Burn your way to success

Studies in the Mesopotamian Ritual and Incantation Series Šurpu

by

Francis James Michael Simons

A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology

School of History and Cultures

College of Arts and Law

University of Birmingham

March 2017
 University of Birmingham Research Archive
e-theses repository

This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third

parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect
of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or
as modified by any successor legislation.

Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in

accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further
distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission
of the copyright holder.
 Abstract

The ritual and incantation series Šurpu ‘Burning’ is one of the most important sources for
understanding religious and magical practice in the ancient Near East. The purpose of the ritual was
to rid a sufferer of a divine curse which had been inflicted due to personal misconduct. The series is
composed chiefly of the text of the incantations recited during the ceremony. These are supplemented
by brief ritual instructions as well as a ritual tablet which details the ceremony in full.
This thesis offers a comprehensive and radical reconstruction of the entire text, demonstrating the
existence of a large, and previously unsuspected, lacuna in the published version. In addition, a single
tablet, tablet IX, from the ten which comprise the series is fully edited, with partitur transliteration,
eclectic and normalised text, translation, and a detailed line by line commentary.
 Dedicated to my mum, Lesley, who has read the whole thing
despite the lack of murders.
Also, to Laura and Ben, without whom I’d have starved to death
5 years ago.
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to several people who have offered assistance during the writing
of this thesis. Two people must be singled (doubled?) out. Henry Stadhouders and Elyze Zomer have
put up with dozens of (often stupid) e-mails and skype messages a day with complete equanimity.
They have offered consistent and continuous support over a period of several years. Their help has
been of inestimable value in solving the problems of Šurpu.

I am very grateful to the denizens of the British Museum tablet room. In particular, I should like to
thank Christopher Walker, who drew my attention to BM 33636 and BM 33584, and John Taylor who
has provided photos and collations when I could not make it to the museum.

A vast swathe of the Assyriological community has received e-mails and questions from me since I
started writing. Anybody generous (or foolish) enough to respond positively usually received a dozen
follow-up questions or a large chunk of writing and a request for their thoughts. I am very grateful to
all of them for their help: Hannelore Agnetheler, Odette Boivin, Jay Crisostomo, Jeanette Fincke,
Enrique Jiménez, Evelyne Koubkova, Mikko Luukko, Stefan Maul, Daniel Schwemer, Selena
Wisnom and Martin Worthington

I am also indebted to Kate Kelley for first suggesting, then enforcing, a writing pact which ensured
that rather than frittering days away, actual words appeared. This has been particularly valuable over
the final few weeks.

My thanks are due to the assyriological staff and students of Julius-Maximiliens Universität,
Würzburg, in particular Mikko Luukko, who made me very comfortable for several days in their
marvellous library.

Finally, there is absolutely no chance that this thesis would exist were it not for the constant and
unwavering support of Birgit Haskamp and Dr Alasdair Livingstone. My first knowledge of the
ancient Near East came from them, as did my earliest training in Akkadian and Sumerian. They saved
me from Egyptology, suggested the topic of this thesis and followed the progress of my research,
often with more interest than I had for it. I owe them a very great debt.
 Table of Contents
Introduction 1-6

History of research 2-5

Structure of thesis 6

Chapter 1 - A Proposal for the Reconstruction of Šurpu 7-23

Tablet I 7-8

Tablet V-VI 8

Tablet V-VI exploded 8-9

Tablet VIII restored 9

Evidence of the catalogues 9-14

Tablet VIII 14-17

Place of tablet VIII in Šurpu 17-20

Subscript of IX explained 20-21

Conclusion 21-22

Comparison of recensions 22-23

Chapter 2 - Tablet IX 24-55

Edition 28-55

Sigla 28

Partitur 29-45

Eclectic text, normalisation and facing translation 46-55

Chapter 3 - Line-by-line commentary 56-116

Kultgötterbeschwörung 56-91

List of māmītu 99-113

Washing ritual 114-116

Excursus – Kusu 117-137

Conclusion 138

Bibliography 139-147
 List of Tables
Table 1 Incantations of Recension β 10-11
Table 2 Incipits of Reiner’s text and Recension α 12
Table 3 Tablet VIII Incantations 14
Table 4 Recension α 21
Table 5 Šurpu 22
Table 6 Šurpu IX Sigla 28
Table 7 Feast Gods 125
Table 8 Feast Gods redux 127
 Introduction

The ritual and incantation series Šurpu ‘Burning’, at over a thousand lines, is the longest and most detailed
Mesopotamian composition to deal with assuagement of divine displeasure. The text consists of dozens of
incantations, spread over 10 Tablets,1 which were recited with ritual accompaniment during an elaborate
ceremony. The majority of the incantations are written in Akkadian, though some also feature interlinear
Sumerian translations, and the final tablet of the series is written entirely in Sumerian. The ceremony involved
four distinct stages, the first two and the last of which have been known since Zimmern’s 1896 editio princeps
of the text, while the third is presented here for the first time, having been newly discovered during the course of
the present research. The first stage consisted of the recitation of several extensive lists of offences that may
have been committed to incur divine sanction, coupled with a plea that the sanction be removed. The second
stage was the eponymous burning ritual, in which the patient’s offences were likened to various materials that
were then burnt, symbolising the destruction of the patient’s problems and thereby removing them in an act of
sympathetic magic. The third stage is unfortunately poorly preserved but seems to have consisted of various
acts of magical transference in which the patient’s problems were passed into objects and locations and then
absorbed, either by other people, by animals, or into the earth. The final stage of the ceremony, re-edited in
chapter 2, involved the invocation of an extensive list of divine figures and a re-enumeration of some of the sins
listed in the first stage, followed by a ritual purification using sanctified water. This is followed by a Tablet of
Kultmittelbeschwörungen, a type of incantation designed to enhance the ritual efficacy of objects, such as
juniper and water, used during the ceremony.

Approximately 170 tablets and fragments of Šurpu are extant, over 100 of which were found in the 19th century
excavations of Aššurbanipal’s library at Nineveh. Outside of Nineveh, fragments have been found at practically
every major literary centre in Mesopotamia, as well as at some smaller sites. Manuscripts have so far been
found at Aššur, Babylon, Kish, Khorsabad, Nimrud, Sippar, Sultantepe, Ur and Uruk. No Šurpu tablet so far
discovered dates to earlier than the first millennium BC, though a small selection of the text is known from
earlier copies. A Middle Babylonian sammeltafel (compilation tablet) from Aššur (KAR 226) containing an
assortment of anti-witchcraft incantations includes an early form of an incantation belonging to the newly
discovered tablet discussed in chapter 1.2 Many of the Kultmittelbeschwörungen from the final tablet have been
found on Old Babylonian tablets.3 There is no manuscript evidence, however, that Šurpu existed before the first
millennium – the incantatations found on sammeltafel are in a clearly distinct context and their contents differ
substantially from the established text of the series, while the Kultmittelbeschwörungen are common to many
ritual and incantation texts. Reiner has argued that Šurpu was a Middle Babylonian composition, based in part
on the existence of Old Babylonian copies of the Kultmittelbeschwörungen, but chiefly on the widely held
understanding that the major works of Mesopotamian literature were first canonised during the Kassite period.4
It is impossible, given the currently known exemplars, however, to give more than a terminus ante quem for the

1
‘Tablets’ in this sense refers not to individual lumps of clay, but rather to discrete sections of the text roughly comparable to chapters. In
this thesis, wherever the individual manuscripts are meant rather than the chapters, ‘tablets’ is left uncapitalised. All Tablet numbers used in
this introduction are those of the revised numbering presented in chapter 1 below.
2
Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 157-166.
3
e.g. Ist Ni 2399, Falkenstein 1931: 99-100.
4
Reiner 1958: 2.

Page 1 of 147
date of composition. The Khorsabad and Sultantepe tablets are likely the earliest manuscripts, dating to c. 700
BC.

The basic features of this type of magic are cleaning or purification, and prayer. These are supplemented,
depending on the purpose of the text, by a variety of ritual actions including burning incense, making and
burying clay figures, rubbing the subject with flour, and tying and untying knots. Ankarloo and Clark point out
that these actions were not simply symbolic as we now see them. To the Mesopotamians, ritual purification by
water was as ‘real and effective [as] the physical cleaning process of taking a shower is to us’. 5 These ritual
actions were believed to have actual, tangible effects. Demons were physically removed ‘through an effective
incantation – the word of Ea.’6 Witchcraft was effectively countered by burning and burying figurines. 7 To the
Mesopotamian mind, these ritual actions were the best defence against a host of mysterious problems, and
performing them was considered no more superstitious than visiting a doctor is today.

Šurpu is very closely connected to a number of other ritual and incantation series. It has been generally
understood that the foremost of these was Maqlû, ‘Incineration.’ While the two bear certain similarities,
however, there are vast differences in tone and intent. Maqlû is aimed at undoing the machinations of a human
agent – a witch or sorceress. Šurpu is concerned only with the relationship between the patient and the gods.
While it addresses many gods, Maqlû is fundamentally concerned with influencing the decision of Šamaš, the
sun god, against the witch. Depending on the recension, Šurpu either addresses as many gods as possible, or is
directed towards Marduk – in either case, Šamaš is not an especially important figure. This is perfectly logical
as the sun god was the arbiter of justice – witchcraft is unjust (not to mention illegal) and therefore his role as
judge compels him to act. This is not the case for Šurpu, in which the problem is the anger of a god or gods –
there is no question here of injustice, except insofar as the patient himself may have committed a crime against
the gods. To appeal to Šamaš would be fruitless unless one could be sure that Šamaš was the god responsible
for the punishment – far better to hedge one’s bets and beseech as many gods as possible or to address the
unparalleled king of the gods, Marduk.

History of Research
The earliest publication of any part of Šurpu,8 though not recognised as belonging to the series until much more
recently, is a partial translation of an incantation belonging to Tablet I9 by George Smith in an 1870 issue of the
North Britain Review.10 Smith presumably found the incantation during his work on the first edition of the
fourth volume of Rawlinson’s Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (conventionally abbreviated to IV R1),
published in 1875, in which cuneiform composites of 14 fragments from Tablets I, II, V, VI and VII appear.11

5
Ankarloo and Clark 2001: xiii.
6
Geller 2007: 198.
7
Thomsen 2001: 13.
8
Excluding K. 4320, an ancient commentary on Šurpu and an as yet unidentified medical text. This first appeared in copy in II R
(Rawlinson 1866: Pl. 35, 1), and subsequently two more copies were published by Langdon (1913-1923: Pl. 8 & 1931: 124-126, 134).
Langdon’s first publication identifies the tablet as a Šurpu commentary but makes no other mention of it. The remainder of the article deals
with word lists and K. 4320 is presumably included simply on the basis of its description in II R as a ‘bilingual list’ (Rawlinson 1866: 7). In
his second publication he gives an edition of the text and identifies the lines of Šurpu with which the commentary deals.
9
This was first recognised as belonging to Šurpu by Reiner who published the text and several duplicates as as ‘Appendix’ (Reiner 1958:
52-53).
10
Smith 1870: 162. Bezold (1889: xvii) is mistaken in stating that the article is to be found on page 305ff.
11
Rawlinson 1875: Pls. 7, 8, 14.2, 19.1, 58 and 59.

Page 2 of 147
In the second edition of this work, published in 1891, improved versions of these composite texts appear, with 5
additional fragments included, and Tablets II, V, VI and VII are explicitly identified as Šurpu.12 Tablet I was
still not recognised as belonging to the series as its subscript is broken off. The publication of the texts in IV R,
as well as the continuing progress of Bezold’s catalogue of the Kouyunjik collection, sparked a flurry of work
on Šurpu. Bezold, Delitszch, Haupt, Halévy, 13 Lenormant, Oppert, Sayce, George Smith, Samuel Smith, and
Talbot, all contributed partial translations, transliterations and copies of Šurpu tablets throughout the 1870s and
1880s.14 More substantially, in 1884 Peter Jensen published, in Latin, a full edition with transliteration,
translation and commentary of Tablets V and VI.15 This was followed by a lengthy article, also in Latin,
expanding on his commentary,16 and three further supplements in German.17
All of this early work was superseded in 1896 when Heinrich Zimmern published the first full edition of the
series in the first instalment of his Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion.18 This work made use of
44 tablets and fragments, comprising a tolerably complete version of Tablets II-VII and IX-X.19 In 1901,
Zimmern published an updated edition, including 7 additional fragments 20 and making corrections suggested in
several reviews of the first edition, notably that of King.21 Understandably, Zimmern does not make any
mention of Craig’s comments on his work. In a heartfelt (and lengthy) rebuttal of Zimmern’s and Jensen’s
reviews of his own work, Craig says of Zimmern:
‘Prof. ZIMMERN has had some experience, but a very limited experience in this kind of work.
The sum total of his contribution to textual work amounts to not much more than a score of
pages, viz. 18 pages of the Šurpu texts which are among the easiest, if they are not altogether
the easiest, in the British Museum, and a few additional pages in the Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie.’22
Craig’s comments notwithstanding, Zimmern’s work was the standard edition of Šurpu for over 50 years.
Zimmern subsequently published further fragments as they were discovered,23 and King, in his supplement to
Bezold’s Kouyunjik catalogue, published the cuneiform text of several additional fragments. 24 In 1919, Ebeling
published Keilschrifttext aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts (KAR), a collection of copies of religious tablets and
fragments unearthed during the German excavations of Aššur, which included copies of 17 Šurpu tablets,
though two of these were not recognised as belonging to the series. 25
No more work on Šurpu was published until the 1950s, when a glut of publications appeared. In 1951,
Weidner published a 10 line note alerting the scholarly community to the existence of a new fragment of Šurpu

12
Rawlinson 1891: Pls 7, 8, 14.2, 19.1, 51 and 52. Note that K. 4632 and K. 5123 mentioned in the contents page of this volume as being
additions to 19.1 are from Utukkū Lemnūtu (Geller 2016: 133), not Šurpu. This is acknowledged by Pinches and it is not clear why they are
included.
13
Halévy (1882: passim) published transliterations of several Šurpu tablets into Hebrew characters. See Bezold (1889-1896) for details.
14
See Bezold 1889-1896 for the details of these publications.
15
Jensen 1884.
16
Jensen 1885a.
17
Jensen 1885b, 1885c and 1886.
18
Zimmern 1896: ix & 1-80.
19
While Zimmern’s edition certainly superseded all earlier work on the series, he missed at least one duplicate known at the time. In 1893,
Pinches had quoted extracts of a duplicate to K. 2866 without mentioning its tablet number (Pinches 1893: 193-194). He quoted further
extracts in a second article published 11 years later (Pinches 1904: 53-54). The duplicate has since been identified by Lambert (unpublished
note) as BM 76211. It is edited below (Chapter 3).
20
As well as 2 more, K 9422 and Rm.542 which are now known not to belong to Šurpu.
21
King 1897: 142-148.
22
Craig 1897: iii. Craig’s rebuttal extends to 5 pages
23
Zimmern 1914; Zimmern 1915-1916.
24
King 1914: passim.
25
Ebeling 1919: Nos. 30, 51, 67, 75, 89, 93, 133, 231, 232, 264, 270, 271, 273, 274 and 371. Nos. 165 and 78 are identified in chapter 1 of
the present work as belonging to Tablet VIII.

Page 3 of 147
IV, though he did not publish the tablet itself.26 Two years later, Ebeling produced Literarische
Keilschrifttexte aus Assur (LKA), another volume of copies from the German excavations at Aššur, including
the only known version of a Šurpu Ritual Tablet.27 In 1954 Köcher recopied 13 of the Aššur tablets and
presented a new edition of Tablet III from all sources, as well as editing the Aššur fragments of Tablet II. 28 In
1957 Knudsen published a Nimrud fragment of Tablet VII,29 and in the same year Gurney and Finkelstein
published the first volume of texts from the excavations at Sultantepe, including two manuscripts of Tablet
IV.30
These publications were all superseded in 1958 by the publication of Erica Reiner’s doctoral thesis - a new
edition of the entire series, including transliteration, translation and limited commentary.31 Reiner’s edition
made use of 94 tablets and fragments and represented a considerable advance over Zimmern’s earlier edition,
filling in the vast majority of lacunae and providing the first edition of the Ritual Tablet and of Tablet I.
Further work on Šurpu has been surprisingly infrequent considering the length of time that has elapsed since
Reiner’s edition. Apart from a lengthy and important review of her work by Frankena 32 and a brief note by
Lambert,33 the only improvements to the text before the turn of the century came from the autograph copies
published in various series of volumes containing texts from individual sites: three more tablets from
Sultantepe were published in 1966 in the second volume of texts from that site;34 six autograph copies of Late
Babylonian texts from Ur appeared in volumes 6/2 and 7 of Ur Excavation Texts;35 seven Late Babylonian
manuscripts discovered in the excavations of Uruk were published and edited by Hunger and von Weiher in
four volumes of Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk;36 a single tablet from Babylon was published by
Cavigneaux in Textes Scolaires du Temple de Nabû ša Ḫarê;37 in 1989 eight autograph copies of tablets and
fragments found in excavations at Kish were published by Gurney in volume 11 of Oxford Editions of
Cuneiform Texts.38
In 2000, two important works appeared. Gesche’s monumental Schulunterricht in Babylonien, in which a vast
array of school exercise tablets were identified, catalogued, copied, and edited for the first time.39 Gesche
identified 11 excerpts from Šurpu among her corpus and published 9 of them. Even more important, as far as
Šurpu is concerned, Borger produced a partitur edition of all Tablets of the series not to include any Sumerian
text.40 Over 100 tablets and fragments are edited in this work, despite the fact that just four Tablets are
included. As mentioned above, the total number of known exemplars of Šurpu now stands at around 170,
nearly twice the number known to Reiner. Unfortunately, Borger did not include any commentary, or even a

26
Weidner 1945-1951.
27
Ebeling 1953a: No. 91. The ritual tablet is discussed extensively in chapter 1, below.
28
Köcher 1954: 218-244.
29
Knudsen 1957.
30
Gurney and Finkelstein 1957: Nos. 84-85.
31
Reiner 1958.
32
Frankena 1960.
33
Lambert 1959-1960.
34
Gurney and Hulin 1964: nos. 142, 204 & 205.
35
Gadd and Kramer 1966: nos. 406-409; Gurney 1973: nos. 120 & 136.
36
Hunger 1976: no. 123; von Weiher 1983: nos. 13, 14 & 15; 1988: nos. 70 & 71; 1998: no. 242. The last of these belongs to Tablet VIII,
newly discovered in the present work. It is discussed in chapter 1 below.
37
Cavigneaux 1981: 177.
38
Gurney 1989: Nos 36-43. A further Kish tablet, a school exercise bearing 5 lines of Tablet 4, was published in a Materials for the
Sumerian Lexicon, Supplementary Series (MSL SS 1) by Gurney (1986: no. 88).
39
Gesche 2000.
40
Borger 2000. A partitur edition is one in which, for each line of text, every witness is fully transliterated and the resultant text laid out
diagrammatically. It takes its name from the German for a musical score as it resembles orchestral sheet music. An example of a partitur
edition is presented in chapter 2, below.

Page 4 of 147
translation, and so his work was in no real sense a new edition of the text. Since 2000, just two publications
with a bearing on Šurpu have appeared. In 2008, Linssen published a 6 page article consisting of 7 autograph
copies of previously unpublished tablets, though all but one of these had been edited in Borger’s partitur. 41 In
2016, the second volume of Abusch and Schwemer’s Corpus of Mesopotamian anti-Witchraft Rituals was
published, including the only edition of Tablet VIII so far published.42 This is discussed extensively in chapter
1, below.

Despite its relatively early and thorough publication, Šurpu has been something of a poor relation to Maqlû in
terms of serious study. Though often mentioned in the same breath, it has rarely been investigated with great
rigour. With certain notable exceptions, such as Bottéro’s article on the series43 and Geller’s articles dealing
with the concept of māmītu,44 generally speaking, very little use has been made of the text. This apparent
disinterest is due, at least in part, to the state of the text. Reiner’s edition, while very thorough and well done for
its time, suffers from several major drawbacks which have limited its use. In the first place, in common with
most work of the time, she does not include a partitur or autograph copies. As such it has been relatively
difficult to engage with the text beyond Reiner’s own understanding of it. Further, Reiner included only a very
brief commentary, which has meant that many of the substantial difficulties of the text were not addressed.
Such notes as she does include tend to focus on philology over content, which, while doubtless very important,
has not served to elucidate the meaning of the text.
Most fundamentally, however, despite Reiner and Linssen’s statements that the series is ‘almost complete,’ this
is not the case. Apart from small breaks which deprive us of the beginning or end of odd lines, there are three
substantial lacunae in Reiner’s edition of Šurpu:
 Tablet I is at best only about half preserved, so the opening phases of the ritual are still in part obscure.
 The sole known copy of the Ritual Tablet is broken halfway through, so we are unaware of the action of the
second half of the ceremony.
 Most problematic of all, Tablet VIII, in which the third stage of the ritual is carried out, is missing
altogether.
The final problem has been compounded by the belief that the series was essentially complete. The absence of
an entire tablet renders substantial chunks of the preserved text practically meaningless, and, because the text
has been thought of as complete, the meaningless sections have been ignored. Reiner herself speaks of the last
three tablets in her edition as having ‘defeated the purpose’ of Šurpu, and this belief has doubtless prevented
much serious engagement with the text. In fact, as this thesis will demonstrate, when the limitations of the
public sources are acknowledged, the entire text is meaningful and should be understood as a coherent and well-
organised ceremony.

41
Linssen 2008.
42
Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 157-166 (Text 8.20). It must be noted that this is not a full edition of Tablet VIII as it does not include all
known manuscripts. In fact, it is not primarily a publication of Šurpu but of KAR 226, a sammeltafel (compilation tablet) of anti-witchcraft
incantations. The Šurpu material is included only because it duplicates one of the incantations of KAR 226. The existence of this edition is
partly thanks to my own identification of SpTU V 242 (8.20, manuscript d) as a duplicate of K. 2467+ (8.20, manuscript A). This in turn led
to Greta van Buylaere’s identification of BM 38294 (8.20 manuscript e) as a further duplicate. BM 38294 had previously been edited
separately by Abusch and Schwemer, but without SpTU V 242 there was no reason to connect it to Text 8.20.
43
Bottéro 1976-177.
44
Geller 1980 and 1990.

Page 5 of 147
Structure of thesis
This thesis consists of two main sections – a reconstruction of the text as a whole (Chapter 1), and an edition
and commentary of a single Tablet from the series (Chapters 2-3 and Excursus).
Chapter 1 examines the structure and composition of the text as a whole, and as just mentioned, argues that the
series can only be understood if the idea that it is complete is abandoned. In this chapter, a new reconstruction
of the entire series is presented, including an investigation of what is known about the missing elements. In
addition, the recensional history of the text is examined leading to the discovery that there are three different
versions of the series reflected in the preserved sources. This is concluded with a brief examination of what can
be learnt from the differences between the various recensions of the text.
Chapter 2 consists of a full partitur edition of Tablet IX (Reiner’s Tablet VIII) based on first hand examination
of almost all manuscripts.45 This is accompanied by an eclectic text, a normalised text and an English
46
translation. This has led to the realisation that what has been generally understood as over a dozen extremely
short incantations followed by a repetitive list of māmītu is in fact a single long incantation with a fairly well-
defined structure.
This has facilitated the writing of chapter 3, a thorough line-by-line commentary on Tablet IX. In this I have
sought not only to explain the basic principles underlying the text, such as the nature of māmītu and the purpose
of what I have called the Kultgötterbeschwörung, but also to understand the thought behind the individual lines.
While this has not been possible in every case, the majority of the lines can be convincingly understood.
A lengthy excursus on the goddess Kusu, who is one of the deities listed in the Kultgötterbeschwörung, ends the
thesis. In this I have endeavoured to rationalise and simplify the apparent complexities surrounding this figure,
and in so doing, have demonstrated that the name represents a single purification goddess in almost every case.

45
All tablets held in the collections of the British Museum were examined at first hand. It was not possible to examine the three tablets held
in other collections - Ashm. 1924-2042, VAT 9726 and W. 22730/4. For the first of these, I made use of photos published on the CDLI
website. For the other two I have had to rely on autograph copies.
46
An eclectic text is an edited version of the text in which the best readings, as far as the editor can tell, are presented, but in which each
individual sign is written separately. As a partitur is included, there is no need to refer to variant readings. Normalisation is the next stage
in the editorial process, in which the various modern editorial marks, in particular the accents and subscript numbers which distinguish
different signs with the same phonetic reading, are discarded, logograms are replaced with the Akkadian words they represent, and length
and grammatical endings are added. This gives a text which is as close as possible to Akkadian as it would have been spoken. Thus ṭa-ba-
a-tú in the eclectic text becomes tābātu in normalisation.

Page 6 of 147
 Chapter 1
A proposal for the reconstruction of Šurpu
The numbering of the tablets in the canonical recension of Šurpu, as presented in Reiner’s edition, 47 presents
several problems. In the first place, Reiner’s Tablet I (the Ritual Tablet) manifestly is not Tablet I of Šurpu.
Reiner48 doubted this identification herself, as did Lambert, 49 and both suggested that Tablet I may in fact be
represented by a tablet she published as an appendix. In fact, as will be discussed below, the Ritual Tablet
belongs to a close, but slightly different recension of Šurpu. The Appendix Tablet, likewise, does not seem to
belong to the canonical version per se, but should nonetheless be understood as Tablet I.

Tablet I
This is evident from the Ritual Tablet, which specifically states the incantations which were to be recited first in
Šurpu – g á . e l ú . k ù . g a m e . e n ‘I am a pure man’, dBIL.GI NUN.ME k u r . r a í l ‘Gibil, sage, exalted in
the country’, í d . l ú . r u . g ú . g i n 7 m ú . m ú . d a . b i ‘River, which renews itself constantly’ and ašši GI.IZI.LÁ
puṭur lemnu ‘I hold the torch, release from the evil!’. The first of these is evidently a purification incantation to
be read by the officiating priest. It is also listed first in the Ritual Tablets to Ilī ul īdi50 and Muššu’u,51 but no
copy has yet been discovered. It should certainly be restored at the start of the Reiner’s Appendix, which
preserves the other three incantations along with brief ritual instructions. ‘Gibil, wise’ is a
Kultmittelbeschwörung to the deified fire, listing properties of the element such as ‘you are the one who refines
gold and silver, you are the one who brews beer’. It was to be recited as the torch was lit. ‘River, which
renews’ is a poetic description of the power of smoke to alleviate the patient’s suffering, to be recited while
fumigating the patient with smoke from the torch just lit. The final incantation, ‘I hold the torch’ encourages
Nusku, a god associated with fire and light and occasionally described as the father of Gibil, to help the patient.
It was presumably recited as the fire was lit, though the tablet containing ritual instructions is broken at this
point.52
Purification, both of the officiating priest or priests and the patient, and supplication to the fire gods when
lighting the ritual flame, are evidently necessary precursors to the main ceremony of Šurpu. As such, these
incantations must have comprised the first Tablet, though no labelled manuscripts survive. The text quoted in
Reiner’s appendix is unlikely to be Tablet I of the canonical series as it includes ritual instructions between the
incantations, which do not occur in the rest of the text. This creates a slight problem, as a fourth incantation is
preserved in the Appendix - a k ù . g a a n a m . š u b . b a ‘Pure water, water of the incantation’. This is a
Kultmittelbeschwörung to water, detailing its divine lineage, and was to be recited three times over the holy
water basin. It is likely that this would be necessary for the ceremony, and the Ritual Tablet mentions the
sprinkling of water, but we have no specific textual authority for the assumption.
The frequent mentions of māmītu in the text of the appendix incantations indicate that it could belong to a
version of Šurpu, though as these incantations could be fairly generally applied, the text might represent Tablet I

47
Reiner 1958.
48
Reiner 1958: 4.
49
Lambert 1959-1960: 122.
50
Lambert 1974.
51
Böck 2007: 72.
52
The end of the incantation is now known from von Weiher 1998: 34-35 (= SpTU V 242).

Page 7 of 147
of a number of series53 – purification, fumigation, holy water and a fire were required for many, if not all,
ceremonies. In fact, as the label é n ‘incantation’ was used to mean either an individual incantation or an entire
Tablet opening with this incantation,54 it is eminently plausible that this text was ‘Tablet I’ for all series that
required it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, however, and since the majority of the incantations
preserved are specifically listed as the first actions of Šurpu, it seems reasonable to re-designate Reiner’s
Appendix Tablet as Tablet I.
Tablet V-VI
The second problem with the tablet numbers of Reiner’s edition is the confusingly labelled Tablet V-VI. This
Tablet contains 11 incantations. It opens with a conversation between Marduk and Ea, in which Ea tells Marduk
how to alleviate the patient’s suffering through the burning ritual of Šurpu, this is followed by seven
incantations detailing the burning ritual itself. After this is a short incantation involving the magical transfer of
māmītu-sanctions to a thread which is then cut. The Tablet closes with two incantations concerning the
extinguishment of the fire. The subscript of this Tablet is not preserved on any manuscript, and so its number
has been a source of some confusion. Reiner took the numeration over from Zimmern, 55 and was evidently
dissatisfied with it.56
The uncertainty concerning the number of this Tablet is connected to a third problem with Reiner’s numeration
– the catchline to Tablet VII. Several manuscripts of Tablet VII preserve the catchline ÉN ni‘šu niḫlu guḫlu
ḫaḫḫu ru’tu ‘Incantation: Sneeze, cattarh, cough, slime, spittle’ which is not the incipit to any preserved
incantation. The next Tablet in Reiner’s edition opens with ‘I am raising my curved sticks’, and, though its
subscript is lacking, bears the catchline for Tablet IX whose subscript is complete.
There are two possible solutions which address both these problems. The first option is that Reiner’s Tablet V-
VI is in fact Tablet V. In this case, the subscript to Tablet VII must be regarded as an error for Tablet VI, and its
catchline understood to refer to the new Tablet VII. This is possible, but requires us to discount the evidence of
two separate manuscripts, each of which preserves the subscript and catchline to Reiner’s Tablet VII.
The second option is that Reiner’s Tablet V-VI is Tablets V and VI. That is to say, two separate Tablets of the
series are preserved together on a single tablet. If this is accepted, Tablet VII’s subscript can be trusted, but its
catchline creates difficulties. The catchline must either be regarded as either a mistake or as the incipit of Tablet
VIII, in which case Reiner’s Tablet VIII is in the way. As no manuscript of Reiner’s VIII has an intact
subscript, it is simple enough to make this Tablet IX. Reiner’s Tablet IX does, however, have a subscript, and
so we must account for this.
This explanation, though slightly convoluted, follows the available evidence very closely. Three points need to
be addressed. In the first place, Reiner’s Tablet V-VI will be examined to understand the reason for the use of a
single tablet. Next, it will be demonstrated that the catchline is not a mistake, and should be understood to
represent Tablet VIII of Šurpu. Finally, the subscript to Tablet IX will be explained by reference to the
recension history of Šurpu.
Tablet V-VI exploded
Identifying the two Tablets preserved in Reiner’s Tablet V-VI is very simple. The text falls naturally into two

53
Muššu’u or Ilī ul īdi for example.
54
Geller 2000: 225.
55
Zimmern 1901.
56
Reiner 1958: 5.

Page 8 of 147
sections: V - the dialogue between Ea and Marduk, and VI - the succession of burning rituals. These are chiefly
distinguished by their content – the Ea-Marduk dialogue is connected to, but distinct from the burning rituals.
In addition, however, one recension of Šurpu57 reverses their order and places a series of extra rituals between
them.
The basic difficulty with Tablet V seems to have been brevity. Although its subject matter – the Ea-Marduk
dialogue - gave it sufficient gravity to be an independent Tablet; at just 60 lines it was too small to merit a tablet
to itself. As a result, it was regularly subsumed not only into Tablet VI, but also Tablet IV. This is clear from
K. 3378 (+) K. 4649, in which the Ea-Marduk dialogue shares a tablet with Nin IV, followed by the catchline
for the first of the burning incantations.
An apparent consequence of this is that no manuscript exists containing just Tablet V. Nonetheless, we are not
justified in using Reiner’s numeration. In the first place it is inaccurate - given the evidence of K. 3378, IV-V
would be just as reasonable. In the second place, the lack of extant manuscripts containing only Tablet V should
not be taken as evidence that such manuscripts did not exist. The fact that Tablet IV-V exists, proves that Tablet
VI must have existed at least once as an independent manuscript. That no such manuscript is extant does not
diminish this fact.
Despite the fact that no manuscript preserves either Tablet V or VI separately, as the two Tablets are clearly
discernible, and as their unification on a single tablet was not constant, we are warranted in referring to the
component parts of Reiner’s V-VI by their individual numbers.

Tablet VIII restored

The accuracy of the catchline of Reiner’s Tablet VII can be fairly conclusively demonstrated. Through an
examination of the catalogues of Šurpu it is possible to identify several incantations belonging to the Tablet, and
to establish their place in the text. A comparison of the subject matter of these incantations with Reiner’s
edition of Šurpu heavily supports the evidence of the catalogues.

Evidence of the catalogues

The Ritual Tablet to Šurpu, as noted by Lambert,58 represents two distinct compositions. The first, covering the
obverse, and originally a portion of the reverse, in a single column is the Ritual Tablet to a form of Šurpu close
to, but distinct from, the canonical version. This describes the action of the ritual and lists the necessary
incantations in order. It is broken immediately after the last incantation of Tablet V, but doubtless originally
continued to the end of the composition. This is followed by a double ruling, after which the tablet is divided
into two columns which fill the remainder of the reverse. The second text is a catalogue of a different recension
of Šurpu. It does not contain any ritual instructions, but simply lists the necessary incantations and groups them
according to their Tablet numbers in this recension. The text of the catalogue is substantially complete, and
appears to represent a very different tradition from the canonical version. The incantations are listed in a
different order and numbered differently; eight are not even mentioned in the standard edition!
In addition to the two compositions (hereafter Rit [Ritual Tablet] and Cat [catalogue]) represented in Reiner’s
Tablet I, there exist three further texts which list Šurpu incantations in an equivalent manner. These are VAT

57
Cat, See below, table 1.
58
Lambert 1959-1960: 122.

Page 9 of 147
13723+ (hereafter VAT),59 PBS I/1 No. 13 rev. 52-55 (hereafter PBS)60 and SpTU II/12 iii 42-47 and iv 1-
2(hereafter SpTU).61 VAT is a catalogue listing the incipits of several series, such as Maqlû and Muššu’u, with
single rulings and subscripts separating the series. Šurpu incantations are listed at the beginning of the
catalogue, though the tablet is broken here and only the final three lines of the section are preserved. PBS and
SpTU are connected to another ritual and incantation series, bīt rimki, ‘House of Ablutions’ - an extremely long
series which has not yet been fully edited. It was performed by the king, and involved the recitation of dozens
of incantations in front of statues of different gods, as well as ritual purification in various rooms of the
eponymous house. SpTU is a version of the Ritual Tablet of the series, while PBS is a closely related ritual,
though its precise identification is unclear.62 Presumably because of its stature as a specifically royal ritual, the
performance of bīt rimki included not only several unique recitations, but also the recital of the majority of the
incantations from many other series – elements of Šurpu, Maqlû, Lamaštu, Ilī ul īdi and assorted others were all
required for the enactment of bīt rimki. As a result, the relevant portion of the Ritual Tablet of the series serves
as a catalogue of Šurpu.
Including the uncatalogued form of Šurpu (hereafter Nin), which can be deduced from surviving subscripts, six
lists of the series are known. Only PBS, the shortest of the catalogues, is wholly intact. The remainder preserve
varying amounts – VAT preserves just the final three incipits; Cat is missing 4 lines at the start; Rit is broken
immediately after the fire is extinguished; and SpTU seems to be missing the end of the series, assuming it
originally continued into the next column of the tablet. As has just been discussed, Nin is missing its first and
eighth Tablets. Between them, these six sources preserve the order of three recensions – the ‘canonical’ form
(Nin), a version very close to the canonical form (Rit, PBS and SpTU), and a different version, (Cat and VAT),
which is also known from at least 4 tablets (K. 2390, SpTU V 242, and OECT 11 39 and 40). This version of
the text (hereafter β) is of the utmost value to us for the list of incipits it preserves:
Table 1: Incantations of Recension β
Cat Nin
Cat VAT
no. no.
(Broken) (Broken)
ma-mit DÙ.A.BI IIa III

li-iz-zi-zu dA-num u An-tum li-ni-ˀ-u GIG IIb IVb

ášši GI.IZI.LÁ IIIa Ib?
ki-ma SUM.SAR an-ni-i IIIb VIa
ki-ma ZÚ.LUM.MA an-ni-i IIIc VIb
ki-ma ŠU.SAR IIId VIc
ki-ma SÍG.AKÀ IIIe VId
ki-ma SÍG.ÙZ IIIf VIe
ki-ma ṣir-pi IIIg VIf

59
Geller 2000: 227.
60
Myhrman 1911: Pl.13.; A new edition with several duplicates is published in Abusch & Schwemer 2011: 387ff. (= CMAwR 9.2).
61
von Weiher 1983: 63-64.
62
Abusch & Schwemer 2011: 389.

