|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jan 9, 2008 12:05:11 GMT -5
Lists, Names and the nature of Divinity I have recently been considering the difficulty (particular in the case of the layman) that there is in finding divine names in cuneiform. The ePSD does not feature divine names (though the signs are there), and etcsl of course has the transliteration but no cuneiform. There are a number of ways to attack this problem and Im hoping we will have a presentation of the divine names in cuneiform here shortly. Pondering the cuneiform for divine names has lead to consideration of the god lists, one might anticipate that these would be an obvious source for desired cuneiform. But they are not as simple as first suspected and despite being referenced in perhaps every ANE book that refers to divinity, the god lists are largely out of reach to the interested reader. At least at first. Ive included some notes below which hopefully might advance us in accessing and perusing these lists: The DCCLT names the following god lists (but does not give the text for any): - Abu Salabikh God List [Early Dynastic]
- Isin God List [Old Babylonian]
- Nippur God List [Old Babylonian]
- Weidner God List [Old Babylonian]
- An = Anum [middle Babylonian]
Also might be added
- The Fara God List [Early Dynastic]
- An: Anu Sa Ameli
Niek Veldhuis from the DCCLT project, has commented about the god lists: "One might argue that the place where all things divine did come together was in god lists. From early periods, Mesopotamian scholars collected words written with the divine determinative (gods, divinized kings, and sacred objects) in so-called god lists, including divinities from all corners of reality. These lists should be compared to lists of trees and wooden objects (all words with the determinative giš) or lists of birds (determinative mušen). The god lists gave no rise to abstract contemplation about the nature of the divine, just as the list of trees and wooden objects gave no rise to speculation about giš-ness." So what Veldhuis is saying, is that like other lexical lists, the Sumerians (or Mesopotamians) did not scientifically categorize things or distinguish things, and apparently one might find on occasion a sacred object in the god-lists - very much not a god. So we must be careful in our peruse. Note: in a footnote I was able to observe that "A General treatment of Mesopotamian god-lists appears in V. Korosec, Or. 45 1976 pg. 120-128."
In regards the AN:anum list specifically: The text for this god list can be found Here Also some of the cuneiform plates are viewable at CDLI # P365780 and P368621 or by downloading CT 25 from Abzu. There seems to be only one work which has gone in to length about the AN:anum list, this is Richard Litke 1985. I read a review of this work over JSTOR, evidently this work was Litke's Master's Dissertation, after writing it however he did not pursue his scholarly career and the Dissertation sat around only accessible to a few scholars. Finally after some 30 years or so, because nothing else was ever done to detail a definitive treatment of the god list, they asked him to publish his dissertation for the benefit of a wider scholarly audience - I think W.G. Lambert was tasked with making a more modern treatment but never has. So Litke's book remains the only authoritative edition, Richard Litke 1985 primary publication :TBC 3 Entitled: A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists An: Da-Nu-Um & An Anu Sa Ameli ISBN: 0966749502 I've found some comments from "The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East" by W. von Soden (which I glanced at but didnt buy) pg. 152, that refer directly on the AN:anum list: "At the same time, because of their bicollumnar nature the lists could have functions completely different from those of the Sumerian-Akkadian word lists. Thus the great "god list," perhaps formed in the twelfth century by the insertion of much later additions into various monocolumnar Sumerian god lists, begins with an = Anu and generally lists in the left-hand column divine names which stand in quite different relationships to the god in the right-hand column, which often remains the same for many lines. There are variations on divine names, gods who bear essential similarities (such as the gods of Elamites, Kassites, and other people), but above all, many names of originally independent gods who had evaporated into the syncretistic theology within the framework of a polytheism which reinterpreted much, and which made many divine names subsidiary names to other gods or simply relegated them to the status of hypostases of other gods. More will be said of this theology, which the Babylonians were unable to develop systematically." So von Soden is touching on a difficult point here. The bicolumnar nature of the lists refers to the two columns apparent on the AN:anum list. Where as sometimes this two column aspect is due to bi-lingually of the text (Sumerian on one side, Akkadian on the other) more rarely the right column is used for a different function - in this case it seems more explanatory in nature. The right column appears to explain or supplement the Divine names list on the left, and the exact relation between the two wont always be apparent of explicable to the modern reader.
