Identities and Societies

in the Ancient East-Mediterranean Regions

Comparative approaches

Henning Graf Reventlow Memorial Volume

Edited by
Thomas R. Kämmerer
 Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients
und des Alten Testaments

Band 390 / 1

Herausgeber
Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz • Hans Neumann

Lektor
Kai A. Metzler

Beratergremium
Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider
Stefan Maul • Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger
Gebhard Selz • Michael P. Streck • Wolfgang Zwickel

2011
Ugarit-Verlag
Münster
 Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia
Band 1

Herausgeber

Peter Funke • Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila

Thomas R. Kämmerer • Mait Kõiv
Anne Lill • Hans Neumann
Urmas Nõmmik • Juha Pakkala
Peeter Roosimaa

Identities and Societies

in the Ancient East-Mediterranean Regions
Comparative approaches

Henning Graf Reventlow Memorial Volume

Edited by
Thomas R. Kämmerer

2011
Ugarit-Verlag
Münster
Identities and Societies in the Ancient East-Mediterranean Regions :
Comparative approaches.
Henning Graf Reventlow Memorial Volume
Edited by Thomas R. Kämmerer
Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia, Band 1
Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 390/ 1

© 2011 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster

www.ugarit-verlag.de
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Herstellung: Hubert und Co, Göttingen
Printed in Germany
ISBN: 978-3-86835-062-3

Printed on acid-free paper

 Inhalt
Vorwort ..................................................................................................................... V

The Mesopotamian Precursors of Adam’s Garment of Glory and Moses’ Shining

Face
Amar Annus ................................................................................................................ 1

From the Baltic to Baghdad – A brief account of the meeting of Viking

and Arab cultures
Faruk Abu-Chacra .................................................................................................... 19

Heilkraft der rituellen Magie nach Aussage altorientalischer Texte

Manfried Dietrich ..................................................................................................... 31
Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon
Peeter Espak ............................................................................................................. 47
Drakon, Solon und der albanische Kanun. Einige Überlegungen
zu einem Versuch in vergleichender Rechtsgeschichte
Peter Funke .............................................................................................................. 59
Religiöse Identität einer antiken Glaubensgemeinschaft, aufgezeigt
am babylonischen Enūma-eliš-Epos
Thomas R. Kämmerer ............................................................................................... 73
The early biographical tradition of Homer
Maarit Kivilo ............................................................................................................ 85
Egalitarianism and hierarchies: Early Greek polis in the context
of Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean city-state cultures
Mait Kõiv ................................................................................................................ 105
The socio-political development of the Dark Age Greece: A comparative view
Mait Kõiv ................................................................................................................ 153
Wer waren die Mannäer?
Walter Mayer .......................................................................................................... 193
Public speaking and speaker’s identity: Gorgias as an orator-poet
Janika Päll .............................................................................................................. 201
Die Speisevorschriften in Leviticus 11. Ein Rätsel für die moderne
Bibelwissenschaft
Henning Graf Reventlow † ..................................................................................... 219
Zur Entwicklung der urchristlichen Identität
Peeter Roosimaa ..................................................................................................... 227
VIII Inhalt

Die mittelassyrischen, universalistischen Königstitel und Epitheta

Tukūltī-Ninūrtas I. (1242–1206)
Vladimir Sazonov.................................................................................................... 235
Ein Strukturvergleich der altorientalischen und der historisch-mediterranen
Königsherrschaften
Alfred Schmid ......................................................................................................... 277
Streitkultur – Formen dramatischer Rede in der griechischen
und in der althebräischen Literatur
Klaus Seybold † / Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg ................................................... 287
Der Brief der Königin Da amunzu an den hethitischen König Šuppiluliuma I.
im Lichte von Reisegeschwindigkeiten und Zeitabläufen
Christoffer Theis ..................................................................................................... 301
Identity and ethnic friction in Greek papyrus letters from Egypt
Ivo Volt ................................................................................................................... 333
Ideals of state service: Reflection on Ahikar, Zopyros and some others
Stefanie West .......................................................................................................... 341

Index ....................................................................................................................... 353

 Some Early Developments
in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon

Peeter Espak, Tartu1

A valuable source of information concerning the relations of Sumerian deities, their