Page 10 of 147
 ŠE.NUMUN ú-pu-un-ta IIIh VIg
ŠANGÁ.MAH-ku-ma IIIi VIj

nu-uḫ dGIŠ.BAR IIIj VIk

ni-iˀ-šu ni-iḫ-lu IIIk VIIIa
at-ti túb-qin-nu IIIl ?
at-ti ma-mit šá tal-tap-pi-tú IIIm ?
ma-mit DUMU.SAL dA-nim IIIn ?
at-ti Ú.KI.KAL IIIo ?
at-ti GIŠ.ŠINIG IIIp ?
ak-tab-sa-ka šá-ad-dak-ka IIIq ?
DÙ dDIŠ ip-šur dDIŠ IIIr ?
áš.ḫul gal5.lá.gin8 IVa V
íd.lú.ru.gú.gin8 IVb Ic?
d
BIL.GI ap-kál IVc Id?
giš.šinig aš an.edin.na mú.a giš.šinig aš an.edin.na mú.a VIa Xa
áš-ši gam-li-ia áš-ši gam-li-ia VIb IX
ilī ul īdi ilī ul īdi N/A N/A

The bold text indicates an incantation whose incipit is not mentioned, but which is known from K.2390, on
which ma-mit DÙ.A.BI is followed by li-iz-zi-zu dA-num u An-tum li-ni-ˀ-u GIG, with the catchline ášši
GI.IZI.LÁ. The underlined incantations are the incipits of the next series to be recited. They are worthy of note
because of their presence also in SpTU, but are of no consequence to the current discussion.
The last two columns list the Tablet number of each incantation in both the Nin and β recensions. As can be
seen, the majority of the incipits preserved here are known from Nin. Crucially, however, those following ni-ʾi-
šu ni-iḫ-lu ‘Sneeze, cattarh’ are not. These can only be the incipits of the incantations, or a selection of the
incantations, belonging to Tablet VIII.
Although the fact that the burning incantations from Tablet V are listed in the canonical order earlier in the
catalogue adds some measure of support to our hypothesis concerning Tablet VIII, as this catalogue represents a
different recension of Šurpu this list alone does not substantiate it beyond doubt. Fortunately, at this point we
can turn to the other catalogues for confirmation:

Page 11 of 147
 Table 2: Incipits of Reiner’s text and Recension α

Reiner Rit PBS SpTU

(Missing) gá.e lú.kù.ga me.en
d
BIL.GI NUN.ME k u r . r a í l
íd.lú.ru.gú.gin7 mú.mú.da.bi
ášši GI.IZI.LÁ pu-ṭur lim-nu
lu paṭ-ra DINGIR .MEŠ GAL.MEŠ lu paṭ-ra DINGIR .MEŠ GAL.MEŠ lu paṭ-ra DINGIR .MEŠ GAL.MEŠ lu paṭ-ra DINGIR .MEŠ GAL.MEŠ
ma-mit DÙ.A.BI ma-mit DÙ.A.BI ma-mit DÙ.A.BI ma-mit DÙ.A.BI
e-peš ri-is-bi
li-iz-zi-zu dA-num u An-tum li-ni-ˀ-u GIG li-iz-zi-zu dA-num u An-tum li-ni-ˀ-u GIG
áš.ḫul gal5.lá.gin8 áš.ḫul gal5.lá.gin8 áš.ḫul gal5.lá.gin7 áš.ḫul gal5.lá.gin7
ki-ma SUM.SAR an-ni-i ki-ma SUM.SAR an-ni-i ki-ma SUM.SAR an-ni-i ki-ma SUM.SAR an-ni-i
ki-ma ZÚ.LUM.MA an-ni-i ki-ma ZÚ.LUM.MA an-ni-i *
ki-ma ŠU.SAR an-ni-i ki-ma ŠU.SAR an-ni-i
ki-ma SÍG.AKÀ an-ni-i ki-ma SÍG.AKÀ an-ni-i
ki-ma SÍG.ÙZ an-ni-i ki-ma SÍG.ÙZ an-ni-i
ki-ma ṣir-pi an-ni-i ki-ma ṣir-pi an-ni-i
ŠE.NUMUN ú-pu-un-ta ŠE.NUMUN ú-pu-un-ta
gu [dUttu] šu.na ba.ni.in.gar
ŠANGÁ.MAḪ-ku-ma (broken?)
nu-uḫ dGIŠ.BAR nu-uḫ dGIŠ.BAR
buru5 šà.ZU+AB.ta im.ta.è.a.na (broken) buru5 šà.abzu.ta im.ta.è.a.na
**
ni-'i-šu ni-iḫ-lu ni-'i-šu ni-iḫ-lu
(Missing) gu.dŠakkan.na
at-ta ma-mit
at-ta sassatu (ú . k i . k a l )
[ak-tab-sa-ka šá-ad-dak]-ka63
[ipuš dAn ip-šur d]An
áš-ši gam-li-ia (broken)
giš.šinig aš an.edin.na mú.a

63
This and the next incipit are reconstructions suggested by von Weiher (1983: 69). They are based on the Cat incipits as only the final signs of each survive.
Page 12 of 147
The bold text in Rit indicates incantations that are not specifically listed by incipit, but are implied by the ritual
instructions. The * in SpTU is in place of the first three incantations of the series ilī ul īdi ‘My god, I did not
know.’ ** is in place of ú š . ḫ u 1 . g á 1 – the opening incantation of Muššu’u Tablet VI.
That Rit, PBS and SpTU belong to the same recension (hereafter α) is very clear. The differences between
them are minimal, and almost entirely accounted for by their individual contexts. The first four incantations,
preserved only in Rit, are, as discussed above, simply purification incantations required before the start of the
ritual. PBS and SpTU do not have these inasmuch as they are not describing the start of a ritual – the Šurpu
incantations are being used as a subsection of a larger ritual.
The specific context of SpTU also explains the interruption by the first three ilī ul īdi incantations64 and by
ú š . ḫ u l . g á l .65 Both series are very similar to Šurpu in intent, and so the out of context adoption of elements
of each makes sense in the larger ritual bīt rimki. The ilī ul īdi incantations are, moreover, distanced from the
Šurpu incipits by the ritual instructions in SpTU. While reciting the first of the ilī ul īdi incantations the king
must address Šamaš, for the other two he stands before his personal god and goddess. The following Šurpu
incantations, along with ú š . ḫ u l . g á l , are recited before Bēlet-Ṣēri.
The absence of the bulk of the burning ritual incantations, as well as the fire extinguishing incantation nu-uḫ
d
GIŠ.BAR, from PBS and SpTU is easily explained by the principle mentioned earlier, that an incipit can refer
either to a single incantation or an entire Tablet beginning with that incantation. Rit has to describe each
element of the burning ritual in order to give instructions to the officials on how to perform it, whereas for PBS
and SpTU the Tablet incipit suffices. This is probably also the case with li-iz-zi-zu dA-num u An-tum li-ni-ˀ-u
GIG ‘May Anu and Antum stand by, may they ward off sickness’, which seems to have shared a Tablet with
ma-mit DÙ.A.BI. This is indicated by K.2390 on which the two are written together, though, as is clear from its
catchline, this manuscript belongs to the recension β. It is further indicated by the resemblance this placement
displays to Tablet II - lu paṭ-ra DINGIR .MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ‘May it be released, great gods’. Tablet II is divided
into three sections by use of the leitmotiv phrase lu paṭra ‘May it be released...’66 – the first two sections are
lists of possible offences committed by the patient, mirroring ma-mit DÙ.A.BI; the final section is an appeal to a
list of gods to release the patient, mirroring li-iz-zi-zu dA-num u An-tum li-ni-ˀ-u GIG.
When we compare the α recension to the Nin text, it is evident that the versions are very similar, though three
divergences stand out. The first is the absence of ŠANGÁ.MAH-ku-ma from Rit. This incantation is recited as
the fire is extinguished, and is essentially the climax of the ritual burning. As mentioned in the table, there is
half a line broken in Rit which may have originally held the incipit. Alternatively, it is possible that it was
implied by a ritual instruction along the lines of ‘You extinguish the fire’. In either case, it seems unlikely that
this would have been omitted from α - in PBS and SpTU we can safely understand it to have been implied by
the ki-ma SUM.SAR an-ni-i. The second difference between the recensions - the absence of epēš risbi from α -
perhaps implies that this paean to Marduk was a later interpolation, though as we are unable to determine the
relative sequence of the recensions, this is impossible to judge.
The important difference for our current purpose, however, is to be found in the final incantations of SpTU.
Two of these incipits, at-ta ma-mit ‘You, oath’67 and at-ta sassatu (ú . k i . k a l ) ‘You, weed’68, are also found in

64
For which see Lambert 1974: 18.
65
Böck 2007: 223ff.
66
Reiner 1958: 2.
67
Cat IIIm

Page 13 of 147
the list from recension β. Another two incipits from recension β, [ak-tab-sa-ka šá-ad-dak-]ka ‘I have trodden on
you’ and [DÙ dAn ip-šur d]An ‘An does it, An undoes it’,69 can be reasonably restored. Their presence here
strongly supports their identification, and by extension the identification of the other Cat incipits, with the
missing incantations of Tablet VIII. The difficulty of belonging to a radically different recension does not apply
in this case, as recension α is very close to the canonical form.
Further confirmation is found in the other incipit mentioned at the end of SpTU - g u . d Š a k k a n . n a ‘Thread
of Šakkan.’ This is almost certainly to be equated with Reiner’s g u [ d U t t u š u . n ] a b a . n i . i n . g a r ‘[Uttu
took] the thread into her hand’, Nin VIi.70 This places at least one of the putative Tablet VIII incantations
unquestionably within the canonical tradition, though it is not where it should be expected.
Tablet VIII
The catalogues, then, not only provide support for our argument that a Tablet is missing from Šurpu, but also
offer two lists of the missing incipits:

Table 3: Tablet VIII incantations

Cat SpTU Preservation

ni-iˀ-šu ni-iḫ-lu ni-iˀ-šu ni-iḫ-lu End preserved
at-ti túb-qin-nu Complete but for last line
d
gu Šakkan.na Probably complete - Identical with VIi?
Incipit preserved? More on VAT 10297 and
at-ti ma-mit šá tal-tap-pi-tú at-ta ma-mit duplicates?
Fragments of end preserved? KAR 165
ma-mit DUMU.SAL dA-nim Fragments of start preserved
at-ti Ú.KI.KAL at-ta sassatu (ú . k i . k a l ) Complete but for fragments of first few lines
at-ti GIŠ.ŠINIG Fragments of start and end preserved
ak-tab-sa-ka šá-ad-dak-ka [ak-tab-sa-ka šá-ad-dak-]ka Complete
DÙ dDIŠ ip-šur dDIŠ [DÙ dAN ip-šur d]AN Complete

There is some difference between the two lists of incipits, and given the lack of manuscripts it is impossible for
us to say whether this represents a difference between recensions, a lackadaisical approach to cataloguing, or the
d
specific requirements of bīt rimki. It appears that at least g u Š a k k a n . n a represents a recensional
difference, but the incantations missing from SpTU could equally be attributed to any of these causes.
Three of the incantations, at-ti ma-mit ‘You, Oath’, ma-mit DUMU.SAL dA-nim ‘Oath, daughter of Anu’ and at-
ti GIŠ.ŠINIG ‘You, Tamarisk’, are known only very scrappily. It is not even clear whether any of at-ti ma-mit
survives. Reiner suggests it may be found on VAT 10297, a duplicate to LKA 153, BMS 61 and VAT 13668,
but neither LKA nor BMS contain any incantation starting ‘You, Oath’, and the tablets actually belong to the
n a m - é r i m - b ú r - r u - d a series in any case.71 It is possible that the end of the incantation survives in KAR
165. This tablet contains parts of three other incantations – the incipit of ‘You, Tamarisk’, the first few lines of
‘Oath, daughter of Anu’ and the whole of ‘You, grass,’ bar the incipit and possibly the first few lines. In

68
Cat IIIo
69
We can offer no explanation for the replacement of Ea with An.
70
See below, page 16.
71
Maul, personal communication, 2016.

Page 14 of 147
addition, it contains fragments of the final four lines of an unidentified incantation which may be ‘You, Oath.’
It is difficult to be more certain about the identification because the order of the incantations as preserved on the
tablet is not clear. It is possible that the incantations follow the expected order, as presented above, but for this
to be the case we must assume that Ebeling confused recto and verso. If so, KAR 165 is a fragment from the
bottom left of a two column tablet, Column I of which ends with ‘Oath, daughter of Anu’ and Column II of
which begins with ‘You, Grass’. The fragmentary remains (r.?1’-4’) preserved before ‘Oath daughter of Anu’
could then be confidently identified as ‘You, Oath’, and the whole tablet as a manuscript of the lost Tablet VIII.
If Ebeling is correct, however, then the order precludes identification in the absence of duplicates.
‘Oath, Daughter of Anu’ is known from KAR 165 (r. ?5’-10’) and BM 117759 (1-5), a Lamaštu amulet which
also contains an incantation from Hulbazizi. The first five lines survive intact, and the next two are partially
preserved.
Fragments of ‘You, Tamarisk’ are preserved on four tablets. Part of the incipit and some signs from the next
two lines are known from KAR 165 (26’-28’). Fragments of the last thirteen lines are preserved on K. 2467+ (II
1’-11’), 80-11-12, 176 (1’-13’) and SpTU V 242 (r. 1’-6’).72 The last of these can now be certainly identified as
Tablet III of recension β. Von Weiher was unsure of this tablet’s place in the series and so did not offer an
identification of the lines. Considering the number of incantations belonging to this Tablet, it must originally
have been a four column tablet, of which the start of Column I and the end Column IV survive. The verso of the
tablet preserves several broken lines, including the otherwise lost final lines, of IIIa (Nin Ib) ‘I hold the torch’ -
not one of the burning ritual incantations of Nin VI as suggested by von Weiher.73 Only the incipit, possibly
written over two lines, is not preserved. This is followed by a ruling, then a broken line in which two or three
signs from the incipit of IIIb (Nin VIa) ‘Like this garlic’ are discernible. The recto begins with 6 very
fragmentary lines, followed by a ruling, after which IIIq and IIIr, ‘I have trodden on you’ and ‘Ea did it, Ea
undid it’ are written, separated from one another by a ruling. The final incantation is followed by a double
ruling, then the catchline á š . ḫ u l g a l 5 . l á . g i n 7 l ú . r a G I M [ L I B I R . R A ] , a broken subscript
declaring the tablet part of Šurpu, and a colophon. As this precisely follows the order described in Cat we have
no hesitation in identifying the fragmentary incantation as IIIp ‘You, Tamarisk’.
All the other incantations are much more fully preserved. ni-iʾ-šu ni-iḫ-lu ‘Sneeze, cattarh’ has been tentatively
identified by van der Toorn.74 Although an uncertain number of lines, including the incipit of the incantation
are missing, the identification can be confidently accepted. In the first place, at-ti túb-qin-nu ‘You, corner’, the
next incantation in Cat unambiguously follows the broken incantation. In addition, as noted by van der Toorn, 75
the content of the putative ni-iˀ-šu ni-iḫ-lu supports its identification. From what survives of the text it appears
to have been a plea to Bēlet-Ṣēri for release, in which the patient declares that he ‘cr[ies] unto you a šigû for
life.’76 This fits very well with the ritual instructions in SpTU, which specified that the incantation was to be
recited before a statue of Bēlet-Ṣēri.
It is conceivable, based on the line ‘I cry unto you a šigû for life’, that this incantation does not in fact represent
the first incipit of this tablet. A šigu is a type of penitential prayer, and since the patient claims to have cried
one, it is possible that the šigû itself was titled ni-iˀ-šu ni-iḫ-lu. Equally, the šigû could have been the lost first

72
An edition of these tablets has appeared. Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 157-166. (= CMAwR 8.20)
73
von Weiher 1998: 35.
74
van der Toorn 1985: 138-9
75
van der Toorn 1985: 138
76
van der Toorn 1985: 139, 5’.

Page 15 of 147
section of the current incantation. Neither of these suggestions is likely, however, as this line does not imply the
existence of a separate prayer. As van der Toorn points out, ‘crying (šasû) of šigû was credited with nearly
magical power by which guilt was removed.’77 Thus, the word itself acted as a performative utterance 78 - crying
the word šigû was an action in itself, comparable to the words ‘I will’ in a marriage ceremony. As such,
although a longer text was possible – in the same way as are personalised wedding vows - it was not
compulsory.
Van der Toorn’s hesitancy in definitely assigning the incipit to this incantation was due to his impression that
‘the order of the Šurpu prayers is not uniform.’79 While this is true to a certain extent, in that there are three
recensions of the text, there is no evidence that at-ti túb-qin-nu ‘You, corner’ ever followed a different
incantation, and in light of the content of the incantation his reluctance seems unnecessary.
The next incantation, at-ti túb-qin-nu ‘You, corner’, is a short incantation formed on the same lines as the
burning incantations of Tablet V. In these, the various ailments of the patient are magically transferred into
certain objects – garlic, wool, goat’s hair &c. – which are then burnt, thereby eradicating the problem. In this
incantation the patient’s problems are magically transferred into the corner, along with an appeal that those who
step in the corner will collect them and take them away from him. It is worth noting that the problems listed,
assuming the restoration is accepted, are identical to those listed in each burning incantation and in ‘I light the
torch.’
d
As stated above, g u Š a k k a n . n a ‘Thread of Šakkan’, is almost certainly identical with Nin VIi ‘[Uttu took]
the thread.’ In this incantation, the patient’s offences are wound into a thread by [Uttu] and Ištar. This thread is
used to bind his head, hands and feet. It is then ripped off, taking the sins with it. Uttu in Reiner’s edition of
Nin VIi is restored from an incantation in a first millennium ritual for the consecration of priests of Enlil, first
published by Borger, with a duplicate published by Löhnert. 80 George has recently published an Old
Babylonian compilation tablet apparently also for use in a consecration ritual, one incantation of which bears
strong similarities to the relevant part of the text published by Borger and Löhnert.81 It is not at all certain,
however, that these incantations are closely related to Nin VIi. In the first place, the direct parallels between the
consecration texts and Nin VIi are limited to the first three bilingual lines, which are badly broken in the Šurpu
text and, where they are preserved, are by no means identical. Moreover, the purposes of the incantations are
completely different. Both consecration texts are intended to purify a cloak used in the consecration rituals
while the Šurpu text describes a magical binding and releasing ritual. It should also be noted that an incantation
from Utukkū Lemnūtu XIII-XV82 bears closer similarities in terms of content to Nin VIi than does either
consecration text, but is not a direct parallel. In the absence of clear evidence that Nin VIi and the consecration
texts are as closely connected as has been supposed,83 and given the relatively unambiguous evidence of SpTU,
there seems little reason to accept the restoration of Uttu.
at-ti Ú.KI.KAL ‘You, grass’ survives almost intact. It lacks an incipit, but the fact that the most complete
manuscript KAR 165 1’-25’, also contains three other Šurpu incantations argues strongly for its identification
and the content of the incantation corroborates this. A small fragment is also preserved on BM 76986, (1’-6’)

77
van der Toorn 1985: 117.
78
Austin 1962.
79
van der Toorn 1985: 138.
80
Borger 1973: 167-168 & 173, II 41-51; Löhnert 2010: 186-187.
81
George 2016: 71-72.
82
Geller 2016: 478-481.
83
George 2016: 71-72; Borger 1973: 175.

Page 16 of 147
but this does not provide any extra detail. The text is particularly interesting in that the thought behind it is clear
to us. It describes the digestion of a sheep, culminating in defecation on the grass. The grass is said to ‘take
away every evil’, referring to the decomposition of the sheep dung, the nutrients from which encourage the
growth of new grass. By analogy, the grass is asked to take away the evil afflicting the patient, which will then
be passed to the ‘roaming creatures of the plain’ as they eat it. The identification of the incantation is supported
by the ritual instructions in SpTU, which dictate that after reciting this incantation the king is to release a bound
sheep.
Three distinct versions of ak-tab-sa-ka šá-ad-dak-ka ‘I have trodden on you, I am pulling you out’ are known
from five manuscripts. SpTU V 242 and K. 2467+ contain the shortest version in which the patient declares that
he has trampled and pulled up tamarisk, maštakal and date palm. This is followed by a line listing the patient’s
problems, a line praying that the day, month and year that have passed will take them away, and a final line
praying that the next day month and year will be prosperous. KAR 78 contains an extra line listing the patient’s
problems but is otherwise identical. KAR 226 IV adds six lines detailing the problems, including a line
concerning witchcraft and another two concerning dreams and omina. It should be noted, however, that KAR
226 is certainly not a Šurpu tablet, but a Middle Akkadian Sammeltafel.
If we assume, as seems reasonable from the surviving manuscripts, that the incantations of Tablet VIII followed
the order of recension β, with the addition of ‘Thread of Šakkan’ between ‘You Corner’ and ‘Oath, Daughter of
Anu’, we are able to summarise the missing Tablet quite effectively. It opened with a prayer to Bēlet-Ṣēri, in
which the patient pleaded for release from his affliction. This was followed by two magical transfer rituals, in
which the patient’s evils were passed to a corner and a thread respectively. At this point, a break disrupts the
Tablet. After the break, three incantations concerning plants are recited. The first, to the grass, appears to be a
magical transfer rite, in which the patient’s woes are passed to the grass and thence to the animals of the plain.
The next, is a plea, presumably addressed to the tamarisk, to remove the patient’s problems. The third is a
prayer, addressed to nobody in particular, but accompanied by the destruction of the tamarisk and soapwort.
The Tablet closes with a common formula by which the whole set of rituals is given Ea’s blessing, though there
is a chance that it continues with several more incantations as K.2467+ preserves the opening lines of the Maqlû
incantation attunu mû ‘you water.’
Place of Tablet VIII in Šurpu
The content of this Tablet fits perfectly into so-called canonical Šurpu. Indeed, its presence solves a number of
inconsistencies in Reiner’s text. In order to demonstrate this, we must examine the basic structure of the text.
As we have discussed above, Šurpu opens with a set of purification rituals, followed by the lighting of the fire.
Once these preliminary considerations have been dealt with, the ritual itself begins with Tablet II, a long
incantation listing the various offences the patient may have committed to bring down a curse upon himself,
coupled with a plea to a wide array of gods to absolve him. This is followed, in Tablet III, by a second long list,
this time of sanctions under which he is suffering for misconduct involving various subjects. 84 A refrain
requesting Asalluhi remove the sanction is repeated at the end of every line. Tablet IV is mostly composed of a
lengthy panegyric to Marduk, coupled with a request that he fix the patient’s problems. Following this, on the
same Tablet, is a much shorter incantation that lists several gods and asks them each to perform an appropriate
action on the patient’s behalf.

84
See below, Commentary ll.43-70.

Page 17 of 147
At this point, the start of Tablet V, the patient having confessed his guilt and besought aid from the gods, the
burning ritual begins. It opens with a conversation between Marduk and Ea – a common element in
Mesopotamian incantations. In the incantation, Marduk goes to his father Ea seeking help in solving the
patient’s problems. Ea tells Marduk that he already knows how to do it, but nonetheless explains the solution to
him – in this case, the instructions describe the incantations that accompany the burning ritual, which follows
immediately. The patient burns various items – garlic, wool, goat’s hair &c. – in an act of magical transference.
The sin, or offence, or sanction of the patient is equated with each of the items, which are then burned, one after
the other, while incantations are read detailing how each one will never meaningfully exist. Each incantation
ends with the same formula – ‘invocation, sanction, retaliation, questioning; the pain of my hardship, sin,
transgression, crime, error; the sickness that is in my body, my flesh, my veins; may [they] be removed 85 like
this X;86 may the fire consume them entirely today; may the sanction leave so that I may see the light!’ After
everything is burnt there is a single incantation involving magical transfer without fire – ‘Thread of [Šakkan]’,
discussed above. After this, the fire is extinguished as two fire-extinguishing incantations are recited.
After the fire is extinguished, a second conversation between Marduk and Ea is recited. This is Reiner’s Tablet
VII. As usual, Marduk approaches Ea asking for help in curing the patient. This time, Ea’s instructions do not
concern the burning ritual, but rather a ritual involving transfer of the curse to bread which is then left out in the
desert. In addition, Ea mentions several other deities, such as Bēlet-Ṣēri and Ninkilim, who will help the patient
according to their individual talents.
In Reiner’s edition, the next Tablet, her VIII our IX, opens with a long list of gods and divine forces, which we
have named the Kultgötterbeschwörung, accompanied by an invocation litany. After these, the lists from
Tablets II and III are partially reprised, with a request that the great gods may absolve the patient. The Tablet
closes with a few lines explaining that the patient’s sin has been washed away by Marduk, and detailing a
purification ritual involving an egubbû-vessel, after which the water is discarded, taking the patient’s problems
with it. This is followed by the final Tablet, containing the so-called Kultmittelbeschwörungen, in which
various items are praised so as to evoke their magical power. The fire god, representing the fire itself; water;
incense; and various plants, including the tamarisk and soapwort, are all objects of these brief incantations. This
Tablet closes with a z a g . t i l . l a . b i . š è ‘completed’.
This précis of the text allows us to see at a glance a number of irregularities in the text. These lead to the
appearance, as noted by Reiner,87 of a great deal of the text having been included simply for the purpose of
padding out a relatively short ritual. The most blatant of these irregularities is the incantation b u r u 5
š à . a b z u . t a i m . t a . è . a . n a ‘the dimītu-disease had come out from the midst of the Abzu’ - the second
conversation between Marduk and Ea. In the canonical text as it stands, this incantation is wholly unnecessary.
The two have already spoken once, Ea has explained how to fix the problem through a burning ritual, and the
ritual has been completed. The advice offered by Ea goes unheeded in any case, as the text immediately
proceeds to an apparently unrelated incantation invoking dozens of different divine figures.
Likewise, Reiner’s Tablet IX, the Kultmittelbeschwörungen, makes little sense. The purpose of such a text is to
enhance the magical properties of objects used in the ceremony, but several of the items in Tablet IX have
played no role in Šurpu. Indeed, apart from a brief allusion in the last few lines of the preceding Tablet, many

85
Different verbs are used in each incantation
86
Garlic, wool, goats hairs &c.
87
Reiner 1958: 6.

Page 18 of 147
of the items are not even mentioned elsewhere – most notably the tamarisk and soapwort, which are the subjects
of the first two incantations of Tablet IX.
d
g[u Š a k k a n . n ] a , ‘Thread of Šakkan’, the first incantation following the burning ritual of Tablet VI is
also hard to understand. In the first place, it is bilingual despite being entirely surrounded by unilingual
Akkadian incantations. It is one of just two examples in Reiner’s Šurpu in which a magical transfer ritual not
involving burning is carried out, the other being the purification ritual involving the egubbû-vessel. It is not
connected to the rituals surrounding it – the burning ceremony precedes it, two incantations for extinguishing
the fire follow it. In addition, it is the only incantation in the entire text of Nin to be accompanied by an
explanatory subscript – i n i m . i n i m . m a n a m . e r í m b ú r . r u . d a . k e 4 ‘Conjuration to undo the oath.’
Despite appearances, these sections of the text were not merely added to bulk out the ritual, but were an integral
part of the series. The majority of the inconsistencies in the text can be resolved through the reintroduction of
Tablet VIII.
The second Ea-Marduk dialogue was intended to introduce the text of Tablet VIII, as detailed above. With the
Tablet of rituals following it, the dialogue ceases to be meaningless and becomes crucial – it explains the
purpose of the rituals. This is clear not only from the analogy of the first Ea-Marduk dialogue and the burning
ritual, but also from the content of the text itself. The dialogue is preceded by a brief description of the nature of
the problem – the Dimitu-disease, the Ahhazu-demon and the Māmītu-demon have all made their way to earth
and are each spreading their respective forms of chaos, notably weakening the patient with cough, phlegm,
spittle and foam. Marduk notices and asks Ea how to fix it. Ea, after deferring to his son’s great wisdom, lists
the steps required. In the first place, he tells Marduk to string seven loaves on a bronze skewer, cap it with
carnelian and wipe the patient with it. The patient is then made to spit on the skewer, which has the ‘spell of
Eridu’ cast on it, before being taken to the desert and left under a thorn bush. Once this has been achieved, five
gods are to help solve the problem – Bēlet-Ṣēri, Ninkilim, Damu, Gula and Marduk himself, who is told to
loosen the patient’s bonds through his pure spell. Finally, the man is to be cleaned and entrusted to Šamaš.
Though not every element of this can be explained, the parallels with Tablet VIII are very clear. The symptoms
listed at the beginning of the Tablet are almost identical to those listed in the incipit to ‘Sneeze’. Though the
start of this incantation is lost, we may reasonably assume that it opened with a description of the problems the
patient was facing, especially as Ea suggests that Bēlet-Ṣēri, the goddess mentioned in the surviving section of
the incantation, will help. The reference to Ninkilim, a deified mongoose connected with the creatures of the
plain is seen reflected in ‘You Grass’ where the creatures of the plain carry off the patient’s sin. Likewise,
Marduk’s loosening of the patient’s bonds is to be connected with ‘Thread of Šakkan’ in which he is said to rip
off the thread binding the patient. It is not clear where ‘You corner’ or the two incantations dealing with
tamarisk and soapwort fit into this. Nor can we suggest how Gula and her son Damu – two important healing
gods – fit into Tablet VIII, except that they may play a role in the two lost incantations from the middle of the
Tablet, or in other potential incantations belonging to the Tablet. Overall, though, the picture is striking. The
Ea-Marduk dialogue and the incantations of Tablet VIII are two halves of the same set of rituals – a set of rituals
which, with the burning rituals of Tablet VI, form the core of Šurpu.
It is easy to see that the problem of pointless Kultmittelbeschwörungen is radically diminished with the
reintroduction of the incantations. Tamarisk and soapwort are now the key components of a set of rituals, and as
such the incantations designed to increase their power are now useful. It must be confessed that several of the

Page 19 of 147
incantations still refer to objects which were not, as far as we are aware, used in Šurpu. Some of these were
presumably used in the broken incantations, and some were perhaps used in actions for which no incantation
was required. This, admittedly, could explain all the seemingly unnecessary Kultmittelbeschwörungen, but it is
likely, and has now been demonstrated, that at least some of the objects used in the ceremony would be
mentioned in its text.
The irregularities surrounding ‘Thread of Šakkan’ do not entirely disappear with the introduction of Tablet VIII.
However, two of the main difficulties are solved when it is accepted that the incantation is a misplaced element
of Tablet VIII. It was not originally designed to accompany the burning rituals but was moved there from its
original location. As such, it is perfectly understandable that it does not seem connected to its neighbours. This,
moreover, offers an explanation for the subscript - the isolated character of the inscriptions was presumably
even clearer to the ancient scholars than to us, and so the subscript was included as an explanatory gloss of an
unexpected incantation. In its original context, Šakkan, a god connected to both wool and the wild creatures of
the plain,88 linked the incantation (and the woollen thread) to Ninkilim – as required by Ea’s introduction.
Stripped of this context, it was necessary to explain its presence. The fact that the incantation is bilingual is
hard to explain. All manuscripts so far discovered containing Tablet VIII are in unilingual Akkadian, and there
is no clear reason that this incantation should buck the trend. It is possible, though it does not seem especially
likely, that the passing similarity of this incantation with the consecration texts and the incantation from Utukkū
Lemnūtu mentioned earlier89 played a role in this, as all the first millennium examples are bilingual.
Nonetheless, as discussed above, the similarities between these texts and Nin VIi have been somewhat
overstated and there is no clear reason that they should have been able to exert such influence over it.
Overall, then, it is clear that Tablet VIII belongs in Šurpu. First, it is described by the catalogues of two
recensions, as well as the catchline of Tablet VII. This alone would be sufficient proof had a single complete
manuscript or colophon of the Tablet survived. In the absence of such a tablet, however, the confirmation
provided by comparing the contents of the incantations with those of the canonical text is all but conclusive.
This is not to say that there are no difficulties with the new Tablet. It is by no means certain whether all the
incantations we have listed actually belong to the canonical text. ‘Thread of Šakkan,’ for instance, though
presumably belonging to the Tablet in recension α cannot have belonged to it in Nin, as it appears separately in
Tablet VI. It is possible that some of the other incantations listed in Cat were also excluded from the canonical
text, but we have no way of knowing. The subscript of Reiner’s Tablet IX, naming it the ninth and final Tablet,
is another difficulty, as it means there is no space for the new Tablet VIII in the canonical text. This, however,
is not such a problem.
Subscript of IX explained
There are two possible solutions to the lack of space implied by the subscript to Reiner’s Tablet IX. It is
possible that Tablets VIII and IX shared a tablet, and therefore a subscript, in the same way as V and VI seem to
have. This theory is severely hampered by a lack of evidence – no tablet containing both VIII and IX seems to
have survived, and so we cannot prove that one existed. That said, it is certain from Cat and VAT that the two
were written on a single tablet in recension β. No manuscripts have yet been identified of this either, so the lack
of evidence need not crush the suggestion. It should be borne in mind, however, that when Tablets of a fixed

88
Wiggermann 2011-2012: 308-309.
89
See page 16.

Page 20 of 147
series were brought together in one manuscript, the original rubrics and Tablet numbers were generally
maintained.
Alternatively, there is a chance that the subscript does not belong to the canonical text. The subscript number is
preserved in only a single manuscript and it is possible that this manuscript belongs to a different recension. It
has already been established that there are three recensions of Šurpu – α, β, and Nin. β is irrelevant here, as we
know that Reiner’s Tablet IX was numbered VI, and in general we are able to recognise tablets belonging to this
recension. The numbering of α, however, is not so clear-cut. While the order of the text is clear, no Tablet
numbers are written in any of the catalogues. In addition, it is not possible to use the evidence of subscripts, as
the manuscripts are effectively indistinguishable from those of Nin - each includes the same incantations in
almost the same order. That said, it is possible to work out a reasonable system of numeration based on the
known order of incantations:
Table 4 – Recension α
α Tablet no. First Incantation Nin Tablet number
I I am a pure man I
II Be it released great gods II
III Any oath III
IV An evil disease like the Gallu demon V
V Like this onion VI
VI The Dimitu disease had come out VII
VII Sneeze VIII
VIII I am raising my curved sticks IX
IX Tamarisk, lone tree X?
Ritual N/A No canonical form preserved

It must be stressed that this is only one of several possible reconstructions of the Tablet numbers for recension
α. It is, however, a defendable guess. It will be noted that ‘Tamarisk, lone tree’ is Tablet IX, and so the
problematic colophon could belong to this recension. If this is accepted, the sole remaining sticking point for
the acceptance of Tablet VIII as part of canonical Šurpu disappears. As such, we can reasonably renumber
Reiner’s VIII and IX. The last two Tablets of the canonical text should be IX and X.
Incidentally, this method cannot be used to explain away the colophon to Reiner’s Tablet VII. No manipulation
of the sources, short of separating the burning rituals from one another, can cause the Ea-Marduk dialogue to be
numbered higher than VI in recension α. The presence of epiš risbi as Tablet IV of Nin makes the canonical
text the only possible home for the colophon to VII.
Conclusion
This examination of the evidence of the catalogues and subscripts, as well as the internal structure of the text,
allows us to present a revised version of the text of Šurpu. Tablet I can be almost entirely restored, Tablets V
and VI can be separated, and Tablet VIII can be reintroduced to the text. The complete reconstruction of the
text is as follows:

Page 21 of 147
Table 5 – Šurpu
Tablet no. First Incantation Reiner Tablet number
No complete tablet preserved
I I am a pure man
Appendix = close analogue
II Be it released great gods II
III Any oath III
IV It rests with you Marduk IV
V An evil disease like the Gallu demon V-VI
VI Like this onion V-VI
VII The Dimitu disease had come out VII
No complete tablet preserved
Fragments of many incantations have
VIII Sneeze
been identified, which are not in
Reiner’s edition
IX I am raising my curved sticks VIII
X Tamarisk, lone tree IX
No canonical form preserved
Ritual N/A
I = different recension
Comparison of recensions
Having established the text as fully as is possible without further manuscripts, it is of some interest to compare
the recensions with one another.
By far the most balanced and fully-rounded version of the text is recension α. After some opening remarks,
there are two lists of possible problems, two Ea-Marduk dialogues, each prescribing its own set of ritual actions,
and two lists designed to bolster the success of the ceremony – one to the objects used, the
Kultmittelbeschwörungen, and one to the gods involved – which we would like to call the
Kultgötterbeschwörungen.
Nin is comparatively overbalanced. Instead of two lists of problems there are three, one of which doubles as a
hymn to Marduk. The list-hymn provides no additional information, but simply reprises the content of the other
two lists. In addition, the relocation of ‘Thread of Šakkan’ not only denudes the incantation of its context, but
also interrupts the flow of the burning ritual. In the other recensions, the fire is lit, the transference and burning
is performed, the fire god is invoked, and then the fire is extinguished. In Nin, an unrelated ritual involving
binding the patient’s head and legs is interposed between the burning of the objects and the extinguishment of
the fire.
The arrangement of Nin appears to demonstrate a marked shift in outlook. In recension α, Šurpu is a ceremony
intended to secure, more or less in equal measure, the support of every god. In Nin the support of Marduk is
paramount. The sole function of the list-hymn is to praise Marduk at length. This is emphasised by the
relocation of ‘May Anu and Antu stand by.’ In α this brief incantation is recited immediately after the second
list of evils, and serves to bring the attention of all the great gods to bear on the situation. In Nin the 12 line
incantation follows the 87 line list-hymn in praise of Marduk, which follows the second list. Thus, the sanctions
enumerated in Tablet III cease to be the indiscriminate concern of all the gods, but are addressed to Marduk

Page 22 of 147
first, and only very much later to the rest of the pantheon. Likewise, the only plausible explanation for the
relocation of ‘Thread of Šakkan’ is that it was intended to disrupt the burning rituals addressed to Gibil.
Marduk is the saviour in this incantation – it is he who rips the evil threads from the patient’s body. Its
placement in the canonical text serves to diminish the dominance of Gibil at the crucial moment of the
ceremony.

