The God Ninurta - CHAPTER ONE: Ninurta's Role in Ancient Mesopotamian Kingship

CHAPTER ONE Ninurta’s Role in Ancient Mesopotamian Kingship

Ninurta in Early Sources Ninurta as the warrior son of Enlil and Ninlil in Nippur was perhaps originally only a god of local importance. Ninurta was inextricable from Nippur and its ideology. In the Mesopotamian tradition, Nippur was considered to be one of the oldest, even a primordial city. Its name was interpreted pseudo-etymologically as “the city which created itself” (N i b r u ki ní - b i- t a d ù - a ) in the first line of the topographical ‘Nippur compendium’ (George 1992: 146, 441ff). By this etymology the true, primordial nature of this city was recognized by the ancient scholars (Maul 1997: 118, n. 37). Nippur therefore belonged to the world order already established at the creation. In other words when Heaven was separated from Earth, Nippur and Enlil’s temple Ekur were held to be the bond between them. In the second and first millennia BC, similar claims were made for Babylon and Assur, taking Nippur as a model (see Maul 1997). In the Early Dynastic period Nippur was already called dur-an-ki ‘bond between heaven and earth’ and Enlil had the central position in the pantheon. Among the Zami hymns from Abu Salabikh there is a hymn to Ekur where it is stated of Nippur: u r u a n - d a m ú a n - d a g ú - l á dEN.LÍL.KI d u r - a n - k i d E n - l í l k u r - g a l “city grown together with Heaven, embracing the Heaven, city of Enlil, bond of Heaven and Earth, Enlil, the great mountain.” 18 The most important city and its main temple as the cosmic bond forms a link between the different levels of the universe. The bonds are often described as cables, tying the universe together and providing the means for its control for the most important god(s). Accordingly, the cosmic capital Nippur an-

Emelianov 1994: 255; edition: R. D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abu-Salabikh, OIP 99 (Chicago 1974), 46, ll. 1-5. K i - e n -g i is equated with k u r -g a l in “Enki and the World Order” 192: k i - e n - g i k u r -g a l m a -d a a n - k i “Sumer, Great Mountain, land of heaven and earth.” K i -e n -g i is also equated with Nippur in lexical texts (see Lieberman 1992: 133, n. 38 and 135f). Thus it seems likely that the words k u r- g a l, k i -e n -g i, é -k u r, d u r- a n - k i and N i b r u could be treated as referring to the singular divine power or entity, merging the city, the main temple, the land of Sumer and its god Enlil (cf. Lambert 1992: 120). 9

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

chors and controls the ‘bond of heaven and underworld’ by being at the centre of the universe (George 1997: 128f). The centre of the world or axis mundi was sometimes imagined as a cosmic mountain. This mountain is attested in the Sumerian contest poem between Cattle and Grain as ‘the mountain of heaven and earth’ (h u r .s a g .a n .k i . b i . d a). Although there is no consistency in the concept of ‘world mountain’ in the Sumerian and Babylonian sources, Nippur is this mountain in a passage of The Exaltation of Ištar (ll. 33f): ú r u . m u h u r . s a g k i . i n . g i u r i = alu šad mati šumeri u akkadi “My city, the mountain of the land of Sumer and Akkad.” 19 The Sumerian composition “The Song of the Hoe” contains a remarkable story of creation according to the Nippur tradition. Enlil, who wanted the human seed of the Land to come forth from the earth, hastened to separate heaven from earth but, in order to make it possible for humans to grow in ‘Where Flesh Came Forth,’ he first suspended the axis (b u l u g n a m - m i - i n l á) of the world at D u r - a n - k i. He did this with the help of the hoe (ll. 1-8). Enlil’s temple Ekur was also created by the hoe. The first primordial event in this temple is related as follows (ll. 36ff): By day it (= the hoe) was building it, by night it caused the temple to grow. In well-founded Nibru, the hero Ninurta entered into the presence of Enlil in the inner chamber of the Tummal – the Tummal, the bread basket (?) of mother Ninlil – the innermost chamber of the Tummal, with regular food deliveries. Holy Ninisina entered into the presence of Enlil with black kids and fruit offerings for the lord.

The primordial city is the obvious living-place for the “king of the gods,” Enlil. An and Enlil are the only gods who are referred to the pre-Sargonic inscriptions with the epithet “king of all the lands” (l u g a l - k u r - k u r - r a). The same epithet is attested in the second millennium with the Babylonian Marduk as bel matati. Ningirsu is attested as “the hero of Enlil” (u r - s a g - dE n - l íl - la) from the time of Eanatum, and Enlil has the title “king of heaven and earth” (l u g a l- a n - k i - a) in the Stele of Vultures (Selz 1992: 200f). Marduk or Enlil as the supreme god and Ninurta as the “warrior of Enlil” are features of Mesopotamian religion during the millennia of its existence and they are already attested in these early Sumerian sources. Ninurta is equated with Ningirsu at least from Sargonic times on. In the later god-lists, the two gods are simply taken as different names for a single deity (CT 25 13:29). 20 The name Ninurta is, despite the difficulties with its meaning and etymology, a clearly Sumerian name. 21 Ninurta is mentioned in the oldest god-list 19

Lambert 1982: 215; see S. Langdon, “A Bilingual Tablet from Erech of the First Century B.C.,” RA 12 (1915), 74, ll. 33f. The couplet ends with the words temen kal dadme “the foundation of all the habitations.” 20 See W. W. Hallo, JAOS 101 (1981), 255 and Lambert 1975: 193f. Marduk and Aššur merged with Enlil during the second millennium. 21 The element u r t a (= IB) has been most frequently interpreted to mean “earth.” D. O. Edzard explains “u r t a Genetiv einer Lautvar. zu Uraš” (WdM, 114), thus Nin-urta “the Lord (of) Earth.” The word u ra š may equally mean “secret” (pirištu), or “heaven” 10

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA IN EARLY SOURCES

of Fara and his name occurs besides that of Ningirsu in the god-list of Abu Salabikh. In these lists, Ninurta’s name is once written as dNám-urta (OIP 99 82+). 22 Ningirsu’s name is spelled d Nin-gír-su and d Nì-gír-su (LF 1 v 19′ ; OIP 99 82+, Zami 117-119) and dNin-urta is also attested. 23 The temple of Ninurta at Nippur is mentioned from the late pre-Sargonic or early Sargonic period onwards. In the Collection of Sumerian Temple Hymns, originating in the Sargonic period, Ninurta is for the first time attested as the son of Enlil, bearing the epithet s a g - k a l p i r i g k u r - g a l- e t u - d a “the foremost, the lion, whom the Great Mountain (= Enlil) engendered.” 24 Ninurta’s shrine was probably situated on the western side of Nippur together with the palace (é - g a l), where the governor of the city (é n s i) resided. The Ekur temple and the priests of Enlil were assigned to the east bank of Nippur where the assembly of the citizens convened. 25 The ensi of Nippur was closely tied to the temple of Ninurta (Westenholz 1987: 93). The ensi is absent from any early text dealing with the administration of Enlil’s temple while he is deeply involved with the affairs of the Ninurta temple (Westenholz 1987: 29). Ninurta himself is called é n s i N i b r u ki according to a pre-Sargonic tablet (IM 43749). 26 On the Sumerian seals Ninurta’s most frequent titles are “great governor of Enlil” (é n s i - g a l d E n - l í l - l á) and “governor of Nippur” (é n s i N i b r u ki ). This evidence shows clearly that the (great) ensi of Nippur (or Enlil) was Ninurta, incarnated by the governor (é n s i) of Nippur. 27 The “great ensi of Enlil” is subsequently used as an important royal title. The title PA . TEsi - g a l - d E n - l í l is used by

(šamû), see MSL 14, p. 194, Ea tablet I 337-338c; cf. Horowitz 1998: 231. According to K. van der Toorn, the variant readings urta and uraš of the same sign point to an underlying form *urat (1990: 14). Jacobsen has argued that Ninurta means “Lord Plough,” deriving urta from an allegeded “cultural loan word” urta < *hurta < *hurt “plough,” but he does not explain where this cultural word comes from (1976: 127). See also Streck 2001: 513, R. Borger Or 30 (1961) 203. 22 See M. Krebernik, ZA 76 (1986), 169: LF 1 ii 18 ( d Nin-urta, Fara) and LS 8 (Abu Salabikh). See also P. Mander, Il Pantheon di Abu-Salabikh. Contributo allo studio del pantheon sumerico arcaico (Napoli 1986), 113; cf. Pongratz-Leisten 2001: 225. 23 See Streck 2001: 512; cf. Emelianov 1999: 143. 24 Sjöberg 1969: 21; the other “sons of Enlil” figuring in this collection are Ninazu of Ešnunna and Ningirsu of Lagaš, see Klein 2001: 291. 25 J. G. Westenholz (1992: 304): “Apparently, fields belonging to the citizens of the city and reassigned to the e n and l a g a r were not temple property. As a result, religious titles became linked to the political state of Nippur, for example, the n u - e š 3 - n i b r u . k i and the u m - m i - a - n i b ru . k i.” See A. Westenholz 1987: 21-29 (for Ekur) and 97f (for Ešumeša). Cf. George 1999a: 83ff. 26 For the earliest data, see A. Westenholz 1975: nos. 82 and 145, of which 82 is from the time of Lugalzagesi; no. 127 has a personal name Ur-d šu-me-ša 4 . For IM 43749, see Steinkeller 1977: 51, n. 37. 27 See Steinkeller 1989: 241. According to the interpretation of Jacobsen, the term énsi means basically “farmer”; ensî(k) can be translated as “productive manager of the donkeys” (1991: 119). C. Wilcke has translated e n s í - g a l as ‘Agrarverwalter’ (Or 54 [1985], 302f), and Richter explains the title “gleichermassen Stellvertreter und oberster Beamter Enlils in Nippur” (1999: 48, n. 186). 11

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

Lugalzagesi of Uruk, Sargon of Akkad and by two Mari kings. The title does not denote a city ruler because the domains of these rulers were vastly larger than that of a city ruler, and their cities were not Enlil’s city Nippur (Jacobsen 1991: 113). The term é n s i- g a l dE n - lí l refers here to the economic maintenance of Enlil’s temple which was the traditional obligation of the king who as such had the title “farmer of Enlil” (ibid.). 28 These titles applied to Ninurta can be plausibly interpreted as meaning that Ninurta was considered to be the city-god of Nippur. The name of his wife, Ninnibru, “the queen of Nippur” seems to be in congruence with this role. According to the interpretation of W. Sallaberger, Ninurta is attested as the city-god from Sargonic times onwards. 29 While Enlil is and will remain the most important god of the city, Ninurta in his important service under Enlil is the city administrator and in this sense he is the city-god as well. Ninurta’s title e n s í - g a l certainly refers to his role as “the landholder of Enlil” translated into Akkadian belum iššakku rabû in the Babylonian litanies (George 1992: 447). The title ‘vice-regent’ (iššakku) subsequently occurs as the epithet of the Assyrian king (see below, p. 40 and n. 103). It is also of importance that the naditum-priestesses of Nippur were dedicated to Ninurta, not to Enlil, as those of Sippar were dedicated to Šamaš and those of Babylon to Marduk. 30 It can be inferred from the passage in the Cursing of Agade (ll. 66-69), which presents Ninurta as the keeper of royal regalia, that while Enlil is the national deity of Sumer, Ninurta is the tutelary divinity of Nippur (Sigrist 1984: 7). One may add that in the hymn to Ninurta C, l. 61, “Ninurta’s city” stands in apposition to “the shrine Nibru.” The most ancient written record witnessing Ninurta’s mythological battles is the so-called Barton Cylinder (CBS 8383), which can be dated according to its over-all epigraphic features toward the end of the Early Dynastic period, or perhaps to Early Sargonic times (Alster and Westenholz 1994: 17). Ninurta’s mythological roles thus go back to the Early Dynastic period and perhaps even to prehistory (cf. Selz 1992: 189ff). This fragmentarily preserved text associates Ninurta with a kind of creation myth: in the beginning of time, Heaven and Earth began to “talk” to each other in a huge storm. Then one of the offspring of Heaven and Earth has intercourse with Ninhursag who becomes pregnant with seven twins. After this, the Earth holds a conver28 “In Ur III and later periods the word used for ‘farmer’ was engar, while older texts of the time of Akkade and earlier use ensî(k). The change in terminology may be seen as an early instance of the trend to replace ensî(k) with engar noted for later times in CAD I 33f” (Jacobsen 1991: 114). 29 Sallaberger 1997: 153: “Im Status des Götterherrschers Enlil als königlichem Reichsgott mag sich durchaus die neue Situation der Grossreichsbildung wiederspiegeln. Die Suprematie Enlils führte also ab sargonischer Zeit zu einer einzigartigen Differenzierung von Zwei Ebenen in Nippur: da Enlil nun vornehmlich als Reichsgott betrachtet wird, übernimmt Ninurta die Funktion des Stattgottes.” Cf. A. Westenholz 1987: 29. 30 D. Charpin, RA 84 (1990), 90; for nadiatum of Ninurta, see J. Renger, ZA 58 (1967), 150ff; cf. A. Westenholz 1987: 98. According to the opinion of Sigrist (1984: 6), the antiquity of Ninurta’s cult in Nippur is indirectly confirmed by the fact that there existed nin-dingir priestesses of the god.

CHAPTER ONE – THE EARLY HISTORY OF MESOPOTAMIAN KINGSHIP

sation with the “Scorpion” and Ninhursag is instigated to inundate the land which presumably had so far been dry. After the creation of fertility, as a consequence of some disaster, no food is produced in Nippur. Ninurta appears outfitted in a lion’s skin and sets out to solve the problem, assisted by the winds (Alster and Westenholz 1994). It is likely that the Barton Cylinder is an early example of a myth extolling Ninurta’s deeds like Lugale. The cylinder was probably intended for exhibition in Ninurta’s temple Ešumeša and the text seems to be a myth describing the origin of the temple cult (Alster and Westenholz 1994: 39). It thus seems plausible to assume that during the third millennium BC , former mythological stories of oral lore were focused onto Ninurta and his theological mythology was evolving during the third millennium as the mythology of Nippur. Enlil became the head of the Sumerian pantheon no later than the Early Dynastic II period (ca. 2700 BC ). It is reflected in the Sumerian composition “History of Tummal” which ascribes the foundation of Enlil’s temple in Nippur to Enmebaragesi of Kiš I (Klein 2001: 295). Ninurta’s importance in the Sumerian and subsequent Akkadian religion is related to the religious importance of Nippur, where he was the city-god. It has been argued that the canonical version of the Lugale-myth was written shortly after Gudea’s dynasty, the king who probably controlled Nippur for a short time (Wilcke 1993: 60). The argument for the dating comes from Lugale lines 475-78. In this passage Ninurta addresses diorite (e s i): …they shall extract you from the highland countries. They shall bring (?) you from the land of Magan … When a king who is establishing his renown for perpetuity has had its statues sculpted for all time, you shall be placed in the place of libations – and it shall suit you well – in my temple E-ninnu, the house full of grace.