Other God Lists: The older lists are of more value still in elucidating the early pantheon throughout the Sumerian period, but they seem to be referred to less, and are more inaccessible. Ive made a few notes so far: The Abu Salabikh list was published by Alberti Almedo 1985 SEL 2 for Abu Salibikh god lists The Fara god list was published in SF 001 (Deimel 1923) This list is pictured at CDLI P010566 This is a god list from ancient Fara/Shuruppak a site which supplied literary texts from the Early Dynastic period, or approx 2500. The Germans were the excavators and won a wonderful catch or early tablets - this godlist is very valuable but looking at the fragmentary start and the incredible mess of cuneiform signs, how much can be extracted from it about the archaic pantheon? One of the OB godlist is at CDLI: P345354
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jan 11, 2008 20:28:38 GMT -5
Divinity of Inanimate Objects : Although the god lists are lists of god names, the inclusion in texts such as AN:Anum of what the modern viewer would refer to as an 'inanimate object' points to an interesting aspect of the Mesopotamian worldview. Certainly this may parallel and correlate to some extent the Mesopotamian acceptance of the cult statue (an inanimate object) as containing the divine presence, yet with this example the divinity of the object is implicit and explicit. Why would a Drum be considered divine? A divine Kettle-drum Beatrice L. Goff in her 1956 article "The Rôle of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual Texts" describes a ritual to cover a kettle-drum (much like that given in Oppenheims book.) In this ritual a special type of beer is poured into a bronze kettle drum - offerings are made to Kusug and Ningirim - the rite of Washing the Mouth is performed on the selected bull [whose hide will cover the drum]. Incantations are whispered through a reed tube into the bull's ear and the bull is sprinkled with cedar resen, and purified with brazier and torch finally a ring of zisurra-flour is drawn around the bull... Instructions are given after for the disposal of the parts of the slaughtered bull and among the instructions are "On the fifteenth day, you shall cause the bronze kettle-drum to be brought forth to the presence of the god Shamash. You shall prepare five sacrifices for the deities Ea, Shamash, Marduk, Lumha and the Divine Kettle-Drum." Goff notes: "This text illustrates how what to us might have seemed inanimate symbols of a living presence, to the men of ancient Mesopotamia seemed living processes in themselves. The deities who are to receive the sacrifice are not merely gods whom we know by name, but even the kettle-drum. Just as the bull figured in the rite of Washing of the Mouth so also did the kettle-drum." Divine In-animate object and the Modern Mind An interesting comment on the divinity of some inanimate objects was also made by Thorkild Jacobsen in his 1953 presentation "The Myth of Inanna and Bilulu" (JNES). Jacobsen places this myth within the Badtibera circle of Dumuzi myths, and he seems to have made some analytical strides in the examination of a myth which is otherwise very difficult to conceptualize. The relevant section of the myth occurs when Inana, convinced of Wise Women Bilulu's culpability in Dumuzi's death, takes revenge on her and issue's a curse - Bilulu is transformed into a waterskin (which we would expect to be inanimate.) Part of Jacobsen's comment reads: "..our modern inability to understand myth is very largely our inability to "commune" with matter and the powers that inform it. Matter and its powers are no longer of us, can no longer touch our human selves in awe or pity, or even in a feeling of wonder. The best we can do with such knowledge as that Dumuzi is the life-giving power in milk is to push it aside as irrelevant information, disturbing to our enjoyment while we read the myth. But such choicely anthropocentric reading must of necessity shatter any myth. And it would be ironic to call it understanding. Its insufficiency is demonstrated rather well in the myth with which we are here dealing. No reader, even he who can accept without serious loss of enjoyment that Bilulu is the thunder cloud, can fail to be brought up sharply by the anticlimax of her becoming a water skin. Not only is that like suddenly feeling sand between one's teeth, but th myth lets us chew on it for a long time. For to the myth that is climax which to us is anticlimax and the myth emphasizes it as much. There is, then, truly no other way toward understanding myths either as myths or as literature than the laborious one of trying to recapture the lost unity of the human soul with the universe