Page 23 of 147
 Chapter 2
Tablet IX
Having established the text of Šurpu as a whole, the logical thing would be to produce a comprehensive re-
edition of the text. Unfortunately, it is not possible within the confines of a PhD thesis to do justice to the entire
series, and so it has been decided instead to focus on a single Tablet. While in light of the argument presented
in chapter one Tablet VIII is the most reasonable candidate, it has been decided instead to focus on Tablet IX.90
This has been decided on a number of grounds. In the first place, the known manuscripts of Tablet VIII do not
constitute anything approaching the complete text. Until new duplicates are found, only a very partial edition
could be made, and the vast majority of this has been presented recently by Abusch and Schwemer.91 Tablet IX,
on the other hand, is very nearly complete. In addition, a new join made by the present writer (Bab1A) has
added significantly to the text. Finally, Tablet IX is perhaps the least understood part of the series in terms of
content, and therefore the extensive commentary which follows (Chapter 3) constitutes a substantial
desideratum.
Tablet IX consists of a single incantation of around 80 lines: ÉN ašši gamlīya apaṭṭarakka apaššarakka
‘Incantation: I am raising my curved sticks, I release you, I undo you.’ This incantation is composed of three
sections. The first (ll. 1-35) is an embedded list of gods, in which each group of gods is separated by rulings and
followed by the phrase lipṭuruka lipšuruka aš[ši gamlīya apaṭṭarakka apaššarakka] ‘may they remove you, may
they absolve you. I am ra[ising my curved sticks, I release you, I undo you.]’ This is almost invariably
abbreviated KIMIN KIMIN ‘ditto ditto.’
The second section (ll. 36-75) opens with an invocation to Amurru, bearer of the gamlu-stick mentioned in the
incipit and in the refrain of the first section. This is followed (ll. 37-42) by a list of evils that should be
removed. Next (ll. 43-70) comes a lengthy list of māmītu-sanctions which should also be removed. This list
largely mirrors those of Tablets II and III. The list is followed (l. 71) by an invocation to the gods in general to
help the patient, and then (ll.72-75) by a shorter list of the different kinds of evil that may be to blame for the
patient’s condition. The shorter list resumes that of ll. 37-42.
The final section (ll. 76-83) describes the cleaning and purification of the patient using an egubbû-vessel. The
vessel is not explicitly mentioned, but can be inferred from the text, in which water gathered from various
sources, along with water infused with the essences of precious materials, is poured on the ground. The
principle here is one of transference – the water is supposed to carry away the stain of sin which has blighted the
patient. The incantation closes with a final exhortation that the gamlu-stick will cure the patient.
The whole incantation works as a sort of Šurpu in miniature – the patient’s sins are listed, they are undone with
ritual action and the stain they left is washed away. The exact nature of the ritual action is not clear as the only
copy of a Ritual Tablet for Šurpu is broken and so does not preserve the details of Tablet IX. However, several
elements are clear from the incantation itself and from the Ritual Tablets of the other series in which ašši
gamlīya is incorporated. In section 1, the priest gives a gamlu-stick to the patient and has him recite the
incantation.92 This brings divine support by enlisting the help of all the gods, though it is unclear what action is
taken with the stick. Section 2, as it follows Tablets II and III closely, presumably utilises similar ritual

90
In the following discussion, all manuscripts are referred to by the sigla given in my new partitur transliteration.
91
Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 157-166 (Text 8.20), See note 42, above.
92
Ambos 2013: 171, l. y+30’; Maul & Strauß 2011: 88, no. 39, l. 10’.

Page 24 of 147
techniques to those detailed for these Tablets.93 According to the Ritual Tablet of Šurpu, these consist of wiping
the patient with flour then burning it, and then sprinkling the patient with water. 94 The ritual instructions for
KAL 4, 39 also dictate that the patient should touch a fermenting vat and stand, and be fumigated with censer
and torch before being washed with water from an egubbû-vessel.95 Unfortunately, as this text is quite badly
damaged, it is not possible to be certain that these instructions are related to the incantation ašši gamlīya. This
is particularly uncertain as the Ritual Tablet of Bīt šalāʾ mê also calls for contact with a fermenting vat, but
follows this with an incantation addressed to the brewing god Siris.96 Contact with a beer vat and stand are,
however, standard tools of purification in Namburbi texts,97 while fumigation with torch and censer is
ubiquitous. This is presumably their function in KAL 4, and it is certainly possible that they played the same
role in Šurpu. The action involving flour is plainly another example of transference – the flour absorbs each of
the sins as they are listed, then is burned, taking the sin with it. The water is presumably to remove whatever
flour is left, as well as for general purification. This leads neatly to section 3 in which the patient is washed with
special water which is then poured on the ground, carrying all the problems with it. This is a sensible
conclusion to the ceremony as it not only removes whatever sin-laden flour could not be wiped off, but, by
virtue of using special water, it is efficacious in its own right.

This incantation has been poorly understood owing to an editorial decision made by both Reiner and Borger.
Both editors adopted Aš1, the sole exemplar of the text from Aššur, as their base text. This was a sound
decision from one perspective – this is the only tablet to offer a relatively unbroken text for the first 30 lines,
and, when Reiner was writing, several lines were preserved nowhere else. Unfortunately, Aš1 offers a very
inferior text, subject to several omissions, interpolations and errors. This has resulted in a number of
misapprehensions regarding the text, the most important of which are as follows:
 The sections separated by rulings have been treated as separate incantations
 The first five lines of the text have been garbled
 The line divisions and line numbering do not reflect the text as it is usually preserved
 Several gods’ names have been incorporated in error
The majority of these will be discussed in the line by line commentary below, but one point that has already
been touched upon should be mentioned here. We have described Tablet IX as consisting of a single
incantation, which is at odds with Reiner’s edition. The basis for her reading is Aš1. After each ruling in the
first section, the Aššur text begins the next line with the incantation marker, ÉN. One result of this has been that
the incantation ašši gamlīya, which is also prescribed as part of several other rituals, has been generally
understood to consist of the first five lines only.
That the text does not consist of several very short incantations is clear from a number of observations. In the
first place, it makes little sense for each short list to be treated as a separate incantation. Each list consists of
around a dozen deities and the litany phrase exhorting their assistance and describing the ritual action of the
priest with the gamlīya-sticks. If the lists are separate incantations, it should be possible to excerpt them for use
in other contexts, and to refer to them by incipit in incantation catalogues. There is no evidence that any of the

93
There is a chance that the items listed in line 36 are utilised in some way for section 2. See commentary l. 36.
94
Reiner 1958: 11, ll.10-13.
95
Maul and Strauß 2011: 88-89, ll. 12’-14’.
96
Ambos 2013: 171, l. y+32’-y+33’
97
Caplice 1967: 23, l. 9; Caplice 1971: 143, l. 24.

Page 25 of 147
short lists was ever treated in such a way, which speaks strongly against their having been recognised as
separate. This is underlined by the evidence of XX1, a school text listing the first one or two names from each
of the divisions. These are not listed as incipits with the incantation marker, but simply as a list of names.
Perhaps more fundamentally, apart from the Aššur manuscript only one other manuscript (Ur1), a late
Babylonian school text, starts each list with ÉN. The relevant lines are preserved on seven other manuscripts
(Nin1, Nin2, Nin4, Nin7, Nin8, Ur2 and X1) none of which contain the incantation marker. The Nineveh
tablets are good library copies, and generally very reliable as would be expected. Ur2 is a school text
containing only a brief extract from the incantation. It prefaces each list with DIŠ KIMIN, indicating that the
scribe understood the text to be more closely related to lexical or omen texts, in which the item marker DIŠ is
commonly used. X1 is Late Babylonian and includes a number of variations and omissions from the other
manuscripts. The absence of the incantation marker in this relatively diverse selection of manuscripts is very
strong evidence that the sign is superfluous.
A final point against the text consisting of separate incantations is the context in which ašši gamlīya appears
elsewhere. ‘I am raising my curved sticks’ is the final incantation prescribed in the Ritual Tablet to Maqlû:98
178′ [arkišu ÉN ašši] gamlīya tamannūma [Afterwards] you recite [the Incantation “I am raising]
my curved sticks,”
179′ mê tasallaʾ you then sprinkle water.
As discussed above, we should take the sprinkling of water to be the ritual action which accompanies the
reading of the incantation, as the purpose of the Ritual Tablet is to provide such direction. Water plays no
evident role in the five lines which would constitute ašši gamilīya if the text is composed of several short
incantations, and so the direction makes little sense. As has already been described, however, the final section
(ll. 75-83) consists of a bathing and purification ritual in which water is poured on the ground. It is an obvious
conclusion that this is the reason Maqlû calls for the sprinkling of water at this point.

As a result of taking Aš1 as the base text, Borger’s partitur edition of this Tablet is unwieldy. Since the majority
of tablets do not present the same line divisions as the Aššur tablet, his text is littered with arrows and
duplications. For this reason, coupled with the identification of two new fragments, 99 a new partitur has been
produced. In creating this partitur, all British Museum fragments have been re-examined at first hand, resulting
in one new direct join (BM 33636 + BM 33855 = Bab1A), and one indirect join (BM 33636+ (+) BM 33584 =
Bab1B). There is a gap of approximately half an inch which prevents a direct join. It has not been possible to
examine Kiš1, Aš1 or Urk1 in person, in lieu of which the published hand copies have been relied upon,
coupled with the photograph of Kiš1 available through CDLI.
The partitur is followed by an eclectic transliteration, a normalised Akkadian text and an English translation. In
the eclectic transliteration and normalisation Aš1 has been ignored except where it is supported by other
evidence and where there is no alternative, though its variants are discussed in the relevant lines of the
commentary. Nin1 has been used as the base text as it preserves the majority of the text with relatively few
lacunae. It would perhaps have been preferable to use one of the other Nin texts, as the line divisions of Nin1,
especially within the Kultgötterbeschwörungen section, are often at odds with all other manuscripts. However,

98
Abusch 2016: 378.
99
BM 33584 and BM 33636. My thanks are due to Christopher Walker for the references..

Page 26 of 147
no other manuscript is even nearly as complete as Nin1 and the differences in line division are usually due to a
single name written at the end of a line rather than the start of the following line. The unfortunate effect of this
is that the partitur transliteration still suffers from an excess of arrows, though far fewer duplications. It is thus
substantially easier to read.
The sigla used in the partitur and discussion are detailed in the following table. These follow Borger’s usage,
denoting the city from which each tablet came. Borger did not follow this sigla for Bab1, of which he only
knew BM 33855, presumably due to the uncertain provenance of tablets in the Babylon collection. However,
the Rm. 4 collection, to which all 3 fragments of Bab1 belong, was shipped at a date when the only excavation
work in progress was in Babylon itself and so we can be fairly confident that the tablet was originally from the
city.100 The collections to which X1, X2 and XX1 belong are not so clear cut. Both X1 and XX1 are from
Rassam’s excavations in Babylonia, but could be from practically any city. X2 was purchased from the
antiquities dealers Spartali and co. when they went bust, so could be from anywhere. 101
In addition to giving the tablet number and the lines preserved on each text, the table attempts to provide a
complete publication history for each fragment. The CDLI number and Reiner’s sigla are listed where they
exist. The column headed Zim./Lam. lists two unrelated things combined in a single column purely to save
space. Zim, denoted by a superscript Z, refers to the plate number of hand copies in Zimmern’s edition. Lam.,
denoted by a superscript L., refers to the folio number of Lambert’s transliteration notebooks. The final column
lists any other publication in which a copy or transliteration, whether whole or partial, has appeared. References
to tablets which do not include either a copy or transliteration have not been included.
The line by line commentary is as extensive as seemed useful. It does not discuss well-known gods or address
orthographic variants. Rather, the focus is on elucidating the less immediately intelligible meaning in the text –
obscure gods are discussed at length, as are the ideas underlying the list of māmītu.

100
Reade 1986: xxix.
101
Reade 1986: xxx-xxxi.

Page 27 of 147
 Table 6 - Šurpu IX Sigla
Sigla Tablet number Lines preserved CDLI number Zim. / Lam. Reiner Other
RB RB Z
Nin1 K. 2866 + K. 8174 + K. 18633 + K. 18792 13-end 394723 Pl. 16 (8174) A (2866+8174) Smith 1887: Pl. 17-19 (2866)
Nin2A K. 3415 21-69 395000 (no photo) - H
L
Nin2B 79-7-8, 193 2-9 451879 9280 - CAD B: 141b
Lambert 2013: 226
WGL WGL Z
Nin3 K. 3890 + K. 7989 + K. 13452 + K. 37-68 395292 (no photo) Pl. 16 (13452) I (3890)
WGL RB
17045 + K. 18168 + K. 21412 E (7989+13452)
Nin4 K. 10758 26-36 398871 - D
Nin5 K. 14718 55-60 400949 - F King 1914: 123, 1269
Nin6 K. 15261 61-67 401274 - G
Nin7 Sm. 1717 1-7 426067 - J
Nin8 Rm. 2, 166 1-10; Colophon 424969 - B Zimmern 1915-1916: 201
Nin9 82-3-23, 130 15-27; 77-end 452152 - C
Aš1 VAT 9726 = KAR 30 1-33; 65-83 369014 (no photo) - k Ebeling 1919: 326 & Pl. 30
Kiš1 Ashm. 1924-2042 = OECT 11, 41 41-48 348927 - - Gurney 1989: Pl. 41
Ur1 UET 6/II 408 9-46 346448 - - Gadd and Kramer 1966: Pl. 296
Ur2 UET 6/II 409 18-23 346449 - - Gadd and Kramer 1966: Pl. 297
Urk1 W. 22730/4 = SpTU II, 15 40-59 348620 (no photo) - - von Weiher 1983: 77-78 & 251
FS L
Bab1A BM 33636 + BM 33855 = Rm. 4. 192 + Rm. 8-80 - 9356 (33855) - 33636 unpublished
4. 415+418
Bab1B BM 33584 = Rm. 4. 140 15-20 - - - Unpublished
L
X1 BM 76211 + BM 82990 + BM 83043 = 83-1- 17-42 - 9287-9288 p (extracts) Pinches 1893: 194 (extracts)
18, 1576 + 1581 + 1586 + 83-1-21, 153 + 206 Pinches 1904: 53-54 (extracts)
L
X2 BM 77646 = 84-2-11, 389 43-46; 73-75 - 10032 & 10203 -
L
XX1 BM 42552 = 81-7-1, 311 Catalogue 9-36 - 10100 Page 59 Pinches 1926: 216-217

Page 28 of 147
 Partitur
1 Nin7 1 [ ] a-paṭ-ṭa-rak-ka [a-paš-ša-rak-ka?]
ši d
Nin8 1 ˹én íl gam-li-ia a-p[aṭ-ṭa-rak-ka a-paš-ša-rak-ka?]
Aš1 1 [é]n ílši! gam!-li-ia a-paṭ-ṭa-ra?-x[…]

2 Nin2B 1’ [ ]d˹amar˺-[utu …] (ruling)

Nin7 2 [ ]en šá ti-la gištukul lab-bi-[bu?…]
Nin8 2 d
asal-lú-ḫi lugal šá dingirmeš damar-utu en šá ti-[la …]
˹d
Aš1 2 asal-lú-ḫi lugal šá dingirmeš dMES en […]
Aš1 3 giš
tukul la-bu gal-meš-te! du8-meš-ka búr-m[eš-ka …]

3 Nin2B 2’ [ re-mé-nu]-˹u˺ damar-utu muš-te-š[ir …]

Nin7 3 [ ] damar-utu muš-te-š[ìr …]
Nin8 3 e-zi ù pa-šir re-mé-nu-u damar-[utu …]
Aš1 4 muš-te!-šir ḫab-li ḫa-bíl-tú →

4 Nin2B 3’ [ ]˻šib-ṭu dnam -tar →

Nin7 4 [ ša]m-ru šib-bu šib-ṭu […]
giš giš
Nin8 4 tukul la pi-du tukul ez-zu • šam-r[u …]
Aš1 4 ←gištukul la p[i-du …]
Aš1 5 šib-bu šib-ṭu nam-t[a]r →

5 Nin2B 3’ ← im x[…]
Nin7 5 [ lip-ṭu-ru]-ka lip-šu-ru-ka? áš-[ši dgamlīya apaṭṭarakka?]
Nin8 5 immeš u nim-gírmeš šam-ru-ti lip-ṭu-ru-ka li[p-šu-ru-ka …?]
Aš1 5 ←im nim-gír ša dMES […]

6 Nin2B 4’ [ ba]-aš?-mu dlàḫ-mu dmuš-[ḫuš …]

Nin7 6 [ ba-a]š-mu là[ḫ-mu …]
meš
Nin8 6 šu-ut a íd na-ba-li ba-aš-m[u …]
meš
Aš1 6 én šu-ut a íd u na-ba-li ba-[aš-mu …]
Aš1 7 ur-idim-ma →

d
7 Nin2B 5’ [ i]m.dugud na-ʾ-i-ru →
Nin7 7 [ suḫur-má]šku6 […]
Nin8 7 ku-sa-rik-ki ku6-lú-u18-lu suḫ[ur-mášku6 …]
Aš1 7 ← ku-sa-rik-ku ku6-lú-u18-lu suḫur-[mášku6 …]

8 Nin2B 5’ ← u4-m[u …]
Nin8 8 u4-mu šá igi d+en pu-luḫ-ta ḫur-ba-šu n[am-ri-ri …]

Page 29 of 147
 Aš1 8 u4-mu šá igi en pu-luḫ-tú ḫur-ba-šu nam[ri-ri …]
Aš1 9 na-din-ameš-šuII du8-[meš-ka …]
Bab1A 1’ [ ki]-˹min˺ […]

9 Nin2B 6’ [ ma]-˻ḫa-zu ṣi-i-ru […]

Nin8 9 é-sag-íl šá-qu-ú r[a-áš-bu …]
Aš1 10 én é-sag-íl šá-qu-u ra-áš-bu ma-ḫ[a-zu …]
Ur1 1 [én é-sag-í]l šá-qu-ú re-eš ma-ḫa-zu ṣi-˹i˺-˹ru˺ ˹šu˺-bat dingir˼˻meš gal[meš]
Bab1A 2’ [ ] (space) dingirmeš ˹gal?˺˹meš?˺
XX1 1 é-sag-íl šá-qu-ú ra-áš-bu

10 Nin8 10 ˻be˼-˻let˼ ˻é˼-˻sag˼-˻íl˼ ˻ša[r-rat …]

Aš1 11 be-let é-sag-íl šar-rat ˻é˼-sag-íl […]
Aš1 12 be-let tin-tirki šar-rat ˹tin˺-tirki […]
Ur1 2 [dbe-let-é-sa]g-gíl dšar-rat-min dkal-lat-min dbe-let-tin-tirki ˹d˺šar-rat-min d+en?[…]
Bab1A 3’ [ be-let tin-tir]ki šar-rat tin-tir[ki]

11 Aš1 13 ul-mu šu-ta-ḫu im nim-gír šá d˻ME[S? …]

Ur1 3 [ šu]-tá-ḫu šá damar-utu lip-ṭur-ú-ka u lip-šu-ru-ka áš-šú gišzubi-ia a-[paṭṭarakka]
Bab1A 4’ [ ] (space) ki-min ki-[min]

12 Aš1 14 én aḫ-bi-tum e-bi-tum ma-ag-rat-inim-s[u …]

Aš1 15 gu-za-lu-ú ddi-ku5 →
Ur1 4 [… da]ḫ-bi-˻tum˼ dia-bi-tum dma-ag-rat-a-mat-su den-nu-gi gu-za-lá ddi-ku5 →
Bab1A 5’ [ ] ddi-k[u5] (space)
d
XX1 2 aḫ-bi-ta dia-a-bi-tum

13 Nin1 1’ [ d
zar-pa-ni]-˹tum˺ ˹d˺˹AG˺ dtaš-me-tum duraš d[nita…]
Aš1 15 ← dMES dnumun-dù-t[ú …]
d
Aš1 16 uraš dnita dza-ba4-ba4 →
Ur1 4 ← d[amar-utu]
˹d˺
Ur1 5 ˹zar-pa-ni-tum d+AG dtaš-me-tum duraš dnita u dza-ba4-ba4 →
d
Bab1A 6’ [ za-ba]4-ba4 <<d >> →

14 Nin1 2’ [ ]dlugal-bàn-da dlugal-dìm-me-er-[an-ki-a ki-min]

Aš1 16 ← dbad-bàn-d[a? …]
d
Aš1 17 lugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-[a …]
Ur1 5 ← d+en-líl-bàn-da dlugal-bàn-da dl[ugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-a ki-min ki-min]
Bab1A 6’ ← d+en-líl-bàn-d[a] (space)
Bab1A 7’ [ ] (space) ki-min ki-[min]

Page 30 of 147
15 Nin1 3’ [d]a-nu-um an-tum d+en-líl dnin-líl dé-a dsin dutu diškur damar˺-[utu …]
Nin9 1’ [ ]˹d˺˹sin˺ [dutu] ˹d˺˹iškur˺ ˹d˺˹amar˺-˹utu˺ ˹dingir˺˹meš˺ […]
Aš1 18 én da-num an-tum d[bad] dnin-líl! d˼[…]
Aš1 19 d
iškur dMES dingirmeš qar-du-ti →
Ur1 6 én da-num an-tum d+en-líl dnin-líl dé-a dsin dutu diškur damar-utu dingirmeš ˻gal˼˻meš˼ en n[ammeš?]
Bab1A 8’ [ ]diškur u damar-utu dingirmeš qar-du-tu[m]
Bab1B 1’ [ ]˹d+en-líl˺ ˹u˺ dnin-lí[l] d˹é]-[a …]
d
XX1 3 a-num an-tum

16 Nin1 4’ [d]íd u dki-ša6 dnammu u dnanše dMÚŠ dnin-a-zu dnin-girim3 d[ḪAR?]

d
Nin9 2’ [ na]nše d MÚŠ dnin-a-zu dn[in-girim3]
Nin9 3’ (broken) →
Aš1 19 ← díd d[…]
d
Aš1 20 MÚŠ dnin-a-zu dnin-girimma[3 …] →
d
Ur1 7 nammu dnanše dMÚŠ dnin-a-zu dnin-girim3 dḪAR →
d
Bab1A 9’ [ nin]-girim3 dḪARxDÍM? →
Bab1B 2’ [ ]dnammu u dnanše dŠEM? dni[n-a-zu ...]

d
17 Nin1 5’ tir-an-na ••••••• dman-za-át •••• [ki-min]
Nin9 3’ ← [dtir-a]n-na dman-za-á[t …]
Aš1 20 ← (Broken)
Ur1 7 ← dtir-an-na dman-za-x[…]
Bab1A 9’ ← dtir-an-na <d>man-za-za ki-min ki-min

d
18 Nin1 6’ i-šar-ki-di-šu11 dla-ga-ma-al dKA-DI dMUŠ dma-nun-gal dQ[UD]
Nin9 4’ [ d
K]A-DI dMUŠ dma-nun-gal d˼[…]
Aš1 21 én <d>i-EZEN-ki-di-šu11 dla-˹ga˺-˹ma˺-˹al˼[…]
d
Aš1 22 qud-mu →
Ur1 8 én di-šar-ki-di-šu11 dla-ga-ma-al an-gal dMUŠ dma-nun-gal dQUD →
Ur2 7 DIŠ ki-min di-šar-ki-di-šu11 dla-ga-ma-al ddi-ku5 dni-ra-ḫu
Ur2 8 (space) dma-nun-gal dQUD →
Bab1A 10’ [ ] dma-nun-gal (space) dQUD
Bab1B 3’ [ ]-x-e? dla-ga-ma-al˼ […]
X1 2’ [di-šar-ki]-˹di˺-šu11 dla-ga-ma-˹al˺ <<d>>˹an˺-˹gal dMUŠ d˹m[a-nun-gal …]
d
XX1 4 i-šar-ki-di-šu11

d
19 Nin1 7’ zi-za-nu šar-rat ib-ri be-let ṣe-ri • be-let qab-li […]
Nin9 5’ [ b]e-let ṣe-ri be-let ˻qab]-˹li] […]
d d d
Aš1 22 ← zi-za-nu gašan-ib-ri […]

Page 31 of 147
 Ur1 8 ← d˹zi˺-˹za˺-˹an˺-[nu?]
d
Ur1 9 šar-rat-ib-rat d?be-let-edin d?be-let qab-lu u mè ki-min k[i-min]
Ur2 8 ← dzi-za-nu dgašan-ib-ri dgašan-edin dgašan-<mur>ub4
Ur2 9 (space) x-li-ip-ṭu-x-x ta-ḫa-zu min min
d
Bab1A 11’ [ nin-šen-šen]-na ù ta-ḫa-zi ki-min ki-min
d
Bab1B 4’ [ ]ib-ri be-let-ed[in …]
d
X1 3’ [ ]˹šar˺-rat-dib-rat dbe-let-edin dnin-šen-šen-na […]

d
20 Nin1 8’ na-bi-um dAG dli9-si4 dli-bur-dan-nu dpa-bil-[sag]
Nin9 6’ [ d
li-b]ur-dan-nu d˼pa-bi[l-sag]
Aš1 23 én dna-bi-um dAG dli9-si4 […]
Ur1 10 [é]n dna-bi-um d+AG dli9-si4 dli-bur-dam-qu dpa-bil-sag →
Ur2 10 DIŠ ki-min dna-bi-um d+AG [dli]9-si4 dli-bur-dan-nu dpa-bil-sag
d
Bab1A 12 [ pa-bi]l-sag →
˻d˼
Bab1B 5’ [ ] li9-s[i4 …]
˻d
X1 4’ na-bi-um +AG den? dli9-si4 dli-bur-dan-nu dpa-b[i]l-s[ag] →
d

d
XX1 5’ na-bi-um dAG

d
21 Nin1 9’ ḫendur-sag-gá diškur dnin-urta dPA dLUGAL dú-ṣur-inim-su dmi-šar-[rum …]
Nin2A 1’ ˹d˺[…]
Nin9 7’ [ ] dú-ṣur-inim-s[u] ˹dmi-šar-rum k[i-min]
Aš1 24 ˹dḫendur-sag-gá diškur dnin-urta dPA d[LUGAL …]
Ur1 10 ← ˻d˼[ḫendur-sa]g-gá diškur d[…]
d
Ur1 11 PA dLUGAL dú-ṣur-a-mat-su dme-šá-ru dga-ga u den-kur-kur ki-min ki-min
Ur2 11 (space) dḫendur-sag-gá diškur dnin-urta dPA u dLUGAL dú-ṣur-a-mat-su
Ur2 12 (space) ù dmi-šá-ri lip-ṭu-ur-ru-ka lip-šu-ur-ru-ka
Bab1A 12’ ← (space) dḫendur-sag-gá
d
Bab1A 13’ [ mi-šá]-ri (space) ki-min ki-min
X1 4’ ← [broken]
X1 5’ [d]nin-urta dPA u dLUGAL dú-ṣur-a-mat-su u dmi-[šá-ri]

22 Nin1 10’ d
kù-sù dNINDAxGU4 d.mùšLÀL dnin-SARxGU4 dnuska dpap-sukkal dutu da-a d[bu-ne-ne]
d
Nin2A 2’ kù-sù˺ […]
Nin9 8’ [ ]dpap-sukk[al d]utu da-a dbu-ne-n[e]
Aš1 25 én <d>kù-sù dNINDAx[GU4] d.mùsLÀL dn[in-EZENxGU4 …]
d
Aš1 26 utu da-a dbu-ne-ne →
Ur1 12 én dkù-sù dNINDAxGU4 d+mùšLÀL dnin-EZENxGU4 dnuska dnin-šubur dutu da-a dbu-ne-ne
Ur2 13 DIŠ ki-min dkù-sù dNINDAxGU4? d+mùšLÀL? dnin-EZENxGU4 dnuska d˻pap˼-˻sukkal˼
Ur2 14 (space) dutu da-a dbu-ne-ne →
d
Bab1A 14’ [ pap-s]ukkal dutu da-a (space) dbu-ne-ne

Page 32 of 147
 d
X1 6’ kù-sù dNINDAxGU4 dLÀL dnin-˹EZENxGU4 dnuska dpap-sukkal dutu d[a-a …]
d
XX1 6’ kù-sù dNINDAxGU4

d
23 Nin1 11’ iš8-tár-mul-meš dlú-ḫuš-a dIGI-DU • dlugal-GÌR-r[a] • […]
d
Nin2A 3’ iš8-tar-mul-me[š …]
d
Nin9 9’ [ IGI-D]U dlugal-GÌR-ra k[i-min]
Aš1 26 ← diš8-tá[r-mul-meš …]
Ur1 13 d
nin-si4-an-na dlú-ḫuš gišKU-AN u dlugal-GÌR-ra ki-min ki-min
Ur2 14 ← diš8-tar-mul dlú-ḫuš
Ur2 15 (space) dIGI-DU dlugal-GÌR-ra u dmes-lam-ta-è-a ˻min˼ […]
d
Bab1A 15’ [ mes]-lam-ta-è-a (space) ki-min ki-min
X1 7’ [ ]XV-mul˺-˹meš lú-ḫuš IGI-DU lugal-GÌR-ra u dmes-la[m-ta-è-a …]
d d d d

d
24 Nin1 12’ NE-GI dGÌR dtu-tu dimin-bi dna-ru-da dèr-ra-gal da-ri-˹tum] […]
d
Nin2A 4’ giš-bar dGÌR dtu-tu d˹imin˺-˹bi˺ […]
Nin9 10’ [ ] dèr-ra-gal da-ri-tum be-let ˹mè?]
Aš1 27 én dgiš-bar dGÌR dtu-tu dimin-b[i …]
Aš1 28 [d]èr-ra-gal da-ri-tum dbe-lat-u[ru? …]→
Ur1 14 [én d][NE˼-GI dGÌR dtu-tu dimin-bi dna-ru-du dèr-ra-gal da-ri-tum
Ur1 15 [broken] →
d
Bab1A 16’ [ èr]-ra-gal da-ri-tum
Bab1A 17’ [broken] →
X1 8’ [d]˹NE-GI dGÌR dtu-tu dimin-bi dna-ru-du dèr-ra-ga[l …]
d
X1 9’ nin-mè? →
d
XX1 7’ NE-GI dGÌR

d
25 Nin1 13’ nin-urta dnin-gír-su •••• dba-Ú u dgu-la˺ […]
d
Nin2A 5’ nin-urta dnin-gír-su dba-˹Ú] […]
Nin9 11’ [ ] u dgu-la k[i-min]
Aš1 28 ← [broken]
Ur1 15 ← ˻d˼ ˻nin˼-urta dnin-gír-su dba-Ú u dgu-la ki-min ki-min
d
Bab1A 17’ ←[ g]u-la ki-min ki-min
d d d d
X1 9’ ← nin-urta nin-gír-su ba-Ú u gu-l[a …]

26 Nin1 14’ d
u-gur di-šum dšu-bu-lá dlugal-gišasal2 dma-mi-tu[m] dlú-là[l]
Nin2A 6’ d
u-gur di-šum dšu-bí?-lá dlugal-giša[sal2 …] →
˹d˺
Nin4 1’ u-gur di˺-[šum …]
d
Nin9 12’ [ m]a-mi-tum dlú-làl →
Aš1 29 én du-gur di-šum dšu-bu-Ú dlugal-[gišasal2 …]
d
Aš1 30 lú-˹làl →

Page 33 of 147
 Ur1 16 [ d
i]-šum dšu-bu-lá dlugal-giš<a>sal2 dma-am-mi-tum dlú-là[l]
Bab1A 18’ [ ]dma-am-mi-tum dlú-làl
X1 10’ d
nè-eri11-gal di-šum dšu-bu-lá dlugal-<giš>asal2 dma-a[m?-mi-tum]
X1 11’ [d]lú-làl →
d
XX1 8’ nè-eri11-gal

d
27 Nin1 15’ la-ta-rak dšar-ra-ḫu dmas-su-ú dkà-kà u d+en-kur-kur • ki-[min]
Nin2A 6’ ← [broken]
<d>
Nin2A 7’ šar-ra-ḫu dmas-su-ú dga-a-g[i …]
d
Nin4 2’ la-ta-ra[k … ]
Nin9 12’ ← dla-ta-r[ak]
d
Nin9 13’ [ ]kà-kà u d+en-kur-kur k[i-min]
Aš1 30 ← dla-GA-rak dEZEN-ra-ḫ[u …]
d
Ur1 17 [ ]šar-ra-ḫu dmas-su-ú dkà-kà u den-kur-kur k[i-min …] (end)
Bab1A 19’ [ ]<<d>> d+en-kur-kur ki-min ki-min
X1 11’ ← dla-ta-ra-ak-a dšar-ra-ḫu dmas-su-ú dkà-kà […]

d
28 Nin1 16’ lugal-marad-da dIM-zu-an-na dnin-imma3 dšu-zi-an-na dšul-pa-è-a˼
d
Nin2A 8’ lugal-marad-da dIM-zu-an-na dnin-imma3 d[…] →
d
Nin4 3’ lugal-marad-d[a …]
Aš1 31 [é]n d lugal-marad-da dIM-GÍR-an-n[a …]
d
Aš1 32 šul-pa-è →
Ur1 18/r.1 [ ]-tu dIM-zu-an-na dnin-imma3 dšu-zi-an-na dšul˼-[pa-è-a]
Bab1A 20’ [ ] dšul-pa-è-a
˻d
X1 12’ lugal-marad-da dIM-zu-an-na dnin-imma3 dšu-zi-an-na dšul-˻pa˼-˻UD˼-˻DU˼-?[….] →
d
XX1 9’ lugal-marad-da

29 Nin1 17’ d
sa-dàr-nun-an-na dbe-let-dingir-dingir dSU-KUR-RU dŠIM u d˼[nin-giš-z]i-da ki-min˺
Nin2A 8’ ← [broken]
Nin2A 9’ be-let dingirmeš dSU-KUR-RU dŠIM […]
d
Nin4 4’ sa-dàr-n[un-na …]
Aš1 32 ← dsa-dàr-nun-na d[…]
d
Aš1 33 ŠIMxA dnin-gi-iz-zi-da […]
Ur1 19/r.2 [dsa-dà]r-nun-na dbe-let-dingirmeš dsi-mu?-ud? dŠIM? u dnin˺-[giš-zi-da …]
d
Bab1A 21’ [ ]nin-giš-zi-da ki-min ki-min
X1 12’ ← [broken]
X1 13’ [d]be-let-dingirmeš dSU-KUR-RU ˻d˼ŠIM u dnin-giš˼-[zi-da …]

d
30 Nin1 18’ pa4-nigargar-ra d+en-ká-gal d+en-ki-im-du dli9-˻si4] [d]nin-é-gal
d
Nin2A 10’ pa4-nigargar-ra d+en-ká-gal d+en-ki-im˼-[du …] →?