genealogy, division into pairs, and into larger groups in third millennium written
sources is given by the listings of deities occurring in most cases in a certain order.
Two categories of lists of gods exist in Sumerian and Akkadian context: lexically or
theologically ordered god lists;2 and listings of deities that are mentioned in a certain
order inside a text other than a god list such as royal inscriptions, hymns or larger
mythological compositions. Charles Jean collected all the listings from the Old-
Sumerian period and used them to study the earliest Sumerian pantheon.3 J. J. M.
Roberts found that the fixed order of the Old-Akkadian listings “suggests that one is
dealing with a partial canonical listing of the imperial pantheon.”4 When examining
the earliest lists, several differences compared to the later Neo-Sumerian and Old-
Babylonian lists are clearly visible.5 Third millennium Old-Sumerian lists are not
organised following a certain fixed centralised model of the pantheon and several
differing traditions seem to be in existence simultaneously. Understanding these
early lists is made difficult by the fact that several essential aspects of the third mil-
lennium mythology are still impossible to interpret in lack of preserved longer my-
thological texts. Larger myths, hymns and epics appear from the Neo-Sumerian pe-
riod onwards and present already a much more organised view of the overall pan-
theon of Sumer. Listing of deities are always organised in a certain order, reflecting
the official interpretation of the pantheon trough the eyes of centralised Neo-Sume-
rian state rulers and officials. Older third millennium sources were, however, com-
posed in a political situation where instead of one centralised state several political
and also mythological systems existed simultaneously. In both cases, the informa-
tion given about different deities in the god listings does not mirror their possible
“real” position in the pantheon and popular cult,6 but rather reflects the personal or
–––––––––––––––––––––––
1 This study has been supported by the Estonian Science Foundation grant ETF 8669:
“Socio-political structures and power ideologies in Ancient Near East and Eastern Medi-
terranean.” Based on the paper presented at the 9th International Congress for Ancient
East-Mediterranean Studies in Tartu “Ideologies in the Ancient East-Mediterranean:
comparative approaches” (04–07.06.2007).
2 W. G. Lambert, RlA 3 (1971), p. 473.
3 La Religion sumérienne (1931), pp. 32–34.
4 The Earliest Semitic Pantheon (1972), p. 146.
5 Cf. R. Litke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: da-nu-um and
An : anu šá amēli (1958).
6 Limits of only few chosen texts as sources for analysing the so-called canonical pantheon
and drawing conclusions from them are made clear by I. Nakata, ASJ 1 (1979), pp. 65–
67.
48 Peeter Espak

regional ideas of the author; in case of royal inscriptions, the political ideology of
the region or the state of the composer of the text.7

Abū Salābīkh and Fāra God Lists

SF 23 list from Fāra shows seven divine pairs headed by Enki and Ninki, followed
by Enlil and Ninlil, then five e n and n in pairs. Similar order is followed in the Abū
Salābīkh list with slight variations adding a pair en- an and n in- an.

SF 23:8 1–22 OIP 99:9 82, v. i 1–24

d d
e n-k i n in-k i en -k i n in-k i
d d
en-líl n in-KID en-líl nin-KID
d d
en-U… n in-U… en-U… nin-U…
d d
en-bù lug n in-bù lug en -bù lug n in-bù lug
d d
en-du 6 -udua x n in-du 6 -udua x en -udua x n in-udu a x
d d
en-gukkal n in-gukk al en -gukkal n[ in]- ¯ gukk al²
d d
en-á n in - á ¯ en-á ² n in-¯ á²
d [d]
en -an n in- an
d
tùr n in-šubu r
d
g ír id lugal-¯BU.NUN-g ána-x ²
d
NI.NA NÁM.K[IŠ]
d
¯LA².TIM MÙŠ x PA
SAL.KID d
lugal- ¡eš a sal x (TU.GAB.LIŠ)
d
MEN a m a r - u tu
AN .inann a
AN .n is aba

In both lists, the major gods of Sumer appear after the en and n in pairs and the first
divine figure coming after the primordial gods seems to be the mother-goddess ( tùr
and d n in- šubur ). The Abū •alābīkh list adds d en- an and d n in-an 10 to the seven
pairs of the Fāra list. It might be a theological speculation to adjust the system of the
list with the understanding that world was created by the intercourse of An and Ki.
When the cult of the mother-earth Ki and the great sky-god An had already been
overshadowed by the later more artificial and scribal mythology, it could be imagin-
able to guess, that in this list the scribe refers to d en-k i – d n in-k i and d en -an –
d
n in- an as some sort of primordial powers manifested in the images of earth and
sky.11 However, this does not explain the nature of en -k i and n in-k i in other texts
where en -an and n in- an are never mentioned.12
–––––––––––––––––––––––
7 Cf. G. Komoróczy, OrNS 45 (1976), p. 82.
8 P. Mander, Il pantheon di Abū Salābīkh (1986), p. 109; J. van Dijk, AcOr 28 (1965), p.
6ff.
9 P. Mander, op. cit., pp. 9–10 and commentary pp. 66–67; A. Alberti, SEL 2 (1985), pp.
12–13.
10 Translatable as “the earth lords and the earth ladies” or “the lords and the ladies
(parents?) of the gods.”
11 It seems likely that all the other en and nin pairs are meant to refer to some sort of natural
phenomena emerging after the copulation of earth and heaven; or present in the “embryo-
nic” state of existence as defined by J. van Dijk, AcOr 28 (1965).
12 The later but structurally close Mari god list does not mention en-an and nin-an and
 Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon 49

Other lists such as SF 5–6, SF 7 and SF 39 VII–VIII both start with Enlil whereas
the second and third place is held by Enki or Inanna:
SF 5–6:13 d e n - l í l, d en-k i, d
g ib i l 6 , d
nin-k in-n ir , dEN.ZU, d
ama -
u šum-g a l, d n is ab a.
SF 7:14 d e n - l í l , d i n a n n a , NUN, d s ù d , d
gibil, d
lama, d
nanna, d
èš, d
[š]ul?,
d
nisaba, diškur.
SF 39 VII–VIII:15 Enlil, Enki, Nanna, Inanna, Gibil, Ašgi, Nergal, Nisaba.

SF 1 and Abū •alābīkh god list seem to begin with An and are then followed by En-
lil, Inanna or Ninlil, and Enki:
SF 1, 1–9:16 a n , d e n - l í l, d in a n n a , d en-k i, d n an n a , d u tu, dAN.MENx,
d
BAR.MENx, d n ís ab a.
OIP 99, 82, 1–9:17 [an ? ], [ d en-líl ? ], [ d n in-K]ID, [ d e]n -k[i],
[ d n a]n[n a], d inann a, d[IN]ANNA, d n in-¡ ír- su, d a šg i .
The Zame Hymns belonging to the same period as the god lists above18 also
list deities in a certain fixed order: d en-líl, d n in-unug, d in ann a,
d
en -nu- te -mud, d a sa r - lú - KAL, d n ann a, d u tu, d n in-g a l, an,
d
dam-g a l-nun.