as matter and phenomenon, that direct communication out of which Rilke speaks. For the myth lives and breathes- also as a work of art- in that unity. Its characters are true to the extent that they give pregnant expression to the non-human no less than the human "psyche," to the character and will in things, to their ways. In the world of the myth there is one common level of dignity and the powers in things are not stripped, by being in things, of claim on our emotional response. Rather, these powers in things and phenomena have their own dignity on a par with, often even higher than, that of man. It is only in the effort to recapture that world that one may in glimpses begin to see the shattered myth come together again and regain unity as a work of literature. If one could wholly recreate within oneself a believable world in which the homely water skin saved thirsting men's life out of the bounty of its inherent nature, and where that water skin, itself in its innermost being divine, was doing penance to other divine powers that it had wronged, then one could perhaps recapture some of the old meaning behind the episode of Inanna's curse...... .. And out attempts at understanding will again and again subtly fail. If ever we should get to the point where we have elucidated every word and difficult construction, and ferreted out every intricate reference, we should still be faced with the greater difficulty of renouncing our own world and becoming momentarily to the old book of clay like Kierkegaard's reader: ...that sympathetic person who accepts the book and gives it a good place, that sympathetic person who, by accepting it, does for through himself and through his acceptance, what the treasury did for the widow's mites: hallows the gift, gives it significance, and transforms it into much." This perceptional flexibility and attention to the worldview of the ancients may help us as we examine those odd instance's of an object on the god lists, should they prove to have a significant presence. cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Feb 16, 2008 2:39:54 GMT -5
10 God Names a Piece As I'm sure I've mentioned to everyone by now, we've got some god lists and though hardly qualified to access them, I dont see why I shouldn't spend some time puzzling over them after the fact. So first I'll name the particular lists envolved: a. The Fara god-list (edition from 'Die Götterlisten aus Farā' by Manfield Krebernk, ZA 76) b. The Abū Salābīkh god-list (edition from 'A Reconstruction of the Abū Salābīkh God-List' by Amedeo Alberti, SEL 2, 1985) c. The Weidner god-list (edition from 'Altbabylonishce Gotterlisten' by Ernst Weidner, AfK 2) d. The OB Nippur god-list (edition from "Noms Divins Sumeriens: Listes des Eleves Scribes de Nippur, RA 23) In the Reallexikon der Assyriologie, parts of which I'm able to access electronically, there are descriptions of each of the god-lists by W.G. Lambert (pg. 473-479). In continuing with the of orientation with these lists, I've summed some of his descriptions below: a/b. Fara, Abu Salabikh and early lists: While the earliest sign and word lists date from the Uruk IV and III/II levels, the earliest god lists are from a little later, the first attested being from Early Dynastic Fara or possible Uruk, the author states here "Early Dynastic Fara has yielded three large tablets entirly of god names (WVDOG 43 nos. 1,5,6) a few small tablets and fragments of the same kind, and other lists containing sections of divine names inter alia. Duplicates of the Fara lists generally have been found at Uruk (ATU pp. 43-47), UR (UET 2 p.2), and Tell Salabih [Abu Salabikh]]....., the first being ealrier than the Fara lists, the latter two roughly contemporay." Lambert then proceeds with some description of form and content, stateing that the contiuity between the above mentioned lists demonstrates that even in ealier periods these were not the chance creation of any one scribe but were "traditional texts" handed down (though with some variation) in Mesopotamian cities. "In form these lists are just strings of names, but not lacking some order. There are two kinds of arrangement and this applies to all the god lists from ancient Mesopotamia: i. theological and ii. lexical Theological ordering rests on the conception of a pantheon organized like a tribe. The older members normally have precedence, coming first int he lists while their offspring make up the lesser members and follow. Thus the Fara lists begin with An and Enlil (no.1), or with just Enlil (nos.5-6), and other major deties follow in the first few lines. Lexical ordring follows the principles of arrangement (or lack of them) found in lists generally. In