (2010, pp.36–39). kanūtu, “beloved, cherished”, is listed in AHw 441a as the verbal adjective of kanû “to care for”. It appears to be exclusively attested as an epithet of goddesses or sanctuaries (see CAD K 171–172, compared there with the D stem kunnû (CAD K 540–542) “to treat kindly, honour”; Tallqvist, 1938, p.112). kanūtu is equated with iltum, “goddess”, in a lexical list (CT 25 18 ii 15), perhaps indicating that kanūtu is akin to a divine honorific title. Both manuscripts have ka-nu-ut, rendered by some scholars with a final vowel -u (AHw 441a “ka-nu-tu”; CAD A/I 128 adnātu “kanûtu”; Westenholz, Goddesses, p.109 “kanûtu”). Although writings of CV for VC and vice versa are not uncommon in first millennium manuscripts, this is not a feature of either Ms. B or Ms. c elsewhere in the text. The coincident orthography of the two manuscripts suggests that kanūt is the intended form. Any possibility that kanūt Bau directly addresses the goddess seems ruled out by the 3fs form āširat, “she who organises”, in l.17′′, continuing the pattern set in preceding lines. The syntax of l.15′′ is unusual. Westenholz (Goddesses, p.109) rendered the line thus: kanûtu BaU kullat adnāti rikis māti “Beloved Bau, for all men, the bond of the land”

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

327

(Similarly, see CAD A/I 128 adnātu.) kullat adnāti, “for all men”, in Westenholz’s translation, is understood as a preposed genitive, anticipating rikis māti, “the bond of the land”. This seems strained. kanūt, if correctly read, is the construct state, on which the phrase kullat adnāti might naturally depend: “beloved of all the world”. However, as a general rule, the dependent genitive must directly follow the governing construct state. The interpolation of Bau in the genitive chain does not fall within any of the exceptions outlined by von Soden (GAG § 135 c). The phrase kanūt Bau is itself an inversion of the normal prose order of noun and adjective, for evident effect. The device is a feature of literary style (for word order in hymnic literature, see Groneberg, 1987, pp.175–179; in epic texts, see Hecker, 1974, pp.120–138). The inversion of noun and adjective is well illustrated by examples from the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic and its antecedents given by George (2003, pp.434–435). George (2003, p.435) also assembled examples of the dislocation of normal prose order. While none of these is directly analogous to provide an instance of the breaking of the genitive construction, it is noteworthy that a number of George’s examples involve a proper name. Elsewhere, the normal syntactical order is strikingly dislocated in the Standard Babylonian version of the Atra-ḫasīs narrative from Sippar, as given by its editors: ⸢Alla⸣ Enlil iṭbuḫūšu maḫrītim “Alla they slaughtered, an Enlil of old(!?)” (George and Al-Rawi, 1996, pp.170– 171 104) George and Al-Rawi (p.187) suggested that “If ... not simply corrupt, ... (the disorder) is intended to highlight the shocking deed retailed”, citing, as a parallel, lines in the Enūma eliš narrative relating Marduk’s birth, where an adjective (ellu, “pure”) is introduced into a genitive construction: ina qereb Apsî ibbani [Ma]rūtuk ina qereb elli(kù) Apsî(abzu) ibbani Marūtuk (Enūma eliš I 81–82) In Apsû Marduk was created In pure Apsû Marduk was created Both these extracts involve proper names. Although not directly comparable with the opening of l.15′′, the phrase ina qereb elli Apsî, “In pure Apsû”, is most closely analogous to it. It is, then, perhaps the case that there is greater licence where names are involved. Perhaps phrases such as kanūt Bau and elli Apsî may be treated as combined units; and hence, notwithstanding the transposition of name and its adjective, it is permissible to understand kanūt Bau kullat adnāti in l.15′′ as “Bau, beloved of all the world”. [§6.1]

328

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

16′′–17′′ The temple of l.16′′ is the temple HMH 1171, named there as é-ul-šár-mešu-du7, “House of Jubilation and Perfect Me’s”. A small typographical slip by Lambert informed HMH’s reading: the reading é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 (ḫé, not ḫe reading šár) is clear, “House of the Firmament of Heaven and Perfect Me’s”. This temple is known only from this composition. Whether (continuing the context of ll.13′′–15′′) it was a sanctuary of Bau at Dēr, as George tentatively suggested (HMH 1171), is by no means clear. The ruling in Ms. B after l.14′′ suggests that its scribe considered that the passage pertaining to Dēr concluded there. Lexical equivalences may relate l.14′′ and l.15′′ (where Bau is mentioned) and ll.15′′–16′′, as well as l.16′′ and l.17′′, where the divine name is unknown, perhaps lost. āširat repeats a description deployed in l.31′. The verb ašāru, meaning “to organise”, is required here; see sections 3.2.14 and 6.2 for discussion. ⸢as⸣-mat is Lambert’s secure restoration, [§6.1] speculatively interpreting é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7. 18′′ é-maḫ, “the Exalted House”, is a name common to a number of temples, sacred to different deities (see HMH 713–730). The coincidence between the towns mentioned in l.6′′ff. and some of the places listed in a geographical temple list from Khorsabad (HMH TL3 26′ff.) makes it likely that é-maḫ is here one of Ištar’s temples in that list (ll.30′, 39′), as indicated by George (HMH 726). It seems unlikely that ll.18′′–19′′ are to be read together to place é-maḫ in Karkara, for, as observed on l.124′, routinely in this composition, where a toponym is named, this occurs at the beginning of a passage, marking a shift in location. Whether é-maḫ may be safely understood as in the vicinity of Dēr (so, HMH 726) is uncertain. A broken sign precedes šik-n[a-at] (Lambert’s restoration). Too little remains to determine the sense intended. 19′′ For the reading of IMki as Karkara, see Rép.géogr. V 156. Karkara is known as the cult-centre of Adad (Schwemer, 2001, pp.136–140, 367), the storm-god whose name, like Karkara itself, is frequently written with the sign im. It seems likely that, like Nanāy in the bilingual syncretistic hymn to her (Reiner, 1974, p.227 36–37), the goddess of this composition is identified here with Adad’s consort Šala, in his temple é-u4-gal-gal (HMH 130). Lambert conjectured that what followed the toponym might be a-[ša]r, if correct, probably introducing a description characterising Karkara, “the place of … ”. The rest of l.19′′ is lost. The remaining traces before Ms. c (obverse) breaks off suggest that l.20′′ commenced with a divine name. An unknown number of lines is missing. 1′′′ff. The reverse of Ms. c is rather fragmentary. Even where half a line or more is preserved (l.4′′′ff.), there is not enough to give the intended meaning. However, enough survives to be fairly confident that the text is not characterised by the

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

329

exposition of sacred names and toponyms which marks the composition duplicated by the obverse. The question therefore arises whether Ms. c reverse continues the composition. Sufficient remains to determine that the text is a religious composition in praise of a goddess (evidenced by feminine forms in l.6′′′ kanūt, “cherished”, and l.8′′′ ina balīša, “without her”), celebrating her in different spheres and different places, like the composition of the obverse and the other manuscripts. The contexts presented differ from those previously seen, except perhaps for ll.8′′′–9′′′ which, like ll.1′–7′, appear to have a pastoral setting. However, the new material is not so different in character as to indicate some new composition. Insofar as can be judged from the fragmentary text, part of ll.1′′′–15′′′ is akin to the more discursive, descriptive passages at ll.42ff., 1′–23′ and 51′–56′. One feature which occurs twice in this brief passage is particularly significant. The phrases itti Erra, “by leave of Erra” (l.4′′′), and itti Lugalnirgal, “by leave of Lugalnirgal” (l.7′′′), replicate the stylistic device deployed at ll.60′–65′ and 98′, where the goddess of the composition is portrayed as exercising her powers by leave of (itti) their patron deity. This key motif, expressed by the same somewhat unusual use of itti, seems to confirm that this passage and the composition of the other manuscripts are the same work. Thus there are good reasons to suppose that the reverse of Ms. c continues its obverse, and hence, the Gula hymn; conversely, there does not appear to be any compelling feature to suggest otherwise. Fragmentary though ll.1′′′–15′′′ are, the passage does not contain material which would suggest that it is part of the conclusion of the composition. It seems probable that this already substantial composition continued somewhat further. 1′′′–4′′′ ⸢d⸣ša[r-rat] is Lambert’s conjectured reading of all that remains of l.1′′′; if correct, evidently part of the goddess’ name or title, identifying her as “Queen”, (šarratu). Some governing noun or participle presumably preceded tāḫāzi, “of battle” (l.2′′′), forming a phrase describing the goddess. An uninscribed space follows ta-ḫa-zi, suggesting that only a few further signs are missing at the end of l.2′′′. By contrast, ll.3′′′–4′′′ are closely written and consequently more is lost. The reading of what remains of l.3′′′ is uncertain. GIŠGAL is a relatively rare sign, most commonly read as gàl or qàl, used to write qallu, “light, slight” (CAD Q 62–64), which has no clear relevance here. As Lambert noted, (reflected in the transliteration given here), the Neo-Babylonian sign which follows could be É or KID, signs which are both capable of several different readings. In this composition, é usually reads bītu, “House”, as the first element in a temple name, but l.3′′′ does not contain a known sacred name to substantiate securely a reading of é bītu. The context indicated by ll.2′′′ and 4′′′ supports the reading of what follows as qašta (gišpan), “the bow”, given here in accusative form since the remaining legible sign, iš-, suggests that a 3s finite verb follows. ll.2′′′–3′′′, it seems, depicted the goddess as a violent deity, for

330

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

enough is preserved to be confident that l.4′′′ celebrates the goddess as having power in the special sphere of Erra, god of war and pestilence, with his authority: itti Erra, “by leave of Erra” (see ll.60′–65′, 98′ and 7′′′ for the same use of itti). šaggaštu, “slaughter”, is explained as qablu, “battle”, in the Akkadian synonym list an = šamû, known from Assyrian copies from the first millennium (LTBA 2, 2 ii 47; duplicate, LTBA 2, 1 iv 53′). As an attribute of Erra, šaggaštu is found in combination with šibṭu, “plague” (see CAD Š/I 69). It seems from the template oracular enquiry in an Old Babylonian tamītu that šaggaštu might be especially understood in that context: ina amāt šibṭi šaggašti Err[a] (Lambert, 2007, p.36 No.1 243) From the matter of plague, Erra’s slaughter Nevertheless, the extant text in ll.2′′′–4′′′ seems to point to a primary context of battle, rather than disease. The capacity to inflict illness is a facet of the healing goddess, well known from the curse formulae protecting kudurrus (Watanabe, 1987, pp.35–40; Paulus, 2014). An association with Erra’s destructive powers is hence particularly apposite to the healing goddess and may lie behind l.4′′′. 5′′′ The first sign is almost wholly lost. [š]i-i-ma (Lambert’s restoration) perhaps marks a contrastive switch of subject. šīma Narudu may perhaps be a verbless construction: “But she is Narudu”. A space follows the divine name, suggesting that only a few further signs are lost from the end of the line. The goddess Narudu is first known from Elam (Koch, 1998–2001, p.180 Narunde). She appears in the God List An: Anum preceded by seven Elamite deities and described as aḫassunu, “their sister” (VI 176–184a; ed. Litke, 1998). Her geographical sphere is undoubtedly significant within this composition. The mention of an Elamite goddess suggests the goddess’ place and influence in the east, thus continuing the theme of the universality of the reach of the composition’s goddess. 6′′′ kanūt Anšar, “cherished by Anšar”, repeats the epithet kanūtu deployed in l.15′′ (for kanūtu, see the note on l.15′′). The loss of the ends of ll.5′′′–7′′′ makes it uncertain whether l.6′′′ should be read with either adjacent line. The mention of another deity (Lugalnirgal) at the beginning of l.7′′′ makes it less likely that ll.6′′′ and 7′′′ belong together. 7′′′–9′′′ dlugal-nir-gál is a name of Ningirsu in the God List An: Anum II 281 (ed. Litke, 1998). The setting of l.8′′′, with its reference to the farmer or ploughman (lúengar, ikkaru) and the oxdriver (kullizu), is agricultural. Accordingly, it seems that the context of ll.7′′′–9′′′, and perhaps l.10′′′, is Ningirsu’s association with cultivation and irrigation (see Streck, 1998–2001, p.516 §6.2). A Standard Babylonian incantation reflects this role of Ningirsu in a passage addressed to the primordial god

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

331

Enmešarra, using language which seems similar to ll.7′′′–9′′′ and may conceivably have informed this part of the composition: bēlu rabû ša ina balīšu Ningirsu īka u palgi lā ušteššeru lā ibannû abšenna (ABRT II 13 r 4–5; Livingstone, 1986, p.164) Great lord, without whom Ningirsu cannot keep dyke and canal in order, cannot make furrow It appears that the scholar again deploys the device of attributing to the goddess another god’s divine sphere, in which her competence derives from the patron deity, itti Lugalnirgal, “by leave of Lugalnirgal”, (see ll.60′–65′, 98′ and 4′′′). The conceit that the goddess equals or surpasses the patron deity in his particular area is integral to this motif (see ll.60′–65′). In l.9′′′ her indispensability in Ningirsu’s sphere is explicit: ina balīša ul ippetâ [ ... ], “Without her, [the … ] were not opened”. An earlier passage in this composition (ll.1′–7′) also appears to depict the healing goddess in an agricultural setting. The healing goddess, manifested as Nanše, likewise is associated with farming and ploughing (as in l.8′′′) in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, where she is described as petât šir’i, “she who opens the furrow” (Lambert, 1967, p.118 35). l.9′′′ may have contained a similar image. The feminine noun šir’u, “furrow”, in plural form šir’ātu, would fit well with the fpl N stem form ippetâ, “they were opened” (negated in the text). The fragmentary sign which follows ippetâ is perhaps š[ir]; accordingly, š[ir’ātu] could be tentatively restored, but it is only one of a number of possibilities. petû, “to open”, is also commonly used of the opening of canals and water-sources (CAD P 346–347, 356–357). A number of the words for watercourses and the like are feminine (so, miṭirtu, “canal”, rāṭu, “channel”) or have feminine forms in the plural (kuppu, “water-source”). Support for understanding l.9′′′ in this sense is perhaps given by l.10′′′. The phrase ḫarrān Igīgī, “path of the Igigi”, (realised in l.10′′′ by Igīgī ḫarrānšunu”, literally “the Igigi, their path”), does not appear to be an established expression. The extended meanings of ḫarrānu, “road, path”, include the compulsory labour often translated as “corvée-work” (CAD Ḫ 112). dullu(m), “trouble, work”, appears to have the same meaning (CAD D 173), although there does not appear to be lexical evidence of the equivalence of ḫarrānu and dullu(m). dullum is the word repeatedly used for the forced labour of the Igigi gods in the Old Babylonian Atram-ḫasīs narrative: rabûtum Anunnakū sibittam dullum ušazbalū Igīgī (Atra-ḫasīs I 5–6; ed. Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.42) The seven great Anunnaki Were making the Igigi bear the work The Standard Babylonian version from Sippar preserves text which reveals the nature of their toil:

332

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

iḫerrûni / miṭrata ilī napišti māti (George and Al-Rawi, 1996, p.158 21–22) .... they were digging, The watercourse of the gods, life of the land Informed by the context of Ningirsu’s role in irrigation, it may be that the Igigi’s work of digging watercourses recorded by the Atram-ḫasīs narrative is what is meant by Igīgī ḫarrānšunu in l.10′′′. However, ḫarrānu is sometimes used to refer to the paths of astral deities and other heavenly bodies in the sky (CAD Ḫ 108–109). It may have this sense here. The perceived importance of stars in agriculture is reflected in the same passage of the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi mentioned above, where Nanše is: rū’umat kakkabāni idāt erēši (Lambert, 1967, p.118 37) Beloved of the stars, the signs for ploughing In the absence of a duplicate manuscript to complete l.10′′′, its sense is elusive. 11′′′ nēreb ganṣ[ir] (Lambert’s restoration) sets the context as the underworld. nērebu, “entrance”, is explained by bābu, “gate”, in the synonym list malku = šarru I 251 (ed. Hrůša, 2010). The bilingual word list Antagal gives its cosmological meaning as the gateway to the underworld: ki-ùr-ra nēreb erṣetim(ki)tim (Antagal G 22 MSL XVII p.221) ki-ùr-ra Entrance of the underworld Lexical texts evidence the Sumerian word ganzir as a name for both the underworld itself and its entrance (see Horowitz, 2011, p.269 for the group vocabulary CT 51 168 iv 70, Diri II 150–154 MSL XV p.126; Diri Nippur 140, Diri Ugarit I 393, 397 at MSL XV pp.16, 74 respectively; for ganzir in Sumerian literary texts, see George, 1986, p.136 5, and Horowitz, 2011, pp.287–288, and generally, Katz, 2003, pp.85– 86). In l.11′′′, Ganṣir evidently denotes the underworld itself (for discussion of the uncertain etymology of the name ganṣir, see George, 1986, p.136 5). ganṣir (CAD G 43 ganzir) is very rarely attested in Akkadian. It occurs in a cylinder of Nabopolassar (Al-Rawi, 1985, p.4 ii 15, p.7) and a Sennacherib inscription (George, 1986, p.133 B 5); in a composition relating the aftermath of a battle between gods, known from late Babylonian copies (Lambert, 2013, p.328 12); and, as noted by Lambert (2013, p.524 23), in a bilingual hymn known from a late manuscript (Reisner, 1896, p.146 V 31). In each case it is written ga-an-ṣir, as here. To these, this line can now be added. 12′′′ The setting of l.12′′′ also appears to be the underworld, supporting Lambert’s restoration ganṣ[ir] in l.11′′′. Who is meant by ša malkī šūt erṣeti, “the one of the princes of the netherworld”, is obscure. malku, “prince, ruler”, is attested in Old Babylonian omen texts, documents from Mari, and Standard Babylonian literary

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

333

texts in contexts where it has been understood to refer to chthonic deities or demons (see CAD M/I 168–169 malku B). Mortal rulers and legendary kings are also to be found in the underworld, as Enkidu relates in the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic in his description of the netherworld: ašb[ū šarrū] šūt agê ša ultu ūme pāna ibellū mātu (Gilgameš VII 195; ed. George, 2003) There sat [kings] whose crowns ruled the land from days of old malkū (rather than šarrū) could equally well be restored in the break in this line (A.R. George, April 2016, private communication, prompted by the phrase malkī šūt erṣetim(ki)tim in l.12′′′). kispu offering texts also refer to dead kings (Tsukimoto, 1985). Although she is commonly called muballiṭat mīti, “the one who brings the dead back to life” (so, in this composition too at l.31), the healing goddess has no obvious connection with the underworld. However, a key motif of this composition is the universality of the goddess and the extent of her authority; in this perhaps lies the explanation of this otherwise puzzling setting. ll.11′′′–12′′′ perhaps further illustrate the breadth of her influence: not only is the goddess of the composition supreme in heaven with the great gods, and across the known world from east to west, but also in the underworld itself. 13′′′ The setting appears to move from the underworld to the Apsû. This is perhaps not the shift in location that it appears. Horowitz (2011, pp.342–344) noted compositions in which the Apsû and the underworld seem to overlap or be conflated with each other, most notably in a Middle Assyrian copy of a bilingual incantation now known to have been incorporated into the canonical magical series udug-ḫul-akam utukkū lemnūtu, “evil demons”. Enki/Ea, lord of Apsû, is said to dwell in ganzir, rendered by the Akkadian word erṣetu, “the underworld”: ki-tuš-a-na ki-ganzir-àm mūšabšu ašar erṣetimma (Geller, 1980, p.28 8–9; now Geller, 2015, p.462 Tablets 13–15 98) His seat is the place of the underworld There may be a similar conceptual cosmic identification of the underworld and the Apsû in ll.11′′′–14′′′. The word naḫbalu is rarely attested outside lexical texts. naḫbalu is translated in CAD N/I 134 as “net, snare”, derived from ḫabālu, “to tie, bind”, (similarly, AHw 714a “Falle”). In an incantation known from a manuscript from Sultantepe, naḫbalu perhaps has this meaning: Bēlet-ṣēri naḫbalī i-ta-x-di (STT 230 17) Bēlet-ṣēri casts(?) snares

334

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

In the penitential composition ludlul bēl nēmeqi the sufferer complains: [ina pīy]a naḫbalu nadīma u napraku sekir šaptīya (ludlul bēl nēmeqi II 84–85; ed. Oshima, 2014) “A snare is laid on my mouth, and a bolt bars my lips” (so, Lambert, 1960, p.43; similarly, Oshima, 2014, p.91). naḫbalu is best known in a cosmic context from the Atra-ḫasīs narrative, in the phrase šigaru naḫbalu tâmti, “the bolt, the bar of the sea” (so Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.116 10). This phrase occurs in a late Babylonian version of the flood story, where naḫbalu is evidently a means of restraining the sea, controlled by Enki/Ea (Lambert and Millard, 1969, p.116 10; pp.166–167). The restoration of the phrase in the Old Babylonian version I 15 is confirmed by the Standard Babylonian version from Sippar: šigara naḫbali tiāmti ittadnū ana Ea niššīki “The bolt that keeps the sea in check they gave to Ea the Prince” (so, George and Al-Rawi, 1996, p.153 15–16) l.13′′′ expressly links naḫbalu with a gate (naḫbal bāb(ká) Apsî, “the naḫbalu of the Gate of Apsû”), supporting the suggestion that naḫbalu may been “the locking mechanism of a gate or door” (Oshima, 2014, p.259 84–85), implicit in George and Al-Rawi’s translation above. This informs the passage ludlul bēl nēmeqi II 84–85 (above), where, by understanding naḫbalu as synonymous with napraku, “bolt”, the parallelism between ll.84–85 can now be better appreciated. The phrase bāb Apsî, “Gate of Apsû”, is most particularly known from the description of Ea’s sanctuary within é-sag-íl, Marduk’s temple in Babylon: é-kar-za-gin-na bāb Apsî (Tintir IV 3; ed. George, Topog.Texts) é-kar-za-gin-na Gate of Apsû For other occurrences of bāb Apsî which allude to é-sag-íl and Babylon, see George, Topog.Texts, pp.300–303. References to bāb Apsî simply as a cosmic location in the Apsû are very rare. It is mentioned in Astrolabe B (KAV 218, A ii 27 and 35: abzu-ta-é bāb Apsî ippatte, “the Gate of Apsû shall be opened”, see George, Topog.Texts, p.301). To this, perhaps, this line l.13′′′ may now be added. Thus understood, the scholar returns to an association between the goddess and Apsû made in ll.14–16, 50 and 62′. However, it cannot be ruled out that the context of ll.11′′′– 13′′′ is not purely cosmic, but the sacred buildings of Babylon, as in ll.66′–70′, 81′– 90′. The equation of bāb Apsî and é-kar-za-gin-na in Babylon is clear from the listing in Tintir IV 3, cited above. A composition relating to the aftermath of a battle between gods edited by Lambert (2013, pp.326–329) points to Ganṣir similarly being

5. The Gula hymn: Critical edition

335

a sacred location in Babylon, perhaps situated in Bēlet-Bābili’s temple, é-tùr-kalamma (so Lambert, 2013, p.497). 14′′′ The reading of the beginning of the last line of substance in Ms. c is uncertain. In his unpublished draft transliteration Lambert noted that the readings miṭ-r[a]-a-ti and be-r[a]-a-ti are both possible. Both words are associated with water. miṭrātu refers to a type of irrigated field system, but is more commonly attested in literary contexts to refer to water channels (CAD M/II 144–145 miṭirtu). The meaning of berātu is more doubtful: CAD B 206–207 “swamps(?)”; AHw 122a (bērtu) “etwa ‘Wasserlauf’”; CDA 43 berātu “waters, lagoon”. CAD and AHw both noted the ambiguity between these words in writings with the BE sign (BE-ra-tu and similar, as here in Ms. c). Horowitz (2011, pp.336–339) has assembled passages which indicate an association between the Apsû and the surface water, swamps and marshes of the earth. Perhaps, then, the surviving phrase in l.14′′′ indicates the cosmic Apsû as the setting of ll.13′′′–14′′′. 15′′′ Only the preposition ana can be read in l.15′′′ before the text breaks off.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

The interpretive techniques and methods of Babylonian speculative scholarship used to explore and explain the meaning of sacred names in the Gula hymn presented in the preceding chapters are examined in this chapter. The Gula hymn makes a rich and significant contribution to the corpus of works in which Babylonian speculative scholarship is deployed. The hymn contains two extensive passages in which sacred names are explored and the Akkadian text of the composition is generated by speculative scholarship, using the techniques and methods described in chapter 3. The names bestowed on the composition’s goddess by Marduk, there called Lugaldimmerankia, are presented in ll.18–41. These divine names are explained by epithets, very much in the manner of an explanatory list. In ll.75′–17′′ (where Ms. c (obverse) breaks off), names of temples, shrines and cities and their deities are set out and interpreted. These interpretations sometimes describe the setting. More commonly, however, they express the character of the goddess with whom the composition’s goddess is identified, as this is understood from the name interpreted. Short passages elsewhere in the Gula hymn (ll.1–6, 66′–70′) also exhibit speculative scholarship. Unexpectedly, analysis of the etymological equations used in the exposition of temples, shrines, cities and their deities (ll.75′–17′′) revealed that names which are not explicitly expressed are also interpreted by scholarly speculation. Hidden names are thus encoded in the composition, revealing the identity of the goddess or her domain in the context. This is an exceptional departure from the standard practice routinely observed in both explanatory and literary compositions, where a sacred name is expressly given and then interpreted. This feature of the Gula hymn constitutes a significant and sophisticated development of Babylonian scholarly hermeneutics. “Encoding” and “encoded names” are the terms used in this book for this remarkable feature. The Gula hymn is exceptional not only for encoded names, but also for the many unusual interpretive methods used. Of particular note is the scholar’s keen eye for graphic interpretation and its extraordinary realisation in the composition: sign forms, sequences of signs and even the form of a name itself are interpreted and expressed in the Akkadian text. Section 6.1 analyses and explains the speculative interpretation in the Gula hymn. Section 6.2 discusses its encoded names. The interpretive techniques and methods used in the Gula hymn are summarised in section 6.3, which highlights the more unusual speculative methods observed in this remarkable composition.

338

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

6.1 Analysis: Speculative interpretation in the Gula hymn The speculative interpretation of the divine and other sacred names explored in the Gula hymn explained here, so far as determined, is informed by the observation of speculative techniques and methods elsewhere in the text corpus. As in section 3.2, the analysis here is based on correspondences evidenced in lexical lists, bilingual texts and other explanatory works, made accessible by CAD. Lexical or other evidence for Akkadian equations identified here is given in the analysis which follows, save for logographic writings for Akkadian words given in CAD and common equations given by multiple lexical sources. The identification of an equation by reference to a particular source simply substantiates an equivalence in ancient scholarship which might underpin the Akkadian text. It does not, of course, imply that this source informed the scholar of the Gula hymn; nor can it be ruled out that a correspondence may be merely coincidental. However, when a correspondence between Sumerian and Akkadian can be established today, it seems reasonable to assume that this knowledge would also have have been available to the scholar. As demonstrated in section 3.2.8, ancient evidence confirms that where direct evidence for a word is lacking, lexical and bilingual evidence for words which share the same root may properly be used to determine equations. So, for example, a lexical equation attributed to a verb may be used equally in respect of a derived or related noun to demonstrate correspondence between a part of the sacred name and the text, notwithstanding the absence of direct lexical or other evidence for the noun itself. This approach has been adopted here. In endeavouring to analyse the scholar’s composition, care has to be taken not to take this too far; as Lambert (2013, p.485) commented in relation to this sort of enquiry, “it is difficult to know just where to stop the procedure”. Where an explanation of the scholar’s methods is less certain and a suggestion is given, this is noted in the analysis. Nevertheless, the erudition, inventiveness and great flexibility in this branch of Babylonian scholarship evidenced in other works in the text corpus provide reassurance for the analysis offered that indeed these are at work in the Gula hymn. Much that is identified in the analysis which follows has precedents or parallels elsewhere in the text corpus, analysed and illustrated in chapter 3. This is true also for the scholar’s more unusual interpretive methods described in section 6.3, although, as will be seen, this scholar develops these speculative methods further. In some cases, the repeated incidence of a feature serves to assure the analysis. Etymological analyses which again and again produced names which were not explicit in the text were too numerous (and sometimes too obvious) to discount. This gives confidence to the unexpected conclusion that names are encoded in the composition. Of course, it has not always been possible to offer an explanation of how the composition may interpret a sacred name. The scholar’s train of thought

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

339

cannot always be followed, and material which might illuminate equations made by the scholar may be lacking. A composite text of the lines of the Gula hymn which are analysed is given here for ease of reference, in normalised form, together with the translation presented. The reading provided by the manuscript which supplies the most complete line has been followed, save where there is compelling reason to do otherwise. Missing signs and text are marked by square brackets; half-brackets to indicate damaged signs (which are shown in the critical edition in section 5.4) have been omitted here. For clarity, names are given in transliteration and graphic indicators are included in the normalised text. 1 2 3 4 5 6

d

[m]ukinnat [ … … … ] rapšat uzni b[anât(x x x mu- … … ] d nin-ì-si-ink[i … … … ] rapšat uzni banâ[t x x x ] mu- x - [ … … ] ibnīma šamû(an)ú u erṣetim(ki)tim x[ … … ] mimma mala šuma nabû ba’ū[lati? … ] She who makes firm [ … … … ], She is of profound intelligence, she is [beautiful, she … … ]. Ninisinna [ … … … ], She is of profound intelligence, she is beautiful [. . . ] she [ … … ]. It was she who created heaven and earth [ … … ], Everything that has a name, mankind [ … ]

nin-ì-si-ink[i] (or perhapsdnin-ì-si-ink[i-na]) (“Lady of Isin”): The divine name Ninisinna is perhaps speculatively interpreted in this opening passage, as may be expected in lines which name the goddess, and consistent with the scholarly speculative nature of the Gula hymn, developed at length in later passages. The text is too fragmentary and the sentiments and language too conventional to be confident, but, applying methods illustrated in section 3.2, etymological correspondences between elements of the divine name and the preserved text are detectable. The element si from the name dnin-ì-si-inki may supply mukinnat, “she who makes firm” (l.1), the D stem feminine participle of kânu, “to be firm”, (sidu kânu Commentary II 1). Alternatively, with consonantal interchange s/z (described in section 3.2.17), si is perhaps understood as zi kânu (Idu I 33; Igituḫ short version 38; likewise, Commentary II 21, 41; E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 34). Two different elements taken from dnin-ì-si-inki, ì and si, may account for banât (ll.2, 4), understood here as “she is beautiful”. ì can be interpreted as banû, “to grow; be good, beautiful”, in two ways: ì may be understood as dig, another reading of the same sign (NI): di-igni banû Aa II/1 ii 7′ MSL XIV p.265; or ì may be taken as its homophone i (i banû Izi V 6 MSL XIII p.160). si may be understood as si4, also

340

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

supplying banû (gu-nusi4 banû Ea II 289 MSL XIV p.259; likewise, Syllabary B I 54 MSL III p.100, Aa III/4 230 MSL XIV p.342). The multiple possibilities inherent in her name serve to affirm and validate the characterisation and nature of the goddess as “beautiful”. banû, “to create” (l.5), is treated in modern dictionaries as a different verb (see CAD B 93). Homophonous Akkadian words were interchangeable in speculative interpretation and there is other evidence in the text corpus for the treatment of banû in particular in this way (see section 3.2.14 and notes below on ll.36 and 2′′). Accordingly, ibnīma, “she created”, may be derived from dnin-ì-si-inki in the same way as banât, “she is beautiful”, as if the verbs were one and the same. šamû, “heaven”, perhaps interprets the divine marker which prefaces dnin-ì-si-inki, read not as dingir, but as an (šamû) (cf. Commentary II 126); erṣetim(ki)tim (erṣetu, “earth”) (l.5) perhaps interprets the sign ki which marks the toponym in her name (see section 3.2.6 for the interpretation of determinatives). 18–38 A number of etymological correspondences in ll.18–38 were identified by Lambert in his (unpublished) manuscript transliteration, marked simply by annotation of Akkadian words with elements of the divine name without further explanation. These are accordingly acknowledged, marked ** in the analysis which follows. 18

d

pa4-nun-na-ki šarrat napḫar šamê(an)e u erṣetim(ki)tim m[u- … ] Panunnaki, queen of all of heaven and earth, [who … ]

d

pa4-nun-na-ki: pa4(pab), read pap, writes napḫaru**, “entirety, all”. nun is apparently equated with šarratu**, “queen”: nun has lexical equivalence with šarru, “king”, ([nun] šarrum Proto-Aa 500 MSL IX p.133); nun also writes rubû, “prince”, semantically equivalent to šarru. The feminine form šarratu is consequently readily understood from nun. nun is perhaps also (or instead) understood as nin, commonly equated with bēltu, “lady”, synonymous with šarratu in many lexical lists (CAD B 187; lugal, “king”, too is bēltu Aa VII/2 75 MSL XIV p.462). šamû, “heaven”, may be derived in a number of ways: šamû may interpret the divine marker which prefaces dpa4-nun-na-ki, read not as dingir, but as an (šamû) (cf. Commentary II 126); an (šamû)** is perhaps understood from the phonetic continuum of Panunnaki; or may be stock phraseology, prompted by its usual counterpart erṣetu, “earth”, realised from the divine name here. ki supplies erṣetu**, “earth”, the correspondence made by the logographic writing of Ms. A. 19

d

nin-bára-ge-sì šarrat šarri nādina[t šip]ṭi Ninbaragesi, the king’s queen, who gives [divine judgment]

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

341

d

nin-bára-ge-sì: nin is šarratu**, “queen”, (see l.18). bára supplies šarru**, “king”, (bára šarrum Igituḫ short version 184; pa-rabára ša[rru] Idu I 166). Lambert’s tentative restoration [šip]-ṭi, “divine judgment”, is supported by lexical evidence which equates šipṭu and ge, thus speculatively interpreting this element of the divine name: gi-e gil šipṭu** Aa III/1 239 MSL XIV p.322 (so CAD Š/III 91). sì read as šúm supplies nadānu**, “to give”. 20

bēlet nābali šarūr kullati nebât gim[ir parak]kī Lady of the dry land, the radiance of the universe, the brightest of all of the [shrines]

d

nin-bára-ge-sì: nin supplies bēltu, “lady”, (see l.18). bára equates to parakku, “shrine”, (hence Lambert’s restoration [pa-rak]-ki). Less straightforwardly, bára is, it seems, also interpreted as nābalu, “dry land”. The restored entry in the lexical text Ea VI C 9′ MSL XIV p.432 suggests ba-ri-im⸢URUxBAR⸣ [nābalu]; bára and ba-ri-im are obviously similar. Better, perhaps, bára, read as pára or para10, is here interpreted as parim (nābalu), for which there is more certain lexical evidence ([a-šà]-parim(PAKAS4) nābalu Urra XX section 4 22 MSL XI p.5; PApa-ri-imDU-šeššig nā[balu] Antagal III 103 MSL XVII p.154). ge, as gi, supplies kullatu, “everything, the universe”, (cf. E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 20) and its synonym gimru, “all”, (see George, Topog.Texts, p.388 for gi kullatu; the lexical text CT 12 29 BM 38226 cited there also gives [gi-i][gi] [gim]-rum i 7). šarūru, “radiance”, appears to interpret sì: [sii] [si] [ša]rūru Syllabary A Vocabulary N 4′ MSL III p.66. sì is perhaps also understood as sa, which equates to šarūru (sa-asa šarūru Idu II 147). sì may certainly be understood as sa4 nebû, “shining, bright”, realised in nebât, “brightest (of all the [shrines])”. This vocalic interchange is comparable with the parallel spellings si- and sa4- in the contrived orthographies si-an-naki and sa4-an-naki (Tintir I 5, 7), both interpreting šu-an-naki. (The equation of the elements of dnin-bára-ge-sì with the Akkadian text in ll.19–20 is briefly outlined similarly by Jiménez, 2018, p.98). Jiménez’ suggested alternative reading of né-BAD (nebât) as né-med (nēmed, “the support of”) noted in the note on l.20 in section 5.5 is prompted by equating bára and nēmedu (May 2021, private communication) ([min(pa-ra)bára] ni-me-du Aa I/2 355 MSL XIV p.218; LTBA 2, 2 i 20–21; and elsewhere, see CAD N/II 155). 21

d

zar-pa-ni-tum ša kīma šumīšāma banât zēri [x x ap]âti Zarpanītum, who, as her very name (says), creates the seed [ . . ] of? the teeming peoples

Zarpanītum: kīma šumīšāma, “as her very name (says)”, flags an etymological explanation (see section 2.4.4). banât zēri**, “she creates the seed”, expresses the interpretation of Zarpanītum as zēr-bānītum, “Seed-creatress”, which can be found

342

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

in Neo-Assyrian sources (see AHw 1520a; note also the spelling dze-er-ba-ni-tum contained in a list with other theological material, including the Marduk Names List (CT 46 53 10, Sm 1720, now joined to K 2107+ reverse); for further variant spellings of the name, informed by this understanding of the goddess’ name, see Lieberman, 1987, pp.179–180). Jiménez’ explanation of this line is differently nuanced, based exclusively on the near-homophony of similar-sounding nouns and syllables in the divine name: “thus “creatress” (bānât) and “humanity” (apâti) stem both from the second syllable of Zarpānitu, whereas “progeny” (zēru) reflects the first (Zarpānitu)” (Jiménez, 2018, p.98). Undoubtedly, similarity of sound surely underlies the ancient interpretation of the name Zarpanītum reflected in zēr-bānītum, “Seed-creatress”, an etymological interpretation further validated by the interpretation of Zarpanītum’s name de4-ru6 (Eru(a)) as bānât riḫûti, “the one who creates sperm”, in l.82′ of this composition. apâti, “the teeming peoples”, perhaps, rather, understands zar as zēr and interprets zēru, “seed”, commonly used to mean “offspring, descendants”. The text is too fragmentary to determine whether speculative interpretation or simply free rendering based on Zarpanītum concluded l.21. 22

d

ama umme šamê(an)e u erṣetim(ki)tim binût Anšar(an-šár) Ama, the mother of heaven and earth, creature of Anšar

d

ama: ummu** translates ama, respectively the Akkadian and Sumerian words meaning “mother”. The phrases express the mother-goddess’ role as creatrix. šamû, “heaven”, perhaps interprets the divine marker which prefaces dama, read not as dingir, but as an (šamû) (cf. Commentary II 126 and l.18 above). Otherwise, no speculative interpretation is obvious. 23 d

d

ma-me-e bānīt parṣī talīmti d[as]ar?-alim!(GÌR) Mamê, who created divine powers, sister of Asar-alim

ma-me-e: dma-me-e (Mamê) is an Akkadian writing, not Sumerian (dma-me). The equation of ma and banû**, “to create”, is found in a commentarist’s explanation of this divine name as ma banû(dù)u, “to create”, me nišū(un)meš, “people” (Babylonian Theodicy 53 and Commentary obv.21, ed. Oshima, 2014, p.445; Frahm, 2011, p.72). Commentary II 83 also equates ma with banû, “to create”. The equation is not apparently otherwise attested lexically. parṣū**, “divine powers”, translates me, the Sumerian term for the divine powers and properties which organise the universe. (CAD T 94 identifies this speculative interpretation). How talīmtu, “sister”, is derived from the divine name is less obvious. Lexical sources which treat talīmu, “brother”, may provide a clue:

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

343

[ta-am]

ud ta[līmu] Aa III/3 50 MSL XIV p.333 tam-ma talīmu Lu Excerpt II 188 MSL XII p.109

Phonetic similarity between tam/tam-ma and Mamê, and tam/tam-ma and ama “mother”, (reflecting Mamê’s role as a mother goddess) perhaps prompted talīmtu. 24

d

ama-ù-tu-an-ki ummi bānât šamê(an)e u erṣetim(ki)tim ālidat ilānī(dingir)[meš] Amautuanki, the mother who created heaven and earth, who gave birth to the god[s]

d

ama-ù-tu-an-ki: ummu (ama)**, “mother”, šamû (an)**, “heaven”, and erṣetu (ki)**, “earth”, straightforwardly translate elements of dama-ù-tu-an-ki. ù-tu supplies the synonyms banû**, “to create”, and alādu, “to give birth to”, (lexically evidenced as synonyms: ù-tu banû, alādu CT 41 27 r.25 Alu commentary; du-utu banû alādu Aa VII/4 60–61 MSL XIV p.467, and bilingual texts, see CAD A/I 287–288, B 83–84). ilānū(dingir)[meš], “gods”, is given by an, read as dingir, from the divine name and, perhaps, by the divine marker which prefaces it (section 3.2.6). This double explanation perhaps expresses the plural ilānū, but the plural noun is readily inferred (see section 3.2.9). 25 d

d

šu-zi-an-na mukinnat ṭēm ili(dingir) u amīli(lú) m[u]šapšiḫat Sîn(dšeš-[ki]) Šuzianna, who establishes the instructions for god and man, who soothes Sîn

šu-zi-an-na: šu equates to ṭēmu**, “instruction”, (Nigga 282 MSL XIII p.104). zi supplies kânu**, “to be firm”, here interpreted by the D stem meaning “to establish” (as ll.1–6). an read as dingir supplies ilu**, “god”. na is interpreted as awīlu** (amīlu), “man”, (Ea IV 108 MSL XIV p.359). How mušapšiḫat Sîn, “the one who soothes Sîn”, is derived is less clear. dšu-zi-an-na is known as a wet-nurse of the moon-god Sîn (CT 24 5 13–14; Lambert, 2013, p.506). The epithet mušapšiḫat Sîn may simply interpret this tradition, but nevertheless it seems likely that the phrase results from speculative interpretation of the divine name. pašāḫu, “to rest”, may interpret šu or zi, or both, in each case with phonetic adjustment. šu may be understood with a different vowel: še-eše4 pašāḫu Idu II 274, and similar correspondences within this phonetic range (CAD P 228). Other glosses suggest that perhaps zi is interpreted: si-igšag5 pašāḫu Ea I 225 MSL XIV p.188. dšeš-ki, normalised here as Sîn, is nanna, a Sumerian name for the moon-god. Nanna is perhaps also understood here, derived from the phonetics -an-na to generate the epithet.

