|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 19, 2012 10:12:35 GMT -5
Steinkeller on Early Sumerian Theology So as I have been hyping it for the last month or so, I think a very important discussion for enenuru would be the consideration for Steinkeller's proposals regarding theology. While at the early stages, an enthusiast of Mesopotamian religion may read Kramer's "Sumerian Mythology" and Jacobsen's qualifications on that model.. But it can now probably be recognized that these earlier efforts are somewhat surface level, taking the texts for what they say more or less, without examining the hints of historical religious development below the surface, or the possible motivations of the theologians and so on. More recent scholarship is sometimes capable now of putting various data together to form a narrative quite unapparent in the mythological texts alone. One such attempt at the history of magic/religion was Binsbergen/Wiggermann's theory, which we explored in some detail (the relevant thread is here). Today however, the suggestions of Steinkeller are under consideration - they are important suggestions as they seem radical enough to shake us out of the Kramer/Jacobsen picture of things for good. But the most important thing to try and answer first is - are they correct? Many thanks to Darkl, who pointed these ideas out earlier (he also sketched the ideas that Steinkeller was expressing in terms of en, ensi and lugal - while the two discussions are linked, I will concentrate mostly on the theological remarks here - see Darkl's post here for the connection with rulers. Reply number 16). ______________________________________ So we are discussing a paper found in the volume Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East - this is a series of papers that appear to have been read at the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East (The City and It's Life), held in Tokyo, Japan (1996) . I asked Frayne once how it is all the scholars involved could afford to fly to Japan just to read a paper - apparently there is a Japanese prince with training in Assyriology who sponsored the event, and all plane tickets were paid for. I haven't found the name of this prince however and this may have been the situation of the first colloquium? More impotently, the paper that Steinkeller read, and which interests us, was entitled: On Rulers, Priests and the Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship. The volume it appeared in was published in 1999. Steinkeller gave his presentation on the rulers of early Mesopotamia, the en, ensi and lugal, and contained therein were some interesting assertions about theology. However while the points on theology are complimented by the points on the development of rulers, they must stand on their own as well to be valid. So let me isolate them. Proposals:Point 1: " It appears quite certain that the earliest pantheon was dominated by female deities." Steinkeller states that during the Uruk period, most city states had goddesses as their titulary deities. "These deities controlled broadly all aspects f human and animal life, namely fertility, procreation, healing, and death. Included among them were the birth goddesses Ninhursag, Nintu, and Gatumdug; the grain goddesses Nisaba and Ninsud; the cattle goddess Ninsun; the fish and water-fowl goddess Nanshe; the goddess of sex drive Inanna; the healer Gula;and the death specialist Ereshkigal." Point 2: " Enki undoubtedly was the original head of the pantheon. " I assume he means in the Uruk period as well. Steinkeller characterizes him as the personification of male reproductive power, paired with most of the chief goddesses and functioning as a sort of universal husband. Point 3: " The picture was completed by three astral deities, all of them male: the sky god An, the moon god Nanna, and the sun god Utu." Note number 36 states that Enlil is conspicuously absent from this list, as in Steinkeller's opinion he is a "secondary development" within the Sumerian pantheon. He recognizes the earliest attested spelling of Enlils name to be that from Ebla "I-li-li" with possibe etymology explanation of il-ilī 'god of (all) the gods'. Hence Enlil may have been a "foreign (Semitic?)" name. He believes the cult of Enlil was brought to Nippur from Northern Babylonia Point 4: " In the course of time, the importance of male deities increased, though never superseding that of goddesses. Importantly, a new generation of gods arouse, chief among them being Ninurta, Ningirsu, Shara and Ashgi. These were usually war gods and sons of the chief goddesses. " The given speculations for this change are: changes in Sumerian society or contact with the Akkadian pantheon which was dominated by male deities ( with goddesses generally lacking individual characteristics). Point 5: Steinkeller notices a pattern in the distribution of cities that supports his claims: Sumerian cities were sometimes laid out in a serious of "twin capitals" - a political center and usually in its vicinity a religious capital. "The religious capital was generally the earlier of the two and has a goddess as its divine owner." So there was Girsu(Ningirsu) and Lagash (Gatumdug); Umma(Shara) and Zabalam (Inanna); Adab (Ashgi) and Kesh (Ninhursag); and possible Ur and( Nanna) Nutur (Ninhursag). The political centers are headed by the younger generation of male sons. The author suggests that power was wrested from religious center to political center over time. Point 6: Note #36 also makes it clear that Steinkeller believes Ninurta was the original god of Nippur; on the arrival of Enlil, Enlil became overlord of Nippur and Ninurta's father; Ninlil, an artificial creation, was superimposed on the cult of Ninhursag, the goddess of Tumal and mother of Ninurta. Point 7: Steinkeller states that this is a hypothetical reconstruction and this development does not go evenly for every Sumerian state - he gives Uruk itself as being a major exception there being no rivel power center there and so on. ______________________________ Going forward: I think our task should be to consider these proposals - point by point even - in a dispassionate manner, irrespective of long held notions of Sumerian pantheon, and also irrespective of feminist ideas of early matriarchy, which may or may not coincide with the above proposals. I am currently searching for review articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 19, 2012 18:58:29 GMT -5
Unfortunately while the following article is fascinating for it's discussion of early literature and sources pertinent to the study, it doesn't actually discuss theories on the shape of the pantheon; it doesn't even mention Steinkeller 1996.
