offprint from

Organization, Representation,
and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East
Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
at Würzburg
20–25 July 2008

edited by
Gernot Wilhelm

Winona Lake, Indiana

eisenbrauns
2012
 © 2012 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rencontre assyriologique internationale (54th : 2008 : Würzburg, Germany)

Organization, representation, and symbols of power in the ancient Near East :
proceedings of the 54th Rencontre assyriologique internationale at Wuerzburg,
20–25 July 2008 / edited by Gernot Wilhelm.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-57506-245-7 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Middle East—Civilization—To 622—Congresses. 2. Middle East—
Politics and government—Congresses. 3. Middle East—Antiquities—
Congresses. 4. Assyria—Civilization—Congresses 5. Assyria—Politics and
government—Congresses. 6. Assyria—Civilization—Congresses.
I. Wilhelm, Gernot. II. Title.
DS41.5R35 2008
939.4—dc23
2012019372

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American Na-
tional Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materi-
als, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾ ™
 Contents

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Das Ansehen eines altorientalischen Herrschers bei seinen Untertanen . . . . 1
Walther sallaberGer
L’exercice du pouvoir par les rois de la I ère Dynastie de Babylone:
problèmes de méthode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Dominique Charpin
Verwaltungstechnische Aspekte königlicher Repräsentation:
Zwei Urkunden über den Kult der verstorbenen Könige
im mittelassyrischen Assur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
eva CanCik-kirsChbaum
Bild, Macht und Raum im neuassyrischen Reich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Dominik bonatz
Die Rolle der Schrift in einer Geschichte der
frühen hethitischen Staatsverwaltung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
theo van Den hout

W o r k s h o p : Collective Governance and the Role of the Palace in the

Bronze Age Middle Euphrates and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
aDelheiD otto
Archaeological Evidence for Collective Governance along the
Upper Syrian Euphrates during the Late and
Middle Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
aDelheiD otto
Textual Evidence for a Palace at Late Bronze Emar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Daniel e. fleminG
Die Rolle der Stadt im spätbronzezeitlichen Emar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
betina faist
Les « Frères » en Syrie à l’époque du Bronze récent:
Rélexions et hypothèses* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
sophie Démare-lafont
Organization of Harrâdum, Suhum, 18th–17th Centuries b.C.,
Iraqi Middle Euphrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Christine kepinski
 Contents

Ein Konlikt zwischen König und Ältestenversammlung in Ebla . . . . . . 155

Gernot Wilhelm

Workshop: The Public and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
eva von DassoW
The Public and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
eva von DassoW
From People to Public in the Iron Age Levant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
seth sanDers
Administrators and Administrated in Neo-Assyrian Times . . . . . . . . . 213
simonetta ponChia
The Babylonian Correspondence of the Seleucid and Arsacid Dynasties:
New Insights into the Relations between Court and City
during the Late Babylonian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
roberto sCianDra

La liste Lú A et la hiérarchie des fonctionnaires sumériens . . . . . . . . . . . 249

alexanDra bourGuiGnon
Königslisten als Appellativ-Quellen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
pavel ČeCh
From King to God: The NAMEŠDA Title in Archaic Ur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
petr Charvát
The Uses of the Cylinder Seal as Clues of Mental Structuring Processes
inside Ur III State Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
alessanDro Di luDoviCo
EN-Priestess: Pawn or Power Mogul? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Joan GooDniCk Westenholz
Die Uruk I-Dynastie—ein Konstrukt der Isin-Zeit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Catherine mittermayer
Neue Erkenntnisse zu den königlichen Gemahlinnen der Ur III-Zeit . . . . . . 327
marCos suCh-Gutiérrez
Ĝeštinanna und die Mutter des Šulgi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
frauke Weiershäuser
Vom babylonischen Königssiegel und von gesiegelten Steinen . . . . . . . . . . 357
susanne paulus
Marduk and His Enemies: City Rivalries in Southern Mesopotamia. . . . . . . 369
J. a. sCurloCk
Text im Bild — Bild im Text: Bildmotive als Bedeutungsträger von
Machtansprüchen im hellenistischen Mesopotamien? . . . . . . . . . . 377
karin stella sChmiDt
The Tablet of Destinies and the Transmission of Power in Enūma eliš . . . . . 387
karen sonik
Aššur and Enlil in Neo-Assyrian Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
spenCer l. allen
 Contents

