Gugalanna??

[seeker666utu]

I did a search & couldn't find much on Gugalanna, but read what is posted. Can anyone post the cuneiform for Gugalanna for me, I tried to google it but couldn't find it. I've been going through the ORAC An=Anum God-lists & noticed a different spelling of Gugalanna than the ETCSL one. In ETCSL they spell his name "Gudgalanna", while ORAC An=Anum God-Lists have his name as 'Gu2-gal-an-na'.

Going to Halloran's SL has Gud & Gu2 as:

gud, guðx, gu4: n., domestic ox, bull (regularly followed by rá; cf., gur(4)) (voice/sound with
repetitive processing - refers to the bellow of a bull) [GU4 archaic frequency: 182].
v., to dance, leap (cf., gu4-ud).

gud(2), gu2,4: warrior.

While Foxvog has both Gud & Gu2 as:

gu4(dr), gud(r) bull, ox; cattle

gú pulse, bean

gú neck, shoulder(s); edge, bank, shore (of a canal,
river, sea); totality; cf. gú-gú region (Pre-Sarg.)

gú necklace (Owen, RA 107, 84f.)

So I'm looking to find which is the proper spelling based on the cuneiform evidence. I know the CAD Akkadian spelling of Gu2-gal-la means 'Canal inspector'; as such could when 'an-na' added to it become 'Canal Inspector of Anu or Heaven'. Whether this was a later development I'm not sure. For all I know Gugalanna was a divine name for one of the deities of canals such as Ennugi & Enbilulu.

Going back to Foxvog we have Gu2-Gal as:

gú-gal (kù-ĝál in Ur III) (chief) water regulator, canal inspector (gugallu) (Steinkeller, Sales Documents 233)

This gives some evidence to the possibility IF Gugalanna is written with Gud(2), Gu2 as ORAC has it written , not Gud, Gu4 as ETCSL has it written.

[sheshki]

^dGU₂.GAL.AN.NA


^dGU₄.GAL.AN.NA


GU₄ and GUD are the same sign.

I found some information on Gugal'ana in RIA3, but it is in german, so i will put up a rough translation tomorrow.

[sheshki]

roughly translated from RIA3/694

Gugal'ana gu₄/^dgú-gal-an-na
"great bull (gu₄) of heaven", epiphet of the spouse of Ereškigal
Father of Nin'azu.
In "Inanna´s descent into the netherworld" Inanna tells the gate keeper that she wants to visit her sister Ereškigal for the funeral of her dead spouse. The purpose of this funeral is still unclear, maybe the older spouse had to die as premise for the marriage of Ereškigal and Nergal.
...

Since we are dealing with a very long time span, many city states or kingdoms, each with their own pantheon and theology which over these long time spans developed, changed, and interacted with each other, it is nearly impossible to find a "definitive" spelling for some words. One should also keep in mind that the scribal school may have changed the writing for reasons unknown to us. To them both versions may have sounded the same... It is possible that Gugal'ana´s role changed over time from an underworld deity to one that protected canals. So, both versions are the correct one... IMO

[seeker666utu]

That is what I figured as I was curious at the different valuations Sheshki, I'm just trying to better understand as Gud/Gu4=Bull & Gud/Gu2 represent something else. Thank you for your assistance Sheshki.

[us4-he2-gal2]

These are some excellent observations and surmises all around here, good work seeker and sheshki I have pasted below a comment by W. Sladek, who wrote a PhD dissertation on Inana's Descent in 1974. Basically, he has wrestled with the same sources (RLA 3 694) and the same contradictions as those discussed above on this thread. Personally, I give secondary value to information from godlists such as AN:Anum , because this text is a late text - but not all researchers agree about how to value the information we have, of course. Listen to the weight Sladek gives the AN:Anum evidence:


"^dgu₄ -gal-an-na "Great Bull of Heaven" may be a folk
etymology, since he appears in the god list An-Antum as
^dgu2 gal-an-na where he is the husband of dErekigal =
dAllatum,2 and thus his name may mean "Canal Inspector
of Heaven." In any case the name sounds like an epithet.
The offspring of this union between Erekigal and Gugalanna
was Ninazu. Gugalanna's death in our text may be the
reason for the later marriage of Ere'kigal and Nergal.4
In general, see Edzard, RLA 3 694 s.v.; van Dijk, SGL 2
71f.; Sjöberg, TCS 3 88."