Three different traditions of god lists seem to exist at the same time during the com-
position of Abū •alābīkh and Fāra texts. The first starts with Enki and Ninki fol-
lowed by Enlil and Ninlil, altogether seven e n and n in pairs. These lists also differ
in a sense that one list adds a pair of en- an and n in- an to the end of e n and n in
pairs. Identification of the primordial Enki with the great Sumerian god Enki(g) in
some level of thinking seems also possible. The second group of the lists (SF 5–6,
SF 7, SF 39) has Enlil heading the row of the gods followed by Enki(g) or Inanna.
The third group (SF 1; OIP 99, 82, 1–9) starts with An followed by Enlil, then a
female deity (Inanna or Ninlil), and Enki having the fourth position. This is similar
to the canonical order followed by all the later Neo-Sumerian listings. Do the differ-
ing ways of grouping the gods also reflect distinct traditions in creation mythology,
for example, is difficult to answer, since “phrases used to sum up these lists offer
great divergences, which suggest that not even the ancient scholars were unanimous
in their understanding of these lists.”19 There was no overall imperial pantheon in
existence in the early periods of Sumerian history. The most important gods of dif-
ferent regions such as Enlil, Enki, Inanna (or other mother-goddesses), An and also
–––––––––––––––––––––––
defines the divine primordial creatures as the en and nin of “the holy mound” and parents
of Enlil (17–20): d e n - d u 6 - k ù - g a d n i n - d u 6 - k ù - g a / d e n a m a a - a d e n - l í l - l á
d
n i n a m a a - a d e n - l í l - l á / d e n - m e - š á r - r a d n i n - m e - š á r - r a (W. G. Lambert, Fs.
Birot (1985), p. 182).
13 M. Krebernik, ZA 76 (1986), p. 189: 1-7; P. Mander, Il pantheon di Abū Salābīkh
(1986), p. 40.
14 P. Mander, ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 M. Krebernik, ZA 76 (1986), p. 168: i 1–9; P. Mander, Il pantheon di Abū Salābīkh
(1986), p. 77.
17 Reconstruction of R. D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abū •alābīkh (1974), p. 83;
P. Mander, Il pantheon di Abū Salābīkh (1986), p. 40; A. Alberti, SEL 2 (1985), p. 7.
18 Cf. P. Mander, Il pantheon di Abū Salābīkh (1986), p. 40 and 120f.
19 W. G. Lambert, RlA 3 (1971), p. 469.
50 Peeter Espak

the primordial gods Enki and Ninki were all dynamically ordered as the most im-
portant divine concepts in the developing Sumerian mythological system reflected in
the god lists.

Listings of Deities in Old-Sumerian Royal Inscriptions

Following are presented the major listings of deities from different royal inscriptions
of Eanatum, Enanatum I, Enmetena of Lagaš; ¤iša-kidu of Umma and Lugalzagesi
of Uruk. The majority of information comes from the period of Eanatum, Enanatum
I and Enmetena and therefore the listings mostly reflect the official pantheon of the
state of Lagaš.20
Eanatum 1, xvi 14–rev. v 36: Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Enki, Su’en, Utu, Ninki.
Eanatum 1, rev. v 45–vi 9: Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Inanna, Enki, Nanše, Nin¡irsu,
Dumuzi-Abzu, …endursa¡, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Eanatum 2, iv 5–12: Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Nanše, Nin¡irsu.
Eanatum 5, i 5–ii 13: Enlil, Nin¡irsu, Nanše, Nin`ursa¡, Inanna, Enki, Du-
muzi-Abzu, …endursa¡, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Eananatum 6, i 10–ii 14: Enlil, Nin¡irsu, Nanše, Nin`ursa¡, Inanna, Enki,
Dumuzi-Abzu, …endursa¡.
Eanatum 8, i 5–ii 5: Enlil, Nin¡irsu, Nanše, Nin`ursa¡, Inanna.
Eanatum 9, i 4–11: Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Nin¡irsu, Nanše.
Eanatum 18, i 1–ii 4: Enlil, Enki, …endursa¡, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 2 i 1–ii 8: Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Inanna, …endursa¡,
Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 5 i 6–ii 1: Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Inanna, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 8 i 4–9 / Enanatum I, 15 i 10–15: Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Lugal-
URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 9 i 4–ii 3: E[nlil], [Nanše], [Nin¡irsu], Inanna, Enki, Lugal-
URUxKAR.
Enmetena 1, v 23–vi 7: Enlil, Enki, Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Šul-MUŠxPA, Nin¡ir-
su, Nanše.
Enmetena 5b, obv. ii 2–iii 1: Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Inanna, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enmetena 12, ii 6–vii 2: Nin¡irsu, Lugal-URUxKAR, Nanše, Enki, Nin`ur-
sa¡, Nin¡irsu, Enlil, ¤atumdu, Nanše, Nin¡irsu.
Enmetena 15, ii 2–6: Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Enki.
Enmetena 16, 1–38: Nin¡irsu, Nanše, Enlil, ¤atumdu, Ninma`, Lugal-URUx
KAR, Enki, Nin¡irsu.
Enmetena 17, I 17–iv 5: (Enlil, Nanše, Nin¡irsu), Nin¡irsu, Lugal-URUx
KAR, Nanše, Enki, Nin`ursa¡, Nin¡irsu, ¤atumdu, Nanše, Enlil, Šul-
MUŠxPA, Enlil.
Enmetena 20, 7–11: Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Nin-DAR.
Enmetena 22, 6–10: Nanše, Nin¡irsu, ¤atumdu.
Enmetena 26, i 7 – ii 7: Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Nanše, Nin¡irsu, Lugal-URUx
KAR.
¤iša-kidu 221, i 11–17: Ninur, Enki, Ištaran, Enlil, Inanna.
–––––––––––––––––––––––
20 Cf. W. Sallaberger, RlA 10 (2004), pp. 300–303 for the terms “local pantheon” and “state
pantheon.”
21 The text was previously attributed to Lugalzagesi (H. Steible, FAOS 5/II: Lugalzagezi 2)
and is now identified by D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 372 as an inscription of ¤iša-kidu of
 Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon 51