“The Charms of Tyranny:” Conceptions of Power in the

“Garden Scene” of Ashurbanipal Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
mehmet-ali ataç
Les archers de siège néo-assyriens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
fabriCe y. De baCker
King’s Direct Control: Neo-Assyrian Qēpu Oicials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
peter Dubovsky
Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Program . . . . . . . . . 461
natalie naomi may
Local Power in the Middle Assyrian Period:
The “Kings of the Land of Māri” in the Middle Habur Region . . . . . 489
Daisuke shibata
Women, Power, and Heterarchy in the Neo-Assyrian Palaces . . . . . . . . . . 507
saana svärD
Organising the Interaction Between People: a New Look at the
Elite Houses of Nuzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
DaviD kertai
Les femmes comme signe de puissance royale:
la maison du roi d’Arrapha. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
briGitte lion
Power Transition and Law: The Case of Emar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
lena fiJałkoWska
The Representatives of Power in the Amarna Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
J. mynářová
Herrscherrepräsentation und Kult im Bildprogramm
des Aḥirom-Sarkophags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
h. niehr
Religion and Politics at the Divine Table: The Cultic Travels of Zimrī-Līm . . . 579
Cinzia pappi
The City of Ṭābatum and its Surroundings: The Organization of Power
in the Post-Hammurabi Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
shiGeo yamaDa
The Horns of a Dilemma, or On the Divine Nature of the Hittite King . . . . . 605
Gary beCkman
The Power in Heaven: Remarks on the So-Called Kumarbi Cycle . . . . . . . . 611
Carlo Corti anD franCa peCChioli DaDDi
Die Worte des Königs als Repräsentation von Macht:
Zur althethitischen Phraseologie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
paola DarDano
Treaties and Edicts in the Hittite World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
elena DeveCChi
Luxusgüter als Symbole der Macht: Zur Verwaltung der Luxusgüter
im Hethiter-Reich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
mauro GiorGieri anD Clelia mora
 Contents

Autobiographisches, Historiographisches und Erzählelemente in

hethitischen “Gebeten” Arnuwandas und Mursilis . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
manfreD hutter
The (City-)Gate and the Projection of Royal Power in Ḫatti . . . . . . . . . . . 675
J. l. miller
Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der Macht:
Einige ikonographische Bemerkungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
zsolt simon
“. . . Ich bin bei meinem Vater nicht beliebt. . .”: Einige Bemerkungen
zur Historizität des Zalpa-Textes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699
béla stipiCh
Dating of Akkad, Ur III, and Babylon I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
peter J. huber
Cuneiform Documents Search Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735
WoJCieCh JaWorski
Fluchformeln in den Urkunden der Chaldäer- und Achämenidenzeit . . . . . . 739
JürGen lorenz
Arbeitszimmer eines Schreibers aus der mittelelamischen Zeit . . . . . . . . . 747
behzaD mofiDi nasrabaDi
Siegel für Jedermann: Neue Erkenntnisse zur sog. Série Élamite Populaire
und zur magischen Bedeutung von Siegelsteinen. . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
GeorG neumann
Did Rusa Commit Suicide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771
miChael roaf
Über die (Un-)Möglichkeit eines “Glossary of Old Syrian [GlOS] ” . . . . . . . . 781
Joaquín sanmartín
Adapas Licht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795
illya vorontsov
Early Lexical Lists and Their Impact on Economic Records:
An Attempt of Correlation Between Two Seemingly
Diferent Kinds of Data-Sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
klaus WaGensonner
 Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,
Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Tablet of Destinies and the

Transmission of Power in Enūma eliš

Karen Sonik
philaDelphia

The Tablet of Destinies, a well known if somewhat enigmatic motif, features

prominently in Mesopotamian mythology as both an emblem and a receptacle of
divine power and kingship. Equated with the rikis Enlilūti, the “bond(s) of Enlil-
ship”, in an inscription of Sennacherib from Kuyunjik (K 6177 + 8869), the Tablet is
described by Andrew George as “the means by which rightful power is exercised: the
power invested in the rightful keeper of the Tablet of Destinies is that of the chief of
the destiny-decreeing gods . . . which amounts in principle to kingship of the gods.” 1
Key to this deinition is the point of legitimate ownership: simple acquisition
of the Tablet may confer power, even enormous power, over the gods and over the
world but it does not, in itself, confer infallibility or legitimacy. The Tablet’s “right-
ful keeper” is determined based on his or her innate qualities, power, and position
in the pantheon, and varies according to chronological and geographical context. 2
Prior to its appearance in this inscription of Sennacherib, in which it is attrib-
uted to the Assyrian god Aššur, the Tablet serves as a familiar and prominent device
in several Mesopotamian texts that explore the nature of legitimate and illegitimate
divine power and rulership, the Babylonian epic Enūma eliš among them. 3
In Enūma eliš, the Tablet of Destinies is something of a peripheral device, un-
surprising given that the text draws on numerous themes and motifs from other
mythological traditions to justify the elevation of the Babylonian god Marduk to the