Comparing the mention of Eninnu, the temple which was rebuilt by Gudea of Lagaš, to the text of Gudea Statue B vii 10-25, Statue A ii 6ff, 31 and Statue C iii 14ff make it clear that the canonical version of Lugale was composed about 2100 BC (van Dijk 1983: 2). But it is certainly an exaggeration to claim that the Ninurta myths were commissioned in their original form at the court of Gudea, as W. Hallo has asserted (1975: 185). If we can date the canonical version of Lugale to the time of Gudea, it is not to say that the Epic was created at that time. The Ninurta/Ningirsu mythology certainly existed before Gudea, as the Barton Cylinder witnesses. Myths exist without the need of being committed to writing and outside the canonical versions.

The Early History of Mesopotamian Kingship The kingship in the Sumerian cities on earth was directly dependent on the divine kingship in Heaven. Enlil reigned as the king among the gods and 31

kur-má-gán ki -ta na 4 -esi im-ta-e 11 alan-na-ni-šè mu-dú “From the mountains of Magan Gudea brought down the esi-stone, and shaped it into his statue.” 13

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

accordingly, his city Nippur was conceived of as the religious centre of the alluvial plain and received the veneration of its inhabitants, especially of kings:32 on the basis of impressions found at different sites from seals bearing the symbols or names of various major cities, there has been derived the concept of a southern Mesopotamian amphictyony (league), for economic cooperation between independent states. It is suggested that the symbolic center of this association was at Nippur, a city which held no power within historical times, but housed the Ekur, the temple of Enlil. (Postgate 1995: 399.)

According to the Sumerian tradition preserved in the composition History of Tummal, royal patronage of Nippur commenced in 2700 BC and continued for almost a thousand years (Cole 1996: 7). The votive inscriptions were dedicated to Enlil exclusively by ‘Great Kings’ from ED III onwards, which indicates that the tradition of the special status of Enlil’s temple went back at least to Early Dynastic times (Westenholz 1987: 29). Lugalzagesi’s long inscription from the middle of the 24 th century testifies to the fact that the right to present offerings to Enlil’s temple Ekur at Nippur was considered to be the acknowledgement of a ruler elected by Enlil as “King of the Land.” 33 At the same time, this right was considered as an obligation as well. The divine order also reflects the secular when it comes to the domination of one state by another. Enlil is the god of human politics and dispenses kingship. This role is already established in the Early Dynastic period. (Postgate 1995: 399.)

In the Sumerian song of the Hoe, which expresses the Nippur tradition of the creation of the universe, Abzu and Eridu are constructed after Ekur and Duranki. In the Sumerian Temple Hymns from the Old Akkadian period, Nippur comes second after Eridu, but the privilege to determine (universal) destinies is ascribed to Nippur and Enlil. 34 No such epithets as “shrine Nippur,” “shrine where destinies are decreed” or the epithet of Enlil as “lord who determines destinies” are attested with Eridu and Enki (Lambert 1992: 120). The honour of being the Oldest City was otherwise claimed by Uruk, Ereš, Sippar and, in the Sumerian King List, by Eridu (George 1997: 129). The central position of Nippur, which was established at the creation of the world, in practice means that all the gods of the land gather in Nippur for taking important decisions in the assembly. Nippur was an all-Sumerian place of assembly for purposes of electing a common ruler. 35 Nippur’s primary import once was thus as a place were decisions were made. This led in two directions: on the human level to the development of legal and other instructions, and on the divine level to its being a meeting-place for the gods, where one could get a reading of their common will concerning such issues as change in rulership. As a consequence of this latter aspect, the É-kur benefited

32 33 34 35

See Cole 1996: 7, Sallaberger 1997: 147f. Cole 1996: 7, Sigrist 1984: 7. See J. Klein, RlA 9 (1997-2001), 534; Sjöberg 1969: 18, 25 and 35. Jacobsen 1957: 105; cf. Lambert 1992: 119.

CHAPTER ONE – THE EARLY HISTORY OF MESOPOTAMIAN KINGSHIP

from kings’ gratitude to Enlil, the mouthpiece of this common will; these rulers would send some of the booty from their current campaign. The É-kur thus came to be a kind of museum. (Lieberman 1992: 135.)

In the Early Dynastic period the kingship or sceptre (g i d r u) was traditionally given to mortals by Enlil, Ningirsu or Inanna, according to the Early Dynastic royal inscriptions of Lagaš. 36 In most of these inscriptions we read that the king was “called by Enlil” (mu - p à - d a - dE n - l íl - lá), which implies that the status of the king was undoubtedly reinforced by a ritual enthronement in Nippur (Emelianov 1994: 256). When a ruler was called by a (good) name by a god, it implies that he has been given a royal title or throne name (Hallo 1957: 133f). The verbal construction m u — p à d literally means “to name (someone) with a name” which indicates that Enlil has “chosen a (new) name” for the king. 37 Investiture for the kings in the third and in the early second millennia thus took place at Nippur, where the kings were legitimized by the priests of Enlil (George 1996: 383). The role of Enlil as the king’s divine ratifier is already demonstrated by an inscription of Enmetena which was found at Nippur. There it is stated (Ent. 32 1:4′′ -8 ′′ ): [g i d r i]- m a h - n a m - t a r - r a d E n - l í l - l e N ib r u ki - ta E n - t e - m e - n a - r a m u - n [a]- a [n - s u m] “Enlil from Nippur gave the magnificient sceptre of decreeing the destinies to Enmetena.” 38 The investiture of the kings was probably concurrent with the “gods’ assembly” in Nippur where the authorities of the land decided the worthiness of a candidate. The decision of this council was thus regarded as the gods’ decision, and no less than the fate of the future king was decreed in that council. The ruler must have been chosen and acknowledged already in his own city by his city-god and council before he went to Nippur where his rulership was warranted by the ritual of “determination of the royal fate.” The ritual was held in Nippur or in Uruk with participation by the Nippur gods. We have no description of this ritual in the Old Sumerian texts, possibly because it was considered a sacred mystery. But the presence of this ritual can be ascertained from the royal hymns of the Ur III and Isin periods which record the fixing of the destiny for kings in the context of investiture. 39 By

See H. Steible, H. Behrens Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (FAOS 6), 142, s.v. gidru; see also Emelianov 1994: 255-56, Sallaberger 1997: 150. 37 See Steinkeller 1989: 75, n. 212. In Assyro-Babylonian mysticism, the act of “calling by name” (imbû) was associated with the word “fruit” (inbu), and in that way a senior god could bring forth his “fruits” (= the younger gods) just by calling them with a name. This concept is also known from the Babylonian Creation Epic. Cf. Livingstone 1986: 30ff: ["Fruit" is Sîn] because Anu called his name" (K 170+Rm 520 l.1). In the Gula Hymn of Bullu#sa-rabi l. 142, Gula (or Ninurta?) claims: “Anu, my father, called me according to his name (kima šumišuma)”; see Lambert 1967: 124 and cf. Livingstone 1986: 45. 38 Emelianov 1994: 256; see also Selz 1992: 202f. An inscription on a statue of Enmetena relates the building of Enlil’s temple in Lagaš, named é - a d - d a “House of the Father” (ibid.) 39 The text translated by W. Ph. Römer in TUAT II 2, 3, p. 168f might be a later echo of this ritual in OB times. In this text, a ruler is given a sceptre and other insignia by a 15

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

virtue of that ritual, the king was on covenant terms with a god as the ruler of his city and administered it in the god’s name. 40 In the period of the first unification of the Sumerian cities under a single city-state, there emerges, in response to the growing imperialistic needs, a new ideological model of kingship, according to which eternal kingship is given by Anu and Enlil to a mortal ruler. It seems that, in earlier times, eternal kingship could only be handed over by Enlil to his first-born son Ninurta. Now the king (beginning with Lugalzagesi), being the only legitimate one on earth, receives his kingship and insignia from Nippur and Uruk forever and thereby merges with Ninurta/Ningirsu (Emelianov 1994: 273-74). In the ritual formula of “determination of royal fate,” this is expressed either by bestowing “eternal kingship” on the king or by “extending the years of reign.” (ibid. 259.) In the Akkadian period, there emerges a tendency towards deification of the king. Sargonic kings were heroic military leaders and their royal authority was based on their military achievements. But Naram-Sin tried to change old Sumerian royal traditions, and the worst thing that Naram-Sin did, according to the opinion of the priests of Nippur, was to strive for self-deification without the approval of Nippur and its sacred offices. It would have required, in order to be legitimate, the solemn ritual of the “determination of royal fate” in Nippur and official transmission of royal insignia and power from Ninurta to the King. As the result, we read in the Cursing of Agade 57 that “the statement (= verdict) coming from the Ekur was disquieting [m e - g in 7 b a a n - g a r].” 41 Naram-Sin speaks in an inscription about a golden statue in honour of his eternal kingship and triumphant battles. 42 Here we can see how the king takes over Ninurta’s attributes: he is the victor, and he claims to have obtained eternal kingship. Naram-Sin neglected his duty to bring offerings to Enlil’s temple in Nippur and tried to exterminate the city of Enlil together with its prescriptions (Emelianov 1994: 258). Here for the first time occurs the dramatic replacement of Ninurta with the real king. We may summarize at this point that, according to the traditional Sumerian concept, kingship devolves along the line of Enlil-Ninurta-King. Ninurta, in his capacity as the first-born son of Enlil, is the Eternal King according to this ideology. 43 Human kingship is temporal and changeable. The evolution of this concept occurs during the Ur III period, giving to the king the eternal kingship or lengthening his regnal years – b a l a – the king’s status thus

god(dess) in Eanna and a new name is given to him instead of his ordinary (b u r - g i 4 ) name (see Römer 1969: 135-36 and Emelianov 1994: 256). 40 Emelianov 1994: 256f. The phrase i n i m k a - k é š in Uruinimgina’s inscription 5-6, xii 1-4 can be translated as “to establish a contract” (Emelianov 1994: 257, n.14); cf. the hymn Ninurta C, ll. 52f, where Ninurta says: “I am a hero belonging to Enlil, I am he who controls the affairs of Nibru” (i n i m k a -k é š- d a N i b r u ki-m e - e n). 41 Emelianov 1994: 274, with modifications. For analysis of the iconographic representation of Naram-Sin, see J. Westenholz 2000: 101-108. 42 D. Frayne, RIME 2 (1993), 160. 16

CHAPTER ONE – THE UR III AND ISIN-LARSA PERIODS

converging with that of gods (Emelianov 1994: 259). It is also interesting to note that in Old Sumerian texts, the term b a l a in the sense of “regnal period” is not used at all; this root is used only as a verb b a l “to change, to transfer” (ibid. 257), i.e., the rulership was considered to be temporary.

The Ur III and Isin-Larsa Periods The moon-god Nanna-Suen was the tutelary deity of Ur and figures in royal inscriptions from Ur-Namma on, predominately as “the first-born son of Enlil.” A contradictory theology existed simultaneously which claimed that Ninurta/Ningirsu had exactly the same status. Nanna’s appellation as the “first-born son of Enlil” resulted from his promotion in the Ur III period to the equality of Ninurta (see Klein 2001). The Sumerian myth “Enlil and Ninlil,” which was probably written under the influence of Ur III royal ideology, attests Nanna as the first-born son of Enlil, and curiously does not relate the birth of Ninurta. The other sons, according to the myth, were Nergal, Ninazu and Enbilulu (Klein 2001: 284). Ninurta’s birth is sometimes described in the Sumerian hymns where he is born “in the mountains” or, more precisely, he is called “the king [who was b]orn in the woman’s chamber in the mountain.” 44 Both Nanna and Ninurta bear the epithet “king” in the Ur III sources. Anu and Ea/Enki are also occasionally called “the king,” and in later times Aššur and Marduk had this royal epithet. In addition, Ninurta is called “the first choice (p a 4 š e š) of his father” in a Sumerian hymn (Ninurta C, 72f), an epithet which is not attested with Nanna. 45 While Nanna was the king of heavenly realms and tightly connected with the sky-god An, whose son he was before the Ur III innovation (Klein 2001: 297ff), Ninurta’s role seems to be that of the earthly king in the Ur III period. It was not, then, a contradictory statement that Nanna and Ninurta were both the “first-born son of Enlil.” In the first case, the emphasis lay on the heavenly kingship and the city of Ur and in the second case, on the political realm and the city of Nippur. The coronation of the new king in the Ur III period took place in Nippur, but subsequently also in Uruk and Ur which indicates that the rulers received their kingship primarily, but not exclusively, from Enlil (Sallaberger 1997: 155).

It is in the same vein that Gudea of Lagaš sometimes calls Ningirsu “my king” (l u g a l -g u 10 ) in the temple hymn to Eninnu (A viii 15, B ii 16). 44 Sjöberg 1973: 118 l. 16; cf. Ninurta C, ll. 55ff: “I am a man after the heart of my father Enlil, and I am the hero beloved by my mother Ninlil. I was born in the mountains; I am strong in the mountains.” 45 Cf. MSL 12, p. 131, ll. 76f: [p a 4 ]-š e š = ra-bi a-hi “elder brother”; [p a 4 ]-š e š = a-ša-re-du. It is possible that Akkadian pašišu(m) ’anointed’ was etymologized according to Sumerian p a 4 - š e š by the Mesopotamian scholars, see R. Borger, BiOr 30 (1973), 174. “The first choice of heaven” (p a 4 - š e š - a n - n a) was an epithet of Ninurta and it was used as a pseudo-ideogram for writing the Akkadian royal title pašiš Anim, “the anointed one of heaven,” see Alster 1972: 123, commentary to l. 6. 17

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

The earthly king also bears a physical resemblance to Enlil’s sons. Among the first kings who were recorded as Enlil’s sons are Naram-Sin and his successor Šar-kali-šarri of Akkad. 46 In the Ur III period, the king Šulgi is the next “Enlil’s son” on the throne (X 155, Bird and Fish 78) and Šu-Sin after him. 47 Many kings of Isin and Larsa are attested as Enlil’s sons: Išbi-Erra, Šu-ilišu, Išme-Dagan, Lipit-Eštar and possibly also Ur-Ninurta of Isin; as well as Abi-sarê and Rim-Sin of Larsa (Sjöberg 1972: 94f). The kings Iddin-Dagan and Išme-Dagan are also designated as sons of Dagan (Kramer 1974: 166). This shows that the ruling kings were considered to be of equal rank with Ninurta and Nanna. Rim-Sin was also called d u m u - ma h é - k u r - r a “magnificient son of Ekur” (TCL 15 35:10), using the standard epithet of Ninurta. 48 This evidence shows that in the Ur III period the king was considered to be fully divine. As a result of being a divine being, the eternal kingship is conferred upon the ruler due to his martial exploits and guardianship of temples and shrines. 49 And, according to Šulgi’s twenty-first year name, the king sometimes acted under the command of Ninurta: “year when Ninurta, the great ensi of Enlil ordered an audit for the temples of Enlil and Ninlil, and Šulgi, king of Ur, straightened out the fields (forming) the core of the accounting for the temples of Enlil and Ninlil.” 50 Ninurta, along with other divine sons, thus merges with the person of the king. At the investiture, full lordship and the weapons of Enlil’s firstborn Ninurta (by himself) are bestowed upon the king – in exactly the same way as Enlil gave them to Ninurta: Cf. Lugale 684-92: His father Enlil blessed him [= Ninurta]: “……, pre-eminent with your great name, you have established your habitation ……. Chest, fittingly ……, King of battle, I presented the storm of heaven to you for use against the

Sjöberg 1972: 91f; see D. Frayne, RIME 2 (1993) 127, ll. 15-19. Šulgi’s birth in Ekur is described in Hymn G 15-20: “Ašimbabbar appeared shining in the E-kur, pleaded to his father Enlil and made him bring a childbearing mother (?); in the E-duga, Nanna, the princely son, asked for the thing to happen. The en priestess gave birth to the trustworthy man from his sem*n placed in the womb. Enlil, the powerful shepherd, caused a young man to emerge: a royal child, one who is perfectly fitted for the throne-dais, Šulgi the king….” For treatments of this narrative, see Klein 1987, Hallo 1987 and Weinfeld 2001: 283f. In hymn X 157, Šulgi is said to have been enthroned with Uraš (= Ninurta) on a great dais. 48 Sjöberg 1972: 96f. The king is the “faithful farmer” (e n g a r -z i) of Enlil, exactly as Ninurta in Farmer’s Instructions 109; see Jacobsen 1991: 114, n. 6; cf. also the hymn to Ur-Namma G, ll. 16-20. 49 “Erst in der Ur III-Zeit scheint dann die überragende Rolle Enlils und Nippurs ihre volle Ausprägung erfahren zu haben, wie aus einer Anzahl von Einzelbeobachtungen abgeleitet werden kann” (Richter 1999: 450). 50 mu d Nin-urta ensí-gal d En-líl-lá-ke 4 é d En-líl d Nin-líl-lá-ke 4 bà-bar-kin ba-an-du 11 d ga Šul-gi lugal Urì ki-ma-ke 4 ašag(GÁN ) níg-ka 9 -šà é-d En-líl-d Nin-líl-lá-ke 4 si bí-sá-a; the translation and transcription according to Jacobsen 1991: 115; cf. F. R. Kraus, Or 20 (1951), 385; A. Westenholz 1992: 305f. Šulgi built or rebuilt the temple of Ninurta according to his fourth year name (W. W. Hallo, JAOS 101 [1981], 254). 47

CHAPTER ONE – THE UR III AND ISIN-LARSA PERIODS

rebel lands. O Hero of heaven and earth I presented to you the club, the deluge which sets the Mountains on fire. King, ahead of your storm the way was narrow. But, Ninurta, I had confidence in your march to the Mountains.”