Page 34 of 147
 d
Nin4 5’ pa4-nigar[gar-ra …]
Aš1 34 [é]n dpa4-nigar(ugly)gar-ra den-ká-ga[l …]
Aš1 35 [d]nin-é-gal →
Ur1 20/r.3 ˹én˺ [dpa4]-nigargar-ra en ká-gal d+!en-ki-im-du dli9-si4 dnin-é-ga[l] →
d
Bab1A 22’ [ n]in-é-gal →
˹d [d˼
X1 14’ gar
pa4-nigar -ra en ká-gal[l] ˹en˺ -˹ki˺ im -du˼ li9-˹si4˺ ˻d˼[nin]?-˹é˺?-[gal]? →
? ?- ? d

˹d˺
XX1 10 pa[4-ni]g[argar]-˻ra˼

d
31 Nin1 19’ gu-la dla-aḫ-mu dram-ma-nu ri-iḫ-ṣu dnisaba d˻ereš-˹ki˺-˹gal dlugal-gú-du8-aki ki-min
Nin2A 10’ ←? [broken]
Nin2A 11’ ri-iḫ-ṣu dnisaba dereš-ki-ga[l …]
d
Nin4 6’ gu-la dl[a?-aḫ-mu …]
Aš1 35 ← dgu-la dla-a[ḫ-mu …]
[d˼
Aš1 36 ri-iḫ-ṣu ˹d˺nisaba dereš-ki-[gal … ]
Ur1 20/r.3 ← [broken]
d
Ur1 21/r.4 ba-áš-mu dlàḫ-mu dram-ma-nu dri-iḫ-ṣu dnisaba dere[š-ki-gal]
d
Ur1 22/r.5 lugal-gú-du8-<a>ki ki-min ki-min
Bab1A 22’ ← dgu-la
d
Bab1A 23’ [ luga]l-gú-du8-aki ki-min ki-min
X1 14’ ← [broken]
X1 15’ [dla]-˻ḫa˼?-mu dra-am-ma-nu dri-iḫ-ṣu dnisaba dereš-ki-gal d[lugal-gú-du8-aki …]

d
32 Nin1 20’ lugal-a-ab-ba dlugal-íd-da dla˼-˻gu˺-˹da den-zag dmeš-ki-lag
d
Nin2A 12’ lugal-a-<ab>-ba dlugal-íd dla-gu-da d[en-zag …] →
d
Nin4 7’ lugal-a-[ab-ba …]
Aš1 37 [én d]˻lugal˼-˻a˼?-˻ab˼?-[b]a? dlugal-[íd …]
Ur1 23/r.6 én dlugal-a-ab-ba dlugal-íd-da dla-gu-du dez-zi-ka u dmeš-ki-lig
Bab1A 24’ [broken] →
d
X1 16’ lugal-a-ab-ba dlugal-íd-da dla-gù-dé den-zag dmeš-ki-l[ag] →
d
XX1 11 lugal-a-ab-[ba]

d
33 Nin1 21’ ḫé-dìm-me-kug dlugal-du6-kug-ga di˼-˻šem˺-mi-ti-ik-la-šú dlugal-abzu dARA u dḫa-si-su ki-min
Nin2A 12’ ← [broken]
d
Nin2A 13’ i-šem-mi-i-ti-ik-la-šú dlugal-a?-[ab-ba? …]
d
Nin4 8’ ḫé-dì[m-me-kug …]
d
Aš1 38 [ l]ugal-[du6-kug-ga …]
d
Ur1 24/r.7 ḫé-dìm-me-ku lugal-du6-kug-ga di-šem-mu dti-ik-la-áš dlugal-a-ab-ba
d

d
Ur1 25/r.8 še-mu-ú <d>ḫa-si-su ki-min ki[m]in
Bab1A 24’ ← dḫé-dìm-me-kug
Bab1A 25’ [ ] dḫa-si-si ki-min ki-min

Page 35 of 147
 X1 16’ ← [broken]
X1 17’ [d]lugal-du6-kug-ga di-šem-me-ti-[ik˺-la-šú dlugal-abzu dARA u […]

34 Nin1 22’ d
ILLAT dILLAT dILLAT d˹ILLA˺T dILLAT a-ši-bu kurmeš e-lu-ti re-šá-an e-la-a-ti
d
Nin2A 14’ ILLAT dILLAT dILLAT dILL[AT …]
d
Nin4 9’ IL[LAT … ]
Ur1 26/r.9 ˻én˼ dILLAT d˻ILLAT˼ ˻d˼ILLAT dILLAT d˻ILLAT˼ a-šib ˻kur˼˻meš˼ ˻e˼-˻lu˼-ti re-šá-an e-la˼-a-ti
Bab1A 26’ [ ]dILLAT ˹a]-[ši-b]u ˹kur˺˹meš ˹kugmeš re-šá-an e-la-tum
X1 18’ [d]ILLAT dILLAT dILLAT dILLAT a-ši-bu kurmeš kugmeš re-šá-an e-la-a-tum →
d
XX1 12 ILLAT d[IL]LAT

35 Nin1 23’ ˻kup˼!-pu na˼-˻aḫ˼-lu kurmeš ídmeš a-ab-bameš • gal-la-a-ti ki-min

Nin2A 15’ kup-pu ídna-ḫal ma-ḫa-zi kurmeš A-ENGUR˼[meš …]
Nin4 10’ kup-p[u …]
Ur1 27/r.10 ˹kup˺-pu na-aḫ-lu˺ [ma-ḫ]a-˻zu kur˻meš˼ [íd][meš˼ t[a-m]a-ti gal-la-tum ki-min ki-[m]in
Bab1A 27’ [ ma-ḫa]-zi [kur]meš ídmeš ta-ma-a-tum gal -la-a-tum ki-min ki-min
X1 18’ ← qup-pu na-[…]
X1 19’ [kurm]eš ídmeš ta-ma-a-ti gal-la-a-ti m[in …]

36 Nin1 24’ [dma]r-tu ddingir-mar-tu na-áš gam-li ba-an-du8-du8e mul-li-lu muš-ši-pu

d
Nin2A 16’ […] (traces) […]
d
Nin4 11’ [mar-tu …]
Ur1 28/r.11 én dkur-gal ddingir-˹kur˺-[gal ba-an]-du8-du8e mu-ul-li-lu ˻muš˼-ši-˻pu
Bab1A 28’ [ ][d˺˹dingir-mar-tu na-ši zu[bi ba]-˹an˺-du8-du8e mul-lil-lu muš-ši-pu
X1 20’ […?] dmar-tu <d>dingir-mar-tu na-ši zubi ba-an-du8-du8 mul-lil-lum muš-ši-pu →
d
XX1 13 mar-tu

37 Nin1 25’ [… a]n-e ù ki-tim u4-mu iti u mu-an-na nu-bat-ti ud èš-èš ud-7-kam ud-15-kam ud-19-kám
Nin2A 17’ (traces) →
Nin3 1’ [ nu-ba]t?-˹ti˺ ˹ud˺?-˹èš˺?-[èš …]
Ur1 29/r.12 šá an-e u ki-tim u4-mu ˹iti] [ eš-še?]-e?-šú u[d]-[7˺-kam ud-15-kám […]
Bab1A 29’ [ ki-t]˹im u4-mu iti u mu-an-na nu-bat-tum u[d]-èš-èš ud-7-˻k][am] ud-15-kam ud-20-lá-1-kám
X1 20’ ← an-e […]
X1 21’ [ ] iti u mu-an-na nu-bat-tum ud-èš-èš ud-7-kam ud-15-kam ud-20-lá-1-kam →

38 Nin1 26’ ud-20-kam ud-25-kam ud-ná-àm ud rim-ki ud-ḫul-gál ud-30-kam a-ra-an-ka ma-mit-ka
Nin2A 17’ ← [broken]
Nin2A 18’ a-ra-an-ka ma-[mit-ka] →
Nin3 2’ [ ]˹ud˺ ˹rim˺-˹ki˺ ud-ḫul-gál ud-[30-kam …]
?
Ur1 30/r.13 ud-20-kam ud-25-kam ud-n˺˹á-˹à˺[m ud]-˹ḫul-˹gál˺ ud-30-kam →

Page 36 of 147
 Bab1A 30’ [ u]d-25-kam ud-ná-àm ud-tu5-a ˹ud-ḫul-gál˺ ud-˻30˼-k[am a-r]a-an-ka ma-mit-ka
X1 21’ ← ud-20-kam ud-25-kam ud-ná-a <ud> rim-ki ud-[…]
X1 22’ [a-ra]-an-ka ma-mit-ka →

39 Nin1 27’ ḫi-ṭi-it-ka gíl-lat-ka ni-iš-ka mu-ru-uṣ-ka ta-ni-iḫ-ka kiš-pu ru-ḫu-u ru-su-u
Nin2A 18’ ← [ḫi-ṭi-it]-ka […]
Nin3 3’ [ ni-iš-k]a mu-ru-uṣ-ka ta-ni-iḫ-˹ka˺[…]
Ur1 30/r.13 ← ni-ši mu-ru˼-uṣ-[ka? …]
Ur1 31/r.14 kiš-pi ru!-ḫe-e ru-[su-u …]→

40 Nin1 28’ up-šá-šu-u ḫulmeš šá lúmeš šá a-na ka-a-šá a-na é-ka a-na numun-ka a-na nunuz-ka
Nin2A 19’ up??-šá??-šu??-ú?? ḫul??meš?? šá? a-me-lu-t[um? …]
Nin3 4’ [ š]á a-na ka-a-šá a-na é-ka a-na ˹numun˺-[ka nunuz-k]a
Ur1 31/r.14 ←[ lem-n]u-ti šá a-me-lut-tú šá ana ka-a-šá ana é˺-[ka …]
Ur1 32/r.15 ana numun-ka ana nunuz-ka˺ →
Urk1 II 1’ [ …]-x-[… ḫu]l?meš […]
Urk1 II 2’ [broken] →

39a Bab1A 31’ [ ḫi-ṭi-it-k]a gíl-lat-ka ni-iš-ka gig-˻k˼˹a˼ u? ta-˻n˼[i?-iḫ-ka …]KUR? dingirmeš
X1 22’ ← ḫi-ṭi-it-ka gíl-lat-ka ni-iš-ka gig-ka ta-ni-iḫ-ka ár-ni ḫi-x[…]

40a Bab1A 32’ [ ru]-ḫu-ú ru-su-ú up-šá-šu-ú [... á?]meš giškimmeš

X1 23’ [kiš-p]u ru-ḫu-ú ru-su-ú up-šá-šu-ú ḫulmeš šá a-[me]-lu-ut-tum ḫulmeš šá máš-gi6meš ˻šá˼ ˻ud˼?[meš …]

40b Bab1A 33’ [máš?.gi6?m]eš ḫa-ṭa-a-tum par-da-a-tu[m] ˹la ṭ[a-ba-a-tum … par?/ma?]-du-tu ḫulmeš
X1 24’ [ḫa?-ṭa?-a?]-˻tú˼? par-da-a-ti la ṭa-ba-a-tú ḫ[u]l uzumeš níg-a[k]?-˹a˺?[meš?…]

40c Bab1A 34’ [ GÁ]L?meš šá a-na ka-a-šú a-na é-ka a-n[a …] →

X1 25’ [ ka]?-[a˼?-˻su? ana é-ka ana numun-k[a nunuz]-˻ka] →

41 Nin1 29’ it-ta-nab-šu-ú • it-ta-nap-ri-ku • it-ta-na-an-ma-ru

Nin2A 20’ it-ta-nab-šu-ú it-ta-nap˼-[ri-ku …] →
Nin3 5’ [ it]-[ta˼-nap-ri-ku it-ta-[na-an-ma]-ru
Kiš1 1’ [ i]t-t[a-…]
Ur1 32/r.15 ← ˹it-ta-[nab]-šu-[u it]-˻ta˼-na-an-ma-ru it-ta-nap-ri-ku →
Urk1 II 2’ ← [it-ta-na]b-šu-ú it-ta-nam-[ma-ru …] →
Bab1A 34’ ← ]˻it-ta-nab?-šu?-[u?]
Bab1A 35’ [it-t]˹a-nam-ma-ru it-ta-nap-ra-ku →
X1 25’ ← ˻it˼?-[…]
X1 26’ (broken) →

Page 37 of 147
42 Nin1 30’ lu-u pa-aṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-ka
Nin2A 20’ ← [broken]
Nin3 6’ [ ][lu˼-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u˺ [pa-as]-sa-nik-ka
?? ??
Kiš1 2’ [lu˺-˹ú˺ ˹pa˺-˹aṭ˺ -˹ra˺ -˹nik-ka […] (end)
Ur1 32/r.15 ← ˹du8˺?-˹meš˺?-[ka?...] x […]
Urk1 II 2’ ← [broken]
Urk1 II 3’ [ lu]-ú pa-as-sa-[nik-ka … ] (end)
Bab1A 35’ ← lu-ú paṭ-[ ra-nik-ka …]
X1 26’ ← lu-u paṭ-ra-[nik-ka …]

43 Nin1 31’ ki ma-mit a-šà giškiri6 é sila su-lu-ú ib-ra-tum ù né-mi-di-šá

Nin2A 21’ ki ma-mit a-šà giškiri6 é sila […]
Nin3 7’ [ su-lu]-u ib-ra-tum ù˺ né-mi-di-š[á]
giš
Kiš1 r.1 [k]i ma-mit E a-šà kiri6 é […]
giš
Ur1 33/r.16 [ki ma-mi]t a-šà kiri6 é su-ú-qu [ ] ˻né˼-mi-di-šú
giš
Urk1 III 1 [k]i ma-mit a-šà kiri6 é sila su-la-a i[b-ra-tum …]
giš
Bab1A 36’ [ ] a-šá kiri6 é sila su-la-a ib-ra-tu[m …]
giš
X2 1 [ki] ma-mit a-šà kiri6 é sila su-q[a?-…]

43a Nin1 32’ lu-u pa-aṭ-ra!-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-ka

Nin2A Ø
Nin3 8’ [ ]pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-k[a]
Kiš1 Ø
Ur1 Ø
Urk1 Ø
Bab1A Ø
X2 Ø

44 Nin1 33’ ki ma-mit gišgi gištir gi ḫa-ṣa-bu šam-me úki-kal zi-ḫu min min min
Nin2A 22’ ki ma-mit […]
Nin3 9’ [ ḫa-ṣa-b]u šam-me úki-kal z˺˹i-ḫu min min min
Kiš1 r.2 [k]i ma-mit <<giš>> gišgi gištir g[i …]
Ur1 34/r.17 [ a]-pi gištir qa-nu-ú [ n]a-sa-ḫi
giš giš
Urk1 III 2 [ki˼ ma-mit gi tir qa-nu-ú ḫa-ṣa-bu šam-m[u …]
giš giš
Bab1A 37’ [ m]a-mit gi tir gi ḫa-ṣa-˻bu˼ ˻šam˼-˻m[e?...]
g iš˼
X2 2 [ ] ˻tir u gi ḫa-ṣa-bi šam-mu […]

45 Nin1 34’ ki ma-mit gišapin gištukul ḫar-bu šír-ʾu mi-iṣ-ru ku-dúr-ru u mu-sa-re-e min min min
Nin2A 23’ ki ma-˻mit˼ […]

Page 38 of 147
 Nin3 10’ [ mi]-iṣ-ru ku-dúr-ru u mu-[sa-r]e-e min min min
[gi]š?
Kiš1 r.3 [k]i ma-mit <<giš>> apin kak-ki ḫ[a]r-b[i? …]
giš
Ur1 35/r.18 [ ]˻apin˼ [g]ištukul ḫar-bu šir-ʾ[i m]u-sa-r[e-e]
Urk1 III 3 [k]i ma-mit gišapin gištukul ḫar-bu ši-ri-iʾ mi-ṣir ˹NÍG˺-[DU …]
Bab1A 38’ [ m]a-mit gišapin gištukul ḫar-bu ab-sín mi-ṣ[ir
X2 3 [ ]˻x˼˻tukul˼? ḫar?-bú?-u? š[ir?-ʾu?...]

46 Nin1 35’ ki ma-mit e pa5 ti-tur-ru mé-ti-qu a-lak-ti u ḫar-ra-ni min min min
Nin2A 24’ [broken]
Nin3 11’ [ mé-ti-q]u a-lak-ti u ḫar-[ra-n]i min min m[in]
?
Kiš1 r.4 [ki] ˻ma˼-mit ˻e˼ ˻PAB˼ -E ti-tur-[ri …]
Ur1 36/r.19 [ ]˹PAB˺-E ti-tur-ru me-ti-[ ḫar]-ra-nu [min? min? min?] (end)
Urk1 III 4 [k]i ma-mit i-ki pal-gu ti-tur-ru me-te-q[u …]
Bab1A 39’ [k]i ma-mit e pa5 ti-tur-ru me-te-˻q][ú?...]
X2 4 [ ]˻x˼ ˻x˼[…]

47 Nin1 36’ ki ma-mit gišmá íd ka-a-ri gišmá-diri-ga ši-lum u a-me min min min (end)
Nin2A 25’ [broken] (end)
Nin3 12’ [ ] ši-lum u a-[me] min min m[in]
giš
Kiš1 r.5 [ ][má˼ íd ka-[a-ri …]
giš
Urk1 III 5 ˹ki ma-mit má ina íd ka-a-ri né-bi-ri šu-l[u? …]
Bab1A 40’ [k]i ma-mit gišmá ina íd ka-a-ri né-bi-[ri …]

48 Nin1 r.1 ki ma-mit ba-li-ḫe-e kup-pu na-aḫ-lu u ma-ḫa-zi

Nin2A r.1 ki ma-mit dKASKALxKUR […]
Nin3 13’ [ m]a-ḫa-zi min min mi[n]
Kiš1 r.6 [ ba-l]i-ḫe-e ˻kup˼-[pu. …]
Urk1 III 6 ki ma-mit bi-li-ḫe-e kup-pi na-ḫal u ma-ḫa-[zi …]
Bab1A 41’ [ ]˻ba-li-ḫe-e kup-pu […]

48a Nin1 r.2 lu-u pa-aṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-ka

Nin2A Ø
Nin3 Ø
Urk1 Ø
Bab1A Ø

49 Nin1 r.3 ki ma-mit du-ú-tum uru é gišgidru še-bé-ru tur-tú ma-mit u ku-un-ni níg-ka9 min min min
Nin2A r.2 ki ma-mit du-ú-tum? ˹uru]? […]
Nin3 14’ [ tur]-tú ma-mit u ku-un-ni níg-ka9 min min min
giš
Urk1 III 7 ki ma-mit du-ú-tú a-lu é níg-gidru še-bé-ri tur-tum ma-m[it …]

Page 39 of 147
 Bab1A r.1 [ ]˹x˺[…]

50 Nin1 r.4 ki ma-mit mi-ḫi-ir-ti gu4 u8-udu-ḫi-a a-me-lu-ti a-ma-ru u ma-ḫa-ru min min min
Nin2A r.3 ki ma-mit mi-ḫir-ti gu[4 …]
Nin3 15’ [ -t]i a-ma-ru u ma-ḫa-ru min min min
?
Urk1 III 8 ki ma-mit mi-ḫir gu4 ṣe-na a-me-lu-ut-ti a-ma-ru[m ...]
Bab1A r.2 [ki ma]-˹mit˺ ˹miḫ˺?-ir-˹ti˺? gu4 ṣ˹e˺?-na?? a??-[me-lu-ti …]

51 Nin1 r.5 ki ma-mit šeš it-ba-ri ru-uʾi tap-pu-u ú-ba-ri dumu uru na-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min
Nin2A r.4 ki ma-mit šeš it-ba-r[i …]
Nin3 16’ [ ]˹ú-ba-ri dumu uru na-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min (end)
Urk1 III 9 ki ma-mit šeš it-ba-ri ru-uʾi tap-pu ú-bar dumu uru na-z[a-ru?...]
Bab1A r.3 [k]i(very faint) ma-[mi]t (traces) […]

52 Nin1 r.6 ki ma-mit šeš gal-i nin gal-ti ad u ama na-za-rum u na-ka-ru min min min
Nin2A r.5 ki ma-mit šeš gal-e ni[n …]
Nin3 r.1 [ gal-t]i ad u ama na-za-rum u na-ka-ru [min min min]
Urk1 III 10 [ki˼ ˻ma-mit šeš gal-ú nin gal-ti ad u ama na-za-ri u na-[ka-ru ? …]
Bab1A r.4 [k]i m[a-mi]t […]

53 Nin1 r.7 ki ma-mit gišbanšur še-bé-ru duggú-zi ḫe-pu-u mu dingir za-ka-ru min min min
Nin2A r.6 ki ma-mit gišbanšur še?-bé-ru […]
dug
Nin3 r.2 [ g]ú-zi ḫe-pu-u mu dingir za-ka-ru [min min min]
Urk1 III 11 [… ma-mi]t banšur še-bé-ri gú-zi ḫa-pu-ú? u niš dingirmeš ˹za]-[ka-ru ? …]
giš

Bab1A r.5 ki ma-mit […]

54 Nin1 r.8 ki ma-mit gišgu-za ki-tuš • gišná • ki-ná(-?)u ta-mu-ú • min min min
Nin2A r.7 ki ma-mit gišgu-za ki-tuš […]
giš
Nin3 r.3 [ n]á ˻ki˼-n[á(-?)u?] ta-mu-ú [min min min]
Urk1 III 12 [ ]gišgu-za šub-tú gišná ma-a-a-al-tú(-?)u […]
Bab1A r.6 k[i ma-mi]t […] (traces) […]

55 Nin1 r.9 ki ma-mit túggú-è na-ka-su du-di-it-tú še-bé-ru u di-da ba-ta-qu min min min
Nin2A r.8 ki ma-mit túggú-è na-[ka-su …]
Nin3 r.4 [ še-bé]-ru u di-da ba-ta-qu min [min min]
t úg
Nin5 1’ [ ] g[ú-è …]
Urk1 III 13 [ ]túggú-è na-kás u du-di-it-ti še-bé-ri u d[i-da …]
Bab1A r.7 ki ma-mit (traces) […] (traces) […]

56 Nin1 r.10 ki ma-mit túg[sik]i ba-ta-qu u gír-an-bar ša-la-pu • min min min

Page 40 of 147
 Nin2A r.9 ki ma-mit túgsiki ba-ta-[qu …]
Nin3 r.5 [ gír-an-ba]r ša-la-pu min [min min]
túg
Nin5 2’ [ ] sik[i …]
tú g
Urk1 III 14 [ ] siki ba-ta-qu u gír(space)-a[n-bar …]
Bab1A r.8 [k]i ma-mi[t …] (traces) [ k]i-[min …]

57 Nin1 r.11 ki ma-mit [ina giš]bán tur na-da-nu ina gišbán gal-i ti-e min min min
Nin2A r.10 ki ma-mit ina gišbán tur-ti na˺-[da-nu …]
Nin3 r.6 [ ga]l-i ti-e min [min min]
giš
Nin5 3’ [ ]˹ma˺-mit ina bán […]
gi š
Urk1 III 15 [ ] bán tur-ti na-da-nu ina gišbán gal-t[im? …]
Bab1A r.9 ki˼ ˻ma-m[it …] (traces) [ ]ki-min ki-m[in …]

58 Nin1 r.12 ki ma-[mit gí]n • tur na-da-nu ina 1 gín gal-i ti-e min min min
Nin2A r.11 ki ma-mit ina 1 gín tur na-da-[nu …]
Nin3 r.7 [ ga]l-i ti-e min [min min]
Nin5 4’ [ ]˻ma˼-˻mit ina 1 gín tur […]
Urk1 III 16 [ gí]n ṣa-ḫar na-da-nu ina 1 gín gal-[i …]
(very faint)
Bab1A r.10 ki ma -[mit …] (traces) [ ]ki-min ki-min […]

59 Nin1 r.13 ki ˻ma]-[mit ma]-na tur na-da-nu ina 1 ma-na gal-i ti-e min min min
Nin2A r.12 ki ma-mit ina 1 ma-na tur na-da-[nu …]
Nin3 r.8 [ ga]l-i ti-e min m[in min]
Nin5 5’ [ ]˻ma˼-˻mit ina 1 ma-na tur […]
Urk1 III 17 [ ]ṣa?-ḫar na-da-nu ina 1 ˻ma˼-[…]
Bab1A r.11 […] (traces) [ ] ki-min ki-min […]

giš
60 Nin1 r.14 ki˼ [ zi-b]a-nit la kit-ti ṣa-ba-tú kug!-babbar la kit-ti ta-mu!-u ti-e min min min
Nin2A r.13 ki ˻ma˼-˻mit˼ gišzi-ba-ni-tu la kit-[…]
Nin3 r.9 [ ]ta-mu-u ti-e min min [min]
giš
Nin5 6’ [ ]˻ ˼˻zi˼-˻ba˼-[…]
Bab1A r.12 […] (traces) [ ] ki-min ki-min […]

61 Nin1 r.15 ki [ ]˻geme2 en u gašan • na-za-ru na-ka-ru min min min

Nin2A r.14 ki ma-mit arad geme2 be-lí gašan n[a?-za-ru ? …]
Nin3 r.10 [ na-k]a-ru min min min
Nin6 1’ [… ma]-˹mit] […]
Bab1A r.13 […] (traces) [ ] ki-min ki-min […]

62 Nin1 r.16 ki˺[ ]˻kù˼-bi šá ereš-dingir-ra lukur munusnu-gig u kul-ma-ši-tú min min min

Page 41 of 147
 Nin2A r.15 ki ma-mit dumu-munus dingirmeš kù-bi šá x[…]
Nin3 r.11 [ ]˹lukur˺ ˹nu˺-[g]ig u kul-ma-ši-tú min min min
Nin6 2’ [… ma]-mit dum[u-munus …]
Bab1A r.14 […] (traces) [ kul-ma-ši-t]u? ki-min ki-min […]

63 Nin1 r.17 ki ma-m[it ]šak-nu šá-pi-ru u da-a-a-nu min min min

Nin2A r.16 ki ma-mit dingir lugal idim u nun ša[k-nu …]
Nin3 r.12 [ šá-pi-r]u u da-a-a-nu min min min
Nin6 3’ [… ma]-mit dingir lugal˺ […]
Bab1A r.15 […] (traces) [ ] ki-min ki-min k[i-min]

64 Nin1 r.18 ki ma-mit ˹é˺[tùr ] abul a-šà giškiri6 u ma-na-ḫa-a-ti min min min
Nin2A r.17 ki ma-mit étùr saḫ?-ḫu? a[bul …
Nin3 r.13 [ a]-˹šà giškiri6 u ma-na-ḫa-a-ti min min min
Nin6 4’ [… ma]-mit étù[r …]
Bab1A r.16 […] (traces) [ ] ki-min ki-min […]

65 Nin1 r.19 ki ma-mit áš-šá-˹ti˺ ḫi-[ir-t]i ap-lu na-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min
Nin2A r.18 ki ma-mit dam ḫi-ir-tu ibil[a …]
Nin3 r.14 [ n]a-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min
Nin6 5’ [… ma]-mit áš-šá-ti […]
Aš1 r.1’ DIŠ ˹ki˺? ˹ma˺?-[mi]t? […] (ruling)
Bab1A r.17 […] (traces) [ ] ki-[min …]

66 Nin1 r.20 ki ma-mit ḫi-du-ti ṣu-ú˺-ḫi qa-bu-u e-nu(-?)u la-na-da-nu min min min
Nin2A r.19 ki ma-mit ḫi-du-ti ṣu-ú˺-[ḫi …]
Nin3 r.15 [ e]-˻nu˼(-?)u la na-da-nu min min min
Nin6 6’ [… ma]-mit ḫi-du-ti […]
Aš1 r.2’ DIŠ ˹ki˺? ˹ma˺-[mi]t?[…] (ruling)
Bab1A r.18 […] (traces) [ ki-m]in

67 Nin1 r.21 ki ma-mit gišdìḫ giškiši16 giššinig gišgišimmar zi-ḫu min min min
Nin2A r.20 ki ma-mit gišdìḫ giškiši16 giš[šinig …]
Nin3 r.16 [ ]zi-ḫu min min min
giš
Nin6 7’ [ ] dìḫ […]
Aš1 r.3’ DIŠ ki ma-mit gišd[ìḫ …] (ruling)
Bab1A r.19 [ ki-m]in˺ k[i-min ki-m]in

68 Nin1 r.22 ki ma-mit udun la-ap-ti ti-nu-ri KI-NE KI-UD-BA u nap-pa-ḫa-tú min min min
Nin2A r.21 ki ma-mit udun la-ap-tu t[i-nu-ri …]

Page 42 of 147
 Nin3 r.17 [ ]˻min˼ […]
Aš1 r.4’ DIŠ ki ma-mit udun […] (ruling)
Bab1A r.20 [ [ki-mi]n ˹k[i-mi]n [ki-mi]n

69 Nin1 r.23 ki ma-mit ùr na-an-ṣa-bu sip-pu si-gar gišig gišsag-kul u dak˼-kan-nu min min min
Nin2A r.22 ki ma-mit ùr na-˻an˼-˻ṣa˼-[bu …]
Aš1 r.5’ DIŠ ki ma-mit ùr x[ …] (ruling)
Bab1A r.21 [ ki]-min k[i-min ki]-min

70 Nin1 r.24 ki ma-mit gišpan gišgigir gír-an-bar u giššukur ta-m[u]-˻u˼ min min min
Aš1 Ø
Bab1A r.22 [ ki]-min ki-min ki-[min]

71 Nin1 r.25 ina ud-me an-ni-i dingirmeš galmeš a-ši-bu an-e da-nim ina ukkin-šú-nu lip-ṭu-ru-k[a] [lip˼-˻šu-ru-ka
Aš1 r.6’ i-na ud-mi šeš ˹dingir˺[meš …]
Aš1 r.7’ (space) i-na˼ […] (no ruling)
Bab1A r.23 (traces)

72 Nin1 r.26 níg-gig an-zil-lu ár-ni šèr-tú gíl-la-tú ḫi-ṭi-tú tur-tú • u ˹m][aš?-al?-tu?]
Aš1 r.8’ níg-gig an-zil-lu á[r-ni …]
Bab1A r.24 (traces)

73 Nin1 r.27 mi-iḫ-ru la ṭa-a-bu li-is-su-ú li-re-qu ni-šu ma-mit ár-ni ḫi?-[…]
Aš1 r.9’ mi-iḫ-ru nu […]
Aš1 r.10’ ni-šu ma-mit ár-ni […] →?
Bab1A r.25 (traces)
X2 r.1’ (traces)
X2 r.2’ [ ár]?-nu? ḪI?-AŠ-DIŠ-ša dingirmeš →

74 Nin1 r.28 šu-kun-né-e dingir u diš8-tár ḫul kiš-pi ru-ḫe-e ru-se-e up-šá-še-e ḫul-[…]
Aš1 r.10’ ←? (broken)
Aš1 r.11’ ru-su-ú u[p]-š[a?-še?-e? ...]
Aš1 r.12’ šu-kun-né-e din[gir …] →?
Bab1A r.26 (traces)
X2 r.2’ ← šu-kun-né-e din[gir …]

75 Nin1 r.29 ina ud-mi an-né-e lu-u pa-aṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-a[s-sa-nik-ka]
Aš1 r.12’ ←? (broken) (no ruling)
Bab1A r.27 (traces) (ruling not clear)
X2 r.3’ [… ud]-mu an-ni-i lu-u paṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u ˹pa]-[áš-ra-nik-ka]

Page 43 of 147
 X2 r.4’ (space) lu-u pa-as-[sa-nik-ka] (end)

76 Nin1 r.30 ú-tal-lil ú-tab-bi-ib ur-tam-mi-ik um-te-es-si uz-z[ak-ki]

Aš1 r.13’ ú-tal-lil ú-tab-[…]
Bab1A r.28 (traces)

77 Nin1 r.31 ina ameš ídidigna buranunki kugmeš ameš a-ab-ba ta-ma-ti […]
íd

Nin9 r.1’ [… ]a-a[b-ba …]

meš meš meš
Aš1 r.14’ a íd du a […]
Aš1 r.15’ x (space) […]
Bab1A r.29 (traces)

78 Nin1 r.32 ameš kug-babbar kug-GI urudu an-na a-bár na4gug na4za-gìn na4nír na4m[uš-gír]

Nin9 r.2’ [ ]na4za-[gìn…]

Aš1 r.16’ ameš ˻kug˼-[babbar] kug-GI urudu! […]
na4
Aš1 r.17’ [muš]-gír →
Bab1A r.30 (traces)

na4
79 Nin1 r.33 babbar-dili na4babbar-min5 na4àb-aš-mu na4en-gi-sa6 na4-dlamma na4dúr-[mi-na ?]
na4
Nin9 r.3’ [ en-gi-sa]6 na4-dla[mma …]

Aš1 r.17’ ← na4˹babbar˺-[dili na4b]abbar-mi[n5 …]

Aš1 r.18’ [na]4-dlamma na4dúr?-m[i]-˹na˺ →

Bab1A r.31 (traces)

80 Nin1 r.34 [n]a4PA na4zi!-é giššinig úin-nu-uš gišgišimmar-tur gišul-ḫi úsikil gišb[ú]r
giš
Nin9 r.4’ [ gišimmar-t]ur gišul-ḫi ú?[sikil …]
Aš1 r.18’ ← na4PA na4z[i?-é …]
Aš1 r.19’ [gi]š[giš]immar-tur gišul-<ḫi> ús[i]kil gišb[úr? →
Bab1A r.32 (traces)

81 Nin1 r.35 [i]na qí-bit maš-maš dingirmeš abgal dingirmeš damar-utu en ba-lá-[ṭ]i
Nin9 r.5’ [ dingir]meš damar-utu en? [ba]-˹la˺-ṭ[i]
Aš1 r.19’ ← (broken)
Aš1 r.20’ [e]n ša ti-[l]a →

82 Nin1 r.36 [i]t-ti ameš šá su-ka • u mu-sa-a-ti • • šá šuII-ka

Nin9 r.6’ [ ]mu-sa-a-ti šá šuII-ka
Aš1 r.20’ ← ki ameš šá su-k˺˹a u m[u-sa-a-ti …]

Page 44 of 147
83 Nin1 r.37 [liš]-šá-ḫi-iṭ-ma ki-tim [li-b]il! dgam-lum a-ra-an-ka lip-ṭur
d
Nin9 r.7’ [ ]gam-lum a-ra-an-ka lip-ṭ[ur]
Aš1 r.21’ liš-šá-<ḫi>-iṭ-ma ki-tum lit-bal gam?-l˺˹u a-r[a-an-ka …] (double ruling)

84 Nin1 r.38 [é]n giššinig giš-[AŠ a]n-edin˼-[na] mú-a

Nin9 r.8’ [ ]an-edin-na mú-[a]
Aš1 Ø

Nin1 r.39 […] šur-pu é-[gal…][an˼-šárki

Nin1 r.40 […d]˻nin˼-˻líl] […]
Nin1 [Colophon Aššurbanipal C?]