Lugalzagesi 1, i 3–32 (An, Nisaba) An, Enlil, Enki, Utu, Su’en, Utu, Nisaba,
Nin`ursa¡, Mas-sa¡-Unug, Ningirim.
Lugalzagesi 2, i´ 2´ – ii´ 5: (lacuna) Inanna, Mes-sa¡-Unug, Nis[aba], (lacu-
na), Ina[nna], [Enki], [Ningirim].

Major Sumerian gods such as Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Su’en and Utu appear in the inscrip-
tions of Eanatum who uses their names to legitimate his military victories against
Umma or even his possible quest for hegemony over the larger territories of Sumer.
It seems that he is trying to find acceptance from the whole Sumerian priesthood to
legitimise his conquests as the section of the oaths from the Stele of Vultures seems
to demonstrate. The order Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Enki, Su’en, Utu, Ninki is already simi-
lar to the later Ur III canonical order (An, Enlil, Nin`ursa¡, Enki, Su’en, Utu, Inan-
na) which was valid until the last Ur III ruler Ibbi-Su’en.22 In Eanatum’s text, how-
ever, Ninki23 replaces Inanna and An is not heading the list. An is later mentioned
only in Lugalzagesi 1 inscription heading the list and is then followed by Enlil. The
ordering of Lugalzagesi’s list (An, Enlil, Enki, Utu, Su’en, Utu, Nisaba, Nin`ursa¡,
etc.) is also very similar to the later canonical order. However, the mother-goddess
Nin`ursa¡ usually occurring third in most of the Ur III texts, here occupies the
eighth place. The majority of the inscriptions of Eanatum tend to list the mother-
goddess Inanna before the god Enki. Inscriptions of the earlier Lagašite king Ur-
Nanše contain mostly god names of the local pantheon dominated by Nin¡irsu, Nan-
še or Nin-MAR.KI. Several references are also made to Abzu temples of Enki and
Ibgal temples of Inanna but no major Sumerian gods such as An, Enlil or Nin`ursa¡
are mentioned.24 It seems that Eanatum has deliberately created a new pantheon
order by incorporating his own state gods into a larger system of a developing over-
all pantheon model valid in the areas of influence of Nippur. Enlil’s later arrival to
the Lagašite pantheon and Enki’s possible earlier prominence might also indicate the
rise in importance of the Nippur priesthood as political influencers during the period
of Eanatum.25 While the Eanatum1 inscription mentions the great gods of the larger
Sumerian territory probably in already developing canonical order, the other in-
scriptions of the ruler are mostly concerned with the local Lagašite pantheon domi-
nated by Nin¡irsu and his sister Nanše. Listings of deities in the inscriptions of Ena-
natum I and Enmetena seem not to be systematised following the rules common for
the earlier listings of Eanatum. The local gods Nin¡irsu and Nanše seem to have the
most prominent position but also Enlil often heads the listings.
The Ummaite ¤iša-kidu 2 inscription is exceptional because it is listing Enki
among the local deities before the god Enlil (Ninur, Enki, Ištaran, Enlil, Inanna).
This might indicate the greater prominence of Enki in Ummaite theology compared
to Enlil’s influence. Is this also an indication of the overall preeminence of Enki in
the earlier layers of Southern Mesopotamian religion and only later rise to promi-
nence of Enlil, is hard to answer in lack of further written evidence.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
Umma.
22 P. Espak, The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), p. 78ff.
23 Ninki occurs as a distinct deity also in SF 1 god-list vi 25ff. (M. Krebernik, ZA 76
(1986), p. 164).
24 P. Espak, The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), pp. 18–21.
25 Cf. G. J. Selz, RAI 35 (1992) for the early developments and composition of the Lagašite
pantheon.
52 Peeter Espak

Enki and Ninki

The textual material demonstrating the genealogical relations between different
divine entities in Old-Sumerian sources is in many ways confusing and the small
number of texts available makes the task more complicated. Some larger preserved
mythological texts though allow making some general conclusions. The fragment
Ukg. 15 found from ¤irsu mentions the cosmic marriage of An and Ki followed by
en-k i and nun-k i then by Enlil and Ninlil. An and Ki have intercourse that proba-
bly results in births of Enki-Nunki deities:26