After the assignment of attributes, the king is the subduer of mountains and the icon of Ninurta as depicted in the Lugale myth. After the enthronement, which may already be reckoned as deification, the king is called “faithful shepherd” (s i p a - z i d) and the guaranty of his absolute perfection is his identity with the god (Emelianov 1994: 265). The king has no equal, he is Enlil’s relative (see above) and he may decree the destinies of the land. This concept makes all the king’s undertakings justifiable and all his deeds consonant with the wishes of the gods (Emelianov 1994: 254, 274). This shift is also seen in some curious conceptual differences between the Cursing of Agade and the City Lament of Ur. The intention of the Cursing of Agade is to divest the kings of the Akkadian dynasty of their claim to divinity. In his introduction to the edition of “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur” (LSUr), P. Michalowski compares this text to the Cursing of Agade (CA): While in CA Naram-Sin was a guilty ruler, one whose own impatience and hubris brought about the calamity that afflicted his kingdom, in LSUr Ibbi-Sin was a simple victim of fate. … The switch of accent, from guilty to innocent protagonist, from curse upon the destroyed city to a curse upon those who fulfilled the destiny pronounced by the gods and who took part in the destruction of Sumer, is a fundamental element in the relationship between the two compositions and is the key to the intertextual nature of this type of writing. LSUr cannot really be understood without recourse to CA, for the relationship between the two is truly dialectical with mutual contradictions bound to similarities. The new order results from a change in perspective but this change can only be grasped against the evidence of the older text. (Michalowski 1989: 9.)

By the time of the first dynasty of Isin, whose kings especially favoured Ninurta, he is one of the gods who is explicitly called “the king” in hymns. Ninurta is “fit to be a prince” in a Širgidda hymn to a king. 51 His “kingship is eminently manifest” in a Širnamšubba to Ninurta (= Ninurta G), where lines 1-16 read as follows: [Hero, Enlil’s gatherer of the numerous functions, consummate hero, your king]ship is [eminently] mani[fest.] Hero [Ninurta], the (braided) crown [hangs loosely about your neck.] Hero Pabilsag, the (braided) crown hangs loosely about your neck. Hero Ningirsu, the (braided) crown hangs loosely about your neck; your kingship is manifest. Your kingship is over the heavens; it is over the earth. You sit with Enki upon the holy dais. Cf. ll. 58-63: You have taken your place upon the dais of Nippur. With father Enlil you sit. You are the heroic son of father Enlil. In the Ekur you stand. Cf. ll. 119-22: My king is the pillager of cities for his father; oh his valor! Hero Ninurta is the pillager of cities for his father. 52 51

Ninurta A, Segment A l. 2; see Sjöberg 1973: 116. Translation according to Cohen 1975-76: 22ff. This hymn to Ninurta was also popular in the first millennium BC as the surviving copies witness, only the genre of this 52

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

In the Sumerian Lament for Nibru, which was probably written during the reign of Isin king Išme-Dagan, it is explained how Isin became the dominant city: Ll. 236ff: Isin, the provisioner of the Anuna, awe-inspiring since times of old – An, Enlil, Enki and Ninmah have made its reign long! By their command they have handed it [= dominion] over and expressed their approval! They have entrusted it to Ninurta, the champion, the strong hero!

The decline of the Ur III dynasty led to a religio-political controversy between the cities of Isin and Larsa. 53 This expressed itself also in the royal ideology. Among the corollaries of Th. Richter’s study (1999: 448-51), is the fact that the religious capital of the Isin kings was Nippur, and Ninurta was of great concern to these kings. The Isin dynasty built itself on the model of the Third Dynasty of Ur, but the smaller extent of the kingdom did not allow it to lean on the religious authority of other cult centres of the previous empire (Sallaberger 1997: 161). Nippur was in the possession of the Isin kings since probably the sixth year of Išbi-Erra while, for the kings of Larsa, the religious centre became Ur with its moon-god Nanna/Sin. 54 Both gods were sons of Enlil, so the quarrel of the cities was over supremacy between brothers. As pointed out above, Ninurta and Nanna were both occasionally believed to be the “first-born son of Enlil.” From the reign of the Isin king Lipit-Enlil (1873-69), Nippur was dominated alternately by the two cities. 55 The number of references of the Isin kings to the cult of Ninurta in the year names and inscriptions thereafter diminishes, and after Enlil-bani (1860-37), there are none in OB documentation. 56 Rim-Sin I , the king of Larsa, who conquered Isin before Hammurapi, boasted in his inscriptions that the mighty champion Ninurta or his mighty weapon went at his right side during the battle. 57

song has shifted from širnamšubba to balag: “it is evident that balag literature served as a vehicle for the transmission of Ninurta literature down through the neo-Assyrian period into the Seleucid era” (ibid.). 53 The great gods, besides Ninurta, inhabiting Ešumeša in the Isin-Larsa period were Nusku, Suen, Enki, Inanna, Iškur and Utu; see Sigrist 1984: 141-43. The Cursing of Agade offers a similar list in ll. 210, 222, where Suen, Enki, Inanna, Ninurta, Iškur, Utu, Nuska and Nisaba pray to Enlil to destroy Akkad. Cf. Schwemer 2001: 151, “Ich möchte annehmen, dass die Reihe eben die vor Enlil im Ekur verehrten Gottheiten aufführt”; cf. ibid. 363. 54 See Richter 1999: 177; cf. ibid. 451: “Ist es ein Zufall, dass die Könige von Larsa mit Nanna/Sîn sich ebenso tatkräftig dem Kult einer Gottheit verschrieben, die als Sohn des Enlil galt, wie die Könige von Isin, die die Verehrung des Ninurta, des (nachmaligen) Gemahls ihrer Stadtgottheit Ninisina, unterstützten?” 55 See Cole 1996: 10 and for more detail R. M. Sigrist, “Nippur entre Isin et Larsa de Sin-Iddinam à Rim-Sin,” Or 46 (1977), 363-74. 56 See Richter 1999: 49f and Sigrist 1984: 7f. 57 See D. Frayne, RIME 4 (1990), 283, ll. 26ff; 285, l. 23. 20

CHAPTER ONE – “DETERMINATION OF ROYAL FATE” AT NIPPUR

Evidence for the Ritual of “Determination of Royal Fate” at Nippur Determination of destinies is a pivotal theme in the Mesopotamian literature. The royal fates were fixed in the assembly of the gods, and the most important decisions were naturally made in the main temple of the religious centre of the land, in Nippur, or Babylon. The gods who determined the destinies in Nippur are referred to as “the fifty great gods and the seven gods who decide destinies” in Enlil and Ninlil (cf. En. el. VI 80-81): Enlil was walking in the Ki-ur. As Enlil was going about in the Ki-ur, the fifty great gods and the seven gods who decide destinies had Enlil arrested in the Ki-ur. Enlil, the ritually impure, left the city. Nunamnir, the ritually impure, left the city. Enlil, in accordance with what had been decided, Nunamnir, in accordance with what had been decided, Enlil went. Ninlil followed. Nunamnir went, the maiden chased him.

It is plausible to assume that the investiture of kings in ancient Mesopotamia was accomplished by an accompanying decision of the gods’ assembly concerning the fate of the king. In the royal hymns of the Ur III and Isin I dynasties, Ninurta and Enlil are recorded as having pronounced the destiny for the kings. 58 Ninurta determines the destiny for the king Ur-Ninurta: Ur-Ninurta C, ll. 50-53: Lord, your fixing of destinies cannot be upset, and your holy word is powerful. Ninurta, lord, your fixing of destinies cannot be upset, and your holy word is powerful. Determine a good fate for Ur-Ninurta, with years of life forever unalterable as his destiny. 59

V. Emelianov has reconstructed the Nippur ritual of “determination of royal fate” on the basis of several royal hymns. His reconstruction is presented below with the textual evidence which may indirectly confirm it: 1) The king goes with trophies and gifts to Enlil’s altar and sacrifices: cf. Šulgi D, 375-82: He [= Šulgi] moored the boat at the temple area of Nibru, the temple area Dur-an-ki, at Enlil’s Kar-geština. He entered before Enlil with the silver and lapis lazuli of the foreign lands loaded into leather pouches and

Römer (1969: 137) has commented: “Versucht man schliesslich, die kultische Verwurzlung der ‘Königshymnen’ der Isinzeit zu bestimmen, liesse sich unter Vorbehalt die Hypothese aufstellen, dass diejenigen Hymnen, welche göttliche Schicksalentscheidungen für den König erhalten, mit dem Anfang der Regierung des in ihnen erwähnten Herrschers zu verbinden sind, wenigstens, soweit darin auch von der doch wohl kaum alljährlich stattfindenden Verleihung der Regalia, Kappe; Szepter; Thron; auch von Hirtenstab und ‘Zügel’ die Rede ist.” 59 It was most probably Ninurta who installed Ur-Ninurta on his throne according to the Instructions of Ur-Ninurta: “… in order to organize the plans of Šumer, in order to abolish wickedness, to implement righteousness, in order to settle the people in their dwelling places, in order to fasten the foundations of Ur-Ninurta’s shepherd[ship], [(Ninurta?),] the king of Ešumeša, born in Nippur, Suen’s(?) …, so that the house-born slave of Ninurta’s temple could be installed until distant days, from Nippur his beloved city, he established him until distant days, forever.” (Alster 1991: 149f, ll. 8-17.) 21

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

leather bags, all their heaped-up treasures, and with the amassed (?) wealth of the foreign lands.

2) Enlil summons the king by oracle and tells him of his election (n a m - n i r): cf. Ur-Namma B, 1ff: Exalted Enlil, …… fame ……, lord who …… his great princedom, Nunamnir, king of heaven and earth ……, looked around among the people. The Great Mountain, Enlil, chose Ur-Namma the good shepherd from the multitude of people: “Let him be the shepherd of Nunamnir!” He made him emanate (?) fierce awesomeness. The divine plans of brick-built E-kur were drawn up. The Great Mountain, Enlil, made up his mind, filled with pure and useful thoughts, to make them shine like the sun in the E-kur, his august shrine. He instructed the shepherd Ur-Namma to make the E-kur rise high; the king made him the mightiest in the Land, he made him the first among the people. Cf. also Šulgi G, 24ff, which having reported Šulgi’s miraculous birth in Ekur, states: Enlil chose Šulgi in his pure heart and entrusted the Land to him. As the shepherd of all the countries, Enlil leant the crook and the staff against his arm, and placed the immutable sceptre of Nanna in his hand; he made him raise his head high, sitting on an unshakeable royal seat.

3) This election is expressed by decreeing a “good fate” for the king. He is given a new (= good) name and the vital forces for the whole land: Cf. Šulgi D, 383ff: Enlil decrees a destiny for Šulgi: “O King, I will decree a destiny for you, I will decree a good destiny for you! O Šulgi, I will decree a destiny for you, I will decree a good destiny for you! I will decree heroism as your destiny! I will decree long-lasting office as ruler and king as your destiny!” Cf. Šulgi G, 21ff: Enlil gave him a good name: “A lion’s seed, who provides the E-kur generously, the beloved one of Ninlil; the one granted authority in the E-kur; the king of Urim, the one with shining heart, the shepherd, the protective genius of the Land.”

Usually gods never speak to mere mortals in Mesopotamia; they speak only to kings. In Sumerian mythic texts, if there occurs a deity’s encounter with a person of unknown status, the god introduces his/her speech with “If you are a god, let me talk with you, if you are human, let me determine your fate!” (see Inanna’s Descent 261ff; Lugalbanda II 105-108). In Enlil’s encounter with the kings, he treats them like humans. After the encounter, the mortal is of new, extraordinary status. 4) After the assembly of gods, various aspects of power and insignia are transferred to the king. This is the actual scene of investiture (for a detailed discussion, see Dietrich 1998: 171-81): Cf. Šulgi G, 35-43: May Enlil the trustworthy, whose words are lofty – good fate determined by him takes precedence – who makes sturdy flax and barley grow – may he prolong the life of Šulgi, the provider of the E-kur – hence its flax is indeed fine flax, its barley is indeed fine barley – the property of Nanna, the houseborn-slave of the E-kur, him whom Ninlil named at his birth Šulgi, the shepherd of the Land, the man whom Enlil knows, the steward of the temple.

5) A favourable decision of the “gods’ assembly” is pronounced, by which the full power of the king is secured: 22

CHAPTER ONE – “DETERMINATION OF ROYAL FATE” AT NIPPUR

Cf. Ur-Namma B, 12ff: The good shepherd Ur-Namma, …… whose trust in Nunamnir is enduring, the knowledgeable judge, the lord of great wisdom, prepared the brick mould. Enlil brought order in his rebellious and hostile lands for the shepherd Ur-Namma, and made Sumer flourish in joy, in days filled with prosperity. The foundations were laid down firmly and the holy foundation pegs were driven in. Cf. Šulgi D, 388ff: May you raise your head in terrifying splendour! May no man stand his ground before your fierce gaze! May your royal crown shine radiantly! May your sceptre be a princely sceptre, and may its shining branches provide shade! May there be joy in your heart, and may you never grow weary! May you be the life-giving king of your assembly! May your life flourish like herbs, may it flourish like grain! May it flourish like a fertile meš tree in a broad plot!

