LAMBERT, W.G. - 1990- Ancient Mesopotamian Gods. Superstition, Philosophy, Theology

Wilfred George Lambert

Ancient Mesopotamian Gods. Superstition, philosophy, theologyIn: Revue de l'histoire des religions, tome 207 n°2, 1990. pp. 115-130.

AbstractThe Sumerians organized their gods, which were deified natural forces as conceived, into a systematic pantheon for a land of citystates. This continued with modifications under the succeeding Babylonian civilization, which was politically unified. The processof identifying originally distinct gods of similar attributes continued until some scholars identified all major gods with Marduk in akind of monotheism. Relics of other systems occur in the worship of mountains and rivers, and in southern Iraq itself the conceptof deity spread from the god himself to his accoutrements, abode and city.

RésuméLes dieux de l'ancienne Mésopotamie : superstition, philosophie, théologie

Les Sumériens organisaient leurs dieux, conçus comme des forces naturelles déifiées, en un panthéon systématique quiconvenait à un pays composé de cités souveraines. Cette situation se maintint avec quelques modifications dans l'Empirebabylonien, qui était unifié politiquement. Le processus d'identification des dieux, distincts à l'origine mais avec des attributssimilaires, se poursuivit jusqu'à ce que certains érudits eussent assimilé tous les dieux importants à Marduk dans une sorte demonothéisme. On trouve dans les textes des allusions à d'autres systèmes pour ce qui est de l'adoration des montagnes et desrivières, et dans le sud de l'Irak, la notion de divinité s'est étendue du dieu lui-même à son équipement, son temple et sa ville.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Lambert Wilfred George. Ancient Mesopotamian Gods. Superstition, philosophy, theology. In: Revue de l'histoire des religions,tome 207 n°2, 1990. pp. 115-130.

doi : 10.3406/rhr.1990.1735

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhr_0035-1423_1990_num_207_2_1735

W. G. LAMBERT

The University of Birmingham

ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN GODS

SUPERSTITION, PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY*

The Sumerians organized iheir gods, which were deified natural forces as conceived, into a systematic pantheon for a land of city states. This continued with modifications under the succeeding Babylonian civilization, which was politically unified. The process of identifying originally distinct gods of similar attributes continued until some scholars identified all major gods with Marduk in a kind of monotheism. Relics of other systems occur in the worship of mountains and rivers, and in southern Iraq itself the concept of deity spread from the god himself to his accoutrements, abode and city.

Les dieux de l'ancienne Mésopotamie : superstition, philosophie, théologie

Les Sumériens organisaient leurs dieux, conçus comme des forces naturelles déifiées, en un panthéon systématique qui convenait à un pays composé de cités souveraines. Celle situation se maintint avec quelques modifications dans l'Empire babylonien, qui était unifié politiquement. Le processus d'identification des dieux, distincts à l'origine mais avec des attributs similaires, se poursuivit jusqu'à ce que certains érudits eussent assimilé tous les dieux importants à Marduk dans une sorte de monothéisme. On trouve dans les textes des allusions à d'autres systèmes pour ce qui est de iadoration des montagnes et des rivières, el dans le sud de l'Irak, la notion de divinité s'est étendue du dieu lui-même à son équipement, son temple el sa ville.

* Texte initialement prévu pour le numeru t hermit iqup ils la НИН, « On'e^t-ce qu'un dieu '? » (4/1У88). lîcvue. <1p l'Histoire des fíeligion*, ccvii-2.'199O, p. 115 à 130

First, a few words on the subject-title. The area "Mesopotamia" is wider than the area I shall deal with

mostly, which is the terrain roughly between the modern Baghdad and Basra. This small area was a cultural powerhouse in the ancient world, Sumerian in the third millennium вс, Babylonian in the second and first millennia. The terms

"superstition", "philosophy" and "theology" have been deliberately chosen as raw, crude terms to avoid a powerful terminology which would take over the subject by imposing its own concepts on the discussion. By "superstition" the

emotional content of religion is meant ; "philosophy" is

used to refer to the rational element in religion (with an implicit objection to those who might wish to assert that abstract thought began with the Greeks) ; and "theology" refers to the amalgam of these emotional and rational elements.