Ukg. 15, i 5–iii 427

k i bùru a š è-m a- s i A hole in the earth, it is filled with water
(=semen)
a n en-na m šu l- l e-š è a l-DU An is the lord, in a young hero’s way is
standing
a n - k i t éš-b a s ig 4 an-g i 4 -g i 4 An and Ki in union, they are shouting28
u 4 -b a en-k i nun-k i nu -sig 7 On that day Enki (and) Nunki are not
alive (yet)29
d
en - líl nu- ti Enlil is not alive (yet)
d
n in- líl nu- ti Ninlil is not alive (yet)
u 4 -d a im- ma Today, (the day) before
u l [ ] im-m[ a] joy [ ] before
u 4 nu z a l-[ za l] Day is not passing
i - t i nu -è- è the rays of the moon are not going out

After Enki and Nunki, Enlil and Ninlil are mentioned. The text does not give any
evidence whether Enlil and Ninlil are direct offspring of An and Ki or given birth by
Enki and Nunki.30 At least one text shows Enlil separating An from Ki,31 and there-
fore it seems that two different traditions might have been in existence concerning
the genealogies of deities. One relates An and Ki to the birth of all the other gods;
–––––––––––––––––––––––
26 The earliest evidence of a cult of the sky-god An in Lagaš comes from ca. the Akkade
period, G. Selz, ASJ 12 (1990), p. 124 and 132, text 4. cf. P. Espak, The God Enki in
Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), p. 167ff.
27 Å. W. Sjöberg, Gs. Jacobsen (2002), pp. 230–231; W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic
Geography (1998), pp. 140–141; J. van Dijk, AcOr 28 (1965), p. 40; cf. P. Espak, The
God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), p. 167ff.
28 M.-L. Thomsen, The Sumerian Language (1984), p. 188 translates ii 1–2: “An is the lord
– he is standing (or going?) like a young hero / heaven and earth are shouting together.”
J. van Dijk, AcOr 28 (1965), p. 40 ii 2: “An et Ki échangeaient des cris, l’un avec
l’autre.” P. Michalowski, RAI 43 (1998), p. 240, note 4: “This is, of course, but a
metaphor for sexual union.” The Barton Cylinder also describes the copulation in similar
terms (B. Alster – A. Westenholtz, ASJ 16 (1994)).
29 The line was interpreted by J. van Dijk (p. 40) as u 4 - b a e n - k i e r i d u (NUN)ki n u - s i 12:
“Ce jour-là, Enki (et) Eridu n’avait pas commencé à exister.” W. Horowitz, Mesopo-
tamian Cosmic Geography (1998), p. 140 argues that “On that day Enki in Eridu . . . ” can
also be possible. Considering the verb used and Enki’s name occurring without the deter-
minative, it does not seem very likely.
30 Cf. W. G. Lambert, RlA 3 (1971), p. 469.
31 W. G. Lambert, BSOAS 39 (1976), p. 431, column iii of OIP 99, text no. 136 and B.
Alster, ASJ 4 (1982), p. 1: UD.GAL.NUN / a n UNU- t a b a d / k i a n - t a b a d : ”Enlil /
to separate heaven from earth / to separate earth from heaven.”
 Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon 53

the second tradition again places Enki and Ninki first as indicated by the early god-
lists. UD.GAL.NUN texts reveal that Enki and Ninki were responsible of giving
birth to Enki and Enlil as well as to other major gods of Sumer:
d
[GA]L.UNU ud n in.k i / d[GA]L.UNU a.AMA32
GAL.k i n in.k i / udGAL.UNU a. tu 33
Enki and Ninki bore Enki(g)34
In some textual examples, Enki-Ninki deities seem to be in a certain way related to
Enki and his city Eridu and Abzu.35 As was defined by Th. Jacobsen, it seems possi-
ble that Enki-Ninki deities have something to do with a sort of a chthonic or under-
world cult: “This deity, whose name denotes ‘Lord Earth’ ( en-k i) is a chthonic
deity distinct from the god of the fresh waters Enki, whose name denotes ‘Lord (i.e.,
productive manager) of the earth’ ( en-k i (. ak )).”36 The explanation seems to be
quite possible in light of the Sumerian incantations from Ebla where the roots of a
Tamarisk tree are equated with Enki and Ninki:
¡eš
š i n ig ¡ e š- g i ¡ eš-an / úr-p i k i-šè / d en -k i d n in-k i / p a-p i- ta /
an gudu 4 -nun / ¯kar kù² lá:
Tamarisk, unique tree (or: canebrake?), tree of heaven (or: upper tree?) / its
roots (are) in the earth / (they are?) Enki and Ninki / from its branches / An,
the priest (?) / to the holy quay stretches out (leads?)37
Based on that example, it can be imagined that Enki-Ninki are seen as residing in-
side the earth just as the roots of a tree.
In Neo-Sumerian texts, the pair Enki and Ninki is listed in some literary compo-
sitions but their importance as major mythological figures seems to have been some-
what declined compared to the earlier sources such as Ukg. 15 or UD.GAL.NUN
texts. The Neo-Sumerian composition known under the title “The Death of Gilga-
–––––––––––––––––––––––
32 OIP 99, 114: i 11–12.
33 SF: 37 i 7–8.
34 W. G. Lambert, OA 20 (1981), p. 84.
35 A. Cavigneaux / F. N. H. Al-Rawi, ZA 83 (1993), p. 179, line 26: incantations from Me-
turan seem to confuse the concept of the god Enki(g) and Enki-Ninki in different
versions of one incantation La grande texte contre Namtar (p. 188): “le fait qu’ils soient
des a d - d a e r i d u - g a - k e 4 - n e ‘anciens d’Eridu’, et qu’ils soient familiers avec Enki est
assez troublant; cela suggère un lien particulier de ces dieux avec Enki, même si ce lien
n’est pas l’étymologie.“ Cf. S. N. Kramer, JAOS 88 (1968), p. 111 who relates the Enki
gods with the īgīgû because d e n - k i d e n - k i in line 6 of Išme-Dagan A is occurring
together with the d a - n u n - n a - k e 4 - n e in line 5. J. van Dijk, AOAT 25 (1976), p. 126
considers it possible. Cf. F. Wiggermann, NatPhen (1992), pp. 281–282.
36 The Treasures of Darkness: A history of Mesopotamian Religion (1976), p. 252, note
173. Cf. Th. Jacobsen, JNES 5 (1946), pp. 138–139: “the powers manifest in Earth
viewed in their male and female aspects as d E n - k i , ‘The earth lord,’ and d N i n - k i , ‘The
earth lady.’”
37 M. Krebernik, Die Beschwörungen au Fara und Ebla (1984), pp. 96–97, no. 19; G.
Pettinato, OA 18 (1979), p. 339, text a; cf. G. Pettinato, op. cit., p. 340 text b. The text is
also similar to the royal inscription Ur-Nanše 32 (RIME 1, pp. 117–118 = Urnanše 49:
FAOS 5/I) where Enki and Nunki gods are probably asked to be favourable towards the
“reed of Enki” and its roots placed inside the earth (P. Espak, The God Enki in Sumerian
Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), pp. 15–17). Enki and Ninki gods are also related
to Nergal in the Zame Hymns (OIP 99, p. 48: 65–69) and there are possibilities to relate
the primordial Enki with the Semitic god Rasap according to some sources (cf. P. Espak,
The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), pp. 27–28).
54 Peeter Espak