6) Enlil (or Ninurta) endows the king with long life and eternal kingship; it means that the gods make the king equal to themselves: Cf. Bur-Sin’s hymn to Enlil B, Segment A 4ff: Nunamnir, whose decisions cannot be altered, proud one imbued with terrifying awesomeness, who alone is exalted among the Great Princes, has taken his seat in the shrine of Nibru, in Dur-an-ki, in E-kur, the temple where the fates are determined, in the holy shining temple. Segment B 3-10: Enlil, what you say is exalted, and there is no god who can interpret it. “I will make the fate I have determined for you even more glorious. I will make your life long-lasting. I will make your days as numerous as those of Utu.” You are the god of all the foreign lands! Sa-gara. You are the lord who determines the fates! Bur-Sin’s royal trust is in you!

In the Old Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh (see SAA Gilg. II 104), kingship is given to Gilgamesh by Enlil (šarrutam ša niši išimkum d Enlil) and not by Inanna or Anu, which would seem more natural since Gilgamesh was the king of Uruk. This passage probably refers to the decision of the gods’ assembly in Nippur. 60 Emelianov’s reconstruction (adapted above with modifications, 1994: 25964) is convincing and I try to contribute to it with my own discussions below. The theme of fixing destiny for the king is pivotal in the royal rituals, especially in the enthronement ceremonies, throughout Mesopotamian history. Enlil is the main source of royal legitimacy and the blessings the king gets from Enlil are similar to those he receives from Inanna when he performs the sacred marriage. Ninurta certainly belonged to the assembly of gods which determined the royal destiny. After the ritual was carried out, the king’s new status as the “great governor of Enlil,” raised him to equal rank with Ninurta. The Babylonian tradition which developed on the basis of the same Sumerian conceptions considered Marduk and Nabû as such whose special task consisted of fixing the destiny of the king and the country during the New Year Festival. It is possible that the fate of the king was personified by the goddess Inanna already in these early periods, as it was personified later by Ištar, who functioned as intermediator between the god and the king:

Cf. J. Renger, RlA 5 (1976-80), 132. 23

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

Ishtar’s function regarding the king corresponds precisely with that in Greek is called the Tyche ["Fate"] of the king, in Latin the fortuna imperatoris and in Aramaic gadda d emalka. The fortune and prestige of the king consequently depend on various divine powers, of which Nebo and Bel on one hand, and Ishtar on the other, are the most important. Nebo fixes his destiny and future in a cosmic framework governed and symbolized by Bel; in this setting Ishtar embodies his Tyche. (Drijvers 1980: 69-70.)

One is unlikely to get a definite answer to the question of whether there was a fixed point in the calendar year when the investiture and determination of royal fate took place. But it is a reasonable assumption that it took place at the New Year festival at the beginning of the king’s reign (see Römer 1969: 138-39).

Ninurta’s “Journeys” Most of the important pieces of Ninurta mythology involve an itinerary – in Angim he is returning to Nippur from the battle in the mountains, in his “journey to Eridu” he visits Ea/Enki; in Lugale he withdraws from his dwelling to fight Asag and in the Epic of Anzû he meets the eagle on a distant mountain. The original Sitz im Leben of these itineraries is probably the military raids of the Sumerian kings against their geo-political enemies. An exception is Ninurta’s journey to Eridu, the background of which is certainly cultic and not concerned with battles (Ninurta B). It describes Ninurta’s acquisition of powers in Abzu, an act which is intimately related to his kingship. This myth is an etiological myth and is likely related to Ninurta’s role as the god of wisdom, like Egyptian Thoth and Greek Hermes. Eridu housed the god of wisdom Ea and his abode Abzu was the mythical source of divine wisdom. Ninurta’s Babylonian successor Nabû lived in Borsippa, where his temple Ezida was called bit #uppi “the tablet house.” 61 Ninurta, as the god of wisdom, has a parallel in the nature of the storm god Adad, who was also the god of extispicy and omens. 62 This journey of Ninurta to Eridu is probably an etiology explaining how Ninurta obtained his wisdom, among other powers, for the benefit of the land. The purpose of Ninurta’s journey to Eridu was to lay foundations for all Sumerian society. The powers (Sumerian me) he received in Eridu were given by Enki himself: “Ninurta, when he enters Eridu, the day is abundance, the night is magnificence, the me’s for life (Enki) gave to him, the heroic warrior of An, the eternal me’s he restored for him, the lord of all me’s.” 63 Ninurta

Ninurta was called apkal ilani “sage of the gods” in the royal inscriptions of Assurnasirpal II (Grayson 1991: 194, l. 5 || 229, l. 9.). The same epithet is attested for Nabû, see Pomponio 1978: 184, n. 39. 62 See Schwemer 2001: 221-26, 416-19, 683-94. 63 Reisman 1971: 4, col ii (= Segment B), ll. 10-12; translation modified according to Sjöberg 1973: 120. 24

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA’S “JOURNEYS”

decrees the destinies for the mortals in Abzu with An and Enlil. This image of Ninurta is that of the king or the crown prince. 64 Cf. Journey to Eridu; Segment C, 7-17: Ninurta, who together with An determines the destiny in the abzu, in Eridug, what you say takes the breath away; the fate you determine is immutable. Just as (?) for your statements, so also for your determining of fates, the heroic gods of the abzu salute you. O king, just as (?) you raise your head in the abzu, so, Ninurta, may you raise your head in Eridug! The Anuna gods speak in praise of your heroism.

Accordingly Ninurta’s journey to Eridu was connected with both his wisdom and heroism. In col. iii, l. 30 it is clearly expressed that the purpose of Ninurta’s journey was to extend his kingship over the enemy land: “the awesome glow of your kingship covers the rebellious land” (Reisman 1971: 5). The aim of the myth is to legitimate the king as the icon of Ninurta by giving him “powers” (me) in the Abzu (Sigrist 1984: 142): Segment B (= col. ii) ll. 5-9: When the king arrived at the abzu, the day was spent in abundance and the night in celebration; when Ninurta arrived at Eridug, the day was spent in abundance and the night in celebration. The firstborn son of An presented him with divine powers for a lifetime; the lord of all divine powers restored the ancient divine powers to their places for him. The good days of Sumer were to come…

There was a constant threat to the me’s of the land from the enemies of civilization. The theme of Ninurta’s journey to Eridu is alluded to in Lugale 53f where Ninurta’s weapon Šarur says to his master: Hero, there have been consultations with a view to taking away your kingship. Ninurta, it is confident that it [= Asag] can lay hands on the powers received by you in the abzu.

This “journey” text’s genre was labelled by Sumerians š ì r - g í d - d a ‘a long song’ (Reisman 1971: 3) and is identical to the genre of the Angim-composition. In the passage of Šulgi E, š ì r - g í d - d a is further qualified by á r n a m l u - g a l - l a “royal praise” (ll. 29, 54). Of the eight other preserved š ì r - g íd - d a compositions, only two do not include mention of the king: these texts do not “praise” the king but rather deal with divine favour expressed toward the ruler (Cooper 1978: 3). Concern for the king might be a unifying feature within the genre (ibid. 4). In my opinion, similarities between the two compositions mentioned go farther – Ninurta in these hymns must be considered as the paragon and divine tutor of the king: As they are described in the myth [Ninurta’s journey to Eridu], the powers that Ninurta gains demonstrate his kingship, the power of ruling the land and also foreign lands; and of dispensing destinies, law and order; but, at the same time,

Sigrist 1984: 142: “… est l’image du roi ou de prince qui en temps de guerre établit la justice. Ainsi l’émergence de Ninurta et l’établissem*nt de sa suprématie ne sont pas seulement matière théologique; ses retentissem*nts sont de nature politique. Ninurta devient le paradigme et donc aussi la caution de évolution du pouvoir royal dont l’autorité dérive non plus des hommes ou des anciens de la cité, mais des dieux.” 25

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

he also demonstrates his power for fertility and abundance of vegetation and animal life (i. 7-28). This fertility and creation aspect is another result of victorious encounter in battle; this is displayed with particular clarity in his conflict against Asag and the kur in Lugale (lines 349-67). (Penglase 1994: 63.)65

In the final section of Ninurta’s journey to Eridu, “his power is limited in relation to Enlil. His deeds and attributes of power are mentioned, but at the same time the author points out that all of these, including his ‘determination of destiny,’ are ‘according to the wish of Enlil’ (iv. 23-8)” (Penglase 1994: 63), as well as “establishment of the throne of kingship,” cf. translation by Reisman (1971: 6-7, D 16-19): [Oh Ninurta], your [lo]ftiness is according to the wish of Enlil, Your great instruction [of the foreign land] is according to his wish, Your [de]termination of destiny is according to his wish, Your establishment of the [throne of k]ingship is according to his wish.66

The Return of Ninurta to Nippur, on the other hand, describes Ninurta’s triumphal return to his father Enlil. Already at the outset, Ninurta is called “the king of the lands” (l. 7). This mythical event of Ninurta’s glorious return from his battle against the “mountains” on his shining chariot was used in rituals, as becomes evident if we consider the texts dealing with Enlil’s chariot (Civil 1968) and Marduk’s chariot (Lambert 1973). A chariot for transporting gods’ statues was an important cult object, for example, at the New Year Festival of Babylon where it was Marduk’s vehicle. Marduk’s chariot in this text is called narkabtu and also g ì r i . g u b/rukubu “vehicle” which appellation is otherwise used of Marduk’s boat and symbolizes the vanquished Tiamat (cf. En. el. VII 78). 67 Tiamat, as the representative of chaos, appears thus as the “vehicle” of Marduk; she is in his employment, his “boat.” A similar relationship exists between Ninurta and Anzû – after Ninurta has vanquished him, the latter becomes his symbol. The name of Marduk’s horse is Mupparšu “winged” (En. el. IV 52) which is otherwise the epithet of Anzû (see SAA Anzu I 11, II 5, III 119). The slain adversaries of the gods are seen in depictions on chariots and in gates, alive, with opened eyes, holding gate posts or symbols. 68 This shows that the mythological

Compare the translation of the passage from the Journey to Eridu, Segment A (= col i) 8ff: “To determine a destiny of abundance, to improve …… all the ……, to see that vegetation should grow lushly in the spacious land, to see that the cow-pens and sheepfolds should be heavy with butter and cream to make the shepherds rejoice, the warrior Ninurta went to Eridug. To see that the Tigris and the Euphrates should roar, to see that ……, to see that the subterranean waters should be terrifying, to see that in the lagoons the carp and the goat-fish,” etc. 66 The ETCSL translation of n í g ša g 4 -g a - n a - k a interprets it as “… pleases to him (Enlil),” but the sense is the same in both cases. 67 See Cavigneaux 1981: 141, 79.B.1/30, ll. 6-8, esp. ti-amat ru-kub-šu-ma (l. 8); cf. Lambert 1973: 277, l. 2; see the comments by Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 193 and cf. ibid., p. 90. 68 Wiggermann 1994: 231. The representations of Anzû-birds were used as apotropaica in Mesopotamian temples, see CAD A/2, 155 s.v. anzû; see also Pongratz-Leisten 1996 and Ninurta and the Monsters below (pp. 109-21). 26

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA’S “JOURNEYS”

enemies of the great gods only accentuate their power – while the god governs the whole field of action, the monster represents the unpredictable. The vanquished enemy enters the service of the god (Wiggermann 1994: 226). The second important example of the ritual use of Ninurta’s return in Angim involves the triumphal akitu of Assyrian kings after a military campaign (see Triumphal akitu of Assyria [pp. 90-108]). It should be emphasized that all these cultic events, where the king’s glorious returns from victorious military campaigns are celebrated, must have this myth in the background, as is also seen in a cultic commentary from the first millennium (SAA 3 39:24ff): The Elamite chariot, which has no seat, carries inside it the corpse of Enmešarra. The horses which are harnessed to it are the ghost of Anzû. The king who stands in the chariot is the warrior king, the lord Ninurta.

Thus, there can be little doubt that Ninurta in Angim should be considered identical with the victorious king, who has accomplished his task of subduing his enemies, represented by the corpses of monsters hanging on Ninurta’s chariot. Only after his victorious return does the king become fit for kingship. In this way, Ninurta has also fulfilled the wishes of Enlil and can obtain a permanent kingship. On the ceremonial level, the triumphal return of the king or his divine counterpart enables the ritual of enthronement. The most important obligation of Ninurta after his return to Nippur is the pronouncement of “enduring favour for the king.” The intermediary between Ninurta and the king is Ninurta’s wife Ninnibru (Angim 196-203): Lord Ninurta gazed approvingly at him [= the king]. When he entered E-šumeša, his beloved temple, alone, he told his wife, young lady Ninnibru, what was in his heart, he told her what was on his mind and he made an enduring favourable pronouncement to her for the king. The warrior, whose valor is manifest, Ninurta, son of Enlil, has firmly grounded his greatness in Enlil’s sanctuary (Cooper 1978: 99-101, cf. Emelianov 1994: 252).

Ninurta looks with a “good eye” towards the king, whose hand he directed during the battle, and pronounces the formula of destiny for him. In Sumerian texts a favourable look and a “good word” always designate the transmission of power, in the context of enthronement through sacred choice. 69 It is of particular importance that Ninurta “went in procession publicly to E-šumeša to manifest his eternal divine powers” (Angim 193f). It means that the transmission of power is feasible only if the ruler has observed the order of original ordinances (or “eternal divine powers”) given by the god. Only then can such a fierce force as the deluge also become an ally of the righteous king and bring him to victory. Victory over the “rebellious countries” (k i - b a l ) becomes possible only if the king has not violated the ritual prescriptions of Nippur, especially its sacrificial order, and has not ignored the commandments of higher gods. In the opposite case, his city and his country will be delivered to hostile lands (Emelianov 1994: 250). The political interpretation of this myth is thus perfectly coherent (Sigrist 1984: 142).

See R. Caplice and W. Heimpel, “Investitur,” RlA 5 (1976-80), 141. 27

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

In Lugale, the plea for the king is put into the mouth of “boatmen” (l. 652 a - i g i - l u - e - n e) who transport Ninurta back to his father after the victorious battle (ll. 662-68): My King: there is a hero [= the king] who is devoted to you and to your offerings, he is as just as his reputation, he walks in your ways; since he has brilliantly accomplished all that is proper for you in your temple, since he has made your shrine rise from the dust for you, let him do everything magnificently for your festival. Let him accomplish perfectly for you your holy rites. He has formulated a vow for his life. May he praise you in the Land.

The same sequence of obligations as in Angim is more elaborately drawn up in the Hymn to Ninurta for Lipit-Eštar (Lipit-Eštar D). The royal power is first transmitted to Ninurta (ll. 9-15): Your mother, Nintud, held you by the right wrist as she led you before your father in E-kur, the august shrine. Then she said: “Decide a great fate for the son who is your avenger!” Šagbatuku. Enlil looked at him with joy and decided his fate: “Uta-ulu, may your name be exalted throughout the extent of heaven and earth. Your awesome radiance will make all the great gods tremble with fear.”

In congruence with this event, Ninurta’s spouse Ninnibru is “every day” expected to intercede on behalf of the king (33-37): Ninurta, hero of Enlil, as you are sitting on your throne-dais, may your spouse, the true lady Ninnibru, who embraces you, step before you daily with friendly words on behalf of Lipit-Eštar! Uta-ulu, may you be his aid when he prays! May he be able to rely on your words, may he be peerless! (cf. van Dijk 1983: 7-8.)

