ODN (Optical Distribution Network)

Already in the third millennium B.C.E., Sumerian scribes began compiling and organizing the names of their gods into lexical lists. As with other Sumerian and Akkadian lexical traditions, the purpose behind the lexical god-list was both to impose order on the complexities within the Sumerian pantheon and to preserve the names of those lower-tiered deities whose names might have been lost due to their increasing insignificance. Chiefly, according to J. Bottéro, the god-lists serve to transform “a large more or less disordered and confused group” of deities into a logical and ordered hierarchy.5 The hierarchy found within the earliest known god-lists, the Fara god-lists, resembles those of later god-lists whose own local traditions are independent of the Fara lists. These resemblances demonstrate to Litke that the lexical god-list tradition was an important tool for the Mesopotamian scribe to understand the divine world.6 Furthermore,

5 _{Bottéro 2001, 48.} 6 _{Litke 1998, 2.}

this stability amongst the rankings has indicated to Assyriologists the reliability of the divine hierarchy and has allowed them to confidently discern these rankings elsewhere in Mesopotamian literature, be it in a cultic, political, or intellectual situation.

By preserving the names of the lesser gods for future generations of scribes, the god-lists function in the same manner as hard-word lists, practical reference works or thesauri for scribes who speak a different language (i.e., Akkadian instead of Sumerian) or those who speak the same language but whose vocabulary has changed significantly over the centuries. Indeed, that many divine names are only known today through these lexical gods lists stands as a testimony to the god-lists’ role as a preservation tactic.7 However, the possibility that many of the divine names in the Fara and other god-list traditions are otherwise unknown may also point to another aspect of the lexical or treatise tradition, specifically, that some entries have been created for the sole purpose of enhancing the list. Were this the case, these otherwise unknown or possibly new entries would resemble the extrapolated laws found in the various law collections, the

extrapolated omens found in omen collections, as well as the extrapolated dreams found in dream collections.8

The following collection of texts spans the third to the first millennia and provides insight into some aspects of Mesopotamian theological understanding. This collection includes: the Fara List, Weidner List, Nippur List, Genouillac List, An=Anum, An = Anu šaamēli, and a few other variant lists. Most of the following examination relies on the Old Babylonian period texts because they have survived in the best condition and because later lists often reiterate points already made through these texts.

7 _{W. G. Lambert notes that the high incidence of unfamiliar or obscure divine names in the Fara god-list} hinders modern attempts to discover all the organizational principals within the list (Lambert 1969, 474). 8 _{See Bottéro 1992, 169ff.}

a. The Fara God-Lists (ca. 2600)

The earliest texts of these lexical traditions are the Sumerian Fara lists from ancient Šuruppak. Three tablets (Deimel, Fara 2 1, 5, and 6) from the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2600) provide only divine names, whereas god-lists from later periods provides equivalences of divine names.9 Together, the Fara tablets provide over 500 divine names, of which only three are Semitic deities.10 In addition to the major deities, there are several local lower-level deities, gods otherwise unknown to us, and various deified nominaconcreta (e.g., names for wax, reed, and metal objects) that are accompanied by divine determinatives.11 Unfortunately, due to our incomplete

understanding of the cuneiform script of this early period, a full analysis of the list and its pantheon of the hundreds of divine names has not been completed.12

Despite our incomplete decipherment of the tablets, the legible material suggests that their format resembles subsequent god-lists in Mesopotamia: the content

arrangements are determined by both lexical and theological concerns, though the influence of the latter is minimal. Although we cannot determine the overall structure found throughout the Fara tablets, the beginning of the list does provide a theological hierarchy similar to modern speculations on the Sumerian pantheon: the senior gods appear first (i.e., Enlil, Inana, Enki, Nanna, and Utu), and their offspring appear later.

Unfortunately, any hierarchical ideals found within the Fara texts are lost after these first six entries, and the lexical nature of the Fara tradition becomes apparent.Of those deities listed between i 10 and vii 13 in our exemplar text Deimal Fara 2 1, those

9 _{Lambert 1969, 473.}

10 _{A. Deimel, DieInschriftenvonFaraII: SchultexteausFara (WVDOG 43; Osnabrück: Otto Zeller,} 1969); Bottéro 2001, 48. Bottéro does not indicate who these three Semitic deities are in the Fara lists. 11 _{Selz 1990, 115.}

12 _{Litke 1998, 2.}

entries whose readings are discernable begin with a divine determinative and the NIN- sign.13 According to Lambert, the Fara traditions represent a form of scribal exercises – a claim he bases on the widespread distribution of this lexical tradition that includes duplicates and variants from Ur, Uruk, and Tell Ṣalābiḥ – and are not dependent upon local cults’ offering-lists since these should differ from city to city though much more than the Fara god-lists do.14 Deimel also considers the Fara god-list traditions as scribal training texts, as indicated by the word “Schultexte” in the title of his book: Die

InschriftenvonFaraII: SchultexteausFara.