Author’s note: Thanks are owed to Stephen Tinney, Barry Eichler, Grant Frame, Erle Leichty, Jefrey
Tigay, and Paul Delnero for their kind suggestions and comments. Any errors, of course, remain my own.
1. George 1986: 138. While a visual representation of the Tablet of Destinies has not yet been
recovered, its physical form is described in this inscription of Sennacherib. George (1986: 138) further
suggests that a monument depicting such may actually have been undertaken under Sennacherib, who
elsewhere commissioned a representation of Ashur defeating Tiāmat in Enūma eliš, “especially in view
of his interest in the theology of Assur’s divine kingship.” Varying conceptions of the Tablet of Destinies
in Mesopotamian texts exist: “Old Babylonian literary texts commonly presented the idea of cosmic order
in terms of divine decrees. . .On rare occasions these decrees were visualized as a inite and predeter-
mined set recorded on the ‘Tablet of Destinies’ possessed by one of the major gods. More regularly, they
were presented as a set of ad hoc declarations in response to particular events or prompted by petitions”
(Jones 2005: 334). Elsewhere, the Tablet of Destinies has been described as a magical, accessory-like
object “conceptualized as the embodiment of power over the cosmos” (Ataç, 2007: 307).
2. See Lawson (1994: 41) for a list of gods associated with the Tablet of Destinies.
3. The date of composition of Enūma eliš remains disputed, though the late second millennium bCe
seems the most likely. See Lambert 2008: 17–8; Horowitz 1998: 107–8; and Dalley 1989: 228–30.

387
388 karen sonik

kingship of the pantheon. 4 Nevertheless, the manner in which it is integrated into

the events of the composition, irst bestowed upon Qingu by Tiāmat, then seized and
worn by Marduk while he orders the cosmos, and ultimately presented by Marduk
to his grandfather Anu, ofers some insight into one of the central problems of the
text: where does power legitimately reside and how – and why – is it properly trans-
ferred from one divine entity to another? 5 This paper examines the relationship
between the Tablet of Destinies, the possession and transmission of power, and the
conferral of legitimacy in the context of Enūma eliš.
The opening lines of the epic describe the mingling of two primordial and el-
emental entities, Apsû and Tiāmat, who generate the irst gods and who seem to
evolve thereby into active proto-deities, complete with at least semi-anthropomor-
phic forms and divine powers and attributes. 6 As the parents of all the gods, Apsû
and Tiāmat may also be read as the irst rulers of the text, legitimately endowed
with divine authority over the gods. Apsû, as beits a king, 7 stands at the head of a
line of legitimate heirs, among them Lahmu and Lahamu, Anšar and Kišar, Anu,
Ea, and ultimately Marduk, who comprise the great gods. He is also the apparent
progenitor of a mass of unnamed and undiferentiated descendents, who comprise
the lesser gods. Legitimate power, so far, is relatively concentrated: it is located in
the hands of Apsû and Tiāmat and their rightful heirs. This situation, however, does
not last.
When the great gods, enormously dynamic, creative, and noisy, keep their par-
ents and their lesser siblings from rest by day and sleep by night, Apsû makes the
terrible decision to destroy them despite Tiāmat’s objection, thereby fracturing the
legitimate holders of divine power into three camps: Apsû on one side; the great
gods, his heirs, on the other; and Tiāmat, who remains a neutral party in the conlict.
With the swift and prudent execution of Apsû by Ea, the situation seems re-
solved and consolidation of power in the hands of the great gods, who are both
Apsû’s heirs and his conquerors, appears inevitable. Tiāmat, who refused to aid
in the destruction of her children, might now reasonably be expected to actively
support them. As an independently powerful and authoritative igure, she could as-
sume the role of “queen mother,” as exempliied by Namma in Enki and Ninmah, 8 a
4. While the text may be composite in nature, its authorship is unlikely to be so. As noted by Lam-
bert (“Mesopotamian Creation Stories,” 17), the epic’s “literary character and ideological single-minded-
ness mark it as the product of a single author at one point of time, using of course whatever he wanted
from existing mythological materials.”
5. A similar question about Enūma eliš was posed in Lawson 1994: 22: “So where does the real
power reside? Of what real advantage is the Tablet of Destinies?” While Lawson’s subsequent discussion
and interpretation of the Tablet of Destinies in Mesopotamian myth ofers an interesting exploration
of a diicult topic, and while some of his conclusions and analyses occasionally parallel those presented
here, his understanding of the text and its major players frequently deviates signiicantly from my own.
6. Apsû and Tiāmat are not gods proper as has sometimes been suggested, ibid.: 20. Their names,
unlike those of the rest of the gods in Enūma eliš, are never written with the divine determinative (Anšar
alone is excepted, as his name begins with the dingir sign). Following the generation of the irst gods from
the mingling of their waters, however, Apsû and Tiāmat do seem to evolve into proto-deities, possibly
as a result of the civilizing qualities of sexual intercourse, see Mills 2002: 29; Walls 2001: 17–34; Sonik
2009. For a discussion of the Sea and the apsû as associated with monsters prior to their appearance in
Enūma eliš, see Wiggermann 1992: 155.
7. Whether he is to be understood as the irst king or ruler, Apsû is certainly the irst major male
authority igure to appear in Enūma eliš by virtue of his position as the father of all the gods.
8. Namma, mother of Enki, is “commonly without any speciied spouse, and since Enki/Ea was god
of the subterranean waters, it may be suspected that his mother was similarly associated” (Lambert
2008: 31).