344

26

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

Namma(dengur) napḫar pirišti ilānī(dingir)meš mušēniqat An[šar](an-[šár]) Namma, all the secret lore of the gods, the one who suckled An[šar]

namma(dengur): As Lambert (1989, p.219) identified, the sign engur, which writes namma, is made up of LAGAB and ḪAL and is here broken down into its constituent parts for interpretation: lagab, read nígin or kil, supplies napḫaru, “entirety, all”, (Ea I 32, 42, Aa I/2 55 MSL XIV pp.177–178, 209; Nabnītu O 287 MSL XVI p.295); ḫal is pirištu, “secret lore”. ilānū, “gods”, interprets the divine marker (with plural inferred, see section 3.2.9) (cf. l.24), or is free composition. Not remarked on by Lambert, engur appears to have been broken down differently for the interpretation given by the epithet which concludes l.26, whether reading mušēniqat An[šar] “the one who suckled Anšar” (as restored in this edition), or mušēniqat ilānī(dingir)[meš] “the one who suckled the gods” (as proposed by Lambert). Disregarding the lower horizontal, the sign form engur comprises LÁ and AN. It seems that lá prompts mušēniqtu, “wet-nurse”, which may be written um-mega-lá. The final word of the line interprets an, whether it prompts an-[šár], as suggested here or, read as dingir, it supplies Lambert’s reading ilānī(dingir)[meš], “gods”. Sections 3.2.25 and 3.2.23 describe these speculative methods of graphic interpretation and abbreviation. 27

d

šu-zabar-kù qātī(šu)meš ellēti(kù)meš [n]arāmti ili(dingir) u šarri(lug[al]) Šuzabarku, pure hands, loved by god and king

d

šu-zabar-kù: The writings šu, kù and dingir given by Ms. A serve to demonstrate the derivation of qātā(šu)**, “hands”, and ellētu(kù)**, “pure”, from dšu-zabar-kù, ilu(dingir), “god”, interpreting the divine marker. The speculative derivation of narāmtu, “beloved”, and šarru(lugal), “king”, is less clear. šarru can perhaps be accounted for: the sign bar, taken from the sequence of signs which write zabar(UDKA-BAR), perhaps suggests the correspondence bára šarru (as in l.19). 28 d

d

nin-kar-nun-na qaritti [x]-e? rā’imat Utaul[u](dUD-u18-l[u]) Ninkarnunna, valiant one of […..], the one who loves Utaulu

nin-kar-nun-na: qarittu, “valiant one”, perhaps freely renders nin (gašan, synonymous with nin is qarittu, Aa II/4 217 MSL XIV p.285), and qarittu may also be suggested phonetically by kar. nun is a sign which is commonly used to write rubû, “prince”; as suggested in the note on this l.28 in section 5.5, nun is perhaps the sign lost in the break here. The phrase thus restored would read qaritti rubê(nun)e, “valiant one of the prince”, a speculative interpretation of the name dnin-kar-nun-na. In the concluding epithet, nun, meaning rubû, “prince”, is readily interpreted as Enlil’s son, Ninurta, here called Utaulu (dUD-u18-lu) (see Tallqvist, 1938, p.170). How râmu, “to love”, might be derived from the divine name (if at all) is not clear.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

29

345

d

nin-sún bēlet mušpalī ša ina šamê(an)e manzāssa šalṭ[u] Ninsun, the lady of the low-lying places, whose position in heaven is commanding

d

nin-sún: bēltu**, “lady”, translates nin. Lambert conjectured that sún supplies mušpalu, “low-lying place”, (⸢muš⸣-pa-li is annotated “SÚN?” in his unpublished transliteration). The equation can be accounted for. The scholar perhaps associated sún with the homophonous Akkadian word sūnu, an item of clothing (or part of it), written tùgtùn (CAD S 388); tùn also equates to šapālu, “to be deep, low”, (tu-untùn šapāl[um] Aa VIII/1 122 MSL XIV p.492), the verb to which mušpalu is related; mušpalu itself may be written tùn-la. Thus, by speculation using a combination of Akkadian homophony and exploiting the meanings a reading may have, sún is explained as mušpalu. In the remainder of l.29, sún is perhaps understood as sun5(búr) izuzzu, “to stand”, ([su-un][búr] Aa VIII/2 157 MSL XIV p.501), the verb from which manzāzu, “position”, derives. Understood as the homophones sun5 and sun7, read búr and kal respectively, sún is further interpreted as šalṭu, “commanding”, (bu-úrbúr šalṭu Aa VIII/2 182 MSL XIV p.501; [su]-nakal šalṭu Ea IV 313 MSL XIV p.367, [k]alsu-na šalṭu Erimḫus II 163 MSL XVII p.35). šamû, “heaven”, may interpret the divine marker which prefaces the divine name, but read an (cf. Commentary II 126 and l.18 above). 30

d

nin-gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR-DU) mullilat muššipat ili(dingir) u amīli(lú) Ningirimma, the one who purifies, who weaves spells for god and man

d

nin-gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR-DU): gìrim is understood as girim, which corresponds to ellu, “pure”, (gi-ri-imlagab ellu Ea I 30 MSL XIV p.177), interpreted by the D stem of elēlu, “to be pure”, supplying mullilat**, “the one who purifies”. ilu, “god”, may interpret the divine marker; amīlu, “man”, perhaps interprets a, taken from the writing A-ḪA-TAR-DU, by analogy with the equations a abu, “father”, māru, “son”, and the like; or simply completes a stock phrase. How muššipat, “who weaves spells”, is derived is unclear. 31

d

d

nin-tin-ug5-ga bēltu mušapšiḫat gimir nišī(un)meš muballiṭat mīti(lúúš) Nintinugga, the lady, who soothes all the people, who brings the dead back to life

nin-tin-ug5-ga: nin is bēltu**, “lady”. tin, with vocalic adjustment i/e, is interpreted by pašāḫu**, “to rest”, (te-ente Aa VIII/1 207 MSL XIV p.494), realised in the Š stem participle mušapšiḫat, “the one who soothes”. tin also supplies balāṭu**, “to live”, a verb which may be written by both ti and tin; the D stem is deployed in the speculative interpretation (muballiṭat, “who brings back to life”). ug5, understood as ùg, supplies nišū**, “people”. Homophony and polyvalence are exploited to

346

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

interpret ug5 as mītu(úš)**, “the dead person”, through BAD, which writes ug7 and úš (as here). ug5 itself reads bàd. 32

d

d

nin-kar-ra-ak bēlet riksī upšāšê ēpišat nikkasī arê labbat uzzat u muma’irrat Ninkarrak the lady of bandages (and) ritual procedures, she who makes calculations She is a lioness, she is fury, she is the ruler

nin-kar-ra-ak: nin is bēltu**, “lady”. kar is understood as kár riksu, “bandage”, (kagán Ea I 186 MSL XIV p.186). ak is epēšu, “to make”, (Syllabary A Vocabulary T 5′, Syllabary B II 291 MSL III pp.73,147). The phonetics of the divine name evidently prompt the Sumerian correspondences which produce upšāšû and nikkassu. upšāšû, “ritual procedures”, may be written níg-ak-a, clearly suggested by near-homophony with dnin-kar-ra-ak. Similarly, nikkassu, “account, calculation”, may be written níg-ŠID (Ea VII 193 MSL XIV p.451), perhaps to be read níg-ka9, resembling the phonetics dnin-kar- (thus, it seems, confirming the reading níg-ka9). In both of these Sumerian correspondences (níg-ak-a and níg-ka9), níg may perhaps simply render nin- from dnin-kar-ra-ak, but the phonology of these Sumerian words suggests that the scholar had something more sophisticated in mind which renders the name Ninkarrak more closely. níg (conventionally written níg͂ in transliteration of Sumerian) is a Sumerian prefix denoting an abstract noun, the letter g͂ conventionally rendering the Sumerian nasal consonant g (ng). In this speculation, it seems that the scholar displays evident understanding of Sumerian phonology, but uses níg͂ to interpret nk (Ninkarrak), not ng. This is akin to the method deployed in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 (g͂ dissimilated into separate phonemes n and g) (the speculative interpretation of this nasal consonant is described in section 3.2.19.5). This interpretation also displays consonantal interchange k/g (see sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4). arû, “calculation”, is á-ra (Proto-Kagal B 19 MSL XIII p.84, and bilingual texts), implicitly syllabifying part of the phonetic continuum of dnin-kar-ra-ak differently from the usual orthography of the divine name. Homophony between the Akkadian words arû, “calculation”, and (w)âru, “to go up”, may account for muma’’irrat, derived from (w)u’’uru(m), “to command”, the D stem of (w)âru. muma’’irrat, “she is the ruler”, is hence derived from Ninkarrak in the same way as arû, “calculation”. Another explanation is possible, for lexical evidence equates (w)u’’uru(m) with ág (a[g-ga]ág u’’urum Nabnītu IV 128 MSL XVI p.82;a-kaág u’’r[ru] Idu I 93). Consequently muma’’irrat may interpret the final element of the divine name, ak. What prompted labbatu, “lioness”, and uzzu, “fury”, is elusive. ra

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

33

347

d

kur-rib-ba kāšidat ekṣūti munakkirat uzzāti Kurribba, who overwhelms the dangerous, who repels ferocity

d

kur-rib-ba: kur is understood both as kur and its homophone kúr, writing (respectively) kašādu**, “to conquer, overwhelm”, and nakāru**, “to be(come) hostile” (here interpreted through its D stem meaning “to eliminate, remove”). rib, read kal, supplies akṣu/ekṣu, “dangerous”, (Idu II 321; [š]u-kal-kal akṣu Erimḫus I 278 MSL XVII p.20). uzzāti, (understood here as “ferocity”), is generated by the correspondence íb uzzatu**, “anger”, (Idu I 100). rib is perhaps simply notionally syllabified to produce íb. However, one manuscript of the God List An: Anum which supplies this name contains the variant spelling dkur-íbib-ba (An: Anum V 131; ed. Litke, 1998). The name was taken, it seems, from the name given by the Old Babylonian forerunner to this list, dkur-ra-íb-ba (“she who was furious on? with? the mountain”) (TCL 15, 10 VIII 32, set out by Richter, 2004, p.216; and see Lambert, 1980–1983, p.371). The scholarly speculative interpretation in this l.33 may well be based on knowledge of the alternative spelling of the divine name and of its forerunner. Here, then, may be an instance of the use of older forms as a basis for speculative interpretation, as discussed in section 3.2.26. 34

d

me-me bānīt parṣī dme-me-sig5-ga šāpikat erṣetim(ki)tim šamāmī Meme, who created divine powers, Memesigga, who formed the earth (and) heaven

d

me-me, dme-me-sig5-ga: me writes parṣu**, “divine powers”, and supplies both erṣetu**, “earth”, and šamāmū **, “heavens”, (Izi E 1–2 MSL XIII p.185; Proto-Aa 71:7–8 MSL XIV p.91); me is also understood as me5 bānû**, “creator”, (Aa I/1 116 MSL XIV p.205), realised here in its feminine form bānītu, “creatress”. sig5 is understood as sig to supply šapāku**, “to heap up, construct”, (Nabnītu XVI 64 MSL XVI p.143; similarly, Urra II 214 MSL V p.67). 35 d

d

ama-šu-ḫal-bi ummu rēmīnītum mušapšiḫat zumri Amašuḫalbi, the compassionate mother, who soothes the body

ama-šu-ḫal-bi: ama is ummu, “mother”, and is understood as ama5, read arḫuš, equating to rēmēnû, “merciful, compassionate”. ama itself sometimes writes rēmu, “compassion”. šu, with phonetic adjustment, is evidently interpreted by pašāḫu, “to rest”, realised in the Š stem participle mušapšiḫat, “she who soothes”: še4 (Idu II 274), še12 and sed (Aa VIII/1 173, 176 MSL XIV p.493) and sig6 (Ea I 225 MSL XIV p.188) all correspond to pašāḫu. More clearly, consonantal interchange š/s allows the scholar to interpret šu as su zumru, “body”, (Nabnītu IX 10 MSL XVI p.118; also a logogram).

348

36

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn d

udug-sig5-ga bānīt kakkī nādinat dšēd(alad) dumqi Udugsigga, who creates weapons, who supplies a protective šēdu-spirit of good fortune

d

udug-sig5-ga: udug is understood as údug kakku**, “weapon”, (Ea II 35 MSL XIV p.248; Diri II 255 MSL XV p.130). sig5, interpreted as sig7, read sa7, supplies banû**, strictly “to grow, be(come) good, beautiful”, but understood here as banû, “to create”, (cf. E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8, George, Topog.Texts, p.387; and see section 3.2.14). To supply nadānu, “to give”, sig5 is interpreted as sì, read šúm. The scholar’s methods are unclear: sig5 is perhaps notionally syllabified as sì-ig; or interpreted through homophones sig or sig7, understood as si11 or si12, homophonous with sì; or perhaps sì is simply near-homophonous with sig5. dšēd dumqi, “protective spirit of good fortune”, renders dudug-sig5-ga**: udug is šēdu, “protective deity”, (Erimḫus V 58 MSL XVII p.69; Ea I 364, Aa I/8 231 MSL XIV pp.195,241); sig5 writes dumqu, “good fortune”. 37

d

lamma-sig5-ga šāpikat erṣetim(ki)tim mušatlimat dlamassi(lamma) dumqi Lammasigga, who formed the earth, who bestows a protective lamassu-spirit of good fortune

d

lamma-sig5-ga: lamma is erṣetu**, “earth”, (for sources, see Horowitz, 2011, p.290). As in l.34, sig5 is again understood as sig to supply šapāku**, “to heap up, construct” (l.34). sig5, interpreted as sì, read as šúm, supplies šutlumu**, “to bestow”, (Idu II 83), synonymous with nadānu, “to give", in l.36 and derived identically. dlamassi(lamma) dumqi, “protective spirit of good fortune”, renders d lamma-sig5-ga**: lamma writes lamassu, “protective deity”; sig5, writes dumqu, “good fortune”. 38

dingir-maḫ ṣīrat ilānī(dingir)meš nibût Anšar(an-šár) Dingirmaḫ, most exalted of the gods, the chosen one of Anšar

dingir-maḫ: ilānū**, “gods”, (written dingirmeš in Ms. A) and ṣīru**, “exalted, supreme”, straightforwardly translate dingir and maḫ, respectively. Anšar, the great primordial god, may interpret dingir maḫ, which straightforwardly means “great god”. The restoration nibût, “chosen one”, (the reading ⸢ni-bu⸣-ut is not entirely secure), from nabû, “to name, nominate”, can perhaps be supported, for nibûtu is a word that may be derived from the divine name by speculative interpretation: maḫ is perhaps here understood as ma, equated with nabû, “to name, nominate”, and nību, “naming”, in Commentary II 136 and 137, respectively. 40

d

sig4-za-[gìn-na … ] mušaklilat tālitt[i] Sigzaginna [ … ] who grants perfect offspring

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

349

d

sig4-za-gìn-na: Homophones and alternative readings are exploited to derive tālittu, “offspring”, from dsig4-za-gìn-na. za-gìn are evidently taken together, understood as za-gín which together reads nír; nír is understood as its homophone nir, equating to tālittum (Aa V/3 49 MSL XIV p.423). How šuklulu, “to make/do completely”, (commonly written šu-du7), interprets dsig4-za-gìn-na is less clear. Using homophones and other readings, gìn was perhaps taken as gin(du) and du as du7, abbreviating šu-du7 (see section 3.2.23 for abbreviation as a speculative method). Other explanations are possible (gìn/gín(du5) taken as du7, for example). 8′

d

[gu-la] bānīt napḫari [ … … ] [Gula], creatress of everything, [ … … ]

As the note on this l.8′ in section 5.5 remarks, what is lost in the short space at the beginning of this line (where there is room for only two signs) is a divine name, evidently an identity of the healing goddess. The speculative character of the Gula hymn suggests that bānīt napḫari, “creatress of everything”, the only phrase preserved in l.8′, interprets the lost divine name preceding it. The equivalence of gú and napḫaru, “entirety”, is well-attested. Exploiting the homonyms gú/gu, the restoration d[gu-la] is proposed, with some confidence. This restoration perhaps finds further support in the phrase bānīt napḫari. bānītu, “creatress”, may also speculatively interpret gu, through near-homophonous readings: ugu4, a reading of the KU sign, equates to banû, “to create”, (ú-guku banû Ea I 137 MSL XIV p.184). (This lexical correspondence is exploited by the scholar in ll.128′ and 2′′ to interpret yet other elements). The element la was perhaps interpreted elsewhere in l.8′, now lost. 64′

itti Nabû(dag) pātiq kullati palûša maḫrī By leave of Nabû, who fashioned everything, her rule is preeminent

nabû(dag): pātiq, “who fashioned”, interprets the writing of the divine name as dag (a-kaak patāqum Proto-Aa No.7 ii 22 MSL XIV p.120). kullatu, “everything”, evidently also interprets the divine name, for Nabû is termed ša kullati, “He of all things”, in explanatory God Lists (An: Anu ša amēli 113, ed. Litke, 1998; V R 43 r.1, ed. Pomponio, 1978, p.157). Perhaps syllogism, the deductive reasoning by which one thing may be explained as another through some common intermediary, is at work and another Sumerian equivalence for Akkadian words to which ag corresponds is used here by the scholar to generate kullatu. In addition to patāqu, “to fashion”, ag(ak) equates to the semantically similar verbs epēšu, “to do, make”, (see l.32) and banû, “to create”, as noted in lines supplemental to the God List explaining the name Nabû (V R 43 r.40–41, see Pomponio, 1978, p.155, note 35). epēšu and banû also have the correspondence dù (as also does patāqu, according to

350

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

Commentary II 135). dù also commonly writes kalu, a word cognate with kullatu, and also meaning “entirety”. Thus, by a succession of correspondences, ag may be understood as kullatu. Such deductive reasoning pervades Babylonian scholarship, as noted by Bottéro (1977, pp.23–24) and many others. How palûša maḫrī, “her rule is preeminent”, may have been understood from the divine name (if at all) is unclear. The phrase is perhaps corrupt. 66′–70′ The form of ll.66′–70′ (a Sumerian sacred name, followed by a description of the sacred place and an accolade of the goddess) suggests that, as in ll.75′ff., each name is interpreted by what follows. Determining how these phrases interpret the sacred name is, for the most part, difficult and uncertain in this obscure passage. Further speculative interpretation is almost certainly at work but is elusive. 66′

é-šár-ra šubat ilānī(dingir)meš rēštat šubassa The é-šár-ra, the seat of the gods – supreme is her abode

é-šár-ra (“the House of the Universe”): šubtu, “seat, abode”, synonymous with bītu, “house”, (so commonly written é), like bītu translates é. 67′

é-kur kiṣṣa ella gummurū parṣūša The é-kur, the holy shrine – perfected are her rites

é-kur (“the House, the Mountain”): kiṣṣu, “shrine”, synonymous with bītu, “house”, (malku = šarru I 262; ed. Hrůša, 2010), translates é. kur is notionally syllabified, and understood as kù and ur5: kù is ellu, “holy”; ur5, understood as mur (another reading of the same sign), supplies gamāru, “to complete”, (Aa V/2 248 MSL XIV p.420). For kù and ur5 from é-kur, compare BTT 18 §5 16′–17′; George, Topog.Texts, p.444. 68′

é-sag-íl ēkal(é-gal) ilānī(dingir)meš šubassa gašrat The é-sag-íl, the palace of the gods – most powerful is her seat

é-sag-íl (“the House whose top is raised high”): The interpretation of é-sag-íl as ēkal ilānī, “Palace of the gods”, is paralleled in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 5–6, where the restoration [é-sag e-kal-lum] looks compelling; íl is understood as ìl(dingir) equating to ilu, “god”, the plural freely inferred in speculative interpretation (see section 3.2.9; and see further George, Topog.Texts, p.386, referring also to this line). šubtu, “seat, abode”, translates é (as l.66′) and simultaneously interprets sag. The equation of šubtu and sag is paralleled in the Esagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12, where the temple is explained as šubat rubê Marūduk, “Dwelling of the prince Marduk”, and the correspondence given by the ancient scholar is [s]ag ašābu, “to sit”. George, Topog.Texts, p.387, explained that gaš[ru] is gil (V R 16 ii 71), and hence so too is gašrat, “(it) is powerful”. The

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

351

morpheme boundary is blurred by an implicit consonantal doubling; the phoneme g is made available in separate syllables for speculative purposes in an implicitly contrived orthography é-sag-gil (cf. the explicitly contrived orthography of the Esagil Commentary, BTT 5 3–4, 19–20; section 3.2.19.1). 69′

du6-kù pirišti ilānī(dingir)meš milikša lamdat Duku, the secret place of the gods – she is learned in her counsel

du6-kù (“Pure Mound”): milku, “counsel”, appears to interpret kù through homophones and alternative readings. kù is perhaps understood as ku, read as kùd and understood as kud, equating to milku (Aa III/5 68 MSL XIV p.345). However perhaps, taking kù as ku, KU is understood as TÚG, signs which are, to modern scholars, unrelated save by graphic similarity. TÚG, read umuš, is also milku (ProtoAa 69.1 MSL XIV p.91). For a closely similar interpretation, see section 3.2.25 on Commentary II 10 (TÚG as KU for kù ellu, “pure, holy”). pirištu, “secret”, commonly equates to ḫal and is often written ad-ḫal; it more obviously interprets éḫal-an-ki (l.70′) than offering speculative interpretation in l.69′. The description pirišti ilānī, “secret of the gods”, is, of course, entirely appropriate to the cosmic du6kù, and perhaps no scholarly interpretation is intended. 70′

é-ḫal-an-ki bīt(é) kiššat uzni têrētīša ḫam[m]ā The é-ḫal-an-ki, the house of all wisdom – her commands are gathered together

é-ḫal-an-ki (“the House of the Secrets of Heaven and Earth”): é supplies bītu, “house”. Different elements of é-ḫal-an-ki (an-ki, ki and ḫal) may account for kiššatu, “totality”. kiššatu perhaps freely renders an-ki, “heaven (and) earth”, (cf. anki-a as kalāma, “all”, in the interpretative description of dna-ri-lugal-dìm-me-er-anki-a as āšir ilānī kalāma, “Supervisor of all the gods”, Enūma eliš VI 143). ki may be understood as an abbreviation of ki-šár-ra, which writes kiššatu. A third possibility is through ḫal, otherwise apparently unused, and its common correspondence pirištu, “secret”, applying syllogism, the deductive reasoning by which one thing may be explained as another through some common intermediary (cf. the note on l.64′ above). ḫal corresponds to pirištu; pirištu also has the correspondence šu4 (šu-uu Aa II/4 53 MSL XIV p.281); šu4 also equates to kiššatu (šuu u Aa II/4 46 MSL XIV p.281). So, by syllogism, ḫal = pirištu; pirištu = šu4; šu4 = kiššatu: therefore ḫal = kiššatu. Although the equation šu4/kiššatu appears in several lexical lists (CAD K 457), the close proximity of kiššatu and pirištu in Aa II/4 (ll.53 and 46 respectively) tends to support the interpretation suggested here. Similarly, Aa II/4 equates u read, not as šu4, but as ge14 with uznu, “ear, wisdom”, (ge-eu Aa II/4 44 MSL XIV p.281). Perhaps, in this deductive thread of reasoning, ḫal may equally be

352

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

equated with any word written by u, so that uznu too interprets ḫal. (Again, other lists equate the sign u with uznu, see CAD U–W 362). têrtu, “command”, has the equivalence a-akág (Idu I 95) and perhaps interprets the phonetics an-ki. ḫamāmu, “to gather”, is difficult to explain; ḫamāmu and têrēti, “commands” are routinely attested together and perhaps simply stock phraseology is deployed here. 75′–17′′ Scholarly speculation on sacred names characterises this lengthy sustained passage, which comprises most of the remainder of the preserved text of the Gula hymn. Names of temples, shrines and cities and their deities are set out and interpreted and other names not explicitly set out are encoded in the composition. The passage runs out where the late Babylonian piece, Ms. c (obverse), breaks off. 75′

ina Uri(úri)ki dnin-gal aḫat ilānī(dingir)meš rabûti(gal)meš In Ur (she is) Ningal, the sister of the great gods

úriki, dnin-gal: nin is aḫatu, “sister”. The divine marker which prefaces the name nin-gal gives ilānū, “gods”; and gal is rabûtu, “great”, the plural freely inferred in the speculative interpretation (see section 3.2.9). aḫatu, “sister”, perhaps also interprets the combination of signs which write úri (“Ur”): úri(ŠEŠ-UNUG)ki;. šeš is Sumerian for aḫu, “brother”. Ningal is thus identified and explained as the sibling denoted by the writing of Ur itself. d

76′

d

nin-gi-kù-ga bēlet gimri ellūti(kù)tim mubbibat kīnūti (She is) Ningikuga, lady of all the cultically pure, the one who cleanses the just (of sin)

d

nin-gi-kù-ga: nin is bēltu, “lady”; kù is ellu, “pure”. gi supplies gimru, “totality”: a late lexical text appears to equate these [gi-i][gi][gim]rum CT 12 29 BM 28226 i 7 (note too gi kullatum, “everything”, E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 19–20). For the second epithet, mubbibat kīnūti, “the one who cleanses the just”, kù supplies ebēbu, “to be pure”, (the adjectives ebbu and ellu are synonyms, malku = šarru VI 215, ed. Hrůša, 2010), realised in the D stem participle mubbibat, “the one who cleanses”; and gi is kīnu, “honest, just”, (Reciprocal Ea A ii 24′ MSL XIV p.525; Commentary II 83). 77′

ina é-giš-nu11-gal nāṣirat kiššat nišī nūr(zálag) šamê(an)e rabûti(gal)meš In the é-giš-nu11-gal, she protects all the people, the light of the vast heavens

é-giš-nu11-gal (Ms. d) (“the Alabaster House”; “the House of Great Light”), é-kišnu-gál (Ms. B): The surviving manuscripts preserve different orthographies of the temple name. Both orthographies were evidently known to the scholarly composer

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

353

of l.77′, which interprets both versions of the name, as already demonstrated by Lambert (1967, p.131) and George, Topog.Texts, p.384. The first epithet, nāṣirat kiššat nišī, “she protects all the people”, interprets the older spelling, é-kiš-nu-gál: kiš equates to kiššatu, “all”, nu nišū, “people”, and gál naṣāru, “to protect”. The second epithet, nūr šamê rabûti, “the light of the vast heavens”, interprets é-giš-nu11gal: giš-nu11 supplies nūru, “light”, giš šamû, “heavens”, and gal rabûtu, “great, vast”. (For lexical evidence, see George, Topog.Texts, p.384). 78′

ina Sippari(zimbir)ki āl(uru) ṣâti nūr(zálag) šamê(an) u erṣeti(ki) ili(dingir) u amīli(lú) In Sippar, most ancient city, (she is) the light of heaven and earth, of god and man

zimbirki: The sequence of signs which write zimbir(UD-KIB-NUN), the writing for the toponym Sippar, and the marker ki which follows zimbir are speculatively interpreted by the scholar, to generate this line. kib is read ùl, understood as ul which writes ṣâtu, “distant time”. ud, read zalag/zálag, is nūru, “light” (the scribe of Ms. d writes zálag in the manuscript). ud is interpreted as šamû, “heaven", and perhaps also erṣetu, “earth”, (ùud šamû, erṣetu Aa III/3 8–9 MSL XIV p.332). nun (rubû, “prince”) is perhaps freely interpreted as ilu, “god”; more certainly, nun may perhaps also be understood as nu awīlum (amīlu), “man”, (Proto-Aa No.7 i 4 MSL XIV p.118). The marker ki, which identifies zimbir as a place-name, is interpreted as ālu, “city”; and is straightforwardly translated by erṣetu, “earth”. 79′

ina é-babbar-ra da-a bēlet(gašan) maštaki mukillat riksī In the é-babbar-ra, (she is) Aya, the mistress of the house, who holds the (cosmic) bonds

é-babbar-ra (“the Shining House”), da-a: maštaku, “living quarters”, a word synonymous with the usual correspondence of é, bītu, “house”, (malku = šarru I 258, ed. Hrůša, 2010) perhaps interprets é. Aya’s epithet bēlet maštaki, “Mistress of the house/living quarters”, is evidently traditional: šèr-ri-da da-a ša maštaki (An: Anu ša amēli 45; ed. Litke, 1998) Šerida Aya of the living quarters mukillat riksī, “who holds the (cosmic) bonds”, interprets a name not expressed in ll.78′–79′, drawing on Aya’s Sumerian name Šerida, as clearly demonstrated by the equation še-er riksu, “bond”, (Izi D i 13′ MSL XIII p.180). The derivation of kullum, “to hold”, realised in the feminine participle mukillat, is unclear; mukillat riksī is perhaps simply stock phraseology expressing the topos prompted by the equation with riksu, “(cosmic) bond”, (see further section 5.5 note on ll.10, 78′–79′). Aya’s

354

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

Sumerian name Šerida is thus encoded in l.79′ in the epithet mukillat riksī which offers an explanation of Aya’s Sumerian identity. The repetition of the sign UD in ll.78′–79′ (in the writing UD-KIB-NUNki, and by babbar, written by the ud sign) perhaps points to another identity of Aya, as dUD(min = šè-ri5-da)UD (An: Anum III 128; ed. Litke, 1998). ina é-ḫi-li-dinanna šubat Dunni-sā’idu šamuḫtu dul-sig7-ga In the é-ḫi-li-dinanna, the shrine of Dunni-sāʼidi, (she is) Ulsigga, the voluptuous one

80′

é-ḫi-li-dinanna (“the House of the Luxuriance of Ištar”), dul-sig7-ga: šamuḫtu, “luxuriant, voluptuous”, simultaneously interprets ḫi-li from the temple name (ḫi-liib naga šamāḫu, “to flourish”, Aa VII/4 93 MSL XIV p.468) and freely renders the divine name, dul-sig7-ga (ul “fruit”; sig7(-ga) “verdant”). ina bābili(ká-dingir-ra)ki nēreb ilānī(dingir)meš dnin-gìrim(A-ḪA-TAR-DU) In Babylon, the gateway of the gods, (she is) Ningirimma

81′

ká-dingir-raki (“Gate of the God”): nēreb ilānī, “gateway of the gods”, a literary rendering of the more usual bāb ilī, “gate of the gods”, translates this writing for Babylon, ká-dingir-raki, “Gate of the God”, (see Tintir I 22 and George, Topog.Texts, pp.255–256 for similar interpretations of ká-dingir-raki). ina é-sag-íl de4-ru6 bānât(dù)at riḫûti In the é-sag-íl, she is Eru (Zarpanītum), the one who creates sperm

82′ d

e4-ru6: e4, read a, is riḫûtu, “sperm”, (e-aa riḫûtu Ea I 2 MSL XIV p.176). ru6, understood as rú(dù) supplies banû, “to create”. Thus bānât riḫûti, “the one who creates sperm”, interprets Zarpanītum’s name de4-ru6 (Eru(a)) and simultaneously expresses the common interpretation of Zarpanītum as zēr-bānītum, “Seedcreatress”, (see note on l.21 above), thus encoding the name Zarpanītum in l.82′. The epithet doubtless reflects a scholarly tradition, for the same interpretation of the name Eru(a) occurs in a prayer to Bēltīya (Zarpanītum) for recitation during the New Year festival in Babylon for the month Nisannu, included in the text corpus examined here. Bēltīya is equated with the star Eru(a): múl

e4-ru6 bānât riḫûtu (Prayer to Bēltīya 331, extract) The Eru(a)-star, the one who creates sperm Stol (1989) explained the scholarly derivation of the epithet in this Prayer to Bēltīya in essentially the same way.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

83′

355

ina ká-silim-ma kabitti Anšar bēlet tašmê u salīme In the ká-silim-ma, venerated by Anšar, (she is) the lady of sympathy and mercy

ká-silim-ma (“the Gate of Well-being”): kabitti Anšar, “venerated by Anšar”, interprets the temple é-sag-íl itself (l.82′), not its gate ká-silim-ma. sag is kabtu, “important, respected”, (Idu I 113; similarly, see CAD K 25). íl is understood as ìl, perhaps read as dingir ilu, “god”, (as in E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 6–7), and interpreted as Anšar; or perhaps ìl is read as an, readily suggesting Anšar. Thus the name of Marduk’s temple, é-sag-íl, is encoded in this line. The sacred name ká-silim-ma prompts the epithet bēlet tašmê u salīme, “lady of sympathy and mercy”, (silim writes salīmu, “reconciliation, favour”). tašmû and salīmu are commonly used together (CAD S 102, T 374 tešmû “attention, listening”), but this epithet perhaps also encodes the name of the goddess Tašmētum, consort of Nabû. In an inscription from the time of Sîn-šarra-iškun, Tašmētum is ilat tašmê u salīme, “goddess of sympathy and mercy”, (Falkner, 1952–1953, p.306 11), a description that self-evidently reflects her name. According to an inscription of Esarhaddon, a šubtu (“seat”) of Tašmētum, restored by him, was located within Marduk’s cella: ana Tašmētum(panun) bēlti rabīti āšibat é-umuš-a papāḫ Marūduk ša qereb Bābili(tin-tir)ki (Borger, 1956, p.84 r.39) For Tašmētum, the great lady who dwells in é-umuš-a, Marduk’s cella in Babylon. See too Tintir II 3, George, Topog.Texts, p.269. The gate name ká-silim-ma, and a variant ká-su-lim-ma, may sometimes designate Marduk’s cella itself (George, Topog.Texts, p.402). With the speculative interpretation here of é-sag-íl itself by kabitti Anšar (see above), the context suggests that ká-silim-ma is understood as Marduk’s cella in l.83′. Tašmētum’s šubtu there is perhaps implicitly evoked, and the healing goddess is identified here with Tašmētum. 84′

ina ká-ḫi-li-sù kuzba ulluḫat būnāma za’nat In the ká-ḫi-li-sù, she is laden with allure, she is covered in loveliness

ká-ḫi-li-sù (“the Gate sprinkled with Luxuriance”): ḫi-li is kuzbu, “allure”; sù, read sud, is ulluḫum, “to decorate”, (Proto-Aa No.7 i 28 MSL XIV p.119). sù is evidently also understood as zânu, “to be adorned”: in the Royal ritual composition included in the text corpus, the gate ká-ḫi-li-sù itself is described as bāb kuzbu za’nu, “Gate covered in luxury”, (Lambert, 1997, p.60 37; see George, Topog.Texts, p.394 for closely similar descriptions of ká-ḫi-li-sù; CAD Z 47 for other bilingual texts). būnu,

356

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

“goodness, loveliness”, evidently paralleling kuzbu, “allure”, in this line, perhaps freely renders ḫi-li. 85′

ina é-è-umuš-a dnin-è-umuš-a mušāpât ṭēmi In the é-è-umuš-a, (she is) Nineumuša, the one who makes manifest the (divine) will

é-è-umuš-a, dnin-è-umuš-a (Ms. d and Ms. B), é-umuš-a (“the House of Command”), nin-é-umuš-a (Ms. f): The reading of these names is discussed in section 5.5. The unorthodox orthography of these names recorded in Ms. d and Ms. B (but not in Ms. f), with the additional element è to serve the scholar’s speculative interpretation, has parallels in other contrived writings in the text corpus (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings). è supplies šūpû, “to bring forth”, (usually pa-è, but abbreviated in this scholarly speculation); umuš is ṭēmu, “instruction”, (for lexical evidence, see George, Topog.Texts, p.390). d

86′

ina é-tùr-kalam-ma bēlet bābili(tin-tir)ki mālikat Igīgī (dí-gì-gì) In the é-tùr-kalam-ma, (she is) Bēlet-Bābili, the one who counsels the Igigi

é-tùr-kalam-ma (“the House, Cattle-pen of the Land”), bēlet bābili(tin-tir)ki: Here the scholar speculatively interprets a name which is not explicit in this passage. The divine name which generates mālikat, “the one who counsels”, is dinanna-galga-sù, with whom Bēlet-Bābili is equated in an explanatory list: [dinnin]-galga-sù min(Bēlet-Bābili) [ma]-li-[(ik)-ka-tu] (CT 25 49 obv.2) [Malikatu] [dinanna]-galga-sù Bēlet-bābili (For this goddess, see further George, 2000, p.298 note 16). galga-sù is milku, “counsel”, (Antagal D 201 MSL XVII p.188). In dinanna-galga-sù, galga-sù is usually understood as malkatu, “queen”, (so, “Inanna, the Queen”), the equation of galga-sù and malkatu being perhaps generated by near-homophony (see George, Topog.Texts, p.471). 87′

ina é-nam-ti-la bunnannê šarḫat inamdin bulṭu In the é-nam-ti-la, noble in appearance, she grants life

é-nam-ti-la (“the House of Life”): Closely similar to the descriptions contained in this l.87′ are the explanations of é-nam-ti-la as bīt bunnannê, “House of Creation(?)”, and bīt balāṭi, “House of Life”, contained in in a temple list (BTT 3 r.13′–14′, George’s translation). These explanations clearly effect the same speculative interpretation of the sacred name as here in the Gula hymn. nam-ti-la supplies bulṭu and balāṭu (ti-(la)), both words which have the meaning “life”; nam-ti-la is also evidently rendered as bunnannû, “features”, translated as “appearance” in this l.87′.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

357

nabnītu (“creation, creature”) and bunnannû occur together with the equation sa7alam in Nabnītu I 1–2 (MSL XVI p.50); for the extended meaning of bunnannû as broadly analogous to nabnītu, informed and supported by the connection between nam-ti-la and bunnannû apparent in the temple list BTT 3 and here in l.87′, see George, Topog.Texts, pp.370–372. 88′

ina é-nam-ḫé bēlet nuḫši mudeššât ḫiṣba In the é-nam-ḫé, (she is) the lady of plenty, the one who provides abundant produce

é-nam-ḫé (“the House of Plenty”): ḫé is nuḫšu, “abundance, plenty”, (strictly, written ḫé-nun) and is interpreted by ḫiṣbu, “produce, yield”, which, combined with duššû, “to provide copiously”, (G stem dešû, “to sprout”), is synonymous with nuḫšu. ḫé is perhaps also understood as ḫe and taken as šár, to supply duššû, “to provide copiously”, (Aa V/2 50 MSL XIV p.416), realised in mudeššât, the bound form of the feminine participle, “she who provides abundant (ḫiṣba produce)”. šár and nuḫšu are also equated lexically (Idu II 78). ḫe(ḪI) and ŠÁR are treated as separate signs in modern scholarship, and perhaps here there is an instance where similar or identically written signs are taken as one and the same for speculative purposes (see section 3.2.25). However, ḪI and ŠÁR seem to have had the same name in first millennium lexical sources, and perhaps, in the first millennium at least, ḪI and ŠÁR were regarded as the same sign (see Gong, 2000, p.112 DUG3). 89′

ina é-sa-bad petât uzni nābât tabīni In the é-sa-bad, she is attentive, she calls the shelter into being

é-sa-bad (“the House of the Open Ear”): Both phrases in l.89′ interpret the temple name, as already demonstrated by George, Topog.Texts, p.331 (see too CAD N/I 34, T 27). sa supplies uznu, “ear”, (sa-asa uz[nu] Idu II ii 51 ed. Gong, 2002 p.51; uzusa uznu Urra XV 43 MSL IX p.43); and, understood as the homophone sa4, sa supplies nabû, “to name, invoke”. bad supplies petû, “to open”, a verb which maybe written by the sign bad; and, understood as bàd, bad is interpreted as tabīnu, “shelter”. The Sumerian equivalence for tabīnu is á-bàd (Erimḫus V 123 MSL XVII p.72), abbreviated in the speculative interpretation. The interpretive phrase nābât tabīni, “she calls the shelter into being”, effects phonological reversal of consonants nbt/tbn (section 3.2.24). petât uzni, “she is the one whose ear is open”, (hence, “she is wise, attentive”), is evidently a conventional explanation of é-sa-bad, for it occurs in a list of Assyrian temples (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 174).