So because later Mesopotamians spelled it gu2, earlier Mesopotamians who spelled it gu4 were using a "folk etymology"...but in my mind, it seems more logical to assume it goes the other way around, and the later variation is less authentic. This is debatable and the answer is, no one knows. Another consideraation is whether the 'bull of heaven' in the myth "Gilgamesh and the Bull of heaven" (See ETCSL t.1.8.1.2) should be understood as Gugal-ana, the husband of Ereshkigal. I think Kramer made this sort of speculation, but could not demonstrate it.

The difference between gu4 and gud is nothing, no difference, it is a convention of Sumerologists to read a final consonant, d, or not.

Gugal-ana's name is ^dgu4.gal.an.na(k) - I analyze that as "great(gal) bull(gu4) of (ak) heaven (an). The divine determinative, the dingir, is present.

In the Gilgamesh myth, it is written gud an-na(k) "Bull(gud) of(ak) heaven(an)" . The divine determinative, the dingir, is not present.

[rynathee]

Hi Bill,

Quick question - on ETCSL, they don't show the "d" divine determinative with Gugalanna's name (gud-gal-an-na), though they do have it highlighted in maroon, which indicates a divine name. Any idea why they didn't then include the "d" in front of his name? (Line 85)

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/c141.htm

Thanks!!

[rynathee]

One more question!

I just found a reference to Gugalanna in "Ishtar" by Loiuse Pryke (2017). I could only see the pages selected for previewing by google, so there could be more information given that I was unable to see. Of the pages I could see, Pryke states that Gugalanna (mentioned in "Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld") is thought to be equated with the Bull of Heaven that is killed in "Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven." She also says that Inanna's negative reception upon arriving in the Netherworld could be because she mentions coming to mourn Gugalanna but that she was the one who caused his death (referring to the bull killed by Gilgamesh and Enkidu).

I thought that Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven is a later story than Inanna's Descent. So is Pryke correct to make such an assumption? Also, she gives no sources or references for these statements, at least not in the pages I could see.

Please let me know what you think, thanks!

[nocodeyv]

Dina Katz's work, "The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources" contains some speculation on the identity of Gugalanna and its potential as an epithet for Enlil, based on the genealogy of the god Ninazu. This is my personal theory on Gugalanna's identity, but, as Bill has said: the identity, purpose, and even divinity of these figures very likely changed over time, so that what was true in Sumer, may not have held weight during the Assyro-Babylonian empires. Excerpts from Katz's work are quoted below, the entire section can be found on pg. 428-442:


"It seems that there were essentially two traditions about the mother of Ninazu: one relates him to Ereškigal and Enegi, the other to Ninlil and Ešnunna. The tradition of the relationship between Ninazu and Ereškigal is old and well established. It finds its expression in a variety of texts, of which the oldest is the Pre-Sargonic offering-list from the second year of Uruinimgina. The common denominator of the sources for this tradition is their silence about the identity of Ninazu's father, just as the sources are silent about Ereškigal's husband. In [Inana's Descent] ln. 87 Ereškigal's husband is Gugalanna, a tradition that was continued, reappearing later in the Neo-Assyrian god-list AN : Anum (Tablet V, ln. 217). Gugalanna, however, is not a name but an epithet, as in the hymn to Egida, which hides the name of Ninazu's father and Ereškigal's husband behind the epithet EN-GAL. That the sources point to Ereškigal's husband but hide his name behind an epithet suggests an inclination to conceal his identity."