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
 The Tablet of Destinies and the Transmission of Power 389

divine peacemaker and peaceweaver serving as the protector of her heirs, the great
gods, and as an intercessor and advocate for any of her lesser descendents who are
wronged or overburdened. Acting thus, Tiāmat would continue to loom large in the
divine realm while still removing herself from the line of succession. Divine power,
already efectively claimed by Ea, could then properly descend down the line of her
heirs. Tiāmat would also be able to smooth over the growing anger of the lesser gods
against their more powerful brethren, who, with the birth of Marduk, have actually
intensiied their noisome activities. Much to the chagrin of the great gods, however,
Tiāmat not merely joins but actually takes over the leadership of these lesser gods.
Power is again split between warring divine factions, the great gods on one side, and
Tiāmat leading the lesser gods on the other. It is against this dramatic and violent
backdrop that the Tablet of Destinies irst appears in Enūma eliš.
Preparing for battle, Tiāmat independently generates terrible monsters to swell
the ranks of her army, nightmare warriors who are endowed with melammu, whose
veins are illed with venom instead of blood, and who are incited to continually at-
tack and never to yield (I 133–140). 9 From among her divine ofspring, the lesser
gods who comprise her assembly, she chooses the otherwise unknown Qingu to be
her new consort and the general of her battle array, elevating him to the kingship of
the gods and bestowing upon him the Tablet of Destinies. 10
This remarkable sequence of events raises several important questions: how
did the Tablet of Destinies come to be in the possession of Tiāmat in the irst place;
what is the mechanism whereby the Tablet is properly bestowed or transferred; and
what is the nature of the Tablet in the speciic context of Enūma eliš?
On the question of the Tablet’s origin in Enūma eliš, the text itself is unfortu-
nately – or tellingly – silent. Based on its background in other compositions, how-
ever, we may speculate that Tiāmat inherited it from her late mate Apsû, who, by
virtue of his position as the father of all the gods, efectively served as the irst king
in Enūma eliš. 11 The Tablet of Destinies, after all, is associated both with divine
authority, as in the epic of Anzu, and with the apsû, as in Ninurta and the Turtle. 12
As Tiāmat is represented as an enormously and independently powerful entity in

9. For a discussion of melammu and Tiāmat’s monsters, see Ataç 2007: 306–8. For further discus-
sion of the signiicance of melammu, see Aster 2006
10. Qingu does appear, briely but notably, in several more obscure texts, among them Assurbani-
pal’s Acrostic Hymn to Marduk and Zarpanitu (K 7592 + K 8717 + DT 363 + BM 99173), the Marduk
Ordeal (K 6333+ etc.), A Cultic Commentary (K 3476), Mystical Miscellanea (VAT 8917), and the Com-
mentary to the Assyrian Cultic Calendar (VAT 9947), as published in Livingstone 1989: 7, 90, 92, 102–3.
11. On the subject of the Tablet’s origins, Lawson (1994: 20) suggests that fate “emanates” from
Tiāmat, is embodied as the Tablet of Destinies, “and is hers to do with as she wills”. That the Tablet may
rightly fall under the guardianship of Tiāmat is clearly possible but Lawson omits any discussion here
of Tiāmat’s previous relationship with Apsû, the ostensible irst king of the gods. If Tiāmat bestows the
Tablet on Qingu, is it not possible that she similarly bestowed it on Apsû, reclaiming it after his death?
Alternate possibilities, that the Tablet originated with Apsû and was inherited by Tiāmat, or that the
two primordial beings shared possession of it, are explored above. For another reading, suggesting that
“by killing Apsû and Mummu, Ea obtained the Tablet of Destinies, but it ‘returned to Tiamat’ ” as it re-
turned to the apsû in The Twenty-One Poultices, see Annus 2002: 149. According to this interpretation,
Ea is identical to either Apsû or Tiāmat and the “Abzu, as the source of wisdom, is a natural place for
the Tablet of Destinies to reside at the beginning of time. Tiamat got it from her dead husband Apsû as
a rightful inheritance,” ibid.: 149–50.
12. In the mythological text The Twenty-One Poultices (BM 33999) ll. 6–7, the Tablet of Destinies is
similarly associated with the apsû through the god Ea, in which Ea describes the Tablet as “the document
of my Anuship” and demands that it be brought and read before him that he may “decree the destiny for
Nabu, the revered,” see W. G. Lambert 1980: 79. Annus (2002: 150: 150) speculates that the source of