The area concerned, the southern end of the Mesopotamian plain, is not particularly hospitable for human habitation. It is watered by the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates in the late spring and early summer, but for most of the year is dry, lacking any useful rainfall, and naturally devoid of trees and most plant life, apart from the marshes adjacent to the Persian Gulf. In summer the climate becomes unbearably hot, while the winter is chilly. The main natural resources were clay, since it is an alluvial plain, and reeds, which grew especially in the marshes. There is no local source for metals, and not much useful stone is within reach. Yet this area sprang ahead of the surrounding regions in material culture at about the end of the fourth millennium вс and remained a cultural leader until the spread of Hellenism after Alexander. The reasons can only be guessed, but the inhospitable terrain may be one of the factors. After 3,000 вс there was little village settlement, towns composed most of

Л ncient Mesopotam ian gods 1 17

the places where humans lived: One factor in this development, was- certainly the need : for the mass organization! of human labour to irrigate the cultivable land as the flood'rose. The digging andt maintenance- of -canals (the latter especially as the flood rose) required central direction within each ', city or group of cities. In turn the cities resulted in a specialization of crafts that would have been* impossible or unlikely im a village culture. Wealthy government of> a. village- culture could" of ; course provide resources for craftsmen supplying luxury items, but the' early Sumerian ; city states provided: the bases for1 both? materials and » intellectual* developments. Furthermore,, there- is not trace oV tribal -. organization; The cities proved melting-pots for whoever lived there.

From; the times oft the earliest surviving: knowledge Sumerian; city governors were involved with* religion; ex: officio. The largest buildings in each city were ■ the temples, builť and; maintained by the governments of' the cities. In? each' temple there was a deity who was • its owner, and • that god in the most important temple in each city was considered* the owner- of? the city. In practice he- or- she ownedrt land around* the city, employed labour, (both* free andf serf) to work the land; to look after domestic animals, and' to engage- in alii the ■ various arts and * crafts of • which ; the • temple had need; Thus the temples werenot simplyplaces of* worship, but were large economic organizations, . and« in' this sense could' be compared5 with- Medieval* manors. The • very; name reveals ■ the concept. The ■ Sumerian ■ word * for temple was é "house", the same word as used for any human's house. And: this anthropomorphic concept; extends much further. The chief deity of any temple was not the only occupant. There - was his or her spouse, their children and, sometimes, other relatives, then their servants and officials, all; considered; divine. As an extreme, inithe temple of Marduk; city god of* Babylon, it is known that during at least the periodic. 1500 to с 300 Be. Marduk had four divine dogs named "Snatcher", "Seizer", "He got it" and- "He howled", and his wife

118 W. G. Lambert

Zarpânïtum had two divine hairdressers1. The Sumero-Baby- Ionian temple was a divine court modelled on human courts.

According to local mythology the human race had been created by the gods to relieve them of the hard labour of producing their, daily bread. This practically meant that the government had to supply meals to statues of the gods twice daily, and had to clothe these statues, periodically providing new garments. In addition other items of personal possession such as seals and jewellery were supplied, and everything had to be of the best. Hence the need for fields, workers, skilled and specialized craftsmen, workshops, etc. So far as practicable temples were self-supporting, though rulers regularly made personal gifts, and booty of war often found its way to the gods. It was the duty of the ruler to keep watch over the temples and to take such action as might be necessary to ensure that they prospered. The concept of the divine court not only replicated human courts, but one may suspect it had served another purpose in prehistoric, times. As will be explained shortly, each city needed the help of the whole pantheon of gods, and the divine court provided the means of keeping alive the cults of gods within each city which otherwise might have suffered attrition and have died out. This system of city supported temples was practically the concern of the rulers. The temples were not places of communal city worship. Access to the actual temple building housing the divine statues was highly restricted, and only certain of the temple craftsmen e.g. were allowed inside. So while the ordinary citizens would certainly be well informed about the major city deities in the temples and could share in the spirit of the major festivals, their own religion was something separate, to which we shall return.