"The question of Ninazu's genealogy is linked to two enigmatic identities: (1) Ereškigal's husband and (2) the goddess who bore Ninazu. The inconsistencies and vagueness of the sources concerning these issues need to be addressed. It is odd that, in conjunction with Ereškigal, Ninazu's father is anonymous, but elsewhere is Enlil. Yet, the balbale-hymn names Enlil as the father of Ninazu of Enegi, where his mother is Ereškigal according to other texts. Therefore it is noteworthy that three sources associate Enlil with the netherworld: (1) an incantation against evil spirits names Enlil and Ereškigal as the parents of Namtar (Udugḫul 360); (2) "Enlil and Ninlil," which explains the chthonic nature of Ninazu of Enegi and indicates that his father is Enlil, discloses, at the same time, a tradition that Enlil was once in the netherworld, but managed to escape from it; and (3) the introduction to [Gilgameš, Enkidu, and the Netherworld] ln. 12-13, which tells that the netherworld was given to Ereškigal by Enlil as a gift when he took the earth for himself.¹ The Old Babylonian balbale-hymn to Ninazu of Enegi demonstrates a confusion in regard to his mother, the wife of Enlil: his wife is Ninmaḫ, not simply Ninlil nor Ereškigal.²"

"The sources, however scarce, suggest that in prehistory Ereškigal was an image of the mourning mother and that her son, Ninazu, was the young dying god of Enegi. At the same time, the sources, which submit that Enlil was the father of Ninazu of Enegi, also imply that he was the husband of Ereškigal. That Ereškigal was treated mainly as the queen of the netherworld and that Ninazu's role as a young dying god was almost forgotten signifies developments in the Sumerian pantheon. Moreover, the rank of Enlil also seems to have changed. Various texts suggest that sometime in prehistory, the Urukean pantheon with An at its head enjoyed hegemonic status in Sumer and that, although An stands at the head of every god-list, his status declined in favor of Enlil and Nippur.³ It is difficult to reconstruct with certainty the situation in prehistoric times and the complex development that took place. Such developments, however, must have influenced the structure of the pantheon in Nippur, Uruk, Ur, and related Sumerian centers. Presumably, the main and most influential god in Sumer, Enlil, could not be associated with the netherworld. If in prehistory Enlil was, indeed, Ereškigal's husband, they had to be separated when he reached the top of the pantheon. In that case, each ended up with another consort. Enlil was coupled with Ninlil, whose name is the feminine form of his (which in itself seems rather artificial). Ereškigal was promoted to queen of the netherworld and the identity of her husband was masked. It is possible, therefore, that the epithet EN-GAL in the hymn to Egida in Enegi, as well as the designation Gugalanna in [Inana's Descent], masks Enlil.⁴ Perhaps the name of Enlil's temple in Nippur, Ekur, is not coincidental either, but holds remnants of a past association with the netherworld."


¹: If we could confirm Shaffer's translation "wedding gift," it would support the assumption that in prehistory Ereškigal was the consort of Enlil.

²: Perhaps it is significant that Ninlil is merely a feminine form of the name Enlil and that, apart from being his wife, nothing is known of her specific divine properties.

³: Such developments usually occur as a result of shifts in political power and, therefore, are to be expected over long periods of time. The best example of such a shift is the rise of Marduk to the head of the pantheon in correspondence with the rise of Babylon to the hegemony of southern Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian period.

⁴: Nergal was introduced as Ereškigal's husband only during the Old Babylonian period, after  the dramatic political, ethnic, and cultural changes in southern Mesopotamia.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Hey everyone -

Well, when I consider Rynethee's questions and also the proposals of D. Katz quoted above by nocodeyv, there is a lot ponder here. To start with the easier questions relating to the spelling of the name of Gugalanna - as discussed above in my post from Sept. 2015, whether one reads Gugalanna or Gudgalanna is unimportant (a convention of modern scholarship). There are only two occurrences of this name that I am aware of (that we have ever found): one in Inanna's Descent, and one in the AN:ANUM god list, which is much later. In the later god list, the name occurs with the divine determinative, in Inanna's Descent however, it does not. I don't see any systemic convention of the ancient scribes which would explain why the determinatve is not used before Gugalanna's name in this text: they regularly use the determinative not just for gods, but for defied kings, defied cult objects, deified cultic norms and so on. One might theorize that they do not use the determinative because this is an epithet "the great bull of heaven" and not a name; however, other divine epithets such as Nudimmud (=Enki) receive the divine determinative. There is no ready explanation for this textual anomaly.