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
390 karen sonik

the epic, at least the equal of Apsû, and as the irst gods are born of the mingling
of Apsû and Tiāmat’s waters, it is also possible that the two primordial entities
shared responsibility for the Tablet, the one responsible for holding it and the other
for bestowing it, and that it passed into her sole possession following the death of
her mate. This would explain why Ea did not take it over following his execution
of Apsû and assumption of Apsû’s melammu and realm. While various other possi-
bilities exist, the fact is that regardless of how she irst came to possess it, Tiāmat
appears at least to be the rightful guardian of the Tablet of Destinies at the time of
its introduction into Enūma eliš. This underscores both the legitimacy of her power
and the enormity of her inluence in the text, and ofers some insight into why the
great gods are so devastated by her defection to their enemies and why even their
greatest heroes, Anu and Ea, are powerless to stand against her.
That Tiāmat is not the rightful “holder” of the Tablet, 13 however, but more the
medium whereby it is transmitted, is suggested by the manner of its introduction
into the narrative: it irst appears as Tiāmat names Qingu as her new consort,
appointing him to the kingship of the gods and the generalship of her army, and
bestowing upon him the Tablet of Destinies, which here seems intended both to
symbolize his new position and to bolster his power. This sequence of events also
suggests at least one mechanism whereby the Tablet of Destinies, and, by exten-
sion, divine kingship, may be properly and legitimately attained: through marriage
to or mating with Tiāmat.
One caveat to this point must be noted, however: while a god may gain power
through marrying Tiāmat and receiving the Tablet of Destinies, he apparently can-
not gain legitimacy unless he is the right god, independently worthy of both honors. 14
In Tablet IV of Enūma eliš, Marduk reels of the series of charges for which
Tiāmat has been condemned and for which she is to be executed by his hand. Re-
vealingly, he accuses: “You named Qingu to your consortship, / Though it was not
his portion, you installed him in the oice of lordship” (IV 81–82). While Tiāmat’s
marriage to Qingu is not explicitly identiied as the basis for Qingu’s elevation, the
two acts are implicitly linked and are similarly treated as insupportable transgres-
sions. The reason for Marduk’s objection to Qingu’s elevation is clear, however, he
has no obvious cause to reproach Tiāmat for her choice of consort, worthy or not,
unless this afects the balance of divine power. But if we accept that marriage to
Tiāmat is linked to the attainment of kingship and, by extension, to the legitimate
holding of the Tablet of Destinies, then Marduk’s accusations unexpectedly take on
the “conjugal undertones” suggested by Philip Jones: “Marduk acknowledged the
legitimating qualities of marrying Tiāmat. He merely disagreed with her choice of
the obscure igure of Qingu as her spouse and hinted that this was an honor that
should have been his.” 15

Nabu’s ire in this text is the return of the Tablet of Destinies to the Apsû and to Ea. For a discussion of
the Tablet of Destinies in Anzu and in Ninurta and the Turtle (UET 6/1 2), see Penglase 1994: 51–5, 61–2.
13. A distinction between guardianship and ownership is suggested here, with the implication be-
ing that the “rightful holder” of the Tablet of Destinies may have to be male but that the medium through
which it is transmitted may be female.
14. This is supported by the fact that Qingu, the unworthy usurper, is easily defeated in combat by
Marduk, the true and rightful king, despite holding the Tablet of Destinies. Lawson’s (1994: 23) sugges-
tion that “like the sword of Excalibur in Arthurian legend, the Tablet is efective according to the person
or god that wields it” seems a sensible one.
15. Jones 2005: 360. Whether being the mate of Tiāmat is any more legitimating than possessing
the Tablet of Destinies is questionable: while both positions confer power, the whole point of the text