358

90′

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

ina é-ki-tuš-gir17-zal šubat nēḫti āšibat tašīlti In the é-ki-tuš-gir17-zal, the abode of calm, she is the one who dwells in delight

é-ki-tuš-gir17-zal (“the House, the Abode of Joy”): Temple lists explain é-ki-tušgir17-zal as bītu šubat tašīlti, “house, abode of joy” (BTT 3 r.3′, BTT 4 22; George, Topog.Texts, p.317), and this sacred name is similarly interpreted here in l.90′. kituš is šubtu, “seat, abode”; tuš is ašābu, “to dwell”, (Ea I 141 MSL XIV p.184). zal, read as ni/né and understood as ne (whether by vocalic interchange or homophony), supplies nēḫtu, “calm”, (strictly, the Sumerian correspondence is written ne-ḫa or ne-ḫu; note the similar abbreviation understood in Commentary II 128 ne nâḫu, “to rest”, the infinitive to which nēḫtu is related). gir17-zal is tašīltu, “joy”. 91′

ina bár-sipaki dnin-zíl-zíl-le bēlet taknê zikirša In Borsippa, Ninzilzille, the compassionate lady, is her name

d

nin-zíl-zíl-le: bēlet taknê, “compassionate lady”, straightforwardly renders the name dnin-zíl-zíl-le: nin is bēltu, “lady”; zíl supplies taknû, “loving care”, (zi-iltag kunnû, “to care for”, Aa V/1 242 MSL XIV p.414). An explanatory God List likewise explains dnin-zíl-zíl as bēlet taknê (CT 25 49 r.7). This line may be understood as simply recording the goddess’ name in Borsippa, and it is so translated here: “In Borsippa, Ninzilzille, the compassionate lady, is her name”. At the same time, perhaps the scholar exploits the ambiguity implicit in the Akkadian text, and bēlet taknê zikirša are to be taken together: “In Borsippa (she is) Ninzilzille, the compassionate lady is her name”. Unlike kīma šumīšāma, “as her very name (says)”, zikirša, “is her name”, is not a recognised expression which expressly points to an etymological explanation (see section 2.4.4). Nevertheless, it may be supposed that, by writing zikirša, the scholar flags that bēlet taknê is derived from the divine name d nin-zíl-zíl-le. 92′

ina é-zi-da našât lē’u (gišle-u5) kitti inašši rēša In the é-zi-da, she holds the writing board of truth and lifts the head

é-zi-da (“the True House”): zi is interpreted as našû, “to hold”, (Idu I 41, Aa III/1 92 MSL XIV p.321) and kittu, “truth”, ([zi-i]zi kânu, “to be true”, Idu I 33; likewise, E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 33–34, Commentary II 21, 40). The unusual (or unexpected) expressions in l.92′ signal that lē’u, “writing board”, and rēšu, “head”, are speculative interpretations, but how they are derived is less obvious. It is suggested here that, by graphic interpretation, these words interpret Borsippa (bársipaki) (l.91′), lē’u interpreting bár and rēšu sipa. Lexical evidence suggests that lē’u, “writing board”, equates to lagab and to nigin(LAGAB+LAGAB) (Aa I/2 103, 105 MSL XIV p.211). The sign form bár may be broken down, with extraneous horizontals removed to leave the box that is the sign lagab for interpretation as lē’u

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

359

(see section 3.2.25 and cf. l.26, where the sign form engur is broken down for interpretation). rēšu, “head”, is commonly written sag. The varied writings of the sign sag from the Old Babylonian period onwards, as well as Assyrian forms familiar, no doubt, to a Babylonian scholar, perhaps suggest the sign sag is made up of SI-PA, recalling -sipa. lē’u and rēšu thus, it is suggested, express é-zi-da’s city, Borsippa (bár-sipaki), named in the preceding line. 93′

ina dil-batki nabīt ilānī(dingir)meš kabitti māti In Dilbat, (she is) most brilliant of the gods, the most important in the land

dil-batki: The readings nabīt ilānī, “most brilliant of the gods”, (Ms. B) and nabīt Anšar, “appointed by Anšar”, (perhaps the reading of Ms. f) are discussed in section 5.5. Speculative interpretation does not settle which reading is to be preferred. nabīt ilānī, “most brilliant of the gods”, perhaps freely describes Ištar in astral form as the planet Venus (dil-bad), drawn from dil-batki (which could be read as dil-badki). nabīt Anšar, “appointed by Anšar”, would point to é-ibbi-Anum, the temple of Uraš at Dilbat named in l.94′: nabīt, “appointed”, and ibbi, “he called”, both derive from nabû, “to call”; the identification of Anšar with Anu is discussed in section 5.5, note on l.60′. The epithet kabitti māti, “most important in the land”, interprets the toponym Dilbat (dil-batki). bat/bad, read idim, is kabtu (f. kabittu), “important”. mātu, “land”, may be suggested by bad, read as mát, and by the marker ki. ki usually equates to the sematically similar word erṣetu, “earth”, but is also lexically equated with mātu(m), “land”, (Nabnītu IV 56 MSL XVI p.79, and note too gu-uki mātum Ea IV 97 MSL XIV p.359; erṣetu and mātu share equations in many lexical lists, see CAD E 304–305, M/I 414). ki and mātu perhaps also suggest Ki, the goddess who, like Uraš, was, in tradition, the consort of Anum. If so, nabīt Anšar, “appointed by Anšar” is the better reading. 94′

ina é-i-bí-da-num d[nin]-é-gal muṣabbât Anim(da-nim) In the é-ibbi-dAnum, (she is) Bēlet-ēkalli, the one who gazes on Anu

é-ibbi-Anum (é-i-bí-da-num) (“the House Anu called into being”), dnin-é-gal: muṣabbât Anim, “the one who gazes on Anu”, appears to be free comment drawing on the temple name, clearly crafted for similarity in sound to ibbi Anum, “Anu called”, (similarly, see section 3.2.14). The divine name dnin-é-gal is not speculatively interpreted here; the goddess is understood in Akkadian as Bēlet-ēkalli, “lady of the palace”, which straightforwardly renders the Sumerian name nin, “lady”, and é-gal, “palace”.

360

96′

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

[mu]šparirrat šēt zā’irī āšibat [ … ] She is the one who spreads the hunting net for the enemy, she dwells [in? … ]

The possibility that é-sa-pàr (“House of the Net”) prompts the epithet mušparirrat šēt zā’irī, “she is the one who spreads the hunting net for the enemy”, to reveal the setting of the broken lines ll.95′–96′ is discussed in section 5.5 in the note on this l.96′. The very specific and unusual subject shared by the sacred name and the epithet itself points to this l.96′ being an obvious interpretation of the temple name. Etymological correspondences make it all but certain that mušparirrat šēt zā’irī is a speculative interpretation of é-sa-pàr. sa supplies šētu, “net”: the logogram gišsa writes šētu; lexical evidence for the equation is given by sa-asa še-e-t[ú] Idu II 152 and elsewhere, see CAD Š/II p.340. pàr supplies šuparruru, “to spread out”: šuparruru may be written as bàra(dag), a sign which may also be read pàr. pàr is also rendered by zā’iru, “enemy”, which has the lexical equation lúbar-ra (l[úb]ar-ra ṣaa’-i-ru (for zā’iru) Nabnītu XXI (XXII) 192 MSL XVI p.197): for this, bar may be taken as its homophone bàr and understood as pàr, another reading of the sign dag; perhaps homophony and consonantal interchange b/p are at work (for consonantal interchange, see section 3.2.17). Phonetically, too, mušparirrat suggests é-sa-pàr. The second epithet is incomplete (āšibat [ … ], “who dwells …. ”), but perhaps this too interpreted é-sa-pàr. The equation of sag (which has the reading sa12) and ašābu, “to dwell”, is made in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 11–12; through the homophonous reading sa12, āšibat may accordingly render sa from é-sa-pàr. The difficulties in the way of restoring é-sa-pàr in ll.95′–96′ (although both lines are broken in all relevant manuscripts) are discussed in section 5.5. It is possible however that, rather than interpreting an expressed name, the epithet mušparirrat šēt zā’irī encodes the name é-sa-pàr as the goddess’ temple in l.96′. It would be unusual (by far the majority of the names that are encoded in this composition are divine names and toponyms, as the discussion of encoded names in section 6.3 demonstrates); but it would not be without precedent. As noted above, kabitti Anšar, “venerated by Anšar”, (l.82′), interprets é-sag-íl, not ká-silim-ma, the sacred name mentioned in the line. The names of two other sanctuaries are encoded in the composition: é-ka-aš-bar-(ra) (l.127′) and, less confidently, é-šaga-ra (l.137′). The link between mušparirrat šēt zā’irī and é-sa-pàr seems incontrovertible and the context in ll.93′–94′ supports the identification of ésa-pàr here (see section 5.5). In the absence of duplicate text to fix é-sa-pàr in ll.95′– 96′, the possibility that é-sa-pàr is encoded in l.96′ serves as a provisional solution. 97′

ina é-gal-dlamma-lugal uššubat [m]al[ki] In the é-gal-dlamma-lugal, she makes the [ruler] flourish

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

361

é-gal-dlamma-lugal (“the Palace of the King’s Protective Deity”): uššubat [m]al[ki], “she makes the ruler flourish”, simultaneously freely expresses the function of d lamma-lugal, “the king’s protective deity”, and speculatively interprets parts of d lamma-lugal. From the phonetic continuum of lamma, lam supplies ešēbu, “to flourish” and its D stem uššubu, “to make flourish”, is lam-lam (Nabnītu R 166,169 MSL XVI p.301; similarly, Syllabary B I 212 MSL III p.114, Urra II 305 MSL V p.74); lugal, typically equating to šarru, “king”, supplies malku, “prince, king, ruler”, (so, the equation malku = šarru, well known from the Akkadian synonym list known by that name). 98′

[i]na kiški namrat itti Sîn(d30) šaqû? dmāš[um]? In Kiš, she shines bright by leave of Sîn, (she is?) high as the Su[n-God?]

kiški, Sîn(d30): It is striking and unexpected that Sîn is named here (and not in ll.75′– 78′, where his own city Ur is treated), as has been noted in section 5.5. This can be explained by a tradition that Ištar, principal goddess of Kiš, is Sîn’s daughter; indeed, the father-daughter relationship of Sîn and Ištar of Kiš underpins the imagery in l.98′. However, in this composition, the unexpected invariably means that scholarly speculation is at work, so that Sîn’s name and the imagery here is prompted by speculative interpretation of a name. It is suggested that the scholar associates Kiš and Sîn by graphic interpretation. From the Old Babylonian period onwards, the complex and varied sign form kiš may be written to contain three wedges, which may be read as 30, Sîn’s divine number, the number which writes his name (as it does in this line in both surviving manuscripts). Sîn(d30), then, may be found in the sign form kiš; the tradition that associates Kiš’ goddess Ištar with Sîn is thus corroborated and is further realised in the imagery linking this astral deity with her moon-god father. Thus too, in the writing of Kiš itself, Sîn is demonstrably in Kiš; and accordingly the city-goddess Ištar is truly in Kiš together with her father: itti Sîn(d30), “with Sîn” is the usual meaning conveyed by this phrase. This striking interpretive treatment of the sign form is one of a number of sophisticated and inventive graphic interpretations that appear in this part of the Gula hymn. 99′

[i]na é-dub-ba bēlet išpikkū muganninat ganūnu In the é-dub-ba, (she is) mistress of the store, who keeps the storage rooms secure

é-dub-ba (“the Storage House”): išpikkū (which is sometimes written ì-dub), “stores, storage containers”, interprets dub. The description of its goddess as muganninat ganūnū, “the one who keeps the storage rooms secure”, develops the same theme, exploring the meaning of é-dub-ba, “the Storage House”.

362

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

100′ [in]a é-me-te-ur-sag šūlukat ana simat qarrād[i] In the é-me-te-ur-sag, she is as befits a hero é-me-te-ur-sag (“the House Worthy of the Hero”): me-te is simtu, “appropriate characteristic”, and is further interpreted by šūluku, which in the idiom used means “to be fit, appropriate (ana for)”; ur-sag is qarrādu, “hero”. 101′ [ina ḫur]-sag-kalam-ma muzakkirat uṣurāti(giš-ḫur)me nišī(un)meš šadî(kur)I u mātit[ān?] 102′ [d]nin-líl ša kīma(gim) šumī(mu)-šāma mūdûtu šadâ u māta(kur) BE x 103′ [š]a šad māti(kur) uṣurtaša rēštât [In the ḫur]-sag-kalam-ma, she declares the destinies for the people of the mountains and [all] countries, (She is) Ninlil, who, as her very name (says), knows the mountain and the land? [ . . ], Whose design for the mountain of the land is age-old ḫur-sag-kalam-ma (“the Mountain of the Land”), dnin-líl: An extended, rather repetitive, speculative interpretation spans ll.101′–103′. ḫur-sag is šadû, “mountain(s)”, (101′–103′). Separately, ḫur is understood to abbreviate giš-ḫur, uṣurtu, “plan, design”, (101′, 103′; see section 3.2.23); and sag is interpreted as rēštû, “first”, (103′). kalam is mātu, “land”, (101′–103′) (ka-la-maun mātu Syllabary B II 245 MSL III p.145 and elsewhere) and, understood as un, its population, nišū(un)meš, “people”, (101′). In addition to prescribing the vocabulary used, the interpretive technique influences form in these lines. The Akkadian interpretation respects the order of the elements of ḫur-sag-kalam-ma: so, the order šadû(ḫur-sag), “mountain(s)”, followed by mātu(kalam), “land”, repeated in 101′–103′ (noting particularly the preposed genitive phrase šad māti, “of the mountain (ḫur-sag) of the land (kalam)”, surely crafted by the scholar to reflect the form of the Sumerian name); and uṣurtu(giš-ḫur), “design”, followed by rēštû(sag), “first”, (103′). kīma šumīšāma, “as her very name (says)” (l.102′), explicitly signals etymological interpretation (section 2.4.4). An interpretation of Ninlil, the named goddess indicated by the feminine possessive suffix -ša, is expected, yet ll.102′–103′ most straightforwardly largely interpret ḫur-sag-kalam-ma. Several explanations as to what kīma šumīšāma signifies here are possible. Most simply, perhaps here Ninlil is inseparably identified with ḫur-sag-kalam-ma, so that the temple name is consequently “her” name. An implicit parallel with her spouse Enlil perhaps also underpins this: Ninlil is here “Mountain of the Land”, just as Enlil is commonly “Great Mountain” (see CAD Š/I 57). For a more strictly “etymological” interpretation, which kīma šumīšāma routinely flags, two explanations present themselves. First, mūdûtu, “knowing, wise”, (l.102′),

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

363

may interpret the name Ninlil (dnin-líl) itself. nin is perhaps understood as its Sumerian synonym gašan and interpreted as gašam, equating to mūdû, “knowing, wise”, (Erimḫus V 142 MSL XVII p.73; Lu II iv 9′′ MSL XII p.121). n/m consonantal change (as from gašan to gašam) is unusual in the text corpus (sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4; but see the note on l.105′ below). Secondly, as seen by M. Krebernik, the description in l.102′ is a speculative interpretation of the divine name Sud, patron deity of Šuruppak, a Sumerian goddess who, in one tradition, was syncretised with Ninlil. The sequence of the signs which are used to write Sud, dsùd(SU-KUR-RA), is interpreted by equating su with zu, which is used to write mūdû, “knowing, wise”, and using common equations of kur (see Jiménez, 2019; for the identification of Ninlil and Sud, see Krebernik, 1998–2001b, pp.454–455; for the writing of sùd, Borger, MZL, p.51 no. 16). For this scholarly speculation, su is taken as its homophone sú and understood as zu, mūdû, “knowing, wise”; kur is interpreted twice, as šadû, “mountain(s)”, and mātu, “land”. Informed by Krebernik’s insight, thus in l.102′ the goddess’ identity as Sud is encoded and the combination of signs which write that divine name is taken apart for interpretation. As illustrated in section 3.2.27, it is not unusual for there to be more than one explanation of some scholarly speculation, and, rather than undermining or excluding other explanations, alternative explanations evidently could be, and were intended, revelatory of facets of the deity’s identity and character. 104′ bēltu(gašan) nādinat(sum)at zēri(numun) mušaqqât rēš[u] (She is) the lady who bestows seed, the one who gives support The scholar appears to interpret divine names which are not otherwise expressed here. bēltu(gašan in Ms. d), “lady”, is nin; šaqû, “to be high”, is ìl (Commentary II 82), realised in its D stem form mušaqqât, here combined with rēšu, “head”, in idiomatic meaning: “she gives support”. Together these correspondences, nin and ìl, suggest Nin(l)il, it seems. The epithet nādinat zēri, “who bestows seed” closely resembles bānât zēri, “who creates seed”, (l.21) explaining the divine name Zarpanītum, and bānât riḫûti, “who creates sperm”, (l.82′) interpreting Zarpanītum’s name Eru(a), and simultaneously expressing the common interpretation of Zarpanītum’s name. Zarpanītum does not appear to have a particular association with é-ḫur-sagkalam-ma. Zarpanītum and Eru(a) are however sometimes identified with Ištar, most explicitly in the syncretistic hymn to Ištar known from a late copy (Lambert, 2003– 2004, pp.21–22), where Ištar is identified as Zarpanītum (ll.1 and 33) and as Eru(a) (l.36) (but see also, for example, an Old Babylonian God List from Nippur (SLT 122 II 14–24, Richter, 2004, p.295) and the observations of Westenholz, Goddesses, p.105). Ištar is the goddess of é-ḫur-sag-kalam-ma, where, as texts from the first millennium evidence, she is seen as a manifestation of Ninlil, in the first millennium

364

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

at least (see HMH 482). Thus l.104′ of the Gula hymn encodes two unexpressed names, Ninlil and Zarpanītum, and perhaps also a third, Eru(a); and, through its scholarly allusions, l.104′ expresses the religious belief that understands the dual identity of the goddess of é-ḫur-sag-kalam-ma. The final word of l.104′, rēšu, “head” (sag), used idiomatically with mušaqqât, perhaps recalls é-ḫur-sag-kalam-ma. 105′ qarittu lē’it ilānī(dingir)meš ilat ilāti (She is) the valiant one, most able of the gods, goddess of goddesses As in l.104′, lexical equivalences would seem to encode Ninlil’s name here, while the Akkadian imagery seems to point to Ištar (see section 5.5 on this line 105′). qarittu, “heroic, valiant”, may be gašan, a word synonymous with nin (ga-ša-angašan qarittu Aa II/4 217 MSL XIV p.285); lē’û, “skilled”, synonymous with mūdû, “knowing”, (LTBA 2, 1 iv 4′ff., the Akkadian synonym list an = šamû known from Assyrian copies from the first millennium) is perhaps understood as gašam, and interpreted as gašan (as, it is suggested above, in l.102′), and hence, again, interprets nin. Both qarittu and lē’û thus recall Ninlil. ilu, “god”, realised here in plural and feminine forms, may interpret the divine marker which usually prefaces the divine name. Through Sumerian equivalences and its Akkadian text, l.105′ evokes both Ištar and Ninlil and, like l.104′, may suggest the persona of Ištar-Ninlil at é-ḫur-sagkalam-ma. 106′ ina é-kur-ní-zu šad(kur) puluḫti kāšidat sarrāti In the é-kur-ní-zu, mountain of terror, she is the one who defeats falsehood é-kur-ní-zu (“the House, the Fearsome Mountain”): šad puluḫti, “mountain of terror”, straightforwardly renders elements of é-kur-ní-zu: kur is šadû, “mountain”; ní puluḫtu, “terror”. kur is taken again, differently, for the second epithet: kur writes kašādu, “to conquer”. sartu, “falsehood”, realised in its plural form sarrātu, interprets zu (Commentary II 40). 107′ ilat tanādāti bēlet arattê šarrat dištarāti(15)meš (She is) the goddess of praise, the lady of glory, the queen of goddesses The epithets ilat tanādāti, “goddess of praise”, and bēlet arattê, “lady of glory”, speculatively interpret é-kur-ní-zu (l.106′) again. Exploiting homophony and polyvalence, ní is understood as ni, reading ì and taken as I to supply nâdu, “to praise”, and hence the noun tanattu, “praise”, (Syllabary B II 20 MSL III p.132, Idu II 138, Ea II 135 MSL XIV p.253; similarly, the writing i/ní-tuku in personal names). ní is also rendered by arattû, “glory”, a synonym lexically equated with tanattu and tanittu, both meaning “praise” (tanattu is perhaps a free variant of tanittu, so CAD T 169 note) (Diri IV 89 MSL XV p.152, Antagal N ii 8′ MSL XVII p.240). bēltu,

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

365

“lady”, which typically renders nin, may evoke Ninlil. The epithet šarratu d ištarāti(15)meš, “queen of goddesses”, surely encodes a reference to Ištar, a conclusion which is reinforced by the scribe’s writing of ištaru, “goddess”, as d15, a writing which frequently signifies Ištar herself. As in l.104′ and l.105′, it seems that the scholar once again contrives to express the dual identity of the goddess Ištar, manifested as Ninlil in Ḫursag-kalamma. 108′ ilat(dingir)at!(e) tāmīti bēlet bīri ša šagapūrā qarnāšu (She is) the goddess of oracle enquiry, the mistress of divination, whose horns are mighty The unusual epithets, which do not obviously identify their divine subject, almost certainly result from speculative interpretation, but the scholar’s intentions are obscure. bīru, “divination”, perhaps anticipates é-mes-lam (l.109′), and interprets mes. bīru is máš, perhaps to be understood as maš; see George (2003, p.82) for discussion of maš to render mes or meš (so too é-maš-maš, which is alternatively rendered as é-mes-mes or é-mèš-mèš HMH 742). However, perhaps, like l.109′ but less certainly, l.108′ encodes the name of é-mes-lam’s city, Kutha, by Akkadian correspondences which are understood to equate to the signs which are used to write Kutha (gú-du8-aki): tāmītu, “oracle enquiry, response”, cognate with amātu/awātu, “word” (often written logographically as inim), may supply inim, read gù, which may be understood as gú; šagapūru, “mighty”, perhaps related to gapāru “to be superior”(Ahw 1126b), from its phonetic continuum readily supplies gab, which may be read as du8; and qarnu, “horn”, is equated with à (Antagal F 176 MSL XVII p.217), which may be understood as a. Thus, through homophones and alternative readings, l.108′ may interpret gú, du8 and a, and hence Kutha (gú-du8-aki) may be embedded in this line. 109′ nādinat napḫar ṭuḫdi ina qereb é-mes-lam She is the one who provides all-abundance within the é-mes-lam é-mes-lam (“the House, Warrior of the Underworld”): l.109′ simultaneously interprets the temple name é-mes-lam and expresses its city by correspondences which equate to the signs which write Kutha (gú-du8-aki). The scholar interprets émes-lam to refer to vigorous growth. gišmes corresponds to both mēsu and lammu, types of trees; gišlam is the unidentified tree lammu and also šiqdu, “almond, almond tree”, (see further HMH p.55, on é-mes-lam). mes is also eṭlu, “manly, young man”, implying youthful vigour (Syllabary B II 118 MSL III p.139). lam and ešēbu, “to grow luxuriantly”, are equated (Syllabary B I 212 MSL III p.114, Nabnītu R 166 MSL XVI p.301).

366

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

The phrase nādinat napḫar ṭuḫdi, “the one who provides all-abundance”, interprets the motifs of verdant growth and vigorous youth prompted by the lexical equations drawn from é-mes-lam. Lexical correspondences which generate the phrase also express é-mes-lam’s city, Kutha, which is written gú-du8-aki. napḫar ṭuḫdi, “all-abundance”, evidently results from the correspondences gú napḫaru, “entirety, all”, and du8 ṭaḫādu, “to flourish”, the verb which supplies ṭuḫdu, “abundance”, (Nabnītu XXIII 340 MSL XVI p.221 and elsewhere, see CAD Ṭ 42). An explanatory temple list contains a closely similar, albeit broken, etymological interpretation of gú-du8-aki as bīt ḫé-g[ál], “the house of plenty”, (HMH TL6 19; HMH pp.51, 55), evidencing that the place-name was indeed understood to embody a meaning of abundance. The Akkadian synonym list an = šamû equates ḫé-gal and ṭuḫdu (LTBA 2, 2 iii 61). Thus Kutha (gú-du8-aki) is incontrovertibly encoded in l.109′. 110′ ina é-ùru-ama-ki ummi dadmē nāṣirat māti In the é-ùru-ama-ki, (she is) the mother of the world, the one who protects the land é-ùru-ama-ki: The writing of é-ùru-an-ki (“the House which guards Heaven and Earth”, HMH 1208) as é-ùru-ama-ki is perhaps the scholar’s own manipulation of éùru-an-ki to serve speculative interpretation (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings). ùru(ùri) is naṣāru, “to protect”, (Syllabary B II 278 MSL III p.146); ama is ummu, “mother”. ki (usually erṣetu, “earth, land”) is mātu, “land”, (Nabnītu IV 56 MSL XVI p.79) and is more freely rendered as dadmū, “inhabited world”, (mātu and dadmū are synonyms in the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 191, ed. Hrůša, 2010). ama and ummu perhaps encode the name Mamma/Mammi/Mammītum, a chthonic goddess and Nergal’s spouse (this is discussed in section 5.5). 111′ ina é-dim-gal-an-na markas šamāmī bānīt(dù)it ili(dingir) u amīli(lú) In the é-dim-gal-an-na, (she is) the bond of the heavens, the one who created god and man é-dim-gal-an-na (“the House, Great Bond of Heaven”): markas šamāmī, “bond of the heavens”, straightforwardly renders dim-gal-an-na: for dim-gal as markasu, “bond”, see George, Topog.Texts, pp.244–245; an is šamāmū, “heavens”. The epithet bānīt ili u amīli, “the one who created god and man”, interprets é-dim-galan-na again: dim, understood as dím, supplies banû, “to create”, (Idu II 236, Syllabary B I 292 MSL III p.123); an, read dingir, is ilu, “god”; na is awīlu (amīlu), “man”, (Ea IV 108 MSL XIV p.359). The phrase bānīt ili u amīli is a paraphrase of ummi dadmē, “the mother of the world” (l.110′), and like ummi dadmē, perhaps encodes the name Mamma/Mammi/Mammītum, Nergal’s spouse.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

367

112′ ina damru(du10-gar)ki šubat nēḫti nāṣirat kala rebīt In Damru, place of peace, she is the one who protects all the thoroughfares du10-garki: The writing du10-garki (Damru) generates Akkadian text here. du10 is taken as du6 šubtu, “seat, abode”, (Idu II 27, Ea III 17 MSL XIV p.303) and as dù kalû, “all”. nēḫtu, “calm”, (sometimes written ne-ḫa or ne-ḫu) perhaps interprets du10 as another reading of the same sign, ḫi, with a vocalic change, to be understood as (ne-)ḫa/ḫu. With this abbreviation of the Sumerian form, compare l.90′, where nēḫtu appears to be generated by ne alone. The scholarly speculation which produces rebītu, “street, thoroughfare”, (CAD R 317 ribītu A) anticipates é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga, “the House whose Shade is pleasant”, in l.113′. The scholar exploits the nearhomophony of the Akkadian word ṣillu, “shade, protection”, with Sumerian sila, “street”: gissu is ṣillu, “shade, protection”; rebītu, “street, thoroughfare”, is sila (dagal); thus gissu is interpreted as rebītu (see section 3.2.14 for other illustrations of speculative interpretation using homophonous, or near-homophonous Akkadian words). The consonantal change ṣ/s effected in this ṣillu/sila “correspondence” is not otherwise evidenced in the text corpus (sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4; and compare also l.129′). naṣāru, “to protect”, may encode a reference to the names of é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga’s god Sîn and his consort Ningal, with whom the composition’s goddess is associated here. naṣāru is ùru/ùri, a sign written with the ŠEŠ sign (as in the temple name in l.110′), recalling Sîn in his Sumerian identity, Nanna(ŠEŠ-KI); naṣāru also has the lexical equation gál (Ea I 234 MSL XIV p.188 and elsewhere (CAD N/II 34); Veldhuis, 2014, p.349), suggesting Ningal (dnin-gal). Thus, it seems, the scholar uses a single word, naṣāru, realised in the form nāṣirat, “she who protects”, which serves to express the identity of the divine couple, Sîn and Ningal. 113′ ṭāb ṣilla(gissu)-ša ina é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga muṭibbat samsam MA? X PI Pleasant is her shade in the é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga, she is the one who makes sweet the drum? [of? . . . ] é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga (“the House whose Shade is pleasant”): l.113′ straightforwardly interprets é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga. Gissu is ṣillu, “shade, protection”. dùg-ga is ṭābu, “good, sweet”, and ṭâbu, “to be good, sweet”, supplying ṭāb, “(it is) sweet, pleasant”, and muṭibbat, “the one who makes sweet”. The unusual word samsammu (a type of drum?) almost certainly results from speculative interpretation, which is often the case where unusual vocabulary is used in this composition. How samsammu is derived by the scholar is uncertain, but may perhaps be based on the writing of gissu; it is perhaps a realisation of the phonetics of GIŠ-MI, the signs which together write gissu.

368

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

114′ bēlet šá-an-da-lip-úrki ina qereb šamāmī kališ puqqūši (She is) the lady of Šandalipur, in heaven, they pay her full attention šá-an-da-lip-úrki (Ms. d, likewise, though damaged, Ms. b), šá-an-di-lip-úr (Ms. f): The toponym’s elements are individually interpreted by the Akkadian text as if Sumerian elements, as perhaps they are. šá, understood as šà, and lip, understood as lìp/lìb and read as šà, usually equate to libbu, “heart, inside”, and here supply the closely similar word qerbu, “inside”. qerbu and libbu are equated in the ancient commentary to the wisdom text now known as the Babylonian Theodicy to explain the phrase qereb šamê, “the heart of heaven”, essentially the same phrase as qereb šamāmī here (Babylonian Theodicy 82 and Commentary obv. 30, ed. Oshima, 2014, p.448). an is šamāmū, “heavens”. ina, “in, by, with”, may interpret da, the reading given in Ms. d and in Ms. b: the Sumerian comitative element da, “with, beside”, is known from grammatical texts (see CAD I–J 142); and da, understood as ta, is ina (Commentary II 18, Syllabary B II 99 MSL III p.138). úr also supplies ina (Aa VII/2 141 MSL XIV p.464). Understanding da as dù (also read dà) supplies kališ, “in every respect”; lip, taken as líp (the kal sign), perhaps also prompts kališ. The verb puqqu, “to heed”, is ur5-da (Izi H 226 MSL XIII p.208, CT 18 49 ii 30), interpreting both úr and da. The feminine pronominal suffix on the verbal form, -ši, “her”, is, of course, the goddess and this too can be understood to interpret part of the place name: an, read dingir, is ilu and iltu, “god, goddess”. Thus the individual elements of the toponym are interpreted to generate the Akkadian description. Further, however, the scholar also interprets the form of the name. The graphic arrangement presented by the elements šà (inside) – an (heaven) – da (in) – lìp (šà) (inside) is expressed in ina qereb šamāmī, “in heaven”; thus šá-an-da-lip-úrki is “in heaven”. Further, understanding an as dingir, “goddess”, places her inside heaven: šà (inside) – an/dingir (goddess) – da (in) – lìp (šà) (inside). In the scholar’s interpretation, the writing of the toponym itself conveys that in šá-an-da-lip-úrki the goddess is truly in heaven, where “they pay heed to her” (puqqūši) (section 6.3.4 Graphic interpretation). The elaborate interpretation afforded by the toponym (not otherwise known) calls into question whether šá-an-da-lip-úrki (or, indeed, the version given in Ms. f, šá-an-di-lip-úr) is, like é-è-umuš-a (l.85′) and é-ùru-ama-ki (l.110′), an unorthodox spelling contrived for speculative interpretation (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings). 115′ šarrat é-gu-la bēlet igisê(igi-sá)e kullati rabītu(gal)tu simakki (She is) queen of the é-gu-la, mistress of all the offerings, the great one of the sanctuary é-gu-la (“the Big House”): é is rendered by simakku, “shrine”, synonymous with šubtu, “seat, abode”, (malku = šarru I 284, ed. Hrůša, 2010). gu-la supplies both

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

369

kullatu, “all of ”, (gul-la Erimḫus V 43 MSL XVII p.68) and rabītu, “the great one”. The remainder of l.115′ is not derived from é-gu-la. As elsewhere, l.115′ appears to provide clues to the identity of its (otherwise unknown) goddess. The divine name cannot be securely deduced, for three candidates present themselves, each perfectly plausible. gu-la, interpreted twice (by both kullatu and rabītu), may indicate Gula herself (é-gu-la at Borsippa is Gula’s temple HMH 424). Another possibility is Ninsun. The secondary name for Ninsun in the God List An: Anum V 3 (ed. Litke, 1998) is dnin-é-gu-la (“Lady of the é-gu-la”), which šarrat é-gu-la, “Queen of the égu-la”, here perhaps expresses (see too HMH 428). However, the unusual epithet bēlet igisê (translated here as “mistress of the offerings”) is perhaps the key. For its etymological equations and phonetics, bēlet igisê strikingly suggests Ninigizibarra (dnin-igi-zi-bar-ra or dnin-igi-zi-ba-ra), a goddess equated with the healing goddess in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967, p.120 79–91): bēltu is nin, “lady, mistress”; igisê(igi-sá)e, “offerings” replicates the phonetics igi-zi; ba too equates to words which have to do with giving, like qâšu, “to give, bestow”, and zâzu, “to divide, get a share”, which is both ba and bar (Nabnītu XVII 232–233 MSL XVI p.162), rendering ba-ra. Other parts of the line too seem to point to Ninigizibarra: ba-ra is readily inferred from šarratu, “queen”, for šarru, “king”, may be written bára; and ba-ra is perhaps also suggested by simakku, “shrine”, broadly synonymous with parakku, “sanctuary”, which is also written bára. It is, accordingly, tempting to identify the goddess of this temple as Ninigizibarra, but other evidence is needed to confirm this. 116′ ina ša-dun-niki mudammeqat nākidat bēlet šamni(ì-giš) u šizbi(ga) dnin-ìgara10 In Šadunni, (she is) Ninigara, the one who grants favour, who is concerned, mistress of oil and milk ša-dun-niki (Ms. d), urušá-dun-niki (Ms. f); dnin-ì-gara10: As in l.114′, the toponym’s elements are interpreted as if Sumerian and likewise, in the absence of other evidence, the evident opportunity afforded for speculative interpretation calls into question whether the toponym was indeed as it is presented in either manuscript (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings). ša/šá is understood as ša6(sa6) damāqu, “to be good”, realised in the D stem participle mudammeqat, “she who grants favour”. nakādu, “to beat, throb”, is surely speculative interpretation, but its derivation is obscure. The primary meaning of nakādu, “to beat, throb”, is said of the heart, and hence means “to pound” and, by extended meaning, “to worry”. The scholar perhaps takes ša/šá as šà libbu, “heart”, and ni as ní palāḫu, “to fear”, understood together and freely rendered in nākidat, “who is concerned”. bēlet šamni u šizbi, “mistress of oil and milk”, renders the divine name, dnin-ì-gara10. nin is bēltu, “lady”; ì supplies

370

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

šamnu, “oil”, commonly written ì-giš; šizbu (ga), “milk”, interprets gara10 (written ga-ni in Ms. d). 117′ ina é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár mālilat šizbi u ḫimēti šumuḫ rē’û(sipa)-ti In the é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár, she is the one who takes her fill of milk and ghee, the plentiful product of pasturage é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár (Ms. d), é-ga-nun-na-šár-šár (Ms. f) (“the House which provides a Profusion of Milk and Ghee”): šizbu, “milk”, is ga; ḫimētu, “ghee”, which may be written as ì-nun-(na), renders ì-nun and nun-na in the variant writings of the temple name. šár is mâdu, “to become numerous”, (Idu II 71) and this sign writes šār, “countless”, and kiššatu, “all”. malālu, “to consume fully, eat one’s fill”, and šumḫu, “luxuriance”, words which implicitly convey the sense of plenty, freely interpret the reduplicated elements šár-šár. šár is perhaps also understood as sar, the sign used as a graphic indicator to designate plants, and interpreted to supply rē’ûtu, “pasturing”, (compare Commentary II 1 where sar is equated with mīrištu, “farmland”). 118′ ina már-daki ḫīrat šarri(lugal) nāšû abūbi In Marad, (she is) the wife of the king, the bringer of the flood már-daki: Marad(már-daki) is, it seems, interpreted by ḫīrtu, “wife”, and abūbu, “flood”, using its phonetics to prompt Sumerian correspondences which supply these Akkadian words. ḫīrtu, “wife”, is mu-ud-na in Emesal Sumerian (Emesal Vocabulary II 73 MSL IV p.17; IV R 9 r.25). For speculative use of Emesal forms, see section 3.2.10. abūbu, “flood”, is a-ma-ru. ḫīrat šarri(lugal), “the wife of the king”, simultaneously expresses the goddess’ status as wife of Ninurta, and encodes in l.118′ the divine name Lugal-Maradda, the name by which Ninurta was worshipped in Marad. 119′ ina é-igi-kalam-ma napišti(zi)tì māti(kur) lāmidat ṭēm Anim(da-nim) In the é-igi-kalam-ma, (she is) the life of the land, the one who comprehends the intention of Anu é-igi-kalam-ma (“the House, the Eye of the Land”): igi, read ši, is evidently interpreted as napištu, “life”, (sometimes written zi, as in Ms. d), perhaps by consonantal change š/z, or understanding it as the Emesal word for napištu, ši (Emesal Vocabulary II 189 MSL IV p.189; Nabnītu III 70 MSL XVI p.64). kalam is mātu, “land”. lamādu, “to understand”, is perhaps prompted by the phonetics of kalam-ma; and may interpret igi as ši, taken not as zi but zu, which writes lamādu (compare Commentary II 38, 40 where both zi and zu are understood to interpret dšàzu; and note zi understood as zu in l.120′). ṭēmu, “instruction, intention”, too appears

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

371

to interpret kalam-ma, by understanding it as galga: gal-gaGÁxGAR ṭēmu (Ea IV 258 MSL XIV p.365). For consonantal change g/k, see section 3.2.17. 120′ ṭāb ṣulūlša ina é-zi-ba-ti-la qā’išat napišti(zi)tì balāṭi(tin) Sweet is her protection in the é-zi-ba-ti-la, she is the one who grants a life of good health é-zi-ba-ti-la (“the House, Breath of Life?”): zi is napištu, “life”, and, taken as zu, supplies ṣulūlu, “roof, protection”, (see Commentary II 38 zu ṣ[ull]ulu, “to protect”, where zi and zu interpret dšà-zu). With different vocalic change and using the Emesal form zé-eb, zi is interpreted as ṭābu, “sweet”, (zé-eb: dùg: ṭābu Emesal Vocabulary III 116 MSL IV p.38). ba is qâšu, “to give, bestow”; ti-la is balāṭu, “life, good health”. 121′ ina têša ušapšaḫ namrāṣa asî pīša ina é-gašan-tin-na With her incantation she relieves suffering, her speech is physician in the égašan-tin-na é-gašan-tin-na (“the House of the Lady of Life”): pašāḫu, “to rest”, (realised in l.121′ in its Š stem form ušapšaḫ, “she relieves”) interprets tin (te-ente pašāḫu Aa VIII/1 207 MSL XIV p.494). pašāḫu perhaps also interprets gašan through the sign mùš which, in combination with other signs, writes other lexical equations for pašāḫu, še4(MÙŠxA-DI) (Idu II 274) and še12(MÙŠxA) (Aa VIII/1 173 MSL XIV p.493): mùš is nín, readily understood as nin, “lady”, and hence its synonym gašan, “lady”. Thus gašan may be understood as pašāḫu. Likewise, through a writing, pû, “mouth” and hence “speech”, perhaps interprets tin: ú-nute-unu pû (Idu II 92, similarly Nabnītu IV 2 MSL XVI p.76). The name of the temple é-gašan-tin-na, “the House of the Lady of Life”, coupled with the description of its goddess, ina têša ušapšaḫ namrāṣa asî pīša, “With her incantation she relieves suffering, her speech is physician”, clearly signals the patron deity of é-gašan-tin-na as the healing goddess herself, but not her name. Nevertheless, l.121′ perhaps encodes the goddess’s identity: asû, “physician”, corresponds to a-zu; pašāḫu, “to rest”, equates to gál (Idu I 46); together a-zu and gál suggest azugallatu, “great physician”, the healing goddess’ epithet. Whether this is Gula herself, or another of the healing goddess’ identities, remains uncertain. 122′ mubbibat māti(kur) ina larag(UD-UD-AG)ki šubassa ellet She is the one who purifies the land, in Larak, her abode is pure larag(UD-UD-AG)ki: For the reading of UD-UD-AGki as Larak, see Knudsen (1967, p.62), Hallo (1971, p.65) and MZL pp. 164, 382. This orthography evidently proclaimed the sanctity of the city, conveyed too in l.122′ which interprets it. ebēbu,