If Lambert and Deimel are correct, these texts do not represent any official religion of ancient Mesopotamia (as discussed in chapter 2), nor should they be

considered insights to the non-official religious traditions of the general population. They are, instead, the products of and exercises for a specific population learning how to write. Aside from the brief list of five or six deities at the beginning of Deimal Fara 2 1, the tablets lack a reflection of any significant divine hierarchy or any apparent sophisticated theological arrangement, and they fail to present knowledge of syncretistic tendencies between the Sumerian and Akkadian pantheons. Indeed, these exercises provide no theological reflection for the scribe in training, and even modern scholars can glean little theological meaning from the tablets.15

13 _{Presumably the broken lines, which comprise a scattered minority of the entries in this section, likewise} adhered to this d_{NIN- pattern. This logographic-based pattern is also attested with other signs in smaller} groupings throughout the remainder of the tablet. For example, d_{EN- begins each discernable entry in r. i 5-} 11, and viii 5 begins a series of four entries containing the sign UNUG as an element. In Deimal’s

interpretation of the list, l. 8 lacks an UNUG element (Deimel 1969, plate 2) 14 _{Lambert 1969, 473.}

15 _{One notable theological idea that can be gleaned from the Fara god-list traditions is the possibility that} the deity An has lost his position as the head of the Sumerian pantheon. An’s loss is indicated by the fact that his name does not appear at the beginning of the text so that Enlil’s is the first name listed (Litke 1998, 2)

b. Old Babylonian Lexical Lists

No genetic relationship exists between the Fara lists and those from the Old Babylonian periods, but like the Fara tablets these newer lists lack explicit explanations, supplying instead a simple series of divine names. Lambert and Litke each date the so- called Nippur List, known as such because of its provenance, to the Old Babylonian period.16 According to T. Richter, this list tradition comprises three different main tablet and two fragments (SLT 122-124 and 117 and 125), which comprise approximately 270 divine names.17 The Nippur List begins with the high gods – An, Antu, Enlil (i 1-4; see Table 5.1) – and continues, according to Lambert, along a theological basis, but it occasionally organizes entries according to the logograms used in the divine names.18 If we interpret ll. 8-12 and 54-62 (see Table 5.1) as evidence for the identification of these divine names with the first goddess mentioned in each block, Ninḫursag and Inana, respectively, then these blocks have been arranged both theologically and according to the logograms.19 Like the Fara tablets, the Nippur List should not be relied upon as a primary document of Mesopotamian religion but as a document for understanding lexicographical organization and scribal education.20

16 _{Lambert 1969, 474; Litke 1998, 2. This later date differs slightly from C. F. Jean’s original dating to the} late third millennium (C. F. Jean, “Noms divins sumériens listes des Élèves-scribes de Nippur du 3e millénaire environ avant J.-C.,” RA 28 [1931]: 179).

17 _{Richter 2004, 16; Lambert 1969, 474. Approximately sixty percent of the divine names are extant in STL} 122’s seven columns. Peterson describes the current state of SLT 117, 122-124, and 125, and other

fragments, including the number of extant columns and the text’s layout (Peterson 2009, 10-13). 18 _{Lambert 1969, 474; Jean 1931, 182.}

19 _{The divine names in ll. 8-12 all begin with} d_{NIN, while those in ll. 54-62 all begin with} d_{INANA. The} longest extant chain based upon divine names that begin with the same logogram occurs in a series of d_{LUGAL divine names (ll. 124-143 in Peterson’s reconstruction [Peterson 2009, 15]), and another} d_NIN- series appears in ll. 169-180. Along with several shorter series, including those with two or three entries featuring a common logogram (e.g., ll. 188-189, 190-191, and 203-204), roughly a third of the entries in STL 122 reflect a lexical rather than theological arrangement.