G. Rubio
Gods and Scholars: Mapping the Pantheon in Early Mesopotamia (in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, 2011)
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 20, 2012 19:14:30 GMT -5
Notes relating to Steinkeller 1999 in the Wang dissertation As some of you may know, Xianhua Wang completed a dissertation entitled 'The Metamorphosis of Enlil' in 2011. It is by far the most recent and complete monograph on the god and contains a survey off all importent scholarship. So some notes from this work: Pg. 18 - Wang is discussing some views of Michalowski, who is commenting on the same subject matter as the above Steinkeller proposals - some of which is likely a direct response. The article in question is Michalowski's The Unbearable Lightness of Enlil. ( Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East (Prosecky, J.). 237-247.). We should obtain this article or the purposes of this thread. Reflecting on Point 3 and Point 2: Wang says: "The attestation of Enlil in Ebla in the spelling I-li-lu suggests to Michalowski that the deity was Semitic by origin, and was only integrated into the Mesopotamian pantheon originally headed by the couple Enki and Ninḫursag in a later time." Hence we see that Michalowski in 1998 agreed with Steinkeller's idea (first suggested Steinkeller 1988), that the name I-li-lu found in Ebla was indeed Enlil's name; he also seems to agree that Enki was the primary god prior to the Enlil's arrival from a Semitic pantheon. We will need to get Michalowski's article itself for details. Wang says further: "Michalowski interpreted the process of the integration as a usurpation of the old Enki by the new comer Enlil in mythological terms. The usurpation of Enki by Enlil, furthermore, was a part of a “constant flow of structural shifts in which systems and subsystems shifted and were redesigned”, along with which the principle of ordering the pantheon switched from that of the divine couple to that of a vertical hierarchy. But Michalowski warns that “the ebb and flow of systems and subsystems cannot be accounted for by recourse to a form of determinism derived from social evolutionary ideas.” What is meant hear by "vertical hierarchy" is the notion of An (highest) in heaven, Enlil between heaven and earth and earth at a lower level and so on. What Michalowski is suggesting is that before Enlil came along there, the system was that of divine couple i.e. Enki and Ninhursag and so on - which in itself, doesn't seem to be so different than what Steinkeller suggested ( point 2). The last part is an objection though the change in systems cannot be accouted for by "social evoltionary ideas" - by which I think he means, you can't explain it by patriarchal or matriarchal dominance or by contact of Sumerian system with Akkadian or what have you. Again will need the article to see further. They are particular close as regard the Semitic origin of Enlil as Wang notes: the essential part of his argument for the Semitic origin of Enlil, as the author acknowledges, does by and large agree with those proposed by Steinkeller." Reflecting on point 6: On pg. 24, Wang briefly considers the findings of Sallaberger 1997, Sallaberger's study on Nippur ( Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischen Wandel.). Apparently Sallaberger has found that, following the Sargonic period when Enlil was definitely elevated to status of National god, Ninurta took over as head god of Nippur. This would be the opposite order of Steinkeller's point 6, where the original god of Nippur was Ninurta, taken over by Enlil. The book would have to be obtain for more details. Sallaberger: "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 Stadtgottes”. _______________ Still to come - summaries of Wang's notes on Enlil in earliest periods.
|
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 21, 2012 13:12:07 GMT -5
In "La Mesopotamie", Jean-Jacques Glassner writes:
" The basic site of his cult (of Enlil), where he is worshipped as the lord of Sumer is Nippur - a city of which, he nevertheless, is not a city deity. Honestly said, Enlil could be a god of Semitic origin, and his name to be Illilu, adopted and modified by the Sumerians under the form of Enlil. In such a case we could have to do with a mixed deity 'God' (the name Illilu could represent re-duplication of the Semitic root 'il', 'god') - on the point of view of the Semites, and, according to the Sumerians, 'Lord-Spirit'."