meš” seems to list them as some sort of underworld gods whom the burial offerings
or gifts are dedicated. The texts describes them and the other primordial gods as “the
mothers and fathers of Enlil” and “the lords and ladies of the holy mound,” so being
in accordance with the earlier literary sources where Enki and Ninki were described
as ancestors of all the major Sumerian gods:
d
en -k i d n in-k i d en- mu l d n in-mu l / d en-du 6 -kù-g a d n in-du 6 -kù-g a
/ d en- ind a- šur im ! - ma d nin-[d] a- šur im ! - ma / d en-mu -u tu- lá d en -
m e-[ e]n- šá r-r a / a ma a-a d en - l í l- lá-r a.38
One hymn of the Larsa ruler Gungunum titles the moon-god Su’en to be the off-
spring of Enlil and Ninlil. Enki and Ninki are probably titled to be the grandparents
of Su’en (Gungunum A, obv. 10–11):
[ šu l] dEN.ZU en tur x kur-g al- l a d n in-líl-e tu-d a
[ d en]-k i d n in-k i p a-b í l-g a-n i n am du 1 0 -ge-eš tar-r e 39
[Youthful] Su’en, lord, (son?) of the great mountain, given birth by Ninlil
[En]ki and Ninki, his grandparents, decide a good destiny (for him)
According to the UD.GAL.NUN texts, Enki and Ninki gave birth to the succeeding
primordial gods, then to Enlil, Enki(g) and also to Su’en.40 The Gungunum text
demonstrates that Enlil is still considered to be the son of the primordial Enki-Ninki.
Su’en, however, has developed into a third generation deity. This is slightly similar
to the events in Ukg. 15: An and Ki have intercourse, Enki and Nunki are born who
in turn might give birth to Enlil and Ninlil. Then the day (Utu) and moonlight
(Su’en) are mentioned.
As illustrated by a later Babylonian bilingual emesal vocabulary list, under-
standing the difference between Enki-Ninki and Enki-Damgalnunna/Damkina was
already problematical for the Babylonian scribes: d umun-k i = d en-k i = d é -¯a ] /
d
gašan-k i = d n in-k i = d da m-k i-n[ a] .41
At least by the present knowledge about the divine concept of Enki and Ninki, it
seems impossible to determine their function in the Sumerian mythology with cer-
tainty. They might belong to a certain early phase of the Sumero-Akkadian creation
mythology as the pre-eminent creator gods residing inside the Holy Mound and the
earth (Ki or underworld regions). This understanding then was later adjusted with
the mythology of An and Ki being the first creators. The close relation or sometimes
even assimilation of Enki(g) (and also Enlil) with the primordial en-gods is also
detectable but the nature of that relationship remains unclear.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
38 A. Cavigneaux / F. N. H. Al-Rawi, Gilgameš et la mort (2000), p. 23: N3 14–18. The
gods Enki-Ninki / Enul-Ninul are in several Sumerian and later texts described as the
great primordial gods, lords of the holy mound having their assembly and decreeing the
fates: cf. A. Cavigneaux / M. Jaques, Fs. Groneberg (2010), pp. 8–9 (Silbenvokabular)
and G. Pettinato, Das altorientalische Menschenbild (1971), p. 76 (KAR 4, lines 56–57).
Also the Anunna gods may be described as the gods of the Holy Mound, for example
Lahar and Ašnan 30: d a - n u n - n a d u 6 - k ù - g a - k e 4 - n e (B. Alster / H. Vanstiphout, ASJ
9 (1987), p. 17).
39 Å. W. Sjöberg, ZA 63 (1973), p. 25.
40 W. G. Lambert, OA 20 (1981), p. 85: udŠEŠ.KI a . AMA (114 i 14).
41 MSL 4: i 2–3: B. Landsberger / R. Hallock / Th. Jacobsen / A. Falkenstein. Materialien
zum sumerischen Lexikon IV. Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, Roma (1956).
 Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon 55