In fact the official : city cults were -from the beginning largely dominated and developed by. theologians. Sumer had been a land of city states traditionally, yet culturally unified

1. CT, 24, 16, 19-22 and 15, 11-12 and duplicates.

Ancient Mesopotamian gods 1 19

in; language and religion. Thanks to the invention of writing at the end of the 4th millennium i в citais possible to» know r something:of the concepts held \ of the Sumero-Babylonian; gods, .and so -to note how sytematic was the pantheon- as a pantheon. - There is virtually - no . duplication in the - Sumerian . city, patron^ gods, despite - the city state organization > of: the country and the frequent intercity warfare. Since each city could only prosper with the co-operation» of a whole - host : of - different, gods, one is forced* to the 'conclusion that in prehistoric times there had been a kind of ecumencial, conference in which it had / been worked out how- the major, gods could ; each .i be head ; of one city, so that so • far. as practical • all i the major deities would; be thus honoured. The other gods- traditionally worshipped': int each locality were then worked ; into the cults of the major, city gods.

The number of; different names ofsgods and -goddesses is in: the thousands, but that does not mean so many, separate deities.. The moon god; was called? both i Nanna and Suemor Sin, but there was only one moons- god,, and i there- were in. fact other, less used names by which he is on occasion called; However, all'the better known gods and goddesses pertain to- particular.- parts and aspects of- naturcas- known and- con- cfivedïby the Sumerians and Babylonians. There was a god? of heaven as a cosmic location, a goddess of the earth, both a god and goddess conceived in various sources as ruler of the nether wrorld.-.The sun, moon and, Venus were also considered, deities, the first/two male,- the third; as in Classical antiquity, female.. However, most stars, constellations and planets were thoughtobas heavenly stations of deities with other major' abodes elsewhere. Occasionally, mistakes were made, and since they held that, all? rivers andt springs- drew- ош a vast subterranean/ lake, there was a deity presiding: over- that cosmic - area. ( 'osmic functions and • processes were • also represented ? in«. the pantheon ' by deities concerned' with them. There was a god of the storm, more than one deity- of cereals, a god of cattle, andvarious deities concerned* with the human

120» W. G. Lambert

crafts : of dairy farming, of brewing, weaving,' etc. It, would- seem that* there was no aspect of the universe as they knew and;conceived itfor which there was not at least one patron deity. That those with obviously greater cosmic importance, such' as the ; goddess ■ oft the ' earth; are * more important than > those concerned; with* human1 crafts, such as weaving, may imply, both* the strength v of: a millennia-long traditiomand common sense on the part of the ancient theologians.

Thus the official pantheon of Sumer and Babylon is easily seen< as- the- outcome- of» reflection on the universe : those-

ancients were surrounded by forces of nature, real or imagined; which they identified as persons of superhuman power. There was , always some ambiguity, about the precise relationship * of tho deity to the' aspect of nature,- whether, for example, the sun, god was in-very fact the actual • fiery ball; moving! across the sky, or whether he -was not of- human form, living in: a- palace and» directing the actual-solar, body in its daily motions from a distance. Probably they were not so conscious of such problems as • we an1.

Certain developments in the understanding of this pantheon- can be observed; over the cours** of history, and these are revealing i for • the ancienť conceptions of the gods. . The most conspicuous one; which continued all down history, was the outcome of taking an overall'view of the gods of all the cities. Just as the Greeks tended' to identify foreign gods with the nearest one ins their own religion, so Sumerianand Babylonian thinkers identified similar gods as judged by their attributes though" they were entirely, separate in their cults and in their names. Obviously the sun god Utu of Larsawas the same as the sun god bSamaš of Sippar, but/ the process went beyonď such' undeniable identities and? proceeded; to equate gods and goddesses whichvvere only similar in certain but not all of their- attributes. Thus Ningirsu, of Lagash. Ninurta of Nippur, and Zababa of Kish were alike considered* the chief son; of Enlil," and were soidentifiedj but so -far as knowledge is available it would' seem: that;- in the earliest