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 21, 2012 13:56:56 GMT -5
Interesting note Enkur- yes I would say Glassner sound as though he is following Michalowski / Steinkeller / here.
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on Apr 21, 2012 21:08:04 GMT -5
The important difference between Steinkeller and Glassner here is that Steinkeller does NOT understand the writing of Enlil's name as signifying "Lord Spirit" (lil2 meaning something like ghost, phantom, as in e2-lil2-la "haunted house", but NEVER "wind" or "air"). He believes that the writing was originally EN.E2, "Lord of the House," i.e., pater familias. There is an article in which Steinkeller attempts to prove his reading of EN.E2 on paleogrphic grounds, and there is an article published in response by Englund disagreeing with Steinkeller.
|
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 22, 2012 14:01:24 GMT -5
Another quotation from Glassner's "La Mesopotamie":
"If we read correctly the construction of his name, En + lil, he is a god-weaver or basket-maker. The root lil, which means 'waft', 'spirit', could be read also as kid - 'reed tuft', or as e - 'house', 'residence of homogeneous social group'. As Enlil is worshipped as a god who separates the Heaven from the Earth and thus being a predecessor of creation, he could well be remarkable as a specialist on hulling and weaving - both the activities which contain the gesture of separation as well as that of interweaving."
(I'm translating in English a translation from French, so I don't know if in the original work the quoted signs are given with their respective numeration: lil2, e2. By the way, the archaic forms of E2 really resemble KID.)
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on Apr 22, 2012 15:20:08 GMT -5
The difference between E2 and KID in the earliest script (Uruk and ED), according to Steinkeller, is that in E2 (which depicts a temple facade) the square grid pattern is restricted to the front (or top) of the sign; the right (or bottom) part of the sign features elongated rectangles. KID/LIL2 (which depicts a reed mat), in contrast, is a square checkerboard throughout the whole sign.
In the later script the two signs merged/were conflated.
|
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 23, 2012 13:14:27 GMT -5
I can only say that  is different than  while between  and, for example  there is more resemblance. Something should have made Glassner to read e2 in Enlil's name. |
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 8, 2012 19:37:29 GMT -5
Interesting exchange - I have opened a new thread with the express purpose of furthering this side discussion: The Name of Enlil Below we can continue the discussion of Steinkeller's theological suggestions. |
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 10, 2012 19:33:44 GMT -5
**** For the overview of Steinkeller 1999 points 1 through 7, please see the top of this thread ****
More on Point 3
While I have quoted Wang's summary of Michalowski (see above Reply #2) and thus we see that the two Piotr's (Steinkeller and Michalowski) are in essential agreement in regards the Semitic il-ilī (attested in Ebla), it should be noted that there are also some objections. An example would be Englund, who in his 2011 CDLN note states:
"The ultimate etymology of “Enlil” is left aside, although it will be obvious from the data presented that the Semitic origin *il-ilī (“god-of-gods”), long believed by Gelb, then popularized by Steinkeller (1999: 114, n. 36) and others (for instance, Michalowski 1998; wisely rejected by Jacobsen 1989), merely perpetuates an ancient folk eymology."
I have yet to discern why this would be obvious from the data presented, but perhaps with a bit more study this will be clarified. Jacobsen's objection seems to have been that the form il-ilī could reasonable be construed as a Semitic adaption of a Sumerian word:
"In Jacobsen’s view the form Il-lil in An=dAnum in Akkadian
context must be the Akkadianized form of the name Enlil in Sumerian, rendering the Sumerian /e/ as /i/ and assimilating /n/ with /l/." (Wang 2011:15) . Further, Edzard 2003 takes up the problem of Ebaite phonology and seems to find for probability of the Sumerian form being original (Wang 2011:20).
However, Wang himself seems to hesitate, but perhaps ultimately find for Semitic origin (?) - his last word appearing in his conclusions seems to be "I abstain from stating the
ethnic origin of the name Enlil or the theologies of Enlil first of all
because early Mesopotamia was always multi-ethnic and there must have been Semitic elements in Enlil." (Wang 2011:245)
Safe to say the origin of the deity remains debatable I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 11, 2012 0:13:45 GMT -5
Point 8?