Royal Inscriptions
Eanatum 1: RIME 1, pp. 126–140; FAOS 5/I, pp. 120–145.
Eanatum 2: RIME 1, pp. 140–142 = Ean. 6–7: FAOS 5/I, pp. 158–160.
Eanatum 5: RIME 1, pp. 145–149 = Ean. 2: FAOS 5/I, pp. 145–151.
Eanatum 6: RIME 1, pp. 149–152 = Ean. 3–4: FAOS 5/I, pp. 152–156.
Eanatum 8: RIME 1, pp. 154–156 = Ean. 11: FAOS 5/I, pp. 162–165.
Eanatum 9: RIME 1, pp. 156–158 = Ean. 22: FAOS 5/I, pp. 165–169.
Eanatum 18: RIME 1, p. 166.
Enanatum I 2: RIME 1, pp. 170–173 = En. I 29: FAOS 5/I, pp. 198–202.
Enanatum I 5: RIME 1, pp. 175–177 = En. I 35: FAOS 5/I, pp. 208–210.
Enanatum I 8: RIME 1, pp. 178–180 = En. I 17: FAOS 5/I, pp. 188–189.
Enanatum I 9: RIME 1, pp. 180–181 = En. I 33: FAOS 5/I, pp. 204–207.
Enanatum I 15: RIME 1, pp. 187–188 = En. I 26: FAOS 5/I, pp. 195–196.
Enmetena 1: RIME 1, pp. 194–199 = Ent. 28–29: FAOS 5/I, pp. 230–245.
Enmetena 2: RIME 1, pp. 199–200 = Ent. 41: FAOS 5/I, pp. 256–257.
Enmetena 5b: RIME 1, pp. 206–207.
Enmetena 12: RIME 1, pp. 213–215 = Ent. 8: FAOS 5/I, pp. 215–218.
Enmetena 15: RIME 1, pp. 217–218 = Ent. 42: FAOS 5/I, pp. 257–258.
Enmetena 16: RIME 1, pp. 218–219 = Ent. 23: FAOS 5/I, pp. 223–224.
Enmetena 17: RIME 1, pp. 219–222 = Ent. 1: FAOS 5/I, pp. 211–212.
Enmetena 20: RIME 1, pp. 224–225 = Ent. 27: FAOS 5/I, pp. 227–228.
Enmetena 22: RIME 1, p. 226 = Ent. 25: FAOS 5/I, pp. 225–226.
Enmetena 23: RIME 1, p. 226–227 = Ent. 26: FAOS 5/I, pp. 226–227.
Enmetena 26: RIME 1, p. 228–229 = Ent. 33: FAOS 5/I, p. 249.
Giša-kidu 2: RIME 1, pp. 372–374 = Luzag. 2: FAOS 5/II, pp. 325–336.
Lugalzagesi 1: RIME 1, pp. 433–437; FAOS 5/II, pp. 310–325.
Lugalzagesi 2: RIME 1, pp. 437–438 = Luzag. 3: FAOS 5/II, pp. 336–337.

Abbreviations
AcOr Acta Orientalia, Societates Orientales Danica, Norregia,
Svecica
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster
ASJ Acta Sumerologica Japonensia. Hiroshima
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London
FAOS 5 H. Steible. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften I/II. Freibur-
ger Altorientalische Studien 5. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag 1982.
Fs. Birot J.-M. Durand / J.-R. Kupper (ed.-s). Miscellanea Babylonica, Me-
langes Offerts á Maurice Birot. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civi-
lisations 1985.
Fs. Groneberg Dahlia Shehata / Frauke Weiershäuse / Kamran Vincent Zand (eds).
Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des
Alten Orients. Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg. Cuneiform Mono-
graphs 41. Leiden: Brill 2010.
Gs. Jacobsen T. Abusch (ed.). Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near East-
ern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns 2002.
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago
NatPhen Fs. Loon: D. J. W. Meijer (ed.), Natural Phenomena. Their Meaning,
Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of
56 Peeter Espak

the Colloquim, Amsterdam, 6–8 July 1989. Amsterdam / Oxford /

New-York / Tokyo: Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences 1992.
OA Oriens Antiquus. Roma
OIP 99 R. D. Biggs. Inscriptions from Tell Abū •alābīkh (with a Chapter by
Donald P. Hansen). Oriental Institute Publications 99. The University
of Chicago Press, 1974.
OrNS Orientalia. NS = Nova Series. Roma
RAI 35 M. de J. Ellis (ed.). Nippur at the Centennial. Papers Read at the 35e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988. Occasio-
nal Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14. Philadelphia,
1992.
RAI 43 Papers Presented at the 43rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
Prague, July 1–5, 1996. Prague: Oriental Institute 1998.
RIME 1 D. R. Frayne. Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). Royal Inscriptions
of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Vol. 1. University of Totonto Press
2008.
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie
SEL Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico. Verona
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie

Bibliography
Alberti, Amedeo. Reconstruction of the Abū •alābīkh God-Lists. SEL 2 (1985), pp.
3–23.
Alster, Bendt. Emesal in Early Dynastic Sumerian? What is UD.GAL.NUN-orthog-
raphy? ASJ 4 (1982), pp. 1–6.
Alster, Bendt / Vanstiphout, Herman L. J. Lahar and Ashnan. Presentation and
Analysis of a Sumerian Disputation. ASJ 9 (1987), pp. 1–43.
Alster, Bendt / Westenholz, Aage. The Barton Cylinder. ASJ 16 (1994), pp. 15–46.
Biggs, Robert D. Inscriptions from Tell Abū •alābīkh. Orienal Institute Publications
99. University of Chicago Press 1974.
Cavigneaux, Antoine / Al-Rawi, Farouk N. H. Textes magiques de Tell Hadad
(Textes de Tell Haddad II). ZA 83 (1993), pp. 170–205.
Cavigneaux, Antoine / Al-Rawi, Farouk N. H. Gilgameš et la mort. Textes de Tell
Haddad VI, avec un appendice sur les textes funéraires sumériens. Cuneiform
Monographs 19. Groningen: Styx Publications 2000.
Cavigneaux, Antoine / Jaques, Margaret. Peut-on comprendre le Silbenvokabular?
Fs. Groneberg (2010), pp. 1–15.
van Dijk, Jan. Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumérienne. AcOr 28 (1965), pp.
1–59.
— Existe-t-il un “Poème de la Création” sumérien? AOAT 25 (1976), pp. 125–133.
Espak, Peeter. The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology. Disserta-
tiones Theologiae Universitatis Tartuensis 19. Tartu University Press 2010.
Frayne, Douglas R. Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). The Royal Inscrip-
tions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods, Vol. 1. University of Toronto Press
2008.
Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations
8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1998.
 Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon 57

Jacobsen, Thorkild. Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article. JNES 5 (1946), pp.

128–152.
— The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven /
London: Yale University Press 1976.
Jean, Charles. La Religion sumérienne d’après les documents sumériens antérieurs à
la dynastie d’Isin. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931.
Komoróczy, G. Das Pantheon im Kult, in der Götterlisten und in der Mythologie.
OrNS 45 (1976), pp. 80–86.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. The “Babel of Tongues”: A Sumerian Version. JAOS 88
(1968), pp. 108–111.
Krebernik, Manfred. Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Untersuchungen zur
ältesten keilschriftlichen Beschwörungsliteratur. Texte und Studien zur Orienta-
listik 2. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms Verlag 1984.
Krebernik, Manfred. Die Götterlisten aus Fāra. ZA 76 (1986), pp. 161–204.
Lambert, Wilfred G. Göttergenealogie. RlA 3 (1971), pp. 469–470.
— Götterlisten. – RlA 3 (1971), pp. 473–479.
— Review of Inscriptions from Tell Abū •alābīkh (R. D. Biggs, OIP 99, 1974).
BSOAS 39 (1976), pp. 428–432.
— Studies in UD.GAL.NUN. OA 20 (1981), pp. 81–97.
— A List of Gods’ Names Found at Mari. Fs. Birot (1985), pp. 181–190.
Landsberger, Benno / Hallock, R. / Jacobsen, Thorkild / Falkenstein, Aadam. Mate-
rialien zum sumerischen Lexikon: MSL IV. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Bib-
licum 1956.
Litke, Richard L. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: da-nu-
um and An: anu šá amēli. (Dissertation, Yale University, 1958). Texts from the
Babylonian Collection Vol. 3. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection 1998.
Mander, Pietro. Il pantheon di Abu-•ālabīkh. Contributo allo studio del pan-
theon sumerico arcaico. Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi
Asiatici, Series Minor 26. Napoli 1986.
Michalowski, Piotr. The Unbearable Lightness of Enlil. RAI 43 (1998), pp. 237–
248.
Nakata, Ichiro. A Few Remarks on the Study of Deities. (Review of: J. J. M. Rob-
erts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in
Mesopotamia before Ur III.). ASJ 1 (1979), pp. 63–68.
Pettinato, Giovanni. Das altorientalische Menschenbild und die sumerischen und ak-
kadischen Schöpfungsmythen. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Heidelberg: Carl Winter /
Universitätsverlag 1971.
Pettinato, Giovanni. Le collezioni én-é-nu-ru di Ebla. OA 18 (1979), pp. 329–351.
Roberts, J. J. M. The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of the Semitic Deities
Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III. Baltimore / London: The Johns Hopkins
University Press 1972.
Sallaberger, Walther. Pantheon. A. I. In Mesopotamien. RlA 10 (2004), pp. 294–
308.
Selz, Gebhard J. The Development of Pantheon in Lagaš. ASJ 12 (1990), pp. 111–
142.
— Enlil und Nippur nach präsargonischen Quellen. RAI 35 (1992), pp. 189–225.
Sjöberg, Åke W. Miscellaneous Sumerian Hymns. ZA 63 (1973), pp. 1–55
— In the Beginning. Gs. Jacobsen (2002), pp. 229–247.
58 Peeter Espak

Steible, Horst. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Freiburger Altorienta-

lische Studien 5 I/II. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag 1982.
Thomsen, Marie-Louise. The Sumerian Language. An Introduction to its History
and Grammatical Structure. Mesopotamia 10. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag
1984.
Wiggermann, Frans. Mythological Foundations of Nature. NatPhen (1992), pp. 279–
306.