The last passage parallels well Ninurta’s action in Angim 196-203 quoted above, and the scene described there might even be considered as the response to Ninnibru’s constant supplications. 70 A somewhat different version is found in the hymn put into the mouth of Išme-Dagan, where Ninurta is described as the divine helper of the king (A 76-89): Nuska, Enlil’s minister, placed the royal sceptre in my hand, revealed the powers of E-kur to me, established there for me an awe-inspiring podium, and ensured that Enlil’s heart was in a joyful mood. Ninurta, Enlil’s mighty warrior, approached Nunamnir in speech on my behalf and secured (?) the favourable words of Enlil and Ninlil for me. He has made my reign of kingship excellent, has made me great in lordship, and is indeed my helper. In E-kur he prays continually on my behalf, and is indeed the constable of my kingship. He, who with mighty

The assisting role of a Nippur goddess in bestowing kingship should not be underestimated, as is also seen in a passage of the Hymn to the Queen of Nippur (III 5-6): nadan šarrutu enutu […] mamman ul ile’i “To grant kingship, lordship […] no one [but she] is able” (Lambert 1982: 196-97). In a Hymn to Inanna for Ur-Ninurta (= Ur-Ninurta A), Inanna is depicted as the spouse of the king Ur-Ninurta and she intercedes on behalf of the king (l. 7: “she perfected the divine plans of kingship, so as to re-establish it”) before Anu and Enlil (ll. 11-13): “She made the king whom she took by the hand humbly enter into the …… where destinies are determined, where the good divine powers are assigned to the great gods – the E-kur, the holy dwelling of An and Enlil that is enbued with terrifying awe.” Cf. Jacobsen 1957: 105, n. 23; Kramer 1974: 169. 28

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA’S “JOURNEYS”

weapons makes all the foreign countries bow low, has put great power …… into my right hand.

In this passage, the royal sceptre is given by Nuska, the vizier of Enlil. 71 Ninurta has somehow ensured the good mood of Enlil and he is boastfully described as “praying on behalf” (š u h u - m u - d a - g á l - g á l) of the king, he is the king’s “helper” (á - t a h) and “agent” (m a š k i m) of his kingship. In the epilogue of the SB Anzû Epic (SAA Anzu III 130), Ninurta comparably is named “guardian of the throne of kingship,” with the Akkadian term rabi$u which equals Sumerian m a š k i m. According to Angim, the right moment for Ninurta’s favourable pronouncement to the king occurs when Ninurta is returning from his successful raid in the “mountains.” On the level of ritual, it implies that a “good pronouncement” is preceded by a cultic procession of the victorious Ninurta. In LipitEštar Hymn D, the situation of Ninurta’s decreeing the destiny for the king is formulated as a desideratum, the divine favour which has not yet occurred (ll. 38-41): May he be the king whose fate Ninurta decides, the one endowed with attractiveness! Lipit-Eštar, the prince who is a supporter of yours, the son of Enlil, has established justice in Sumer and Akkad, and made the Land feel content!

The hymn ends with a plea to Ninurta to hand over his weapons, including the flood, to the “prince” (46-49): Lord, mighty flood which tears out the roots of the enemy! Ninurta, mighty flood which tears out the roots of the enemy, may you put a weapon into the mighty hands of prince Lipit-Eštar which will snap his enemies in two as if they were reeds!72

Very similar cultic practices are also recorded from the first millennium BC . The Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus had, according to the Istanbul stele,

undertaken such a sequence of actions on the 4th of Nisannu at the beginning of the New Year Festival: With the good grace of the goddess Gula assured in a dream, Nabonidus entered before Nabû to receive the “just sceptre.” He then visited Nabû’s consort, Tašmetum, on her seat, whom he expected to intercede for him with her fatherin-law, Marduk, in his sanctuary … the king’s duties next took him before Marduk in Esagil.73

Cf. George 1996: 384. The son of the city god gives a sceptre to the king in royal inscriptions before the rise of Babylon also in Gudea Statue B ii 18-19, where it is given by Igalimma, son of Ningirsu. 72 The relationship between Lipit-Eštar and Enlil is further described in a hymn to Ninisina, see W. H. Ph. Römer, Hymnen und Klagelieder in sumerischer Sprache, AOAT 276 (Münster, 2001), 91-105. 73 George 1996: 382. See H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften, AOAT 256 (Münster: Ugarit 2001), 519ff, cols. vi-ix, esp. vii, 11 ′ff. 29

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

The goddess Gula was a later form of Ninnibru, with whom she was commonly equated (Lambert 1982: 179). The king Nabonidus follows here the ancient mythological patterns of Nippur, as described in the Angim myth and Lipit-Eštar Hymn D to Ninurta discussed above. The only difference is that Tašmetu is not the spouse of Marduk, and she is rather expected to intercede on behalf of Nabû, which points out that Nabonidus should here be acting as the earthly counterpart of Nabû. 74 The temple where Nabonidus received the sceptre was the temple of Nabû ša harê, the ceremonial name of which was E-ningidar-kalamma-summa “The house which bestows the sceptre of the land,” and also for Nebuchadnezzar II , the god of this temple was Nabû (George 1992: 311). The cultic topography of this temple was a legacy of the Courts of the Sceptre in the Ekur temple of Nippur. 75 Thus, we can see that from the earliest history of royal rituals in Nippur until the Neo-Babylonian and Persian kingship, a motif of female intercession on behalf of the terrestrial king to Ninurta/Nabû was preserved. It would be incorrect to assume that the situation described in the Lipit-Eštar hymn concerned only the king in question because literary use and preservation of the hymn Lipit-Eštar D lasted almost a thousand years. It is interesting to note that a literary catalogue of MA date (ca. 1100) still lists this adab among other royal hymns of the Isin dynasty (Hallo 1975: 192). 76 There are further examples of continuity which would bridge the gap between these distant traditions. The idea of female intercession occurs in the love dialogue of Nanaya and Muati from the time of the Babylonian king Abi-ešuh (1711-1684). The goddess Nanaya is invoked: “Let the king live for ever at your (fem.) command! Let Abi-ešuh … live forever [at your command]!” Muati is clearly the same deity as the later Nabû, and the witness of an amatory dialogue during the reign of Abi-ešuh makes it a predecessor for the first millennium Nabû’s marriage with Tašmetu, a ritual which took place in the month of Iyyar. Ištar is found speaking on behalf of Ammiditana to her beloved Anu in an Old Babylonian hymn (Nissinen 2001: 112). The Neo-Assyrian king Assur-

In the Nabonidus Chronicle there is a formula occurring four times in the preserved portion of the text which puts Nabonidus in overt parallelism with Nabû: “The king did not come to Babylon in the month Nisan, Nabû did not come to Babylon. Bel did not come out, the Akitu festival did not take place.” Grayson 1975: 106ff: šarru ana Nisanni ana Babili ul illiku, Nabû ana Babili ul illiku Bel ul u$â isinnu akitu ba#il; Chronicle 7 ii 5-6, 10-11, 19-20, 23-24. 75 George 1996: 384; see Ninurta as the Keeper of Royal Regalia below (pp. 51-55) for further details. 76 KAR 158. Hallo concludes: “Thus, cultic hymns associated with the early kings of Isin were preserved into the second half of the second millennium, even though there is no evidence whatever for any interest in such relatively obscure kings as Shu-ilishu, Lipit-Ishtar or Ur-Ninurta at this late date. But the explanation for this seeming paradox is not far to seek. So far from preserving specific biographical data like the true royal hymns, these cultic hymns allude to the king, when at all, only in the most general terms. The royal name is, in fact, of such secondary importance in these contexts that it is very often abbreviated almost beyond the point of recognition.” (1975: 192-93.) 30

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA’S “JOURNEYS”

banipal addresses Nabû in a colophon with the words: “[Tašme]tu, the Great Lady, your beloved spouse, who intercedes (for me) [daily] before you in the gentle bed, who [never] ceases demanding you to protect my life. [The one who trusts in] you will not come to shame, O Nabû!” 77 In the Assyrian hymn SAA 3 11 rev., the goddess Šerua is invoked to intercede for Assurbanipal with her husband Aššur, who was the personal god of the king (Livingstone, SAA 3, p. xxiii). In the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Sennacherib, there recur the accounts of the ritual events enacted by the king which certainly are based on Angim: the king has made the lofty chariot (narkabtu $ertu) for Marduk adorned with gemstones and precious metals and presented it to him. In the same breath, the preparation of the bed for the divine bed-chamber is mentioned (Borger 1996: 139-40). Both are placed in the ceremonial bedroom (Nissinen 2001: 103ff). Marduk and his spouse are expected to decree the fates for the king and his enemies during their time in bed, according to an invocation to the gods: May they bless kingship [by the ut]terance of their pure mouths which is not to be countermanded! May they make me, who looked for their dwellings, attain my heart’s desire! May they supress my enemies, (I) who fulfilled their ardent wish. … May Marduk, king of kings, weaken his potency and destroy his seed, May Zarpanitu pronounce a bad word about him on the bed of her boudoir! May Mullissu, queen of Ešarra, spouse of Aššur, creatrix of the great gods, pronounce with her lips every day a good word in favour of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, before Aššur, [… ru]le, long life and plenty of days, establishment of his reign […] his royal throne. May Aššur and Mullissu pronounce (this) forever and ever.78

In these Neo-Assyrian accounts, the ancient ritual pattern described in Angim is easily recognizable. The mention of the chariot for Marduk and the subsequent plea for the living king by the spouse of the god connect it with Ninurta’s victorious return from the mountains on his lofty chariot and his subsequent encounter with Ninnibru. The new circ*mstance not explicitly attested in Angim and Lipit-Eštar D is the mention of the bed and bed-chamber where the goddess is expected to intercede on behalf of the king. In my view, the original ritual context of Ninurta’s “journeys” to Eridu and Nippur is to be found in the ceremony of “determination of royal fate” and the enthronement of the Sumerian king in Nippur. Ninurta’s journey to Eridu may parallel Nabû’s journey to Babylon on the 4th of Nisannu when he gives a sceptre to the king. 79 This hypothesis is plausible because Babylon had

See Lambert 1966, 49:14; Pomponio 1978: 42-44 and Nissinen 2001: 112 for Abi-ešuh and Ammi-ditana. For Assurbanipal, see H. Hunger AOAT 2, 338:21-25; the translation here is adapted from Nissinen 1998: 597. 78 K 2411 i 18 - ii 15, translation according to Nissinen 2001: 104; cf. Streck 1916: 300.302. 79 On the basis of Gudea Cylinder B iii 3-5 (ll. 863-71), the date of Ningirsu’s return from Eridu can be exactly established: “The year ended and the month was completed. A new year started, a month began and three days elapsed in that month. As Ningirsu arrived 31

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

absorbed the identity of Eridu at the end of the second millennium, becoming a new Eridu. A quarter of the city of Babylon was already called Eridu in the Kassite texts (Clayden 1996: 111). Babylon is equated with Eridu in the topographical compendium Tintir I 21. Marduk took the place of Ea (see En. el. VII 14) and Tintir V 90-91 eulogizes: “Babylon, the place of creation of the great gods, Eridu, in which Esagil is built.” Esagil correspondingly took the place of E-abzu, being called the ‘replica of Apsû’ (George 1997: 129-30). Nabû enters twice into Babylon during the New Year Festival – on the 4th of Nisannu he enters Babylon as Eridu, and Ninurta’s journey to Eridu was the myth which lay in the background of this cultic event. His subsequent demonstration of valour on the 6th of Nisannu in the Ehursagtila temple at the festival corresponded to Ninurta’s battle in the “mountains” (see pp. 55ff below). On the 11th of Nisannu Nabû entered a second time into Babylon when the gods returned from the akitu-chapel in the plain. At this time Nabû entered Babylon as Nippur, because Ninurta’s return to Nippur parallels the events of the 11 th of Nisannu (“coronation”) in the Babylonian ritual, when Nabû was exalted. The ritual application of Angim in later times may have been wider than this: the first millennium rituals which were perhaps taken over from the second millennium Babylonian rituals by the Assyrian scribes, the dramatic representation of Ninurta’s victory over his enemies is reenacted either by the footrace [see pp. 102ff below] or by his return to the city in a chariot; the latter must have derived from Ninurta’s myth Angim. (Watanabe 1998: 444.)

The royal hymns in Sumerian make us believe that determination of the royal fate took place at the ritual enthronement at the beginning of the king’s reign. Beforehand, the king had the obligation to journey to the most important cities where he received gifts and regalia from different gods, e.g., me’s from Enki (Eridu), a crown from Suen (Ur), “princely clothing” from Inanna (Uruk) and a throne from Enlil (Nippur). 80 The theme of gods bestowing gifts on the king occurs in royal hymns throughout the second millennium and into the first, as shown by the Assurbanipal Coronation Hymn (SAA 3 11 rev. 5-8.). The only difference seems to be that in later times the king does not make actual journeys in order to obtain his royal insignia. In Angim, Ninurta is depicted as the tutor of the king; he is returning from the battle against the “rebel lands” or “mountains.” He gazes approvingly at the king and utters a favourable pronouncement, i.e., in a sense determines his destiny. Angim thus describes the king’s enthronement in conjunction with Ninurta’s return from the “mountains.” By virtue of this royal power which Ninurta transmits to the king, the latter is expected to be able to

from Eridu, beautiful moonlight shone illuminating the land, and the E-ninnu competed with the new-born Suen.” Ningirsu’s entering his temple is described (B v 6-7): “Ningirsu entered his house and it became the shrine of Abzu when there is a festival.” Accordingly, Ningirsu entered his new house on the 4 th day of the first month (cf. the discussion by Emelianov 2000). 80 Cf. Šulgi X. See J. Renger in RlA 5 (1976-80), 129. For the Mesopotamian import in the West, see Dietrich 1998. 32

CHAPTER ONE – BABYLONIA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

perform heroic deeds like those of Ninurta. The ritual setting of Angim is probably that of confirmation of the king’s power. Ninurta is the giver and the king the receiver. Since Ninnibru is expected to intercede on behalf of the king, the transmission of power is not unconditional – the king must be acceptable to Ninurta. The ritual of decreeing the destinies at first millennium coronations is not attested (Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 56), but it is attested at the Babylonian New Year festival which served as divine confirmation for the king. Thus we can detect the influence of Angim both in first millennium “sacred marriage” and in New Year celebrations. The common feature for all these state rituals is divine confirmation of the king and decreeing his destiny. Ninurta as the protector of the king is often replaced by other divine figures in the second and first millennium mythology of Babylonia and Assyria.