NIN & males gods with this element in their name I use the term "point 8?" as this information may well compliment the 7 theological points that are under examination in this thread. Although Steinkeller doesn't seem to mention it in the 1999 article, if there was an importance of goddesses that shifted to male deities at some early pre-literature point, than the fact that numerous male gods (i.e. Ninurta, Ninazu, Ningishzida, Ningirsu etc.) have what seems to be a female element in their name (NIN) may be indicative. In an article published in the 2002 festshrift to Thorkild Jacobsen ( Riches Hidden in Secret Places), Heimpel wrote a paper entitled The Lady of Girsu. He attempts to exam why it is that Ningirsu, an obviously male deity , a warrior and god of the plow, should have a name beginning with NIN - a literal translation along the common interpretation of these elements reads "lady of Girsu"; He explores various philological explanations, but finds them each unsatisfactory in one or another sense; ultimately, Heimpel tries a "social-historical hypothesis": "If we look for a social model that would explain the name Ningirsu "Lady of Girsu," ... these were conceivably positions of city-gods, which may have been occupied by females as a rule in prehistoric times. It is noteworthy that many city-gods were female throughout Babylonia and especially the conservative territory Lagaš: Gatumdu of Lagaš city, Ninmar of Gu'aba, Nanše of Nina, Dumuzi-Abzu of Kinunir. Male were Ningirsu of Girsu, Lugal-Uruba or Urub, and Nindara of Kiesa. If we could penetrate the dark long stretches before ED III, we might find that city-gods were originallly female and that males entered such positions as time went by. While this is possible, it may be wrong, and a documented case is needed. I cannot offer such a case, but I believe that I have found a feature of a relationship between Ningirsu and Bau in Girsu which indicates a change from female to male in divine supremacy in Girsu and a circumstance of that change." It seems odd that Steinkeller's 1999 suggestions are not referenced at this point in the article, or elsewhere. Much of the above content reflects directy on Point 1. This conviction of Heimpel's, that Bau was originally more the central deity of Girsu, comes mainly from his observations in the way these deities are addressed: in the Gudea inscriptions, Bau is called "Lady of the Holy City" (the temple precinct at Girsu) which Ningirsu, despite the devotions and the building of E-ninnu temple within the holy city, is never addressed in the manner. Our earlier attempt to make any sense of the male NIN deities, see the following thread here , was mostly frustrated. DarkL2030 was last to comment there, with the most conclusive sounding post: "Remember also that Sumerian is a genderless language, and all the Nin-names are essentially frozen forms from the very ancient period before the invention of writing, and may not even have originally meant "lord," these being later interpretations/folk etymologies on the part of the sumerians themselves. Same goes for names like Abzu or Suen. Nin "lady" may have originally been simply a homophone that found its expression in writing in the picture of the vulva."
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 20, 2012 13:55:05 GMT -5
The Espak 2011 Dissertation Many of the long time readers here are probably familiar with Peeter Espak's 2006 master's thesis on the god Enki - I am referring here, for the first time, to a new work by the author which I noticed this week while browsing academia.edu... that being Espak's 2010 Phd dissertation which is on a related topic. The thesis is entited The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology. Interestingly, the dissertation is much more detailed and includes additional chapters. Chapter 9 is of particular interest and I will take notes below. Espak 2010 Chap. 9 The Question of the Rivalry between Enki and Enlil The goddess and mother goddess issue - on Steinkeller Point 1/ At the heart of our current investigation of the archaic pantheon, instigated by Steinkeller's proposals, is of course the idea that goddesses had a predominant role in the earlist periods. While Steinkeller does not mention the relevance of feminist scholarship in this investigation, Espak's stance seems to acknowledge some natural convergence with such works at this point. He makes these comments while considering the theology pictured at Uruk: "The highest power pictured seems to be a goddess, in Uruk context, probably the goddess Inanna. This kind of picture of the universe is however attributable to a wide range of archaic religions and societies and it is not exclusive to the Ancient Near Eastern area of influence. The mother-goddess figure as the dominant element in early societies was defined already by James Frazer in his antropological study The Golden Bough... The concept of the mother-goddess as the cheif deity in most of the archaic religions in a wide range of Eurasian cultures was especially developed by Marija Gimbutas in several of her books... Although Gimbuta's theories can be called "feminist" because she tried to make a sharp distinction between the peaceful and pacifist female goddesses and the patriarchal and aggressive later male divine concepts, the