Chaos in Conventional Mesopotamian Thought (Tiamat)
Aug 9, 2011 18:43:01 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Aug 9, 2011 18:43:01 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: In response to Michael Ford's Dec. 2010 book "Maskim Hul" which acknowledged Enenuru and yet neglected all scholarly convention, this thread examines the role of chaos in Mesopotamian thought.
For further orientation to the issue at hand, one might consult the Maskim Hul thread. The following is an excerpt from Ford's discussion:
FORD: "It should be noted that Tiamat is never referred to in any tablets as a "goddess", specifically as she is the darkness before record or perception. Her symbol is the untamed abyssic waters, that which all the other gods' feared to attack. All dieites [sic] have the symbol MUL, a Sumerian sign representing the designation of "star" or "god" before their names, which Tiamat does not: Another clue to her protean nature."
The history and circumstance of the writing of the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, are much debated things - scholars tend to disagree on which century it was written, although a range of between 1500 and 1200 BC seems most reasonable. The reason the epic was written, to raise Marduk and embue him with indesputable authority, seems to be agreed upon; it is a likelihood that these poets may have been influenced by the Sumerian notion of the defeated opponents (seen for example, in the Ninurta myths) and/or by Ugaritic myth in their notion of a divine battle with the sea.. in any case, what is most relevant for us here is that Tiāmat makes her prinicpal appearance in cuneiform literature in this text, and in surprisingly few others.
A General study of Tiāmat and her relation with Apsu appears on the enenuru thread located at Tiamat.
Tiāmat as Goddess?/
In responding more specifically to Ford's claims, I would start by pointing out that the MUL sign is a series of 3 DINGIR signs, or perhaps nab-an in the writing of the Akkadian nabāţu; however, the determinitive which appears before a divine name is of course DINGIR/AN. That said, Ford is correct in that the divine determinitive does not appear before Tiamat's name in the Enuma Elish - this can be confirmed by considering line 4 from Deimal's treatment of the text -see Deimel Why might Tiamat go without the DINGIR then?
Origins of Tiamat in Cuneiform Literature/
Wiggermann wrote about monster mythology in his 1992 work "Mesopotamian Protective Spirits.." . On page 155, the author is discussing Ninurta and his list of defeated opponents, a list which may share more in common Enuma Elish than is generally realized - in fact, and I didn't know this, but the two lists of opponents have Tiāmat in common! Wiggermann explains "Late reflexes of the Ninurta/Ningirsu mythology introduce Sea as one of his enemies (Sm 1875, see WZKM 57 10; OrNS 36 124:149). Other monstrous beings are suckled by her (AnSt 5 98:34) . Beside Ship-Locust a number of monsters not among the enemies of Ninurta are associated with Enki, and naturally at home in Apsû (laḫmu, kulullû, suḫurmāshu). "
So what Wiggermann is saying, is that Tiāmat predates the Enuma Elish, and predates Marduk as chief god even - she appears as an enemy of Ninurta, but not in the earlier myths like "The Exploits of Ninurta" available on ETCSL; I believe the "late reflex" texts he refers to may fall somewhere between the Sumerian Ninurta texts we know of, and the Enuma Elish. I don't have access to them at the moment. What's interesting is just how early Tiamat occurs in fact - Wiggermann explains that she first appears in a text from "The Akkad period (AfO 25 102), and contrary to the monsters (except laḫmu) whose mother she was to become, her name is Semitic and not Sumerian." Tiamat is thus a Semitic contribution to the Sumerian pantheo. Frayne's unpublished book on deities states that Tiāmat is also attested in the Ur III period in the theophoric names of the wives of King Šu-Sîn (in other words, their names had the name Tiamat in them, just as the name Šu-Sîn has the name Sîn in it). From just another monster to cosmological center, Marduk's rise has a deep impact on Tiāmat.
The Rise of Tiamat (Marduk)/
So Wiggermann's research has uncovered that in late Ninurta mythology, Tiāmat and Apšu were already acting as they would as the later cosmogonic pair, breeding and sheltering monsters (p. 163).