Babylonia in the Second Millennium In the Old Babylonian period, the role of the dispenser of kingship is consigned to Marduk. The theological programme is explicitly stated in the prologue of ‘Hammurapi’s Code,’ where Enlil “decreed for Marduk the role of Enlil” and “established an eternal kingship for Marduk within Babylon” which means that “Babylon’s worldly success is mirrored in Marduk’s selection by the gods to exercise the former role of Enlil, instead of Enlil conferring the title on the ruler directly at the Ekur in Nippur.” (Postgate 1995: 403.) On the basis of dispersed evidence from the second millennium, we can observe that the Nippur triad of Enlil-Ninlil-Ninurta is gradually replaced by the Babylonian Marduk-Zarpanitu-Nabû, although the authority of Sumerian tradition retains its hold. The Old Babylonian forerunner of the first millennium god list An=Anum lists Ninurta (TCL 15 10:62) immediately following Enlil, and An=Anum I 205 calls Ninurta “the firstborn son of Enlil.” 81 The city of Babylon and Marduk’s temple Esagil began to assume the function of Nippur and Ekur with the aid of Hammurapi’s tremendous military success and by the decline of Enlil’s city due to natural circ*mstances in Hammurapi’s time. 82 This decline probably culminated in the era of Samsuiluna, around 1720 (Gibson 1993: 8). Babylon did not suffer from this economic crisis, and between Hammurapi and the end of the Kassite period the city grew greatly, probably tripling its area (George 1997: 134). The period shortly before Hammurapi witnessed the first rise of Assyria. In the 18th century, the Amorite conqueror Šamši-Adad postulated the shift

See Streck 2001: 513; Klein 2001: 291, n. 61. See Maul 1997: 120. In the Codex Hammurapi, reference is made to Tutu and Zababa instead of Nabû and Ninurta. Hammurapi renovated Zababa’s temple in Kiš (D. Frayne, RIME 4 [1990], 343f) and built Marduk’s temple in Borsippa (ibid. 355). Nabû later replaced Tutu as the city-god of Borsippa, but “Tutu” was still considered to be one of Marduk’s names in Enuma eliš VII 9ff. 82

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

of the world-axis from Nippur to Assur. The claim to rule was probably derived from the axis-theology of Nippur, and was expressed in Assyria by the new king’s title šar kiššati, “king of the world.” 83 The claim to rule did not develop fully at that time in Assyria, as Babylon, under Hammurapi, brought the rise of Assyrian power to an abrupt halt (Maul 1997: 122). Archaeological and written evidence suggests that the city of Nippur was largely abandoned for three hundred years, from the late eighteenth through the end of the fifteenth century, and was revitalized only under the Kassite kings in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries (Zettler 1997: 149). The “Kassite period” in Nippur lasted approximately from 1360-1225 during which time Nippur was a major political center of Karduniaš (= Babylonia). 84 The Kassite kings, as evidenced by numerous inscribed lapis lazuli discs, especially favoured Enlil, Ninlil, Ninurta and Nusku. 85 Ninurta was equated in Kassite-Babylonian bilingual lists with the Kassite god Maruttaš. 86 Kurigalzu I, who founded the new royal capital Dur-Kurigalzu in the early fourteenth century, built there a temple complex which contained a new temple for Ninurta as well, é - s a g - d i n g i r - r e - e - n e (Clayden 1996: 116). The Kassites endeavoured to rebuild the old and venerable city in its ancient fashion and did some preparatory archaeological work in order to identify individual buildings: Only such a procedure can explain how, after hundreds of years of abandonment, the Kassites could have placed their versions of the Inanna Temple, the North Temple, the temple in WA, and other buildings, over their Old Babylonian predecessors. The reconstruction by the Kassites of this holiest of cities on so grand a scale and with such care for detail is consistent with that dynasty’s deliberate efforts to revive other aspects of ancient Mesopotamian culture, such as a resurrection of the long-dead Sumerian language and literature. (Gibson 1993: 8-9.)

The Kassite kings are recorded as having frequently spent their New Year celebrations in Nippur. It probably means that they were enthroned there because according to Astrolabe B, the installation of the king occurs in the first month of the year (Cohen 1993: 306). Twenty references, mostly in the year formulae, contain the expressions “coming up” (ele šarri) and “going down” (arad šarri) of the kings. 87 Two of the references bear dates of Nazi-Maruttaš (1323-1298), and five date to Kudur-Enlil (1264-1256). The references to “dethronement” (arad šarri) cluster in the 11th and 12th months; but those to “enthronement” (ele šarri) between the 29th of the 12th month – 2 nd of the 1st month. Cohen comments: “perhaps the presence of the king in

This title (šar kiššati) existed long before in Sumerian tradition as “the king of Kish,” see Hallo 1957: 21-29. 84 See M. P. Streck, RlA 9 (1997-2001), 544. 85 Biggs 1965: 100; these discs are published in BE 1/1 and PBS 15. 86 See J. A. Brinkman, RlA 7, p. 440, s.v. Maruttaš. 87 J. A. Brinkman, “Materials and Studies for Kassite History,” Vol I (Chicago 1976), 411ff. 34

CHAPTER ONE – BABYLONIA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

Nippur was part of a special installation ritual of the king which may be alluded to in the phrase ‘installation of the king’ in Astrolabe B.” 88 The popular theme on contemporary Kassite seals is “Greifvogel und Beute” (Stiehler-Alegria 1999) which certainly involved a depiction of the “slaying of Anzû” motif. Nine of these seals with that motif contain a prayer, of which five are addressed to Marduk. The fact that four of these seals were found in Nippur is not an argument for the popularity of Marduk in 14th -century Nippur, but implies an ongoing transfer of power in the pantheon (Stiehler-Alegria 1999: 263). Even if the Kassite kings did rebuilding at Nippur as a religious obligation, they probably took it already as an equivalent to Babylon. Thus, one of the Kurigalzus calls Babylon a-li $a-a-ti (Sumerian u r u u l) “the (most) ancient city,” which put it on a level with the ancient cities of Nippur, Uruk, Ereš and Sippar. 89 After the period 1360-1225, Nippur was again abandoned, probably as a result of a raid by an Elamite king. 90 By the time of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104), Enlil was still the paramount god in Nippur, as shown in the introductory section of the kudurru from the same city dating from 1110, where Enlil is called “king of the great gods who in heaven and earth/hell has no god to rival him.” 91 To summarize, during the Old Babylonian period Marduk took over conjointly the position of the father Enlil and the mythology of his son Ninurta in the pantheon. 92 W. G. Lambert has frequently defended the position (e.g., 1989: 218) that Marduk displaced Anu and Enlil during the Second Isin Dynasty (1964: 3ff). In the mystical and explanatory texts, this change in the pantheon is understood or explained as the defeat of Anu and Enlil by Marduk (Livingstone 1986: 166). Lambert claims that it is difficult to find evidence for Marduk’s promotion before Isin II : The god list An=Anum in Tablet II gives fifty names of Marduk, following on forty for Ea. Since “fifty” was Enlil’s mystical number, this is a discreet way of asserting that Marduk has displaced Enlil, but in Tablet I Enlil still has “Fifty”

Cohen 1993: 307. In parentheses, Cohen hints at the possibility that the Neo-Babylonian practice of humilating the king at the New Year festival might originate or have evolved from this possible installation ritual at Nippur during the Kassite period (ibid.). 89 Lambert 1992: 122; see W. Sommerfeld, “Der Kurigalzu-Text MAH 15922,” AfO 32 (1985), 1, l. 4. 90 Cole 1996: 12. This Elamite raid is mentioned in Chronicle 22 (P) iv 14-15: “[At the time of] Enlil-nadin-šumi, the king, Kiten-Hutran, king of Elam, attacked. [He went into] action against Nippur (and) scattered its people” (niše meš is-pu-uh), see Grayson 1975: 176. 91 Lambert 1992: 121f. The kudurru is published by W. J. Hincke, A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar I from Nippur (Philadelphia 1907), 142ff; see also Cole 1996: 46. 92 In Šurpu IV 1-3 Marduk is mentioned as defeater of Asakku (Reiner 1958: 25). Marduk as a warrior god is probably based on his equation with Ninurta (Livingstone 1986: 154). 35

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

as a name. The date at which Tablet II of An=Anum was finalized in its present form is uncertain, though it must be before the time of the Middle Assyrian scribe Kidin-Sîn, to whom we owe two surviving copies. He lived at about the same time as Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon. (Lambert 1992: 122.)

We do not know whether Nabû was already held to be Marduk’s son at the time of the First Babylonian dynasty, but he does become Marduk’s son in the Kassite period (Pomponio 1978: 49f). Accordingly, much of the mythology of Ninurta was bestowed on the son of Marduk, Nabû. 93 In the Middle Babylonian period, Ninurta is occasionally presented as the supreme god, in the personal name “Ninurta is the Head of the Gods” and in a boundary stone curse: “Ninurta, king of heaven and earth/hell.” 94 In the documents from thirteenth century Nippur, there also occurs a personal name Marduk-šar-ili “Marduk is the king of the Gods” (Sommerfeld 1982: 159, n. 1). Similar claims are made for half a dozen different gods in Old Babylonian times, and it proves only that any of the great gods could be so promoted at the whim of the believer (see Lambert 1992: 122). The gradual takeover of Ninurta’s and Enlil’s positions by the Babylonian gods is seen on several levels. For example, the temple of Enlil as Bel-matati (“Lord of the Lands”), E-namtila in Babylon, was built at the time of Hammurapi, and from the time of Ammisaduqa at least it was also the site of Ninurta’s cult. 95 Probably he was housed there until his own temple, E-hursag-tilla, was built in Babylon. According to the list of Bel’s statues (BM 119282), which highlights the new ideology of Babylon in the twelfth century, the name of Marduk’s (Bel) statue in E-namtila was L ug a l- d imme r a n ki a, “King of the gods of Heaven and Earth/Hell” (George 1997a: 66-67). In Enuma eliš VI 139 the assembled gods hail Marduk with the same name. A. R. George comments: We do not know whether this statue was the principal cultic image in E-namtila but, given Marduk’s take-over of the cult-rooms of Ninurta in E-sagil and E-hursag-tilla, it would be no surprise if it was. … It is significant that in Tintir IV E-nam-tila is ascribed to Bel-matati, rather than simply to Enlil, as it had been by Hammurapi. (George 1997a: 67.)

One can detect a systematic transformation of Babylon into a Nippur. The syncretism of Marduk and Enlil had been imposed on Nippur by the reign of Adad-apla-iddina in the eleventh century, who calls the walls of Nippur Nemet(ti)-Marduk, “Bulwark of Marduk,” and those of Babylon Imgur-Enlil, “Enlil showed favour,” names which are the opposite of what one might 93

Pomponio 1978: 191-95. The two are explicitly equated in CT 25 11: 12 and KAR 142 I, 22f. 94 d nin-urta-reš-ilanimeš is found in BE 14 22:12 and 132:10, PBS 2/2 1:16, and d nin-urta šàr šamê u er$eti in BBSt., p. 35:39 (Lambert 1989: 218). 95 See George 1993: 130f, no. 848 and 849 for Babylonian Enamtila. A part of Enlil’s temple in Nippur was also called Enamtila. This was also a name of the Ur III royal residence. The composition Winter and Summer 105 refers to Enamtila as the residence of Enlil, but in line 234, it is a residence of the king Ibbi-Sin also (Michalowski 1989: 81). 36

CHAPTER ONE – BABYLONIA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

expect. 96 Marduk became Bel, the Lord par excellence and the identity of Enlil suffered in this syncretism, which favoured the god of Babylon, until some centuries later the principal god of Nippur was known most popularly as Bel, “Lord.” 97 At Babylon, Marduk appears to have been equated with both Enlil and Ninurta. Three of Marduk’s (Bel) statues in Babylon were situated in the cult places of the gods of Nippur, Enlil and Ninurta. In the chapel of Ninurta of the Courtyard in Esagil (= Room 12) with immediate access to a courtyard there was: the statue of Bel as Asarre, positioned centrally on the Dais of Asarre opposite the gate on to the courtyard, [and it] must have been the principal cultic image in the chapel of Ninurta. In other words, Marduk was not a bystander in this chapel; he was the main object of attention. A similar situation probably obtained in Ninurta’s own temple, E-hursag-tilla, where the list locates the fifth statue of Bel in “the chapel of Ninurta” (George 1997a: 66-67).

In both cases we encounter an image of Marduk instead of the image of Ninurta. 98 The sanctuaries themselves are still ascribed to Ninurta which would indicate that Marduk has absorbed Ninurta’s identity, but not deposed him: The substitution of Marduk for Ninurta is in agreement with the theological reform that saw the transfer to the god of Babylon of mythology traditionally attached to Enlil’s son. … Locally at least, Ninurta became simply an aspect of Marduk, and his cult became Marduk’s cult. In this way, we can assume that an ancient visitor to the temple of Ninurta in Babylon would not have been surprised to find that the chief object of worship there was in fact a statue of Marduk. (George 1997a: 67.)

This new ideology found its fullest expression in Enuma eliš where Enlil appears only “where he can contribute to Marduk’s greater glory” (Lambert 1992: 120). The date of composition of the Creation Epic has recently been corrected (Dalley 1997). W. G. Lambert (1964) posited the date of Nebuchadnezzar I , linked to the idea of the retrieval of “the” statue of Marduk by that king from Elam. S. Dalley has argued, taking into account the list which enumerates seven statues of Marduk, that it is superfluous to speak of a single statue of Marduk. The statues of Marduk had returned to Babylon on at least three occasions before Nebuchadnezzar – in the reign of Agum-kakrime, in the reign of an anonymous king and in the reign of Itti-Marduk-bala#u or Ninurta-nadin-šumi. It was not a unique event, and the very frequency of this type of occurrence undermines its supposedly crucial role in inspiring the composition (see Dalley 1997: 167).

George 1997a: 69; see D. Frame, RIMB 2 (1995), 57, l. 5 and 51, l. 3. George 1997: 135, Cole 1996: 19. 98 The Akkadian word $almu can actually denote almost any type of visual representation; see I. Winter in Journal of Ritual Studies 6 (1992), 15. For a possible mythological background of materials used for Marduk’s images, see Ninurta and the Mountain of Stones below (pp. 162-68). 97

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

The evidence from titles in personal names and the god-list An=Anum (see Sommerfeld 1982: 174f) support an earlier date for the Creation Epic. Various theological elements which are found in Enuma eliš are in fact already attested in the Old Babylonian period (Dalley 1997: 169). The reinstallation of Marduk’s statue in Babylon was not crucial in inspiring the composition, but probably contributed only to redaction and updating of a not yet rigidly canonized text (ibid. 167). The top titles of Marduk do not appear only in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but are even attested from an archive of texts dating before the end of Samsuiluna’s reign99 and in the Hymn to Abi-Ešuh where Enlil gives to Marduk the kingship over all heaven and earth (ibid. 169): Abi-Ešuh A, ll. 7-10: He (= An) has given you the supervision of great august commands of heaven and earth, he has bound to your hand the shepherd’s crook that curbs the foreign lands, he has made you excel among the great gods, and in addition has given you, to control them, the royal sceptre and the ritual ordinances of the gods. Enlil has fixed as your destiny kingship over the totality of heaven and earth and has relieved you of any rivals; he has made you eminent among the Anuna, and has bestowed on you the exercise of domination. Cf. l. 14: The lordship of the hero standing in all his strength upon this august pedestal is indeed eminent in heaven and earth. The lordship of Marduk standing in all his strength upon this august pedestal, is indeed eminent in heaven and earth.100

Thus it seems likely that by the time of the Babylonian king Samsuiluna, Anu and Enlil have already given to Marduk lordship over the four quarters of the world and made his name supreme. 101 A Šu-ila to Marduk, edited by J. S. Cooper (1987), which may go back to the Old Babylonian period, also attests such epithets of Marduk as Enbilulu, Tutu, Šazu and Sirsir which are associated with him in Enuma eliš, only in a different order (Dalley 1997: 169). Therefore, when Enlil transfers his most prestigious title Bel-matati to Marduk in Enuma eliš (VII 136), it can already be seen in the Old Babylonian theological context. An early version of Enuma eliš might have existed as a modification of the Old Babylonian version of the Anzû Epic. It is possible that the early version of Enuma eliš dates to the celebration of Hammurapi’s conquest and was redacted in the time of Nebuchadnezzar I . This might also be an explanation why Nebuchadnezzar’s sage takes his genealogy back to the sage of Hammurapi, Asalluhi-mansum (Dalley 1997: 169-70): The evidence now seems overwhelmingly for an evolution of Enuma eliš which took shape in Babylon probably towards the end of Hammurabi’s reign, underwent various modifications possibly linked to the retrieval of captured statues, and continued to change in the Late Babylonian period. Different cities would have had different versions of the text, not least with a different god as conqueror,

See F. N. al-Rawi, “A New Hymn to Marduk from Sippar,” RA 86 (1992), 79-83. Printed edition in: J. van Dijk, “L’hymne à Marduk avec intercession pour le roi Abi-ešuh,” MIO 12 (1966-67), 57-74. 101 See D. Frayne, RIME 4 (1990), 381. 100

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA IN ASSYRIA

whether Nabu, Adad, Sin or Nergal/Erra, as we know from passing allusions in various texts. (Dalley 1997: 171.)