Another question is: on what grounds can we consider gu4-gal-an-na "the great bull of heaven" and gu4 an-na "the bull of heaven" to be one and the same? Thematically, there is of course strong similarity, one name/epithet is distinguished by the addition of gal 'great' one is not. The bull of heaven, Guanna, is known from a small number of sources but most importantly from the text Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven.


First it must be noted that there are five Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh which predate the Epic of Gilgamesh, you can see these in translation at the ETCSL here. These five stories are known from Old Babylonian sources only for the most part, but there are occasional indications that the stories are significantly older (a fragment of Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven from the Ur III period has been found). Later these five stories would be reworked and formed into the Gilgamesh Epic (with the exception of Gilgamesh Enkidu and the Netherworld which doesn't occur in the Epic). The situation is similar with Inanna's Descent, known from Old Babylonian copies only.


The setting is comparable between the Gilgamesh Stories and Inanna's Descent, at least, Inanna is the goddess of Uruk and Gilgamesh is the king of Uruk. Of course, they interact in Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven, but there are less obvious intertextual considerations that connect the two myth cycles. Dina Katz discusses this briefly on page 387 n. 14 of her work The Image of the Netherworld in Sumerian Sources... (ID stands for Inanna's Descent, GEN stands for Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherwould):

"It is interesting that in both narratives her [Ereshkigal's] description as a mourning mother
appears in the same context: an account of the entrance of unauthorized beings into
the netherworld. In ID it was in the instructions given by Enki to the creatures he
created to rescue Inanna (repeated in the implementation of his instructions) and
in GEN in the instructions given by Gilgames to Enkidu. It is one of the indications
for the intertextual relationship of ID and GEN. Other indications are in the passages
that describe the appeals to Enlil, Nanna, and Enki for the rescue of Inanna and of
Enkidu, and that the name of the entrance to the netherworld, ganzir, is unique to
these two texts."

So there are good grounds for suspecting that the Bull of Heaven (gu4 an-na) killed in the Gilgamesh tale would be one and the same entity who Ereshkigal is mourning in Inana's Descent - gu4-gal-an-na 'the great bull of heaven'. Given how well the equation of these two figures unites the stories, scholars have come to accept the identification as a matter of course. Abusch, in his article Ishtar's Proposal and Gilgamesh's Refusal, states for example: "And Ishtar appears again in this guise in our own text when she involves the Bull of Heaven in her conflict with Gilgamesh. In the present context her association with the Bull takes on added significance. For, if we are not mistaken, the Bull of Heaven is none other than Ereshkigal's spouse Gugalanna." Here he asserts the identification but does not demonstrate it, because, there really is no 'smoking gun' piece of evidence to point to. It is really a tentative understanding among scholars in the field, tentative because it can't be definitively demonstrated at present.

As for Katz' suggestion quoted above by nocodeyv, that is, she suggests that Enlil is the hidden identity behind the Gugalana epithet, that indeed, in early Sumerian religion (back before we really have written mythological materials), Enlil was a netherworld deity. To my knowledge, this is the first time this suggestion has ever been made, and it has not been adopted by subsequent scholarship on Enlil, for example, Wang's 2011 monograph on Enlil (The Metamorphosis of Enlil) doesn't mention a word of this, nor does the ORACC entry for Enlil, see here. An issue with Katz' input here is that, it really is the proverbial 'argument from silence': there is no real way to prove that before we have impactful documentation Enlil was X, or that he wasn't. The strength of her argument seems to rely on documents which state that he fathered a child with Ereshkigal; but the sources she cites, an Udug-hul incantation, the myth of Enlil and Ninlil, etc., are all Old Babylonian or later - they are just as likely to represent variant or localized theological traditions as some long forgotten version of the religion where Enlil was cathonic. Enki is another high god who has more than one spouse, or more than one tradition about his spouse, this doesn't demonstrate he was anything other than the god of the Abzu.

[rynathee]

Thank you so much, both of you, for your in depth responses! Gives me more to think over and more reading to do!