Ancient Mesopolamian gods 121 *

known times they were in other aspects by no means identical; In some cases, such as with: the god of a. big town and; the - gods of; nearby smaller, towns, it may be suspected that power politics resulted in- the major, god; of the big town swallowing up the smaller gods of: the ' neighbouring smaller towns. Marduk of Babylon-became identified with -Tutu of : Borsippa. Thus by both? theological- thinking: and . by the • power of priests of major temples the total number of different gods was diminished ■ over the centuries; One practical result of this • was аш increase in the names of the major gods; A name was not merely an identification tag, but had 'meaning, either the actual philological meaning of the word or combination» of * words, or a meaning extracted I from i the name by what \ we would; consider bogus ■ philology. Names were split into • syllables and were* then interpreted! from the many Sumerian monosyllabic roots, many of i which» were homophones of other Sumerian roots with totally different meanings. The system was sufficiently flexible- that almost any desiredl meaning ' could ; be ■ extracted from», a- name by this method: Thus each name had one or more meanings , which enshrined theological truth about the god . to whom the name belonged; In: the later second and' in the first millennium Marduk had fifty names, the total consisting of his own names and epithets, then those of other gods whomi he; hadí absorbed : by being: equated i with them by the theologians. The final : step in this process • also \ involved ' Marduk, who by the f late ■ second millennium had become head of the pantheon. Some theologians took the final step of identifying all 1 the ' major * male deities of» the- pantheon with him, so thata kind' of 'monotheism resulted: However, his spouse Zarpanitumí and i all Í the other goddesses (perhaps conceived as identified; with Zarpânïtum) remained i as separate beings, and i presumably, demons also s retained their identities.. However, belief in a devil or demons has not been held. to invalidate claims to monotheism on the part of major, world religions of the. Christian era.

Before Marduk- achieved 5 headship ; of * the pantheon > there

122: W. G., Lambert'

were other concepts of organization within the pantheon; So1 far as our knowledge goes back there had; always been more and less • important gods, so judged ' either from their cosmic significance, or from- the prestige of their cities, or from» a- combination off both; . From* the end ; oft the third millennium1 to the end < of the second 'millennium there was a- committee of ■ top í gods ; who < exercised i power,- in* a sequence which? also > illustrates their: concept of s the- physical universe. An(Sumerian) or. Anu (Babylonian) bore as name the Sumeriansnoun<"sky",.and that was his sphere. He was a kind of president of? a socialist state:, nominal head^but not wielding; day-to-day/ power except*, in; emergencies. Between- heaven and earths there was a ' gap in which human v activity took place. The god; of this space- was Enlili He livedion earth' im his town; Nippur andi so concerned^ himself with human activity, being the most important god .-for. the human* race. The earth* itself t was: considered- female, presumably as - the , recipient of the • fertilizing * rain sent down i by -> father heaven, and a third member of this committee was the Mother Goddess,, known by a ; variety of names: Ninhursag, . Nintu, Aruru, andi Bëlet-ilï. Her position < in г the top > committee is not invariable — she : can be : lacking — but , the : reason ? for. her position is clear. She • occurs below the space in the universe in which humans operate. The final member of the Committee was Enkit (Sumerian) or: Ea (Babylonian), , both* names ; of unknown meaning. He was godf of £ the subterranean lake; called Apsû, from which all springs and rivers draw their. water.

Thus the ■ second-millennium i committee of : three or four was r replaced by a : single r head \ in the r first millennium. But generally there was ? a- remarkable conservatism! about the Mesopotamian gods. They remained in the same temples over the millennia, since the temple sites were holy and could not be moved. Only the total decline of a city could result in a cult dying out;. Within any cult, however, there could be major changes • over the centuries im the * courtiers .- andř other minor,- gods.

Each deity was s present in the temple in a cult image. The

Ancient -■ Mesopotamian gods 123

majority of these were; it seems, anthropomorphic,' though some may have been' of "composite monsters. In the second and* first millennia? these statues were 'made of- wood, decorated with precious -metal» and precious stones. At least to the intellectual^ Babylonians their religion* was ■ not- ar crude image worship. The- statue was conceived* as a less than permanent abode' of» the- divine essence. When a > new statue was made or an old one repaired l it was put' through a series of rituals which1 resulted 'in the divine1 presence- taking up its abode- in' the statue, and* whem a; statue- was seriously damaged or worn, it was - believed i that the divine * presence was withdrawn. All this applied» only to- the temple statue. Other representations of the gods were also made, some were indeed ťmassproduced in clay figurines, but these were not the very gods, and did not go through the rites of vivification:

The- question5 has been* raised** whether' there- was not

something less developed' behind this highly sophisticated; scheme of gods as aspects of nature. So far as the organization of the gods in city temples is concerned' the earliest surviving evidence merely confirms that1 no major -changes took place over history except in* the- organization of the s gods into a^ pantheon, and* except- where cities completely died' out and? ceased to be inhabited. There have been suggestions, however, that the anthropomorphic representations were preceded by a theriomorphic stage. A. Spycket andlY .Jacobsen have beem the main contenders for views of this kind2.' In historical times gods had symbols by which' they were generally known, and Jacobsen- has argued that these are survivals of a pre-anthro- pomorphic stage of religion: In the historical eras the functions of 'these- symbols, which* may be manufactured- objects or natural « things im whole or ■ part, is well V known. First, the major temple statues were so holy that they were not available

2: A; Spycket, Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines , à la Ire dynastie de Babylone (Cahiers de laiHevue Biblique, 9), Paris, .1968 ; T. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian ; History and Culture, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, p. 1-38. ,

124' W:. G.. Lambert.

for many» purposes: for. which i divine: presence* was needed: In a court, for example, oaths were taken in gods' names, and a i presence of > the * god \ in some form was essential! A model of the appropriate symbol served instead of • the statue. Thus for Marduk, a spade was the symbol and no doubt something more elaborate and expensive than -a ; workman's spade was made,, but we know that oaths on, particular, occasions were taken by; thej Spade of Marduk.. Secondly,, in art it was- impossible for the most part to distinguish anthropomorphic gods or. goddesses, and ■ especially in small scale art. Thus on * seals, . if one wanted the ■ presence of the moom god depicted, it, was usuab to put a lunar, crescent; which was technically very simple to engrave, and« was very easily recognised. Furthermore, it is knownthat down the course of- history at least ai few< deities changed their symbols.- The sun god Šamaš was - identified» by a? saw, presumably a symbol \ of justice, from* с 2300-1600* вс, but simultaneously, by a- depiction; of* the. solar disc, . but only; the latter is used; on boundary stones c. 1400-1000 ;вс. The goddess Ishara^ was represented by a viper c. 1800 вс, but by a scorpion c. 1400- 1000 « вс: . Some of * these symbols occur in prehistoric ; art, so that, . no doubt as symbols, they- had great antiquity, but. it is ; not possible to • argue that therefore they attest . a; pre- anthropomorphic stage - oil religion. . Supporting < evidence is lacking. Spycket , offers fuller; arguments: (i) that no . actuah statues have Ьееш found* from before1 2000 г вс; which are* certainly statues of deities, (ii) that in third-millennium texts statues off rulers are mentioned, but, never statues of * gods.. The- lack, of certain examples- of third; millennium :< divine statues,, if ; archaeologically assured , (opinion is perhaps not uniform), can; be? explained1 either: by the accidents -of» discovery, or, by this andi two other, factors. . It: is . known > that . divine statues were richly adorned i with ■ precious metal i and "■:. stones, so plunderers would be tempted to destroy them for their materials : or to take - them, and if : the custom < of < later : times of making the statues from wood prevailed1 already, in

A ncienl - Mesopoiamian * gods ■ 1 25 <

the third millennium; then. they would, not of /course survive in the wetsoilof southern Iraq. The lack of mention of divine statues im texts; is not- significant since after 2000 вс, . when, the use of statues for gods is not in dispute, there is a similar lack of ; mention of the physical objects. Kings speakof "the god", etc. and almost never allude to statues3. Spyeket's further suggestion that .when" the Early. Dynastic rulers of Lagash*

state that they "fashioned" a named í deity it means that they fashioned a statue of themselves and put it in the temple of the named* deity,", while grammatically just possible, has not found favour with Sumerian scholars, andwouldionly be justified- if; it were- knowm that these rulers didit not have statues of their gods . made; .

Thoughs the evidence for a pre-anthropomorphic stage of Sumerian • religion, is at. present unconvincing, there is evidence' for forms of í religion which; seem to be survivals from a, period- before -the extreme systématisation1 which; characterises Sumerian and Babylonian religion. Two kinds of source- supply such ., information; . incantations and: personal . names. The occurrence of this old material in incantations is explained'; from the nature of the: texts. They, were magic spells,. and* their effectiveness depended * on the precise form i of I words. Thus they should not have been i altered if they wrere to be used successfully. So they preserve all kinds of archaic matter which » does not , occur in v e.g. hymns and' prayer to gods. Many personal names have a divine name as one element, so that their study is important for: the history oft religions. Also. they: come from the, whole spectrum of ancient society, while official religion was the preserve of ; the priests and : the - ruling" classes. In. this connection < it must be stressed ': that there is no evidence for popular religion among Sumerians and: Babylonians being concerned^ generally with a totally- different pantheon from that of state religion. Though the forms

3/ See The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. 7, I and J, Chicago and Gliickstadt, I960,' where the seventh meaning of ilu 'god'is 'image of a deity*.