The elevation ideology of Ninurta in Nippur probably stood behind the process of the “raising of Marduk” (Maul 1997: 120 n. 42). Even if Marduk was firmly connected to his city Babylon, his promotion was an essential part of his identification with Ninurta. The revised mythology for the cult of Marduk was perfected in the late second millennium (George 1999a: 72). The new rise of Babylon in the twelfth century, the redaction of Enuma eliš and the date of Nebuchadnezzar I ’s new ideolology again coincide with a decline of Nippur: When correctly reassembled, the evidence clearly shows sharp breaks in pottery traditions not only in the Old Babylonian period but also in the post-Kassite period. And in both periods of abandonment, dunes invaded the site, just as they have done in the past hundred years. The abandonment at the end of the 2nd Millennium meant that there was the necessity for a second revival of Nippur, which seems to have taken place in the 8th century B.C., reaching its peak under Assurbanipal in the late 7 th Century. (Gibson 1993: 12.)

Ninurta in Assyria The god Aššur of Assyria was syncretistically called the “Assyrian Enlil” (Enlil aššurû). 102 According to this syncretism, which had already emerged in the time of Šamši-Adad I in the eighteenth century, Sumerian Ninurta and Babylonian Nabû gradually became sons of Aššur. The syncretism is explicit in line 186 of the Divine Directory (Götteradressbuch) of Assur (SAA 18* 49), where dE n - l í l appears as a variant for Aššur (George 1992: 185). The syncretism of the gods was a facet of the religious convergence between north and south. The name Assur was originally the name of the mountain and the city which was built around it. The earliest phase of making the god Aššur a deus persona: is reflected in the common use of ilum with reference to him in Old Assyrian personal names … Also, early Assyrian royal inscriptions couple Aššur and Adad without explanation. In these phenomena there is surely a reflection of a pantheon later known from Syria, headed by El and Baal/Hadad. The occurence of a form of the later Syrian El in Old Akkadian religion, though not in the city gods of Sumer, has long been known. The second attempt to give Aššur theological identity seems to have begun in the second millennium, and modelled him on Enlil. (Lambert 1983: 86.)

The Assyrian king saw himself as the “representative of Enlil” and the “governor of Aššur.” 103 From the Assyrian royal inscriptions, it appears that

102

See Borger 1961: 73; K. Tallqvist Der assyrische Gott, Studia Orientalia 4/3, Helsinki 1932, p. 13. 103 Maul 1997: 121, see, e.g., the inscription of Šamši-Adad I (A.0.39.2. Col. i, 4-5) which lists the king’s epithets: ša-ki-in d En-lil / ENSÍ d A-šur 4 “appointee of the god Enlil, 39

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

the Assyrian ideology of Enlil’s identity with Aššur as the “king of the gods” was full-fledged – at the latest – in the time of Shalmaneser I (1269-1241). This ideology served the Assyrian kings as the basis of their claims to domination over the “whole world.” 104 Namentlich zur Zeit Salmanassar’s I. und Tukulti-Ninurta’s I., doch auch später, bis zum Untergang des assyrischen Reiches, ist ein gewisser Synkretismus zwischen Assur und Enlil (Nunnamnir) feststellbar, wobei beide Götter jedoch nicht vollständig in einander aufgegangen sind, und die Gattin Enlils, Ninlil, auch als Gattin Assurs fungiert … Dabei hat Enlil an Bedeutung gewonnen. 105

During the regnal period of Shalmaneser I , the first sanctuary of Nabû was built in Assyria (Pomponio 1978: 72). The rise of Ninurta in Assyria was probably reflected in the throne name of the next king, Tukulti-Ninurta I (1240-1205), “my refuge is Ninurta.” There were only a couple of earlier kings in Mesopotamian history who were named after Ninurta – Ur-Ninurta of Isin I (1923-1896) and Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagaš. There is some evidence that the theophoric element Ninurta became more popular in MA onomastics during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I . 106 Probably in the time of the last named king, Ninurta was given “sonship” of the national god Aššur and the second rank in the Assyrian pantheon (Moortgat-Correns 1988: 117). In the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, the status of the king is that of the son of Enlil, right after Ninurta: It is he who is the eternal image of Enlil, attentive to the people’s voice, the counsel of the land, because the lord of the world appointed him to lead the troops, he praised him with his very lips, Enlil exalted him as if he (Enlil) were his (Tukulti-Ninurta’s) own father, right after his firstborn son! Precious is he in (Enlil’s) family, for where there is competition, he has of him protection. (Foster 1996: 215.)

In line 14 of the Psalm to Aššur for Tukulti-Ninurta, the king is implicitly compared to Ninurta, referring to the god’s avenging of his father Enlil (Foster 1996: 231-32). Tukulti-Ninurta called himself “favourite of the god Ninurta, the one who controlled all quarters with his strong might.” 107 He deliberately attempted to break Babylon’s claim to be the axis mundi by abducting a cultic image of Marduk from Esagil to the temple of Aššur, and

vice-regent of Aššur” (Grayson 1986: 52). The similar title (GAR d BAD ŠID aš-šur) reappears in the time of Adad-narari I (1305-1274) and Shalmaneser I , see Grayson 1986: 150, 153 et passim. 104 See Maul 1998: 192, Borger 1961: 53f and 65ff; it coincides with the appearance of the Assyrian tree of life in contemporary art, see Parpola 1993. 105 Borger 1961: 66; see also Pongratz-Leisten 2001: 229f; F. Nötscher, Ellil in Sumer und Akkad (1927), 74ff; W. Schwenzner, AfO 8 (1932-33), 116; H. A. Lewy, HUCA 19, 471ff. 106 H. A. Fine, Studies in Middle Assyrian Chronology and Religion, HUCA 25 (1954), 116ff. Cf. Pomponio 1978: 72ff. 107 Pongratz-Leisten 2001: 226; Grayson 1986: A.0.78.21:9 ′, A.0.78.23:20-21; see also Schwemer 2001: 576f. 40

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA IN ASSYRIA

by introducing Babylonian cultic traditions in Assyria, as well as its claim to world domination (Maul 1997: 122). After the victory over the Kassite king Kaštiliaš IV (1232-1225), he removed some significant literary texts from Babylonia, and the scribes copied them at Assur. Among these texts is the bilingual hymn to Ninurta which celebrates a “return of Ninurta to Nippur” (KAR 119) and to the Ešumeša (see Lambert 1960: 118ff). This tablet was found at Assur in the library of a scribal family mostly from the time of Tiglath-pileser I . The interest in older Ninurta texts was sustained in first millennium Assyria, and it was not limited to Lugale and Angim. 108 The names of the kings following Tukulti-Ninurta witness the rise of Ninurta most explicitly – Ninurta-apil-Ekur (“Ninurta is the scion of Ekur”) came from Karduniaš, seized the throne and reigned 1191-1179. In his inscription he tells that he was “chosen of the gods Enlil and Ninurta.” 109 Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur (“Ninurta is refuge of Aššur”) was a regent towards the end of the reign of his father Aššur-dan I (1178-1133 BC ). During his time Marduk’s statue captured by Tukulti-Ninurta was brought back to Babylon, according to Chronicle P. 110 From the time of Tukulti-apil-Ešarra (Tiglathpileser I, 1114-1076), the theophoric element Ninurta in the kings’ names is replaced by a more ambiguous “son of Ešarra” or “son of Ekur” as in the name of Ašared-apil-Ekur “the scion of Ekur is the foremost” (1075-74). The rise of Assyria thus witnesses the rise of Ninurta as well. In the first Assyrian annals of Tiglath-pileser I , Ninurta is frequently paired with Aššur, and Anu is paired with his son Adad. 111 Both pairs are called “my lords” by the king. Aššur and Ninurta guided the king to success and gave him his dominion (Grayson 1991: 35). Let me cite two examples from the annals of Tiglath-pileser I which couple Ninurta with Aššur: Tiglath-Pileser, exalted prince, the one whom the gods Aššur and Ninurta have continually guided wherever he wished (to go) and who pursued each and every one of the enemies of the god Aššur and laid low all the rebellious (Grayson 1991: 27, vii 36-41). [Tiglath]-Pileser, strong king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of all the four quarters, valiant man who acts with the support (tukultu) of the gods Aššur and Ninurta, the great gods, his lords, (and thereby) has felled his foes (ibid. 36, ll. 1-4; 41, ll. 4-5).

In the period ca. 1055-935, Assyria was politically eclipsed (Grayson 1991: 113). When the annalistic form of royal inscriptions re-emerged with Adadnarari II (911-891), this king mentions Aššur and Ninurta as his main supporters:

108

W. W. Hallo, JAOS 101 (1981), 254. For KAR 118 and 119, see W. G. Lambert, “Tukulti-Ninurta and the Assyrian King List,” Iraq 38 (1976), 85-94, n. 4. For the library, see O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur (Uppsala 1985), Part I, pp. 31ff, esp. p. 37. 109 ni-šit d BAD u d MAŠ , see Grayson 1986: 303. 110 A. K. Grayson, RlA 9 (1997-2001), 527; idem 1975: 176, 12-13; Dalley 1997: 166 111 See Schwemer 2001: 166ff, 264f. 41

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

Adad-narari, great king, strong king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of all the four quarters, select of Aššur, attentive prince, who acts with the support of Aššur and the god Ninurta, the great gods, his lords, and (thereby) has felled the foes (Grayson 1991: 143, ll. 1-4).

Certainly, it was no coincidence that the new rise of Assyria was announced by the royal names Tukulti-Ninurta II and Assurnasirpal II (890-859 BC ). In the throne name of Assurnasirpal II (Aššur-na$ir-apli) – “Aššur is the custodian of (his) son” – by the “son of Aššur” Ninurta is probably meant. The scion of Ešarra or Ekur in Assur had different names – both Ninurta and Zababa are rarely mentioned as sons of Aššur (Lambert 1983: 82). In ninth century Assyria, Ninurta became the city-god of the new royal capital Calah, and the tremendous military success of the Assyrian empire in later centuries was certainly associated with Ninurta’s help and protection. By the time of Assurnasirpal II, Ninurta was considered the holder of the bond between heaven and earth/underworld in the newly founded city of Calah, as his epithet mu-kil mar-kas AN-e u KI -tim attests. 112 As pointed out by U. Moortgat-Correns, there are striking similarities between the room decoration of Assurnasirpal’s Northwest palace and Ninurta’s temple (1988: 120). Assurnasirpal II himself describes his actions as follows: The city Calah I took in hand for renovation. I cleared away the old ruin hill (and) dug down to water level; I sank (the foundation pit) down to a depth of 120 layers of brick. I found therein the temple of the god Ninurta, my lord. At that time I created with my skill this statue of the god Ninurta which had not existed previously as an icon of his great divinity (d LAMMA DINGIR-ti-šú GAL -ti) out of the best stone of the mountain and red gold. I regarded it as my great divinity in the city Calah. I appointed his festivals in the months Shebat and Elul. I constructed this temple in its entirety. I laid the dais of the god Ninurta, my lord, therein. When the god Ninurta, the lord ( d MAŠ EN ), for eternity sits joyfully on his holy dais in his alluring shrine, may he be truly pleased (and) so command the lengthening of my days, may he proclaim the multiplication of my years, may he love my priesthood, (and) wherever there is battle or wars in which I strive may he cause me to attain my goal. 113

This temple in Calah remained the most important sanctuary of Ninurta in Assyria until the destruction of the Neo-Assyrian empire (Menzel 1981: 94). The ninth century was the acme of Ninurta’s cult in Assyria. No temple archive of Ninurta has been found in Calah, but the evidence indicates that the cult of Ninurta remained important in Calah until the end of the NeoAssyrian empire (see SAA 12 92-94). This can be said on the basis of the Neo-Assyrian prosopography as well – the clear majority of persons whose names invoke Ninurta reside in Calah. A seal impression studied by U. Moortgat-Correns (1988) might be an important source of the cult of Ninurta in Calah (see Fig. 1). The seal belonged to a priest of Nergal and Adad in

112

Grayson 1991: 193, l. 2; into Ninurta’s hands are also entrusted “the circumference (kip-pat) of heaven and earth/Netherworld” (ibid: 194, ll. 4-5), cf. George 1986: 142-43. 113 Grayson 1991: 295, ll. 11b-19, cf. ibid., p. 212. For a description of Ninurta’s temple in Calah, see Moortgat-Correns 1988: 118-22. 42

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA IN ASSYRIA

Fig. 1 A Neo-Assyrian seal impression showing Ninurta as a war god on his dragon. [after U. Moortgat-Correns AfO 35 (1988) 123, Abb 5b]

Harran, and of Ninurta and Adad in Calah. It depicts two cultic standards, the one of Adad and the other perhaps of Ninurta. The inscription on the seal mentions four gods to which Aššur-šumu-iddina is related as administrator. 114 According to Moortgat-Correns’ interpretation, the standard of Ninurta depicted on the seal impression is from his temple in Calah and can be harmonized with Assurnasirpal’s description of this cultic image. If so, this seal impression is a very important iconographic source for the cult of Ninurta. The next king, Shalmaneser III (858-824), built the ziqqurat for the temple of Ninurta in Calah (Grayson 1996: 136). A royal inscription of this king mentions Aššur and Ninurta as his main supporters: With the support of Aššur, the great lord, my lord, and the god Ninurta, who loves my priesthood, I always acted (and) they placed firmly in my hands all lands (and) mountains (Grayson 1996: 28).