Nin8 Colophon Aššurbanipal C

Nin9 r.9’ [ an]-[šár˼-˻dù˼-a lugal kiš-šá-t[i] [lugal˼ ˻kur˼ […]

Nin9 [Colophon Aššurbanipal C?]

Bab1A r.39’ (traces)

Bab1A r.40’ (traces)

Page 45 of 147
1 én ílši dgam-li-ia a-paṭ-ṭa-rak-ka [a-paš-ša-rak-ka ?]
šiptu ašši dgamlīya apaṭṭarakka [apaššarakka?]
2 d
asal-lú-ḫi lugal šá dingirmeš damar-utu en šá ti-la gištukul lab-bi-[bu? ...]
Asalluḫi šarru ša ilī Marduk bēlu ša balāṭi kakku labbi[bu?…]
3 e-zi ù pa-šir re-mé-nu-u damar-utu muš-te-š[ir-ḫablim?...]
ēzi u pašir rēmēnû Marduk muštē[šir-ḫablim?…]
giš
4 tukul la pi-du gištukul ez-zu šam-ru šib-bu šib-ṭu dnam-tar
kak lā pīdu kakku ezzu šamru šibbu šibṭu namtaru
5 immeš u nim-gírmeš šam-ru-ti lip-ṭu-ru-ka lip-šu-ru-ka? áš[-ši dgamlīya apaṭṭarakka apaššarakka?]
šārū u birqū šamrūti lipṭurūka lipšurūka a[šši gamlīya apaṭṭarakka apaššarakka ?]
6 šu-ut ameš íd na-ba-li ba-aš-mu dlàḫ-mu dmuš-[ḫuš] ur-idim-ma
šūt mê nāri nābali Bašmu Laḫmu Mušḫuššu Uridimma
7 ku-sa-rik-ki ku6-lú-u18-lu suḫur-[má]šku6 [u? da]nzû na-ʾ-i-ru
Kusarikku Kulullu Suḫurm[aš]û [u A]nzû nāʾiru
8 u4-mu šá igi d+en pu-luḫ-ta ḫur-ba-šu n[am-ri-ri ma-lu-u kimin ?]
ūmu ša maḫar Bēl puluḫtu ḫurbāšu nam[rirrī malû? kimin]
9 é-sag-íl šá-qu-ú ra-áš-bu ma-ḫa-zu ṣi-i-ru šu-bat dingirmeš galmeš
Esagil šaqû rašbu māḫāzu ṣīru šubat ilī rabûtī
10 be-let é-sag-íl šar-rat é-sag-íl kal-lat é-sag-íl be-let tin-tirki šar-rat tin-tirki d+en-[… tin-tirki ?]
bēlet Esagil šarrat Esagil kallat Esagil bēlet Bābili šarrat Bābili dbēl-[… Bābili?]
11 ul-mu šu-tá-ḫu šá damar-utu kimin
ulmu šutāḫû ša Marduk kimin
12 d
aḫ-bi-tum dia-a-bi-tum dma-ag-rat-a-mat-su den-nu-gi gu-za-lá ddi-ku5 damar-utu
Aḫbitum Ayyabitum Magrat-amatsu Ennugi guzalû Madānu Marduk
13 d
zar-pa-ni-tum dAG dtaš-me-tum duraš dnita u dza-ba4-ba4
Zarpānītum Nabû Tašmētum Uraš Nita u Zababa
d
14 +en-líl-bàn-da dlugal-bàn-da dlugal-dìm-me-er-an-ki-[a] kimin
Enlilbanda Lugalbanda Lugaldimmerankia kimin
15 d
a-nu-um an-tum d+en-líl dnin-líl dé-a dsin dutu diškur damar-utu dingirmeš galmeš en n[ammeš?]
Anum Antum Enlil Ninlil Ea Sîn Šamaš Adad Marduk ilī rabûtī bēl ši[māti]
16 d
íd u dki-ša6 dnammu u dnanše dMÚŠ dnin-a-zu dnin-girim3 dHARxGIM
Id u Kiša Nammu u Nanše Tišpak Ninazu Ningirim Endibgim
d
17 tir-an-na dman-za-át kimin
Tiranna Manzat kimin
18 d
i-šar-ki-di-su dla-ga-ma-al dKA-DI dMUŠ dma-nun-gal dQUD
Išar-kidissu Lāgamāl Ištarān Irḫan Manungal Qudmu

Page 46 of 147
1 Incantation: I am raising my curved staffs, I release you, [I undo you?]

2 May Asalluhi, king of the gods, Marduk, lord of life, the raging? weapon […],

3 angry and forgiving is merciful Marduk, (the weapon) Mušteš[ir-Hablim …]

4 the unrelenting weapon, the furious and savage weapon, blaze-disease, gale-disease, the death demon

5 savage winds and savage lightning release you, may they undo you. I am rai[sing my curved staffs, I
release you, I undo you?]
6 Those of the river waters and the dry land: the Hydra, the Laḫmu-monster, the Dragon, the Savage Dog,

7 the Bull-man, the Fish-man, the Fish-goat, [and?] bellowing Anzu

8 Demons which are [filled?] with fear, dread and terror in the presence of Bēl. Ditto.

9 The high, awesome Esagil, august sanctuary, throne of the great gods,

10 Lady of the Esagil, Queen of the Esagil, Bride of the Esagil, Lady of Babylon, Queen of Babylon, […of
Babylon?]
11 The double axe of Marduk. Ditto.

12 Aḫbitum, Ayyabitum, Magrat-amatsu, Ennugi, the throne-bearer Madānu, Marduk

13 Zarpanitum, Nabu, Tašmētum, Uraš, Nita and Zababa

14 Enlilbanda, Lugalbanda, Lugaldimmerankia. Ditto.

15 Anum, Antum, Enlil, Ninlil, Ea, Sin, Šamaš, Adad, Marduk – the great gods, lords of f[ate?]

16 Id and Kiša, Nammu and Nanše, Tišpak, Ninazu, Ningirim, Endibgim

17 Tiranna, Manzat. Ditto.

18 Išarkidišu, Lagamal, Ištarān, Irhan, Manungal, Qudmu

Page 47 of 147
19 d
zi-za-nu šar-rat IB-ri be-let ṣe-ri be-let qab-li u ta-ḫa-zi kimin
Zizanu šarrat epri bēlet ṣēri bēlet qabli u tāḫāzi kimin
d
20 na-bi-um dAG dli9-si4 dli-bur-dan-nu dpa-bil-sag
Nabium Nabû Lisi Libūr-dannu Pabilsag
21 d
ḫendur-sag-gá diškur dnin-urta dPA dLUGAL dú-ṣur-a-mat-su dmi-šar-rum kimin
Ḫendursagga Adad Ninurta Šullat Ḫaniš Uṣur-amatsu Mīšarum kimin
22 d
kù-sù dNINDAxGU4 d.mùšLÀL dnin-EZENxGU4 dnuska dpap-sukkal dutu da-a dbu-ne-ne
Kusu Indagara Alammuš Ningublaga Nuska Papsukkal Šamaš Aya Bunene
23 d
iš8-tár-mul-meš dlú-ḫuš-a dIGI-DU dlugal-GÌR-ra kimin
Ištar-kakkabē Luḫušû Pālil Lugalgirra kimin
d
24 NE-GI dGÌR dtu-tu dimin-bi dna-ru-da dèr-ra-gal da-ri-tum be-let m[è?]
Girra Šakkan Tutu Sebetti Naruda Erragal Arītum bēlet t[āḫāzu?]
d
25 nin-urta dnin-gír-su dba-Ú u dgu-la kimin
Ninurta Ningirsu Bau u Gula kimin
26 d
u-gur di-šum dšu-bu-lá dlugal-gišasal2 dma-mi-tum dlú-làl
Nergal Išum Šūbula Šarṣarbati Māmītum Lulal
27 d
la-ta-rak dšar-ra-ḫu dmas-su-ú dga-ga u d+en-kur-kur kimin
Latarak Šarraḫu Massû Kakka u Enkurkur kimin
28 d
lugal-marad-da dIM-zu-an-na dnin-imma3 dšu-zi-an-na dšul-pa-è-a
Lugalmaradda Ninzuanna Ninimma Šuzianna Šulpaea
29 d
sa-dàr-nun-na dbe-let-dingirmeš dSU-KUR-RU dŠIM u dnin-giš-zi-da kimin
Sadarnunna Bēlet-ilī Sud Siris u Ningišzida kimin
d
30 pa4-nigargar-ra d+en-ká-gal d+en-ki-im-du dli9-si4 dnin-é-gal
Panigarra Enkagal Enkimdu Lisi Ninegal
31 d
gu-la dla-aḫ-mu dram-ma-nu ri-iḫ-ṣu dnisaba dereš-ki-gal dlugal-gú-du8-aki kimin
Gula Laḫmu Rammānu riḫṣu Nisaba Ereškigal Lugalgudua kimin
32 d
lugal-a-ab-ba dlugal-íd-da dla-gu-da den-zag dmeš-ki-lag
Lugalayabba Lugalidda Laguda Enzag Meskilag
33 d
ḫé-dìm-me-kug dlugal-du6-kug-ga di-šem-mi-ti-ik-la-šú dlugal-abzu dARA u dḫa-si-su kimin
Ḫedimmekug Lugaldukuga Išemmi-tiklašu Lugalabzu Usmû u Ḫasisu kimin
34 d
ILLAT dILLAT dILLAT dILLAT dILLAT a-ši-bu kurmeš e-lu-ti re-šá-an e-la-a-ti
d
ILLAT dILLAT dILLAT dILLAT dILLAT āšibū šadê elûti rēšān elâti
35 kup-pu na-aḫ-lu kurmeš ídmeš a-ab-bameš gal-la-a-ti kimin
kuppū naḫlū šadê nārātu tâmātu gallāti kimin
36 d
mar-tu ddingir-mar-tu na-áš gam-li ba-an-du8-du8e mul-li-lu muš-ši-pu
Amurru Il-Amurrim nāš gamli banduddê mullilu muššipu

Page 48 of 147
19 Zizanu, Queen of the dust, Lady of the steppe, Lady of battle and combat. Ditto.

20 Nabium, Nabu, Lisi, Liburdannu, Pabilsag

21 Hendursanga, Adad, Ninurta, Šullat, Haniš, Uṣuramatsu, Mišarum. Ditto.

22 Kusu, Indagara, Alammuš, Ningublaga, Nuska, Papsukkal, Šamaš, Aya, Bunene,

23 Ištar-kakkabē, Luhuš, Pālil, Lugalgirra. Ditto.

24 Girra, Šakkan, Tutu, the Sebettu, Naruda, Erragal, Aritum, Lady of co[mbat?]

25 Ninurta, Ningirsu, Bau and Gula. Ditto.

26 Nergal, Išum, Šubula, Šarṣarbati, Māmītum, Lulal,

27 Latarak, Šarrahu, Massû, Kakka and Enkurkur. Ditto.

28 Lugalmaradda, Ninzuanna, Ninimma, Šuzianna, Šulpaea

29 Sadarnunna, Belet-Ili, Sud, Siris and Ningišzida. Ditto.

30 Panigarra, Enkagal, Enkimdu, Lisi, Ninegal,

31 Gula, Lahmu, devastating Rammanu, Nisaba, Ereškigal, Lugalgudua. Ditto.

32 Lugalabba, Lugalidda, Laguda, Enzag, Meškilag,

33 Hedimmekug, Lugaldukuga, Išemmi-tiklašu, Lugalabzu, Usmû and Hasisu. Ditto.

34 ILLAT, ILLAT, ILLAT, ILLAT, ILLAT, dwellers in the high mountains, the high peaks.

35 catchwaters, mountain streams, mountains, rivers, roiling seas. Ditto.

36 (By) Amurru (and) Ilī-Amurru, bearers of the gamlu-stick, the banduddu-bucket, the mullilu-sprinkler,
and the muššipu-exorciser,

Page 49 of 147
37 šá an-e ù ki-tim u4-mu iti u mu-an-na nu-bat-ti ud-èš-èš ud-7-kam ud-15-kam ud-19-kam
ša šamê u erṣeti ūmu arḫu u šattu nubatti ūm eššeši 7-ūmu 15-ūmu 19-ūmu
38 ud-20-kam ud-25-kam ud-ná-àm ud rim-ki ud-ḫul-gál ud-30-kam a-ra-an-ka ma-mit-ka
20-ūmu 25-ūmu ūm bubbuli ūm rimki ūmu lemnu 30-umu aranka māmītka
39 ḫi-ṭi-it-ka gíl-lat-ka ni-iš-ka mu-ru-uṣ-ka ta-ni-iḫ-ka kiš-pu ru-ḫu-u ru-su-u
ḫiṭītka gillatka nīška muruṣka tānīḫka kišpū ruhû rusû
40 up-šá-šu-u ḫulmeš šá lúmeš šá a-na ka-a-šá a-na é-ka a-na numun-ka a-na nunuz-ka
upšašû lemnūti ša amēlūti ša ana kâša ana bītika ana zērika ana pirʾika
39a ḫi-ṭi-it-ka gíl-lat-ka ni-iš-ka gig-ka ta-ni-iḫ-ka ár-ni ḫi-x[…]KUR? dingirmeš [kiš-p]u ru-ḫu-ú ru-su-ú
ḫiṭītka gillatka nīška muruṣka tānīḫka arni ḫi-[…]-KUR? ilī kišpū ruhû rusû
40a up-šá-šu-ú ḫulmeš šá a-[me]-lu-ut-tum ḫulmeš šá gi6meš šá ud?[meš šá? á?]meš giškimmeš
upšašû lemnūti ša amēlūti lumun ša mūšī ša ūm[ī? ša? idāt]e ittāte
40b [máš?-gi6?m]eš ḫa-ṭa-a-tum par-da-a-tum la ṭa-ba-a-tú ḫul uzumeš níg-a[k]?-a? […? par/ma?]-du-tu ḫulmeš
[šunāt]i? ḫaṭâtum pardātum lā ṭābātu lumun šīrē upī[š]u? [… par/ma]dutu lemnūti
40c […GÁ]L?meš šá a-na ka-a-šu ana é-ka ana numun-ka nunuz-ka
[…GÁ]Lmeš ša ana kâšu ana bītika ana zērika ana pirʾika
41 it-ta-nab-šu-ú it-ta-nap-ri-ku it-ta-na-an-ma-ru
ittanabšû ittanaprikū ittananmarū
42 lu-u pa-aṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-ka
lū paṭrānikka lū pašrānikka lū passānikka
43 ki ma-mit a-šà giškiri6 é sila su-lu-ú ib-ra-tum ù né-mi-di-šá [min min min]
itti māmīt eqli kirî bīti sūqi sulû ibratu u nēmedīša [min min min]
!
43a lu-u pa-aṭ-ra -nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-ka
lū paṭrānikka lū pašrānikka lū passānikka
44 ki ma-mit gišgi gištir gi ḫa-ṣa-bu šam-me úki-kal zi-ḫu min min min
itti māmīt api qišti qanê ḫaṣābu šammē sassati nasāhu min min min
giš giš
45 ki ma-mit apin tukul ḫar-bu šír-ˀu mi-iṣ-ru ku-dúr-ru u mu-sa-re-e min min min
itti māmīt epinni kak ḫarbi širʾi miṣru kudurru u musarê min min min
46 ki ma-mit e pa5 ti-tur-ru mé-ti-qu a-lak-ti u ḫar-ra-ni min min min
itti māmīt iki palgi titurru mētiqu alakti u ḫarrāni min min min
giš giš
47 ki ma-mit má íd ka-a-ri má-diri-ga ši-lum u a-me min min min
itti māmīt elippi nāri kāri nēbiri šīlum u ame min min min
48 ki ma-mit ba-li-ḫe-e kup-pu na-aḫ-lu u ma-ḫa-zi min min min
itti māmīt balīḫē kuppu naḫlu u māḫāzi min min min
48a lu-u pa-aṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-sa-nik-ka
lū paṭrānikka lū pašrānikka lū passānikka

Page 50 of 147
37 (by) those of Heaven and Earth, (by) day, month and year, (by) evening festival, festival day, 7 th day,
15th day, 19th day
38 20th day, 25th day, day of the new moon, washing day, very evil day, 30th day; may your punishment,
your sanction,
39 your error, your sacrilege, your sworn oath, your disease, your fatigue, sorcery, ruḫû-magic, rusû-magic

40 the evil doings of men which against you, against your house, against your offspring, against your
descendants,
39a your error, your sacrilege, your sworn oath, your disease, your fatigue, sin, ḪI-[…]-KUR?, gods,

40a the evil doings of men, the evil of nights, of day[s]?, [of] 40b
defective, frightening, unfavourable
40a
[sign]s?, omens,
40b [dream]s?, the evil of […? nume]rous?/[frighte]ning?, evil entrails, machinations, […?]

40c […GÁ]L?meš which against you, against your house, against your offspring, against your descendants

41 constantly emerge, which repeatedly obstruct, repeatedly occur,

42 be released for you, may they be dispelled for you, may they be erased for you.

43 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to field, orchard, house, wide street, narrow street,
the open-air altar or its cult platform ditto, ditto, ditto.
43a May they be removed for you, may they be dispelled for you, may they be erased for you

44 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to cutting reed thicket, forest (or) reeds, ripping up
šammū-grass (or) Sinai meadow grass ditto ditto ditto
45 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to seeder plough, share of the subsoil-plough,
furrow, boundary, boundary stone or inscription ditto, ditto, ditto
46 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to ditch, canal, causeway, path, road or highway
ditto, ditto, ditto
47 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to boat, river, mooring-place, ferry, šilum-boat? or
raft ditto, ditto, ditto
48 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to ponor, catchwater, mountain stream or reservoir
ditto, ditto, ditto
48a May they be removed for you, may they be dispelled for you, may they be erased for you

Page 51 of 147
49 ki ma-mit du-ú-tum uru é gišgidru še-bé-ru tur-tu ma-mit u ku-un-ni níg-ka9 min min min
itti māmīt dūtum āli bīti ḫaṭṭu šebēru tūrtu māmīt u kunni nikkassi min min min
50 ki ma-mit mi-ḫi-ir-ti gu4 u8-udu-ḫi-a a-me-lu-ti a-ma-ru u ma-ḫa-ru min min min
itti māmīt miḫirti alpī ṣēnī amēlūti amāru u mahāru min min min
51 ki ma-mit šeš it-ba-ri ru-uˀi tap-pu-u ú-ba-ri dumu uru na-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min
itti māmīt aḫi itbari rūʾi tappû ubāri mār āli nazāru u nakāru min min min
52 ki ma-mit šeš gal-i nin9 gal-ti ad u ama na-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min
itti māmīt aḫi rabî aḫāti rabīti abi u ummi nazārum u nakāru min min min
53 ki ma-mit gišbanšur še-bé-ru duggú-zi ḫe-pu(-?)u mu dingir za-ka-ru min min min
itti māmīt paššūri šebēru kāsi ḫepû u šum ili zakāru
?
min min min
giš giš ?
54 ki ma-mit gu-za ki-tuš ná ki-ná(- )u ta-mu-ú min min min
itti māmīt kussî šubti erši mayyālu u? tamû min min min
55 ki ma-mit túggú-è na-ka-su du-di-it-tú še-bé-ru u di-da ba-ta-qu min min min
itti māmīt naḫlapti nakāsu dudittu šebēru u dīda batāqu min min min
56 ki ma-mit túg
siki ba-ta-qu u gír-an-bar ša-la-pu min min min
itti māmīt sissikti batāqu u patri šalāpu min min min
57 ki ma-mit ina gišbán tur na-da-nu ina gišbán gal-i ti-e min min min
itti māmīt ina sūti ṣeḫerti nadānu ina sūti rabīti leqê min min min
58 ki ma-mit ina 1 gín tur na-da-nu ina 1 gín gal-i ti-e min min min
itti māmīt ina šiqlu ṣeḫri nadānu ina šiqlu rabî leqê min min min
59 ki ma-mit ina 1 ma-na tur na-da-nu ina 1 ma-na gal-i ti-e min min min
itti māmīt ina manî ṣeḫri nadānu ina manî rabî leqê min min min
giš
60 ki ma-mit zi-ba-nit la kit-ti ṣa-ba-tú kug-babbar la kit-ti ta-mu-u ti-e min min min
itti māmīt zibānīt lā kitti ṣabātu kasap lā kitti tamû leqê min min min
61 ki ma-mit arad géme en u gašan na-za-ru na-ka-ru min min min
itti māmīt ardi amti bēli u bēlti nazāru u nakāru min min min
meš
62 ki ma-mit dumu-munus dingir kù-bi šá ereš-dingir-ra lukur munus
nu-gig u kul-ma-ši-tú min min min
itti māmīt mārat-ilī kubī ša bēlet-ili nadītu qadištu u kulmašītu min min min
63 ki ma-mit dingir lugal idim u nun šak-nu šá-pi-ru u da-a-a-nu min min min
itti māmīt ili šarri kabti u rubê šaknu šāpiru u dayānu min min min
giš
64 ki ma-mit tùr saḫ -ḫu abul a-šà kiri6 u ma-na-ḫa-a-ti
é ? ?
min min min
itti māmīt tarbaṣi saḫḫi? abulli eqli kirî u mānaḫāti min min min
65 ki ma-mit áš-šá-ti ḫi-ir-ti ap-lu na-za-ru u na-ka-ru min min min
itti māmīt aššati ḫīrti aplu nazāru u nakāru min min min
66 ki ma-mit ḫi-du-ti ṣu-ú-ḫi qa-bu-u e-nu- u la na-da-nu
?
min min min
itti māmīt ḫidūti ṣūhi qabû enû u? lā nadānu min min min

Page 52 of 147
49 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to secret place, city, house, breaking a sceptre,
restitution, māmīt-oath or certifying an account ditto, ditto, ditto
50 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to seeing and receiving income, cattle, sheep or
slaves ditto, ditto, ditto
51 Together with the sanctions for cursing brother, associate, friend, partner, foreign guest, (or) fellow
citizen and denying it ditto, ditto, ditto
52 Together with the sanctions for cursing elder brother, elder sister, father or mother and denying it ditto,
ditto, ditto
53 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to breaking a table, smashing a cup and ? invoking
the name of a god ditto, ditto, ditto
54 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to swearing by chair, seat, bed or? couch ditto,
ditto, ditto
55 Together with the sanctions for ripping a cloak, breaking a pectoral or cutting off didu-undergarments
ditto, ditto, ditto
56 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to cutting a hem or drawing a dagger ditto, ditto,
ditto
57 Together with the sanctions for giving with a small sutu-vessel and taking with a large sutu-vessel ditto,
ditto, ditto
58 Together with the sanctions for giving with a small shekel-weight and taking with a large shekel-weight
ditto, ditto, ditto
59 Together with the sanctions for giving with a small mina-weight and taking with a large mina-weight
ditto, ditto, ditto
60 Together with the sanctions for handling an untrue balance, taking, under oath, untrue silver ditto, ditto,
ditto
61 Together with the sanctions for cursing slave, slave girl, master or mistress and denying it ditto, ditto,
ditto
62 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to the daughter of a god, (or) the foetus of high
priestess, Nadītu-woman, Qadištu-woman or Kulmašitu-woman ditto, ditto, ditto
63 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to god, king, magnate or prince, governor,
commandant, or judge ditto, ditto, ditto
64 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to cattle pen, meadow?, gate, field, orchard or tilled
field ditto, ditto, ditto
65 Together with the sanctions for cursing wife, wife of equal status, (or) eldest son and denying it ditto,
ditto, ditto
66 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to joking, laughter, retracting a promise or ? not
fulfilling a promise ditto, ditto, ditto

Page 53 of 147
67 ki ma-mit gišdìḫ giškiši16 giššinig gišgišimmar zi-ḫu min min min
itti māmīt balti ašāgi bīni gišimmari nasāḫu min min min
68 ki ma-mit udun la-ap-ti ti-nu-ri KI-NE KI-UD-BA u nap-pa-ḫa-tú min min min
itti māmīt utūn lapti tinūri kinūni KI.UD.BA u nappāḫātu min min min
69 ki ma-mit ùr na-an-ṣa-bu sip-pu si-gar gišig gišsag-kul u dak-kan-nu min min min
itti māmīt ūri nanṣabu sippu šigaru dalti sikkuri dakkannu min min min
giš giš giš
70 ki ma-mit pan gigir gír-an-bar u šukur ta-m[u]-u min min min
itti māmīt qašti narkabti patri u sukurri tamû min min min
71 ina ud-me an-ni-i dingirmeš galmeš a-ši-bu an-e da-nim ina ukkin-šú-nu lip-ṭu-ru-k[a] lip-šu-ru-ka
ina ūmi annî ilī rabûtī āšibū šamê dAnim ina puḫrišunu lipṭurūka lipšurūka
72 níg-gig an-zil-lu ár-ni šèr-tú gíl-la-tú ḫi-ṭi-tú tur-tú u ˹m[aš?-al?-tu?]
ikkibu anzillu arni šērtu gillatu ḫiṭītu tūrtu u ˹m[ašaltu?]
73 mi-iḫ-ru la ṭa-a-bu li-is-su-ú li-re-qu ni-šu ma-mit ár-ni ḪI?-AŠ-DIŠ ša dingirmeš
miḫru lā ṭābu lissû lirīqū nīšu māmīt arni ḪI-AŠ-DIŠ ša ilānī
74 šu-kun-né-e dingir u diš8-tár ḫul kiš-pi ru-ḫe-e ru-se-e up-šá-še-e ḫul[meš šá? a-me-lu-ut-tum?]
šukunnê ili u ištari lumun kišpī ruḫê rusê upšašê lem[nūti? ša? amēlūti?]
75 ina ud-mi an-né-e lu-u pa-aṭ-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-áš-ra-nik-ka lu-u pa-as-[sa-nik-ka]
ina ūmi annî lū paṭrānikka lū pašrānikka lū passā[nikka]
76 ú-tal-lil ú-tab-bi-ib ur-tam-mi-ik um-te-es-si uz-z[ak-ki]
ūtallil ūtabbib urtammik umtesssi uzz[akki]
77 ina ameš ídidigna ídburanunki kugmeš ameš a-ab-ba ta-ma-ti […]
ina mê Idiglat Purattu ellūti mê ayabba tâmāti [rapašti?]
78 ameš kug-babbar ku-GI urudu an-na a-bár na4gug na4za-gìn na4nír na4m[uš]-gír
mê kaspi ḫurāṣi erî annaki abāri sāmti uqnî ḫulāli m[uš]šari
na4
79 babbar-dili na4babbar-min5 na4àb-aš-mu na4en-gi-sa6 na4-dlamma na4dúr-mi?-na?
pappardillî papparmini abašmî engisî lamassi turminî
80 na4
PA na4zi-é giššinig úin-nu-uš gišgišimmar-tur gišul-ḫi úsikil gišb[ú]r
ayyarti zibīti bīni maštakal gišimmmari qan-šalāli sikilli iṣ-pišri
81 ina qí-bit maš-maš dingirmeš abgal dingirmeš damar-utu en ba-lá-[ṭ]i
ina qibīt mašmaš ilī apkal ilī Marduk bēl balāṭi
82 it-ti ameš šá su-ka u mu-sa-a-ti šá šuII-ka
itti mê ša zumrika u musâti ša qātēka
83 liš-šá-ḫi-iṭ-ma ki-tum li-bil dgam-lum a-ra-an-ka lip-ṭur
liššaḫiṭma erṣetum litbal gamlum aranka lipṭur
84 én giššinig giš-AŠ an-edin-na mú-a
ÉN gišŠINIG GIŠ-AŠ AN.EDIN.NA MÚ.A

Page 54 of 147
67 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to ripping up camelthorn, yanqout, tamarisk,
datepalm ditto, ditto, ditto
68 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to kiln, barley oven, oven, brazier, cultic brazier?,
or bellows ditto, ditto, ditto
69 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to cattle-shed, drain-pipe, door-jamb, bolt, door,
lock, or bench ditto, ditto, ditto
70 Together with the sanctions (for misconduct) related to swearing (by?) bow, chariot, dagger or spear
ditto, ditto, ditto
71 On this day, may the great gods, dwellers in the heaven of Anu, release you, absolve you in their
assembly
72 Taboo, abomination, sin, misdeed, sacrilege, error, retribution, in[terrogation?]

73 adversity, malevolence, may they withdraw, may they depart. Sworn oath?, sanction, punishment, HI-
AŠ-DIŠ of the gods
74 blasphemy (against?) god or goddess, the evil of sorcery, ruḫu-magic, rusu-magic, the evil doin[gs of?
men?]
75 On this day, may they be removed for you, may they be dispelled for you, may they be erased for you

76 He was purified, cleansed, bathed, washed, cleaned

77 in water of the pure Tigris and Euphrates, water of the [XX] sea and ocean

78 water of silver, gold, copper, tin, lead, carnelian, lapis lazuli, black and white banded agate, sardonyx,

79 single-striped stone, double-striped stone, green abašmu-stone, engisû-stone, pink-red chalcedony,

black breccia
80 cowrie shell, seashell, tamarisk, maštakal, date-palm, šalalu-reed, sea squill, iṣ-pišri-plant.

81 Upon the command of the exorcist among the gods, the expert among the gods, Marduk, Lord of life

82 together with the water from your body and the bidet-water from your hands

83 let it be washed away so that the earth takes it away. May the gamlu-stick remove your sin.

84 Incantation: Tamarisk, lone tree growing in the steppe

Page 55 of 147
 Commentary
1-35 This section is by far the most striking feature of Tablet IX. In just 35 lines, over 150 gods, temples and divine powers
are invoked to ‘release you and undo you.’ The ‘you’ in question is the patient, as is clear from line 83, but what
precisely he is to be released and undone from must be inferred from context. The majority of the names in this section
are relatively obscure – some are known only from Šurpu. This fact has served to disguise the purpose of the Tablet.
However, when analysed more closely, most of the more obscure names can be understood as representing better
known gods or their courts. The gods represented fall into three broad categories: warrior gods, netherworld gods, and
Abzu gods.
The idea that most clearly unites these groups is the ability to control demons. Warriors fight demons, while the
netherworld and the Abzu are the places from which the majority of demons are said to come. The gods of these
realms are therefore the figures responsible for controlling their demonic inhabitants. If this is accepted as the
underlying principle connecting the listed deities, the force from which the patient pleads to be released must be the
demon or demons who are infesting him. This point is discussed at greater length below (ll. 43-70), but it will be
helpful to note some evidence here which supports this suggestion. The opening lines of Šurpu VII describe the
mythological background to the ritual as a whole:
1. ÉN buru5 šà abzu.ta im.ta.è.a.na Incantation: When Dimītu-demon came out from the heart of the Abzu
2. Dimītu ultu qereb apsî ittaṣâ Dimītu-demon came out from the heart of the Abzu
3. nam.erim2 šà.an.na.ta im.ta.e11.d[è] Māmītu-demon came down from the midst of heaven
4. Māmītum ultu qereb šamê urda Māmītu-demon came down from the midst of heaven
5. dù.dù ú.šim.gim ki.a mu.un.dar Aḫḫazu-demon broke through the ground like vegetation
6. Aḫḫazu kīma urqīti erṣeta ipeṣṣa Aḫḫazu-demon broke through the ground like vegetation
This is the opening of the second Ea-Marduk dialogue in Šurpu, in which Marduk asks his father how to help and Ea
gives instructions for ritual and incantation. The Sumerian in line 1 literally refers to ‘locust’ instead of Dimītu-demon.
This is presumably a metaphorical name referring to the Dimītu-demon’s effects, though it is conceivably literal. In
any case, the important point to note is that the three demons are said to come respectively from the Abzu, heaven, and
through the ground. As will be discussed later (ll. 43-70) the māmītu-demon comes from heaven because it is a divine
curse. The Aḫḫazu-demon’s origin is not explicitly stated, but coming through the ground demonstrates that it must be
either the netherworld or the Abzu. Thus we can see that the demonic forces from which the patient of Šurpu suffered
belonged to the demesnes of the gods invoked – the Abzu and the underworld – while the warriors could fight them all.
A further consideration is that the gamlu-stick which the exorcist or patient wields during the recitation of the
incantation was a sort of weapon. While not attested in war, the stick is well known from the iconography of the god
Amurru.102 It is a large curved stick, apparently associated with the Amorites. While we cannot establish the use to
which the stick was put during the ritual, it is at least possible that it was used to attack the demons which were causing
the problems.