126 W. G. Lambert

of worship were of course on a much humbler scale, at the nitch at home, or at the street corner shrine, the personal names of workers generally attest the same gods as are known from the city pantheons. In certain cases, however, there is reason to hold that some of these personal names were of north Mesopotamian origin, and attest to forms of religion there, where the Sumerian system did not reach.

The first noteworthy matter from this material is that the concept of the gods as aspects of nature extends where it does not in official Sumero-Babylonian religion. The Sumerian Iškur, Babylonian Adad, as god of the storm took in the winds as well, but in a series of Babylonian incantations for driving away agricultural pests there is a sequence of seven, all very similar in content, one each to: Marduk, Ninurta, Adad, the South Wind, the North Wind, the East Wind and the West Wind. The first three are major gods in the Sumero- Babylonian pantheon, but there seems to be no evidence for cults to the four winds either individually or collectively. However, these incantations treat each wind in the same way that the three major gods were treated, e.g. :

I am the exorcist of Ea [and, Asalluhi] : I call you, I invite you ! This day I have arranged a holy offering for you, I present an

[oblation before you. . ., I give a gift as befits a god [. . .] A silver stag, a [golden] deer [(...)] Accept (these), О East Wind that makes the Hood pass, Eat the good food, drink [the sweet beer], Get rid of the big dogs of Ninkilim4.

Other exorcistic material covers both winds and other parts of the world:

Be exorcised by the seven winds, by the four (world) regions, Be exorcised by silent night and bright day, Be exorcised by shrines, sanctuaries, lands, cities, mountains,

seas and the great rivers5.

4. Unpublished material identified by the writer and being prepared for publication by A. R. George.

5. The writer in Iraq, 45 (1983), p. 85.

Ancient Mesopotamian gods < 127.

This is Sumerian;. and iť reflects the Sumerian view that the gods planned i the -whole universe as including civilized man, so that canals are as muchspart of. this world as rivers; and cities as much as mountains. .The distinction» we make ■ between phenomena^ of Í nature, such* as rivers, and i human; products, such as canals, was not part of their thinking. These lines follow along list or such lines beginning "Be exorcised by!' but1 with the official' pantheomlisted: Thus, though'last, these winds etc. are conceived' as gods with' divine power as much'as the preceding named1! deities of the city cults. Three of these categories merit individual attention. First, rivers as divine beings occur in the exorcistic tradition of •; Sumer and * Babylon, note in additionna section which lists four constellations, then; seven rivers- beginning "Tigris,. Euphrates"6." However, cults to even these two are not so far as the writer knows attested: in southern- Iraq, but. upstream evidence exists. At Ebla, south of Aleppo in Syria; the court c. 2500 вс arranged offerings to a variety of gods including the Balikh; the tributary of the Euphrates7, and1 in ; Mari; on ; the ■ middle Euphrates, . there is similarly a . roughly contemporary, document recording offerings to the Euphrates along with 4 other gods8. Rivers occur as the theophorous- element impersonal names rarely in the third and second millennia вс throughout Mesopotamia, but then seem to die out. From this evidence it may i be : suspected that . rivers were gods - in prehistoric times, but. gradually/ ceased, to be in; historical- periods. Mountains are - similar.. Assyria arose - from ~, the town . Aššur, which was situated on a conspicuous hill," and its tutelary god- bore- the same: name Aššur.. In- this case attributes from other, deities ? were borrowed so that ; the numinous hill duly : became a state god comparable to others.. But , in other cases mountains such as; Nimush,. Ebeh and. Dipar. are known ̂ as

6: adrt;.v, 57, 23-25.. 7. G. Pettinato, Oriens Antiqvvs, 18 (1979), p. 103. 8. . D. . Charpin, Mari, Annales de recherches ; interdisciplinaires, . 5 ( 1987),

p. 72, ii 5.