What really made the difference was the rise of Babylon in the Old Babylonian period, and the corresponding theological effect - the elevation of Marduk above all other gods. As Wiggermann observes, in order for the god to become arch-god, he must not only have an enemy but an arch-enemy.. thus Tiāmat ascends from among the ranks of chaos opponents (a list mostly borrowed from the stories of Ninurta heroics) and rises to the level of cosmological center. Wiggermann states here (pg. 163):
"Tiamat, formerly only one of the enemies and a breeding place of monsters, is promoted to arch-fiend and cosmic power;other monsters are made dependent of her as her children and soldiers."
About the use of the determinitive again: Wiggermann's excellent insights include a comment on the determinitive.. he states that when it comes to Tiāmat's army, the divine determinitive is used "only sporadically, like the horns of divinity in art: the monsters are kept separate from the gods." Thus, in the list of defeated opponents in the Exploits of Ninurta and the corresponding list in Enuma Elish, only 1 in 8 or so monsters have a determinitive. Additionally, I notice that in the first lines of Enuma Elish, when Apšu, Mummu and Tiamat appear, all three and not just Tiāmat lack the determinitive. Rather than an independent proof of her special status as center of the cosmos as Ford suggests, (though the EE has raised her to this), the reason for the missing determinitive may actually be in Tiāmat's origin as just another chaos monster, perhaps.
Tiāmat outside of Myth/
In addition to providing the theological means for Marduk's rise, the Enuma Elish was also essential in providing for the cult layout of Babylon: it provides a backdrop for the construction of the major temples and was recited every New Year's in conjunction with the Akitu rites at Babylon.
Stefan Maul's excellent paper "The Ancient Middle Eastern Capital City-- Reflection and Navel of the World" discusses how the EE adds it's literary strength to the temples at Babylon, particuarly the Esagil (Marduk temple, distinct from the Ziggurat Etemenanki). He writes:
"Esagil is explicitly characterized as the support and connection of the apsu_ -- the earthly horizon -- with the heavens. The shrine Esagil and the city Babylon are thus situated at the middle of the vertical cosmic axis, and connect the heavens to the earthly contemporary world. They are (according to the Enūma eliš) the place where Marduk, in creating the world from the corpse of Tiamat, the dragon-shaped primeval mother, fastened her tail to the world-axis D u r - m a ḫ , in order to wedge her lower abdomen onto the heavens and thereby lend eternal permanence to his work of creation."
Interestingly, W.G. Lambert ( Iraq, Vol. 25, No. 2 1963) has noted the existence of two lines which demonstrate that during the Akitu festival Marduk went to the Akitu house and there seated himself on a throne called Tiamat:
"This refers to Bel who sits in the middle of the Sea (Tiamat) in the Akitu. " A.f.O. XVII, p. 3I5 F 4, cf. A.f.0. XIX, p. 1I8.
and
"Tiamat (Sea) is the seat of Bel on which Bel sits. "
Iraq V, p. 6i, 14 = P.S.B.A. XXII, p. 367, I
Corresponding somewhat to this, we may consider A.R. George's work in "House Most High:The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia." In this book, George assembles and treats the various ancient temple list texts - 1449 ceremonial names and their descriptions are carefully translated in this through work. There are exactly two entries for Tiāmat which read:
640: "ki.ùr.kù.ha, "Pure Levelled Place," seat of dgu7.bi.sig.sig and Tiāmat in é.saḡ.íl in Babylon ( Topog Texts no.1 =Tintir II 31);written ku.ùru.kù.ga in a royal ritual (ibid., pg. 278 = ašru ellu naklu).
and
1094: "tiāmat, "Sea," seat of Marduk in é.saḡ.il at Babylon "(Topog. Texts no.1 =Tintir II 1).
It would seem then, that Tiāmat has no temples of her own anywhere in Mesopotamia, and it's possible that the only reason she is mentioned at the Akitu house in Babylon or at Esagil, is because this cult center and temple represent in the physical world the mythical story of Marduk's ascent - and thus Tiāmat features there as his seat. I am doubtful that Tiāmat received offerings anywhere in Mesopotamia even at Esagil: flipping through Cohen's Cultic Calendar's of the Ancient Near East, I can find no mention of a festival or offerings for Tiamat. Obviously this line of research would need further work, but to date I am doubtful that Tiāmat can correctly be seen as an object of worship in Ancient Mesopotamia.