372

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

“to be pure”, (realised by its D stem form mubbibat, “the one who purifies”) is dadag(ud-ud); so too is ellu, “pure”, (Diri I 108–109 MSL XV p.108). The marker ki on the toponym is interpreted by mātu, “land”, (cf. l.93′) and by šubtu, “seat, abode”, where it is understood as abbreviating ki-tuš (section 3.2.23). Thus the writing UDUD-AGki is interpreted here. The speculative interpretations perhaps also encode names or titles by which the goddess was venerated in Larak. mubbibat māti, “She is the one who purifies the land”, seems to suggest Nin-Larak, a name by which NinIsina is referred to in Sumerian literary texts (Kraus, 1949, pp. 79–80). mātu, “land”, is equated with both múš and mùš(nín) in lexical lists: ni-inmùš mātu (Syllabary B I 18 MSL III p.97) demonstrates the reading which gives Nin; mubbibat, “the one who purifies”, interprets Larak, as demonstrated above. In other Sumerian texts Larak’s goddess is Ninašte, “Lady of é-aš-te”, the temple of Gula there (Richter, 2004, pp.264–265; HMH 92). This name is perhaps suggested by šubassa, “her abode”: aš-te šubtu (Izi E 178 MSL XIII p.188). mātu, equated with nín (as above), and šubtu (aš-te) may be taken together as nín-aš-te, expressing Ninašte. 123′ ina é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na ašar tanīḫti nišī(un)meš māti(kur) iballuṭā qerebša In the é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na, the place of calm, the people of the land recover inside it é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na (“the House, Bedchamber which soothes the Heart”): Here the scholar finds meanings derived by speculative interpretation which are appropriate to the straightforward meaning of the Sumerian name. ki, usually erṣetu, “earth”, supplies ašru, “place”, and mātu, “land”, (cf. ll.93′,122′). tén, taken as its homophone ten, supplies nâḫu, “to rest”, (Aa VIII/I 206 MSL XIV p.494, Izi E 102 MSL XIII p.187), the verb which supplies tanīḫtu, “relaxation”. A bilingual composition translates te-en-te-en as tanīḫtu (Sjöberg, 1975b, p.188 115). In addition, ná is gišná eršu, “bed”; thus ašar tanīḫti, “place of rest”, interprets ki-ná, the Sumerian expression for “bed-chamber”. These correspondences resolve that tanīḫtu (tanēḫtu), “relaxation”, is intended, not tānīḫtu (tānēḫtu), “distress”. na is awīlu, “man”, (Ea IV 108 MSL XIV p.359); ná too may be taken as its homophone na, the two elements (ná and na) each understood as “man”, and together suggesting the plural noun nišū, “people”. tén, read din, is balāṭu, “to live, get well”. šà, usually equated with libbu, “heart”, supplies qerbu, “inside”, (as l.114′). nišī māti iballuṭā qerebša, “the people of the land recover inside it”, interprets not only the elements of the temple name é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na, but also their position in the name: ki (place) – ná (people) – šà (inside) – tén (recover) – na (people). Thus framed within the temple name, people indeed recover inside é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na; and inside, at its centre, is šà, “heart”. The interpretation is a further striking example of

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

373

the scholar’s keen eye for graphic interpretation and great skill in realising the temple name in the text (section 6.3.4 Graphic interpretation). 124′ ina dur-an-ki markas šamê(an) u erṣeti(ki) rubūtu dx[ (x)] x In dur-an-ki (Nippur), the bond of heaven and earth, (she is) the princess, [DN] dur-an-ki (“Bond of Heaven and Earth”): The conventional epithet markas šamê u erṣeti, “Bond of heaven and earth”, renders and explains dur-an-ki, the well-known by-name for Nippur and the name of Ištar’s ancient sanctuary there: dur is markasu, “bond”, an šamû, “heaven”, and ki erṣetu, “earth”, (the name is further explained by George, Topog.Texts, pp.261–262). rubūtu, “princess”, (translated in CDA 306 as “(divine) queen”) may be readily understood as šarratu, “queen”. markas šamê u erṣeti rubūtu, “(in) the Bond of heaven and earth (she is) the princess”, perhaps encodes Šarrat-Nippuri, “Queen of Nippur”, as the goddess’ name or title. The divine name itself is, it seems, lost at the end of l.124′. 125′ ina é-kur bīt(é) šīmāti(nam)meš abrakkatu rabītu(gal)tu d[x (x)] x In the é-kur, the house of destinies, she is the great steward, [DN] é-kur (“the House, the Mountain”): bīt šīmāti, “House of Destinies”, perhaps a standard epithet of é-kur, expresses the religious tradition of é-kur as the temple where Enlil determined destinies. If bīt šīmāti has etymological basis, it can be explained in the same way as the description of é-kur as bītu ḫāmim têrēt ilī, “House which gathers the gods’ decrees”, (Nippur Compendium, BTT 18 §5 16′): there, é is bītu, “house”; and kur is implicitly syllabified, supplying ur4 ḫamāmu, “to gather, collect”, and ur5 têrtu, “instruction, decree”, (George, Topog.Texts, p.444). Like têrtu, šīmtu, “destiny”, is a divine decree. bīt šīmāti, “House of Destinies”, is perhaps a free rendering of é-kur, with the same etymological foundation. 126′ ašar ḫammūtīša durussa rēštû šubassa é-[ki-ùr] The place where she is head of the family, her most ancient dwelling, é-[kiùr], is her abode é-[ki-ùr] (“the House, [Levelled Place]”): Lexical correspondences of the vocabulary used in l.126′ allow the secure restoration of é-ki-ùr at the end of this line. ašru, “place”, is ki. ḫammūtu, the status of head of the household, has the lexical equation ur4, and interprets its homophone ùr, as demonstrated by the contrived writing of é-ki-ùr as é-ki-ur4 and its explanation in an explanatory temple list: [é]-kiur4 bīt ḫammū[ti], “Master bedchamber”, (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 5′; likewise, é-ur4-ur4 bīt ḫammūti, “Master bedchamber”, (Assyrian Temple List, BTT 20 §4 162); see further, George, Topog.Texts, p.452). The restoration ki-ùr is further confirmed by durussa, “her dwelling”, and šubassa, “her abode”: duruššu, “base, habitation”,

374

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

is ki-ùr (Antagal G 21 MSL XVII p.221); and šubtu, “seat, abode”, is ki, abbreviating ki-tuš (section 3.2.23). 127′ ina é-šu-me-ša4 kallat Enlil(den-líl) muza’’izat zīzā[tim] In the é-šu-me-ša4, (she is) the daughter-in-law of Enlil, the one who distributes the shares é-šu-me-ša4 (“the House ……”): The straightforward meaning of this temple name is no longer certain, and how l.127′ may interpret é-šu-me-ša4 etymologically is not obvious. šu is qātu, “hand”, which may signify a share (CAD Q 195) which the hand (šu) distributes. me, usually equated with parṣu, “divine authority, command”, the divine decree which prescribes and regulates everything, is perhaps freely interpreted to mean an allotted portion, zittu, realised in the plural form zīzātim. ša4 is perhaps expressed in the phonetics of the phrase muza’’izat zīzātim, “she who distributes the shares”. The text in l.127′ more clearly appears to interpret sacred names which are not explicitly expressed in the line. First, é-ka-aš-bar-(ra), “House of Decisions”, a sanctuary which appears to have been within é-šu-me-ša4 (see section 5.5): kallatu, here “daughter-in-law”, is perhaps associated with emētu, which commonly means “mother-in-law” but which may denote a female relative by marriage (CDA p.72), a word equated with ùšbar (Aa VII/2 146 MSL XIV p.464), a reading which echoes the phonetics of é-ka-aš-bar-(ra); zâzu, “to get a share”, is both ba and bar (Nabnītu XVII 232–233 MSL XVI p.162); zittu, “share”, is, of course, a noun related to zâzu. kallatu, zâzu and zittu thus perhaps interpret é-ka-aš-bar-(ra) and encode the name of this sanctuary in l.127′. Secondly, the name of the goddess of l.127′: the lexical equivalence ba zâzu, “to get a share”, and the repetition both explicit and implicit in the epithet muza’’izat zīzātim, “she who distributes the shares”, with its D stem verb, suggests that ba-ba6 is encoded here, a writing which identifies the unnamed goddess as Bau. (For the reading of dba-ba6, otherwise read as dba-ú, as Bau, see Böck, 2014, p.13; for more detailed discussion of the reading of the divine name Bau, see Marchesi, 2002, Richter, 2004, pp.118–119 and, more recently, Rubio, 2010, pp.36–39). 128′ ina é-bára-dúr-gar-ra šubat nēḫti binût Enlil(den-líl) be?-l[et? … ] In the é-bára-dúr-gar-ra, the abode of peace, creation of Enlil, the lady? [of ? … ] é-bára-dúr-gar-ra (“the House, Dais of the Throne”): šubtu, “seat, abode”, is bára (Aa I/2 354 MSL XIV p.218) and also interprets dúr: dúr equates to šubtu (Proto-Aa 21:2 MSL XIV p.90); so too, dúr read as tuš supplies šubtu. dúr is interpreted again by both nâḫu, “to rest”, (supplying nēḫtu, “calm”) and banû, “to create”. dúr, read

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

375

as šed6 and taken as šed7 supplies nâḫu, “to rest”, (Syllabary B I 22 MSL III p.97; see CAD N/I 143 for other similar readings which might equally render šed6). dúr, read ugu4, supplies banû, “to create”, (ú-guku banû Ea I 137 MSL XIV p.184). 129′

d

un-gal-nibruki dninnu(50)-át-tim ṣerret gimmir x[ … ] (She is) Ungal-Nibru, Ninnuattim, the lead-rope of the whole of [ … ]

d

un-gal-nibruki, dninnu(50)-át-tim: Ninnuattim(dninnu(50)-át-tim) incorporates Enlil’s divine number 50 (in Sumerian, ninnu), which writes his name. The name Ninnuattim thus graphically and expressly affirms the goddess to be created from Enlil, as expressed by binût Enlil, “creation of Enlil”, in the preceding line (l.128′). This writing may be compared with the unusual writing of Ninurta as dninnu(50)urta, in a first millennium commentary on Enūma eliš, where the ancient commentarist indicates that the writing alludes to Ninurta as the son of Enlil (see Frahm and Jiménez, 2015, p.324 l.50′, who note that the same writing is also attested in the healing ritual KAR 31 10). Ninnuattim may be a writing of Ninua’ītu, (IštarNinlil of Nineveh), crafted to serve the scholarly interpretation (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings). ṣerretu, “lead-rope”, perhaps interprets dun-gal-nibruki, known in Akkadian as Šarrat-Nippuri, “Queen of Nippur”, by perceived phonetic similarity between ṣerretu and šarratu, “queen”, (compare also l.112′ above, where the near-homophony of the Akkadian word ṣillu “shade, protection” and Sumerian sila “street” is exploited). 130′ ina é-úru-sag-gá mukinnat išitti nišī(un)meš n[āṣirat x x (x)] In the é-úru-sag-gá, she is the one who established the store-house of the people pro[tectress of . . ] é-úru-sag-gá: é-úru-sag-gá is a writing of é-ùru-sag-gá, temple of Gula as Nintinugga at Nippur (HMH 1208). é-úru-sag-gá may be translated as “Foremostcity House” or, perhaps, “House, Foremost City”, appropriately describing both Nippur itself and the temple of the scholar’s goddess. The orthography may have been crafted for this purpose, for úru, “city”, is not used as a correspondence in speculative interpretation in the preserved text (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings). úru is interpreted as išittu, “store-house”, using a variation of the speculative method which breaks down the writing of an element of the name (section 3.2.25). In l.130′ the sign form which writes the Sumerian correspondence to the Akkadian word išittu is broken down and one part of it used for interpretation: úru is understood as uru, one of the combination of signs which write èrim(URUxNÍG), lexically equated with išittu, “store-house”, (e-rimURUxNÍG išittu Syllabary B II 261 MSL III p.145). sag is nišū, “people”, (Idu I 110); gá is kânu, “to be firm”, which supplies mukinnat, “she who established”, (ga-agá kânu Idu II 159).

376

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

The last partly-preserved sign, not read by Lambert, appears to be n[a. n[a-ṣi-rat] is restored (nāṣirat, “she who protects”), informed by the explanation elsewhere of é-ùru-sag-gá as bīt na-ṣi-i[r], “the house which protects”, (Nippur Temple List, BTT 19 26′). For this explanation, in speculative interpretation of é-úru-sag-gá, úru is taken as ùru naṣāru, “to guard, protect”, (ú-rušeš naṣāru Syllabary B II 278 MSL III p.146). 131′

d

nin-pa4-nìgin-gar-ra bēlet(gašan) napḫar ṣīt Šamši(dutu)ši āšibat šu?-x[ … ] (She is) Ninpanigingara, lady of all the east, who dwells [in … ]

d

nin-pa4-nìgin-gar-ra: nin is bēltu, “lady”. napḫaru, “entirety”, is supplied by both pa4(pab), read pap, and nìgin, taken as its homophone nigin. Lexical evidence equates nìgin(U-UD-KID) with ṣīt Šamši, “the emergence of the sun(god)”, (hence, “the east”) (ni-gi-inu-ud-kid ṣi-it dŠamši(utu)ši Aa III/3 213 MSL XIV p.338). gar-ra evidently prompts ašābu, “to dwell”, using both elements: dúr-gar is ašābu (dúr-mar dúr-gar ašābu Emesal Vocabulary III 18 MSL IV p.28); ra and ašābu are equated in Commentary II 109. 132′ šarrat puluk dadmī bēlet(gašan) parak-māri(bára-dumu)ki nāram libbi(šà)b[i d nin-urta] (She is) the queen of the boundary marker of the inhabited world, the lady of Parak-māri, beloved of [Ninurta] parak-māri(bára-dumu)ki: The Akkadian toponym Parak-māri and its Sumerian writing bára-dumu may both be straightforwardly translated as “Sanctuary of the Son”. This line perhaps interprets both Sumerian and Akkadian names. palāku, “to demarcate”, the verb from which pulukku, “boundary, boundary stone”, derives, is bar (ba-árbar palāku Aa I/6 176 MSL XIV p.230); hence pulukku interprets bára. No obvious etymological correspondence links dadmū, “inhabited world”, and parakmāri(bára-dumu)ki. dadmū perhaps derives from perceived phonetic similarity between dadmū and dumu, “son”, interpreting the Sumerian form of the name. However, dadmū perhaps interprets the Akkadian form of the toponym, via a synonym for dadmū, mātu, “land”, exploiting the phonetic similarity between māri, “of the Son”, and māti, “of the land”, (for dadmū as mātu, see the Akkadian synonym list malku = šarru I 191, ed. Hrůša, 2010). Both phonetic parallels may be in play. 133′ ina é-ní-gal-abzu(zu:ab) ta-kam-mu namri[irr]ūša et-mu-d[a? … ] In the é-ní-gal-abzu, her splendour is ……, collected? [ … ]. é-ní-gal-abzu (“the House of the Awesome Splendour of the Apsû”): ní-gal is namrirru, “splendour”, evidenced by an unplaced extract from the bilingual group vocabulary Erimḫuš given in a late Babylonian commentary on the omen series

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

377

Šumma izbu (Finkel, 2006, pp.140, 143-144). The difficult readings ta-kam-mu and et-mu-d[a], both perhaps corrupt, are discussed in section 5.5. Lexical equations do not resolve the readings so as to clarify the text. ta-kam-mu may be some corrupt form of katāmu, “to cover”. katāmu equates to šú (Idu II 264, Aa I/8 43 MSL XIV p.240); with consonantal change (sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4), šú katāmu perhaps suggests and interprets abzu(zu:ab) or the Akkadian name for this watery cosmic realm, Apsû, but this is very uncertain. 134′ mušāpât gimri ina qereb ma-al-gi-i ša BI [ … ] 135′ dšarrat é-è-an-ki [š]ūpûtu šamê(an) u erṣeti(ki) i-[ … ] She is the one who makes everything glorious in Malgium, whose [ … ], (She is) queen of the é-è-an-ki, most splendid in heaven and earth [ … ] ma-al-gi-i, é-è-an-ki: šūpû, “to make apparent, splendid”, (realised in the participle mušāpât, “the one who makes glorious”) is è, anticipating the temple name é-è-anki (l.135′); and mušāpât perhaps also interpreted the text lost from l.134′. gimru, “everything”, perhaps interprets gi, taken from the syllabary of Malgium (ma-al-gii), or understands ki (from the temple name é-è-an-ki, or as the sign commonly marking a toponym) as gi (for consonantal interchange k/g, see sections 3.2.17, 3.2.19.4). For the equation gi gimru, see l.76′. In l.135′ the elements of é-è-an-ki are straightforwardly translated: è is šūpû, “to make apparent, splendid”, supplying šūpûtu, “most splendid”; an is šamû, “heaven”; and ki erṣetu, “earth”. The name éè-an-ki is perhaps a contrived writing of é-an-ki (“the House of Heaven and Earth”), coined for speculative interpretation (sections 3.2.19.8, 6.3 Unusual writings; discussed in section 5.5). 136′ ina da-ád-muški šar[rat] šamāmē šubat x[ … ] In Dadmuš, she is queen of the heavens, abode [ … ] da-ád-muški: šarrat šamāmī (written šamāmē in Ms. d), “queen of the heavens”, evidently interprets the Akkadian toponym da-ád-muški as if it contained a Sumerian element (compare ll.114′ and 116′ above). muš is understood as its homophone mùš: mùš read as nín and understood as nin (usually equated with bēltu, “lady”) is readily rendered by šarratu, “queen”; and dmùš is Inanna (Ištar), whose name itself means “queen of heaven” (Lambert, 1982, p.198 III 55). šamāmū, “heavens”, is of course prompted by understanding dmùš (Inanna) here. How otherwise (if at all) šamāmū is derived from the toponym da-ád-muški is not clear. The identity of the goddess here as Inanna/Ištar is clearly signalled by the Akkadian epithet šarrat šamāmī, “queen of the heavens”. Thus the name of the goddess as dmùš and Inanna/Ištar is encoded in this line. In this speculative environment, the spelling of the toponym itself demonstrates it to be true that, here, the goddess is queen.

378

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

In addition to its etymological link with da-ád-muški, the epithet šarrat šamāmī, “queen of the heavens”, expresses the written form of the toponym: truly, it can be seen, in Dadmuš itself, the goddess is queen (mùš) (section 6.3.4 Graphic interpretation). šubtu, “seat, abode”, may interpret the marker ki, abbreviating kituš (section 3.2.23). 137′

d

qibî-dumqī(sig5-ga) mu-x x x x dlamassu(lamma) x[ … ] (She is) Qibî-dumqī, the one who [ … ], Lamassu [ … ]

d

qibî-dumqī(sig5-ga): The relevance of Qibî-dumqī and Lamassu to the context (which appears still to be Dadmuš) is elusive. They were perhaps selected for speculative purposes. Qibî-dumqī may derive from speculation on é-šaga-ra, the name of Ištar’s temple at Dadmuš (HMH 1032), as the orthography of Ms. d may suggest. sig5 and its homophone sig6, which may be read ša6, both supply damāqu, “to be good”, and dumqu, “goodness”. sig5-ga is perhaps taken as ša6-ga, artificially writing šaga (a reading which is given by the writing LÚxGÁN/KÁR or LÚGÁN/KÁR); but perhaps sig5-ga was itself perceived as sufficiently close to render šaga. é-šaga-ra (“the House which smites(?) the Wronged”) is not named in the surviving text and the traces which remain in ll.137′–138′ are not consistent with the reading é-šaga-ra. If the name é-šaga-ra indeed appeared in the text, it is lost where Ms. d breaks off. In this composition, however, it is possible that the name Qibîdumqī simply encodes an allusion to é-šaga-ra, without the temple itself being expressly named in the composition. 2′′ d

d

ú-kul-la bānit rīti ḫā’iṭat kullati x[ … ] (She is) Ukulla, who created the pasture, who watches over everything [ … ]

u-kul-la: u-kul is used variously to produce the description bānit rīti, “who created the pasture”. u is banû, “well-formed”, (Aa II/4 19 MSL XIV p.280), homophonous with banû, “to create”, the verb required by sense here. The same speculative equation occurs in a late text from Uruk to explain the goddess Antu, under the name d ú u , as bānât kullat, “the one who created everything” (Beaulieu, 1995a, p.194 5) (and similarly, sa7 banû, “to grow”, may be understood as banû, “to create”, E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5 7–8, George, Topog.Texts, p.387; see section 3.2.14). The phonetic continuum of u-kul also supplies ugu4, which equates to banû, “to create”, (ú-guku banû Ea I 137 MSL XIV p.184). This double explanation serves to affirm the truth of the description of the goddess Ukulla as creatress. u, understood as ú, a sign used as a graphic indicator to denote plants, is rītu, “pasture”, (Ea IV 74 MSL XIV p.358, Idu II 200). u, understood as u6, perhaps supplies ḫâṭu, “to watch over”, realised in the bound form of feminine participle ḫā’iṭat, “she who watches over”, ([u6] ḫâṭu Nabnītu V 10 MSL XVI p.95). kul-la, understood as gul-la (Erimḫus V 43

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

379

MSL XVII p.68; g/k consonantal change, see section 3.2.17), or perhaps simply by homophony with the Akkadian word (section 3.2.14), supplies kullatu, “everything”. kul-la and kullatu perhaps also suggest nigin, which writes kullatu, “everything”; nigin also equates with ḫâṭu, “to watch over”, in a Middle Assyrian recension of Ea (Ea I 47d MSL XIV p.197). Thus perhaps syllogism, the deductive reasoning by which one thing may be explained as another through some common intermediary, is at work and kul-la is understood to equate to ḫâṭu. 3′′

ina é-sikil-la kiṣṣi elli(kù) lā māgiri šēressa [naši] In the é-sikil-la, the pure sanctuary, the disobedient [bears] her punishment

é-sikil-la (“the Pure House”): é supplies kiṣṣu, “shrine, sanctuary”, (as l.67′); sikil is ellu, “pure”. The phrase kiṣṣu ellu, “the pure sanctuary”, is clearly chosen to characterise é-sikil-la for both its lexical equivalence and its similar sound (see section 3.2.14). é-sikil-la is further interpreted in the rest of this line. la is taken as the homophonous Akkadian word lā, “not”. A late medical commentary makes the same equation in etymological explanation of the name of Šulak (dšu-lak), the lavatory demon, (and hence his characteristics), as šu qātu “hand”, la lā “not”, kù ellu “clean” (SpTU I 47 4, ed. Hunger 1976, p.57; Frahm, 2011, pp.398–399; George, 2015b, p.89). māgiru, “to agree”, corresponding with še-ga, interprets sikil, also evidently derived through perceived similarity in sound (for vowel and consonantal change, sections 3.2.16–3.2.17, 3.2.19.3–3.2.19.4). The suggested restoration naši ([na-ši]), “he bears”, is perhaps supported etymologically: ìl, which equates to našû, “to bear”, may be drawn from the phonetic continuum of sikil. How šērtu, “punishment” (here with the feminine possessive suffix, šēressa “her punishment”), is derived is unclear. 4′′

ina é-dadag-lál mubbibat ḫiṭâti ina āl(uru) narām(ki-ág) d[Ištar(inanna)] In the é-dadag-lál, she is the one who cleans away sins, in the town dear to [Ištar]

é-dadag-lál (the House, clean ….): l.4′′ was restored and fully explained by Reiner (1974, p.236): dadag(UD-UD) supplies ubbubu, the D stem of ebēbu, “to be clean”; lál is ḫīṭu, “crime, sin”; uru-ki-ág-dinanna, “the town loved by Ištar”, is Raqnana (for this town, see also HMH p.42). 5′′

ina du6-kù šubat tapšuḫti mubbibat kala[ma] In Duku, the abode of repose, she is the one who purifies everything

du6-kù (“Pure Mound”): du6 is interpreted to supply tapšuḫtu, “rest”, exploiting the combination of signs which write e11(DU6-DU), which has the lexical equivalence pašāḫu, “to rest”, (Diri I 216 MSL XV p.112). Understood as dù, du6 supplies kalama

380

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

(dù-(a-bi)), “everything”. kù, understood as ku and read tuš, supplies šubtu (ki-tuš), “seat, abode”. kù itself is rendered by ebēbu, “to be clean”, as in l.76′, once again realised in the D stem participle mubbibat, “the one who purifies”. 6′′

ina eššeb(KI-IB) bēlet erṣeti pirišt[i šamê(an)] In Eššeb, she is the mistress of the earth, the secret [of heaven]

eššeb(KI-IB): The signs which write the toponym eššeb(KI-IB) are interpreted. ki straightforwardly supplies erṣetu, “earth”. erṣetu may also interpret ib: [ú-ra-áš][ib] erṣetum Ea I 338c MSL XIV p.194. pirištu, “secret”, perhaps also interprets both signs, ki and ib. The lexical correspondences ki-šinun-še [pirištu] (Reciprocal Ea A 134 MSL XIV p.526) and gi-egi piri[štu] (CT 12 29 iii 34), if correctly restored, suggest that pirištu interprets ki. The equation of pirištu with ib is certain: ú-ra-ášib pirištu Ea I 338 MSL XIV p.194. The proposed restoration of an to write šamû, “heaven”, may have lexical support, for šamû too perhaps interprets ib: [ú-ra-áš][ib] šamû Ea I 338b MSL XIV p.194; cf. too ú-ra-ášib ú-ra-šú šá-[mu-u](?) Aa I/8 35 MSL XIV p.240. 7′′

mu-ni-iḫ-ḫa-at!(ṢI) kališ tayyārat She is the one who soothes, merciful in every way

If mu-ni-iḫ-ḫa-ṢI, as written in Ms. B, is indeed muniḫḫat, “she is the one who who soothes”, from the D stem of nâḫu, “to rest”, l.7′′ perhaps encodes a reference to Ištar. nâḫu is še12 (Aa VIII/1 172 MSL XIV p.493); written MÙŠxA, še12 readily suggests dmùš, an identity of Inanna (Ištar). Similar readings which correspond to târu, “to return”, (related to tayyāru, “relenting”) and its D stem infinitive turrum, “to bring back”, may perhaps also be understood as še12 and hence tayyārat, “she is merciful”, too may also evoke Ištar: sè t[âru] Nabnītu O 188 MSL XVI p.292; tu-ušid turrum Ea VII iii 8′ MSL XIV p.451. 8′′

ina é-nun-maḫ ṣīrat rubê rabītu malkī In the é-nun-maḫ, she is exalted over princes, the greatest of the rulers

é-nun-maḫ (“the House of the Exalted Prince”): The elements nun and maḫ are straightforwardly translated: nun is rubû, “prince”, and malku, “prince, king”; maḫ is ṣīru, “exalted”, and rabû(rabītu), “great”, (Syllabary B II 335 MSL III p.150). 9′′

dabrat šapṣi āšipat di-nik-tiki She is fierce to the intransigent, (she is) the exorcist of Diniktu

di-nik-tiki: The Akkadian toponym di-nik-tiki (Diniktu) is clearly interpreted by šapṣu, “intransigent”, lexically equated with dínig: di-ni-iglú-me-en šapṣu Syllabary B

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

381

II 329 MSL III p.149. For the possible readings a-ši-bát (“she dwells”) and a-ši-pat (“she is the exorcist”) here, see section 5.5. ašābu, “to dwell” has lexical equivalence ti (Aa II/3 D7′ MSL XIV p.277); thus šapṣu (dínig) and āšibat (ti) might fully realise di-nik-ti through speculative interpretation. However, āšipu, “exorcist”, may be written lúme-me; and hence āšipat, “(she is) the exorcist”, may encode Gula’s name d me-me (An: Anum V 139, ed. Litke, 1998). The religious setting of ll.9′′–10′′, the temple é-gu-la, perhaps supports this. For this reason, and in view of the unusual writing of āšibat as a-ši-bát which would otherwise be called for, the reading āšipat, “she is the exorcist”, is preferred here. 10′′

ḫayyāṭat kullati binût é-gu-la She is the one who watches over everything, the creature of the é-gu-la

é-gu-la (“the Big House”): é, taken as è, supplies ḫâṭu, “to watch over”, (Nabnītu V 9 MSL XVI p.95), realised as ḫayyāṭat, “she is the watchful one”; gu-la supplies kullatu, “everything, the universe”, as in l.115′. ḫâṭu may also recall é-gu-la’s city, Diniktu (di-nik-tiki), named in the preceding line. ḫayyāṭu, “watchful, watcher”, is din and a bilingual text translates nig-è nig-è as [ḫa]yyāṭu ḫā’iṭu, “watchful watcher”, (CT 16 15 iv 40; CAD Ḫ 1–2 ḫa’āṭu). Both equations, din and nig-è, might evoke Diniktu through their phonetics. ḫayyāṭat, (written ḫa-a-a-ṭa-at in Ms. B, the only manuscript which preserves the word), perhaps also suggests Ḫaya, indicating that the otherwise unknown goddess of é-gu-la in Diniktu is Ḫaya’s spouse, Nissaba. 11′′

nam-tar malkī bēlet Adab?(UD-NUN)ki (She is) the fate of princes, the lady of Adab?

UD-NUNki: As in l.8′′, malku, “prince”, interprets nun, taken from the sequence of signs which write the toponym, which is perhaps Adab (see section 5.5). nam-tar anticipates and renders nam from é-nam-zu (l.12′′) (see section 5.5 for discussion of whether nam-tar is the loan word namtaru, “fate”, or a logographic writing for šīmtu, “fate”; the speculative analysis remains the same). In bēltu, “lady”, routinely equated with the Sumerian word nin, and nam-tar, l.11′′ perhaps encodes the name dnin-namtar-tar-re, a name of é-nam-zu’s goddess, Bēlet-ilī (An: Anum II 8, ed. Litke, 1998; HMH 855). 12′′ d

d

nin-líl nišī(un)meš lamassi é-nam-zu (She is) Ninlil of the people, the protective spirit of the é-nam-zu

nin-líl, é-nam-zu (“the House of Knowledge”): zu is lamādu, “to learn”, (Syllabary B I 222 MSL III p.115). The similar Akkadian word lamassu, “protective deity”, evidently interprets zu.

382

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

13′′

birīt ṣippāti dšar-rat-de-erki bīssa gašrat Among the orchards, (she is) Šarrat-Dēr, she is powerful as to her house

The unusual epithet, whether read birīt ṣippāti, “among the orchards”, or bišit ṣippāti, “yield of the orchard”, (see section 5.5), points to the phrase being derived by scholarly speculative interpretation of the name of the goddess, her city or her temple. However, etymological explanation (if there be such) is elusive (but see the discussion of telītu in l.14′′ below). bīssa gašrat, “she is powerful as to her house”, is surely the product of scholarly speculation and looks forward to Dēr’s temple named in l.14′′, é-dim-gal-kalam-ma. bīssa, “her house”, straightforwardly interprets é, bītu, “house”. gašāru, “to be strong, powerful”, evidently interprets gal and perhaps also kalam. gal equates to the verb rabû, “to grow, become great”, and its adjective; gal may be understood as kal, and hence kalag, which writes danānu, “to be strong”, and its abstract noun, “strength”, (for consonantal change g/k, see section 3.2.17). kalam may perhaps also readily suggest kalag for interpretation. 14′′

ina é-dim-gal-kalam-ma markas māti(kur) tēlilti šākinat kidīni In the é-dim-gal-kalam-ma, the bond of the land, of the purification rites, she is the one who puts in place divine protection

é-dim-gal-kalam-ma (“the House, Great Bond of the Land”): markas māti, “bond of the land”, straightforwardly translates dim-gal markasu, “bond”, and kalam-ma māti, “of the land”, (compare l.111′, where é-dim-gal-an-na is explained). kidinnu (kidīnu, given in Ms. B), “divine protection”, may interpret é-dim:⸢i-dim⸣idim [i]-dim-mu ki[dinnu] Idu II ii 68 (Gong, 2002 p.87). šakānu, “to place”, perhaps interprets gal: [g]a-al gál šakānu Idu II i 45 (Gong, 2002 p.80), similarly Nabnītu XVI 191 MSL XVI p.147. The possibility that telītu, “expert lady”, a divine epithet usually applied to Ištar, was intended rather than tēliltum, “purification rites”, in this l.14′′ is discussed in section 5.5. Speculative methods may illuminate the matter. telītu may be written logographically an-zíb (see CAD T tele’û 327–328). In this context, telītu might interpret and express birīt ṣippāti, “among the orchards”, in the preceding line (l.13′′): goddess is dingir in Sumerian, which may be read as an; ṣip may be read zib and understood as its homophone zíb. The logographic writing of telītu, an-zíb, thus may be understood to realise birīt ṣippāti, “among the orchards”: telītu, in its writing an-zíb, places the goddess (dingir/an) in the orchards (ṣip(ZIB)-pa-ti). It has been noted that elsewhere in this composition the scholar uses sign forms or sequences and graphic arrangement as tools in speculative interpretation (see, for example, ll.78′, 114′). Here, perhaps there is a further demonstration of this, and two difficulties in the reading of ll.13′′–14′′ might thereby be resolved.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

15′′

383

kanūt Bau(dba-ú) kullat adnāti rikis māt[i] Bau, beloved of all the world, (she is) the bond of the land

d

ba-ú: In the earlier lines ll.115′ and 10′′, kullatu, “everything”, renders gu-la; juxtaposed against the divine name dba-ú in l. 15′′, kullatu surely encodes her name Gula (dgu-la) here. kanūt, “cherished, beloved”, kullat adnāti, “of all the world”, and rikis māti, “bond of the land”, undoubtedly are all generated by speculative interpretation. The scholar’s thinking is difficult to follow and perhaps more than one interpretation is intended (section 3.2.27). The phrase rikis māti closely parallels markas māti (both meaning “bond of the land”), recalling é-dim-gal-kalam-ma in l.14′′, but separated from l.15′′ in Ms. B (but not in Ms. c) by a ruling. kullat adnāti, “of all the world”, and rikis māti, “bond of the land”, may interpret elements of é-ulḫé-me-šu-du7 (l.16′′). ḫé, understood as gan, supplies both kullatu, “everything”, and riksu, “bond”, (ga-nagan kullatu, riksu Aa VIII/1 2–3 MSL XIV p.489). me equates to erṣetum, “earth”, (Proto-Aa 71:8 MSL XIV p.91), rendered alternatively as mātu, “land”. erṣetu and mātu share equations in many lexical lists (see CAD E 304–305, M/I 414). mātu, “land”, and adnātu, “world, people”, are synonyms (malku = šarru I 189, ed. Hrůša, 2010) and thus perhaps both interpret me. How (if at all) kanūtu, “cherished, beloved”, arises through scholarly speculation is obscure. 16′′ 17′′

ina é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 x[ … … ] āširat asmāt šamāmī x[ … … ] In the é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 [ … … ] She is the one who organises what is proper in the heavens [ … … ]

é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 (“the House of the Firmament of Heaven and Perfect Me’s”): By good fortune, all that can be read in l.17′′ interprets é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7, which comprises virtually all that remains of l.16′′. šu is understood as šú, supplying ašāru. šú is perhaps to be equated with ašāru, “to be humble”. If so, in speculative interpretation, ašāru is understood as the homophonous Akkadian verb ašāru, “to muster, organise, check”, the sense required, realised in āširat, “she who organises”. The identical equation occurs in a list of Marduk’s names, where Lugal-šuanna (dlugal-šu-an-na) is bēlum āšir ilānī, “Lord who supervises the gods”, (Marduk Names List 14). This is further explained in section 3.2.14. asmu, “fitting, suitable”, (realised in the fpl bound form asmāt and derived from asāmu, “to be fitting, proper”) interprets several elements from é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7: asāmu is du7 and also interprets ul, read as du7 (Syllabary B II 98 MSL III p.138); ḫé-du7 is asāmu, as bilingual texts evidence (see CAD A/II 328): ḫé-du7 can be understood from the separate elements ḫé and du7 and by reversal of the elements ul(du7)-ḫé, so as to read ḫé-ul(du7). The multiple correspondences serve to substantiate that the goddess is a deity who achieves what is proper and fitting in the heavens. Further, šu-du7, which

384

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

writes šuklulu, “complete, perfect”, may be freely rendered by asāmu, “to be fitting, proper”. Likewise, asāmu may freely interpret me (in Akkadian, parṣu, “ordinances”), the directions which duly order the universe. me directly supplies šamāmū, the literary word for šamû, “heaven” (meme šamû Proto-Aa 71:7 MSL XIV p.91). 18′′ff The remaining fragmentary text of the obverse of Ms. c, contains two more names, é-maḫ (“the Exalted House”) in l.18′′ and Karkara(imki) in l.19′′, and l.20′′ perhaps commenced with a divine name. Accordingly, it can be reasonably certain that the Gula hymn continued in the same manner, with scholarly speculation on these names but nothing remains in the fragmentary text of the obverse of Ms. c from which further speculative interpretation can be deduced. 1′′′ff The reverse of Ms. c continues in different fashion. Although rather fragmentary, enough survives to be fairly confident that, whilst it evidently described the goddess in different places, the text is not characterised by an exposition of sacred names and toponyms as marks ll.75′–17′′ of the composition. It is possible that in this piece the composition continued with further speculative interpretation on sacred names, but insufficient remains to allow any analysis. 6.2 Encoded names Sacred names are a very obvious feature of the Gula hymn, set out in lengthy key passages. Even more striking, but much less obvious, are sacred names which are not explicitly given, but nevertheless expressed in the Gula hymn: encoded names. In the extensive passage at ll.75′–17′′ of the Gula hymn, the goddess of the composition is associated with cities, temples and shrines across Southern Mesopotamian and portrayed as the goddess of each. The names of towns and cities, their sacred places and, occasionally, goddesses, are set out in the passage and explored by speculative interpretation. However, as the analysis in section 6.1 has demonstrated, lexical equations pertaining to Akkadian words in this part of the Gula hymn revealed that, in many lines, a name other than the sacred name explicit in the context lies behind the Akkadian text. Names, which are otherwise unexpressed, are encoded in the passage by speculative methods. This wholly unexpected conclusion is entirely at variance with the customary practice of Babylonian speculative scholarship, where, routinely, a sacred name is set out first, and followed by explanation or comment derived from, or related to, that name. This customary mode of exegesis is a practice which undoubtedly has its origins in the lexical tradition. It is the format of explanatory lists, a format which is adopted and developed in other religious and literary compositions. Indeed, it is the structure that underpins the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI and

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

385

VII, the most prominent and fully realised example of this kind of speculative scholarship in a literary context. The very different use of scholarly speculation, to express names which are not explicitly given and encode them in the text of the composition, is a very significant and sophisticated development in the field of Babylonian speculative scholarship; it marks out the Gula hymn as an exceptional work. Names encoded in the Gula hymn by speculative methods and revealed by their lexical equations disclose the identity of the deity, or the setting of the context: who the goddess is, and where, is latently expressed by the Akkadian text. In l.109′, for example, the goddess of the composition is celebrated as the goddess of é-mes-lam, the temple of Nergal in his principal cult-centre, the city of Kutha. Kutha is not explicitly named in l.109′, nor in the adjoining lines ll.108′ and 110′ which appear to share the same context. Here, in é-mes-lam, the goddess is praised as: nādinat napḫar ṭuḫdi ina qereb é-mes-lam (Gula hymn 109′) She is the one who provides all-abundance within the é-mes-lam (“the House, the Warrior of the Underworld”) The phrase napḫar ṭuḫdi, “all-abundance”, words which are lexically equated with gú and du8 respectively, speculatively interprets the toponym Kutha, commonly written gú-du8-aki. Thus the name Kutha is encoded in l.109′ and expressed there, but not explicitly. The identification of Kutha (gú-du8-aki) with napḫar ṭuḫdi, “allabundance”, is soundly-based, being supported by ancient evidence for a link between Kutha and the descriptor napḫar ṭuḫdi: an explanatory temple list contains a closely similar etymological interpretation of gú-du8-aki as bīt ḫé-g[ál], “the house of plenty”, (HMH TL6 19). From this it is clear that, in scholarly circles at least, the toponym was understood to express a meaning of plentiful provision; thus Kutha was understood to be a town which supplied profusion and abundance for its inhabitants. Encoded names in the Gula hymn which can be identified with confidence are Šerida (l.79′), Zarpanītum (l.82′), é-sag-íl and Tašmētum (l.83′), dinanna-galga-sù (l.86′), Sud (l.102′), Zarpanītum and Erua (Ištar), and Ninlil (l.104′), Ištar (l.107′), Kutha (l.109′), Sîn (l.112′), Lugal-Maradda (l.118′), Nin-Larak (l.122′), é-ka-aš-bar(ra) and Bau (l.127′), Inanna (Ištar) (l.136′), dnin-nam-tar-tar-re (l.11′′) and Gula (l.15′′). To these can also be added, provisionally, é-sa-pàr (l.96′). é-sa-pàr, “House of the Net”, undoubtedly underpins the text in l.96′, and it is included provisionally only because (although difficult to place there) the temple name may have been explicit in the (now broken) text. The sheer number of these names, coupled with the unequivocal identification of Kutha (l.109′) from ancient evidence, tells against mere coincidence in the lexical equations so as to supply the sacred name identified as “encoded”, or any suggestion that too much is read into the analysis. There are just