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
 The Tablet of Destinies and the Transmission of Power 391

On irst reading, this suggestion seems unsavory, even obscene. Tiāmat, after
all, is mother of the gods and so, presumably, progenitress of Marduk as well. In-
cest, however, regardless of taboo, is at least obliquely indicated in Enūma eliš and
a close consideration of the narrative suggests that Marduk is indeed intended as
the rightful mate of Tiāmat. 16
Reading Tiāmat as the queen of the gods, as her mate Apsû was the irst king,
her refusal to step aside into the non-sexual role of “queen mother” requires her to
take a new mate who is not only her equal in power and ability but who is also it
to assume the role of king of the gods. Where is such a mate to be found? There is,
ultimately, only one place to look: in the line of the great gods, the legitimate heirs
of her union with Apsû. Among this line, only Marduk, and possibly Anu, are un-
coupled with corresponding female deities and Anu, as demonstrated by his abortive
mission against Tiāmat, is clearly not up to the challenge (II 105–118). Marduk, on
the other hand, is a superlative hero god from birth, easily surpassing his fathers in
his faculties and his potential. As the direct and most powerful descendent of Apsû
and Tiāmat’s original union, and also as the son of Ea, who slew Apsû and assumed
his realm and stature, Marduk is uniquely situated to actually replace the father
of the gods by marrying the now unattached Tiāmat. The problem of incest lingers
– but only until we realize that the narrative of Enūma eliš has been carefully ma-
nipulated to circumvent it.
While Marduk is nominally descended from Tiāmat through his father Ea, and
presumably also through his mother Damkina, for whom a genealogy is not given,
he is very deliberately described as having been born in the apsû, the realm created
from the body of the irst king of the gods, thus excluding Tiāmat from the equation.
The line of succession is drastically abbreviated, leading directly and solely from
Apsû to his immediate heir and the “child” of his corpse, Marduk. 17 Indeed, if the
incest taboo plays any role in shaping the events of Enūma eliš, it is in reinforcing
the impropriety of Tiāmat’s union with Qingu, who is explicitly identiied as one of
her ofspring (however many generations removed) in the text. 18
seems to be that they cannot confer legitimacy when bestowed upon an unworthy god, as, in this case,
upon Qingu.
16. Incestuous relationships are almost certainly part of the text, despite attempts in modern schol-
arship to explain them away. Thus Anu is described as the child, apilšunu (I 14), of Anšar and Kišar, and
Anšar and Kišar are likely born of the pair Lahmu and Lahamu, though the text is not explicit on this
point. Given that these represent the earliest generations of gods, however, a certain amount of leeway
is to be expected. As for the later generations, it is notable that Anu has no named mate and that Ea is
paired with Damkina, for whom no genealogy is given. Lambert (2008: 26) poses the question, “Is this
silence a reaction to the problem in any such theogony that after the irst generation it implies brother
and sister marriages that were taboo in Sumero-Babylonian society?” but no deinitive answer is pos-
sible. It is worth noting that the fragmentary and unusual Theogony of Dunnu (BM 74329), one of the
few Mesopotamian texts to explicitly include incestuous relationships in its narrative, begins with the
mother-son union and the son’s killing of the father as the means of attaining kingship. Brother-sister
pairings feature more prominently as the text continues but it is notable that the “queen,” the mother,
must either be married to or killed by the son, or killed by his sister, in order for the son to gain king-
ship. While this text may be well out of the mainstream, it nonetheless indicates the problem posed by
the continued existence of Tiāmat following the execution of Apsû: Ea cannot marry her, being paired
with Damkina, and Marduk, the heir apparent to the kingship of the gods, must either marry her or kill
her to be conirmed in his position.
17. While hardly a palatable image, such a relationship between Apsû and Marduk would be yet
another symbolic boost to Marduk’s claim to power and seems accurately to sum up the connection the
author of Enūma eliš was trying to evoke in his description of Marduk’s birth in Apsû.
18. Qingu is not, as often described, a monster or a demon but is rather one of the lesser gods who
comprise Tiāmat’s assembly: “From the gods, her ofspring, those who formed the assembly /She [Tiāmat]