20 _{Like its contemporaries, the Old Babylonian period Proto-Diri list that has been published (OECT 4 no.} 153 col. V) is a “simple string of names” (Lambert 1969, 474); however, according to Lambert, one

E. Weidner dated the earliest known copies of his now namesake god-list to the Ur III and the Isin-Larsa periods, but variants and fragments of later copies of the list continue into the late Assyrian and late Babylonian periods.21 Most of the copies (i.e., the early fragments, the Late Babylonian copies, and the Assyrian fragments KAV 62 and 65) simply arrange the divine names in sequence, but the Assyrian KAV 63 was expanded into a double sub-column work – the first sub-column provides the divine name, and the second provides an explanation of the name or an epithet.22 Weidner’s reconstruction of the list begins with Anu (and his consort Antu) and Enlil (and his consort Mullissu), then includes Nusku, Gibil, Sîn and their respective consorts as members of Enlil’s entourage. Following Sîn’s divine names, a short inventory of his own entourage – his consort, his viziers, and his offspring and their extended courts – is listed (see Tables 5.2 and 5.2a).23

Lambert notes that the Weidner god-list’s arrangement is difficult to understand both because of our ignorance concerning many of the minor deities listed and the possibility that the god-list is actually an ancient compilation of numerous smaller lists.24 The treatment of the sun-god in ii 3 in Weidner’s edition of the god-list serves as an example of the unusual arrangement. Šamaš first appears in ii 3 with his consort Aya and his entourage, but his name then reappears in iii 28 as the explanation for the divine name

unpublished recension contains about 100 names. There are some theological bases to the ordering, but most of the grouping is done for lexical reasons.

21 _{E. F. Weidner, “Altbabylonische Götterlisten,” AfK 2 (1924-1925): 2; Peterson 2009, 81.}

22 _{Two additional tablets, KAV 46 and 47, have expanded the tradition into five sub-columns: the first} provides the pronunciation of the divine name; sub-column two gives the standard spelling of the divine name; sub-column three provides the names of the signs that comprise the divine name in sub-column two; sub-column four provides an epithet or explanation of the divine name; and the last is barely extant, so its purpose is unknown (Lambert 1969, 474).

23 _{Weidner 1924-1925, 9-10. The logic behind the sequence of names in columns ii-iii of his restoration is} more difficult to recognize than is the sequence of column i (see pp. 11-18; see also Table 5.2).

24 _{Lambert 1969, 474.}

Pa.25 Between these two occurrences are several extended series of divine names, including a unit focusing on the gods Ninurta (and his consort Gula; ii 6-22), a unit focusing on Ea and his entourage (ii 23-iii 5), and a unit focsing on Nergal (iii 11-24). To further complicate the organization, Enki and his entourage, which includes Marduk, Nabû, and their consorts, are sandwiched between the Ninurta series and a Nergal series.26 This haphazard arrangement may not reflect any organizing principal at all, which makes drawing any new theological conclusions drawn from the Weidner List difficult.

Even later copies, such as KAV 46 and 47, lack obvious organizational patterns despite their multiple sub-columns; however, they at least provide theological reflections within a line with their explanations and epithets. The scribe who read or copied this list would not have readily discerned all the relationships between and among the deities, but he likely would have learned specific concepts about specific deities within a given entry. That the Weidner List eventually served as a pedagogic exercise for ancient scribes is indicated by two fragments that appear on tablets with Syllabary A.27 However, even as a pedagogic god-list in its final, late, expanded form, the value of the Weidner List as a primary document for reconstructing Mesopotamian religion – especially for the earlier periods – is questionable.

The Genouillac List (TCL 15 10) is the longest extant god-list from the Old Babylonian period with a simple series of divine names,28 consisting of 473 names in ten columns. The list is arranged theologically, and H. de Genouillac has divided it into 15

25 _{Weidner 1924-1925, 18.}

26 _{Such an interruption in Ninurta and Nergal identifications should serve as a hint to scholars that Ninurta} and Nergal are not the same deity in many circles.

27 _{Lambert 1969, 474.} 28 _{Peterson 2009, 79.}

sections (see Table 5.3).29 Unlike the other lists, this god-list’s arrangement is overtly theological. It begins with Enki and his consort Ninki (i 1-2); traces fourteen generations to the appearance of Anu (l. 30), providing his theogony; and then traces Enlil’s

theogony, which concludes with the presentation of Enlil and his court (i 37-ii 12). The unexpected, and somewhat unorthodox, introduction of Enki at the beginning of the list – as well as the resumption of his entourage (ii 27-39) between those of Ninurta (ii 13-35) and Marduk (ii 40-iii 14) – has prompted Lambert to suggest that the material in i 1-29 has been affixed as a prologue by a compiler who could find no better location for the material.30 Other than the introductory material, Anu does not appear in the Genouillac List, whereas Enlil’s entourage appears in iii 34-iv 4, beginning with his vizier Nusku.