386

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

too many for this to be mere chance; and the correspondences are too clear to be over-interpretation. The encoding of a number of other names in the composition is less confidently identified than this first group of names. Less confidently identified are dUD-UD (Aya) (l.79′), Ninlil and Ištar (l.105′), Ninlil (l.107′), Kutha (l.108′), Mamma/ Mammi/Mammītum (l.110′ and l.111′), Ningal (l.112′), Gula, Ninsun and Ninigizibarra (l.115′), azugallatu, “the great physician”, the common epithet of the healing goddess (l.121′), Ninašte (l.122′), Šarrat-Nippuri (l.124′), é-šaga-ra (l.137′), Inanna (Ištar) (l.7′′), dme-me (l.9′′) and Ḫaya (l.10′′). Some of this second group might be discounted, were it not for the precedent set in other lines which certainly encode sacred names. Some are not sufficiently fully or clearly expressed to be confident of encoding (as, for example, Mamma/Mammi/Mammītum in l.110′ and l.111′). Others, like Ninigizibarra in l.115′, seem reasonably secure. Taken on their own, names identified in this second group might perhaps not be sufficiently compelling; but in context, against the backdrop of those other names which are confidently identified as encoded, this second group may be viewed rather differently. All these encoded names are explained by the scholar using identical methods to those applied in the speculative interpretation of explicit names in the Gula hymn and elsewhere in the text corpus. For explanation of the derivation of all these encoded names, see section 6.1 above. Examples of encoded names in the text corpus outside the Gula hymn are extremely rare. The most prominent parallel occurs in the declaration of Marduk’s birth in Enūma eliš I: ma-ri-ú-tu ma-ri-ú-tu māri dŠamši(utu)ši dŠamši(utu)ši ša ilā[nī] (Enūma eliš I 101–102) Mari-utu Mari-utu The son, the Sun, Sun of the gods As much remarked, this evokes the name Marūduk (damar-utu) and its earlier version, Marūtuk. The obvious allusion in this passage rather differs from the subliminal encoded names of the Gula hymn. A closer parallel lies in Enūma eliš VII 135, the first line of a couplet in which the name Bēl-mātāti is declared. In the typical pattern of the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names, some explanation or comment on the name Bēl-mātāti would be expected there. Nevertheless, as Commentary II demonstrates, the name Nēberu underpins the speculative interpretation, not Bēlmātāti (this line is set out and explained in section 3.2.11). The work of an ancient scholar demonstrates that the name Nēberu, though not otherwise expressly mentioned, may also be read from a line of the composition known in modern scholarship as Marduk’s Address to the Demons, now known to have been incorporated also into the canonical magical series udug-ḫul-a-kam utukkū

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

387

lemnūtu, “Evil Demons”, as Tablet 11 (Geller, 2015; previously, in part, Lambert, 1954–1956, 1959–1960). This composition contains a lengthy address by Marduk himself, made in his persona as Asalluḫi, where almost 100 consecutive lines commence with the declaration anāku dasal-lú-ḫi, “I am Asalluḫi”, and conclude with epithets and descriptions of the god. Although it is not, for the most part, an explanatory work in which the Akkadian text is generated by scholarly speculation, rather like a God List, speculative interpretation may be detected, or suspected in a number of lines. For one line, this is confirmed by a Late-Assyrian commentary text on the composition, in which the ancient scholar was able to understand the god’s description as a speculative interpretation of the name Nēberu. The line and its explanation in this way by the commentary are as follows: anāku dasal-lú-ḫi ša ina ṭēmīšu ibbanû anāku (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 47; ed. Geller, 2015) I am Asalluḫi, who was created by his own command, am I mā dné-bi-ru dmes ša ana ramānīšu ibbanû(dù)u né-bi7(KU)-rúra ša ra ina umuš(KU) ṭēmu rú banû ní ramānu dné-bi-ru dné-bi7(KU)-rú (Late-Assyrian Commentary, extract, adapted from Geller, 2014, p.65 8 (47) and Lambert, 2013, p.165, footnote 13) This means Nēbiru: Mes (Marduk), “who was created by himself”. Nēbiru (dné-bi7(KU)-rúra), of which: ra: “by”; umuš(KU): “instruction”; rú(dù): “to create”; ní: “self ” Nēbiru (dné-bi-ru) = Nēbiru (dné-bi7(KU)-rú) d

Thus, on this scholar’s analysis, Marduk’s name and astral identity as Nēberu underpins the Akkadian description. A few other lines in Marduk’s Address to the Demons contain material replicated in the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI–VII, which consequently can be seen as speculative interpretation by which one of Marduk’s names is encoded in the incantation. So, in l.87: anāku dasal-lú-ḫi šārik rītu u mašqītu mušaznin nuḫši (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 87; ed. Geller, 2015) I am Asalluḫi, who provides pasture and watering place, who supplies plentiful rain The first epithet, šārik rītu u mašqītu, is closely similar to šākin merīti u mašqīti, “who provides pasture and watering place”, (Enūma eliš VI 124), a phrase which interprets the name Marduk (Marūduk) (see Lambert, 2013, p.165 and section 3.2.10; Marutukka is perhaps the name explained by essentially the same phrase in Marduk Names List 3). The second phrase, mušaznin nuḫši, “who supplies plentiful rain”, differs only as to its grammar from mušaznin nuḫša (Enūma eliš VII 69),

388

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

where it interprets Marduk’s name Enbilulu-Ḫegal (den-bi-lu-lu dḫé-gál). Similarly, in l.43: [anāku dasal-lú-ḫi] ša ezziš tebû abūbi galtu (Marduk’s Address to the Demons, Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 43; ed. Geller, 2015) [I am Asalluḫi,] who rises up angrily, a terrifying flood ša ezziš tebû, “who rises up angrily”, is closely reminiscent of aggiš lū tebû “Should they rise angrily” (Enūma eliš VII 12) where it interprets Tutu (dtu-tu), as Commentary II’s analysis demonstrates (see section 3.2.13). The description of the god as a flood (abūbu) serves to encode the name Marduk: abūbu is a-ma-ru in Sumerian, and may be written thus logographically. Thus abūbu (a-ma-ru) readily and obviously interprets Marūduk and its writing damar-utu (see further Lambert, 2013, pp.164–165 for association with abūbu). Other descriptions which the god as Asalluḫi attributes to himself in Marduk’s Address to the Demons seem to serve to recall Marduk by other names. Asalluḫi as bēlu ša māti, “Lord of the land”, (l.83) surely references the name Bēl-mātāti, conferred on Marduk in Enūma eliš VII 136. Asalluḫi as the god ša tāmīt libbīšu lā idû ilānū(dingir)meš r[abûtu], “the response of whose heart the [great] gods do not know”, (l.91) expresses a topos, but perhaps makes play on the name Šazu (dšà-zu), for libbu, “heart”, is šà and edû/idû, “to know”, is zu. In l.105, ezi u pašir, “fierce yet relenting”, seems to suggest Meršakušu (dmer-šà-kúš-ù), a name rendered in Enūma eliš VI 137 by eziz u muštāl sabus u tayyār, “furious but deliberating, angry but relenting”. There may be other, less certain, allusions. Routinely, the epithets and descriptions in this incantation recall the god in his identity as Marduk, by references to his city, Babylon, and his temple there, E-sagil (ll.38, 52, 56–57), for example, or expressly to Marduk himself (ll.46, 106–108). As these extracts demonstrate, like the Gula hymn, the incantation passage anāku d asal-lú-ḫi, “I am Asalluḫi”, in Marduk’s Address to the Demons contains a number of lines in which a divine name is encoded: the divine name interpreted by speculative scholarship is not explicitly expressed. Here, in each case, the encoded name is an identity of Marduk, who is expressly equated with the speaker, Asalluḫi, at the end of the passage (ll.107–108). The purpose of each line in the passage, of course, is to assert some facet of the god Marduk. The expression of Marduk’s identities, whether explicitly or implicitly, is central to the passage. The encoded names directly serve to realise the objective of the passage. In this respect, whilst these encoded allusions indeed form a parallel to the encoded names of the Gula hymn, the device can be distinguished from the use of encoding in the Gula hymn. The scholar of the Gula hymn uses speculative methods to encode in the hymn the name of the particular subject or setting of the line, thus imparting (albeit in an unobvious, hidden way) further information about the deity with whom the scholar

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

389

equates the subject of the composition. In comparison with the Asalluḫi incantation, the use of encoded names in the Gula hymn seems a more sophisticated use of this scholarly device. Another very interesting example of the etymological realisation of a sacred name which could be said to be encoded in the composition may be found in the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi. This great hymn, edited by Lambert (1967), takes the form of a hymn of self-praise to the healing goddess, concluding with a prayer addressed to the goddess by Bulluṭsa-rabi. In alternating stanzas, the goddess speaks her own praises and extols her spouse, describing their character and attributes, and concluding each stanza with one of the deities’ names. Although the divine names by which the work is structured are the significant focus of the composition and the hymn is replete with epithets and descriptions, Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn is not characterised by speculative scholarship for its compositional technique, unlike the Gula hymn edited here. Two instances of speculative scholarship do stand out in the hymn: the description of the goddess’ spouse Zababa as dā’iš abnī, “Crusher of stones” (Lambert, 1967, p.122 100), which is explained in an expository text (Smith College text 110 (S 3) 3–5; Lambert, 1989; see section 3.2.3); and the comment on the goddess’ father Anu,da-num abī kīma šumīšūma imbânni, “Anu, my father, as his name says, named me” (op.cit., p.124 142), marked by the phrase kīma šumīšūma which flags an etymological explanation. (Here perhaps, from the name Anu, a is understood as abu, “father”, but other explanations are possible.) However, more unusually, the stanza devoted to the goddess in her persona as Ninigizibarra (ll.79– 91) contains a number of words with Sumerian equivalences that point to the divine name dnin-igi-zi-bar-ra which concludes the stanza. Despite damage, the preserved text of the concluding part of the stanza demonstrates this: ina nīš īnā(igimin)-ia mītu iballuṭ ina epēš pîya muqqu itebbi rēmēnāku gammalāku tayyārāku u[ ...] mutī gašri nādinat zitti ša le-e[ … ] d nin-igi-zi-bar-ra anākūm[a] (Lambert, 1967, p.120 86–91, further restored from BM 62744 and Sm 1036, identified by Lambert in manuscript note to his personal offprint) By my glance, the dead person revives At my command, the weak man gets up I am compassionate, kind, merciful [ ...] My husband is mighty (?) She who gives the share of [ … ] Ninigizibarra am I.

390

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

The correspondences in this passage which surely interpret and invoke the name nin-igi-zi-bar-ra are našû (ZI) “to lift” and the noun nīšu (ZI-GA) “lifting” itself, īnum (IGI) “eye” (written logographically as IGI in the three surviving manuscripts) (l.86); epēšu (ZI) “to do”, tebû (ZI) “to get up” (l.87); târu (GI4) “to turn, relent” (cognate with tayyāru “relenting, merciful”) (l.88); and zâzu (BAR) “to divide, get a share”, from which zittu “share” derives (and note too that phonologically zittu may itself suggest ZI) (l.90). Here, it is suggested, Bulluṭsa-rabi foreshadows the name of the goddess of the stanza, encoding it into the preceding text. If correct, the device resembles the encoded names of the Gula hymn. However, like the incantation discussed above, it is to be distinguished from the Gula hymn. Bulluṭsa-rabi’s scholarly interpretation does not impart other information concerning the stanza (as in the Gula hymn), but speculates on the name of the subject of the stanza and points forward to the divine name itself, explicitly expressed there. The unusual feature in Bulluṭsa-rabi’s stanza is that, unlike the normal exposition of etymological correspondences, the etymological interpretations precede the divine name. The unusual syllables of this divine name mark out the coincidence with correspondences: the name Ninigizibarra is readily called to mind. It may be that the same feature is to be found elsewhere, less obviously, in Bulluṭsa-rabi’s hymn. The late narrative composition Erra contains just a few clear instances of speculative interpretation of names. The opening passage speculatively interprets the names Ḫendursagga, Išum and Engidudu, all explicitly given (Lambert, 1957–1958, p.400; Bottéro, 1978, pp.159–161; Tinney, 1989). In the passage which follows (Erra I 32–38; ed. Cagni, 1969), the poet narrates how Erra’s warrior companions, the terrible Sebetti, the “Seven” gods (otherwise unnamed), were each assigned their destinies and roles by Anu: the second god, for example, is charged to kīma Girri kubumma ḫumuṭ kīma nabli, “Scorch like fire, burn like flame”, and the fourth god is enjoined ana našê kakkēka ezzūti šadû lītabbit, “Let a mountain be destroyed when you raise your fierce weapons”, (Erra I 33, 35; ed. Cagni, 1969). The other five gods receive similarly graphic mandates from Anu. Bottéro (1978, p.160) was confident that these instructions to each of the Seven Gods must have been drawn directly from their names, not disclosed in the narrative itself. The various identities of the Seven Gods have been discussed by Wiggermann (2009–2011, pp.461–464). As Wiggermann has suggested, these seven warlike gods may be identical with the Sumerian “Seven Warriors” identified in a poorly preserved section of the God List An: Anum VI 150 –194 which contained various heptads of individually named gods. It is to be hoped that a text will emerge which identifies the Seven Gods by name against which Bottéro’s conviction can be tested. The evidence of the Gula hymn seems to confirm that indeed this passage in the Erra narrative encodes the anonymous deities’ names. d

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

391

Apart from Bottéro’s conjecture as to the expression of the Seven Gods’ names implicit in Erra I 32–38, in modern scholarship Hurowitz (2000, pp.73–76) remarked on speculative allusion to unexpressed names in Akkadian literature, citing Enūma eliš I 101–102 (the declaration of “Mari-utu” at Marduk’s birth, given above) and lines from two kudurru-inscriptions from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I, the kudurru of Šitti-Marduk (BBSt 6) and the Hinke kudurru. In the kudurru of ŠittiMarduk, Nebuchadnezzar is called nāṣir kudurrēti, “guardian of kudurrus”, an “obvious allusion”, as Hurowitz pointed out, to the king’s Akkadian name, Nabûkudurri-uṣur (“Nabû, protect my heir”). The Hinke kudurru records the grant of land and privileges to a priest, Nuska-ibni. Here, Hurowitz saw Akkadian word-play which referenced the name Nuska-ibni, (and, in Hurowitz’s view, Ninurta) and recalled the king himself. Hurowitz’s identification of an allusion to Ninurta seems questionable. The other examples drawn from these kudurrus are obvious allusions, which (like the declaration of “Mari-utu” at Marduk’s birth in Enūma eliš I) rather differ from the names subliminally encoded in the Gula hymn. An important feature of these inscriptions is that they can be securely dated to the late second millennium BC, evidencing etymological allusion to names at this date. Hurowitz (2000, p.73) also noted the work of Zakovitch (1980) and Garsiel (1991) on name midrash in biblical literature. Garsiel’s study (pp.127–164) examined the practice of referring to names not mentioned, or distantly mentioned, in the text by midrashic name derivations, analogous, it seems, to the encoding of names exemplified in the Gula hymn. This will be returned to in section 7.4. 6.3 Overview: Speculative techniques and methods in the Gula hymn Speculative scholarship characterises very substantial passages of the Gula hymn. The exposition of the divine names attributed to the composition’s goddess in ll.18– 41 is, in form, very much like an explanatory list, of which there are a number of examples in the text corpus. In ll.75′–17′′, scholarly interpretations of the names of temples and shrines, towns and cities and their deities are fully integrated into the fabric of the Gula hymn, crafted as accolades in praise of its goddess. The detailed analysis of speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn has been given in section 6.1. In this section 6.3, the speculative techniques and methods deployed in the Gula hymn are briefly summarised. Four of the unusual methods of speculative interpretation used by the scholar are then highlighted and discussed: Akkadian homophony (section 6.3.1); Near-homophony (section 6.3.2); Unusual writings (section 6.3.3); and Graphic interpretation (section 6.3.4). A table of other noteworthy interpretive features observed in the Gula hymn concludes this section (section 6.3.5). In the Gula hymn, the scholar deploys the wide range of interpretive techniques and methods which are the hallmark of Babylonian speculative scholarship,

392

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

described in chapter 3 (the corresponding sections of chapter 3 are noted here in square brackets). The patent meaning of sacred names is translated and freely rendered [sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2]. So, for example, the description of the mother goddess dama-ù-tu-an-ki as ummi bānât šamê u erṣetim, “the mother who created heaven and earth”, straightforwardly translates dama-ù-tu-an-ki (l.24). More commonly, sacred names are speculatively interpreted [section 3.1.3]. Interpretation is occasionally flagged by the phrase kīma šumīšāma, “as her very name (says)”, where the divine name is perceived to have an overt etymological explanation (ll.21, 102′) [section 2.4.4]. Sometimes repeated words or expressions signal some speculative interpretation. The repetition of mušapšiḫat, “she who soothes”, used in close proximity in l.25, l.31 and l.35, is evidently forced by scholarly speculation. The repeated epithet šāpikat erṣetim, “who heaps up the earth”, applied to goddesses with similar divine names, dme-me-sig5-ga (l.34) and dlamma-sig5-ga (l.37), points to the epithet being driven by speculative interpretation (here sig5, understood as sig, supplies šapāku, “to heap up”). Elsewhere, unusual words or expressions are often tell-tale signs that scholarly speculation is at work, even if the scholar’s intentions are not always clear. Expressions such as lē’u kitti, “the writing board of truth”, (l.92′) and bēlet igisê kullati, “mistress of all the offerings”, (l.115′) are unusual and, when lexical correspondences are sought, it becomes evident that speculation on a sacred name accounts for them, in part at least. Sudden shifts of sense also often signal that the new idea is generated by speculative interpretation. The two rather different descriptions of the goddess in Gula’s temple in Babylon, é-sa-bad, “the House of the Open Ear”, as petât uzni nābât tabīni, “she is attentive, she calls the shelter into being”, give rise to the suspicion that they must both interpret the name é-sa-bad, in different ways, as indeed they do, as already demonstrated by George, Topog.Texts, p.331. Common methods of speculative interpretation are deployed throughout the interpretive passages of the Gula hymn. Translation and free rendering of all or some of the name’s elements at will [sections 3.2.1–3.2.5], exploitation of homophonous signs (Homophony) [section 3.2.11], or alternative readings (Polyvalence) [section 3.2.12], or both [section 3.2.13] are all extensively used in the composition. Elements of a sacred name are repeatedly used [section 3.2.21]: for example, from the toponym in l.114′, šá-an-da-lip-úrki, speculatively interpreted, úr supplies both ina and the verb puqqu for the observation that ina qereb šamāmī kališ puqqūši, “in heaven, they pay her (the goddess) full attention”. Different elements of a name are understood to convey the same meaning [section 3.2.20], as is illustrated by the description of dninpa4-nìgin-gar-ra as bēlet napḫar ṣīt Šamši, “Lady of all the east” (l.131′); for this epithet, napḫaru, “entirety”, is supplied by both pa4, read pap, and nìgin, taken as its homophone nigin.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

393

As has been observed in the wider text corpus, very often, more than one explanation of the scholar’s methods may be possible, any or all of which may be intended [section 3.2.27]. An ample illustration of this may be found in the last two partly preserved lines from the Gula hymn that are sufficiently preserved for their speculative scholarship to be analysed. There, in the phrase asmāt šamāmī, “what is proper in the heavens”, asmu, “fitting, suitable, proper”, can be understood in no less than four different ways from the temple name é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7, “the House of the Firmament of Heaven and Perfects Me’s” (ll.16′′–17′′). Throughout the parts of the Gula hymn characterised by speculative scholarship, the scholar draws on the rich repertoire of speculative techniques and methods widely used elsewhere in the text corpus for this composition. Unusual interpretive methods distinguish the Gula hymn as a remarkable work. Speculative methods which are only rarely found in the other works in the text corpus are used and developed in the composition. The incidence of unusual speculative methods is striking, for there are not just isolated examples of these, as elsewhere, but multiple examples; and they are developed with quite exceptional creativity. Four unusual interpretive methods are repeatedly and notably deployed by the scholar in the Gula hymn: Akkadian homophony; near-homophony; unusual writings; and graphic interpretation. These are discussed in turn. 6.3.1 Akkadian homophony Homophony between a name (or some part of it) and an Akkadian word, rather than some lexical correspondence, may prompt the use of the Akkadian word in speculative interpretation. Rather differently, an Akkadian correspondence derived by lexical means from a Sumerian name might be replaced by a homophonous, or near-homophonous, Akkadian word in the speculative interpretation. The use of homophony which involves Akkadian words in this way is illustrated from the wider text corpus in section 3.2.14 Akkadian homophony. The Gula hymn contains a number of examples of this speculative method. Most simply, a Sumerian loanword may be deployed. In the Gula hymn, this strategy is used to describe the goddess Ninkarrak (dnin-kar-ra-ak) as ēpišat nikkasī arê, “she who makes calculations” (l.32). The Sumerian word á-ra, derived from the phonetic continuum of the divine name dnin-kar-ra-ak, supplies the loanword arû, “calculation”. Differently from the use of loan words, a number of Akkadian words are derived through phonetic similarity with elements of the Sumerian names. Straightforwardly, to interpret é-sikil-la (l.3′′), the element la is taken as the homophonous Akkadian word lā, “not”. The description of Ninkarnunna as qarittu, “the valiant one”, is, it seems, prompted by kar, taken from dnin-kar-nun-na (l.28). From é-igi-kalam-ma (l.119′), kalam-ma evidently suggested lamādu, “to understand”. From the Sumerian writing of the toponym parak-māriki, bára-dumuki

394

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

(l.132′), dumu perhaps produced dadmū, “inhabited world”. The possibility that ésa-pàr (“House of the Net”) prompts mušparirrat šēt zā’irī, “she is the one who spreads the hunting net for the enemy”, in the broken lines ll.95′–96′ has been discussed and lexical correspondences examined (sections 5.5, 6.1); as observed, here phonetically, too, mušparirrat suggests é-sa-pàr. In more complex speculation, to characterise the goddess Ninsun (dnin-sún) as bēlet mušpalī, “lady of the low-lying places”, (l.29), sún is taken as the homophonous Akkadian word sūnu, an item of clothing (or part of it), so it seems, which is equated with tùn to produce šapālu, “to be deep, low”, and hence mušpalu, “lowland”. Elsewhere, Akkadian words derived from correspondence with Sumerian elements are replaced by homophonous or near-homophonous Akkadian words, without regard to meaning. The flexible interchange in speculative interpretation in the text corpus of banû, “to grow”, and banû, “to create”, is illustrated in section 3.2.14. In the Gula hymn too, these Akkadian words are interchanged, to serve the scholar’s ends. Lexical correspondence from the divine name dudug-sig5-ga strictly produces the equation banû, “to grow”, but this is understood instead as banû, “to create”, for the epithet bānīt kakkī, “who creates weapons”, (l.36). Likewise, banû, “well-formed”, given by lexical correspondence, is understood as banû, “to create”, to interpret the name of the goddess Ukulla (du-kul-la) as creatress: bānit rīti, “who created the pasture”, (l.2′′). Other Akkadian words are replaced by homophonous Akkadian words in speculation in the Gula hymn. The derivation of Sumerian word á-ra from the divine name dnin-kar-ra-ak to supply the loanword arû, “calculation”, is mentioned above. In the same line, it seems that the á-ra/arû equation is used again to understand arû as (w)âru, “to go up”, generating the description of Ninkarrak as muma’’irrat, “she is the ruler”. To interpret é-nam-zu and describes its goddess as its protective deity, lamādu, “to learn”, which equates to zu, is interpreted as the similar Akkadian word lamassu, “protective deity”. The possibility that lexical equation produces ašāru, “to be humble”, which is replaced by ašāru, “to organise”, the verb required by sense, in l.17′′ is discussed in section 6.1; if so, it provides a further example of this speculative method in Gula hymn, a composition rich in its use of Akkadian homophony in scholarly speculation. 6.3.2 Near-homophony In their exploration of meaning, ancient scholars used writings which were nearhomophonous with other writings, or at least sufficiently similar in sound to represent them, and hence be used to interpret them. An element of a sacred name could be understood, sometimes even artificially written, as some nearhomophonous reading and interpreted through it. This is illustrated from the wider text corpus in section 3.2.15 Near-homophony. Whilst, without access to the spoken

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

395

word, the idea of similar-sounding readings has to be treated with some caution, it is nevertheless clear that, in a number of instances, near-homophonous readings are used to serve scholarly speculation in the Gula hymn. Indeed, the scholar of the Gula hymn exploits perceived phonetic similarity more inventively than typically observed in the text corpus. In the Gula hymn, Sumerian words with similar phonology to the Sumerian name, or elements of it, are used in speculation, translated to supply Akkadian words. For the scholar’s description of Ninkarrak (dnin-kar-ra-ak) as bēlet riksī upšāšê ēpišat nikkasī arê, “Lady of bandages (and) ritual procedures, she who makes the calculations” (l.32), the Sumerian correspondences which produce upšāšû and nikkassu are evidently prompted by the phonetics of the divine name. upšāšû, “ritual procedures”, can be written níg-ak-a, clearly suggested by near-homophony with d nin-kar-ra-ak; nikkassu, “account, calculation”, may be written níg-ŠID, probably read níg-ka9, resembling the phonetics dnin-kar-(ra-ak). Indeed, it seems that here the scholar has an awareness of Sumerian phonology and uses the nasal consonant g (ng) of the Sumerian abstract prefix níg (conventionally written níg͂ in transliteration of Sumerian) in these Sumerian words to render the cluster nk in Ninkarrak. Similarly, in speculative interpretation of é-igi-kalam-ma, where the goddess of the composition is lāmidat ṭēm Anim, “the one who comprehends the intention of Anu” (l.119′), the scholar exploits k/g consonantal change, and kalam-ma is understood as the Sumerian word galga, which corresponds to ṭēmu, “instruction, intention”. Likewise, through some perceived similarity in sound, sikil is clearly understood as še-ga, which corresponds to māgiru, “to agree, comply”, for the description of é-sikil-la as the place where lā māgiri šēressa [naši], “the disobedient one [bears] her punishment” (l.3′′). Conversely, Akkadian words or writings are interpreted through the medium of homophonous, or near-homophonous Sumerian terms by the scholar of the Gula hymn. These Sumerian words, unrelated save by sound, then supply an Akkadian correspondence for the speculative interpretation. Interpreting the toponym Marad (már-daki), the scholar describes the goddess there as ḫīrat šarri nāšû abūbi, “Wife of the king, the bringer of the flood” (l.118′). For this description, using its phonetics, már-daki is first taken as mu-ud-na, an Emesal Sumerian word, to supply ḫīrtu, “wife”; and then as the Sumerian word a-ma-ru, which equates to abūbu, “flood”. Less certainly, perhaps, the scholar appears to speculate on the name of the mothergoddess Mamê, given in its Akkadian form dma-me-e in the surviving manuscript, to characterise her as talīmtu, “sister” (l.23). tam or tam-ma is talīmu, “brother”. Phonetic similarity between tam/tam-ma and Mamê, and tam/tam-ma and ama, “mother”, (reflecting Mamê’s role as a mother goddess) perhaps prompted talīmtu. A more complex interpretive sequence, exploiting near-homophonous words, is deployed in l.112′, where the scholar explores the sacred name é-gissu-bi-dùg-ga

396

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

(l.113′): gissu corresponds to the Akkadian word ṣillu, “shade”; ṣillu is understood as the Sumerian word sila, “street”, and translated as ribītu, “thoroughfare”, (which may be written as sila-dagal). Similarly, though less certainly, in l.129′ a broken epithet which describes the goddess as ṣerretu, “lead-rope”, perhaps interprets the named goddess dun-gal-nibruki, known in Akkadian as Šarrat-Nippuri, “Queen of Nippur”, by perceived phonetic similarity between ṣerretu and šarratu, “queen”. Elsewhere in the Gula hymn, similar sounds are used simply for themselves. muṣabbât Anim, “she who gazes on Anu” (l.94′), echoes the phonetics of é-ibbiAnum, the temple where this takes place. Likewise, the similar-sounding description of é-sikil-la (“the Pure House”) as kiṣṣu ellu, “the pure sanctuary” (l.3′′), is evidently chosen both for its meaning and its sound, taking up é-sikil-la. The echo of the temple’s name in the description kiṣṣu ellu further substantiates its etymologicallybased explanation. There is no real parallel elsewhere in the text corpus for the sustained and varied use of near-homophonous words, as exemplified here. Evidently similar-sounding Sumerian, Emesal and Akkadian words are used seamlessly and imaginatively in this scholarly bilingual environment for speculative ends in praise of the goddess of the Gula hymn. The scholar’s use of near-homophony distinguishes the Gula hymn as a work of creative and strikingly original scholarship. 6.3.3 Unusual writings Writing a sacred name in an unorthodox way is a speculative tool which opened up further possibilities for interpretation of the name. The text corpus contains a number of outstanding examples of explicitly contrived orthographies, where the spelling of a sacred name in the manuscript explicitly exhibits some unusual form or unorthodox feature, and of their interpretation. This has been discussed and illustrated in section 3.2.19 Contrived orthography. Several unusual writings also occur in the Gula hymn, deployed for speculative interpretation. Most simply, the usual spelling of é-ùru-sag-gá, temple of Gula as Nintinugga at Nippur, is written instead as é-úru-sag-gá (l.130′). The name é-úru-sag-gá may be translated as “Foremost-city House” or, perhaps, “House, Foremost City”, which appropriately describes both Nippur itself and the temple of the goddess of the Gula hymn. Indeed, it is possible that the unusual orthography may have been crafted simply for this purpose, for úru, “city”, is not itself used as a correspondence in the interpretation in the preserved text, but is understood as uru (see section 6.1). The usual writing, ùru, would have served the scholar’s speculation equally well. Elsewhere, sacred names are recast for speculative interpretation. The name of the ziqqurat in Nergal’s city Kutha, é-ùru-an-ki (“House which guards Heaven and Earth”), becomes instead é-ùru-ama-ki (l.110′). Replacing an (“heaven”), ama is ummu, “mother”. From this, the scholar is able to explain its goddess as ummi dadmē

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

397

nāṣirat māti, “mother of the world, the one who protects the land”, and perhaps also encodes in the line the name of the goddess of the temple as Mamma/Mammi/ Mammītum, a chthonic goddess and Nergal’s spouse. The name of Marduk’s cella in é-sag-íl in Babylon, é-umuš-a, (“the House of Command”), is also manipulated to serve speculation. é-è-umuš-a (l.85′) is a contrived writing of é-umuš-a, which introduces an additional element for speculation, replicated also in the name of its goddess, dnin-è-umuš-a. The additional element è supplies šūpû, “to make apparent”, (usually pa-è, but abbreviated in this scholarly speculation), which enables the scholar to characterise dnin-è-umuš-a as mušāpât ṭēmi, “the one who makes manifest the (divine) will”. (The unorthodox orthography of these names is recorded in Ms. d and Ms. B, but not Ms. f which has é-umuš-a and dnin-é-umuš-a; the variant readings in Ms. f perhaps shows that the scribe of Ms. f was aware of the unorthodox spellings and sought to correct them, see section 5.5.) The same additional element è perhaps occurs in the temple name in l.135′, where é-è-an-ki may be a contrived writing of é-an-ki, (“the House of Heaven and Earth”) (this name is further discussed in the note on l.135′ in section 5.5). Here too the correspondence between è and šūpû, “to make apparent, splendid”, (pa-è), facilitates the speculative interpretation mušāpât, “the one who makes everything glorious” (l.134′), and šūpûtu, “most splendid” (l.135′). Examples of the introduction of an additional element into a sacred name elsewhere in the text corpus are given in section 3.2.19.7. The scholar’s speculative interpretation of certain other names in the Gula hymn prompts the suspicion that their form has been crafted specifically for interpretation. The divine name dninnu(50)-át-tim (l.129′) is perhaps a writing of Ninua’ītu (IštarNinlil of Nineveh), incorporating Enlil’s divine number, 50 (in Sumerian, ninnu), which writes his name. In the preceding line (l.128′), the goddess is characterised as binût Enlil, “creation of Enlil”; the name Ninnuattim, expressly referencing Enlil, both underpins this characterisation and demonstrates that the goddess is indeed created from Enlil. Elsewhere, the scholar portrays the goddess in šá-an-da-lip-úrki (variant šá-an-di-lip-úr) (l.114′) and ša-dun-niki (variant urušá-dun-niki) (l.116′). Neither town is known from other sources, and the names perhaps present contrived orthographies. Each is elaborately interpreted by the scholar; the evident opportunity afforded for scholarly speculation calls into question whether these toponyms were indeed as given in either manuscript. All these unusual writings facilitate speculative interpretation of these names in the Gula hymn. Some, perhaps all of them, may be this inventive scholar’s own work.

398

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

6.3.4 Graphic interpretation Graphic interpretation (in which the graphic form of a cuneiform sign is exploited for interpretation) is an unusual form of speculative interpretation observed only rarely in the text corpus as a whole. The Gula hymn, however, is especially rich in graphic methods of interpretation, both for the frequency with which the scholar uses graphic interpretation and for the ways in which this is done. Other works in the text corpus evidenced three forms of graphic interpretation: use of similar signs (section 3.2.25.1); interpretation of sign forms themselves by breaking them into parts (section 3.2.25.2); and pictorial representation (section 3.2.25.3). All three are used in the Gula hymn and these methods are further developed. The sequence of signs used to write sacred names is interpreted in the text, and thus the name’s orthographic order is itself is realised in the composition. Most remarkably, the scholar of the Gula hymn contrived to express the form of sacred names in the text of the composition, using etymological means. These are examined in turn. 6.3.4.1 Similar signs Signs which are graphically similar or identical may be understood as being the same sign and interpreted accordingly (section 3.2.25.1). In other compositions in the text corpus, the sign KU is understood as another sign which has a similar graphic form. KU is also used in this way in the Gula hymn, where KU is understood as TÚG, signs unrelated, in modern scholarship, save by their similar graphic form. In the Gula hymn, ku is understood as túg, read umuš, to derive the observation milikša lamdat, “she is learned in her counsel”, from the name du6-kù (l.69′). In one explanation of the scholar’s methods, here kù is taken as its homophone ku, and understood as túg, read umuš, which supplies milku, “counsel”. The same graphic interpretation occurs in Commentary II’s analysis of Enūma eliš VII 10, where KU is taken as TÚG and understood as its reading tu9, to express tu, and hence interpret Marduk’s name Tutu (dtu-tu). Elsewhere in the Gula hymn, ḫe(ḪI) and ŠÁR appear to be taken as one and the same sign. The scholar describes the goddess in é-nam-ḫé (“the House of Plenty”) as bēlet nuḫši mudeššât ḫiṣba, “the lady of plenty, the one who provides abundant produce”. To derive this from é-nam-ḫé, ḫé is perhaps understood as ḫe and taken as šár, to supply duššû, “to provide copiously”; šár and nuḫšu, “plenty”, are also equated lexically. Here too, the treatment of ḪI and ŠÁR as the same sign also occurs elsewhere in the text corpus, in the speculative interpretation of Marduk’s name Asalluḫi (dasal-lú-ḫi) in Marduk’s Address to the Demons (Udug-ḫul Tablet 11 15; ed. Geller, 2015; see section 3.2.25.1). A note of caution is necessary, however, for although ḪI and ŠÁR are treated as separate signs in modern scholarship, in the first millennium at least, lexical sources suggest that these may have been understood as the same sign, DÙG (see Gong, 2000, p.112).

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

399

6.3.4.2 Interpretation of sign forms In the Gula hymn, as occasionally elsewhere in the text corpus, sign forms are broken down for interpretation. As will be seen, the Gula hymn contains a number of examples of this otherwise rare speculative practice. The wealth of unequivocal examples evidence that the breaking of sign forms is an interpretive tool much used by this scholar, and gives confidence that less clear-cut instances which are given below with some slight reservation are indeed securely identified. Combinations of signs which write sacred names are taken apart and interpreted. From úri(ŠEŠ-UNUG)ki, the signs which write the city name Ur, šeš (the Sumerian word which equates to aḫu, “brother”) is taken to provide the description of the goddess Ningal there as aḫat ilānī rabûti, “sister of the great gods” (l.75′). In l.78′, as explained in section 6.1, each sign is taken for interpretation from zimbir(UDKIB-NUN)ki, the writing for the toponym Sippar, to generate a description of Sippar which is particularly appropriate to this ancient city. The same speculative method is applied by the scholar to encode in l.102′ the identity of Ninlil as the goddess Sud, a Sumerian goddess who, in one tradition, was syncretised with Ninlil. As seen by M. Krebernik (see Jiménez, 2019), the signs which are used to write the divine name Sud, dsùd(SU-KUR-RA), are interpreted in the description of the goddess as mūdûtu šadâ u māta, “who knows the mountain and the land”, by equating su with zu, mūdû, “knowing, wise”, and using the common equations of kur as šadû, “mountain(s)”, and mātu, “land”. Akin to the interpretation of parts of composite signs which have established readings (like úri(ŠEŠ-UNUG) and zimbir(UD-KIB-NUN)), the scholar of the Gula hymn also takes apart for interpretation other sequences of signs which together write certain toponyms. So, the signs which together write Damru (du10-garki l.112′), Larak (ud-ud-agki l.122′) and another town which is perhaps Adab (UD-NUNki l.11′′) are taken individually by the scholar and interpreted. These towns are all expressly named in these lines. The scholar also applies the same method to encode the name Kutha (gú-du8-aki) in l.109′, and perhaps also in l.108′. Elsewhere in the Gula hymn, sign forms are broken apart more radically. The sign engur, which writes the divine name dnamma, is broken down into lagab and ḫal for interpretation by the phrase napḫar pirišti ilānī, “all the secret lore of the gods” (l.26), as Lambert (1989, p.219) identified: lagab (read nígin or kil) supplies napḫaru, “all”; ḫal is pirištu, “secret lore”. In the same line, engur appears to be broken down again, into lá and an(dingir) to derive the phrase mušēniqat An[šar], “the one who suckled An[šar]”, (see section 6.1). Sign forms are also broken apart for interpretation, it seems, in ll.91′–92′. It is suggested that in l.92′, in unusual or unexpected expressions, lē’u, “writing board”, and rēšu, “head”, interpret Borsippa (bár-sipaki) (l.91′): bár is broken down to leave the sign lagab to supply lē’u; and sipa is recalled through the common writing for rēšu, sag, which may be understood to

400

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

be made up of SI-PA (see section 6.1). Again in l.98′, the sign form kiš is deconstructed, so it seems clear, to serve tradition and for the narrative and imagery. The setting is Kiš (kiški), whose goddess is Ištar of Kiš, in one tradition, the daughter of the moon-god, Sîn: [i]na kiški namrat itti Sîn, “In Kiš, she shines bright by leave of Sîn” (l.98′). Here, it is suggested, the three wedges which appear in many versions of the complex and varied sign form kiš are taken from the sign form and read as 30, Sîn’s divine number, the number which writes his name (as it does in this line in both surviving manuscripts), thus prompting and validating the mention of Sîn here. Similarly, but rather differently, sign forms which would write a Sumerian equivalence of the Akkadian word used are notionally broken down. In these cases, the scholar interprets an element of the sacred name through a Sumerian word, using only part of the sign form which writes that Sumerian word. So, to derive the description of the goddess in é-úru-sag-gá as mukinnat išitti nišī, “the one who established the store-house of the people” (l.130′), the scholar understands úru as uru, one of the combination of signs which together write èrim(URUxNÍG), lexically equated with išittu, “store-house”, and hence uses èrim to supply the Akkadian equation for the description. Likewise, du6-kù is šubat tapšuḫti, “abode of repose” (l.5′′); for this, du6 is interpreted through part of the sign combination DU6-DU, which writes e11: e11 equates to pašāḫu, “to rest”, and is used to supply the Akkadian word tapšuḫtu, “repose”. pašāḫu is generated by other lexical correspondences in the description of the goddess in é-gašan-tin-na: ušapšaḫ, “she relieves” (l.121′). Straightforwardly, pašāḫu interprets tin; however pašāḫu perhaps also interprets gašan through the sign mùš which, in combination with other signs, writes še4(MÙŠxA-DI) and še12(MÙŠxA), both lexically equated with pašāḫu. mùš is nín, readily understood as nin, “lady”, and hence its synonym gašan, “lady”. Thus gašan may be interpreted as pašāḫu through one part of the complex sign forms which can equate to pašāḫu. Differently, in the same line, part of the phonetics of two signs which together have another reading is used by the scholar. únu(TE-UNUG) perhaps interprets tin from é-gašan-tin-na: únu(TE-UNUG) is pû, “mouth, speech”, realised in the phrase asî pīša, “her speech is physician” (l. 121′). All the graphic interpretations noted above involve taking signs apart. Conversely, in one instance in the Gula hymn, signs are combined to supply another sign form for interpretation. To describe the goddess dsig4-za-gìn-na as mušaklilat tālitt[i], “the one who grants perfect offspring” (l.40), the scholar evidently takes the elements za-gìn together and understands them as za-gín which together reads nír; nír is understood as its homophone nir, equating to tālittum, “offspring”. Thus, graphic interpretation and homophony are combined in this scholarly speculation.