___________________________________
Still to come: Consideration of the god lists, and other texts mentioning Tiamat.
Chaos in Mesopotamia: Tiamat
For further orientation to the issue at hand, one might consult the Maskim Hul thread. The following is an excerpt from Ford's discussion:
FORD: "It should be noted that Tiamat is never referred to in any tablets as a "goddess", specifically as she is the darkness before record or perception. Her symbol is the untamed abyssic waters, that which all the other gods' feared to attack. All dieites [sic] have the symbol MUL, a Sumerian sign representing the designation of "star" or "god" before their names, which Tiamat does not: Another clue to her protean nature."
The history and circumstance of the writing of the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, are much debated things - scholars tend to disagree on which century it was written, although a range of between 1500 and 1200 BC seems most reasonable. The reason the epic was written, to raise Marduk and embue him with indesputable authority, seems to be agreed upon; it is a likelihood that these poets may have been influenced by the Sumerian notion of the defeated opponents (seen for example, in the Ninurta myths) and/or by Ugaritic myth in their notion of a divine battle with the sea.. in any case, what is most relevant for us here is that Tiāmat makes her prinicpal appearance in cuneiform literature in this text, and in surprisingly few others.
A General study of Tiāmat and her relation with Apsu appears on the enenuru thread located at Tiamat.
Tiāmat as Goddess?/
In responding more specifically to Ford's claims, I would start by pointing out that the MUL sign is a series of 3 DINGIR signs, or perhaps nab-an in the writing of the Akkadian nabāţu; however, the determinitive which appears before a divine name is of course DINGIR/AN. That said, Ford is correct in that the divine determinitive does not appear before Tiamat's name in the Enuma Elish - this can be confirmed by considering line 4 from Deimal's treatment of the text -see Deimel Why might Tiamat go without the DINGIR then?
Origins of Tiamat in Cuneiform Literature/
Wiggermann wrote about monster mythology in his 1992 work "Mesopotamian Protective Spirits.." . On page 155, the author is discussing Ninurta and his list of defeated opponents, a list which may share more in common Enuma Elish than is generally realized - in fact, and I didn't know this, but the two lists of opponents have Tiāmat in common! Wiggermann explains "Late reflexes of the Ninurta/Ningirsu mythology introduce Sea as one of his enemies (Sm 1875, see WZKM 57 10; OrNS 36 124:149). Other monstrous beings are suckled by her (AnSt 5 98:34) . Beside Ship-Locust a number of monsters not among the enemies of Ninurta are associated with Enki, and naturally at home in Apsû (laḫmu, kulullû, suḫurmāshu). "
So what Wiggermann is saying, is that Tiāmat predates the Enuma Elish, and predates Marduk as chief god even - she appears as an enemy of Ninurta, but not in the earlier myths like "The Exploits of Ninurta" available on ETCSL; I believe the "late reflex" texts he refers to may fall somewhere between the Sumerian Ninurta texts we know of, and the Enuma Elish. I don't have access to them at the moment. What's interesting is just how early Tiamat occurs in fact - Wiggermann explains that she first appears in a text from "The Akkad period (AfO 25 102), and contrary to the monsters (except laḫmu) whose mother she was to become, her name is Semitic and not Sumerian." Tiamat is thus a Semitic contribution to the Sumerian pantheo. Frayne's unpublished book on deities states that Tiāmat is also attested in the Ur III period in the theophoric names of the wives of King Šu-Sîn (in other words, their names had the name Tiamat in them, just as the name Šu-Sîn has the name Sîn in it). From just another monster to cosmological center, Marduk's rise has a deep impact on Tiāmat.
The Rise of Tiamat (Marduk)/
So Wiggermann's research has uncovered that in late Ninurta mythology, Tiāmat and Apšu were already acting as they would as the later cosmogonic pair, breeding and sheltering monsters (p. 163).