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
392 karen sonik

That Marduk should assume the consortship of Tiāmat, that he should be ele-
vated to the kingship of the gods, and that he is, and should be, the rightful holder
of the Tablet of Destinies suddenly becomes self-evident. Tiāmat’s failure to see this
does not prevent him from attaining legitimate kingship, which he achieves instead
through election in the divine assembly of the great gods, 19 but it becomes ample
justiication for her treatment at his hands.
This reading of the text is supported by subsequent events. Following his kill-
ing of Tiāmat and his retrieval of the Tablet of Destinies from the unworthy Qingu,
Marduk seals it with a seal and aixes it to his own chest. 20 In this context, it serves
more as a symbol and conirmation of his successful and legitimate attainment of
the kingship of the gods than as a source of his power, given what he has already
achieved without it. Further proof of his worthiness to hold it follows, as Marduk
proceeds to organize the cosmos while wearing it proudly on his breast. The proper
balance of power is restored, inally and completely concentrated in the hands of the
great gods and, more speciically, in the hands of Marduk, their king.
If this interpretation of Enūma eliš is correct, however, what are we to make
of the fact that Marduk, when the battle against Tiāmat is won and the creation
of the world and its features complete, turns over the Tablet of Destinies to his
grandfather Anu (V 68–69)? If the Tablet is a symbol of divine kingship, are we to
understand that Marduk is giving up his hard-won prize to his grandfather?
I would argue for several reasons that the answer is an unequivocal “no.” First,
Marduk’s sealing of the Tablet of Destinies, followed by his organizing of the world
while wearing the Tablet on his breast, has already emphasized the inality of his
establishment of order and the enormity of his power, so he hardly requires the
continued possession of the Tablet as a symbol of his primacy or rule. 21 Second,
the bestowal of the Tablet on Anu suggests both Marduk’s devotion and loyalty to
his “fathers” and the continuity of the traditional pantheon, 22 with Anu nominally
at its head, even while proposing a radical change in its active leadership. 23 Third,
the turning over of the Tablet to a more senior igure in the pantheon evokes com-
elevated Qingu from among them, she exalted him,” I 147–148. His misidentiication may be at least
partly due to the fact that he is promoted to the generalship of Tiāmat’s battle array, which includes her
recently generated monsters, see Wiggermann 1992: 163. Tiāmat’s mating with Qingu thus represents
the clearest case of incest (though the exact relationship between them is unspeciied) in the text.
19. The suggestion that Enūma eliš “portrays an evolution of political authority from an assembly
of equals working out policy to an absolute monarch proclaiming policy,” is briely discussed in Foster
2005: 436, and in Jacobsen 1943: 167, 169–70. Such a scenario does not accurately relect the events of
the text, however, if we accept that Apsû efectively functions as the irst king or ruler of the text and
that even Qingu is elevated to kingship prior to Marduk’s “election.” See also Wiggermann 1992: 163. For
a more recent, if problematic, political analysis of Enūma eliš, see Boer 2006: 136–60.
20. George (1986: 139) discusses the symbolism of wearing the Tablet of Destinies, writing that
“the victor put it on and wore it as an emblem of power. . .One can probably imagine it to have been hung
from a cord strung round the neck, after the fashion of an amulet.” He also includes a brief but thorough
discussion of the act of sealing the Tablet of Destinies, which appears also in K 6177 + 8869, and treats
the subject of the Seal of Destinies, which is known from the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and which
functions to seal both human and divine destinies as decreed by Aššur, king of the gods, ibid.: 141.
21. Further, Marduk has already put his own seal on the Tablet of Destinies, IV 122.
22. Marduk’s devotion to his ancestors has already been emphasized in IV 123–126. It is reiterated
when Marduk gives Ea “the lead ropes,” V 68, and, later in the same passage, when he gives out and
receives other gifts.
23. Enlil is often the (more) active ruler of the pantheon with Anu often appearing as little more
than a igurehead. Enlil is mostly absent from the text of Enūma eliš, suggesting that it is his position
of divine rulership that Marduk is usurping. Enlil does, however, appear in the inal line of Tablet IV, in

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
 The Tablet of Destinies and the Transmission of Power 393

parisons to, and aligns Marduk with, other Mesopotamian hero gods such as Nin-
urta, who so dutifully returns the Tablet of Destinies to Enlil in Anzu. In this case,
however, the context suggests not that the Tablet is being returned to its rightful
owner, as Anu has never possessed the Tablet, but rather that it is being bestowed
by Marduk upon his grandfather as a gift or trophy. 24 Anu’s position in the pantheon
is thus subtly attributed to Marduk’s largesse.
In securing the suzerainty of the gods and establishing the structure and order
of the cosmos, Marduk has at last irmly consolidated divine power. His claim to
kingship bolstered by his place as the greatest and most powerful of Apsû’s heirs, by
his birth in the apsû, and by his election to the leadership of the great gods, Marduk
is clearly indicated as the rightful holder of the Tablet of Destinies and as the sole
contender for the role of Tiāmat’s consort, if that position is to be illed.
When Tiāmat, the only female in Enūma eliš who plays any signiicant role in
the succession of power or the conferral of legitimacy, subverts the divine order
through her marriage to Qingu and bestowal upon him of the Tablet of Destinies,
Marduk resorts to martial force both to recover and to prove his birthright. In kill-
ing Tiāmat and seizing–and sealing–for himself the Tablet of Destinies, Marduk
excises the female element, already excluded from any real part in ordered creation
in the text, from the transmission of divine power and lays his own indelible stamp
upon what is, in the right hands, the ultimate symbol of divine authority. Kingship
and divine power are henceforth properly – and permanently – concentrated in his
person.