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

401

6.3.4.3 Pictorial representation Very occasionally the visual representation given by a cuneiform sign itself generates speculative interpretation and the pictorial image presented by the sign is interpreted. The clearest evidence for this approach is given by commentaries on the medical omen series Sakikku where the sign gigir is interpreted as depicting Ištar as the star Dilbat within the constellation Auriga, explained in section 3.2.25.3. Akin to this interpretation of gigir, one sign is taken as embedded within another in the Gula hymn, (if indeed correctly understood), to supply an exceptional instance of speculative interpretation based on the pictorial image given by the sign form. This occurs in the description of the goddess as Ištar of Kiš in l.98′, already mentioned above (section 6.3.4.2). The goddess is here depicted as [i]na kiški namrat itti Sîn, “In Kiš, she shines bright by leave of Sîn” (l.98′). Here, it seems certain, the sign form kiš is exploited and given effect. As already described above, the three wedges which appear in many versions of the sign form kiš are read as 30, Sîn’s divine number, and understood as Sîn (d30) himself. Understood thus, this interpretation of the sign form serves to affirm a tradition in which Ištar is the daughter of the moon-god Sîn, generates Sîn’s name in l.98′ and prompts the imagery in the line. Further, in the pictorial representation given by the sign kiš, so it can be seen, Sîn, represented by his divine number 30, is truly inside kiš itself. Sîn is thus demonstrably associated with Kiš and its goddess; and accordingly the city-goddess Ištar is truly in Kiš (ina kiški) together with her father: itti Sîn(d30), “with Sîn”, as this phrase may be alternatively translated. This most productive speculative outcome serves to confirm that here indeed is a quite remarkable interpretation of a sign form itself by the scholar of the Gula hymn. 6.3.4.4 Realisation of orthographic order In speculative interpretation, the order of elements of sacred names is treated with considerable freedom (section 3.2.4). Exceptionally, however, the scholarly interpretation may follow the graphic order of the name. An illustration of this observed in explanatory work in the text corpus is given in section 3.2.4. The scholar of the Gula hymn develops this strategy in a form of graphic interpretation in which the sequence of signs used to write a sacred name is repeatedly realised in the speculative interpretation of the name itself. The name of the temple in Ḫursagkalamma, the eastern city area of Kiš, ḫur-sag-kalam-ma, is explored in an extended speculative interpretation which spans ll.101′–103′. Here the scholar repeatedly interprets ḫur-sag-kalam-ma in an exposition which respects the order of the elements of the sacred name in the Akkadian text each time it is interpreted. First, in l.101′ ḫur-sag-kalam-ma in interpreted twice in the Akkadian phrase uṣurāti nišī šadî u mātit[ān?], “destinies of the people of the mountains and [all] countries”; this phrase is made up of the sequence of correspondences giš-ḫur – kalam (uṣurtu,

402

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

“design” – nišū, “people”) and ḫur-sag – kalam (šadû, “mountain” – mātu, “land”). The sequence šadû – mātu (ḫur-sag – kalam) is repeated in l.102′. It is particularly clear that the scholar had the form of the Sumerian name closely in mind from l.103′, where ḫur-sag-kalam-ma is again interpreted twice: first, in the preposed genitive phrase šad māti, “of the mountain (ḫur-sag) of the land (kalam)”, a construction surely specifically deployed by the scholar to match the form of the name; and secondly, in the comment uṣurtaša rēštât, “her design is age-old”, in which uṣurtu, “design”, and rēštû, “first”, commonly written by giš-ḫur and sag respectively, interpret and reflect ḫur-sag. Thus the orthography of the sacred name, and hence the graphic arrangement of its elements, is realised in the text and influences the form of the scholar’s lines. Nothing so extended has been observed elsewhere in the text corpus. 6.3.4.5 Interpretation of form A further development of graphic interpretation in the Gula hymn which is even more remarkable than the realisation of the orthographic order of sacred names discussed above is the interpretation of their graphic form. The scholar expresses the elements of names by etymological means, and simultaneously contrives to interpret the form of the names in the text which results from etymological interpretation. So, in describing the goddess of the town of Dadmuš, the scholar derives the divine description from the toponym by conventional etymological means and, at the same time, interprets and expresses the written form of the toponym in the composition. Here, the goddess is ina da-ád-muški šar[rat] šamāmē, “In Dadmuš, she is queen of the heavens” (l.136′). The Akkadian toponym is interpreted as if it contained a Sumerian element: šarratu, “queen”, is derived from da-ád-muški by understanding muš as mùš, (see section 6.1). mùš also readily suggests dmùš, the goddess Inanna (Ištar), whose name itself means “queen of heaven”. Further, so the scholar says, in Dadmuš, she is queen; and indeed in the toponym da-ád-muški itself, the divine queen (mùš) is present. The meaning given by the text itself, generated by the scholar’s etmological speculation, thus expresses the written form of the toponym. More elaborate interpretations occur elsewhere in the Gula hymn. The individual elements of the toponym šá-an-da-lip-úrki, (variant, šá-an-di-lip-úr), are interpreted to generate the Akkadian narrative, ina qereb šamāmī kališ puqqūši, “in heaven, they pay her full attention” (l.114′). Here too, the scholar interprets the form of the name given. The graphic arrangement presented by the elements šà (inside) – an (heaven) – da (in) – lìp (šà) (inside) is expressed in ina qereb šamāmī, “in heaven”, demonstrating that šá-an-da-lip-úrki is “in heaven”. The scholar’s interpretive narrative speaks of the goddess in heaven, where she is respected. Understanding the elements of the toponym differently and taking an as dingir, “goddess”, places the goddess inside heaven: šà (inside) – an/dingir (goddess) – da (in) – lìp (šà) (inside).

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

403

Hence the writing of the name conveys that, in šá-an-da-lip-úrki, the goddess is truly in heaven. The scholar captures this idea in the words derived by speculative interpretation, thus expressing the form of the toponym in the resultant narrative. The last example of this feature of the Gula hymn is especially remarkable. All the elements of the temple name é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na are interpreted using etymological means to supply the narrative composition in l.123′: ina é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na ašar tanīḫti nišī māti iballuṭā qerebša, “In é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na (“the House, Bedchamber which soothes the Heart”), the place of calm, the people of the land recover inside it”. In the narrative comment nišī māti iballuṭā qerebša, “the people of the land recover inside it” drawn from etymological correspondences, the scholar interprets not only the elements of the temple name é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na, but also their position in the name: ki (place) – ná (people) – šà (inside) – tén (recover) – na (people). Thus framed within the temple name, people indeed recover inside é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na. This touching and pleasing interpretation evidences the scholar’s remarkable perception of the interpretive potential in the sacred name and great skill in realising the temple name in the text. The three scholarly interpretations described above, all different, in their different ways each demonstrate that the scholar of the Gula hymn had an extraordinarily keen eye for graphic interpretation, most skilfully combined with other methods of scholarly speculation. Nothing similar has been observed in other works in the text corpus, although it may perhaps occur. The development of this and other forms of graphic interpretation described above distinguishes the Gula hymn as an outstanding work in the field of Babylonian speculative scholarship. 6.3.5 Other features and speculative methods Other noteworthy features and less common methods of speculative interpretation can be observed in the Gula hymn besides the unusual features highlighted above. Emesal Sumerian forms are used in speculation in three consecutive lines of the composition (l.118′, l.119′ and l.120′). The scholar’s understanding of Sumerian phonology is evidenced where the Sumerian nasal consonant g (g͂) seems to be in play in the scholarly interpretation of the name Ninkarrak (l.32). Reduplicated elements in the temple name é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár, (“the House which provides a Profusion of Milk and Ghee”), are freely interpreted in the Akkadian text (l.117′). Other less common features and speculative methods can also be seen at work in the composition. These are briefly noted in tabular form below, together with reference to the corresponding section in chapter 3 which describes and illustrates their use elsewhere in the text corpus. These examples are selectively drawn from the composition and only the most certain examples are cited. Nevertheless, this summary attests to the extraordinary richness of speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn.

404

6. Babylonian speculative scholarship in the Gula hymn

Feature/Method

Section

Gula hymn

Akkadian names/writing interpreted Determinative given equivalence Element interpreted as determinative Plural freely inferred

3.1.3.3

23, 114′, 116′, 136′, 9′′, 10′′

3.2.6

27, 75′, 78′, 122′

3.2.7

117′, 2′′

3.2.9

24, 68′, 75′, 123′

Emesal

3.2.10

118′, 119′, 120′

Vowels

3.2.16

20, 31, 35, 108′, 120′

Consonantal groups Syllabification (implicitly contrived) Nasal consonant g (g͂)

3.2.17 3.2.19.1

32, 35, 108′, 112′,119′, 3′′ 32, 33, 67′, 68′, 125′, 2′′

3.2.19.5

32

Reduplicated elements

3.2.22

117′

Abbreviation

3.2.23

101′, 103′, 122′

Phonological reversal

3.2.24

89′

Older forms

3.2.26

33

7. Implications and conclusions

This book has investigated the techniques and methods of Babylonian speculative scholarship used to explore the meaning of the names of gods and goddesses and the cities, towns and temples sacred to them. It has sought to give a detailed classification of speculative methods used to explain and interpret these sacred names, from analysis of a substantial corpus of texts, comprising topographical and temple lists, explanatory works and literary and religious compositions, including the Gula hymn presented here. These speculative methods have been described and illustrated in chapter 3. The explanatory techniques and methods examined are not confined to the scholarly explanation of sacred names. They are paralleled in the commentary tradition, a genre which is first attested in the first millennium. These two fields of explanatory scholarship have much in common in their interpretive techniques and methods and in approach, as highlighted in section 2.2. Commentaries sought to explain the meaning of their subject texts. With equally serious intent, works which explain sacred names using speculative scholarship, whether explanatory lists or compositions in praise of a deity, like the Gula hymn, teased out from names and elucidated the essential nature, qualities and attributes of the bearer of the name. Both these fields of explanatory scholarship are important facets of the quest to understand and explain the meaning of things that is a characteristic feature of Babylonian scholarship. This concluding chapter draws together some observations on Babylonian speculative scholarship and the features of speculative interpretation. It examines some questions that arise and conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis presented. The importance of the Gula hymn and the contribution it makes to Babylonian literature and scholarship are summarised in section 7.2. Section 7.3 addresses the question of similarity between Babylonian speculative scholarship and rabbinic exegesis noted by Lambert and subsequent scholars and examines other parallels between Babylonian scholarship and Jewish scholarship of particular relevance to Babylonian speculative scholarship. In section 7.4 similarity in the interpretation of names in biblical writings and in Babylonian scholarship is discussed, noting in particular a feature in biblical writings identified by Garsiel (1991) which is strikingly similar to the encoding of names observed in the Gula hymn. 7.1 Babylonian speculative scholarship Chapters 3 and 6 show that Babylonian scholars deployed a vast array of sophisticated interpretive techniques and methods to explain the patent meaning of

406

7. Implications and conclusions

sacred names, and to explore and reveal their latent, or hidden, meaning. Translation of Sumerian sacred names explained their patent meaning, as Babylonian scholars understood it. Freer rendering of this obvious meaning exposed further insight into the name, and hence into the character of its bearer. Speculative interpretation through etymological extrapolation from a name and its writing immeasurably facilitated the quest for meaning. It opened up a whole range of meanings which could be understood in a sacred name, equally applicable to Sumerian and to Akkadian sacred names, to reveal their latent and hidden meaning. The systematic analysis of the speculative methods used by ancient scholars in the text corpus (presented in section 3.2 and for the Gula hymn in chapter 6) shows the rich variety of speculative tools at their command. The characteristic features of the cuneiform script – the large number of homophonous signs (homophony) and the different readings which a given cuneiform sign may have (polyvalence) – are key tools in scholarly speculation. Used separately and in combination, flexibly generating new readings and corresponding Akkadian words to reveal new meaning, these two properties are cornerstones of speculative interpretation. Exploiting homophony and polyvalence are among the most productive exegetical tools of Babylonian speculative scholarship. Many of the speculative methods observed in the text corpus are commonly used, as is apparent from the analysis presented here. However, some of the speculative methods observed are rare in the text corpus. In some cases, this is clearly due to the very specific application of the particular method. The interpretation of a part of a sacred name as a determinative (section 3.2.7), the realisation of the Sumerian nasal consonant g (g͂) (section 3.2.19.5) and phonological reversal (section 3.2.24) are selfevidently of very specific application, and are rarely observed. Implying mimation (a word-final m) for speculative purposes is observed only once, in Commentary II on Enūma eliš VII 128 (section 3.2.19.6). It is unclear whether this speculative method is a scholarly practice (notwithstanding its rarity in the text corpus) or whether it reflects the ingenuity of this particular commentarist, evidenced so widely in Commentary II. Sometimes a speculative method is rare because it entails scholarship of a highly advanced level of ability and skill which not all scholars might command. Graphic interpretation (discussed and illustrated in section 3.2.25 and for the Gula hymn in section 6.3.4) is a speculative method of this kind. This is also an interpretive approach which could be applied only in particular circumstances. A given sign form, for example, may not lend itself to graphic interpretation. However graphic interpretation is a speculative method which is particularly inventive and is a mark of exceptionally gifted and ingenious scholarship. The Gula hymn is especially rich in this type of speculative scholarship.

7. Implications and conclusions

407

The ancient scholars deployed their speculative methods with great erudition, and often with great ingenuity. Speculative methods were used together. The complexity and density of the application of different interpretive methods is amply demonstrated in the text corpus. The use of homophony and polyvalence in combination, as described in section 3.2.13, illustrates this. Moving seamlessly via homophones and alternative readings, scholars made new connections and established new meanings. Through speculative interpretation, the many different meanings a sacred name could convey were explored and revealed. Layers of meaning in a sacred name could be uncovered by repeated interpretation of its parts, as discussed in section 3.1.3.7. It has been observed in the course of analysis that sometimes more than one explanation of an Akkadian interpretation might be possible to account for some speculative interpretation of a sacred name. Sometimes, of course, it may be that the different possible explanations perceived now were not in the ancient scholar’s mind, but are just coincidence. However, multiple explanations for some interpretations occur so often that this is plainly not just chance. This is illustrated and discussed in section 3.2.27. The consummate skill and learning of those scholars who engaged in this form of Babylonian scholarship is evident throughout the text corpus. Such scholars were plainly completely conversant with the possibilities inherent in the cuneiform writing system and thoroughly immersed in the lexical and bilingual tradition. The inescapable conclusion is that multiple possibilities could be, and were, intended. Thus, it may also be concluded, meaning latent in sacred names was confirmed and its truth reinforced. Two important questions arise from the analysis which has been presented. Was the practice of speculation interpretation a purely written phenomenon? And was speculative interpretation subject to any limits? These questions are explored in the following sections. 7.1.1 A written phenomenon? The extraordinary potential of the cuneiform script, the flexibility of the writing system and the bilingual tradition with its rich lexical resources gave Babylonian scholars huge scope for interpretation. Two essential characteristics of the cuneiform script offered rich opportunity for scholarly speculation: the large number of homophonous signs which express the same phonetic value; and the many different readings a given cuneiform sign might have, both syllabic (and often phonetically unrelated) and logographic. The importance of the cuneiform script itself in the eyes of ancient scholars has been widely discussed in modern scholarship and it is not necessary to discuss in detail here. Modern scholars such as Bottéro (1977, 1992), Maul (1999) and Selz (2013), amongst many others, have pointed to the importance of cuneiform writing in scholarly thought. Frahm (2011, pp.321–322) has observed

408

7. Implications and conclusions

that, after the Old Babylonian period, “there seems to have been a general development towards a greater esteem for scholarly knowledge based on writing”, noting that “The importance that the scholars of the second half of the second millennium attributed to writing is also evident in the increasingly complex syllabary they used, newly established logographic spellings, and the proclivity for cryptography that is a hallmark of this age.” The implications of this esteem for writing itself should be considered in relation to Babylonian speculative scholarship. Is the practice of speculative interpretation of sacred names to be understood as a purely written phenomenon – a function of the cuneiform writing system? Amongst modern scholars, Bottéro has attached particular importance to the script. In Bottéro’s view, for the ancients, the written name itself was the key, itself comprising a concrete and realistic conception of its bearer and the bearer’s attributes (Bottéro, 1977, p.27 §33; 1992, pp.97–98). Commenting on Commentary II’s analysis of the description of Marduk as Asari (Asarre, dasar-re) in Enūma eliš VII I–2, Bottéro (1977, p.16 §7) argued that the written, rather than the spoken, word was uppermost in mind, commenting that “les auteurs de notre document ont donc procédé à partir des ces mots, non point prononcés, mais écrits …”. Also commenting on the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI–VII, Veldhuis likewise saw its hermeneutics as a written phenomenon: “knowledge of the complexities of the writing system and its possibilities are presumed. This, in other words, is a text that speaks from expert to expert. Moreover, it is a text that only makes sense in writing. The fifty names of Marduk may only be understood by someone who understands the intricacies of the cuneiform writing system, it is lost in recitation” (Veldhuis, 2003, p.21). Veldhuis is surely correct that an understanding of the cuneiform writing system is critical to understanding the fifty names of Marduk, as they are interpreted in Enūma eliš VI–VII. Much can be explained only in terms of the writing system, with its many homophonous signs and alternative readings. The realisation of a homophone in a sacred name by another cuneiform sign which generated different Akkadian correspondences is a function of the writing system; and the facility to find new meaning through different readings of cuneiform signs, exploiting their polyvalence, arises from reading and writing, not the spoken language. However, Babylonian speculative scholarship developed in a scholarly milieu in which oral tradition and learning underpinned and operated in tandem with written scholarship. Although the influence of the spoken word is now difficult to evaluate, it must be the case that the spoken language played a part in speculative interpretation. Homophony is, of course, fundamentally an aural matter. Hence, it may readily be supposed that the sound in the spoken language of an element in the conventional spelling of a sacred name prompted its interpretation as another homophonous reading. Section 3.2.13 illustrate how the properties of homophony

7. Implications and conclusions

409

and polyvalence might be combined to interpret names. Homophones and alternative readings might be interchanged in a flexible and seamless intellectual process, informed by spoken sound and alternative phonetic values and readings learned by heart, doubtless reinforced through oral instruction and recitation. A further characteristic of the cuneiform writing system is that (in theory at least, if not in practice) its syllabary afforded considerable flexibility as to how a name or other word might be spelled. This characteristic also provided rich potential: different syllabification afforded different corresponding meanings from the newlyderived syllables. The analysis provided by the scholars who composed the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, and Commentary II on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII demonstrates how names could be broken into syllables not reflected in their usual orthography for speculative interpretation. Here, too, the influence of the spoken language cannot be overlooked. A sacred name is, after all, a series of sounds which were capable of speculative interpretation. A sound might be taken from the phonetic continuum of the name. This parallels practice in the cuneiform writing system, as Bottéro (1977, p.16 §7) pointed out. Pronunciation, elisions, syllable boundaries and other features in speech may have all informed the speculative approach to interpretation of sacred names. Two other features clearly display the influence of the spoken language on speculative interpretation: the use of homophonous Akkadian words to interpret sacred names; and the use of near-homophonous readings. First, the use of homophonous Akkadian words. The text corpus contains a number of instances where the Akkadian word used to interpret a Sumerian sacred name is evidently prompted by its similar sound to the Sumerian name (or part of it), rather than through some etymological correspondence. Straightforwardly, this homophonous Akkadian word was sometimes a Sumerian loanword, as in the description of Lugaldurmaḫ (dlugal-dur-maḫ) as bēl durmāḫi, “Lord of the Mighty Bond”, (Enūma eliš VII 95). Elsewhere it is obvious that simple phonetic similarity perceived between Sumerian and Akkadian words prompted the Akkadian word. The obvious homophony between the verbal form ukinnu, “he established”, and Marduk’s name Tutu-Ziukkinna (dzi-ukkin-na) results in the description of the god as ša ukinnu ana ilānī šamê ellū[ti], “Who established the sacred heavens for the gods”, (Enūma eliš VII 16), as noted by Böhl (1936–1937, p.202). Rather differently, but again clearly influenced by the spoken language, ancient scholars also interchanged homophonous Akkadian words in their speculative interpretation. The Akkadian word which corresponded to an element in a Sumerian sacred name might evidently suggest a similar-sounding Akkadian word to interpret the Sumerian element. Similar Akkadian words could be used interchangeably, it seems, without regard to their meaning. The interchange of banû, “to grow”, and banû, “to create”, seems to have

410

7. Implications and conclusions

been a particular favourite of the ancient scholars. These interpretive methods are described and illustrated in section 3.2.14 Akkadian homophony. The second feature which displays the influence of the spoken language on speculative interpretation is the use of near-homophonous readings. It is clear from the text corpus that in their speculative interpretation, ancient scholars used readings which were nearly homophonous with others, or at least sufficiently similar in sound, to represent them. An element of a name could be understood as some nearhomophonous reading and interpreted through it. Whilst, without access to the spoken word, identifying where this might be so has to be approached with some caution, compositions which contain unorthodox or contrived writing unambiguously evidence that scholars drew on the sound of the sacred names, rendering them in slightly different phonetics for speculative interpretation. The artificial writings of the temple name E-sagil in the E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, through which the scholar interprets the temple name, are clearly all nearly homophonous with é-sag-íl. Spellings of the name as [é-sa7]-kìl, [é-sá]-gil, [é-s]aan-gi-íl and even [é-s]a12-an-aga-íl all clearly approximate to the sound of the temple name (E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, lines 7, 23, 15 and 13, all restored by George). Likewise, the scholar who compiled the expository list of Marduk’s names used the sound of the divine name Tutu (dtu-tu) to interpret the name as the obviously similar-sounding readings ddu-du, ddu11-du11 and ddù-ṭu (Marduk Names List 22, 24– 25). Similar readings underpin the exposition of Tutu in Enūma eliš VII 9ff. Similarly, the free interpretation of vowels and of consonants within consonantal groups widely observed as speculative methods in the text corpus often exploits nearhomophonous readings. Undoubtedly this practice was influenced by spoken sound. Further examples of near-homophony are illustrated and discussed in section 3.2.15; for the interpretation of vowels and consonants, see sections 3.2.16–3.2.17 and sections 3.2.19.3–3.2.19.4. These observations lead back to the question: is the practice of speculative interpretation of sacred names to be understood as a written phenomenon? The text corpus shows that speculative interpretation was a scholarly activity that had become a sophisticated and erudite field of scribal learning. Speculative interpretation of sacred names was fuelled by the potential and complexity of the cuneiform writing system. Its characteristic features – homophonous signs, alternative readings and flexibility in syllabification – made it especially rich for speculative scholarship. As already observed, much is explicable only in terms of the writing system. Hence, Babylonian speculative scholarship may be understood as essentially a written phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is obvious that spoken forms inspired and informed the practice. In this intellectual milieu, writing and the spoken language operated together, as is to be expected; and it may be that spoken forms and speech patterns

7. Implications and conclusions

411

may have had a greater influence on the practice of speculative interpretation than it is possible to determine from an examination of the textual record. 7.1.2 Were there any limits? In discussing this field of Babylonian scholarship, a number of scholars have pointed to its boundless possibilities. Beaulieu (1995, p.190) described the speculative technique as one which “allowed Mesopotamian scholars to investigate, by means of the nearly infinite possibilities of the cuneiform script, a different order of meaning, one not readily accessible to the intellect, without being bound by the limitations inherent in language.” Jiménez (2018, p.89) noted that “The inherent polyvalence of cuneiform script, together with the bilingual character of Mesopotamian scholarship, means that each word can be interpreted in a virtually unlimited number of ways.” The vast interpretive potential offered by the cuneiform script was further enhanced by other scholarly strategies which opened up other avenues in the quest for meaning. The use of near-homophonous readings in the text corpus to interpret sacred names is one area which very clearly exhibits the flexibility in scholars’ approaches. Far from being restricted to readings generated from sacred names, scholars took evidently sufficiently similar-sounding readings for interpretation. Operating within the broad bounds of what was nearly-homophonous, scholars afforded themselves considerable flexibility. Syllables could evidently be understood as sufficiently close, notwithstanding their final phoneme. Final phonemes could be disregarded for this purpose; or they might be inferred (see section 3.2.15). The influence of the spoken language is certainly at work, facilitating scholarly speculation which exploited the flexibility of the writing system. The use of contrived writings is another area which exemplifies the flexibility and agility of speculative scholarship. The E-sagil Commentary, BTT 5, is an extraordinary composition in which its composer explained the temple name multiple times, interpreted through contrived writings of the sacred name which are explicitly set out in the text. Great creativity and erudition are exhibited here. Other contrived writings in the text corpus, both explicit and implicit, (illustrated in section 3.2.19) evidence the considerable freedom of this form of Babylonian scholarship. Nevertheless the question arises, were there any boundaries in speculative interpretation which constrained the ancient scholars? Put another way, what limits, if any, applied to the practice of speculative interpretation? This question is very hard to answer. Finkel (2014b, p.309) commented that “Babylonian hermeneutics were never subjected to a body of rules (at least as far as we know)”, drawing a contrast with rabbinic exegetical processes, in which rules or “measures” (middot) were formulated. There are no treatises in which Babylonian scholars described their thinking or their methods in this field of scholarship. Discursive explanatory writings

412

7. Implications and conclusions

are simply not found in extant texts. Whilst this might be due to accidents of preservation, the substantial body of commentary texts and other explanatory works shows only a practice of tersely and economically expressed comment and explanation. Discursive explanatory essays were, it seems, simply not the Babylonian way. Written and oral scholarship undoubtedly intersect in this textual record, where the written scholarship is an adjunct to what was transmitted orally in scholarly circles. The written record perhaps acted as an aide-memoire or record in note form, in a scholarly milieu in which much was already well-known, conveyed orally and committed to memory. If indeed there were rules or precepts, and boundaries or limits on what could be done by the ancient scholars in the speculative interpretation of sacred names, on present evidence this can only be deduced from observation. From the analysis of the text corpus in this book, there are three of the speculative methods observed which may indeed provide evidence of some limitations: the use of Emesal; vocalic change; and consonantal change. The use of Emesal Sumerian as a speculative tool through which a sacred name was interpreted into Akkadian appears to be limited. As noted in section 3.2.10, it is only occasionally used in the text corpus, although sometimes, where its use may be suspected, this cannot always be clearly determined. In addition to the instances of the speculative use of Emesal identified in section 3.2.10, Emesal is used for interpretive purposes in just three consecutive lines of the Gula hymn: ll.118′, 119′, and 120′ (see section 6.1). Although there is clear evidence that Emesal was used in speculative interpretation, it is not commonly deployed as an interpretive tool, judging by the substantial body of compositions examined. It is noteworthy that Emesal does not appear to be widely used as an explanatory tool in the commentary tradition (for its use there, see Frahm, 2011, notably pp.247, 249, 258). It is perhaps no coincidence that Emesal does not feature strongly in these two explanatory fields; there is perhaps a common thread to its comparative rarity in these scholarly fields, which have much else in common. The comparative rarity of Emesal begs the question why this should be so. Was there some perceived constraint on its use? Was Emesal perhaps not deemed appropriate or suitable for use in explanatory scholarship? The Emesal register of Sumerian was used in rather restricted compositional settings. Emesal was used in ritual laments and in the speech of women and goddesses in Sumerian literary compositions documented in manuscripts dating from the Old Babylonian period onwards (see Schretter, 1990). As suggested in section 3.2.10, this rather specific application may have been a factor in its comparatively limited use as a tool in explanatory texts. Perhaps Babylonian scholars thought of Emesal as largely confined to its usual applications and hence did not commonly deploy it in explanatory contexts. It cannot be ruled out that they

7. Implications and conclusions

413

did not regard Emesal as suitable for use for some other reason, but further evidence would be required before this conclusion would be warranted. The lexical tradition, with which speculative scholarship shares many features, is also of interest in this connection. The principal Emesal lexical text, the Emesal Vocabulary, is first attested in the Middle Assyrian period and the great majority of exemplars comes from Assyria. Although most commentators believe that this lexical text may well be Middle Babylonian in origin, it is rarely found in Babylonia (Veldhuis, 2014, p.320, noted only two Neo-Babylonian examples). The rarity of the Emesal Vocabulary in the Babylonian lexical tradition and the relatively infrequent use of Emesal in Babylonian explanatory works may indicate that perhaps (for entirely unclear reasons) Babylonian scholarship did not closely engage with Emesal outside its usual applications. For whatever reason, Emesal is only infrequently used as an interpretive tool in the text corpus, which suggests that there was some perceived limitation on its use for explanatory purposes. The speculative interpretation of vowels and consonants is another area in which limitations may be discerned. In scholarly speculation, a vowel or a consonant in a sacred name could be understood as a different vowel or consonant and interpreted accordingly. Phonetic adjustments of this sort opened up a range of meanings and are observable throughout the text corpus. Vowels and consonants could be interpreted flexibly, but just how flexibly? Vocalic change (where, for example, the element nè in a sacred name might be understood as ní) is discussed and illustrated in section 3.2.16 and for contrived writings in section 3.2.19.3. The ready interchange between i and e is to be expected from the writing system itself, where i and e vowels are represented by the same sign forms (so, ḫi/ḫe, ik/ek and many others). Glosses in lexical lists show the same flexibility. With one exception, exchanges between all the vowels were observed in the text corpus. An a/e exchange (in which a is understood as e for interpretation) did not appear to occur. The exchanges of e/a, i/a, e/u and u/e were only rarely observed. This may be by chance, or due to some other factor. Perhaps the spoken language may have had an influence; or there may be some other conditioning factor at work in speculative scholarship, but what this might be is not clear. It is possible, of course, that instances of vocalic exchange in speculation were simply missed in the analysis of the texts themselves. Nevertheless, it would appear to suggest limits on vocalic exchanges with e; that e interchanges with i, but seemingly less readily with other vowels. Consonantal change is more clearly and confidently subject to limitations. In scholarly speculation, a part of a name could be understood to contain a different consonant and interpreted accordingly. So, for example, for speculative purposes, tu could be understood as dù and gú as kù. This is discussed and illustrated in section 3.2.17 and for contrived writings in section 3.2.19.4. These phonetic changes

414

7. Implications and conclusions

occurred within certain consonantal groups. The changes within consonantal groups observed in this text corpus are between the Akkadian dentals d t ṭ, velars g k q and sibilants s ṣ z š (this last not strictly a consonantal group, in modern scholarship). The Akkadian emphatic consonants ṭ q and ṣ do not feature in Sumerian writing; changes involving ṭ q and ṣ do occur in the text corpus, but are rare. Ancient scholars also interchanged b and p in explanatory scholarship (see Frahm, 2011, p.71). An example of b/p exchange may perhaps occur in the Gula hymn (see section 6.1 Gula hymn 96′), but has otherwise not been observed in the text corpus. It is self-evident that what was permissible for speculative purposes was phonetic change within these particular consonantal groups. Interchange between consonants outside any of these groups has not been observed and it seems reasonable to assume that this was not permissible. There is, then, some evidence that there might be, or were, constraints on the use of Emesal and of vocalic and consonantal interchange for interpretive purposes. However, the overwhelming impression of Babylonian speculative interpretation is that it was a wide-ranging and very flexible field, in which scholars might make associations and form interpretations quite freely, as their intellect and skills took them. Two compositions from the text corpus amply illustrate this. The work of the scholar who compiled the commentary on Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII (Commentary II), which sought to account for each element of the text as derived from Marduk’s names, is itself a demonstration of the wide-ranging possibilities perceived by the ancient scholars in their search for meaning. It is, as Lambert (2013, p.167) put it, a “tour de force”. Likewise, the work of the scholar who composed the Gula hymn displays quite remarkable interpretive methods, marking it out as an exceptional work. The intellectual creativity of these scholars, just two amongst the many scholars who engaged in this kind of scholarship, demonstrates Babylonian speculative interpretation to be a wide-ranging and flexible field, in which the considerable skills, learning, imagination and ingenuity of those who engaged in it might have free rein, subject to little constraint. 7.2 The Gula hymn The Gula hymn was an important and popular work in antiquity, as the number of manuscripts and their diverse provenances show. Its manuscripts come from Kuyunjik and Aššur in Assyria, and Sippar and Babylon in Babylonia. Copied alike for the great libraries of Assyria and as a school text in Babylonia, the work was evidently important in scribal circles. A Late Babylonian manuscript attests to the enduring appeal of this composition. The Gula hymn has been presented in chapters 4–6 in a full critical edition. The text in chapter 5 is given in large part for the first time, and for the first time as a single composition. Thanks to Lambert’s insight, it is now certain that the goddess

7. Implications and conclusions

415

of the composition is the healing goddess, not Ištar; and that the work was a very substantial composition indeed, rather longer than the 200 lines characteristic of the great Standard Babylonian hymns. Thanks to E. Jiménez and his team on the Electronic Babylonian Literature (eBL) Project, a further manuscript of part of the composition has been identified only recently (BM 34399, Ms. b) which duplicates text found in other manuscripts. It is hoped that more manuscripts will come to light to add to, and perhaps even complete, the composition. For the moment, this still incomplete work is understood as a hymn to the healing goddess Gula and its importance is now firmly established. The hymn is now shown to be a significant addition to the literary compositions relating to Gula, and to the corpus of great Standard Babylonian hymns, on a par with the great hymn to Šamaš (Lambert, 1960), the Hymn to the Queen of Nippur, Šarrat-Nippuri, (Lambert, 1982) and the Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi (Lambert, 1967). The Gula hymn also adds significantly to the body of Standard Babylonian hymns and prayers which are commonly termed “syncretistic”: compositions in which the names or aspects of different deities are attributed to a single deity. The part of the Gula hymn which is comprised in KAR 109+343 has long been recognised as a syncretistic hymn, whether to the healing goddess (as its editor, Ebeling, thought, calling it a “Hymne auf Ba’û”) or to Ištar. Now substantially extending the text contained in KAR 109+343, the Gula hymn is an important member of this group of compositions. Whether the Gula hymn offers additional insight as to the position of Gula in Babylonian religious belief is less clear. The hymn syncretises Gula with many other goddesses in many places. In particular, by portraying its goddess as the goddess in Babylon, Kiš, Nippur and elsewhere in places sacred to Ištar, the Gula hymn identifies its goddess with Ištar. Gula did not generally take over Ištar’s position on Babylonia. Now with the evidence of this hymn, the syncretism of Gula is an area for further study. However, in portraying its goddess in the guise of all other goddesses, universal and all-powerful, the hymn is a form of composition evidently popular in scholarly circles at the time; it perhaps simply affects a literary conceit. The Gula hymn is a major addition to those scholarly works which explain sacred names used as the text corpus for this book and contributes significantly to our knowledge and understanding of Babylonian speculative scholarship. The most striking aspect of the Gula hymn is its scholarly interpretation of the sacred names which characterise extensive parts of the hymn. Speculatively interpreting these names, the scholar who composed the hymn explores and explains the character and attributes of the goddess, depicting her in many guises and in many settings. To date, there is no other hymnic work of comparable compositional form to the Gula hymn. It has its closest parallel in the great exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma

416

7. Implications and conclusions

eliš VI–VII, but displays scholarship that is, in some ways, more inventive and sophisticated. As a scholarly work, the Gula hymn is an exceptional work, of great erudition and originality. The hymn proves to be a remarkable composition, extraordinarily rich in the interpretive techniques and methods applied to sacred names by its scholarly composer. In addition to the expected range of techniques and methods exploiting the potential of the cuneiform writing system characteristic of Babylonian speculative scholarship, unusual interpretive methods are used and developed with exceptional creativity. These have been fully discussed in section 6.3, but one feature in particular may be highlighted here: the scholar’s use and development of graphic methods of interpretation. The Gula hymn is especially rich in graphic methods of interpretation. The scholarship is distinguished by a keen eye for the graphic possibilities in sacred names, which the scholar contrives to interpret and express in the Akkadian text. The remarkable interpretation of the form of certain names, while simultaneously expressing their elements etymologically (described in section 6.3.4.5), may perhaps be unique to this scholar. The development of this and other forms of graphic interpretation, together with its use of other unusual interpretive methods distinguish the Gula hymn as an outstanding work in the field of Babylonian speculative scholarship. Wholly unexpectedly, analysis of the Babylonian speculative scholarship used in the hymn reveals that the Gula hymn contains another quite remarkable feature, which has been termed “encoded names” in this book and discussed in section 6.2. In an exceptional departure from normal practice, the scholar interprets names which are not explicitly expressed in the hymn, in the scholarly speculation. As the analysis in section 6.1 demonstrates, lexical equations pertaining to Akkadian words used in the exposition of temples, shrines, cities and their deities (Gula hymn 75′–17′′) reveal that, in many lines, a name other than the sacred name explicit in the context lies behind the Akkadian text. Hidden names are thus encoded in the Gula hymn by the scholar by speculative methods. Revealed by their lexical equations, these names disclose the identity of the goddess, or of her domain, in the context: who the goddess is, and where, is latently expressed by the Akkadian text. This feature is so unexpected, and so unusual, that it might have been open to doubt whether it had been rightly identified: whether there was just coincidence in the lexical equations; or whether too much might have been read into the analysis. However, ancient evidence supports the unequivocal identification of lexical equations to encode the city name Kutha, Nergal’s principal cult-centre, in l.109′, a line which identifies the goddess of the composition with the goddess of é-mes-lam, Nergal’s temple in Kutha. Coupled with repeated revelation of other apparently encoded names, this puts identification of the feature beyond reasonable doubt. Just too many encoded names emerge to be mere chance, or overinterpretation. Nineteen names can be

7. Implications and conclusions

417

confidently identified as encoded in the text; a further seventeen are possible, though less securely identified, as noted in section 6.2. Encoding is extremely rare in the text corpus outside the Gula hymn. The most prominent parallel occurs in the pronouncement of the name Mari-utu on Marduk’s birth in Enūma eliš I 101–102, which evokes the name Marūduk (damar-utu) (or its earlier version Marūtuk), as noted by many scholars. This example, and just a very few other similar instances in the text corpus and elsewhere, have been discussed in section 6.2. Almost without exception, these are obvious allusions to their subject. Accordingly, they are somewhat different from the names encoded in the Gula hymn, as a substrate, as it were, which imparts further information about the context. This very different use of scholarly speculation, to express names which are not explicitly given and to encode them in the text of the composition, is a sophisticated and significant development of Babylonian speculative scholarship; it marks the Gula hymn as a work of exceptional scholarship. It is to be hoped that the identification of this encoding of names in the Gula hymn may lead to the observation of the practice elsewhere. Although, to date, this feature is little remarked on in Babylonian studies, a strikingly similar feature has been noted in biblical scholarship by Garsiel (1991). This, together with other similarities in the scholarly explanation and interpretation of names in the two traditions, is discussed below. First, section 7.3 examines other parallels between Babylonian scholarship and Jewish scholarship noted by modern scholars which are of particular relevance to the Babylonian speculative scholarship presented in this book. Secondly, section 7.4 extends this discussion to note the parallels that particularly apply to the subject of this book: sacred names. 7.3 Babylonian speculative scholarship and Jewish scholarship From the earliest days of modern Assyriological scholarship, the striking parallels between Mesopotamian works and Jewish writings have prompted much scholarly literature and debate. Similar elements have been identified, comparisons have been drawn and some scholars have opined on the questions of influence, borrowings, cultural contacts and the possible transmission of ideas. The parallels between Mesopotamian and Jewish writings and scholarship are many and wide-ranging. Without doubt, most famous are the narratives, of which the best-known is the flood story. The striking parallel between the story of Noah in Genesis 6–9 and three Mesopotamian flood stories, (the Sumerian story of Ziusudra, the Atram-ḫasīs narrative and from the Gilgameš epic, recently made accessible to a wider audience by Finkel, 2014a, pp.87–98), has long excited interest. Of other parallels, another less well-known, but similarly striking, story tells of the baby in the basket, consigned to a river and rescued to be a great leader of his people: this is the story of Moses in Exodus 2, and the birth legend of the Akkadian king, Sargon (CT 13 42,