1-5 As mentioned in the introduction, these lines have been garbled in Aš1. Following the text given in Aš1 produces an
uneven paean to Marduk, interrupted by a version of the litany phrase lipṭurūka lipšurūka ‘may release you, may
absolve you’, followed by a brief list of divine forces ‘of Marduk’, and presumably closed with a reiteration of the
litany phrase, though this is not preserved. The scribe of Aš1 seems to have understood these lines as representing two

102
Beaulieu 2005: 36.

Page 56 of 147
 separate lists – the first simply Marduk, the second some assorted divine forces. The traces of a ruling following the
second line in Nin2B suggests that this was not unique to Aš1, but as neither Nin7 nor Nin8 (both of which are more
neatly written than Nin2B) shows any evidence of this reading, and as Aš1 does not include a ruling at this point, it has
not been followed here.
Following the reading in Aš1 would present a number of difficulties. Chief among these is that the resultant text
presents a stark contrast to the following 13 sections. As will be discussed below, these uniformly present brief lists of
divine figures and close with a litany. The celebration of Marduk at the beginning has no parallel elsewhere in the text
of the incantation. While it could be argued that uniformity should not be expected, or that the lack of it is due to the
fact that these lines constitute an introduction, their stylistic shortcomings make this unappealing. If the idea were to
open with a hymn of praise the litany phrase in line 3 should not be included – it breaks the flow of the text and is
immediately repeated two lines below.
A comparison with the other manuscripts for these lines demonstrates that Aš1 offers at best a non-standard text.
Unfortunately, all witnesses to this section are fragments from the left side of the tablet, meaning that the ends of the
lines are not preserved. Nonetheless, enough survives to understand the idea of the lines. This section gives an
enumeration of the powers and forms of Marduk and a single instance of the invocation litany. While not exactly
mirrored by the following 13 sections, this is much closer to what we should expect – a defined group of divine forces
invoked together to remove the patient’s problems.

1 The form gamlīya is either dual or plural. Note, however, that only one gamlu-stick is used in all cases where the ritual
instructions prescribe the raising of a curved staff during the recitation of this incantation. 103
The restoration of apaššarakka at the end of the line is tentative. The text distribution in Nin7 indicates that one more
word followed after apaṭṭarakka and this follows the pattern of lipṭurūka lipšurūka.

2 Asalluhi, though originally a distinct god, is a very common form of Marduk. The epithets given to both Asalluhi and
Marduk in this line mark the names of Marduk out as worthy of particular attention. Few other gods in this incantation
receive similar treatment. This is presumably the root of the garbled reading in Aš1.
The restoration gištukul lab-bi-[bu?] in Nin7 is based on the sense of the passage. The labbibu-knife is known from the
synonym list Malku=Šarru III:104
9. labbibu MIN (patru, arru)
labbibu is one of several words equated with both patru, meaning ‘knife’ or ‘dagger’, and arru, the principal meaning
of which is ‘blazing’, but which is also known as an epithet of weaponry. 105 The word labbibu comes from the root l-b-
b ‘to rage’, thus is an appropriate name for a weapon of Marduk.
An alternative possibility is to follow the reading of Aš1, kak labu rabbûti lipṭurūka lipšurūk[a? … ] ‘The great lion
weapon, may remove you, may dispel you’. As already discussed, the second half of this is an unwarranted
interruption resulting from the scribe’s confusion. The ‘great lion weapon,’ assuming this is the correct reading,
unattested elsewhere, but gains some measure of support from the presence of Muštēšir-Hablim in line 3. In both Tintir
II106 and the Late Babylonian Kislīmu ritual107 Muštēšir-Ḫablim is associated with the god Madānu. In Tintir,

103
Ambos 2013: 171, l. y+30’; Maul and Strauß 2011: 88, no. 39, l. 10’.
104
Hrůša 2010: 74.
105
Lambert 1960: 178, r. 14.
106
George 1992: 50-51 ll. 7-8 and 53-54 ll.33’-34’.

Page 57 of 147
 Madānu’s temple is named é.pirig ‘House of the Lion.’108 This is a very tortuous link, however, and so the reading has
not been adopted here. That said, it is possible that rabbûti should be taken as part of the line – kak labbibu rabbûti
‘the great raging weapon’ – but without confirmation outside Aš1 this has not been adopted here.
Even if rabbûti is assumed to be accurate, it is probable that at least one more word, presumably the name of another
weapon, was written at the end of the line.

3 Aš1 reads mustēšir ḫabli ḫabiltu ‘who provides order for the oppressed man and woman’, ostensibly an epithet of
Marduk. While there are several personal names which have muštēšir as an epithet of Marduk, 109 this phrase is not
known elsewhere. In Akkadian prayers, three epithets of Marduk involve muštēšir:110
muštēšir nagbī nārī The one who keeps springs and rivers in order
muštēšir nārī The one who puts the rivers in order
muštēšir nārī ina qereb šadi The one who puts the rivers in order in the midst of the mountains.
These three plainly testify to the same idea relating to Marduk and rivers, but nothing suggests muštēšir ḫabli ḫabiltu.
Indeed, this phrase seems to be known from only one other text – a fragmentary inscription of Nidnuša, Viceroy of
Dēr:111
9 mu-uš-te9-ši-ir ḫa-ab-lim who sets free the oppressed man
10 u ḫa-bi-il5-tim and the oppressed woman.
It is extremely unlikely that this source informed Šurpu, and in any case the subject of the lines was not Marduk but
Nidnuša. Far more likely is that the scribe confused the present line with Šurpu III 149 māmīt ḫabli u ḫabilti ‘Mamit of
the oppressed man and woman.’112
In place of this, we have restored Muštēšir-ḫablim. This is a weapon attested several times as belonging to Marduk. A
late commentary to Marduk’s Address to the Demons (Udug-hul XI):113
KI.MIN gištukul-šú a-bu-bu ez-zu: dmuš-te-šir-ḫab-lim gištukul dšà.zu
Ditto (I am Asalluhi) whose weapon is a fierce flood: Muštēšir-ḫablim is the weapon of Šazu (=Marduk)
The List of Stars and Deities VR, 46, 1:114
d
Šár-ur4 u dŠár-gaz = dMuš-te-šir-ḫab-lim u d.gištukul dšà.zu
Šarur and Šargaz = Muštēšir-ḫablim and the weapon of Šazu (Marduk)
The name is also attested as the recipient of oaths concerning business transactions. An Achaemenid tablet from the
Nappaḫu archive, too broken to warrant quoting, records the promise of an individual to swear an oath before Muštešir-
ḫablim.115 A Late Babylonian text from Ur contains the text of just such an oath in which the swearer calls down death
and destruction on himself and his family if he is found to be lying: 116
14. …du-ku DAM ḫul-liq … Kill (my) wife. Destroy
15. DUMUmeš u še-rat!-ka GAL-ti (my) children. Your great punishment,
16. a-ga-na-tal-la-a šá la-˹aʾ˺ dropsy, which cannot

107
Çağirgan & Lambert 1991-1993: 97 l.87.
108
George 1992: 50-51 l. 7.
109
As well as of several other gods, see CAD M: 289 sub voce muštēšir 2’.
110
Oshima 2011: 441.
111
Frayne 1990: 676.
112
Reiner 1958: 23.
113
Geller 2016: 394-395, l. 15.
114
Wee 2016: 162, l. 32. Collated from photos kindly provided by Jeanette Fincke.
115
Baker 2000: 298, no. 260.
116
See most recently Sandowicz 2012: 400-401.

Page 58 of 147
 17. pa-ṭar-ri šu-uš-šá-an-ni be removed, let me suffer!’
A particularly interesting feature of this text is that the tablet upon which it is written is shaped like an axe head. In
Streck’s estimation this symbolises the weapon which threatens those who break the oath. 117 If this is accepted, we
should probably understand Muštēšir-ḫablim to be an axe, and therefore definitely distinct from the dagger mentioned
in line 2 following the reading we have adopted.

4 The diseases here enumerated are part of Marduk’s arsenal. The inclusion of diseases and death is surprising, but this
line is probably to be compared with ll.6-8, where various fierce monsters are also under the control of Marduk.

5 Aš1 writes im nim-gír ša dMES… ‘wind and lightning of Marduk…’. Nin8 disagrees, and the Aš1 repeats the phrase,
again without corroboration, on line 11. It seems likely that Aš1 has conflated the last lines of the sections dealing with
Marduk and his weapons. Line 5 should have im nim-gír, while line 11 should have ša dMES. The wind and lightning
are nonetheless more of Marduk’s weapons.

The repetition of the initial phrase at the end of the incantation is indicated by Nin7 lip-šu-ru-ka áš-[ši? …]. This is
giš
reinforced by line 11, in which Ur1 gives the phrase lip-šu-ru-ka áš-šú zubi-ia a-[paṭṭarakka …]. As Ur1 contains
only an extract from the incantation, line 11 is the first instance in which the invocation line occurs. In following lines,
as in all other tablets, the invocation litany is indicated by the use of ditto marks. It is not completely certain, therefore,
that the entire phrase was repeated at the end of each section.
Considering the internal logic of the text, the repetition of the phrase seems very likely. Each section lists several gods
and invokes them to help. If this is the end of the section, the gamlu-stick which the patient holds plays very little role
in the action – it is mentioned once at the start, once in the middle as a tool of Amurru, and once at the end as a tool to
remove the patient’s sins. This does not seem likely as the stick is the chief focus of the ritual insofar as we are aware
of it. Both Bīt sālaʾ mê and the ritual in KAL 4 indicate that a gamlu-stick must be used while reciting the
incantation.118 If we understand the initial phrase to have been repeated at the conclusion of each list, a far more
coherent ritual becomes apparent – the gods listed are invoked to help, and the exorcist uses the stick to dispel and
remove the problems himself on their behalf.
The suggestion receives a measure of support from the use of ditto marks in the surviving manuscripts. Both Bab1A
and Ur1 routinely use ‘ki-min ki-min’ to indicate the repetition. Ki-min is generally used to indicate the repetition of a
whole phrase rather than a single word. If the intention in these texts were to repeat only lipṭurūka lipšurūka we should
expect ‘min min’ instead. Thus, both manuscripts seem to indicate that two phrases be repeated, which can hardly refer
to anything other than the line as we have restored it here. In Nin1 and Nin9, a single ki-min is written. As there is no
limit on the length of phrase to which the word can refer, this does not contradict the evidence of Bab1A and Ur1.
Bab1A in particular seems to be conscientious about the use of ki-min. The litany changes to lū paṭrānikka lū
pašrānikka lū passānikka following line 42. From this point on Bab1A writes ki-min ki-min ki-min, reflecting the fact
that three phrases are to be repeated.
It must be noted that Ur2 does not include the incipit as part of the litany. The scribe of this tablet writes lipṭurūka
lipšurūka once (l. 21) and min min twice, (ll. 19 and 23, though the latter is broken) once with a gloss. This is not

117
Streck 1983: 63.
118
Ambos 2013: 171, l. y+30’; Maul & Strauß 2011: 88, no. 39, l. 10’.

Page 59 of 147
 especially problematic, however, as Ur2 is a very short extract written on a school exercise tablet, and is therefore not
to be relied upon too heavily.

6-8 This list consists of monsters associated with Marduk. Lambert has discussed this section in detail alongside a great
deal of comparable material119 and Oshima has also discussed the group.120 There is little to be gained from repeating
their arguments here. The central points bear mentioning, however. The list is replicated in 11 other texts, always
associated with Marduk. No additional names are known from the other lists, so despite the incomplete state of the
tablets preserving this section, we can be fairly sure no names are missing.
These monsters must have been under Marduk’s control, and could, therefore, like the diseases and weapons listed in
lines 3-5, be invoked to help the patient.

6 The phrase šūt mê nāri nābali ‘Those of the river waters and the dry land’ is a summary of the following list of
monsters. It hardly seems fitting for the monstrous bird Anzû, but such small oversights are not of major concern.

7 It is possible that we should understand nāʾiru as a separate figure –‘the raging-demon.’ As none of the lists collected
by Lambert include the word, however, we have interpreted it as an epithet.

8 Aš1 preserves an additional name after the list of monsters, Nadīn-mê-qātē, a minor deity associated with menial
activities in the court of Marduk. Specifically, as his name suggests, he is responsible for the provision of water for
washing hands. He is universally paired with another figure Mukîl-mê-balaṭi, who was responsible for the provision of
drinking water, and so Lambert restores the name in the gap at the end of Aš1 8.
These names have not been included in the composite text or translation as they are not known from any other witness.
This is possibly an accident of preservation as no text bears the end of the line, but as Aš1 writes the preserved name on
a new line, it seems unlikely that there would have been space for the names on Nin8. In addition, the two deities are
mentioned in only two of the similar list of monsters while nine do not include them. The other texts to include the two
figures are prayers to Marduk and the Gods of Esagila, 121 and both reverse the order, presenting the gods first followed
by the list of monsters. Given the propensity of Aš1 to interpolate related material, there is a strong possibility of
contamination from these prayers. Until more evidence comes to light it does not seem sensible to include the two
deities.
The word ūmu ‘demons’ is understood as a summary of the preceding list, in line with the opening of line 6. The
restoration malû is suggested by Lambert122 and fits the context well. The monsters were originally conquered foes of
Marduk but are now subservient to him and so are filled with fear, dread and terror in his presence. Nonetheless, the
restoration cannot be certain without corroborating evidence.

9-11 For these lines it is necessary to rely chiefly on the inferior tablets Aš1 and Ur1. These do not agree with one another,
particularly regarding line division. As the less unreliable of the two, we have followed Ur1, which also agrees with
the meagre remains of the lines on Bab1A.

119
Lambert 2013: 225-229.
120
Oshima 2011: 202-203.
121
Oshima 2011: 198-204 and 275-281.
122
Lambert 2013: 226.

Page 60 of 147
 The group consists of Marduk’s temple, variations on the title of Marduk’s wife, and one of Marduk’s weapons. This
is in keeping with the lists up to this point, all of which are Marduk-centric.

9 XX1 is a lenticular school exercise tablet containing the opening words of each section of the Kultgötterbeschwörung
from this point forwards. It was first edited in 1926123 but only recognised as belonging to Šurpu in Reiner’s edition. It
is not clear why such a text should exist.

10 The last name cannot be restored convincingly. Based on the progression bēlet, šarrat, kallat, ‘lady, queen, bride’ in
the first half of the line, we would expect kal-lat tin-tirki ‘bride of Babylon’. Only Ur1 preserves traces, however, and
these do not permit such a reading.

11 Just Aš1 and Ur1 preserve this line, and they do not agree. As discussed above, im nim-gír is an apparent
contamination from line 5, and so has been omitted in the composite text.
The phrase ulmu šutāḫu can be literally translated ‘matched/paired axe’, which must mean double axe. It is tempting,
given the possible identification of Muštēšir-Ḫablim as an axe (l. 2) to identify the two. Without more evidence,
however, this can only be a suggestion.

12-14 The rationale behind this group is unclear. The bulk of the names can be taken as forms, or relatives, of the gods
Marduk or Ninurta, and so understood as warriors. This is not the case with either Aḫbītum or Ayyabītum, or with
Ennugi, though the latter can at least be understood as a divine warrior.
It is possible that the first two names were taken into this text from the Lipšur Litany in which they appear without too
much consideration of the intention of this section. More likely, though, is that nuances of the characters of these little
known goddesses are lost to us. It may be worth noting that Ayyabītum, as a form of Inanna, was presumably a warrior
goddess, though it is not known whether this role was still held by her as a netherworld goddess.

12 Aḫbītum and Ayyabītum

The article on Aḫbītum in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie consists solely of a direction to the article on the
underworld god Nergal, which does not include any reference to the name. This is an oversight, however, as Aḫbītum
is a rarely-attested wife of Nergal, as demonstrated in the List of Stars and Deities VR, 46, 1:124
18. mulnin-šar u dèr-ra-gal = dU.GUR u daḫ-bi-tum
d
U.GUR is a common logogram for Nergal, while Erragal as discussed below (l. 24) is usually to be understood as a
form of the underworld god.
Aš1 reads e-bi-tum for Ayyabītum, which is either a regional variation or a mistake. An=Anum IV 129 gives
Ayyabītum as the equivalent of Inanna-a-ab-baki ‘Ištar of the Sealand’. It has been persuasively argued on the basis of
a corpus of texts from the early second millennium, when the Sealand Dynasty was at its peak, that Ayyabītum is to be
understood as ‘the Sealander.’125 This is very unexpected in the current list, in which Ištar is barely attested. An
explanation, can be found in the Lipšur Litanies type II/2:126

123
Pinches 1926: 216-217.
124
Wee 2016: 162, l. 32. Collated from photos kindly provided by Jeanette Fincke.
125
Boivin 2016: 24-25.
126
Reiner 1956: 173.

Page 61 of 147
 15 Aḫbītum Ayyabītum Aḫbītum Ayyabītum
16 šarṣarbati rākib Idiglat u Purattu Šarṣarbati, who travels on the Tigris and the Euphrates
Šarṣarbati is a name of Nergal (l. 26), and Aḫbītum, as just discussed is a wife of Nergal. In this position, Ayyabītum
can scarcely be anything but another name of Nergal’s wife. A possible, though speculative, explanation for this
apparent dual-faceted nature is related to the fall of the Sealand Dynasty. This took place in the mid-second
millennium, probably several hundred years before the so-called canonical texts of the first millennium were written.
The link between Ayyabitum and Inanna-a-ab-baki was evidently remembered by the compiler of An=Anum, but there
is no guarantee that the name was still associated with the long extinct dynasty. Presented with the name, it would
perhaps have been more natural to assume that a-ab-baki ‘Sealand’ was an unusual way of writing a-ab-ba ‘sea.’ If this
were the case, the goddess may have been understood as the feminine form, and therefore the wife, of the god
Lugal.a.ab.ba ‘Lord of the sea,’ (l. 32) an underworld deity linked with Nergal. Presumably the similarity of the names
Aḫbītum and Ayyabītum strengthened the identification.
Speculation aside, the line in the Lipšur Litany is strong evidence that Ayyabītum should be understood here as a name
for Nergal’s wife.

Magrat-amatsu and Madānu

Magrat-amatsu is a name of Madānu according to An=Anum II 255. This is confirmed by the description of him Lipšur
Litany II/2 26-30127 which calls him guzalû ‘thronebearer’ and links him with the Esagil temple. Madānu bears the title
here, and is well-known as Marduk’s thronebearer. Both names presumably appear here in connection with Marduk
and his court.
While the epithet guzalû ‘thronebearer’ can be held by either Madānu or Ennugi, the line divisions indicate that, at least
in Aš1 it is to Madānu that the title is applied here. This also makes sense from the point of view of avoiding
confusion, as Madānu is written ddi.ku5 which can refer to three different deities (see l.18). The epithet clarifies the
meaning as, of the gods written ddi.ku5, only Madānu is a guzalû. That said, Aš1 is eccentric in its line divisions and
this cannot be taken as firm proof.

Ennugi
This god is best known as the guzalû ‘thronebearer’ of Enlil, as recorded in An=Anum I 304-306. In the present
context, however, this is unlikely to be the role intended. A more likely possibility is found in Šurpu IV:
103. lizziz dennugi bēl iki u palgi asakku likmu May Ennugi, Lord of ditch and canal stand by, may he bind the
Asakku-demon
The mythological background to this is unknown, though it may be related to Ennugi’s inclusion among the sons of
Enmešarra.128 In any case, it gives a clear identification of Ennugi as a warrior god, and this is likely to be his purpose
here.

13 Zarpānītum is the wife of Marduk, Nabu is their son and Tašmētum is his wife. Uraš, Nita and Zababa are all well-
attested forms of the warrior god Ninurta.

127
The most recent transliteration of this section is still Zimmern 1915-1916: 202 n.3.
128
Lambert and Millard 1969: 147-148. Lambert 2013: 213ff.

Page 62 of 147
14 Enlilbanda
This is apparently only known as a name of Ea, as in An=Anum II 134. It can be translated ‘Enlil Junior’ and thus
serves to denote the seniority of Enlil. In the present case, however, it is possible that the name should be understood
as meaning ‘son of Enlil’, i.e. Ninurta. Without further examples this can only be a suggestion, but the placement of
the name following Uraš, Nita and Zababa and preceding Lugalbanda, all of whom are known as forms of Ninurta,
makes it at least plausible.

Lugalbanda
Lugalbanda was the third king of the dynasty of Uruk and the father of Gilgamesh. In the third and early second
millennia he was doubtless a middle-ranking god in his own right, but later on he seems to have been simply a form of
the warrior god Ninurta.129 The Weidner god list equates him with Ninurta 130 and this is presumably his role here.

Lugaldimmerankia
This name can be translated ‘King of the gods of heaven and the netherworld’ and is held by both Marduk and Nabu.
Lambert has suggested that the present occurrence should be taken as representing the latter, 131 but there seems no
particular reason for this. Given that almost the entire Tablet to this point is concerned chiefly with Marduk, it is more
likely that this is the identity intended.

15-17 Following an initial list of the chief gods in the pantheon, this section lists 5 paired names. The significance of the
selection is not entirely clear, though it seems likely that the gods were chosen on the basis of their very great antiquity
in mythology. Id, Kiša, Nammu and Nanše, are all very ancient, if not primordial, watery gods. Ningirimma is
similarly ancient, and as the goddess most associate with the egubbû-vessel, also associated with water. The reason
that the gods of the rainbow belonged with these early figures is unclear. Tišpak is less ancient than the others, but is
regularly equated, and here paired, with Ninazu who was known as the inventor of agriculture, at least according to the
Sumerian myth Ḫow Grain Came to Sumer, and so presumably was understood to belong to the very distant past.

15 This is a list of the senior gods of the pantheon. It should be noted that the collective epithet at the end of the line is
plainly applied to this list and not to the following two gods. Aš1 moves the epithet to the start of the following line
and thereby leaves this unclear, but Nin9, Ur1 and Bab1A are united in writing the phrase at the end of the line of
important gods.
There is variation in the specific epithet, and as it is preserved on none of the more reliable tablets it is not clear which
reading is to be preferred. Aš1 and Bab1A have dingirmeš qardūti ‘the valiant gods’, while Ur1 has dingirmeš galmeš en
n[ammeš?] ‘the great gods, lord(s) of f[ates?]’. Either reading is plausible, and neither materially changes the content of
the text.

16 Id and Kiša, Nammu and Nanše

These names can be dealt with together as they represent the same concept of primordial water. Lambert has recently

129
Lambert unpublished: V 1.
130
Weidner 1924-1925: 14 l. ii 14.
131
Lambert 1987-1990: 132-133.

Page 63 of 147
 discussed these gods at great length and it is not necessary to repeat his reasoning here. 132 It is worth mentioning,
however, that Nammu and Ningirimma are regualarly associated, and so Nammu at least must have been in some way
connected to incantations.

Tišpak and Ninazu

These are two forms of the same god, city god of Eshnunna. Ninazu is the son of Ereshkigal and both he and Tišpak
are chthonic snake gods. In general terms, these fit in neatly with the content of the Kultgötterbeschwörung, as
evidenced by the similar god Ištarān, most of whose court is mentioned in lines 18-19. The two are mentioned together
in the Weidner godlist,133 followed by Ningirimma, though there as here, the connection between the three is not clear.

Ningirimma
Ningirimma is the goddess of purification and incantation par excellence. Her appearance here must, if not due solely
to her great antiquity, be related to this role.

Endibgim?
The name Endibgim is very rare, and it is by no means certain that it is the name written here. Nonetheless, a tentative
case can be made for the reading. The name is preserved on just two manuscripts of Šurpu: Ur1 and Bab1A. In
Borger’s transliteration he reads (Ur1) dBIR-GAM and (Bab1A) dBIR-x(GIM? DAR/GÙN?)-NU.134 Neither of these
leads anywhere as no known name can be understood from them. Two options appear possible.
The first is that while BIR-GAM is apparently clearly written in Ur1, it should in fact be read as a Late Babylonian

writing of ḪAR.135 Late Babylonian BIR, as it is ostensibly written on Ur1, is and GAM is . ḪAR can be

written . While these are plainly distinct signs, Late Babylonian writing is essentially cursive and substantial
variation is to be expected. 3 then 4 vaguely diagonal wedges followed by a downwards-ish vertical and a wedge at the
bottom of it are all that is necessary and this matches what is written on the tablet.
This leaves us with the problem of the writing on Bab1A. This line of the tablet is closely written, not to say cramped,
and so it is not easy to read. There are several possibilities. One is that the BIR is in fact to be read ḪAR !, written as

above ( ), the last two wedges being either faint or missing. The following sign for which Borger suggested
GIM? or DAR/GÚN? is slightly damaged, but seems to consist of a Winkelḫaken (though this could be part of the
BIR/ḪAR before it), then 4 horizontals (of which the top and bottom ones are big and stick out further), leading into a
vertical. Underneath the horizontals there is a hard to read mess which is perhaps composed of two oblique wedges.

Roughly, the sign appears to be written . In fine library tablets, the sign GIM is written , while other

attested136 Neo-Assyrian writings are and . The sign on Bab1A, while not a precise match to any of

these, gives the gist of the sign and is certainly possible. The sign DAR/GÙN, on the other hand, is written ,

132
Lambert 2013: 427-436.
133
Cavigneaux 2981: 82, ll.26-28.
134
Borger 2000: 78.
135
Labat 1976: 186, no. 401.
136
Labat 1976: 198-199, no. 440.

Page 64 of 147
 which is wholly unlike Bab1A. However, a Middle Babylonian writing recorded by Labat 137 is , which is very
much closer. The apparent Winkelḫaken at the start of the sign in Bab1A could certainly be a horizontal wedge, and
the absence of a second oblique stroke at the bottom of the sign is not necessarily damning. Either sign, then, is
possible. If we read BIR as ḪAR! we should, however, understand GIM as a phonetic gloss, as no sense can be made
from ḪAR!.DAR. The final sign, NU, produces no sense following ḪAR !gim and the sign is unclearly written. NU

should be , but the signs on Bab1A could be understood as the separation marker ‘:’ written . In this case,
d !gim
we should read the whole complex as ḪAR :. This seems unlikely as the separation marker serves no clear
purpose. Conceivably it indicates that the following word should begin a new line, as indeed it should if Nin1 is to be
believed. However, Bab1A frequently differs from the other manuscripts in the matter of line division 138 and in no
other instance is a separation marker written. Nor is the marker used in any other exemplar of ašši gamlīya. Moreover,
it seems quite likely that Nin1 starts a new line after ḪAR due only to a lack of space. No other manuscript (Nin9,
Aš1, Ur1 and Bab1A) follows the practice, and Nin1 uses eleven so-called ‘firing holes’ in blocks of seven and four
apparently as space fillers in the extra line. No other line in Nin1 has more than four holes, and in only two other
instances (ll. 25 and 82) are two or more holes next to each other.

A second alternative is to read BIR as ELLAG2, taking the entire complex to be ellag2-gùn-nu, a word attested in
several lexical texts:
Erimhuš = anantu II:139
220 ellag2-gùn pi-in-na-ru
221 ellag2-gùn-gùn pi-in-na-na-ru
140
Canonical Izi = išâtu text J:
6 BIRel-la-ág-gu-nuGÙN ˹x˺-[…]141
7 ellag2-gùn-nu142 ḫi-pi-in-du-ú
8 ellag2-gùn-gùn-nu pi-in-na-na-rum
There are two difficulties with this suggestion. The first is that it produces a reading that is at odds with that of Ur1.
This in itself is not necessarily fatal – neither Bab1A nor Ur1 are especially reliable, and an obscure name could have
been mistaken by either text. The second problem is that there is no known god Ellaggunu. This could be due to the
paucity of our sources, but it militates against the reading, particularly when the equivalents given in Izi and Erimhuš
are examined. CAD translates pinnaru as ‘a cheese’143 and ḫipindû as ‘a stone bead’ (shaped like a kidney). 144 While
the former is known as a personal name, 145 neither a deified cheese nor a deified kidney-shaped bead is attested.
A final possibility is that the entire complex represents a single sign - ḪARxGIM. In this case the BIR is simply the

137
Labat 1976: 90, no. 114.
138
e.g. ll. 20-21, 24-25 and 30-31.
139
Cavigneaux, Güterbock & Roth 1985: 36.
140
Civil 1971: 212.
141
Scheil’s copy (1916: 136) suggests p[i-in-na-ru].
142
Landsberger reads ELLAGx. He also notes that one manuscript has ḪAR for ELLAG2.
143
CAD P: 384. This is based on a single line of the commentary series Murgud (see Stol 1993-1995: 198) where the word is listed among
dairy products. This is not substantial evidence, however, as Murgud, in common with other commentary literature, is prone to stretching
definitions and inventing new ones based on the internal logic of the text. More likely is that pinnaru, like ḫipindû, is another of the kidney
shaped beads listed in ḪAR.ra = ḫubullu XVI. (Jay Chrisostomo, personal communication). These beads are scattered throughout the list
(Landsberger & Reiner 1970: passim). For a convenient collection see, CAD T, sub voce tukpītu.
144
CAD H: 185.
145
CAD P: 384.

Page 65 of 147
 first part of ḪAR, while the NU is the end of it, with the GIM written within. In this case, GIM is still a hint to the
pronunciation, but is not a gloss. Rather, the sign should be taken as an unambiguous writing of the reading of ḪAR
which involves GIM. This possibility is considerably less problematic than either of the alternatives presented above.
It removes the troublesome separation marker, as well as the necessity to emend BIR to ḪAR!, and it produces a
reading that harmonises with that of Ur1. Nonetheless, the sign ḪARxGIM is apparently otherwise unattested and so
cannot be taken as a certainty.

While Ellagunu is possible, as it is otherwise unknown as a god’s name we can go no further. The readings ḪAR !gim:
and ḪARxGIM, on the other hand, both lead to known deities. ḪAR is a logogram for several different names. In Late
Babylonian personal names,146 as well as in some Old Babylonian texts from Mari,147 it is used for the god Bunene,
vizier of the sun god.148 ḪAR is also the logogram for dSaggar, which Stol identifies as the deified mountain range
Jebel Sinjār.149 The two column version of the Weidner godlist 150 gives dAMAR-re-e, for which Weidner suggest
reading dzur-re-e. Neither of these is otherwise known. None of these readings need concern us, however, as they do
not involve a GIM sound. There are four readings which do contain GIM. These are preserved in the explanatory god
list BM 46559,151 which is possibly a late version of proto-Diri:152
d
5. gu : en-di-ib-gim ḪAR
d
6. ga : ga-di-ib-gim ḪAR
d
7. sag-gar ḪAR
Saggar is the mountain range mentioned above. Both Litke and Stol understand the separation marker in lines 5 and 6
as a ‘/’.153 That is, as a way of avoiding writing two nearly identical names twice. Litke correctly interprets the lines as
follows:
5. Gu/Endib-gim = dḪAR
6. Ga/Gadib-gim = dḪAR
These lines give four names, therefore:
Gugim
Gagim
Endibgim
Gadibgim
The alternative to this reading would be to understand dibgim as a constant part of the name, i.e. Gu/En-dibgim. This
would not work for line 6, however, as it would produce a reading Ga/Ga-dibgim, giving two identical names. It
should be noted that Borger154 reads DÍM for GIM, as well as reading the name Gudibdim from the lines quoted above.
Gudibgim/dim is impossible, as just stated, while DÍM is unlikely on the evidence of An=Anum II:155
d.gu.QI.im
349 MUG ŠU Gu-QI-im Same

146
Tallqvist 1905: 241b.
147
Birot 1974: 240. Stol (1979: 75) has emphasised that ḪAR.RA = Bunene is distinct from ḪAR = Saggar, but this distinction is disputed
by Durand (1987: 8) who demonstrates that ḪAR.RA is at least sometimes to be read Saggar in Mari texts.
148
See line 22.
149
Stol 1979: 77.
150
Weidner 1924-1925: 18, l. iii 27.
151
King 1910: 44-47. The extract with which we are concerned is from pl. 45.
152
Lambert 1957-1971: 475.
153
Litke 1998: 108, n. 349; Stol 1979: 77.
154
Borger 2010: 480 ‘Endibdim’; 482 ‘Gadibdim’; 487 ‘Gudibdim’
155
Lambert Unpublished: II 349-353 = Litke 1998: 108-109.

Page 66 of 147
 d.MIN
350 ḪAR ŠU Gu-QI-im Same
d
351 nin-˹x˺ dam.bi.munus Nin-x His wife
d.ga.QI.im
352 MUG ŠU Ga-QI-im Same
d.MIN
353 ḪAR ŠU Ga-QI-im Same
Litke argues that the sign QI should be read GI x here as Sumerian does not have the phoneme /Q/.156 As the voiced
velar plosive /G/ and the voiceless velar plosive /Q/ are regularly written with the same signs, this seems no great leap.
DIx, which would be required for Borger’s reading, is possible, as the phonetic values of signs are not entirely
predictable, but is less likely.157
An=Anum also demonstrates that Gugim and Gagim have a second logographic writing, MUG. This logogram is
preserved in Reciprocal Ea158 as a name of Uttu:
d
237 ut-tu TAGxTÚG TAGxTÚG
d
238 MIN MUG MIN
d
239 MIN MUG-gunû MIN
159
MUG is a Sumerian word for cloth and is therefore a reasonable pairing to the weaving goddess Uttu. In Enki and
160
tḫe World Order MUG-cloth is explicitly associated with the goddess. This presumably explains the position of
ḪAR in An=Anum II, immediately preceding Uttu. Gugim and Gagim are repeated as glosses for MUG in An=Anum
VI:161
d.gu-gim
224 ˹MUG˺ ŠU Gugim Same
d.ga-gim
225 ˹MUG˺ ŠU Gagim Same
A further instant of MUG in this context, though unfortunately broken, is found in Ea = Á naqu VIII:162
116 [zé-ed] MUG ša dnin-zé-ed Š[U-ma]
117 [gu?-gim? MU]G d
MUG [ŠU-ma]
? ? d
118 [ga -gim ] MUG MUG [ŠU-ma]
119 [x-u]g MUG nu-up-p[u-šu]
120 [mu-u]g MUG mu-u[k-ku]
The first of these is not relevant here, but states that the sign MUG, when written in the name Ninzed, is to be read
ZED. Civil restores Gugim and Gagim in lines 117-118, presumably on the strength of An=Anum II. This is likely
correct as no other names are attested for dMUG. Lines 119-120 refer to other logographic uses of MUG - napāšu is a
verb meaning ‘to comb and clean wool’163; mukku is low quality wool or a garment made of such wool. 164
The other two names, Endibgim and Gadibgim, do not appear to be attested elsewhere, though Lambert 165 notes a pair
of lines in Diri IV:166
65 en-di-ib EN.ME.MU endibbu
66 nuḫatimmu

156
Litke 1998: 108 n. 349.
157
The personal name Gu-di-im! is recorded in field sale contract from Terqa (Rouault 1979: 3, l. 4) but there is no evidence that this name is
related to the names under discussion.
158
Civil 1979: 529 ll. 238ff.
159
ePSD sub voce mug.
160
ETCSL l. 381.
161
Litke 1998: 216.
162
Civil 1979: 480. The lines are repeated in Aa Á = naqû VIII/2: 94-98 (MSL 14: 500).
163
CAD N/1: 291.
164
CAD M/2: 187.
165
Lambert Unpublished: II 327-331.
166
Civil 2004: 152.