the Fara lists cols. IV-VI consist of deities with names beginning Nin-. The form of the name alone determined this grouping. c. The Weidner list: This list is by actually a compliation of tablets and fragments containing the same list but which span millenia. The earliest fragment used in the reconstruction is from the Ur III period ( VAT 6563) but there is also one from the Isin/Larsa period ( VAT 7759) as well as fragments from OB and Late Assyrian/Babylonian times. As for the arrangement of god names the author states "At least in the beginning the arrangement of the list is apparently theological. In many places, however, it is difficult to discern the principals of arrangemnet, if there are any, and it is uncertain if there is even one case of lexical arrnagement." Describing the layout and structure of the tablets relevant to this list also becomes a difficult task, but there seems to be three different formats: i. Early fragments and late Babylonian copies present a simply string of names as do Assur fragments ([color=Brown[KAV 62, 65[/color]) ii. KAV 63] has double columns: the names of the list appear on the left, on right another name is equated with each by way of explanation or an expanatory phrase is used e.g, 'wife of Sin.' iii. [ KAV 46,47] feature five sub-columns. The first gives a pronounciation guide, the second the name, the third sign names of the signs used in sub-column 2. The fourth sub-column gives the explanatory equivent as in type ii (above.) The fifth sub-columns are too broken for scholars the identify their content. d. The OB Nippur list: This list is (mercifully) "simple string of names, arranged largely on theological principals" and so would be a "type i." Unlike the Weidner list the Nippur List is not so far attested from any other place or period. The reviewer states three major pieces and two fragments have been published so far (SLT 122-124; 117 and 145) and "an inadequate edition was given by Jean in RA 28 (1931.) The 'top ten' as it were: I have listed below the first 10 names from the first column of each respective list available. Keep in mind that the lists from Fara and Abu Salabikh (I believe) are arranaged theologically, the Weidner list is as well at the beginning (and so where we are looking). The OB Nippur list is arranged "largely on theological principals." | a. Fara | b. Abū Salābīkh | c. Weidner (O.B.) | d. OB Nippur | | 1. AN | 1. broken | 1. Anu | 1. AN | | | 2. dEN É [enlil] | 2. broken | 2.An-tu | 2. dIB | | | 3. dMÙŠ [inanna] | 3. [dnin-l]ilx(KID) | 3. dEn-lil | 3. dNun | | | 4. dEN KI [enki] | 4. [de]n-ki] | 4. [d] Nin-lil | 4. dEn-lil | | | 5. dŠEŠ+KI [nanna] | 5. dn[anna] | 5. d Nusku | 5. dNu-nam-nir | | | 6. dUD [utu] | 6. dnanna | 6. d Sa-dara-nun-an-na | 6. Nin-lil | | | 7. dGÁ X EN [AN.MENx] | 7. d[MÙ]Š [ ] | 7. dGibil | 7. Šul-pa-è | | | 8. dBAR GÁ X EN [BAR.MENx] | 8. dnin-gír-su | 8. dNE.GÚN | 8. dNin-ḫur-sag | | | 9. d NAGA [nisaba] | 9.daš8-gi[4?] | 9. dNin-el-lá | 9. dNin-dingir-ri-e-ne | | | 10. d AN GAL NAGA [nanibgal..] | 10. broken | 10. dNann(r | 10.Nin-maḫ | |
Still to come: Other notes from Lambert, The god-names in cuneiform (with thanks to Sheshki), and the whole question of the usefulness of the god-lists in determining theological principals and on questions of pantheon. |
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Mar 7, 2008 19:43:58 GMT -5
Speaking of God names, mein freund Sheshki is attempting to provide us with the cuneiform writing for these. Without access to the plates or tablets from the various god lists it is hard to view these in any sort of systematical way, its hard to find the cuneiform pictured at all short of a very determined trip to cdli. As a first step we are referring to the ePSD transliteration of the god list AN-anum found here . Sheshki has used the cuneiform at ePSD to convert the first 29 lines and this effort is stored here . Thanks very much to Sheshki! So from this, we can see that for example: An is very simple:  Here is an-ki  An-sar +  [note the sign for An is also the sign interpreted dingir, used as the divine deteminitive, and so god names started with An do not have this determinitive] I am currently having some difficulties in making out the cuneiform given in the plates accompanying the Weidner god list, however once thats sorted out this article will provide a good source and reference. |
|
|
|
Post by madness on Mar 29, 2008 2:25:30 GMT -5
I think W.G. Lambert was tasked with making a more modern treatment but never has
Barbara Porter mentions in One God or Many? p. 220 n. 16 that "A new edition of AN = Anum updating Litke's work and adding additional commentary has long been promised by Lambert."