418

7. Implications and conclusions

translated by Foster, 2005, pp.912–913). Mesopotamian and Jewish traditions also have some genres in common. By way of example, treaty oaths, law codes and more esoteric astronomical and astrological texts feature in both, as usefully summarised by Sanders (2017) in his recent study of scribal culture and religious vision in Judea and Babylon. Of greatest interest in the context of this book are the scholarly techniques and features which Jewish and Mesopotamian writings appear to have in common. The purpose of the brief discussion which follows here is to draw together some threads from this vast and difficult subject which are of particular relevance to Babylonian speculative scholarship. The similarity between aspects of Babylonian speculative scholarship and interpretive methods of rabbinic scholarship, noted by many scholars, has been mentioned earlier in this book (section 2.3). Most important here is the parallel between the explanatory technique of Babylonian speculative interpretation which divides names and other words into parts for etymological interpretation and the midrash of rabbinic scholarship known as notariqon, an exegetical technique in which individual letters or parts of words are interpreted to reveal meaning. notariqon is one of the canonical series of thirty two middot (“measures”) or techniques of rabbinic interpretation of scripture which have been handed down under the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili (for which see Strack and Stemberger, 1996, p.22ff.). Lambert (1954–1956, p.311) drew attention to the parallel between notariqon and certain other methods of rabbinic exegesis and Babylonian commentarial methods in his early edition of Marduk’s Address to the Demons. Indeed, the first observation of the similarity between notariqon and Babylonian scholarly techniques has been widely attributed to Lambert as a result of these comments by scholars from Mesopotamian and Jewish studies alike (Cavigneaux, 1987, p.243, Frahm, 2011, p.373, Gabbay, 2012, p.288 and Finkel, 2014b, p.314 from Mesopotamian studies; in Jewish scholarship, Lieberman, 1987, pp.180–181, and Elman, 2014, p.10, see also Fishbane, 1973, p.104). Since Lambert’s observation, the term notariqon has often been used in scholarly discussion of Babylonian and Assyrian text commentaries and of texts such as those in the text corpus studied here. As noted in section 2.3, some scholars have adopted the term midrash in discussing explanatory techniques relating to names in Akkadian writings. Subsequent scholarship has engaged with the parallels identified by Lambert. In a discussion of interpretation of scripture which drew parallels with techniques in other disciplines, Tigay (1983, p.171) noted the use of notariqon in the interpretation of names in scripture and Mesopotamian literature alike, observing that in Akkadian texts, “the greatest ingenuity is devoted to interpreting gods’ names by such techniques as notariqon”. Parallels between Babylonian and rabbinic scholarship were explored in depth in articles by Cavigneaux and by Lieberman, both published

7. Implications and conclusions

419

in 1987. Both scholars identified and described a number of middot (“measures”) of rabbinic interpretation of scripture and marshalled analogous examples drawn from cuneiform texts. In his article “Aux sources du Midrash: l’herméneutique babylonienne”, Cavigneaux drew examples primarily from commentary texts, including the commentary on the exposition of Marduk’s names in Enūma eliš VII (Commentary II). Lieberman’s similarly titled paper “A Mesopotamian background for so-called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical hermeneutics” treated notariqon at some length. With only one exception, the cuneiform examples Lieberman presented interpreted sacred names; these included an example drawn from the text of l.21 of the Gula hymn. The division of words into parts for interpretation is amply illustrated in Mesopotamian sources. It is the essential characteristic of Babylonian speculative interpretation used to explain sacred names, as demonstrated in this book; and it is also used widely in the commentary tradition as an explanatory tool, as Frahm (2011) and other scholars have shown. What of notariqon itself? Tigay (1983, pp.179–180) commented that notariqon is “well-illustrated as an exegetical technique” in scripture. However, other scholars, including Lieberman (1987, p.222), have observed that notariqon is infrequently used in Hebrew exegesis. Elman (2014, p.10) noted of notariqon, “it should be pointed out that this is a relatively marginal enterprise in rabbinic exegesis”. Gabbay (2016b, footnote 2) commented that “it is not very frequent in Hebrew exegesis, especially not in halakhic Midrash (commentaries on the Bible which deal with laws)”. This has been explained by the observation that notariqon it is better suited to syllabic writing like cuneiform, rather than alphabetic writing like Hebrew. Lieberman (1987, p.185) surmised that the two rabbinic techniques notariqon and gematria (interpretation using the numeric values of the letters of a word) “were an invention of those who wrote cuneiform because both of these methods seem to be based on cuneiform writing and in the bilingual origins and complex structure of that system”. Citing this observation, Frahm (2011, p.373) commented that “The point seems not without merit”. The closer affinity of the technique to syllabic writings, rather than alphabetic, has recently been highlighted by Elman (2014, p.10), who commented that the practice of notariqon “makes more sense in its syllabic cuneiform original than in alphabetic Hebrew texts”, concluding that “its cuneiform inspiration is thus palpable”. Finkel (2014b, p.315) opined that “one can suggest that the extraction of diverse levels of meaning from connected but multivalent cuneiform signs was intrinsic to the system and inevitable, whereas similar procedures applied to alphabetic writing are, in comparison, artificial, and thus most suitably classified as derivative and secondary”. Similarly, Gabbay (2016b, “Hermeneutics”) commented that “In fact, it is easier to understand the logic of this technique (notariqon) in the context of Akkadian

420

7. Implications and conclusions

exegesis, where the cuneiform writing system associates both syllabic and semantic values with the various signs”. The parallels between the practices of Babylonian speculative scholarship and the rabbinic techniques of notariqon and gematria are, essentially, technical scholarly parallels. From the field of Jewish studies, Fishbane has pointed to many other similarities with Mesopotamian writings. In his study of pesharim materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran in which prophetic texts from the scriptures are interpreted, Fishbane (1973) reviewed their main hermeneutic features, which he noted appear also in the Hebrew bible, in contexts where dreams, visions, oracles and omens are interpreted. He drew comparisons from both with like features in texts from Mesopotamia, finding both “formal and semantic resemblances” and “specific terminological analogues” (Fishbane, 1973, pp.101, 112ff.). Further similarities between Mesopotamian and biblical scribal practices and scholarship were noted by Fishbane (1985) in his extensive study of interpretive practices contained within the Hebrew bible itself. Here, Fishbane (op.cit., pp.27– 31) drew attention to certain formal features in both traditions, such as colophonic endings and concluding benedictions, similarity of terms and vocabulary. He observed that exegetical structures and techniques similar to those used in the biblical interpretation of dreams, visions and omens are attested in Mesopotamian literature (as, for example, in the interpretation of Gilgameš’ dreams related in the Gilgameš epic; see George, 2003, pp.552–557, I 245–298) and in Mesopotamian commentary texts (op.cit., pp.452–457). Likewise, Fishbane (op.cit., pp.464–465) noted similarities between exegetical techniques deployed in the biblical interpretation of oracles by which their meaning is decoded through esoteric means and those found in the cuneiform tradition, pointing to the exposition of Marduk’s fifty names in Enūma eliš VI–VII. In cuneiform studies, recent research on Babylonian and Assyrian commentary texts has led to renewed comparison of Akkadian commentaries with scholarly Jewish material and observation of the similarities (and differences) between them. Frahm (2011, pp.373–380) concluded his authoritative study of Babylonian and Assyrian text commentaries with a discussion of the parallels between cuneiform commentaries and Judeo-rabbinic hermeneutics, highlighting structural and technical similarities as well as differences. Gabbay’s extensive work on Akkadian commentaries has had a particular focus on parallels in early Hebrew exegesis and has drawn valuable comparisons between the cuneiform commentary tradition and early Hebrew scholarship. Gabbay has identified many similarities in both broad features and technical details, noting that the texts addressed in both traditions are understood as having divine and scholarly authority. Gabbay has sought to show that scholars in both traditions understood and explained the meaning of their texts by the same basic hermeneutic tools: glossing and paraphrasing texts, reconciling and

7. Implications and conclusions

421

harmonising contradictions, limiting texts to specific circumstances and interpreting the literal and non-literal meaning of words. Like Fishbane, Gabbay identified similarities in the terminology used in Akkadian commentaries and Hebrew exegesis. He has also sought to demonstrate that a number of terms and phrases used are very similar semantically, syntactically and functionally. A short overview of the parallels between Akkadian commentaries and early Hebrew exegesis is set out in an introductory paper by Gabbay (2016b) in the Yale Cuneiform Commentaries Project; for detailed discussion, see Gabbay (2012, 2014, 2015, 2016a at Appendix 2, and 2017). In their explanatory practices, the fields of Akkadian literature and scholarship discussed by Fishbane, Frahm and Gabbay have much in common with the interpretive techniques and methods deployed in the speculative scholarship examined in this book. The same type of scholarship is at work; and hence the observations of these and other scholars as to parallels between Mesopotamian and Jewish scholarship are pertinent. There are, then, many points of similarity in Mesopotamian and Jewish scholarship, albeit that the material this was applied to, the purpose and the hermeneutic outcomes are quite different, as a number of scholars have stressed (see, for example, Frahm, 2014, p.332; Gabbay, 2014, p.364; Finkel, 2014b, pp.314–315). The following section draws out the similarity in the scholarly approaches in the two traditions to the subject of this book: the interpretation of the meaning of names. 7.4 The meaning of biblical names – Babylonian parallels? The final parallel between Akkadian and Hebrew writings drawn here lies in the similarity in the scholarly approaches to the explanation and interpretation of names, a parallel of great importance for this book. The meaning and derivation of biblical names, and their consequent symbolism, is a large field of Jewish scholarship. Names of people and places are explicitly explained in the Hebrew Bible, given with a reason which serves to demonstrate how the name has been derived and coupled with some formulaic wording (such as “therefore he called its name …”) which flags an explicit explanation. Elsewhere in the Bible, names are implicitly explained, and alluded to and echoed in the text. In his papers on name midrashim and word-plays in Akkadian texts, Hurowitz (2000, 2010) drew attention to the extensive work of Zakovitch (1980, and his earlier unpublished MA thesis in Hebrew) and Garsiel (1991) on biblical names. The term used by both Zakovitch and Garsiel for explanations of names contained in the Bible is “name derivations”. This reflects an approach which views the biblical explanation (whether explicit or implicit) as aetiological, offering an explanation of the derivation of the name. In his paper “Explicit and Implicit Name-derivations”, Zakovitch (1980) set the scene by distinguishing explicit explanations of names in the Bible which are marked

422

7. Implications and conclusions

by formulaic wording (“explicit name-derivations”); and those instances where names are reflected in the biblical text in some way and are not marked by a formula to signpost that the text offers an explanation of the derivation of the name (“implicit name-derivations”). Zakovitch (1980, p.167) noted that implicit name-derivations are “by far more numerous than the explicit name-derivations, and … constitute a more organic part of the works in which they appear than do the explicit namederivations”. Zakovitch’s paper is concerned with two forms of later explanatory comment attached to implicit name-derivations: first, where later writers attached to implicit name-derivations one of the formulae used to mark explicit namederivations, out of fear (so Zakovitch suggested) that readers would not perceive the implicit name-derivation; and secondly where explicit name-derivations were, as Zakovitch (op.cit., p.168) put it, “tacked on to the implicit ones because of insensitivity, misunderstanding, or ignorance on the part of the writer in regard to the implicit name-derivation”. In the course of his argument, Zakovitch set out and explained a number of passages in which the supposed derivation of the name is conveyed in the text by perceived etymology, similar phonology or other means. To take just one example to illustrate this here, Zakovitch noted at p.174 the well-known example of how the name of the principal character, Lot, is implicitly reflected in the narrative in Genesis 19:17–22 in forms based on the root mlṭ (“escape”) which appear five times in the passage to suggest the derivation of the name. Like Zakovitch, whilst noting the Bible’s own explicit explanations of names given to people and places, Garsiel (1991) focussed primarily on implicit name derivations in the Bible. Garsiel (op.cit., p.19) termed this “midrashic name derivation”, a term used in his study to encompass the flexible midrashic technique of drawing derivations from names, the use of word-play and of the sounds of names, as well as connections between the potential offered by a name and its literary context. In midrashic name derivations in the Bible, Garsiel (op.cit., p.20) noted, “we are dealing with a wider scope of potential derivations: sound effects (e.g. alliteration), word play, subtle riddles, concealed meanings, key motifs, etc. – all are derived from names regardless of their reasonable etymology. …. The intensity and proliferation of this technique is an outcome of the important position that the name had in the biblical world outlook”. Commenting on the interest in name derivations evidenced in the Bible, Garsiel (op.cit., p.22) observed that “It is very clear that a name was not regarded simply as a random and arbitrary construction of consonants and vowels, but rather as something that bore within it significant meanings for its owner”. Garsiel’s extensive study noted the many and diverse kinds of names which form a basis for the construction of midrashic name derivations in the Bible: personal names of men and women, their forebears, their titles and status; geographic names; animals and trees; and literary and mythological figures. Foreign names, such as

7. Implications and conclusions

423

Moses (whose biblical name is Egyptian in origin), Babel (signifying Babylon), Sennacherib and the names of other Assyrian and Babylonian kings, were equated with Hebrew words and treated to the same exegesis (see Garsiel, 1991, pp. 46–49). Garsiel analysed and described the many different ways by which texts reflected names to produce midrashic name derivations, emphasizing the flexibility and imaginative treatment of the technique, and giving numerous examples. Phonetic and sound patterns might be exploited. Some play on words might be used. He (op.cit., chapter 2) noted the use of homonyms; derivations involving vowel and consonantal change, using some or all of the components of a name; derivations using more than one equation; and retrophonic readings. Elsewhere, (citing Zakovitch’s work) Garsiel (op.cit., chapter 3) noted other strategies for midrashic name derivation, involving synonyms, traditional word pairs, common idioms and literary traditions amongst other things. He (op.cit., p.117) highlighted that, very occasionally, some deliberate name change might be made to create an appropriate meaning. To convey how a name is derived, whether by explicit explanation or implicitly by other means, is, of course, to explain the meaning of the name. Hurowitz (2010, p.89) commented on the work of Zakovitch and Garsiel that, “The biblical name derivations described in these studies closely resemble in nearly every aspect the name derivations found in Akkadian texts as discussed (in Hurowitz’s paper)”, noting as remarkable that the studies “are totally silent on the nearly identical phenomena in the writings of the ancient near east”. There are indeed obvious and striking parallels between this form of Hebrew scholarship and the explanation and interpretation of sacred names in Babylonian speculative scholarship which has been the subject of this book and which effects the name derivations examined by Hurowitz. Many of the features noted by Garsiel in his analysis of midrashic name derivations in the Bible have clear parallels in the techniques and methods of Babylonian speculative scholarship described and analysed in chapter 3. Thus Babylonian and Hebrew scholarship have much in common in their interpretation of names, notwithstanding their different languages and entirely different syllabary. Conceptually, it seems that there is a belief in the significance of a name to its bearer, common to both traditions. In interpretative methods, there is much in common, both at a broad level (in the use of synonyms and common phrases and traditions, for example) and in detail, such as consonantal and vocal changes and retrophonic readings. The approach and methods of midrashic name derivation were applied to Hebrew and foreign names, just as Babylonian speculative scholarship was applied to Sumerian and Akkadian names alike. The deliberate name changes to create meaning identified by Garsiel have a parallel in the contrived writings of sacred names for speculative purposes observed in the text corpus and discussed in sections 3.2.19 and 6.3.3. Perhaps one might also see an analogue between the use of formulaic wording which marks explicit name-derivations in the Bible which

424

7. Implications and conclusions

Zakovitch highlighted and the use of the Akkadian phrase kīma šumīšūma (šumīšāma), “according to his(her) name” or “as his(her) name (says)”, used to flag that an etymological derivation is understood there (section 2.4.4). Garsiel’s study identified a further significant aspect of midrashic name derivation in the Bible which is particularly relevant in relation of the findings of this book concerning the sacred names which are unexpectedly encoded in the Gula hymn. As he noted, in many biblical name derivations, the name itself is given and the midrashic derivation is contained in text closely associated with it. However, Garsiel identified a very substantial number of cases in which the midrashic derivation is given in the biblical text but the name itself is absent from the text, or placed at such a distance as to sever the name from its midrashic gloss, as Garsiel (1991, p.127) put it. This can be illustrated here by the first example given by Garsiel. This cited the passage in 1 Samuel 22:1 which narrates how David’s brothers and all the members of his family joined David in fleeing from King Saul, but does not explicitly name any of David’s brothers. Garsiel perceived that the names of David’s eldest brothers, Eliab, Abinadah and Shammah, known from narratives of David’s early life, are reflected by implied derivations in the text: And David departed from there (mšm), and escaped to (’l) the cave of Abdullam; and when his brothers heard it (w-yšm‘w), and all the house of his father (’byw), they went down to him (’lyw) thither (šmh). (1 Samuel 22:1, following Garsiel, 1991, p.128) Garsiel reasoned that “The components of “Eliab” (’l +’b) chime through the words ’l ’lyw and ’byw ; the last of these also corresponds with the initial component found in the name of the second brother, Abinadah -’b - while the name of the third brother, Shammah or its variants (Shimea, Shimeah, Shimei), can be heard in the words šmh, mšm, and w-yšm‘w. In this manner the author contrives to allude to the brothers in a general way, so selecting his words that they furnish an intimation of names which are to be found in other passages in the book of Samuel” (Garsiel, 1991, p.128, omitting the Hebrew text). In a lengthy exposition, Garsiel assembled many other similar examples, in which he sought to demonstrate that secondary names of a character in the narrative, names of forebears, ancient figures and place names, as well as events in the past, are concealed in the text (see Garsiel, 1991, pp.127–164). He acknowledged that his identification of midrashic derivations of names absent from the text or distant in it might not be sound in every case, observing that “it is occasionally possible that the hand of chance has been at work, and that we have been misled into finding names of people or of places which the author did not intend to suggest. At the same time, there are so many signposts to guide the reader, that it seems just to conclude that most of our examples reflect a deliberate intention which constitutes a feature of

7. Implications and conclusions

425

biblical poetics” (op.cit., p.164). What Garsiel has described seems closely analogous to the finding here that sacred names and other place names are encoded in the Gula hymn by speculative means in Babylonian scholarship. Garsiel (1991, p. 127) characterised the practice he saw as “a kind of riddle for the reader, who must discover the connection between the MND (midrashic name derivation) worked into the text and the distant or absent name”; he emphasised in conclusion that the concealment of names in the Bible should be seen in the context of a culture which delighted in “elaborate riddles” (op.cit., p.164). In the Gula hymn the encoding of names serves to impart some further information about its goddess and the setting. Many of the midrashic name derivations relating to unexpressed or distant names identified by Garsiel would seem to have a similar function. The passage from the book of Samuel quoted above, for example, may be understood to impart more information about those who accompanied David in his flight. Perhaps the biblical practice may be viewed not simply as riddling for literary purposes, but as scholarly enrichment of the biblical text. The encoding of names in the Gula hymn discussed in section 6.2 and returned to above in section 7.2 was, as noted there, wholly unexpected. The interpretation of otherwise unexpressed names is at odds with the usual practice of Babylonian speculative scholarship, where names are explicitly given and then explained and interpreted. The findings of Garsiel’s work suggest that the encoding of names not otherwise expressed, however unexpected in Akkadian literature, has an analogue in biblical writings. This matter would profit from further investigation by scholars versed in biblical and Hebrew scholarship and Akkadian, and by further observation of encoded names in Babylonian studies. For the moment, we may provisionally conclude that in the encoded names in the Gula hymn and the unexpressed or distant names recalled by midrashic name derivations in the Bible there is a further parallel between Babylonian and early Hebrew scholarship. It would seem that the similarity between Babylonian speculative interpretation and the midrash of rabbinic scholarship noted by Lambert (1954–1956, p.311) and explored by Cavigneaux (1987) and Lieberman (1987) extends to a practice of interpreting unexpressed names, which is widely evidenced in the Gula hymn. 7.5 Conclusion This book has provided a systematic account of the techniques and speculative methods used by Babylonian scholars in their exploration of the meaning of sacred names. Using a substantial text corpus, it has enlarged on the understanding of the ancients’ explanatory approach, which has been previously observed by modern scholars in individual works. The compositions examined here display scholarship that is erudite and highly inventive, making flexible associations in the search for meaning. Tantalising indications of the influence of the spoken word can perhaps be

426

7. Implications and conclusions

detected in this scholarly written tradition. Previous studies have focussed on the etymological approach of this form of scholarship. This book has demonstrated that other, less common, speculative methods are also at work. The analysis of the Gula hymn, so rich in its scholarly speculation, has added to the range of interpretive features previously observed. Graphic interpretation is used most inventively in the text corpus, and especially in the Gula hymn. It is hoped that these observations may stimulate scholars to look for these and other interpretive strategies in other texts. The detailed classification of the scholars’ speculative methods may inform and provoke further analysis of Babylonian speculative scholarship, a field which is not confined to the explanation of sacred names but has wider application, most particularly in the lexical corpus and the omen tradition and in commentary texts. It is a key tool in the quest for meaning which characterises Babylonian thought. The early roots of Babylonian speculative scholarship were discussed in chapter 2. Evidence of speculative interpretation in the Old Babylonian period can be observed in the lexical tradition, but is otherwise relatively slender. It nevertheless suggests that other compositions from the period indeed reflect this practice and other work could usefully be developed to expand our understanding. It would be of considerable value if more substantial textual evidence could be adduced to substantiate that the scholarly practice was firmly established in Akkadian compositions outside the lexical tradition in the Old Babylonian period. A fruitful avenue for this investigation may well be found in compositions which contain sacred names that are, perhaps, explained or interpreted there by their authors. With an eye to the potential of Babylonian speculative scholarship and its techniques and methods described in this book, compositions from the Old Babylonian period may well yield further evidence of this form of scholarship. Explanatory God Lists that have not formed part of the text corpus could usefully be examined for speculative interpretation of divine names, which might add to the findings of this book, as well as to our understanding of Babylonian religious thought. The only Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual works which have been considered here are explanatory lists. Other bilingual compositions evidence translation strategies which were deployed in explaining sacred names. These works were often, but not always, straightforward translations; it has been observed that sometimes some other meaning is derived from the text, going beyond simple semantic equivalence (see section 2.1.2). Translation strategies and techniques used in bilingual compositions command ongoing scholarly attention. The unusual composition edited by George (2009, pp.78–112) as the Scholars of Uruk uses strategies found in Babylonian explanatory scholarship to derive its Sumerian text. Speculative scholarship may be at work in more typical bilingual compositions more often than immediately apparent. Wherever Sumerian-Akkadian texts are not the straightforward translations expected, they might profitably be considered with

7. Implications and conclusions

427

speculative interpretation in mind. This corpus could be expected to provide interesting additions to the speculative methods identified in this book. The encoding of sacred names in the Gula hymn has been a key finding of this book. The Gula hymn is unlikely to be unique in its use of encoded names in Akkadian literature. A very few somewhat similar strategies in literary contexts are noted in section 6.2. Further study might well reveal this feature to be part of the general repertoire of interpretive techniques deployed in Babylonian speculative scholarship. The apparent parallel between these encoded names and the unexpressed or distant names recalled by midrashic name derivations in the Bible identified by Garsiel (1991) is a most interesting finding which would profit from further investigation by scholars versed in biblical and Hebrew scholarship and Akkadian, as noted above. Like the parallels between the Akkadian commentary tradition and early Hebrew exegesis studied by Frahm and Gabbay, amongst others, the similarity between Babylonian speculative interpretation and the midrash of rabbinic scholarship noted by Lambert (1954–1956) and explored by Cavigneaux (1987) and Lieberman (1987) is an important field for further investigation. This book comes to a close, as it started, with sacred names. The names of gods and their temples, cities and sacred places all had meaning, both obvious and hidden, which required to be understood and explained by Babylonian scholars for a proper understanding of the meaning of the divine world which pervaded all aspects of Babylonian life. The study of Babylonian speculative scholarship which explained and interpreted the meaning of sacred names charts the development of Babylonian religious thinking about their gods and the places sacred to them. Through scholarly exploration of sacred names, theologies of the gods were developed and expounded. Common beliefs about the gods were substantiated, traditional ideas affirmed, and deities and their sacred places and cities praised and glorified, to religious and ideological ends. Layers of meaning in a sacred name could be uncovered, and its meaning confirmed and reinforced through scholarly speculation. The sophisticated techniques and methods developed by Babylonian scholars in this evidently serious intellectual activity were realised in great religious and literary works such as Enūma eliš and the Gula hymn, as well as in explanatory God Lists and topographical lists, which perhaps seem prosaic today but clearly were very important to the ancient scholars, and widely elsewhere. The quantity, variety and importance of the surviving textual record shows the importance of the scholarly interpretation of sacred names in Babylonian intellectual life. The practice of speculative scholarship at work puts beyond doubt the central place of sacred names and their meaning in scholarly religious thought in the Babylonian world.

obv.

rev.

Appendix 1 Copy of BM 34399 (Sp. 518)

Appendix 2 Temples and shrines found only in the Gula hymn

Gula hymn 80′

HMH* Temple/shrine 462

97′

317

111′

164

115′

427

117′

291

120′

1235

121′

352

123′

603

133′

860

135′

240

4′′

139

Deity

Location

é-ḫi-li-dinanna/é-ḫi-li-dištar (the House of the Luxuriance of Ištar) é-gal-dlamma-lugal (the Palace of the King’s Protective Deity)

Ištar personified Dunni-sāʼidi as Ulsigga

é-dim-gal-an-na (the House, Great Bond of Heaven) é-gu-la (the Big House)

Nergal?

é-ga-ì-nun-šár-šár (the House which provides a profusion of milk and ghee) é-zi-ba-ti-la (the House, breath of life?) é-gašan-tin-na (the House of the Lady of Life) é-ki-ná-šà-tén-na (the House, Bedchamber which soothes the heart) é-ní-gal-abzu (the House of the Awesome Splendour of the Apsû) é-è-an-ki (the House of Heaven and Earth) é-dadag-lál (the House, clean ….)

?

Dilbat? (or another town close to Babylon) In or near Kutha?

Ninigizibarra? Šandalipur (see section 6.1, l.115′) Ninigara Šadunni

The healing goddess?(Gula?) The healing goddess?(Gula?)

In or near Marad In or near Marad?

Pabilsag and his Larak spouse Gula? ?

Parak-māri

d

šarrat-é-è-an-ki Malgium (Ištar?) Ištar?

Raqnana (uruki-ág-dinanna)

432

Appendix 2 Temples and shrines found only in the Gula hymn

Gula hymn 5′′

HMH* Temple/shrine

16′′

1171

18′′

726

184

Deity

du6-kù Ištar? (the Pure Mound) é-ul-ḫé-me-šu-du7 Bau? (the House of the Firmament of Heaven and Perfect Me’s) (given in HMH 1171 as éul-šár-me-šu-du7) é-maḫ Ištar? (the Exalted House)

Location Raqnana? Dēr?

Dēr?

* References in the HMH Gazetteer of Ceremonial Names to lines of the “Syncretistic Ištar Hymn, unpubl., courtesy Lambert” are to lines which are now presented here in the Gula hymn, as numbered in this table.

Bibliographical and other abbreviations ABRT ACh AfK AfO AHw AMD AnOr AOAT ArOr Aula Or BiOr BMOC

BMS CAD CDA CM CRAA CUSAS ETCSL

GAG George Topog.Texts GMTR Goddesses HMH JAOS JCS

Craig (1895–1897) Virolleaud (1908–1909) Archiv für Keilschriftforschung Archiv für Orientforschung von Soden (1965–1981) Akkadisches Handwörterbuch Ancient Magic and Divination Analecta Orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archiv Orientální Aula Orientalis Bibliotheca Orientalis British Museum online catalogue https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection accessed on 6 January 2021 King (1896) Oppenheim et al. (1956–) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of Chicago Black George and Postgate (2000) A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian Cuneiform Monographs Comptes rendus Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Black J.A., Cunningham G., Ebeling J., FlückigerHawker E., Robson E., Taylor J., and Zólyomi G. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/) Oxford 1998–2006. von Soden (1995) Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik George (1992) Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record Asher-Greve and Westenholz (2013) George (1993); Numbers cited are to entries in the Gazetteer of Ceremonial Names given at pp.63–171 Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies

434

JNES JRAS KAR KAV Labat Leichty Catalogue

LKA LTBA MC MIO MSL

MZL NABU OBO OECT OLA Or ORA OrNS RA Rép.géogr. RLA SAA SAAB SAACT SAAS SAHG SpTU StOr StPohl SM WVDOG

Bibliographical and other abbreviations

Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Ebeling (1919) Schroeder Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiendenen Inhalts Labat and Malbran-Labat (1994) IV–V Leichty, Finkel and Walker (2019); VI Leichty (1986); VII Leichty and Grayson (1987); VIII Leichty, Finkelstein and Walker (1988) Ebeling (1953c) 2 von Soden (1933b) Mesopotamian Civilizations Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung Landsberger, Civil and Reiner (1937– ) Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon; Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Borger (2010) Notes assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 1 Langdon (1923); 6 Langdon (1927) Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Orientalia (nova series) Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes III Groneberg (1980); V Nashref (1982) Ebeling, Meissner, Weidner, von Soden and Edzard (1928–) Reallexikon der Assyriologie State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts State Archives of Assyria Studies Falkenstein and von Soden (1953) I Hunger (1976); III von Weiher (1988) Studia Orientalia Studia Pohl Dissertationes scientificiae de rebus Orientis antique Series Maior Wissenschaftliche Veröffenlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft

Bibliographical and other abbreviations

WO YOS

ZA

435

Die Welt des Orients Yale Oriental Series Babylonian Texts IX Stephens (1937); X Goetze (1947); XI van Dijk Goetze and Hussey (1985) Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie

Other abbreviations BTT Commentary II

Enūma eliš TL

George (1992). Numbers given are to the texts as designated by George Commentary to Enūma eliš VII as edited by Lambert (2013, pp.139–142). As there, line numbers of Commentary II refer to the corresponding lines of Enūma eliš VII Edition given by Lambert (2013) Temple list

Other bibliographical abbreviations are as used in CAD, The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of Chicago.

Lexical lists Igituḫ short version: see Landsberger and Gurney (1957–1958). Lexical lists are otherwise referred to by designations set out in the Appendix: Glossary of Cuneiform Lexical Texts given by Veldhuis (2014, pp.430–441), save for Ura which is termed Urra in this book.

Bibliography Abusch, T. and Schwemer, D. (2011) Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals, Vol.1, AMD 8/1, (Leiden and Boston). Al-Rawi, F.N.H. (1985) Nabopolassar’s Restoration Work on the Wall “ImgurEnlil” at Babylon, Iraq 47, 1–13. Al-Rawi, F.N.H. and George, A.R. (1995), Tablets from the Sippar library, V. An Incantation from mīs pî, Iraq 57, 225–228. Annus, A. (2002) The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, SAAS XIV, (Helsinki). Asher-Greve, J.M. and Westenholz, J.G. (2013) Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, OBO 259, (Fribourg and Göttingen). Attinger, P. (1984) Enki et Ninḫursag͂a, ZA 74, 1–52. Barnett, R.D. (1960) A list of fragments rejoined in the Kuyunjik Collection of the British Museum, (revised and enlarged), (London). Beaulieu, P.A. (1995a) Theological and Philological Speculations on the Names of the Goddess Antu, OrNS 64, 187–213. — (1995b) An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing, Acta Sumerologica, Hiroshima 17, 1–14. Beaulieu, P.A. and Mayer, W.R. (1997) Akkadische Lexikographie: CAD Š2 und Š3, OrNS 66, 157–180. Behrens, H. and Klein, J. (1998–2001) Ninegalla, RLA 9, 342–347. Bergmann, E. (1964) Untersuchungen zu syllabisch geschriebenen sumerischen Texten, ZA 56, 1–43. Bezold, C. (1889) Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection, Volume I, (London). — (1891) Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection,Volume II, (London). — (1893) Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection, Volume III, (London). Black, J.A. (1984) Sumerian Grammar in Babylonian Theory, StPohl SM 12, (Rome). Black, J.A., George, A.R. and Postgate, J.N. (2000) A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 2nd (corrected) printing, (Wiesbaden). Böck, B. (2014) The Healing Goddess Gula: Towards an Understanding of Ancient Babylonian Medicine, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 67, (Leiden and Boston). Böhl, F.M.Th. (1936–1937) Die fünfzig Namen des Marduk, AfO 11, 191–218.

438

Bibliography

Böllenrücher, J. (1904) Gebete und Hymnen an Nergal, Leipziger semitistische Studien 1, 6, (Leipzig). Borger, R. (1956) Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9, (Graz). — (1967) Das dritte “Haus” der Serie bīt rimki, JCS 21, 1–17. — (1971a) Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten: Zwei prophetische Texte, BiOr 28, 3–41. — (1971b) CAD Vol. 2: B, Chicago/Glückstadt 1965, BiOr 28, 65–67. — (1979) Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke, 3rd edition, (Rome). — (1996) Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, (Wiesbaden). — (2010) Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon, AOAT 305 (2. Auflage), (Münster). Bottéro, J. (1977) Les Noms de Marduk, l’écriture et la “logique” en Mésopotamie ancienne. In: M. de J. Ellis (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, 5–28, (Hamden, Connecticut). — (1978) Antiquités assyro-babyloniennes, Annuaire 1977–1978, École pratique des hautes etudes. 4e section, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 107–164. — (1982) La création de l’homme et son nature dans le poème de Atraḫasîs. In: M.A. Dandamaev (ed.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, 24–32, (Warminster). — (1992) Mesopotamia. Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, (Chicago and London). Cagni, L. (1969) L’Epopea di Erra, Studi Semitici 34, (Rome). Cavigneaux, A. (1987) Au sources du Midrash: l’herméneutique babylonienne, Aula Or 5, 243–255. Cavigneaux, A. and Jaques, M. (2010) Peut-on comprehendre le Silbervokabular? In: D. Shehata, F. Weierhäuser and K.V. Zand (eds.), Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg, CM 41, 1–14, (Leiden and Boston). Cavigneaux, A. and Krebernik, M. (1998–2001a) dNin-barage-si, RLA 9, 336. — (1998–2001b) Nin-e’igara, RLA 9, 348. — (1998–2001c) Nin-é-MÙŠ.A, RLA 9, 349. — (1998–2001d) Nin-gikuga, RLA 9, 360–361. — (1998–2001e) Nin-ḫursagkalama, RLA 9, 382. — (1998–2001f) NIN-Ninua/Ninâ, GAŠAN-Ninua/Ninâ, RLA 9, 478. — (1998–2001g) Ninua’ītu, Nun(n)a’ītu, RLA 9, 508. — (1998–2001h) Niššīku, RLA 9, 590. Civil, M. (1974) Medical Commentaries from Nippur, JNES 33, 329–338. Cohen, M.E. (1988) The canonical lamentations of Mesopotamia, 2 vols., (Bethesda, Maryland). Cooper, J.S. (1970) A Sumerian šu-íl-la from Nimrud with a Prayer for Sin-šariškun, Iraq 32, 51–67.

Bibliography

439

Craig, J.A. (1895–1897) Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, Assyriologische Bibliothek 13, 2 vols., (Leipzig). Crisostomo, C.J. (2019) Translation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual Education in Ancient Babylonia, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 22, (Berlin). Dalley, S. (1997) Statues of Marduk and the date of Enūma eliš, Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 163–171. Deller, K. (1962) Studien zur neuassyrischen Orthographie, OrNS 31, 186–196. Delnero, P. (2012) The Textual Criticism of Sumerian Literature, Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 3, (Boston). Dijk, J.J.A.van (1957) Textes Divers du Musée de Baghdad, II, Sumer 13, 65–134. — (1973) Une incantation accompagnant la naissance de l’homme, OrNS 42, 502– 507. Dijk, J.J.A.van, Goetze, A. and Hussey, M.I. (1985) Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals, YOS XI, (New Haven and London). Driel, G.van (1989) The British Museum “Sippar” Collection: Babylonia 1882– 1893, ZA 79, 102–117. Durand, J-M. (1979) Un commentaire à TDP 1, AO 17661, RA 73,153–170. Ebeling, E. (1918) Quellen zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion I, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Geselleschaft 23/I, (Leipzig). — (1919) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, WVDOG 28, (Leipzig). — (1923) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, WVDOG 34, (Leipzig). — (1928) Ba’u, RLA 1, 432–433. — (1952) Ein Loblied auf Nabû aus neuassyrischer Zeit, WO 1/6, 476–479. — (1953a) Die akkadische Gebetsserie „Handerhebung“ von neuem gesammelt und herausgegeben, (Berlin). — (1953b) Sammlungen von Beschwörungsformeln teils in sumerisch-akkadischer teils in sumerischer oder akkadischer Sprache, ArOr 21, 357–423. — (1953c) Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Berlin. — (1955) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Beschwörungsserie namburbi, RA 49, 178– 192. Ebeling, E., Meissner, B., Weidner, E., Soden, W. von and Edzard, D.O. (1928– ) Reallexikon der Assyriologie, (Berlin). Edzard, D.O. (1997) The Names of the Sumerian Temples. In: I.L. Finkel and M.J. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations, CM 7, 159–165, (Groningen). — (1998–2001a) Name, Namengebung, RLA 9, 94–116. — (1998–2001b) Nin-Isina, RLA 9, 387–388. Elman, Y. (2014) Contrasting Intellectual Trajectories: Iran and Israel in Mesopotamia. In: U. Gabbay and S. Secunda (eds.), Encounters by the Rivers of

440

Bibliography

Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and Babylonians in Antiquity, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 160, 7–105, (Tübingen). Falkenstein, A. and Soden, W. von (1953) Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete, (Zurich and Stuttgart). Falkner, M. (1952–1953) Neue Inschriften aus der Zeit Sin-šarru-iškuns, AfO 16, 305–310. Farber, W. (1977) Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi, (Wiesbaden). — (1990) Mannam lušpur ana Enkidu: Some New Thoughts about an Old Motif, JNES 49, 299–321. Fink, S., Lang, M. and Schretter, M. (2018) Mehrsprachtigkeit: Vom Alten Orient bis zum Esperanto, dubsar 2, (Münster). Finkel, I.L. (2006) On an IZBU VII Commentary. In: A.K. Guinan, M deJ. Ellis, A.J. Ferrara, S.M. Freedman, M.T. Rutz, L. Sassmannshausen, S. Tinney, and M.W. Waters (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, CM 31, 139–148, (Leiden and Boston). — (2010) Strange Byways in Cuneiform Writing. In: A. de Voogt and I.L. Finkel (eds.), The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity, 9–25, (Leiden and Boston). — (2014a) The Ark before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, (London). — (2014b) Remarks on Cuneiform Scholarship and the Babylonian Talmud. In: U. Gabbay and S. Secunda (eds.), Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and Babylonians in Antiquity, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 160, 307–316, (Tübingen). Fishbane, M. (1973) The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics, Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 1973 Vol.1, 97–114. — (1985) Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, (Oxford). Flückiger-Hawker, E. (1999) Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition, OBO 166, (Fribourg and Göttingen). Foster, B. R. (2005) Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, Third edition, (Bethesda, Maryland). Frahm, E. (2010) Reading the tablet, the exta and the body: the hermeneutics of cuneiform signs in Babylonian and Assyrian text commentaries and divinatory texts. In: A. Annus (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, Oriental Institute Seminars, 6, 93–136, (Chicago). — (2011) Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation, GMTR 5, (Münster). — (2014) Traditionalism and Intellectual Innovation in a Cosmopolitan World: Reflections on Babylonian Text Commentaries from the Achaemenid Period. In: U. Gabbay and S. Secunda (eds.), Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and Babylonians in Antiquity, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 160, 317–334, (Tübingen).

Bibliography

441

Frahm, E. and Jiménez, E. (2015) Myth, Ritual and Interpretation. The Commentary on Enūma eliš I–VII and a Commentary on Elamite Month Names, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3, 293–343. Frame, G. (1995) Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Babylonian Periods 2, (Toronto). Frankena, R. (1957–1971) Gula (A. Nach Texten), RLA 3, 695–697. Fuchs, A. (1994) Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, (Göttingen). Gabbay, U. (2015) Specification as a Hermeneutical Technique in Babylonian and Assyrian Commentaries, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3, 344–368. — (2012) Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia and Their Relation to Early Hebrew Exegesis, Dead Sea Discoveries 19, 267–312. — (2014) Actual Sense and Scriptural Intention: Literal Meaning and Its Terminology in Akkadian and Hebrew Commentaries. In: U. Gabbay and S. Secunda (eds.), Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and Babylonians in Antiquity, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 160, 335–370, (Tübingen). — (2016a) The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries, (Leiden and Boston). — (2016b) Akkadian Commentaries and Early Hebrew Exegesis, Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2021; accessed January 5, 2021, at https://ccp.yale.edu/introduction/ akkadian-hebrew-exegesis. DOI: 0079/9p8czns. — (2017) Levels of Meaning and Textual Polysemy in Akkadian and Hebrew Exegetical Texts. In: M. Popović, M. Schoonover and M. Vandenberghe (eds.), Jewish cultural encounters in the ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern world, Proceedings of the Qumran Institute Symposium (3rd: 2013 December, University of Groningen, Netherlands), 76–95, (Leiden and Boston). Garsiel, M. (1991) Biblical Names. A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, (Ramat-Gan). Gelb, I.J. (1948) A new Clay-Nail of Ḫammurabi, JNES 7, 267–271. — (1963) A Study of Writing, Revised Edition, (Chicago and London). Geller, M.J. (1980) A Middle Assyrian Tablet of Utukkū Lemnūtu, Tablet 12, Iraq 42, 23–51. — (2005) Renal and Rectal Disease Texts, Die babylonische-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen VII, (Berlin). — (2014) Melothesia in Babylonia: Medicine, Magic and Astrology in the Ancient Near East, Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 2, (Boston). — (2015) Healing Magic and Evil Demons: Canonical Udug-hul Incantations, Die babylonische-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 8, (Boston).