which Marduk establishes the domains of Anu, Enlil, and Ea, IV 146, and as an active entity in Tablet V,
in which he appears alongside Anu and Ea presenting Marduk with a gift, V 80.
24. The term used is tāmartu, in this context a gift, tribute, or present.

Bibliography
Annus, A.
2002 The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia.
SAAS 14. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Aster, S. Z.
2006 The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in North-
west Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study.
PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Ataç, M.-A.
2007 The Melammu as Divine Epiphany and Usurped Entity. Pp.  295–313 in Ancient
Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, ed.
J. Cheng & M. H. Feldman. CHANE 26. Leiden: Brill.
Bahrani, Z.
2001 Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. New York:
Routledge.
Bidmead, J.
2002 The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia.
Gorgias Dissertations. Near Eastern Studies, 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.
Black, J. A. et al., ed.
1998–2006 “Enki and Ninmah.” The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford.

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
394 karen sonik

Boer, R.
2006 An Un-Original Tale: Utopia Denied in Enuma Elish. (Part II: The Politics of Uto-
pia) (Critical Essay). Arena Journal 26: 136–60.
Bottéro, J.
2001 Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Translated by Teresa L. Fagan. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Cassin, E.
1968 La splendeur divine: introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne. Civilisa-
tions et Sociétés 8. Paris: La Haye.
Dalley, S.
1989 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Fales, F. M.
1982 The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: ‘The Moral Judgement’. Pp. 425–35 in
Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im
Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. XXV. Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale Berlin 3.-7. Juli 1978 ed. H.-J. Nissen & J. Renger. BBVO 1. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer.
Foster, B. R.
2005 Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL
Press.
George, A. R.
1986 Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies. Iraq 48: 133–46.
Harris, R.
2000 Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia: The Gilgamesh Epic and Other Ancient Litera-
ture. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Horowitz, W.
1998 Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. MesCiv 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Jacobsen, T.
1943 Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia. JNES 2.3: 159–72.
Jones, P.
2005 Divine and Non-Divine Kingship. Pp. 330–42 in A Companion to the Ancient Near
East, ed. D. C. Snell. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lambert, W. G.
1980 The Twenty-One “Poultices. AnSt 30: 77–83.
2008 Mesopotamian Creation Stories. Pp. 15–59 in Imagining Creation, ed. M. J. Geller &
M. Schipper. Institute of Jewish Studies, Studies in Judaica 5. Leiden: Brill.
Lawson, J. N.
1994 The Concept of Fate in Ancient Mesopotamia of the First Millennium: Toward an
Understanding of Šīmtu. OBC 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Liverani, M., Bahrani, Z. and Van de Mieroop, M., ed.
2004 Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Univ. Press.
Livingstone, A., ed.
1986 Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
2007 Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Michalowski, P.
1990 Presence at the Creation. Pp. 381–96 in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient
Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehner-
gard & P. Steinkeller. HSS 37. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
 The Tablet of Destinies and the Transmission of Power 395

Mills, D. H.
2002 The Hero and the Sea: Patterns of Chaos in Ancient Myth. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-
Carducci Publishers, Inc.
Penglase, C.
1994 Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Inluences in the Homeric Hymns and
Hesiod. London: Routledge.
Sonik, K.
2009 “Gender Matters in Enūma eliš.” Pp. 85–101 in the Wake of Tikva Frymer-Kensky,
ed. S. Holloway, J. Scurlock & R. Beal. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Talon, P.
2005 Enūma eliš: The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth. SAACT 4. Helsinki: The Neo-
Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Walls, N.
2001 Desire, Discord and Death: Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Myth. ASOR Books
8. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Wiggermann, F. A. M.
1992 Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. CM 1. Groningen: Styx & PP
Publications.
Wilcke, C.
2007 Vom altorientalischen Blick zurück auf die Anfänge. Pp.  3–59 in Anfang und Ur-
sprung: die Frage nach dem Ersten in Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaft, ed.
E. Angehrn. Colloquium Rauricum 10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Offprint from: Gernot Wilhelm, ed.,

Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.