Unlike the other early god-lists, the Genouillac List’s arrangement not only provides the relationships between and among deities but also does so in a relatively straightforward manner. For example, Ea’s court (ii 27-39) precedes his son Marduk’s, which includes his son Nabû (ii 40-iii 14). Since Marduk precedes Nabû, this suggests that Marduk outranks Nabû, which may be expected from their intergenerational

relationship. The son is subordinate to the father, as are the rest of the father’s entourage. Likewise, since Ea’s entourage precedes Marduk’s entourage, the father Ea outranks the son Marduk. Presumably Marduk owns a higher status than the other members of his father’s entourage since he himself is accompanied by an entourage31; however, the

29 _{H. de Genouillac, “Grande liste de noms divins sumériens,” RA 20 (1923): 96. The names Genouillac} provides for the groups are as follows: Enki, Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Enki’s court, Marduk, Nabû, [Belit-ilī], Nusku, Sîn, Šamaš, Adad, Ištar along with her servants, paramours, Dumuzi, Nisaba, and Nergal. 30 _{Lambert 1969, 475. However, these 29 lines do not exalt Enki inasmuch as they serve here to} demonstrate Enlil’s descent from An, and yet they exalt Enlil above his father. This exaltation is further emphasized by the number of lines spent on each of the two deities.

31 _{However, this conclusion need not be drawn at this time. Likewise, Nabû’s lack of an entourage in this} list highlights his own lower tiered status, though, again, conclusions comparing his status against specific individual gods in Marduk’s entourage are unwarranted for this list.

relative rank among the gods beyond these filial relationships is more complicated to determine with confidence. One must consider how status of individual members of one entourage compares with those deities who are important enough to have their own entourages but who appear later in the list. The Genouillac List indicates that An, Enlil, Enki, and Bēlet-ilī each outrank Sîn, Šamaš, Adad, and Ištar in the Old Babylonian pantheon since the former appear before the latter. The list does not indicate, however, where Ninurta, Marduk, and Nabû (all appearing within the entourages Enlil and Enki) rank against Sîn and the others are are listed after them. This problem is also common to the Weidner god-list (see Table 5.2a).

A scribe reading or copying the Genouillac List could derive many theological implications from this text. Indeed, portions of the Genouillac List ultimately served as models for the largest and most complicated of all Mesopotamian god-lists, An=Anum,32 which demonstrates that later scribes did, in fact, used the Genouillac List for theological speculation. Not all the units appear in the same order, but there are parallel collections of deities between the two lists. The Genouillac List itself may not be a primary source for uncovering Mesopotamian religion, and it produces as many theological questions as it presents answers, but it is the ancestor of one god-list that many Assyriologists consider

the primary source for uncovering Mesopotamian religion. Moreover, this new god-list provides the relative status of and equations of various deities for Assyriologists.

32 _{Litke 1998, 3; Peterson 2009, 79. Peterson notes that ll. 276-280 and 349-356 of An=Anum were direct} descendants of TCL 15 10.

c. The An = Anum God-List

The six tablet collection An=Anum,33 which in later tradition developed a seventh tablet, is likely an attempt to “codify the numerous traditional god names so far as possible in accordance with the existing religious status quo.”34 In this light, not only does An=Anum become the pinnacle achievement of the lexical god-list tradition in Mesopotamia, it also becomes the primary document of the Mesopotamian divine world as recorded by the elite. Lambert’s statement either wholly disregards the potential distinction between the theological speculations of the elite scribal class and the everyday realities of the common, illiterate Mesopotamian who had restricted access to the cult and no access to these tablets, or it suggests to the modern scholar that this series is at least as much proscriptive of Mesopotamian religions as it is descriptive. Perhaps it does both equally. Admittedly, Lambert wrote the above statement over 30 years ago, before scholars were as aware and as conscientious as they are today about the differences between family, state, and cultic religions (see chapter 2); however, since 1975, this statement – or at least the article wherein it appears – has been highly influential in studies of and is often cited in discussion about the hierarchical organization of the