His successor, Šamši-Adad V (823-811), conquered Babylonia in four expeditions and assumed the title used previously only by Tukulti-Ninurta I, “the king of Sumer and Akkad.” Among the inscriptions of the king, there is one which begins with a lengthy hymn to Ninurta of 25 lines. The inscription is written on an unusual stele depicting the king with the symbolic cross of

114

W. G. Lambert, “A Late Assyrian Seal Inscription,” NABU 1991/14. The inscription reads: šá m aš-šur- MU- SUM na lú SANGA d MAŠ .MAŠ d IM šá KASKAL ni 5) d MAŠ d IM šá uru Kàlhi EGIR [……]; cf. K. Kessler, AfO 35 (1988), 134. 43

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

Nabû/Ninurta (see Fig. 2). 115 The inscription is written in archaic script, probably imitating the inscriptions of Šamši-Adad I (Grayson 1996: 180ff). In Assyria, the cult of Nabû achieved no real significance until the eighth century; the god Nabû first appears in the Assyrian royal inscriptions of Adad-narari III (810-783) and Shalmaneser IV (782-773). 116 Adad-narari III built a temple to Nabû on the citadel at Calah and in an inscription on a statue dedicated to him, he exhorted future Assyrian kings not to trust in any other god besides Nabû (Porter 1997: 254). From the middle of the 8th century until the end of the Assyrian empire the cult of Ninurta declined, giving way to the more popular Nabû. In the same time, Ninurta remained the supreme city-god of the city and the province of Calah until the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Zawadzki 1987). No additional temples were built for Ninurta, while Nabû had a residence in all royal cities of the time, which is “one indication of the continuing role of Nabû as a patron of Assyrian kings.” (Porter 1997: 254.) Nabû came gradually to rival even the god Aššur during the later Neo-Assyrian period, as he also rivalled Marduk in the Neo-Babylonian religious history (Porter 1997: 254, n. 5). Nabû’s elevation in the first millennium is analogous to the raising of Marduk in the second, and in both cases this was the result of being equated with the champion Ninurta. The later Assyrian royal inscriptions typically list the king’s divine patrons with Aššur almost always heading the list; Marduk and Nabû usually appear as well, with Nabû frequently preceding Marduk, which was an expression of Assyrian priorities (Porter 1997: 255). Adad-narari III sealed one of his important state documents, a large grant of land with the “seal of Aššur and Ninurta” (SAA 12 1:1ff). The preserved document is a copy of the original tablet and bears no seal impression. It is possible that it was the same seal that was later impressed on Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty in 672 as the royal seal C (SAA 2 6). U. Moortgat-Correns (1995) has argued that the third seal impressed on the Succession Treaty was produced in the time of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727) and the seal depicts the king kneeling between the the gods Ninurta and Adad. It is possible to assume with S. Parpola (SAA 2, p. xxxvi), that the gods depicted are Ninurta and Aššur. In this case, the impression might be from the same seal which is already referred to as the “seal of Aššur and Ninurta” by Adad-narari III in SAA 12 1. Aššur was the chief divine patron of Tiglath-pileser III (Porter 1997: 255). The divine patrons of Sargon II (721-705) were consistently enumerated in the order Aššur, Nabû and Marduk. Sargon repaired a temple of Nabû in Nineveh and built a new one to him in his royal city Dur-Šarruken (Porter 1997: 256). There survives a prayer of Sargon II to Ninurta for help in battle (Foster 1996: 708). Sennacherib’s early inscription from Nineveh in 702

115 See P. Calmeyer, “Das Zeichen der Herrschaft… ohne Šamaš wird es nicht gegeben,” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 17 (1984), 135-53. 116 See Grayson 1996: 227 (104.2002); cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 119, George 1996: 378.

CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA IN ASSYRIA

Fig. 2 The Stela of Šamši-Adad V [ BM 118892]

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

shows that Babylonian gods, among them Marduk and Nabû, were still held in high esteem (Frahm 1997: 136). Numerous military conflicts between Assyria and Babylonia during Sennacherib’s time (704-681) led the king to anti-Babylonian religious propaganda in the last years of his reign (Frahm 1997: 136). This may be the reason why the god Zababa was promoted and officially assimilated to Nabû/Ninurta. 117 The god Haja was promoted and identified with Nabû with a new temple in Nineveh. 118 According to the religious reforms and rebuilding projects of Sennacherib, Aššur and Ešarra were destined to replace Marduk and Esagil. In the Assyrian editions of the Babylonian Creation Epic, Marduk’s name was replaced with the name of Aššur (An-šár) and Babylon with Bal-tilki . 119 It was probably Sennacherib who got an angry letter from Ninurta (SAA 3 47), and its fragmentary content “may relate to the growing tension against Sennacherib towards the end of his reign.” 120 The letter may be related to the murder of Sennacherib – it is equally possible that the letter antedates the crime and expresses a warning, or was written after the murder and was sent to Esarhaddon. 121 Esarhaddon mentions Ninurta in his inscriptions only a few times. 122 When the gods are summoned to sanctify his palace, Ninurta is called by Esarhaddon following Aššur. 123 Assurbanipal does not pay much attention to Ninurta, but he was interested in promoting the worship of Nabû, and the king was actively involved in the Nabû cult. In spite of that, he regarded Marduk as the most important god of Babylonia (Porter 1997: 259). But he still calls himself in a Babylonian inscription from Nippur: “King of the land of Sumer and Akkad, vice-regent (šakkanakku) for the gods Aššur, Enlil and Ninurta.” 124 I conclude, then, that in Neo-Assyrian times Ninurta shared his identity with Adad, Nabû, Nergal and Zababa, largely losing his popularity to Nabû

117 See Deller and Donbaz 1987; Sennacherib received from Šamaš and Adad the announcement “Zababa is the son of Aššur,” see SAA 12 87. 118 Frahm 1997: 110; the god Haja, a less known god of writing, is most prominently celebrated by the hymn Rim-Sin B, see H. Steible, Ein Lied an den Gott Haja mit Bitte für den König Rimsîn von Larsa (Freiburg 1967). 119 See George 1999a: 77ff, Frahm 1997: 282-88, Maul 1997:123. 120 C. Uehlinger, DDD, s.v. Nisroch, col. 1189; cf. B. Pongratz-Leisten, SAAS 10 (1999), 230f. 121 See C. Uehlinger, ibid.; Parpola 1980; and W. von Soden, “Gibt es Hinweise auf die Ermordung Sanheribs im Ninurta-Tempel (wohl) in Kalah in Texten aus Assyrien?” NABU 1990/22. 122 “In his Assyrian inscriptions … Esarhaddon refers to both Nabû and Marduk as important divine patrons of his reign, in several cases naming Nabû first, and in descriptions of events in Babylonia the gods listed as backing him include for example Aššur, Sîn, Shamash, and Nabû in addition to Marduk, but in the Esagila inscriptions, which deal primarily with Babylonia, Marduk is unequivocally the center of attention and the chief god of Babylonia.” (Porter 1997: 258.) 123 See Moortgat-Correns 1988: 132f; D. D. Luckenbill, ARAB, Vol. II, p. 276. 124 G. Frame, RIMB 2 (1995), 220, B.6.32.15, l. 10.

CHAPTER ONE – LATE BABYLONIAN NABÛ

from the 8 th century onwards. 125 But the divine figure behind all these names persevered unchanged, if somewhat modified, for Assyrian purposes.

The Late Babylonian Nabû The first millennium and especially the Late Babylonian Empire witnessed unprecedented growth of Nabû’s importance in Babylonian religion. In the second millennium, Nabû was Marduk’s sukkal – “vizier” – with a shrine in Esagil. The middle Babylonian boundary stones associate Nabû with Borsippa where his cult apparently began to replace Marduk’s. Nabû is called ‘scribe of Esagil’ and ‘king of Ezida’ and during the first millennium, Nabû was the god of Ezida in Borsippa. 126 In the first millennium, Borsippa housed a kind of resistance to the supremacy of Marduk. A Late Babylonian hymn to Borsippa compares Nabû’s city to heaven (šamami ki maš[il]), and calls Ezida as “equal to Ešarra” (šinnat ša Ešarra). A tradition developed which saw Nabû as a kind of junior Marduk and Borsippa as a second or alternative Babylon. 127 A clay cylinder recording building work by Borsippa’s governor Nabû-šuma-imbi during the reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun in the first half of the eighth century uses the titles of Enlil/Marduk “Lord of the Lands” and “Lord of the gods” in reference to Nabû. 128 At the end of the Neo-Babylonian period, Nabû had become so important in Babylonian religion that he rivalled Marduk as chief god and head of the Babylonian pantheon. 129 Marduk and Nabû can even be regarded as the joint heads of the Late Babylonian pantheon and the co-rulers of the universe. This state of affairs came into being between the fall of the Second Isin Dynasty and the rise of the Late Babylonian Empire. Toward the end of the 8 th century an inscription of Marduk-apla-iddina does allude to the equality of Marduk and Nabû in the phrases describing the king: “worshipper of Nabû and Marduk, worshipper of Esagil and Ezida” (palih Nabû u Marduk palih Esagil u Ezida: VAS I 37 ii 1-3). (Lambert 1978: 79.)

It is right to see the elevation ideology of Ninurta as the background to Nabû’s rise (Beaulieu 1993: 70). Nabû was the holder of the sceptre and gave it to the Neo-Babylonian kings, as Ninurta had given it to the Assyrian king

125 “Nergal ist zwar in den Götterinvokationen der Königsinschriften bereits zur Zeit von Adad-narari I. [1300-1270] belegt, muss aber unter Tukulti-Ninurta I. anscheinend dem Gott Ninurta weichen, bis in der späten mittelassyrischen Zeit beide Götter zusammen aufgeführt werden. Beide Götter, Ninurta und Nergal, werden dann im Laufe der neuassyrischen Zeit immer mehr an den Schluss der Invokation geschoben, und unter Assurbanipal und Sîn-šar-iškun firmieren sie sogar hinter den weiblichen Gottheiten Ištar von Arbela und Ištar von Ninive.” (Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 122.) 126 A. R. Millard, DDD, col. 1142; Pomponio 1978: 63; cf. Lambert 1966: 44. 127 George 1997: 135, n. 33; see F. Köcher, ZA 53 (1959), 236-40; MSL 17, p. 240. 128 Lambert 1978: 79; see G. Frame, RIMB 2 (1995), 124, l. 13 ′. 129 See Pomponio 1978: 100-15, Porter 1997: 253f.

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES XIV

in Calah. 130 Nabû’s central role in the ideology of kingship is seen in the theophoric elements of Neo-Babylonian rulers: Nabû-apla-u$ur, Nabû-kudurri-u$ur, Nabû-na’id, which indicate that Nabû was the patron deity of the Chaldean dynasty (Beaulieu 1993: 70). The Babylonian hymns on clay cylinders portray Nabû as the king of the gods, and one of them (BM 34147) lists as his epithets Enlil, Lugaldimmerankia, Imdudu, Hendursagga, Mes, Enzag and Enbilulu (Lambert 1978: 82ff). The first and the second clearly attest to Nabû’s superior position in the pantheon, while the remainder are comparable to Marduk’s mystical names in the last two tablets of the Creation Epic. The cylinder, as such, is a medium which is otherwise reserved for royal inscriptions, and the hymns written on them display a striking peculiarity: “they all are framed within rows of repeated signs, each row repeating a different sign, and each frame repeating the same combination of signs which read like an acrostich: mu-sa-ru-ú ‘royal inscription’” (Beaulieu 1993: 69-70). One of the texts is framed with a more elaborate acrostic reconstructed by Lambert as follows: [mu-sa]-ru ša [ dNÀ] “[royal inscrip]tion of [Nabû]” (ibid.). The three manuscripts of the hymn to Ninurta as Helper in Misery are also written on such cylinders, framed with an acrostic musarû (Mayer 1992: 19). It seems that we are dealing with a literary genre which can be dubbed “royal inscriptions of the gods.” These hymns to Ninurta and Nabû are concerned with kingship – they are praised as kings of the gods and upholders of the cosmic order (Beaulieu 1993: 69). The king was the earthly counterpart of the supreme god: The fact that supreme rulership of the gods was conceptualized on the model of human kingship could freely apply to divine rulership, and conversely those of divine rulership to the king. That hymns to the king of the gods could be recast as musarû “royal inscriptions,” even as “royal inscriptions” of the god which they honor (mušarû ša Nabû), is but a corollary of that ideology. By using the medium of royal inscriptions, the scribes who, most probably at the turn of 6th century, literally invented this new genre, were in this manner not only praising Nabû as a king, but also their king as an earthly counterpart of Nabû. (Beaulieu 1993: 70-71.)

These texts were presented as being of great antiquity because the acrostic written on the cylinders containing the hymn to Ninurta (Mayer 1992: 19f) can be read as musarû labiru “old royal inscription” and Nabonidus claims to have found such an inscription during his excavations of the Egipar at Ur (YOS 1 45 ii 1). The scribes who wrote these cylinders thus legitimized the position of Nabû/ Ninurta as the king(s) of the gods (Beaulieu 1993: 70). 131

130 Nabû is called na-ši giš ha#-#u “holder of the sceptre” in EAH 197, see E. Frahm, NABU 1995/9; F. Wiggermann JEOL 29 (1985-86), 12; and Ninurta as the Keeper of Royal Regalia below (pp. 51-55). 131 E. Frahm has pointed out that “Diese Zylinder wiederum weisen Berührungspunkte mit Schülerkolophonen auf Tontafeln auf, die in spätbabylonischer Zeit dem Nabû ša harê in Babylon sowie Nabû von Borsippa geweiht wurden” (1997: 110). He compares an inscription of Sennacherib for the temple of a scribe god Haja to these colophons: “Den Kolophonen ihrerseits ist mit dem vorliegenden … Sanherib-Text (und den

CHAPTER ONE – LATE BABYLONIAN NABÛ

Nabû kept his prominent position in Persian and Hellenistic times. Cyrus paid homage to Bel and Nabû and the Seleucid king Antioch I Soter restored both gods’ temples in Babylon and Borsippa. His foundation cylinder at Borsippa expresses the royal ideology which is completely Babylonian. 132 Nabû’s epithet in Hellenistic documents from southern Mesopotamia is ‘lord of the universe.’ In the Seleucid era, he is identified with Apollo, who was the tutelary deity of the Seleucid dynasty (Dirven 1997: 113). There is a ritual text dating to the beginning of the Parthian period which implies that the cult of Nabû in Borsippa continued to flourish in that period:133 In 137 BC , at the end of the Seleucid period, a tablet recorded how the daughters of Esagil go from Esagil to Ezida, and the daughters of Ezida go from Ezida to Esagil for the Summer solstice, and return for the Winter solstice. For they are goddesses responsible for lengthening and shortening the days. (Dalley 1995: 147.)

In the Syrian sources, Nabû and Bel are closely connected, but Nabû is mentioned before Bel (Dirven 1997: 113). Nabû was syncretized with Greek Hermes as well. In the first century BC , Strabo wrote (XVI 1.7) that “Borsippa is the sacred city of Artemis and Apollo,” by which he referred to Nanaya and Nabû, and his statement mirrors an advanced stage of syncretism (Pomponio 1978: 226f). In the third century AD , the Jewish Rabbi Rav, who founded the great rabbinical school at Sura in central Mesopotamia, named the temple of Bel in Babylon and the temple of Nabû in Borsippa as the major centres of idolatry where festivals were performed all year round (Dalley 1995: 143).

strukturell ähnlichen Aššur-Texten) gemeinsam, dass das im Tempel hinterlegte Schriftstück direkt angesprochen und darum gebeten wird, beim Gott Fürsprache für den Verfasser einzulegen. Die Haja-Inschrift Sanheribs scheint also, so hoffen wir zumindest angedeutet zu haben, in den komplexen Traditionszusammenhang einer Verehrung Nabûs durch die mesopotamische Schreiberzunft zu gehören.” (Frahm 1997: 110-11.) 132 See A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, “Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa,” JHS 101 (1991), 71-86. 133 Livingstone 1986: 255, Appendix I (BM 34035).

The God Ninurta - CHAPTER ONE: Ninurta&#39;s Role in Ancient Mesopotamian Kingship - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)

The God Ninurta - CHAPTER ONE: Ninurta's Role in Ancient Mesopotamian Kingship - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)