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-etymo-
logically 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 recog-
nized 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-

18
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 etymo-
logy, 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 Nin-
urta’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 administra-
tion 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 mainten-
ance 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” trans-
lated 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 dedi-
cated 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). Nin-
urta’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 begin-
ning 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 conver-

28
“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 Reichs-
gott 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.

12
 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 exhibi-
tion 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 Sumer-
ian 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 inde-
pendent 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
See Cole 1996: 7, Sallaberger 1997: 147f.
33
Cole 1996: 7, Sigrist 1984: 7.
34
See J. Klein, RlA 9 (1997-2001), 534; Sjöberg 1969: 18, 25 and 35.
35
Jacobsen 1957: 105; cf. Lambert 1992: 119.

14
 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 tradition-
ally 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 enthrone-
ment 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

36
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 represen-
tation 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).

43
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

46
Sjöberg 1972: 91f; see D. Frayne, RIME 2 (1993) 127, ll. 15-19.
47
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 semen 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 -
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
d

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).

18
 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 con-
sonant 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 protagon-
ist, 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.
52
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

19
 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 domi-
nated 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 documenta-
tion. 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 Mesopota-
mia 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

58
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 Schicksalentschei-
dungen 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: 259-
64) 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 his-
tory. 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 Sumer-
ian 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:

60
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

61
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-composi-
tion. 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,

64
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’établissement de sa suprématie ne sont pas
seulement matière théologique; ses retentissements 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

65
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 command-
ments 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).

69
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, ap-
proached 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

70
The assisting role of a Nippur goddess in bestowing kingship should not be under-
estimated, 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 pronounce-
ment 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 pronounce-
ment” is preceded by a cultic procession of the victorious Ninurta. In Lipit-
Eštar 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 attractive-
ness! 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 father-
in-law, Marduk, in his sanctuary … the king’s duties next took him before Marduk
in Esagil.73

71
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 scep-
tre 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 com-
mand]!” 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-

74
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 ac-
counts 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 men-
tioned (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 circumstance 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

77
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 representa-
tion 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 import-
ant 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 con-
signed 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 selec-
tion by the gods to exercise the former role of Enlil, instead of Enlil confer-
ring 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 millen-
nium 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 circumstances in Hammu-
rapi’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

81
See Streck 2001: 513; Klein 2001: 291, n. 61.
82
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.

33
 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 Kuri-
galzu 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

83
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 -cen-
tury 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 con-
jointly 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”

88
Cohen 1993: 307. In parentheses, Cohen hints at the possibility that the Neo-Baby-
lonian 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 mytho-
logy 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 Ham-
murapi, 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-hur-
sag-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 cen-
tury, 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 Nebuchad-
nezzar 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).

96
George 1997a: 69; see D. Frame, RIMB 2 (1995), 57, l. 5 and 51, l. 3.
97
George 1997: 135, Cole 1996: 19.
98
The Akkadian word $almu can actually denote almost any type of visual represen-
tation; 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).

37
 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. Vari-
ous 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, under-
went 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,

99
See F. N. al-Rawi, “A New Hymn to Marduk from Sippar,” RA 86 (1992), 79-83.
100
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.

38
 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 zwi-
schen 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 (Tiglath-
pileser 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 Adad-
narari II (911-891), this king mentions Aššur and Ninurta as his main suppor-
ters:

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 custo-
dian 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. Moort-
gat-Correns, there are striking similarities between the room decoration of
Assurnasirpal’s Northwest palace and Ninurta’s temple (1988: 120). Assur-
nasirpal 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 con-
structed 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 Neo-
Assyrian 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 administra-
tor. 114 According to Moortgat-Correns’ interpretation, the standard of Nin-
urta 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 Kàl-
hi 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.

44
 CHAPTER ONE – NINURTA IN ASSYRIA

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

45
 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 descrip-
tions 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.

46
 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 Borsip-
pa 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 zusam-
men 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.

47
 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$ur, Nabû-kudur-
ri-u$ur, Nabû-na’id, which indicate that Nabû was the patron deity of the
Chaldean dynasty (Beaulieu 1993: 70). The Babylonian hymns on clay cylin-
ders 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 inscrip-
tions, 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 inscrip-
tions 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

48
 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 (Pom-
ponio 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 Schrift-

stück 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).

49