overall picture seems convincing." However, I personally am doubtful that the type of full breasted figurines or amulets found throughout the ANE in very early periods, for example, can be entirely trusted in any analysis or archaic religion. Does this really amount to matriarchy? Does the abundance of crucifixes in the modern Christian world prove that Jesus is the highest god in that religion? The contentiousness of this issue has been noted by Michalowski (RAI 47 2002 p.413): "The topic of ancient goddesses, or as some of us would have it, of 'The Goddesses,' in early human societies is a dangerous one" because it "can often lead to unwarranted controversy or even derision." (c.f. Espak 2010 p. 214). Espak is clearly willing to work with the side that mingles Early Sumerian theology with the mother goddess framework of Frazer and others as he comments (p.215): "It seems highly probable that in ancient Sumerian (or pre-Sumerian) societies the situation must have been similar - the Mother Earth was seen as a dominant figure." As of the moment, I would like to see some recent evaluations of mother goddess theory in the ANE in order to decide whether linking this with any early Sumerian ideology would be wise. Given the recent re-evalutation of the importance of the mother goddess in i.e. Catel Hoyuk (see Ian Hodder 2011, summary reply #1 here ) there seems to be good reason for caution. Espak Characterizes Steinkeller's proposal/ P. 218 : "One of the most convincing statements abut the original nature of the early pantheon and the role of Enki is given by P. Steinkeller who relies on imaginative speculation rather than provable facts. With no written text available and archaeological evidence insufficient to give any clues it however seems better to speculate than to say nothing." A Small Objection On the Possible Reason for Change/ On P. 218 Espak takes issue not with Steinkeller's general idea of the early pantheon, but with one of his suggestions for why it may have gone from goddesses centric to male dominated - specificially, that this may have been influence from the Semitic pantheon (Steinkelller Point 4). Espak states: "When analysing the royal inscriptions of the Sargonic period, at least Aštar, alongside Šamaš and other deities, seems to be among the most important ones for the Akkadians. It seems impossible to claim that for the first Semites in Mesopotamia the female deities has no important and clearly defined role to play." Espak on Enlil: Semitic or Sumerian origin? Steinkeller Point 3 As mentioned in reply #10 above, there are some who hesitate about the two Piotr's suggestion that the Eblaite evidence proves that Enlil is of Semitic origin. On pg. 220 Espak raises objections here: " The theory of Enlil being an ancient Semitic high god seems to be mostly resulting from the speculative analysis of early Ebla texts, especially the bilingual lexical list from Ebla mentioning both Enlil and Enki... However, there seems to be no justification for associating the Sumerian name of Enlil etymologically with the Semitic name of the god il /El." Among the evidence cited for this statement is the fact that "El has much more similar characteristics with the god Enki than with Enlil" and also he cites Edzard's 2003 finding that Enlil can be explained using Sumerian etymology. Interestingly, and reflecting on Steinkeller Point 6 is Espak's take on Enlil's origin. Espak's does seem to maintain the importance of mother goddesses in early Sumerian religion and Enki's more prominent position in that time - how is this the case if Enlil was not absent and somewhere in Ebla at this point? p. 233 : "There is no basis for suggesting that Enki or Enlil had to be foreign deities imported to Mesopotamia. In the first preserved texts, they both are definitely Sumerian gods. There is no scope for proving or suggesting that they had to be pre-Sumerian or Semitic gods. It seems possible to analyse both concepts in parallel terms with the development of the overall Sumerian society and culture. As a conclusion, it seems reasonable to suggest (although no written and therefore concrete evidence is available) that the more archaic Sumerian society was agriculture-orientated. The city-states were not developed into an overall Mesopotamian political and military unions, and those city states were originally governed by the priest-rulers or en-s. This en was responsible for the well being of his citizens through religious rituals and especially agricultural activities, such as constructing irrigational systems, fields, canals and temples for the gods to give protection and abundance to the whole city. Enki, indeed, seems to be a god from the archaic period - he is the divine en of the Sumerian society. As defined by Thorkild Jacobsen he is the "productive manager" of Sumer and Akkad and not a political war-lord or owner of the land. " Espak is suggesting then, that Enlil's rise coincided with the rise of the lugal, the political and military leader. The shift in power would then be a matter of the internal power structures of Sumer rather than something effected by importing a Semitic god.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 24, 2012 12:36:49 GMT -5
Notice : I have finally finished off the above post - see bottom half for new information.
|
|