128' W. G. Lambert

gods only im personal mames, .and; not later í than* the second, millennium.9 In •; the , flat - plain of Sumer such ; deities did not .. of v. course occur. With temples and cities the origins were of course entirely different despite the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, andi we may suspect a. totally, distinct origin; of their conception: as gods. , Here the evidence is ; from southern Mesopotamia. Hymns to temples- and cities were a genre of Sumerian and Babylonian literature, and there is clear proof that the divinity of the deity was seemto have spread^ to temple, city and • accoutrements. Quite at random^ one may quote ■ an : offering list from * Sumer:

lílamb, the godEnliH 1 lamb, Hursaggalamma (the ziggurat of Enlilat Nippur) 1 lamb, the throne of;Enlil.10i

Here the throne of the* god receives exactly the same offering as the god himself! Complementary, evidence comes from> myths кг which implements of gods are fully deified and- talk with their masters. In the Sumerian Lugal.e the hero of the tale, the god '• Ninurta, converses at length1: with his weapon the god * Sharur. n In the Babylonian - Erra Myth? the god l Erra ■■, has a vizier whose origin is given ; away by his Sumerian name, Hendursanga, "Prime Sceptre", and^he also has a 'set of'weapons withïwhom he converses.12 The most striking example occurs with the town Lagash, whose patron ■ pair, the god'Ningirsu and his spouse Baba, had; two sons:: Shulshagana: ("the1 young man- of. his heart") and? Igalirna; ("aurochs-door"). The latter philologically. refers to a* particular type of gateway, and as a divine name is paralleled ; in; other gods:: Iggalla* ("big door"), Igkuga? ("holy door"),, Iglulim- ("stag door"). Gateways in temples were cultically

9. The writer, Iraq, 45 (1983), p. 84... 10. S. T. Kang, Sumerian economic texts from the Drehem archive, I, Urbana, ,

1972, p. 174 11. 18-20. 11. J. J. A. Van Dijk, Lugal ud me-lám-Ы nir-gál, I, Leiden, 1983, p. 54 IT. 12. L. Cagni, L'Epopea di Erra (Studi Semitici, 34), Rome, 1969, p. 59 ft*.

Ancient Mesnpotamian gods 129

often of great importance, and these gateways could be deified, even to the extent of becoming the children of the divine owner of the temple. All this evidence points in the same direction. The aura of a god in his temple could so attach itself to the temple, or architectural parts of it in particular, also to implements he used, and to the city which housed the temple, in such a way that these various things also became gods and received offerings as a mark of the fact.

A final category of gods consists of various monsters and composite creatures, usually inferior in terms of divine precedence. Some of them are involved with the major gods of the pantheon by having been defeated in time past. Others are servants of major gods, while some were respectable gods in their own right, but little worshipped for one reason or another. Perhaps the best known is the lion-headed eagle, Imdugud in Sumerian, Anzû in Akkadian, who stole the Tablet of Destinies from Enlil, and was eventually defeated and killed by Ningirsu/Ninurta, who duly returned the power- giving tablet to his father Enlil.13 All creatures of this kind were gods by the ancient xMesopotamian use of words.

To sum up, the basis of the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon was the deification of parts and aspects of nature as then perceived and understood. This raw material of a pantheon was then subjected to organization by the theologians, who wanted to spread the cults around the Sumerian towns so that each major deity was city patron somewhere. These deities were also conceived as having personality of a very human kind, and over the millennia their relative statuses became a matter of great importance in ancient religion, usually due to the political power of their supporters. Gods not taken into this system, but aspects of nature and of other

13. B. Hruška, Der Mylhenadler Anzu in Literatur und Vorstellung des alien Mesopolamien, Budapest, 1975 ; П. Labat, Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique, Paris, 1970, p. 80 IT.

130 W. G. Lambert

categories, such as would be called "demons" in some religions, also existed, and these were worked into the fringes of the official pantheon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Note : unexplained abbreviations in this article refer to matter in cuneiform, for which knowledge of cuneiform is required. They can be found in The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. 1). Bottéro, J., La religion babylonienne, Paris, 1952. Jacobsen, T., The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopolamian

Religion, New Haven and London, 1976. Lambert, W. G., The historical development of the Mesopotamian

pantheon : A study in sophisticated polytheism, in Unity and Diversity (eds. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts), Baltimore and London, 1975, p. 191 fT.