What really made the difference was the rise of Babylon in the Old Babylonian period, and the corresponding theological effect - the elevation of Marduk above all other gods. As Wiggermann observes, in order for the god to become arch-god, he must not only have an enemy but an arch-enemy.. thus Tiāmat ascends from among the ranks of chaos opponents (a list mostly borrowed from the stories of Ninurta heroics) and rises to the level of cosmological center. Wiggermann states here (pg. 163):
"Tiamat, formerly only one of the enemies and a breeding place of monsters, is promoted to arch-fiend and cosmic power;other monsters are made dependent of her as her children and soldiers."
About the use of the determinitive again: Wiggermann's excellent insights include a comment on the determinitive.. he states that when it comes to Tiāmat's army, the divine determinitive is used "only sporadically, like the horns of divinity in art: the monsters are kept separate from the gods." Thus, in the list of defeated opponents in the Exploits of Ninurta and the corresponding list in Enuma Elish, only 1 in 8 or so monsters have a determinitive. Additionally, I notice that in the first lines of Enuma Elish, when Apšu, Mummu and Tiamat appear, all three and not just Tiāmat lack the determinitive. Rather than an independent proof of her special status as center of the cosmos as Ford suggests, (though the EE has raised her to this), the reason for the missing determinitive may actually be in Tiāmat's origin as just another chaos monster, perhaps.
Tiāmat outside of Myth/
In addition to providing the theological means for Marduk's rise, the Enuma Elish was also essential in providing for the cult layout of Babylon: it provides a backdrop for the construction of the major temples and was recited every New Year's in conjunction with the Akitu rites at Babylon.
Stefan Maul's excellent paper "The Ancient Middle Eastern Capital City-- Reflection and Navel of the World" discusses how the EE adds it's literary strength to the temples at Babylon, particuarly the Esagil (Marduk temple, distinct from the Ziggurat Etemenanki). He writes:
"Esagil is explicitly characterized as the support and connection of the apsu_ -- the earthly horizon -- with the heavens. The shrine Esagil and the city Babylon are thus situated at the middle of the vertical cosmic axis, and connect the heavens to the earthly contemporary world. They are (according to the Enūma eliš) the place where Marduk, in creating the world from the corpse of Tiamat, the dragon-shaped primeval mother, fastened her tail to the world-axis D u r - m a ḫ , in order to wedge her lower abdomen onto the heavens and thereby lend eternal permanence to his work of creation."
Interestingly, W.G. Lambert ( Iraq, Vol. 25, No. 2 1963) has noted the existence of two lines which demonstrate that during the Akitu festival Marduk went to the Akitu house and there seated himself on a throne called Tiamat:
"This refers to Bel who sits in the middle of the Sea (Tiamat) in the Akitu. " A.f.O. XVII, p. 3I5 F 4, cf. A.f.0. XIX, p. 1I8.
and
"Tiamat (Sea) is the seat of Bel on which Bel sits. "
Iraq V, p. 6i, 14 = P.S.B.A. XXII, p. 367, I
Corresponding somewhat to this, we may consider A.R. George's work in "House Most High:The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia." In this book, George assembles and treats the various ancient temple list texts - 1449 ceremonial names and their descriptions are carefully translated in this through work. There are exactly two entries for Tiāmat which read:
640: "ki.ùr.kù.ha, "Pure Levelled Place," seat of dgu7.bi.sig.sig and Tiāmat in é.saḡ.íl in Babylon ( Topog Texts no.1 =Tintir II 31);written ku.ùru.kù.ga in a royal ritual (ibid., pg. 278 = ašru ellu naklu).
and
1094: "tiāmat, "Sea," seat of Marduk in é.saḡ.il at Babylon "(Topog. Texts no.1 =Tintir II 1).
It would seem then, that Tiāmat has no temples of her own anywhere in Mesopotamia, and it's possible that the only reason she is mentioned at the Akitu house in Babylon or at Esagil, is because this cult center and temple represent in the physical world the mythical story of Marduk's ascent - and thus Tiāmat features there as his seat. I am doubtful that Tiāmat received offerings anywhere in Mesopotamia even at Esagil: flipping through Cohen's Cultic Calendar's of the Ancient Near East, I can find no mention of a festival or offerings for Tiamat. Obviously this line of research would need further work, but to date I am doubtful that Tiāmat can correctly be seen as an object of worship in Ancient Mesopotamia.
___________________________________
Still to come: Consideration of the god lists, and other texts mentioning Tiamat.