Page 67 of 147
 The sense of these lines is repeated twice in the profession list LÚ=ša:167
I 157d EN.MEen-dubMU = [nuḫatimmu]
II iv 2’’ [endub] = [e]n-du-bu
Both endibbu and nuḫatimmu are words for a cook, the former specifically a temple cook according to CAD 168 though
the justification for this is unclear given that the only references are the lists just quoted. Lambert suggests this makes
Endibgim a cook god, but this is unlikely. The entry in Diri is to be understood as comprising (I) Sumerian
pronunciation (II) composite sign (III) Akkadian translations, while LÚ = ša gives a pronunciation gloss and Akkadian
translation to the same composite sign. Thus, these lines simply state that the sign group written EN.ME.MU is to be
pronounced endib/endub and means ‘cook.’ While Endibgim is superficially similar to endib/endub, the words are not
the same. Moreover, Gadibgim is clearly not connected.
As is clear, the names represented by dḪAR are not well enough attested to provide helpful information regarding the
name in Šurpu. The logogram itself, however, does offer a possible explanation. In the Weidner godlist, the following
sequence is recorded:169
92 Išum
93 Ninmug
94 Ninmaš
d
95 ḪAR
96 Šullat
97 Haniš
98 Ebiḫ
d
99 MES
d
100 GU4
d
101 GU4
d
102 GU4
d
103 GU4
It is not clear which reading of dḪAR is meant here. Based on the surrounding names, there are several possibilities:
Ninmug could indicate that the names given to dMUG are intended; the deified mountain range Ebiḫ 170 suggests
d
Saggar; the repeated dGU4 signs are faintly reminiscent of the dAMAR-re-e, GU4 meaning bull and AMAR meaning
‘calf’. Both the first and last of these are very unlikely, however. As Lambert points out, there is no evidence equating
Ninmug with dMUG.171 Moreover, Ninmug is almost certainly present in this list as spouse of Išum, vizier of the
underworld god Erra. Išum in turn is present as the section immediately preceding this selection lists a number of
underworld gods, including Erra. While the Sumerian words GU4 and AMAR are semantically linked, there is no
evidence whatsoever that the gods involved are connected. In the case of AMAR-re-e, it is not even certain that the
name has been correctly read.
The proximity of Ebiḫ to dḪAR is far more striking. If Stol is correct in his identifications, these are the deities of

167
Civil 1969: 100 & 121.
168
CAD E: 162.
169
There is no comprehensive edition of the Weidner list, manuscripts of which are published in over 50 books and articles, but for present
purposes Cavigneaux 1981 is sufficient. The sequence is included in copies of the list from all periods.
170
Stol 1979: 77.
171
Lambert Unpublished: II 327-331

Page 68 of 147
 neighbouring mountain ranges – Jebel Sinjār and Jebel Ḥamrīn.172 Nonetheless, the two are separate in the list, and
Šullat and Haniš, twin gods in the court of Adad, are not known to have any particular links to mountain ranges.
Moreover, in the double column version of the Weidner list Ebiḫ is equated with Adad, indicating that his appearance
in the list is due to his association with Šullat and Haniš. While it is possible that dḪAR and Ebiḫ are intended to
bookend the twin gods, this is not clearly demonstrated.
A more appealing possibility is that dḪAR is associated with Ninmaš, who immediately precedes him. Ninmaš is a
goddess of incantations, and as such is associated with Ningirimma,173 the goddess immediately preceding dḪAR in
Šurpu. Gods and goddesses written consecutively in the Weidner list, and in Šurpu, are quite often married, and this is
plausible for dḪAR and Ninmaš. The husband of Ninmaš is Nin-PIRIG, who has two distinct fields of responsibility.
As the spouse of Ninmaš he is involved in incantations and purification, while elsewhere he is a vizier of the sun
god.174 The latter role adds a layer of complication to the argument as it is also the job of Bunene, another reading of
d
ḪAR. This is compounded by Nin-PIRIG’s appearance in the Mari god list: 175
d
104. nin-pirig3
d
105. nin-ḫar-ra
The context in which these names occur is, in Lambert’s estimation, that of ‘a «lexical» group within a «theological»
god list.’176 This means that the names are arranged solely on the basis of the NIN sign which begins them.
Nonetheless, in this case at least there appears to be a theological element involved. As discussed above 177 dḪar-ra in
Mari texts often refers to Bunene, and as Nin-PIRIG and Bunene share the same role it is logical to assume that the
names in the god list are not together purely by chance. Assuming the Mari god list associates the two on this basis, it
is perhaps not too great a leap to assume that dḪAR could be understood as either a writing or a form of Nin-PIRIG.
This would explain the sequence dNinmaš dḪAR in the Weidner list neatly – they are simply a married couple.
If this, admittedly speculative, suggestion is accepted we arrive at a meaningful interpretation for the name in Šurpu.
ḪAR, however the name is to be read, is to be understood as the male counterpart to Ningirimma. Ningirimma is not
known to have other forms or a family of her own and so in order to follow the theme of the line, in which each god is
paired with a counterpart – Id and Kiša, Nammu and Nanše, Tišpak and Ninazu, Tiranna and Manzat – it was necessary
to name another god associated with the same sorts of responsibility.

To conclude, due to the paucity of our sources it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding this name, but a
tentative chain of reasoning does produce a logical result. The least problematic reading of the wedges of Bab1A,
ḪARxGIM, indicates one of Gu/Ga/Endibgim. Whether or not this is accurate, Ur1 gives dḪAR fairly unambiguously.
The evidence of the Weidner list indicates that a god dḪAR is associated with Ninmaš, who, while distinct from
Ningirimma, shares the same sphere of activity. The nature of the association between dḪAR and Ninmaš is possibly
that of husband and wife, though this is somewhat speculative. If all of this is accepted, we can understand
Gu/Ga/Endibgim as a name or form of Nin-PIRIG, and by extension, as an appropriate partner for Ningirimma. His
position in Šurpu, then, is simply due to his association with Ningirimma.

172
Stol 1979: 77.
173
Cavigneaux & Krebernik 1998-2000c: 469
174
Cavigneaux & Krebernik 1998-2000d: 482.
175
Lambert 1985: 183, l. 104-5
176
Lambert 1985: 187 n.63-106.
177
See page 61.

Page 69 of 147
17 Tiranna and Manzat are respectively the Sumerian and Akkadian names for the goddess of the rainbow.
Bab1A writes Man-za-za without a divine determinative. This is perhaps a regional name for the rainbow. The lack of
a divine determinative might indicate that the name was understood in this manuscript as a description, i.e. ‘Tiranna,
the rainbow.’ Alternatively, it is a simple mistake.
As just discussed, Nin1 is alone in starting a new line for these two names, apparently for reasons of space.
Originally an Elamite goddess, Manzat was taken into the Akkadian pantheon and her name became the word for
rainbow. Apart from her role as the rainbow, votive offerings found in Elam indicate that she may have been a
protectress of pregnant women, presumably against Lamaštu. 178
Little else is known of her as a goddess in her own right, but she shares a number of shrines with the Elamite god
Šimut, and is therefore thought to be his wife. 179 Šimut is equated with Nergal in both the Weidner godlist 180 and, if
Lambert’s restoration is correct, a list from Aššur of exotic gods paired with Babylonian counterparts. 181
In strophe XIV of the Sumero-Akkadian hymn of Nana,182 Manzat is the spouse of Ištaran. This is otherwise
unrecorded, but no other wife is known for Ištaran except Šarrat-Dēri ‘Queen of Dēr’,183 and Dēritum,184 which simply
feminise the name of Ištaran’s cult centre.
Ištaran and Šimut were not, as far as we know, equated by the ancient syncretisers, but Manzat’s remarriage could be
explained by the obscurity of Šimut in Mesopotamia. That he was little known is evident from his presence on the
exotic godlist, the point of which seems to have been to identify rare foreign gods. 185 As a chthonic god from the east,
Ištaran would have been a natural substitute. Moreover, Ištaran is remarkable in that he has both chthonic and celestial
aspects – his name shows him to have been originally ‘a kind of Ištar’ 186 and therefore Venus, and another of his
names, an.gal ‘Anu rabû’ can be translated as ‘Great Heaven’. Manzat as both goddess of the rainbow and wife of an
underworld deity shares this unusual characteristic, making them an ideal pair.

18-19 This group consists of underworld gods. The majority of the group belong to the court of Ištarān, the ophidian god of
Dēr.

18 Išarkidiššu
An=Anum (VI 6) identifies this god with Nergal, as does the double column version of the Weidner god list (III 12). In
the Weidner list, Išarkidiššu is grouped with four other names beginning Išar: Išarališšu, Išarmatiššu, Išarneriššu and
Išarpadda. All but Išarališšu and Išarpadda are also mentioned in the Nippur godlist (ll. 149-151).
Though all sources that syncretise him agree that Išarkidiššu is equated to Nergal, one source (CT 25 1 13) equates
Išarneriššu with Ninurta, and another (BA 5, 655, 19 = DT 46 (god list, check BCM) equates Išarališšu and Enlil.
Lambert believes the former to be no contradiction, as Nergal and Ninurta are often syncretised, but the latter to be a
‘different opinion.’187 In any case, only Išarkidiššu is of interest here, and he is universally treated as an underworld
deity.

178
Koch 1995: 1960.
179
Lambert 1987-1990c: 344.
180
Weidner 1924-1925: 72, l. iv16
181
Lambert 2007: 178, l. rev. 2
182
Reiner 1974: 232.
183
Grayson 1975b: 168, 21 iv 7
184
Šurpu II 160
185
Lambert 2007: 172.
186
Wiggerman 1997: 48. See also Lambert 1969: 103. Jacobsen proposes a different etymology, (1987: 59), but this is unconvincing.
187
Lambert 1976-1980a: 173.

Page 70 of 147
 The traces on Bab1B do not seem to fit with this name, but too little survives to suggest an alternative.

Lagamal
An=Anum (VI 8) equates this god with Nergal, as does the Weidner god list (II 9). His name means ‘no mercy’, which
is fitting for an underworld god.

Ištaran
The majority of manuscripts give either dKA-DI or an.gal here, both common names for Ištaran. Ur2 has di.ku5, which
Borger renders Madānu. Borger’s reading is faulty as ddi.ku5 can refer to 3 different deities – Ištarān (An=Anum V
288), Madānu (An=Anum II 254) and one of the 8 Judges of Šamaš, dDi.ku5 (An=Anum III 174). The last of these is
simply the Sumerian word di.ku5 (Akk. dayānu ‘Judge’) deified. In the present context, ddi.ku5 is certainly Ištarān.
Ištaran is the city god of Dēr (modern Tel-Aqar) on the border between Sumer and Elam. As discussed above (l. 17),
he is a chthonic deity and is included among the chthonic death gods in An=Anum (V 287-9). As the writing di.ku5
implies, he is an arbiter of divine justice. His character is otherwise relatively little known, due chiefly to the fact that
his home city has not been excavated. One piece of new evidence can be mentioned, however. In a Hurrian-Akkadian
bilingual copy of the Weidner godlist, Ištarān is very likely equated with the god Kumarbi. 188 From what we know of
each god, this appears to be an equation built on the rough similarity of their characters. Both were netherworld
gods.189 Both were known, to at least some extent, as ‘Father of the Gods’ and ‘King of the Gods.’ Kumarbi is given
the former epithet in the Song of Ulikummi, 190 while his kingship is the subject of the Hurrian myth preserved in the
Hittite Kumarbi cycle.191
Ištarān is not explicitly referred to with either title, but this is almost certainly due to the paucity of sources dealing with
him. Both titles are used to describe dMUŠ. The former is preserved in a prayer to Nisaba, known in copies from
Nimrud and Nineveh, which contains the line dMUŠ a-bu ilānimeš ‘MUŠ, father of the gods.’192 The latter is seen in a
Kassite period personal name MUŠ-šar-ilāni ‘MUŠ, king of the gods.’193 dMUŠ most commonly denotes Irhan,
Ištarān’s vizier or messenger but a Late Babylonian commentary on the omen series Šumma Ālu from Nineveh has the
equation ‘dMUŠ = Ištarān.’194 MUŠ is Sumerian for snake, and both Irhan and Ištarān are snake gods. 195 However,
while Irhan is otherwise known only as a relatively minor god, Ištarān is commonly named AN.GAL ‘Great Anu/God.’
Although we have too few sources to understand his character more clearly, this implies that he was, as Lambert says,
‘on a very high level in the pantheon.’196 It seems likely, therefore, that MUŠ in these contexts was understood at least
at some point to mean Ištarān, as has been argued in similar contexts by Woods. 197
In a ritual connected with the Ekur temple in Nippur, Ištarān is said to have died and he is equated with the dying god
Dumuzi, an equation which recurs elsewhere. 198 While Kumarbi is not known to have died, he is overthrown as king of

188
Simons 2017b: 3, obv. 8’.
189
Hoffner 1998: 41. Wiggermann 1997: 42-44. Also, note the monolingual Emar copy of the Weidner list in which Ištarān is equated with
the netherworld god Nergal (dU-gur?! Arnaud 1987: 34 l. 39’; dU-LoUH? Gantzert 2011: 48 l. 74).
190
Güterbock 1951: 147 l. 4.
191
Hoffner 1998: 40-80.
192
Lambert 1999 -2000: 153, l. 18.
193
CBS 3781. Clay 1912: 135 (as Ṣir-šar-ilāni).
194
Jiménez 2016: l. 38.
195
Wiggermann 1997: 42-44.
196
Lambert 1976-1980c: 211.
197
Woods 2004: 68, esp. n.235.
198
Livingstone 1986: 136-7.

Page 71 of 147
 the gods in the Kumarbi cycle. This is a common theme in myths detailing the deaths of gods, 199 and it is possible that
Ištaran’s death was related to such a myth.

Niraḫ
Both Niraḫ and Irḫan are possible readings of dMUŠ,200 However, Ur2 gives the phonetic spelling here as Ni-ra-ḫu.
This is, in any case, to be preferred. Wiggermann has recently asserted that the two figures were completely separate,
and that the dMUŠ connected to Ištarān is Niraḫ. 201 The possibility raised above that dMUŠ in some contexts should be
understood as Ištarān is probably not relevant to this instance.

Manungal
This is another name for Nungal, according to An=Anum V 192-194. Nungal is an underworld goddess, daughter of
Ereškigal. The goddess also appears in Šurpu III 77 where she is called ṣabbutītu ‘snatcher.’ This is in keeping with
Nungal’s well attested role as a prison warden. 202

Qudmu
This is the vizier of Ištarān according to An=Anum V 290.203 The logographic writing of his name is generally read
d
KUD,204 but given the god’s name and the fact that the same sign can be read QUD, there seems little reason to persist
in this reading. In any case, Reiner’s dTAR is unlikely.

19 Zizanu
This is the son of Ištarān according to An=Anum V 292.

Bēlet/Šarrat-Ibri
This name does not appear to be otherwise attested. It is to be translated ‘Lady/Queen of the dust.’ Dust here is to
understood as a synonym for the netherworld, as in the phrase bīt epri ‘house of dust,’ a phrase for the underworld
mentioned in Gilgamesh VII 192, 193 and 198. Bēlet-ibrate, which appears in An=Anum IV 151 as a name of Inanna is
not related, but is connected rather to the open air altar which is mentioned in l. 43, a fact which is not noted by
Cavigneaux and Krebernik.205 We must therefore understand this name as representing a netherworld goddess.

Bēlet-Ṣēri
The literal translation of Bēlet Ṣeri is ‘Lady of the Steppe,’ a goddess well attested throughout Šurpu.206 It is a common
writing of the name Geštinanna, who is known as the sister of Dumuzi, the wife of Ningišzida, and, most important
here, the scribe of the netherworld, Gilgamesh VII: 207
204 [dbēlet-ṣ]eri ṭupšarrat erseti maḫarša kamsat Bēlet-Ṣēri, scribe of the netherworld, sqatted before her

199
For example in Enūma Eliš (Lambert 2013: 45-135).
200
McEwan 1983: 215-218.
201
Wiggerman 2001: 570-572. See also Peterson 2009b: 51-52.
202
Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998-2000f: 615-618.
203
See further Krebernik 2006-2008a: 190.
204
E.g. George 1992: 413.
205
Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998-2000a: 335.
206
See chapter 1.
207
George 2003: I 644-645.

Page 72 of 147
 The ‘her’ in question is Ereškigal, queen of the netherworld. Bēlet-Ṣēri is therefore a relatively senior figure in the
hierarchy of the underworld.

Bēlet-Qabli u Taḫazi/Ninšenšena
Ninšenšena, written in Ur2 and X1 is commonly written Bēlet-Qabli or Bēlet-Taḫazi, or as here, a combination of the
two.208 The name is to be understood as something like ‘Lady of war and battle.’ Generally speaking this is not the
name of an underworld god, but, as the name suggests, of a warrior and form of Inanna. 209 Given the present context, it
is difficult not to imagine a chthonic dimension to the name – perhaps as war and battle result in death and destruction
there was such a link. This goddess apparently reappears in l. 24.

20-21 The gods in these lines are likely grouped as warriors.

20 Nabium and Nabu

These are two names of the same god. Nabu is multi-faceted. He was a god of writing and a vizier and son of Marduk.
He is not noted as a warrior, but in the early first millennium he was promoted to co-head of the pantheon.210 In this
role, he naturally absorbed many of Marduk’s characteristics. In addition, when Marduk was promoted to head of the
pantheon, his son naturally absorbed the characteristics of Ninurta, the son of Enlil. 211 Given the rest of the list, we
should understand a Ninurta-esque warrior god to be intended.

Lisi
Two apparently distinct deities share this name. The first is a third millennium mother goddess and the second a first
millennium warrior god, equated with Ninurta.212 An=Anum II 68-77 combines the two traditions, and thereby
presents a confusing picture. The connections between the two have been investigated by Lambert, 213 but no clear
conclusions were reached. This is of little concern for the present line however, where Lisi is certainly to be
understood as a warrior god, and therefore as a form of Ninurta or Nabû.

Liburdannu
The god is known only here – the name literally means ‘May the strong one endure.’ Ur1 reads Liburdamqu ‘May the
beautiful one stay firm.’ This is presumably a mistake. In any case, Liburdannu is a very plausible name for a warrior
god.

Pabilsag
This god, though originally separate, was syncretised with the warrior god Ninurta from at least the Old Babylonian
period.214 He is, therefore, to be understood in the present context as a warrior god.

208
Sigrist 1984: 148.
209
Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998-2000e: 487
210
Lambert 2013: 275ff.
211
Lambert 1971: 337.
212
Michalowski 1987: 32-33.
213
Lambert Unpublished: II 68-69.
214
Krebernik 2003-2005a: 165.

Page 73 of 147
21 Hendursanga
This is the Sumerian name of the god Išum, best known as the underworld god Erra’s vizier. In the present context,
however, it is likely that he is to be understood as a night watchman. That he held this role has recently been
convincingly demonstrated by George.215 It is not necessary to repeat George’s arguments here, but we should consider
the implications of the role. George ‘pictures the Babylonian night watchman on his rounds after dusk, bearing aloft a
burning torch and perhaps even tending the flames of oil-lamps left out by conscientious householders in the more
respectable neighbourhoods.’216 There is undoubtedly much truth in this image, but the purpose of a night watchman is
rather more than a sort of mobile street light. A night watchman must surely be compared more closely with a
policeman or a bodyguard. He was responsible for ensuring the safety of the populace, and thus was, in all likelihood,
understood as being physically powerful, and therefore an apt figure to defend the patient against demonic infestation.

Adad is the god of storms, and so naturally, given the destructive power of storms, often understood as a warrior god.
Ninurta is the warrior god par excellence.

Šullat and Haniš

These are twin gods belonging to the circle of Adad. Their specific characteristics are not especially clear, but, as
would be expected of Adad’s most notable subordinates, they are prominent figures in the flood myth. In both
Atrahāsis II:217
vii 49. dsullat u [dḫaniš] 50 lilliku ina [maḫri] Let Šullat and [Haniš] go at the [fore]
and Gilgamesh XI:218
d
100. sullat u dḫaniš illaku ina maḫri Šullat and Ḫaniš were going at the fore
These lines describe the thunderstorm which caused the flood, and which Šullat and Ḫaniš were leading. They should,
then, be understood simply as warriors of Adad here.

Uṣuramatsu and Mišaru

These are sons of Adad according to An=Anum III 224-225, and this is generally consistent throughout literary texts. 219
Mišaru is also known, along with Kittu, as a vizier of Šamaš in An=Anum III 127-128, but given the inclusion here of
other gods from Adad’s circle, and particularly of Uṣuramatsu who is not connected to Šamaš, we should definitely
understand his role here as the son of Adad.

Ur1 writes Kakka and Enkurkur here, but this is certainly a contamination from line 27. Presumably this due to the
similarity of Šarrahu and Massû, the names preceding Kakka and Enkurkur in line 27, and the preceding gods in the
present line, Uṣuramatsu and Mišaru. The names are of relatively minor, though probably unrelated, deities, and Ur1 is
a school text. It would appear from this that the more obscure deities were not household names even in the ancient
world.

215
George 2015b: 1-8.
216
George 2015b: 8.
217
Lambert and Millard 1969: 86-87.
218
George 2003: 708-709.
219
Beaulieu 2014-2016: 511-512.

Page 74 of 147
22-23 The grouping criteria for this section are not clear. Several of the gods (Alammuš, Ningublaga, Palil, Luhušû, Nusku)
are connected to the underworld, but this does not seem to be a general theme. We can offer no convincing suggestion
for the idea behind this group.
The commentary on Kusu is disproportionately extensive, and so in the interests of coherence it has been thought best
for this to be presented separately.

22 Kusu and Indagara

See excursus, pp. 112-132

Alammuš and Ningublaga

The standard ideogram for Alammuš is dlàl.220 làl is TAxḪI, which bears a formal similarity to the ideogram of the
unrelated god Kabta, ta-gunû. Lambert221 has already demonstrated that the two are distinct, and this has been restated
by Borger,222 but the misapprehension concerning the name is still widespread. 223 The accuracy of Lambert’s argument
is confirmed by the lexical list Ea 4: 225-228:224
Sumerian Sign Sign name Akkadian
Pronunciation translation
225 ga-an-zèr ta-gunû ta g[u]-nu-[u] e-ṭú-tum
d
226 kab-ta ta-gunû min min kab-ta
227 a-lam-muš làl (=TAxḪI) ša ta-ta-ku DU.GA I.GUB šu-ma
228 la-al làl min min min diš-pú
Lines 225-226 show that the sign now called ta-gunû, also so named by the compilers of Ea, can be pronounced ganzer
as well as kabta, which correspond to eṭûtum ‘darkness’ and dKabta in Akkadian. Lines 227-228 show that what we call
làl or TAxḪI, whose ancient name is ša tataku dùga ìgub ‘ta with an inscribed dÙg’, can be pronounced alammuš and
lal, corresponding to Akkadian šu-ma ‘the same’ (i.e. dAlammuš)225 and dišpu ‘honey.’ Thus, two different signs refer
to two unrelated gods – Alammuš is no more Kabta than darkness is honey. It is worth noting that the name TAxḪI for
the làl sign does not agree with ancient usage, in which DÙG was evidently a more natural reading than ḪI. In keeping
with this, it seems logical that the sign should be read TAxDÙG.
The writing in the present line, also attested in Udug-ḫul 4:95’,226 is AN.MÙŠ.LÀL, which has been rendered by
various editors as dNanna-Lal,227 dMÌM-Lal, dInnin-Làl;228 and dInanna-làl.229 Each of these is inaccurate, the majority
due to the confusion with Kabta, who is a spouse of Inanna. Given the fact, as evidenced above, that làl has two
readings, it is safe to assume that the innin sign preceding it is simply a pronunciation gloss. That is to say, MÙŠ.LÀL
d.mùš
is the reading of LÀL that involves a MÙŠ sound. Thus, the name should be transliterated làl, to be understood as

220
Elements of this examination of the god Alammuš have appeared in the journal NABU (Simons 2016: 8-10 & Simons 2017a: 8-13).
221
Lambert 1966: 73.
222
Borger 2010: 288, no. 170.
223
See e.g. Geller 2016: 151, note 95’.
224
Civil 1979: 364. Aa IV/3: 311-315 (Civil 1979: 383) (mis)quoted by Geller, is broken, but what remains agrees with the text of Ea
quoted above. One recension of Proto-Ea (Civil 1979: 114: 10) broadly agrees, but uses the variant spelling a-lam-mu-u[š].
225
That ŠU-ma here refers to the Sumerian pronunciation column, rather than to the previous entry in the Akkadian column, i.e. Alammuš
not Kabta, is consistent with the general principles of lists (see e.g. Litke 1998: 10), and is in any case certain from comparable entries in Ea
(e.g. Ea 1: 337; Ea 1: 348 manuscript A. Civil 1979: 194). To read Kabta here we must have MIN ‘ditto.’
226
Geller 2016: 151.
227
Zimmern 1901: 41, 10.
228
Borger 2000: 79.
229
Reiner 1958: 40, 25.

Page 75 of 147
 Alammuš.
The character of Alammuš is very poorly understood. He appears in the OB Nippur god list, and another OB god list
from Nippur, but not in a helpful context. 230 In three sources, Udug-ḫul 4:95’,231 An=Anum III 37,232 and an Ikribu-
prayer to Sîn,233 he is said to be the sukkal.maḫ ‘grand vizier’ of Sîn. An=Anum III 38 informs us that his wife is
Ninuri ‘Mistress of Ur,’ about whom even less is known. The sukkal ‘Vizier’ of Alammuš is named dUrugal in
An=Anum III 38,234 and apparently known nowhere else. It is worth noting that uru-gal ‘great city’ is a common word
for the underworld, the significance of which will become apparent during the course of the following discussion. 235
His only other consistent association is with the god Ningublaga, usually written dnin.EZENxGU4. In An=Anum III 30-
37236 and Šurpu IX 25,237 the association is simply that Alammuš and Ningublaga appear together. However, mul.apin
I i 6238 pairs the two as the constellation maš.tab.ba.tur.tur ‘The Little Twins’, commonly equated to ζ and λ
Geminorum (the knees of Pollux) and surrounding stars. 239 In this text, they are immediately preceded by the chthonic
gods Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea, maš.tab.ba.gal.gal ‘The Great Twins’, α and β Geminorum (Castor and Pollux) and
surrounding stars.240 It is possible that the parallel between the names of the two constellations, as well as their
astronomical proximity to one another, 241 implies that the activities and influences of the gods involved were in some
way related. If so, we may be justified in understanding Alammuš and Ningublaga as having a chthonic aspect.
Further, the explicit relationship between Alammuš and Ningublaga in Mul.apin explains their appearance together in
the present line. They are not, as has been suggested,242 married - they are brothers.243
The idea that these gods have a chthonic aspect a gains some measure of support from the mention of the two gods
together on a kudurru from the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina I. Editors of this text - Scheil,244 Borger245 and Paulus246 -
have taken dlàl here as dKabta (Scheil: dLil), but in light of the above analysis Alammuš is certainly intended. A total of
47 deities are included in the kudurru list and the order is theological – gods are grouped with their families and courts,
and according to their areas of responsibility. Not all of this list concerns us here, but V 35 – VI 4 is of interest:
V.35 V.36 VI.1 VI.2 VI.3 VI.4
Nergal, Lâṣ, Išum, Šubula, Lugal-irra, Meslamtaea, Šarṣarbati, Mamītu, Alammuš, Ningublaga,
247
Tišpak, Ištaran.
The deities surrounding Alammuš and Ningublaga here are overwhelmingly associated with death and the netherworld.
As the god list in the kudurru inscription is arranged along theological, rather than lexical lines, we can be confident
that this implies a chthonic aspect to the gods under discussion. It should be noted that Alammuš and Ningublaga mark

230
Peterson 2009: 16, 197 & 87 iii 3.
231
Geller 2016: 151.
232
Litke 1998: 121 reads a.la.x.x, but this line is not damaged in Lambert’s unpublished edition, III 36. Kabta is given by Litke as the
equivalent of dLàl in a restored line of An=Anum 4: 190 ‘[ dLÀL] = [dKabta].’ (Litke 1998: 162 restored from TCL 15: 25) This in fact reads
‘[ TA-gunû] = [dKabta].’
d
233
Perry 1907: 25 ii 9 & Langdon 1915: 192, 10. Perry reads iluDIŠPU and Langdon has iluLÀL, but later translators (Seux 1976: 479; Foster
2005: 759, 23) have corrected this to Alammuš.
234
Lambert Unpublished: III 39 = Litke 1998: 122, III, 40
235
ePSD sub voce irigal ‘underworld’.
236
Litke 1998: 120-121.
237
Reiner 1958: 40.
238
Hunger and Pingree 1989: 19.
239
Hunger and Pingree 1989: 137
240
ibid.
241
Koch 1993: 194 offers an alternative identification of m a š . t a b . b a . t u r . t u r as Procyon and Gomeisa, α and β Canis Minoris (the
entire modern constellation). The important point for our purposes, however, is that the Little Twins were a pair of stars fairly close to the
Great Twins. Canis Minor is the next closest pair after ζ and λ Geminorum.
242
Geller 2016: 151, note 95’ & Lambert’s unpublished edition of An=Anum III 30.
243
The fraternal relationship of Alammuš and Ningublaga is also concluded by Cavigneux and Krebernik (2000: 375).
244
Scheil 1905: 6, 38 (though he was uncertain of the reading, as indicated in the footnotes)
245
Borger 1970: 25b
246
Paulus 2014: 434, VI 4 (misnumbered VI 6 in AOAT) & 439.
247
After Paulus 2014: 434.

Page 76 of 147
 a dividing line in the list between Nergal, along with his family and avatars, and the distinct group of chthonic snake
gods represented by Tišpak and Ištaran.248 It is not clear in which of the two groups, if either, we should class our
subjects. The fact that they share a line with the ophidian group may be significant, but this could equally be due to the
space available on the stone. The fact that Ningublaga is a bull-related god249 speaks against any close connection with
snakes, but the mùš element of Alammuš (homophonous with muš1 ‘snake’) may imply the reverse. It is also possible
that they represent a third group of chthonic gods not closely affiliated with Nergal or with the serpent group.
Further support regarding the chthonic nature of these gods can be found in the List of Stars and Deities VR, 46, 1.250
This text has been edited four times since the schematic copy was published by Rawlinson and Pinches, most recently
by Wee.251 Lines 4-7 are of interest to us:252
mul d
4 maš.tab.ba.gal.gal.la lugal.gìr.ra u dmes.lam.ta.è.a The Great Twins Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea
d d
5 30 u u.gur Sîn and Nergal
mul d+mùš d
6 maš.tab.ba.tur.tur làl u nin-EZEN×GU4 The Little Twins Alammuš and Ningublaga
d
7 igi.du u dnin-EZEN×GU4 Palil and Ningublaga

In the first place, it is worth noting that Alammuš and Ningublaga are, as in Mul.Apin, neighbours of the underworld
gods Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea. More important, however, Alammuš is equated to Palil, a god relatively well attested
as a form of Nergal (see l. 23). Krebernik has argued that this equation is an error based on confusion with the
preceding line and that Palil is in fact to be equated with the established underworld god Lugal-irra. He supports this
with reference to Šurpu IX 23, in which the sequence Palil Lugal-irra appears. This is unnecessary, however, as well as
unlikely. In the first place, as just discussed Alammuš was probably an underworld god in his own right. Second, the
sequence in Šurpu is part of a larger list and both Alammuš and Palil are included in the same section.
Alammuš is mentioned in a number of Ur III period offering texts:
TCL 5, 6053253 is a long list from Umma. It seems to be arranged along broadly theological lines. Though it is far too
long to properly examine here, a short extract (disregarding the details of the offerings) is worth mentioning:
i27
Alammuš, i28Ninurimma, ii1
Nin-[…], ii2Ningublaga, ii3Nina[zu], ii4Nin-gìr?-[ri?-da?], ii5Ningišzida, ii6Nin-a-zi-[mu?-a?],
ii7
Gilgamesh, ii8Ninšubur, ii9Meslamtaea.
We should perhaps restore Nineʾigara, wife of Ningublaga as the third name. CDLI has Nin-da-a-[…] for our tentative
restoration of Ninazu’s wife Ningirida?. Ninazimua is the wife of Ningišzida and there seems little reason not to restore
the name. The importance of this list for our purposes is that the gods following Ningublaga are all connected with the
underworld. Without further examination of the list the importance of this order should not be overstated, but it is
nonetheless suggestive in the light of the other evidence so far presented.
UET 3, 72254 is a short offering list in which Alammuš, Ninurimma, Ninazu, Ninka and Nin-túl-ga-na are listed
together. The connection between these gods, indeed even the identity of the last named, is not clear, except insofar as
Alammuš and Ninurimma are a pair, and the underworld god Ninazu is listed with them as in TCL 5, 6053.

248
Wiggerman 1997: 34ff.
249
Cavigneux & Krebernik 2000: 374-376.
250
Rawlinson and Pinches 1909: 46,1 = BM 42262 (1881-07-01, 4).
251
Wee 2016: 161-165, though note that the text has not been collated by any of the editors since Pinches. Wee describes his version as ‘not
so much a new edition, but an updated and convenient reference.’ For the earlier transliterations see Wee 2016: 164 n. 247.
252
Collated from photographs kindly provided by Jeanette Fincke, who will produce a full new edition in the near future.
253
Genouillac 1922: Pl. XL. See http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P131767 for pictures and a transliteration, though
note dlàl is mistakenly read dbappir3?.
254
Legrain 1937: Pl. 78. See http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P136388 for transliteration.

Page 77 of 147
 UET 3, 149255; 161256 and 164257 are nearly identical lists in which Alammuš is grouped with Nanna, Nanna-mu-ri-a-
na-ba-ak, Nineʾigara and Nisaba. Hall has argued 258 that the underlying connection between the last two of these and
Alammuš is that they are connected with food production – Nisaba is a grain goddess, Nineʾigara’s name translates to
‘Lady of the house of butter and cream’, 259 and the logogram LÀL means ‘honey/syrup’ as well as Alammuš. While
this is plausible, it should be noted that Nineʾigara is Ningublaga’s wife according to An=Anum III 35,260 and so a close
connection between the two is not unexpected.
UET 3, 378261 groups Alammuš with just Nanna and Nanna-mu-ri-an-a-ba-ak, each receiving a copper vessel.

While individually these texts tell us relatively little, taken together they present a strong case that Alammuš and
Ningublaga were understood as deities connected to the netherworld. The exact nature of this connection is still
unclear, but a likely explanation is the association between the ūm bubbulu ‘day of the new moon’ and the ūm kispi
‘day of funerary offerings.’262 This association indicates that the disappearance of the moon was connected with the
dead and, by extension, with the underworld. It is reasonable to assume that at least some of his court would therefore
belong in the underworld as is reflected in the evidence presented.
To conclude, it is likely that we should understand the presence of these gods in the present list as due to their
connections to the netherworld.

Nuska
Nuska is the god of the lamp,263 occasionally identified with Girra who appears in line 24. Just as Girra is understood
as a warrior god here, so we should understand Nuska.

Papsukkal/Ninšubur
This is vizier god par excellence and the son of Zababa, a form of Ninurta. Ninšubur, as written in Ur1, was the most
common name for the vizier god in earlier periods, but by the first millennium Papsukkal had mostly supplanted it. 264
It is likely that the reason for his inclusion here is his connection with Zababa, though as the rationale behind this
section is unclear we cannot be certain. Enkagal in line 30 is possibly a name for Papsukkal.

Šamaš, Aya and Bunene

Šamaš is the sun god, and Aya is his wife and Bunene is his son or vizier. Each of these gods is well-known, but the
reason for their appearance here is unclear. Perhaps Šamaš appears as a warrior god with his family in tow, but the
major figures of the pantheon are not especially well attested in this list (apart from line 15), which is mostly comprised
of more obscure gods, so this is by no means certain.
Alternatively, the fact that Nuska, Papsukkal and Alammuš, all vizier gods, appear in this line might have warranted the
inclusion of Bunene, who could hardly be mentioned without reference to Šamaš.

255
Legrain 1937: Pl. 149. See http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P136466 for transliteration.
256
Legrain 1937: Pl. 161. See http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P136478 for transliteration.
257
Legrain 1937: Pl. 164. See http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P136481 for transliteration.
258
Hall 1985: 351-353.
259
Stol 1993-1995: 189-190.
260
Lambert Unpublished: III, 35 = Litke 1998: 121, III, 36.
261
Legrain 1937: Pl. 378. See http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P136700 for (incomplete) transliteration.
262
See del Olmo Lete 2005: 48 and the references there.
263
Streck 2001b: 630.
264
Wiggermann 1998-2000b: 491.