442

Bibliography

Genouillac, H. de (1923) Grande liste de noms divins sumériens, RA 20, 89–106. George, A.R. (1986) Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies, Iraq 48, 133–146. — (1991) Babylonian texts from the folios of Sidney Smith, Part Two: Prognostic and Diagnostic Omens, Tablet I, RA 85, 137–167. — (1992) Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40, (Leuven). — (1993) House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, MC 5, (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (1996) Studies in cultic topography and ideology, BiOr 53, 363–395. — (2000) Four temple rituals from Babylon. In: A.R. George and I.L. Finkel, (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, 259–299, (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (2003) The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vols., (Oxford). — (2008) Review of O. Pedersén, Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917, Abhandlungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Band 25, (Saawellingen, 2005), BiOr 65, 712– 717. — (2009) Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection, CUSAS 10, Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform Texts 4, (Bethesda, Maryland). — (2010) The sign of the Flood and the language of signs in Babylonian omen literature. In: L. Kogan et. al. (eds.), Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale I, I. Babel und Bibel, 4, I, 323–335, (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (2013) Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection, CUSAS 18, Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform Texts 7, (Bethesda, Maryland). — (2015a) Wilfred George Lambert 1926–2011, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the British Academy, XIV, pp.320–341, (Oxford). — (2015b) On Babylonian Lavatories and Sewers, Iraq 77, 75–106. George, A.R. and Al-Rawi, F.N.H. (1996) Tablets from the Sippar library, VI. AtraḪasīs, Iraq 58, 147–190. — (1998) Tablets from the Sippar library, VII. Three wisdom texts, Iraq 60, 187– 206. George, A.R. and Bongenaar, A.C.V.M. (2002) Tablets from Sippar: Supplementary bibliography etc. for Leichty, Catalogues VI–VII, up to the end of 2000, OrNS 71, 55–156. George, A.R. and Taniguchi, J. (2019) Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One; prepared for publication and edited by A.R. George and J. Taniguchi, MC 24, (Pennsylvania).

Bibliography

443

Gesche, P.D. (2001) Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v.Chr., AOAT 275, (Münster). Goetze, A. (1945) Review of A. Heidel, The System of the Quadriliteral Verb in Akkadian, Assyriological Studies 13, (Chicago, 1940), JNES 4, 246–249. — (1947) Old Babylonian Omen Texts, YOS X, (New Haven, Connecticut). — (1955) An Incantation against Diseases, JCS 9, 8–18. — (1965) An Inscription of Simbar-šīḫu, JCS 19, 121–135. — (1968) An Old Babylonian Prayer of the Divination Priest, JCS, 22, 25–29. Gong, Y. (2002) A Homonymous List: Idu II (CT 11, 29–32, D.T.40), Journal of Ancient Civilizations, 17, 77–97. Groneberg, B.R.M. (1972) Untersuchungen zum hymnisch-epischen Dialekt der altbabylonischen literarischen Texte, (Münster). — (1978–1979) Terminativ- und Lokativadverbialis in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten, AfO 26, 15–29. — (1980) Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 3: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients B 7, 3, (Wiesbaden). — (1987) Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen „hymnischen” Literature, Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 14, (Stuttgart). — (1997) Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin, CM 8, (Groningen). Güterbock, H. G. (1934) Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200, ZA 42, 1–91. Hallo, W.W. (1971) Antediluvian Cities, JCS 23, 47–67. Hasselbach, R. (2005) Sargonic Akkadian, A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts, (Wiesbaden). Hecker, K. (1974) Untersuchungen zur akkadischen Epik, AOAT Sonderreihe 8, (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn). Heidel, A. (1940) The System of the Quadriliteral Verb in Akkadian, Assyriological Studies 13, (Chicago). Helle, S. (2014) Rhythm and Expression in Akkadian Poetry, ZA 104, 56–73. Hess, C. W. (2010) Towards the origins of the Hymnic Epic Dialect, KASKAL: Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico (7), 101–122. Horowitz, W. (2011) Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, MC 8, Second Printing, with Corrections and Addenda, (Winona Lake, Indiana). Hrůša, I. (2010) Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru, AOAT 50, (Münster). Hruška, B. (1969) Das spätbabylonische Lehrgedicht ‘Inannas Erhöhung’, ArOr 37, 473–522.

444

Bibliography

Huehnergard, J. (2011) A Grammar of Akkadian, Third Edition, Harvard Semitic Studies 45, (Winona Lake, Indiana). Hunger, H. (1968) Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn). — (1976) Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil I, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 9, (Berlin). Hurowitz, V.A. (2000) 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, 63–87, (Bethesda, Maryland.). — (2010) Name Midrashim and Word Plays on Names in Akkadian Historical Writings. In: W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay and F. Vukosavović (eds.), A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz, 87–104, Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 8, 87–104, (Madrid). Jiménez, E. (2013) Hermeneutic Techniques, Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2021; accessed January 5, 2021 at https://ccp.yale.edu/introduction/hermeneutic-techniques. DOI: 10079/6wwpzvj. — (2018) “As Your Name Indicates”: Philological Arguments in Akkadian Disputations, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 5 (1–2), 87–105. — (2019) “Nomen Omen”, NABU 2019, no.100. Katz, D. (2003) The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources, (Bethesda, Maryland). — (2011) Reconstructing Babylon: Recycling Mythological Traditions Toward a New Theology. In: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, M. van Ess and J. Marzahn (eds.), Babylon. Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident/ Science Culture Between Orient and Occident, 123–134, (Berlin and Boston). King, L.W. (1896) Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, (London). Klein, J. (1998–2001) Namtar, RLA 9, 142–145. Knudsen, E.E. (1967) Fragments of Historical Texts from Nimrud II, Iraq 29, 49– 69. Koch, H. (1998–2001) Narunde, RLA 9, 180. Koch, U. S. (2005) Secrets of Extispicy: The Chapter multābiltu of the Babylonian Extispicy Series and niṣirti bārûti Texts mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library, (Münster). Köcher, F. (1954–1956) Eine spätbabylonische Ausdeutung des Tempelnames Esangila, AfO 17, 131–135. — (1959) Ein spätbabylonischer Hymnus auf den Tempel Ezida in Borsippa, ZA 53, 236–240.

Bibliography

445

Kouwenberg, N.J.C. (1997) Gemination in the Akkadian Verb, Studia Semitica Neerlandica, (Assen). — (2010) The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic background, Languages of the Near East 2, (Winona Lake, Indiana). Kraus, F.R. (1949) Nippur und Isin nach altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden, JCS 3(1949), 1–228. Krebernik, M. (1987–1990) Mamma, Mammi; Mammītum, RLA 7, 330–331. — (1993–1997) Muttergöttin. A.I. In Mesopotamien, RLA 8, 502–516. — (1998) Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ. In: J. Bauer, R.K. Englund and M. Krebernik (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit, OBO 160/1, 235–427, (Fribourg and Göttingen). — (2009–2010) Šer(i)da, RLA 12, 394–395. Krecher, J. (1966) Sumerische Kultlyrik, (Wiesbaden). Labat, R. and Malbran-Labat, F. (1994) Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne, (Paris). Læssøe, J. (1956) A Prayer to Ea, Shamash, and Marduk, from Hama, Iraq 18, 60– 67. Lambert, W.G. (1954–1956) An Address of Marduk to the Demons, AfO 17, 310– 321. — (1957–1958) Review of F. Grössman Das Era-Epos (1956), AfO 18, 395–401. — (1959–1960) Three literary prayers of the Babylonians, AfO 19, 47–66. — (1960) Babylonian Wisdom Literature, (Oxford), reprinted 1996 (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (1966) Divine Love Lyrics form the reign of Abī-ešuḫ, MIO 12, 41–56. — (1967) The Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, OrNS 36, 105–132. — (1971) Critical notes on recent publications, OrNS 40, 90–98. — (1973) Studies in Nergal, BiOr 30, 355–363. — (1978) Nabû Hymns on Cylinders. In: B. Hruška and G. Komoróczy (eds.), Festschrift Lubor Matouš, Assyriologica 4–5, 2 vols., 75–111, (Budapest). — (1980–1983) Kur(r)ibba, RLA 6, 371. — (1981) Studies in UD.GAL.NUN, Oriens Antiquus 20, 81–97. — (1982) The Hymn to the Queen of Nippur. In: G. van Driel, Th.J.H. Krispijn, M. Stol, K.R. Veenhof (eds.), ZIKIR ŠUMIM Assyriological Studies presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 173–218, (Leiden). — (1987–1990) Lugal-nirgal, RLA 7, 150. — (1989) A Late Babylonian Copy of an Expository Text, JNES 48, 215–221. — (1990) Etymology. In: R.J. Coggins and J.L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 214–216, (London). — (1997) Processions to the Akītu House, RA 91, 49–80.

446

Bibliography

— (1998a) Technical Terminology for Creation in the Ancient Near East. In: J. Prosecký (ed.), Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East, CRRA 43, 189–193, (Prague). — (1998b) The Qualifications of Babylonian Diviners. In: S. Maul (ed.), Festschrift für Rylke Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994, CM 10, 141–158, (Groningen). — (1999) Babylonian Linguistics. In: K. Van Lerberghe and G. Voet (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, Proceedings of the 42th RAI, OLA 96, 217–231, (Leuven). — (2003–2004) A Syncretistic Hymn to Ištar, AfO 50, 21–27. — (2007) Babylonian Oracle Questions, (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (2013) Babylonian Creation Myths, MC 16, (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (2019) Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W.G. Lambert, Part One; prepared for publication and edited by A.R. George and J. Taniguchi, MC 24, (Pennsylvania), (see George, A.R. and Taniguchi, J. (2019)). Lambert, W.G. and Millard, A. R. (1969) Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, (Oxford). Landsberger, B., Civil, M. and Reiner, E. (1937– ) Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon; Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon, (Rome). Landsberger, B. and Gurney, O.R. (1957–1958) igi-duḫ-a = tamartu, short version, AfO 18, 81–86. Landsberger, B. and Jacobsen, T. (1955) An Old Babylonian Charm against Merḫu, JNES 14, 14–21. Langdon, S. (1923) The Weld-Blundell Collection in the Ashmolean Museum: Sumerian and Semitic Religious and Historical Texts, OECT 1, (Oxford). — (1927) Babylonian Penitential Psalms, to which are Added Fragments of the Epic of Creation, OECT 6, (Paris). Lapinkivi, P. (2010) The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s descent and resurrection: introduction, cuneiform text, and transliteration with a translation, glossary and extensive commentary, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, SAACT 6, (Winona Lake, Indiana). Leichty, E.V. (1970) The Omen Series Šumma Izbu, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 4, (New York). — (1986) Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VI: Tablets from Sippar 1, (London). Leichty, E., Finkel, I.L. and Walker, C.B.F. (with contributions by T.G. Pinches, A.J. Sachs, D.J. Wiseman, W.G. Lambert, M. Jursa, M.J. Geller, J.C. Fincke and J.J. Taylor) (2019) Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum,Volumes IV–V, dubsar 10, (Münster).

Bibliography

447

Leichty, E., Finkelstein, J.J. and Walker, C.B.F. (1988) Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum,Volume VIII: Tablets from Sippar 3, (London). Leichty, E. and Grayson, A.K. (1987) Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII: Tablets from Sippar 2, (London). Lenzi, A. (ed.) (2011) Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction, SBL Ancient Near East Monographs 3, (Atlanta). — (2015) Scribal Hermeneutics and the Twelve Gates of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, JAOS 135, 733–749. Lieberman, S.J. (1987) A Mesopotamian Background for the So-Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics?, Hebrew Union College Annual LVIII, 157–225. Linssen, M.J.H. (2004) The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practises, CM 25, (Leiden and Boston). Litke, R.L. (1998) A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN:dA-nuum and AN:Anu ša amēli, Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3, Yale Babylonian Collection, (New Haven, Connecticut). Livingstone, A. (1986) Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, (Oxford), reprinted 2007 (Winona Lake, Indiana). — (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3, (Helsinki). — (2013) Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, CUSAS 25, (Bethesda, Maryland). Marchesi, G. (2002) On the Divine Name dBA.Ú, OrNS 71, 161–172. Martin, F. (1900) Textes religieux assyriens et babyloniens, (Paris). Maul, S.M. (1994) Zukunftsbewältigung. Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen 18, (Mainz). — (1997) Küchensumerisch oder hohe Kunst der Exegese? Überlegungen zur Bewertung akkadischer Interlinearübersetzungen von Emesal-Texten. In: B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Künhe and P. Xella (eds.) Ana šadī Labnāni lū allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festchrift für Wolfgang Röllig, AOAT 247, 253–267, (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn). — (1999) Das Wort im Worte. Orthographie und Etymologie als hermeneutische Verfahren babylonischer Gelehrter. In: G.W. Most (ed.), Commentaries – Kommentare, Aporemata 4, 1–18, (Göttingen). Mayer, W.R. (1976) Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen „Gebetsbeschwörungen“, StPohl SM 5, (Rome). — (1990) Sechs Šu-ila-Gebete, OrNS 59, 449–490. — (1994) Akkadische Lexikographie: CAD Š1, OrNS 63, 111–120. — (1999) Das Ritual KAR 26 mit dem Gebet “Marduk 24” (Tab. XXVIII–XXX), OrNS 68, 145–163.

448

Bibliography

— (2003a) Besonderheiten in der Verwendung des Graphems A.A im Akkadischen, OrNS 72, 293–306. — (2003b) Waffen und Stricke in einer altbabylonischen Urkunde, OrNS 72, 368– 389. — (2015) Nachlese II: zu Wolfram von Soden, Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik (31995), OrNS 84, 177–216. Meier, G. (1937) Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû, AfO Beiheft 2, (Berlin). Menzel, B. (1981) Die assyrische Tempel, StPohl SM 10, 2 vols., (Rome). Metcalf, C. (2015) The Gods Rich in Praise: Early Greek and Mesopotamian Religious Poetry, (Oxford). Michalowski, P. (1990) Presence at the Creation. In: T. Abusch. J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William Moran, Harvard Semitic Studies 37, 381–396, (Atlanta, Georgia). Mindlin, M., Geller, M.J. and Wansbrough, J.E. (eds.) (1987) Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, (London). Mullo-Weir, C.J. (1929) Four Hymns to Gula, JRAS, 1–18. — (1934) Lexicon of Akkadian Prayers, (Oxford). Nashef, K. (1982) Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 5: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients B 7, 5, (Wiesbaden). Nassouhi, E. (1924–1925) Prisme d’Assurbânipal daté de sa trentième année, provenant du temple de Gula à Babylone, AfK 2, 97–106. Nikel, J. (1918) Ein neuer Ninkarrak-Text, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums X/1, (Paderborn). Noegel, S.B. (ed.) (2000) Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, (Bethesda, Maryland.). — (2007) Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, American Oriental Series 89, (New Haven, Connecticut). Nougayrol, J. (1955) Le Palais royal d’Ugarit. Vol.3, Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales, (Paris). Oppenheim, A.L. et al. (1956– ) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, (Chicago). Oshima, T. (2010) “Damkianna shall not bring back her burden in the future!”: A New Mythological Text of Marduk, Enlil and Damkianna. In: W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay and F. Vukosavović (eds.), A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz, 87–104, Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 8, 145–161, (Madrid). — (2011) Babylonian Prayers to Marduk, ORA 7, (Tübingen).

Bibliography

449

— (2014) Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers, ORA 14, (Tübingen). Paulus, S. (2014) Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen, AOAT 51, (Münster). Pedersén, O. (1985) Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations Part I, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semitica Upsaliensis 6, (Uppsala). — (1986) Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations Part II, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semitica Upsaliensis 8, (Uppsala). Perry, E.G. (1907) Hymnen und Gebete an Sin, Leipziger semitische Studien II/4, (Leipzig). Pomponio, F. (1978) Nabû: Il culto e la figura i un dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro, Studi Semitici 51, (Rome). Powell, M. (1989) Aia = Eos. In: H. Behrens, D. Loding and M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11, 447–455, (Philadelphia). Prosecký, J. (1998) Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East, CRRA 43, (Prague). Radner, K. (2005) Die Macht des Namens; Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung, SANTAG 8, (Wiesbaden). Reade, J.E. (1986a) Rassam’s Babylonian collection: the excavations and the archives. In: Leichty, Catalogue VI, xiii–xxxvi, (London). — (1986b) Archaeology and the Kuyunjik Archives. In: K.R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, CRRA 30, 213–222, (Leiden and Istanbul). — (1998–2001) Ninive, RLA 9, 388–433. Reiner, E. (1956) Lipšur Litanies, JNES 15, 129–149. — (1958) Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations, AfO Beiheft 11, (Graz). — (1960) Fortune-Telling in Mesopotamia, JNES 19, 23–35. — (1974) A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ, JNES 33, 221–236. — (1984) Damqam īnim revisited, StOr 55, 177–182. — (1985) Your thwarts in pieces, Your mooring rope cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria, (Ann Arbor). — (1996) The synonym list Anšar = Anu, NABU 1996, no.125. Reiner, E. and Güterbock, H.G. (1967) The Great Prayer to Ishtar and Its Two Versions from Boğazköy, JCS 21, 255–266. Reisner, G.A. (1896) Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit, (Berlin).

450

Bibliography

Richter, T. (2004) Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit, Second Edition, AOAT 257, (Münster). Römer, W.H.Ph. (1969) Eine sumerische Hymne mit Selbstlob Inannas, OrNS 38, 97–114. — (2001) Hymnen und Klagelieder in sumerischer Spracher, AOAT 276 (Münster). Rowton, M.B. (1962) The Use of the Permansive in Classic Babylonian, JNES 21, 233–303. Rubio, G. (2009) Sumerian Literature: In: C.S. Ehrlich (ed.), From an Antique Land: an introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature, 11–76, (Lanham, Maryland). — (2010) Reading Sumerian names, I: Ensuḫkešdanna and Baba, JCS 62, 29–43. Saggs, H.W.F. (1986) Additions to Anzu, AfO 33, 1–29. Sanders, S.L. (2017) From Adapa to Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious Vision in Judea and Babylon, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 167, (Tübingen). Schaudig, H. (2001) Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik, AOAT 256, (Münster). Schretter, M. K. (1990) Emesal-Studien. Sprach- und Literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Sonderheft 69, Innsbruck. Schroeder, O. (1920) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiendenen Inhalts, WVDOG 35, (Leipzig). Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen, (Wiesbaden). Scurlock, J.A. (2006) Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia, AMD 3, (Leiden and Boston). Seidl, U. (1989) Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten, OBO 87, (Fribourg and Göttingen). Selz, G.J. (2002) “Babilismus” und die Gottheit dNindagar. In: O. Loretz, K.A. Metzler and H. Schaudig (eds.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, AOAT 281, 647–684, (Münster). — (2013) Texts, Textual Bilingualism, and the Evolution of Mesopotamian Hermeneutics. In: M. Bauks, W. Horowitz and A. Lange (eds.), Between Text and Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times, Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 6, 47–65, (Göttingen). Seux, M-J. (1976) Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 8, (Paris).

Bibliography

451

Silva Castillo, J. (1998) Nagbu: totality or abyss in the first verse of Gilgamesh, Iraq 60, 219–221. Sjöberg, Å. K. (1974) A Hymn to dLAMA-SA6-GA, JCS 26, 158–177. — (1975a) Der Examenstext A, ZA 64, 137–176. — (1975b) in-nin šà-guru4-ra. A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna by the en-Priestess Enḫeduanna, ZA 65, 161–253. Soden, W. von (1931) Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen, ZA 40, 163– 227. — (1933a) Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen, ZA 41, 90–183. — (1933b) Die lexikalischen Talfelserien der Babylonier und Assyrer in den Berliner Museen 2. Die akkadischen Synonymenlisten, (Berlin). — (1950) Review of A. Heidel, The System of the Quadriliteral Verb in Akkadian, Assyriological Studies 13, (Chicago, 1940), ZA 49 330–333. — (1951) Zum akkadischen Wörterbuch 41–49, Or. 30, 156–162. — (1960) Zweisprachigkeit in der geistigen Kultur Babyloniens, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 235/1, (Wien). — (1965–1981) Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 3 vols., (Wiesbaden). — (1969) Zur Wiederherstellung der Marduk-Gebete BMS 11 und 12, Iraq 31, 82– 89. — (1971) Der große Hymnus an Nabû, ZA 61, 46–71. — (1995) Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, Third edition, AnOr 33, (Rome). — (1996) Status Rectus-Formen vor dem Genitiv im Akkadischen und die sogenannte uneigentliche Annexion im Arabischen, JNES 19, 163–171. Soden, W. von and Röllig, W. (1991) Das akkadische Syllabar, 4th edition, AnOr 42, (Rome). Sövegjártó, S. (2020) Sumerische Glossenhandschriften als Quellen des altbabylonischen hermeneutischen Denkens, dubsar 18, (Münster). — (2021) On the Sumerian Glossographic Tradition. In : G.A. Kiraz and S. Schmidke (eds.), Scribal Habits in Near Eastern Manuscript Traditions, 277– 288, (Piscataway, New Jersey). Starr, I. (1983) The Rituals of the Diviner, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica, 12, (Malibu). Stephens, F.J. (1937) Votive and historical texts from Babylonia and Assyria, YOS IX, (New Haven, Connecticut). Stol, M. (1986) Review of ARMT XXII and ARMT XXIII, JAOS 106 No.2, 355–357 — (1989) Ancient philology in the New Year ritual, NABU 1989, no.60. — (1998–2001) Nanaja, RLA 9,146–151. — (2000) Birth in Babylonia and the Bible; its Mediterranean Setting, CM 14, (Groningen). — (2014) Tišpak, RLA 14, 64–66.

452

Bibliography

Strack, H.L. and Stemberger, G. (1996) Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by M. Bockmuehl, 2nd edition with emendations and updates, (Minneapolis). Streck, M. (1916) Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, I–III, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7/I–III, (Leipzig). Streck, M.P. (1994) Funktionsanalyse des akkadischen Št2-Stamms, ZA 84, 161– 197. — (1998–2001) Ninurta/Ninĝirsu A, RLA 9, 512–522. — (2002) Die Prologue der sumerischen Epen, OrNS 71, 189–266. — (2003–2005) Parak-māri, RLA 10, 334. Strong, S.A. (1898) A Hymn of Nebuchadnezzar, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology 20, 154–162. Tallqvist, K.L. (1938) Akkadische Götterepitheta mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen, StOr 7, (Helsinki). Thureau-Dangin, F. (1919) Un Vocabulaire de Kouyoundjik, RA 16, 165–171. — (1921a) Rituel et amulettes contre labartu, RA 18, 161–198. — (1921b) Rituels accadiens, (Paris). — (1925) Un hymne à Ištar de la haute époque babylonienne, RA 22, 169–177. Tinney, S. (1989) den-gi6-du-du: muttarrû rubē A note on Erra I 21, NABU 1989, no.3. Tigay, J.H. (1983) An Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis. In: H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, 169–192, (Jerusalem). Thomsen, M-L. (1984) The Sumerian Language, Mesopotamia 10, Copenhagen. Tsukimoto, A. (1985) Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien, AOAT 216, (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn). Uehlinger, Ch. (2008) Arbeit am altorientalischen Gottesnamen. Theonomastik im Spannungsfeld von Sprache, Schrift und Textpragmatik. In: I.U. Dalferth and Ph. Stoellger (eds.), Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35, 23–71, (Tübingen). Unger, E. (1938) Dilbat, RLA 2, 218–225. Velduis, N. (2006) Divination: theory and use. In: A. K. Guinan, M deJ. Ellis, A.J. Ferrara, S.M. Freedman, M.T. Rutz, L. Sassmannhausen, S. Tinney, and M.W. Waters (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House. Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, CM 31, 487–497, (Leiden). — (2014) History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition, GMTR 6, (Münster). Virolleaud, C. (1907–1909) L’astrologie chaldéenne, Fascicles 4 and 8 (Adad), (Paris). — (1908–1909) L’astrologie chaldéenne, Fascicles 1 and 5 (Sîn), (Paris).

Bibliography

453

Waerzeggars, C. (2010) The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: priesthood, cult, archives, Achaemenid History XV, (Leiden). Walker, C.B.F. (1981) Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions, (London). — (1988) Introduction. In: Leichty, Catalogue VIII, xi–xxv, (London). Wasserman, N. (2003) Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts, CM 27, (Leiden). Watanabe, K. (1987) Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons, Baghdader Mitteilungen 3, (Berlin). Weidner, E. (1924–25) Altbabylonische Götterlisten, AfK 2, 1–18, 71–82. Weiher, E. von (1988) Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil III, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12, (Berlin). Westenholz, J.G. (2010) Ninkarrak – An Akkadian Goddess in Sumerian Guise. In: D. Shehata, F. Weierhäuser and K.V. Zand (eds.), Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg, CM 41, 377–405, (Leiden and Boston). Wiggermann, F.A.M. (1998–2001a), Nergal, RLA 9, 215–226. — (1998–2001b), Nin-azu, RLA 9, 329–335. — (2009–2011), Siebengötter. A, RLA 12, 459–466. Wilcke, C. (1977) Die Anfänge der akkadischen Epen, ZA 67, 153–216. — (2007) 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, 209–244, (Wiesbaden). Woods, C. (2009) At the edge of the world: Cosmological conceptions of the eastern horizon in Mesopotamia, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9, 183– 239. Worthington, M. (2020) Ea’s Duplicity in the Gilgamesh Flood Story, (Abingdon, Oxon. and New York). Zakovitch, Y. (1980) Explicit and Implicit Name-Derivations, Hebrew Annual Review 4, 167–181. Zgoll, A. (2003) Die Kunst des Betens: Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten zu Ištar, AOAT 308, (Münster). Zimmern, H. (1901) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, I. Die Beschwörungstafeln Šurpu, II. Ritualtafeln für den Wahrsager, Beschwörer und Sänger, Assyriologische Bibliothek, 12, (Leipzig).

Index Agušaya A 228, Agušaya B 300, 301 Akkadian homophony 92, 103–107, 393–394 Akkadian words 92, 106–107, 340 phonetic similarity 104–106, 345 Sumerian loanwords 103 ancient evidence, speculative scholarship 28–39, 153, 177 Akkadian expressions 35–37 commentary texts 34–35 explanatory works 30–34 expository texts 28–30 Old Babylonian period 37–39 Assyrian Temple List 30, 32, 45, 50, 51, 53, 74, 97, 123, 136, 145, 274, 357, 373 Atra-ḫasīs, Atram-ḫasīs 38, 228, 238, 247, 264, 327, 331–332, 334, 417 Babylonian Theodicy 35, 89–90, 233, 240, 242, 267, 323, 342, 368 bára-dumuki 376, 393 See also Parakmāri biblical names 19, 20, 42, 421–425, 427 bilingualism 11, 16–17, 21-24 bilingual translations 23–24, 37–38, 426 commentary tradition 25–26, 36, 43, 49, 54, 56, 59, 90, 136, 142, 420– 421 Commentary II, described 34–35 consonantal change, limits 413–414 consonantal change, ṣ/s 367 consonantal groups 112–116, 129– 132, 413–414 d t ṭ, 113–114, 129

g k q, 114–115, 114, 129–131 s ṣ z š, 115–116, 131–132 contrived orthography 30–32, 34, 55, 117–134 additional elements 63, 133–134, 283–284, 356, 377, 397 consonantal groups 129–132 explicitly contrived 118 homophony 125–127 implicitly contrived 118 mimation 133, 406 nasal consonant g (g͂) 132–133, 346, 395, 403, 404, 406 syllabification 119–125 unorthodox writings 74, 134, 396–397 vowels 127–128 See also syllabification cuneiform writing system importance 25 potential 16–17, 91, 96, 407–411 deductive reasoning 26, 349, 351, 379 disputation literature 36, 37, 42 divination 24–25, 249–252, 255, 302, 365 Dunni-sā’idi 209, 280, 354, 431 early Hebrew exegesis 43, 420 See also Jewish scholarship Emesal 24, 67, 88–91, 144, 146, 152, 156, 370, 371, 376, 395, 396, 403, 404, 412–413 encoded names 19, 64, 173, 176, 337 Akkadian compositions 386–391, 417 biblical name derivations 424– 425

456

See also Gula hymn, general, encoded names Enūma eliš I 113, 229, 234, 252, 268, 269, 271, 281, 297, 323, 327, 391 Enūma eliš II 255, 323 Enūma eliš III 323 Enūma eliš IV 75, 293 Enūma eliš V 307 Enūma eliš VI 36, 40, 52, 67, 72, 77, 79, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 104, 108, 114, 128, 135, 139, 156, 231, 351, 387, 388 Enūma eliš VI–VII 16, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 47, 55, 56, 61, 62, 151, 175, 176, 178, 230, 384, 408, 416, 420 Enūma eliš VII 15, 16, 17, 26, 34–35, 40, 44, 51, 57, 58, 60, 66, 67, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87–88, 93, 94–96, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118–119, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131–132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141–142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 233, 237, 241, 243, 259, 276, 278, 296, 325, 386, 387–388, 398, 406, 408, 409, 410, 414, 419 Erra 39, 41, 44, 240, 256–257, 280, 390–391 E-sagil Commentary 30–31, 39, 45, 50, 60, 62, 69, 70, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92–93, 97, 101, 106, 108, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125–126, 129–130, 131, 132, 133–134, 135, 136, 137–138, 139–140, 145, 339, 341, 346, 348, 350, 352, 355, 358, 360, 378, 409, 410, 411

Index

Exaltation of Ištar 229, 268, 314, 315 Examenstext A 38 explanatory works 23, 30–34, 46 explicitly contrived orthography 55, 118–119 expository texts 28–30, 46 final vowels 128, 192, 272 g, g͂ See nasal consonant g Ganṣir, ganṣir 223, 332, 334 ganzir 332, 333 Gilgameš 14, 42, 227, 229, 233, 247, 250, 255, 278, 281, 289, 296, 305, 306, 307, 310, 327, 333, 417, 420 graphic interpretation 147–154, 337, 344, 358, 361, 368, 372–373, 378, 391, 398–403 interpretation of form 402–403 interpretation of sign forms 150– 153, 399–400 orthographic order 401–402 pictorial representation 153–154, 401 similar signs 148–150, 398 Gula hymn, critical edition 179–336 commentary 224–335 transliteration and translation 194–223 Gula hymn, general Akkadian hymns to healing goddess 174 Akkadian parallels 176, 230–231 archaising effect 190, 278, 289, 296 as literary work 171–173 as scholarly work 173, 176, 415– 417 as syncretistic hymn 165–166, 174–175, 415 CAD citations 186 context 173–176

Index

date of composition 176–178 elevated language and style 172, 277, 297 earlier editions 186–187 encoded names 19, 64, 173, 176, 224, 337, 338, 352-381 passim, 384–391, 397, 416–417 forms pronominal suffixes 192–193 redundant final vowels 192 unexpected case endings 192 “hymno-epic dialect” 171–172, 239, 245, 253, 257 importance in antiquity 173, 414 overview 165–173 Sumerian antecedents 175 synopsis 166–167 themes and motifs 167–171 conventional themes and motifs 168–169 pre-eminence 170–171 universality 169–170 Gula hymn, manuscripts K 232+ (Ms. A) 18, 19, 159–160, 174, 179–180, 246 K 232+ colophon 161–162 K 232+ catchline 161, 162, 163, 180, 190 KAR 109+ (Ms. B) 18, 19, 160– 161, 174, 181, 274, 275 KAR 109+ as hymn to Ištar 160– 161 BM 34399 (Ms. b) 160, 173, 182, 183, 187, 415, 429 BM 36333 (Ms. a) 160, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187 BM 37616 (Ms. c) 160, 163, 164, 181, 183, 187 BM 68611 (Ms. f) 160, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186

457

BM 75974 (Ms. d) 160, 162, 163, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187 BM 76319 (Ms. e) 160, 181, 184, 185, 187 manuscripts and text logographic writing 190–191 textual variations and orthography 188–190 variant writings 189–190 manuscripts table 187 overlap of K 232+ and KAR 109+ 161–164 content and structure 163–164 formal arrangement 163 internal evidence 162–164 Gula hymn, speculative scholarship 337–405 Akkadian homophony 393–394 analysis 338–384 common interpretive methods 392–393 encoded names 384–391, 416– 417 graphic interpretation 398–403 form of name 402–403 orthographic order 401–402 pictorial representation 401 sign forms 399–400 signs combined 400 similar signs 398 methodology 338–339 near-homophony 394–396 other interpretive methods 403– 404 overview 391–404 unusual writings 396–397 Gula hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi 18, 44, 75, 100, 159, 160, 165, 174, 175, 226, 230, 234, 235, 236, 244, 245, 249, 250, 253, 258, 260, 270, 279,

458

283, 285, 287, 294, 302, 308, 312, 313, 314, 317, 322, 331, 332, 369, 389–390, 415 Hebrew exegesis 43, 420 See also Jewish scholarship hidden meaning 13, 17, 25, 28, 30, 34, 38 Hinke kudurru 42, 391 homophony 91–96 contrived orthography 125–127 homophony and polyvalence together 99–103 Hymn to Nabû 47, 124, 230 Hymn to the Queen of Nippur 40, 47, 51, 58, 60, 71, 102, 112, 134, 178, 230, 261, 311, 315, 318, 415 implicitly contrived orthography 55, 118 i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a 30, 46, 57, 98, 104, 117, 145, 151 interlinear explanation, text corpus 45, 46 Jewish scholarship 17, 19, 20, 27, 39, 41, 42, 43, 411, 417–425, 427 exegetical parallels 418–421 Mesopotamian scholarship contrasted 411 Mesopotamian writings, parallels 417–418 Kettledrum Ritual 29, 30, 46, 61, 76, 98 kīma binûtīšūma 36, 72 kīma šumīšāma 35, 36, 298, 341, 362, 392, 424 kīma šumīšūma 35, 36, 72, 104, 389, 424 kudurru of Šitti-Marduk 391 lalgar 109, 242, 243 lexical tradition 22–23, 55, 84, 91, 112, 384, 413

Index

loanwords 103, 104, 393, 394, 409 logograms, logographic writing 23, 25, 29–30, 67, 76, 80, 81, 88, 98, 107, 117, 118, 124, 143, 148–149, 153, 154, 249, 251, 256, 262, 289, 297, 312, 320–321, 323, 381–382 See also Gula hymn, manuscripts ludlul bēl nēmeqi 41, 47, 58, 61, 66, 71, 72, 89, 101, 102, 105, 115, 146, 148, 153, 176, 261, 267, 282, 298, 309, 334 Marduk Names List 15, 30, 33, 46, 51, 56, 62, 69, 70, 73, 80, 94, 95, 98, 103, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 125, 129, 143, 145, 176, 342, 383, 387, 410 Marduk’s Address to the Demons 39, 44, 47, 97, 105, 109, 124, 149, 152, 386–389, 398, 418 Mari-utu 386, 391, 417 midrash, midrashim 17, 27, 39, 42, 418–419, 425, 427 midrashic name derivation 20, 391, 421–425, 427 multiple explanations, ancient texts 26, 33, 68–69, 407 multiple possibilities 155–157, 340, 407 names 14–16 meaning 14 importance 15, 42–43 connection between name and bearer, 14–15, 16, 42 name derivation, 20, 391, 421–425, 427 name midrashim 27, 42, 421 naming as creation, 15–16, 43, 113 nasal consonant g (g͂) 122, 132–133, 346, 395, 403, 404, 406

Index

Nanāy, Nanaya 175, 288, 320, 322, 328 near-homophony 108–109, 394–396, 409–410 Nippur Compendium 30, 32, 45, 53, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 71, 74, 81, 91, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128, 131, 134, 140, 141, 145, 151, 156, 316, 373 Nippur Temple List 30, 32, 33, 45, 62, 68, 69, 90, 91, 94, 107, 108, 109, 112, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 134, 141, 145, 373, 376 notariqon, noṭariqon 17, 27, 39, 41, 418–420 cuneiform 419 in Hebrew exegesis 419 Old Babylonian period 14, 22, 23, 24, 37–39, 154, 176–178, 189, 289, 408 older forms 152, 153, 154–155, 189– 190, 347 sacred names 155, 347 omen tradition 22, 24–25 Parak-māri, parak-māriki 219, 316, 317, 376, 393, 431 polyvalence 96–99, 406, 408, 411 “etymography” 147 homophony and polyvalence together 99–103, 140, 407 with other speculative methods 146 Prayer to Bēl 47, 80, 81, 82, 107, 108 Prayer to Bēltīya 47, 80, 354 punning 42, 56 rabbinic scholarship 17, 20, 27, 39, 41, 42, 411, 418–421, 425, 427 See also Jewish Scholarship

459

reduplicated elements 71, 95, 136, 142–144, 370, 403, 404 D stem 143–144 repeated use of elements 135–142 differently understood 139–142 related equations 136–137 unrelated equations 137–139 Royal ritual composition 47, 52, 61, 355 sa.gig See Sakikku sacred names, importance 16 Sakikku, sa.gig 153, 154, 259, 401 Scholars of Uruk 24, 37–38, 426 Seven Gods, Sebetti 390, 391 Smith College text 110 (S3) 29, 46, 75, 100, 143, 152, 154, 389 speculative interpretation 53–63 term introduced 16–17, 27–28, 53–54 ancient evidence 28–39, 153, 177 Akkadian expressions 35–37 commentary texts 34–35 explanatory works 30–34 expository texts 28–30 Old Babylonian period 37–39 context and integration 61 creating meaning 62–63 derivation 59–60 general characteristics 54–55 layers of meaning 61–62 limits 411–414 consonantal change 413–414 Emesal 412–413 vocalic change 413 modern scholarship 39–43 purpose 55–58 repeated interpretations 60–61 Sumerian and Akkadian used 58– 59 written phenomenon 407–411

460

See also Gula hymn, general; Gula hymn, speculative scholarship speculative methods 64–157 analytical methodology 64 abbreviation 144–146, 404 Akkadian homophony 103–107, 393–394 consonantal groups 112–116, 129–132, 404 contrived orthography 117–134 determinative given equivalence 78–81 different elements, single equivalence 135 element interpreted as determinative 81–82 Emesal 88–91 form freedom 82–86 free association 71–75 free handling of order 75–77 free rendering 71–75 graphic interpretation 147–154, 398–403 homophony 91–96 homophony and polyvalence together 99–103 multiple possibilities 155–157 near-homophony 108–109 not all elements used 77–78 older forms 154–155 part only of element used 116– 117 phonological reversal 146–147, 404 plural freely inferred 87–88, 404 polyvalence 96–99 reduplicated elements 142–144, 404 repeated use of elements 135–142

Index

speculative translation 70–71 translation of individual elements 65–70 vowels 109–112, 127–128 See also Akkadian homophony; consonantal groups; contrived orthography; Emesal; graphic interpretation; homophony; homophony and polyvalence; multiple possibilities; nearhomophony; polyvalence; reduplicated elements; repeated use of elements; syllabification; vowels; Gula hymn, speculative scholarship speculative scholarship term introduced 16–17, 27–28 ancient evidence 28–39, 153, 177 Akkadian expressions 35–37 commentary texts 34–35 explanatory works 30–34 expository texts 28–30 Old Babylonian period 37–39 commentary texts 25–27 intellectual background 21–25 bilingual tradition 23 lexical tradition 22–23 omen tradition 24 Jewish scholarship 417–421 modern scholarship 39–43 See also speculative techniques speculative techniques 49–63 free rendering 51–53 speculative interpretation 53–63 translation 50–51 See also speculative interpretation spoken language 64, 193, 259, 408– 411, 413 spoken sound 55, 96, 100, 108, 172, 394–395

Index

STC II 226, 235, 236, 257, 260, 267, 274, 300, 322 syllabification 31, 55, 119–125 explicitly contrived 119–122 implicitly contrived 122–125 morpheme boundary disregarded 121–122, 125, 351 phonetic parts 120–121, 123–124 Syllable Alphabet A 37 syncretistic hymns 18, 174–175, 363 See also Gula hymn syncretism of healing goddesses 19 šá-an-da-lip-úr, šá-an-da-lip-úrki, šá-an-di-lip-úr 189, 216, 306, 368, 392, 397, 402 Šadunni, ša-dun-niki, urušá-dun-niki, 189, 216, 217, 307, 369, 397 Šamaš hymn 174, 241, 244, 254, 268, 276, 415 Šulak, dšu-lak 379 temple lists 43–45 text corpus, described 43–47 Tintir 30, 32, 33, 45, 50, 52, 58, 59, 63, 87, 89, 118, 125, 127, 131, 135, 143, 267, 273, 279, 281, 285, 318, 334, 341, 354, 355 topographical lists 43–45 d tu-tu 15, 34, 70, 95–96, 99, 100, 108, 111, 113–114, 125, 129, 136, 138, 142, 143, 146, 148, 149, 398, 410 UD-NUNki 220, 324, 381, 399 vocalic change, limits 413 vowels 109–112, 127–128, 404 a/i 110, 128 a/u 110, 128 e/i 112, 128 e/u 128 i/e 128 i/u 111, 128

461

u/a 111, 128 u/i 111, 128 final vowels 128 Weapon Name Exposition 28, 29, 46, 68, 75, 83, 84, 85, 92, 96, 101, 106, 110, 112, 148, 150