And in your above post, that sign is not ŠAR2, it is HI [which in Neo-Assyrian seems to have merged into the same sign anyway, but here you're using Sumerian signs]
|
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Mar 31, 2008 20:47:35 GMT -5
Like most Assyriologists, Lambert has a long lost of promised material that we're likely never to see. Look through the footnotes of any article and before too long you're likely to see something along the lines of "in my forthcoming..." which, decades later, never has come forth!
I know of an unpublished (and to my understanding largely complete) An=anum tablet that may (?) soon come my way-- or rather, the way of a colleague (but I'll get to have a look, too!)-- and I am sure that at least that new text will be published in short order.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 9, 2008 16:11:03 GMT -5
Fascinating! I can definitly see how such commitments might begin to collect dust and are each truly huge investments of time and resource. I'm keen try and piece through the god-lists I'd found this january and attempt to de-mystify their contents for enthusiasts but find even the secondary literature unwieldy. Still.. I'm sure this thread will stretch on..  Drop me a line if you should see that tablet Amarsin, and good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by madness on Oct 16, 2008 4:30:42 GMT -5
Looking at Litke's book again, just noticed that Lambert's progress is mentioned (in the preface written by William W. Hallo).
Lambert had spent some 10 years preparing a detailed commentary on the first three tablets of the god list. The last of these was submitted to Hallo for review in 1981, and it doesn't seem like any more of it has been worked on since.
"Subsequently it became apparent that other duties were preventing Lambert from completing his edition in the near future. In its admirably thorough coverage, moreover, it was turning from a straightforward edition into a major commentary on the text."
Wow, such a commentary would be invaluable. Hallo expressed desire to see the project completed, and he hoped that the publication of Litke's dissertation would stimulate an early completion. That was 1998.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Oct 17, 2008 5:07:05 GMT -5
Nice observation meine Freund! Yes indeed hm. Lambert is unfortunately getting quite on in the years, I'm told at the last Rencontre (international Assyriological meeting) he still spoke eloquently (like a 'Shakespearean poet'), yet now looks like a 'old expired vulture'. I would suggest we might write and encourage his efforts on the godlist, but I am under the impression he generally doesn't hear from less than a phd level scholar hum. Suppose theres a chance that work may be finished by him, or depending on events, finished by a successor.
|
|
adante
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 41
|
Post by adante on Jan 19, 2009 13:26:16 GMT -5
Would you please tell me the Summerian word for gods (plural)? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Jan 19, 2009 14:14:40 GMT -5
Would you please tell me the Summerian word for gods (plural)? Thank you. The Sumerian word for 'god' is dingir. This was written with the AN-sign, and originally represented a star:  Plurality in Sumerian was indicated in one of several ways. Usually, for "animate" things like people and gods, the ending -ene was added. (This was pronounced so that it sounds something like "eh-nay".) So in this case, "gods" would have been "dingirene" and written something like this:  with the three signs giving us: dingir-re-ne |
|
adante
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 41
|
Post by adante on Jan 19, 2009 21:44:08 GMT -5
Thank you Amarsin |
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Oct 30, 2012 11:14:42 GMT -5
So it has been some time since the thread has been updated - but this year my Akkadian class has required me to take full use of Labat's sign list for the first time. Of course I had been aware of these sign lists for many years, but for me, I needed to have some ability with the language before it really made sense to use a tool like Labat.
And in the 5th addendum in the back, Labat gives a list of gods and demons and explains how their names are written in cuneiform:
Adad - Sign - DARA3 or IŠKUR
Amurru - MAR.TU
Aššur - AŠ
Enki - NUN-GAL or NU-DIM2-MUD
Enlil - AB OR EN-LIL2-[LA2]
Ereškigal - EREŠ-KI-GAL
Gilgameš - GIŠ-BIL2-GA-MEŠ
Girru - BIL.GI
Marduk - AMAR-LU2-HI
Nabu - MUATI
Nanše - NANŠE
Nisaba - NIDABA
Utu - UTU
Tammuz - DUMU-ZI
Utanapištim - ut-ZI
Zaqiqu - AN-ZA-GAR-ĜAR2
|
|