Page 78 of 147
23 Ištar-kakkabe
This name can be translated ‘Ištar of the stars’ and should be understood as the deified planet Venus. The deity was
also known as Ninsianna, as is written in Ur1. Presumably her role here is as a warrior goddess, though as with Šamaš
in the preceding line, Ištar is otherwise apparently unrepresented in the Kultgötterbeschwörung so her presence here is
surprising.

Luḫušû
This is a form of the god Nergal, as evidenced by the so-called Archive of Mystic Heptads, KAR 142:265
d
iii 33’ lú.huš du.gur šá kiški Luhušû = Nergal of Kish
This text gathers groups of 7 gods who share a common characteristic. In this case, they are all forms of Nergal.

Palil
This god is relatively well attested as a form of Nergal. 266 His name can be translated ‘Leader’, as can the name Massû
in l.27, who is apparently also a form of Nergal. It is not clear why gišKU-AN ‘Weapon’ is written in Ur1, but as with
Papsukkal/Ninšubur in l.22, we should probably understand it as another name for the god. Palil is discussed slightly
more in the examination of Alammuš in line 22.

Lugal-irra
It is unusual for this well-attested netherworld god to appear wiothout his brother Meslamtaea. Indeed, in Ur2, Bab1A
and X1, Meslamtaea is mentioned, but as neither Nin9 nor Ur1 include him, and as there does not seem to be enough
space for the name in the small break in Nin1, he has not been included in the eclectic text or translation.
Elsewhere, Lugal-irra appears alone in a corpus of Old Babylonian texts from the first Sealand dynasty, 267 though not
in a helpful context. In the present list he is simply a representative of the underworld, and while the absence of his
brother is unusual, it does not materially affect the sense of the line.

24-25 This group is composed of warrior gods.

24 Girra
This is the deified fire, and so represents fire in all its aspects. As such, the god is regularly understood as a warrior, as
for instance in Maqlû III:268
d
59 girra qurādu rikiski liḫpe May Girra, the warrior, break your bond.
This is the way in which he should be understood here.

Šakkan
This god was chiefly responsible for wild animals, though he also had an underworld aspect and several other notable

265
Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 224.
266
See Krebernik (2003-2005b: 281). Maqlû 7: 156 & 158 (Abusch 2016: 186) should be added to the references given by Krebernik, as
should three references in SAA 2 - 2: VI 19; 6: 519; 9: r.20 (Parpola and Watanabe 2014: 13, 51 & 67).
267
Dalley 2009: 61, n. 3.
268
Abusch 2016: 305

Page 79 of 147
 characteristics. This has been thoroughly investigated by Lambert and it is not worthwhile to repeat his arguments
here.269 His role in the present line is presumably related to his stewardship of wild animals, in which capacity he
absorbed many of their characteristics. As such, we should understand him as a sort of animal warrior here.

Tutu is a well attested name of Marduk. 270

The Sebettu and Narudu

The Sebettu, literally ‘Seven’ are a group of demons regularly attested in incantations and elsewhere. They are fierce
warriors and this is undoubtedly their role here. Narudu is their sister who often accompanies them and shares the same
basic traits. A thorough study of the Sebettu has recently been completed by Konstantopoulos. 271

Erragal
The god Erragal is attested over two dozen times in literary, incantatory, divinatory, astronomical, lexical, and
administrative texts, but the longest published study of his character and associations occupies merely half a paragraph
in the Reallexicon entry for the god Nergal.272 In this, Wiggermann asserts that while Erragal is sometimes a name of
the underworld god Erra, himself a form of Nergal, he was ‘not originally a kind of Erra.’ This is broadly correct, but
Wiggermann makes very little attempt to flesh out the ‘original’ character of the god.
That Erragal was understood as a form of Nergal is completely certain. This is clearest from several first millennium
god lists in which the two are explicitly equated. A representative selection is presented here. In An=Anum Erragal
appears twice in different contexts. The first has already been briefly discussed in our investigation of the goddess
Kusu,273 An=Anum I:274
312 dnin.šar gír.lá é.kur.ra.ke4 Ninšar Butcher of Ekur
[ṭa-bi-ḫ]u šá é-kur [Butche]r of Ekur
d.MIN
313 MUḪALDIM MIN Ninšar ditto
d.MIN
314 GÍR MIN Ninšar ditto
d
315 unú.dù.dù MIN Unududu ditto
d d
316 ír.ra.gal dam.bi nè.eri11.gal Erragal Her Husband, Nergal
d.MIN
317 ŠUL MIN Erragal Ditto
As discussed earlier, lines 313, 314 and 317 represent logographic writings of the names in 312 and 316 respectively.
In each case, the logogram describes an attribute of the deity: muḫaldim ‘cook’, gír ‘knife’, šul ‘hero’. George has
described these as ‘epithet names’. 275 Erragal here is clearly described as a form of Nergal and as the spouse of Ninšar.
This is partially reiterated in the god’s second appearance in An=Anum.
An=Anum VI:276
d
1 nè.eri11.gal ŠU Nergal the same (Nergal)
d
2 [ ]˹la˺.az dam.bi.munus Laz His wife

269
Lambert 2013: 513-523.
270
Richter 2014: 241.
271
Konstantopoulos 2015.
272
Wiggermann 1998-2000a: 218.
273
See excursus
274
Lambert Unpublished = Litke 1998: 60-61, I 328-333.
275
George 2015: 8
276
Litke 1998: 200-201, VI 1-13.

Page 80 of 147
 3 [d]˹ma˺-mi-tum d
la.az Mamitum Laz
d d
4 [ ]˹u4˺.bu.bu.ul nè.eri11.gal Ububul Nergal
d
5 [ ]˹huš˺.ki.a MIN Huškia ditto
6 [d]˹i˺-šar-ki-di-su MIN Išarkidisu ditto
d
7 [gu4].nu.un.gi4.a MIN Gunungia ditto
d
8 ˹la˺-ga-ma-al MIN Lagamal ditto
d˹
9 ìr˺-ra MIN Erra ditto
d
10 ˹ìr˺.ra.gal MIN Erragal ditto
d
11 ˹ìr˺.ra.kal MIN Errakal ditto
d
12 en.˹líl˺.kur.ra MIN Enlilkurra ditto
d
13 ad-mu dam.bi.munus Admu His wife
Again, Erragal is a form of Nergal, one of a long list. His spouse here is Admu, though Nergal also has Laz, another of
whose names is Mamitum, as a wife. Mamitum, also known as Mamma and Mammi, is also recorded as the wife of
Erra in Erra and Išum.277 The difference in spouse is a good indication that two traditions have been conflated in
An=Anum. It is plain that the ancient editor of the list did not envisage two separate gods named Erragal as both entries
are equated with Nergal, but equally Erragal must have been thought of as having a distinct identity.
A similar list of Nergal’s names is to be found in the Neo-Assyrian explanatory god list K. 29. The relevant section is
as follows:278
d
r.i.20’ ù-bu-bu-ul MIN Ububul ditto
d
r.i.21’ ìr-ra MIN Erra ditto
d
r.i.22’ ìr-ra-kal MIN Errakal ditto
d
r.i.23’ ìr-ra-gal MIN Erragal ditto
The name which heads this list is unfortunately lost in both copies which preserve the list of Nergal names, but there is
no question that it was Nergal. Though not included here as they are not germane to our discussion, twenty three
names are preserved which are given the same equivalent, and though many are rare and some unique, both Ububul 279
and Erra are well known as forms of Nergal. The explicit equation is also made in the Neo-Assyrian two column copy
of the Weidner god list from Aššur:
VAT 10173 ii 31-34280
31 [dnè-eri11-gal] d
U+GUR Nergal Nergal
d d
32 [ ìr]-ra U+GUR Erra Nergal
d d
33 [ ìr].ra.gal U+GUR Erragal Nergal
d d
34 [ ìr].ra.kal U+GUR Errakal Nergal
The restorations in the first column are certain as the Weidner list survives in dozens of copies from across
Mesopotamia and the Western Periphery, spanning all periods from Old Babylonian to Hellenistic. While there are
differences between the manuscripts, there are very few lacunae in the text as a whole for any period. For our
purposes, the only important point to be made here is that Erragal is explicitly equated with Nergal.

277
Wiggermann 1998-2000a: 220.
278
King 1909: 36. Duplicated by Rm. 610 (King 1909: 35). Transliteration after Peterson, DCCLT.
279
Krebernik 2014: 269.
280
= KAV 63 (Schroeder 1920: Pl. 63). The text here takes account of Weidner’s collations described in his composite edition of the god
list (Weidner 1924-5: 17 notes 4-6). There is no satisfactory edition of the whole text, and so line numbers are given according to KAV 63.
The text given here is roughly ll.85-88 of the text.

Page 81 of 147
 Erragal’s other consistent association is with the storm god Adad. An Old Babylonian administrative tablet held in St.
Louis provides the clearest evidence of this: 281
1. 27.0.0 še gur 27 gur of barley
giš
2. bán dìr.ra.gal me-še-qum measured in the standard measure of Erragal
3. ša i-na 10½ (sìla) 1 (sìla) ḫa-ar-ṣú according to which 1 sila is deducted from the 10½
d
4. šà.ba še ìr.ra.gal from among the grain of Erragal
d
5. u IM and Adad
uru ki
6. ša šu-ḫa-tum of the city Šuḫatum
The city Šuhatum is otherwise unknown and is not mentioned in the Répertoire géographique des textes cuneiforms.
Nonetheless, this text provides clear evidence that Erragal and Adad were closely linked – at the very least they shared
some grain and presumably the temple to which it belonged.
This association is probably mirrored in the Hurrian-Akkadian bilingual version of the Weidner god list found at
Emar:282
ii 19’ [d]èr-ra˼-[gal? = d
ta?-a]r?-˹ḫu-un˺-[ta?]
Tarḫun(ta) was a Hittite storm god and a bull god, syncretised with, and used as a subordinate name for, the Hurrian
storm god Teššub by the middle of the fifteenth century. 283 This is a clear equation between Erragal and a storm god
though the restoration is not certain.
A further hint of the identity of Erragal as a form of the storm god can be found in the late explanatory compendium
CBS 6060:284
d
44. urudu.níg.kalag.ga = nin-šar u du.gur Gong = Ninšar and Erragal
d
While u.gur is usually Nergal himself, the connection with Ninšar, who as we have seen is the wife of Erragal, means
we should understand Erragal here. The two are paired with the urudu-níg-kala-ga, literally ‘powerful copper thing,’
which has been variously identified as cymbals, 285 a drum,286 and most commonly as a type of bell, a specific example
of which is thought to be represented by the item VA 2517 in the Berlin Museum. 287
Apart from the association with Erragal, urudu.níg.kala.ga is known from a handful of apotropaic rituals in which it
makes a loud noise to scare off the demons that are causing trouble, or to purify generally. The major qualities of the
instrument are exemplified in Udug.Hul:288
VII 15 urudu.níg.kala.ga ur-sag an-na-ke Powerful copper, hero of the heavens
d
MIN-u qarrādu anim Ditto, hero of An
VII 19 urudu.níg.kala.ga ur-sag an-na-ke za-pa-ág me-lam-a-ni hu-mu-ra-ab-dah-e
MIN-u qarrādu da-nim ina rigim [melammišu liṣib]
May the powerful copper, hero of the heavens (Akk. An), increase its awesome thunder
A further important description is found in Bit Meseri II:289
120 … urudu.níg.kala.ga ša pīšu dannu Powerful copper, whose voice is strong

281
Freedman 1975: 188.
282
Simons 2017b: 3, obv 19’.
283
Schwemer 2008: 22.
284
Livingstone 1986: 179, l. 44 and 191, l. 13.Discussed at greater length below, ll. 78-80.
285
Livingstone 1986: 179.
286
CAD sub voce nignakkû
287
Panayotov 2013: 85.
288
Geller 2016: 253-254.
289
Meier 1941-1944: 146-147.

Page 82 of 147
 121 naši dadad bēl birqi … carried by Adad, lord of lightning.
The evidence of these texts shows a common theme. The urudu.níg.kala.ga is a ‘warrior of the heavens,' 'carried by
Adad, Lord of Lightning’, which produces 'awesome thunder' with its ‘strong voice.’ This describes an instrument
capable of producing a booming bass note to mimic the sound of thunder.
The bell in Berlin is 11cm high and has a diameter of 6cm. While its decoration demonstrates that it was used for
apotropaic purposes, it is impossible to imagine that a glorified cowbell could produce the 'awesome thunder' of the
urudu.níg.kala.ga.
A further consideration is the e'ru-wood ḫulṭuppu-rod, which is often mentioned alongside the powerful copper. The
clearest instance of this is in Udug-ḫul:290
XII 83 urudu.níg.kala.ga gišma-nu [giš]hul-dúb-ba ur-sag an-na-ke4
ruq[qu ēru gišḫulṭuppu qarrādu danim]
Sum. The powerful copper and the eʾru-wood rod, hero of the heavens
Akk. The hammered cop[per? and the eʾru-wood rod, hero of An]
XII 84 [udug hul.gál.e] ˹gaba˺ an-gi4-gi4-àm
[muterrū]ti šēdū lemnūtu
that turn away the evil spirits.
Geller understands ruqqu in l. 83 to mean ‘copper vessel’ following the first meaning in CAD, and in the belief that the
instrument was represented by the bell in Berlin. As we have established, this is an unlikely identification, and so the
second meaning in CAD ‘hammered metal’ has been adopted. The eʾru-wood rod is also attested together with the
powerful copper in an unpublished apotropaic ritual, K. 5152: 291
16. dù.dù.bi šipti annīti ana muḫḫi ari ēri šalšīšu tamannuma ina qātīka tanašši ?ma mimma ul iṭe[ḫḫi]šu
Its ritual: Recite this incantation before the Ara-stick and the Eʾru-stick and wield them in your hand.
Everything will not approach.
18. […a]na muḫḫi ṣalam nigkala[gê taman]nu
[…i]n front of the image of the powerful copper you recite.
The incantations connected to these ritual instructions aim to exorcise demons, which is also the purpose of the two
objects in the Udug.Hul incantation, as is clear from XII 84. Elsewhere in the unpublished text the e’ru-stick is set
alight.
The eʾru-stick is called a ḫultuppu in Udug-ḫul, and an item labelled ḫultuppu is actually known. BM 91452 is an
inscribed lapis lazuli ‘mace head.’292 The stone would originally have been attached to a shaft, perhaps made of eʾru-
wood.
The evidence, then, describes a copper instrument which made a booming bass sound akin to thunder to scare off
demons, and which was associated with a wooden stick with a stone head. Taken together, this strongly indicates that
the ‘powerful copper’ should be understood as a sort of gong, and the eʾru-wood rod as the beater with which it was
struck. This understanding fits neatly with the use of the word ruqqu ‘hammered metal’ in the Akkadian translation of
Udug.Hul, and, more importantly for our purposes, links the powerful copper with storms. Thus, Erragal’s association
with the gong is good evidence for his identity as a type of storm god.

290
After Geller 2016: 414-415.
291
This text, with duplicates, is to be published in a forthcoming article by Henry Stadhouders and myself, provisionally entitled ‘The
Charred Drumstick and the Thunder Gong.’
292
Grayson 1975a: 69.

Page 83 of 147
 A final curiosity regarding the powerful copper is a medical text, BAM 240: 293
26 DIŠ MUNUS Ù.TU-ma ṣi-im-rat u IM ud-du-pat SAḪAR uruduNÍG.KALA.GA tu-še-ṣe-en-ši-ma ina-eš
If a woman gives birth and subsequently becomes distended and is inflated with “wind,” if you have her
smell dust from a thunder-gong she should recover
This is evidently an example of associative magic – if a woman is puffed up with wind, she should sniff the instrument
that creates thunderous roars, allowing her to create thunderous roars of her own thereby alleviating her inflation.

More hints of Erragal’s identity as a storm god are found in Tablet 45 of the omen series Enuma Anu Enlil, which deals
with thunder omens. Several lines are relevant, but as they are very similar in content one will suffice: 294
v3 18’ DIŠ min dtir.an.na šá MÚŠ-šá ma-diš sig7 ta im.u18 ana im.si gib dìr-ra-gal ˹x˺ na ina kur gál
If ditto a rainbow which is very green in its appearance arches from south to north, Erragal… will be in the land
This follows the general pattern of the omens in this Tablet, in which various phenomena are interpreted and prognoses
given. In many cases, Adad, to be understood as ‘storms’, ‘will be in the land.’ Several lines predict du.gur ‘will be in
the land’ which has been understood to mean Nergal and so ‘plague’ or ‘death’. In light of the evidence presented so
far, and especially given the line just quoted, it is perhaps worth considering that we should instead understand Erragal,
and ‘(a type of) storm’ or ‘thunder.’ This requires substantially more investigation if it is to be accepted, which is
outside the scope of the current study.

A final group of references worth considering are found in mythological texts. In both Atraḫasīs and Gilgameš XI,
Errakal is specifically associated with the destruction caused by the flood when he is said to ‘tear up the mooring
poles.’295 In the Epic of Gulkishar the same sentiment is found:296
20’. [ki-i GU4] ˹at˺-˹ta˺-˹kip˺-˹ma˺ ˹a˺-˹x˺ […] [Like a wild bull] I will continuously charge and I will […]!
d
21’. [ki-i] ˹ ˺èr-ra-kal a-ša-˹ak˺-[kan …] [Like] Errakal, I will est[ablish …]
? ?
22’. [ú -na ]-ap-pa-áš ki-i a-gi-i ú-[…] [I] will demolish like the flood; I […]!
d !
23’. [a-q]a-am-mi ki-i ˹ ˺BIL .GI ka-a-ra ˹x˺ […] [I] will burn like Girra! The mooring-place […]!
While the breaks mean Errakal is not precisely said to cause the flood, the idea is clearly similar to that of Gilgamesh
and Atrahasis. This is also echoed in Erra and Išum, in which Erra is said to smash rudders and tear down masts and
rigging.297 In this poem Erra also threatens ‘Him whom the prince has not struck down, Adad will wash away,’ 298
though as this is part of a list of ways in which Erra will destroy the world, it is perhaps not very significant.
The distinction between Erragal and Errakal is difficult to define, presumably due to their early syncretism, but it is
possible that they were equated. This gains support from the fact that one manuscript of the Gilgameš Tablet has [dèr?-
ra?]-gal for Errakal.299 In any case, as has been shown, it is very likely that both were in some way connected with
storms and the destruction they wrought.

293
Scurlock 2014: 610-614.
294
Gehlken 2012: 57.
295
Lambert and Millard 1969: 87, III vii 51 and 125, U rev. 15; George 2003: 708–709, XI 102.
296
My thanks are due to Elyze Zomer, who is due to publish this newly discovered royal epic, for the reference
297
Cagni 1977: 56, ll. 118–120.
298
Cagni 1977: 54, ll. 81.
299
George 2003: 708.

Page 84 of 147
 All of this is germane to the present line because the group in this section does not seem to be related to the
underworld, as might have otherwise been expected of Erragal. We should understand Erragal here in his storm
god/warrior aspect.

Aritum
This name is otherwise known in just two texts – The Weidner godlist and the Great Star List (K. 250). These appear
to give contradictory evidence concerning the identity of the deity. In the Weidner list she is equated with Siris and
with Tugnunna, though neither name seems likely here. The Great Star List writes:300
mul d
32 a-ri-tum = iš-tar be-let kur.kur The Aritum Star = Ištar, Lady of all lands
This is more likely, given the context of the present list, as Ištar is a warrior goddess. However, a more likely
explanation still is that the name is simply a deified noun. Aritum can be translated ‘shield’ or ‘shield bearer’, and so
we should simply understand the divine figure Aritum, apparently a goddess judging by the figures with whom she is
equated, as a deified shield or shield bearer. This fits very neatly with rest of the list.

Nin-mè?
This name is not clearly preserved on any tablet. We have followed the best preserved text, X1, but even this is not
certain. Nin9 seems to write Bēlet-m[è?], which is an unexpected combination of Sumerian and Akkadian, as well as
lacking the divine determinative. Aš1 has Bēlet-Ur[u?], ‘Lady of the city’ which is a name of Manzat (l. 17). The lack
of a determinative raises the possibility that the name should be understood as an epithet of Aritum but this is unlikely.
In the first place, the omission of divine determinatives in names beginning with bēlet is quite common in this text, as
is clear in lines 10 and 19, and moreover, in both X1 and Aš1 the determinative is used. Further, in X1, as well as in
both Bab1A and Ur1 assuming they both included it, the name is written at the start of the following line. While this
does not preclude an epithet, it makes it less likely.
As for the purpose of the name in this list, unlike in line 19, the aspect intended here is probably that of the warrior
goddess.

25 Ninurta and Ningirsu are two names of the same god, the warrior god par excellence. Bau and Gula are healing gods,
but are more likely included here as the wives of Ninurta and Ningirsu respectively. 301

26-27 This list is composed principally of underworld gods.

26 Nergal is the king of the underworld. Išum is his vizier and Šubula is his son. Šarṣarbati is a name of Nergal and
Mamitum is the wife of Meslamtaea, an underworld god often syncretised with Nergal. 302
Lulal belongs with Latarak and Šarrahu and so will be discussed in the next line of commentary.

27 Lulal, Latarak and Šarrahu

The first two of these are regularly paired, and often equated with one another. Lulal is also known as Lugal-edinna

300
Koch-Westenholz 1995: 188.
301
Streck 2001a: 512-515.
302
Wiggermann 1998-2000a: 219-222.

Page 85 of 147
 ‘Lord of the Steppe.’303 All three are mentioned together in Šurpu III:
d
177 lugal.edin.na dla-ta-rak dšar-ra-ḫu lip-ṭu-ru May Lugal-edinna, Latarak and Šarraḫu release
Lulal and Latarak also appear in the List of Stars and Deities VR, 46, 1:304
mul
22 lú.làl u dla-ta-rak = d
30 u du.gur Lulal and Latarak = Sîn and Nergal
In this text, the two are equated with Sîn and Nergal, though, as Lambert points out, this is partly due to the relatively
low number of paired gods with which they could be equated. 305 Nonetheless, Nergal is also known as Lugal-edinna in
the Neo-Assyrian explanatory godlist CT 25, 35:306
d
r.i 8. lugal.edin.na = MIN Lugal-edinna = Ditto (Nergal)
In light of these equivalences, and the apparent theme of this section, it seems likely that all three of these gods are
either forms or associates of Nergal in the present context.

Massû
This name is apparently known only here. It can be translated as ‘The Leader.’ This is also the meaning of Palil (l.
23), who is a form of Nergal. This is, of course, not evidence of such a link between Maššu and Nergal, but is
nonetheless worth mentioning. Given the other names in this list, it seems likely that Massû is closely associated with
Nergal.

Kakka
This god was a messenger of Anu generally equated with Ninšubur and Papsukkal.307 He does not seem to have any
close connections to the underworld and so his appearance in this list is puzzling. A convoluted connection can be
found in that the Sumerian goddess Ninšubur, who was eventually syncretised with the Akkadian god Ninšubur, was
married to a death god.308 In addition, the same goddess is featured on Old Babylonian seal inscriptions in association
with Nergal, Išum and Meslamtaea, though not exclusively. 309 The chain seems too long to convincingly defend, and it
is not clear what purpose Kakka served here.

Enkurkur
According to the Reallexikon der Assyriologie, this is a name of Ninurta or Enlil. 310 Given the context, it seems more
likely that it is a name of Nergal. This also makes sense in terms of the meaning of the name assuming we take KUR to
mean ‘underworld.’ This is supported by the evidence of an unpublished god list on a school exercise tablet (EAH
249) in which we read:311
d
3. U.GUR Nergal
d˺
4. ˹ EN.KUR Lord Underworld
Enkur is evidently a short form of the present name, and given the proposed translation could hardly be anyone other
than Nergal.

303
Lambert 1987-1990b: 163-164.
304
Rawlinson and Pinches 1909: 46,1 = BM 42262 (1881-07-01, 4).
305
Lambert 1987-1990b: 163.
306
Peterson DCCLT
307
Steinkeller 1982: 290.
308
Wiggermann 1998-2000b: 495.
309
Wiggermann 1998-2000b: 495.
310
Ebeling 1938: 382.
311
Soon to be published with comparable texts by myself, Henry Stadhouders and Elyze Zomer.

Page 86 of 147
28-29 The organisation of this section is entirely unclear. Many of the deities listed seem to have no connection to the
underworld, the abzu or martial prowess. A group within this list are occasionally described as mother goddesses,
though how this could be related to the purpose of the text as a whole is unclear, and most of the list could not be
connected to the idea in any case.
Several of the figures are from the court of Enlil at Nippur, and it is possible that the little understood groups of gods
known as the Enlils and the Sons of Enmešarra are involved. Certainly Šuzianna, Siris and Ninimma all belong to
these groups, and the other members (Kusu, Ennugi, Nusku, Gula and Ninšar) are also all present in the
Kultgötterbeschwörung. However, these groups are very little understood and as the names are spread throughout the
Kultgötterbeschwörung it is difficult to argue that they were understood here as a coherent group. It is more likely that
the characters of the divine figures in this section are too little known to us to understand the selection.
As no coherent sense can be made of this section, comment has been kept to a minimum.

28 Lugalmaradda and Imzuanna

This is a husband and wife pair, the tutelary deities of the town Marda. Lugalmarda was syncretised with Ninurta at a
very early date.

Ninimma
This goddess is equated, presumably mistakenly, with Zababa in the triple-column Weidner god list II 11b. In
An=Anum I 312 she is described as ‘Sister of Ninurta’. In the myth Enki and Ninmah I 32 she appears together with
Šuzianna in a list of birth goddesses.312 Any of these could explain her presence here to some degree, but nothing
particularly seems likely.

Šuzianna
This goddess is usually the concubine of Enlil, but in the triple column version of the Weidner godlist II 20 she is
equated with Gula as the wife of Ninurta. 313 Perhaps she is here for this connection.

Šulpaea is the husband of Bēlet-Ili and so will be discussed together with her in the next line.

29 Sadarnunna
This is the wife of Nuska, who is mentioned in line 22. It is possible that she appears here due to her association with
him, though as the meaning of this section is opaque, she could be here in her own right or for any other reason.

Bēlet-Ili and Šulpaea

Bēlet-Ili’s only notable role is as a mother goddess. She is perhaps included in the present line for this reason, as
several other mother goddesses are also listed here. Šulpaea is her husband.

Sud

312
Lambert 2013: 336-337.
313
Weidner 1924-1925: 14.

Page 87 of 147
 Originally the goddess of Šurrupak, Sud was syncretised with Ninlil at a very early stage, becoming the wife of Enlil.
The reason for her appearance in the present line is not known, though Ninlil was occasionally recognised as a mother
goddess, so she is perhaps linked with Bēlet-Ili.

Siris and Ningišzida

These are deities associated with alcohol. Siris is the god of beer, while Ningišzida is a chthonic snake god, apparently
with responsibility for wine.314 In Šurpu VI, Siris is described as pašir ilī u amēlī ‘releaser of gods and men.’
Presumbly this is a reference to the effects of alcohol, but it also links the god with the general idea of the current
incantation.

30-31 This section is not entirely clear. There are several warrior gods and some underworld gods, but no particular theme is
apparent.

30 Panigarra
Panigarra is a warrior god equated with Ninurta, and should be understood as such here. 315

Enkagal
The god Enkagal ‘Lord of the great gate’ is otherwise unattested. An=Anum I 46316 gives Ninkagal ‘Lady of the Great
Gate’ as a name of the wife of Ninšubur, and so we should perhaps understand Enkagal to be a name of Ninšubur
himself. Ninšubur in this context is to be understood as the form of the god syncretised with Papsukkal, rather than the
much older goddess who is vizier of Inanna. 317 Papsukkal is the son and vizier of Zababa, a well attested form Ninurta
(l. 13). Thus, we should probably understand this god to be a form of Ninurta’s vizier. Papsukkal himself is listed in
line 22.

Enkimdu
Enkimdu is a god of farming, initially in the court of Enlil. Following the promotion of Marduk and Nabu, Enkimdu
was brought into the court of Nabu. Lambert explains this move as being due to the need for Nabu to absorb the chief
facets of Ninurta’s character. As Ninurta was an agricultural as well as a martial god, there was a necessity for Nabu to
develop an agricultural side, met by his adoption of Enkimdu. 318 We should thus understand Enkimdu here as a
member of Nabu’s court, included in the list due to this connection.

Lisi
This god is also mentioned in l. 20. It is not clear why he is included twice in the list. It is possible that either this
reference or the earlier one refers to the mother goddess discussed in l. 20, but this is far from clear.

Ninegal

314
Lambert 1990a: 300.
315
Krebernik 2003-2005c: 326.
316
Lambert Unpublished: I 46.
317
Wiggermann 1998-2000b: 494.
318
Lambert Unpublished: II 239-241.

Page 88 of 147
 This goddess is well established as the wife of Uraš, a form of Ninurta. 319 She is presumably included here in this
capacity.

31 Ur1 writes dbašmu in place of Gula as the first name in this line, but this is certainly contamination from line 6 where
Bašmu precedes Lahmu.

Gula
This is the most usual name of the healing goddess, but given the context of the Kultgötterbeschwörungen, we should
perhaps understand her here, as in l.25, as the wife of the warrior god Ninurta. Owing to the uncertainty about the
grouping principle for this list, however, it is possible that she is here in her own right.

Laḫmu
This is very unlikely to be identical with the Laḫmu-monster mentioned in l. 6. Instead, as Wiggermann has
established, we should understand this name, to be translated ‘hairy’, as representing the ‘naked hero’ known from
iconography.320 Whether this figure is the same as the monster or not, it is clearly to be understood as a warrior, as the
iconography demonstrates.

Rammānu
An=Anum includes the name in the middle of the section on the god Amurru:
d.ra-ma-nu
VI 246 ˹KUR˺ = ŠU Rammānu = The same
This makes him a warrior god, as the epithet Riḫṣu (if this is not a name, see below) implies.

Riḫṣu
Nin1 and Nin2A omit the divine determinative before this word, while Aš1, Ur1 and X1 all write it. It is therefore not
certain whether a name or an epithet is intended. Evidently the tradition outside Nineveh considered it a name, but as
this edition has generally followed the Ninevite text except where unavoidable, we have translated it as an epithet. In
either case, the meaning is not substantially different. As an epithet, we read ‘devastating’, while as a name Riḫṣu is a
form of the storm god Adad according to the explanatory godlist CT 25, 16:
d
31 GÍR.BALA-u = min Riḫṣu = ditto (Adad)
In either case, the name implies a warrior dimension to this list, as it can scarcely mean anything else.

Nisaba
This is a name of the grain goddess, discussed further in the examination of Kusu (see excursus). The reason she is
grouped with the gods listed here is unclear. She is occasionally to be understood as the wife of Nabu, perhaps this is
the nuance intended here.

Ereškigal
This is the well-attested queen of the underworld, wife of Nergal.

319
Behrens and Klein 1998-2000: 346. See paragraph 4.1 for details and references.
320
Wiggermann 1981-1982: 1-17.

Page 89 of 147
 Lugalgudua
This name can be translated ‘king of Kutha’, the city of Nergal. Thus the name is simply a form of the underworld god
Nergal.

32-33 This section consists of gods related to the Abzu, the sweet waters below the earth.

32 Lugalabba
As mentioned above (l. 12), this god is generally associated with Nergal. The arguments for this have been set out by
Lambert321 and there is no need to repeat them here. It seems likely, given the general principle of this section, that
Lugalabba was understood here at least as having a connection to the Abzu. At the very least, his name ‘Lord of the
Sea’ coupled with his underworld connections would make him easy to group with Abzu gods.
This is clear from the following line in which Ur1 and possibly Nin2A write Lugalabba for Lugalabzu.

Lugalidda
Much like Lugalabba, this name is apparently dual purpose. In An=Anum VI 28 it follows Lugalabba as a name of
Nergal, while in An=Anum II 129 it is given as a name of Ea. This adds substantial support to our understanding of
Lugalabba as an Abzu god in the present context.

Laguda, Enzak and Meskilag

This god appears in An=Anum II:322
224 [dla.gu.da] = ŠU NI.TUKki Laguda = The same. Dilmun.
This is restored from the unpublished text Anšar=Anum. The line follows 50 names of Marduk, and precedes the
names of Marduk’s wife, so is evidently intended to be understood as a form of Marduk involved with Dilmun. This is
doubtful, however, as Lambert has pointed out,323 because of Laguda’s appearance in Marduk’s Address to the
Demons:324
30. ana-ku dasal-lú-ḫi šá ina ti-amti šap-li-ti ú-šar-bu-šú dla-gu-da
I am Asalluḫi, whom Laguda exalts in the lower sea.
Laguda cannot be Marduk here as he is exalting Marduk. The lower sea here is the Persian Gulf, not the Abzu, thus
supporting the link to Dilmun, modern Bahrain. We should understand Laguda as a watery god linked to Dilmun, and
later syncretised with Marduk. This is noteworthy when it is considered that the following name in the present section,
Enzak, was the patron deity of Dilmun. In the myth Enki and Ninhursanga, 325 Enzak is said to be the child of Enki, the
Sumerian equivalent of the Akkadian god Ea. In several Eršema prayers, 326 Enzak is a name of Marduk, who, as a son
of Ea, is an obvious choice for synchretism.
Thus, we have two gods, both linked to Dilmun and syncretised with Marduk. Laguda is associated with water and
Enzak is explicitly the son of Enki. It seems very likely, therefore, that they are mentioned in the present list in their

321
Lambert 2013: 241-247.
322
Lambert unpublished: II 224.
323
Lambert 1980-1983: 430-431
324
Geller 2016: 348, l. 30.
325
ETCSL l. 280.
326
Gabbay 2016: 368 for references.

Page 90 of 147
 capacity of associates or relatives of Ea, and thereby deities connected to the Abzu.
Meskilag is the wife of Enzak, as well as being, under the name Nin-sikil-la, a daughter of Enki according to Enki and
Ninhursanga.327

33 Hedimmekug is attested as a daughter of Ea in An=Anum II 274. Lugaldukuga is a name of Ea, as is Lugalabzu ‘Lord
Abzu.’328 Išemmi-tiklašu is apparently known only here. The name means ‘he hears, trust him.’ Given the rest of the
list, this deity must be related to the Ea or Abzu in some way. Usmu and Hasisu are the viziers of Ea and his wife
Damkina respectively.
Ur1 has dše-mu-ú for Usmu, presumably reflecting a pronunciation. Usmu is also known as Isimu, 329 and Šemû is nt
too far removed from this. In addition, Ur1 separates Išemmi-tiklašu into two names, the first of which di-šem-mu
could easily be a writing of Isimu. It is also possible that both of these variant writings are errors.

34-35 This section is a logical successor to lines 32-33. It is concerned with water sources, initially deified ponors, and then
above ground water sources, thus there is a progression from Abzu (underground), to ponor (under and overground) to
rivers, streams and seas (overground).
Nonetheless, the point of these lines is unclear. The list in line 48 is comparable, but the purpose is certainly different,
the later list being related to the māmītu-sanction for misconduct related to the items enumerated.
The present lines comprise the final section of the Kultgötterbeschwörung and it is noteworthy that they deal chiefly
with non-divine items. Perhaps the idea here is related to cleaning. Just as water cleans and purifies the body
physically, so it could have been felt to be effective against demons

d
34 ILLAT is the logographic writing of several different names. Reiner lists Baliḫu, Alba, and Alḫa. While these may be
accurate translations, without evidence regarding the order, or, indeed, knowledge of the last two names, translating
would be guesswork at best. As discussed below (l. 48), dILLAT is the logographic writing of a type of partially
underground stream known as a ponor. There were presumably several of these in Mesopotamia. We should perhaps
understand Balihu, Alba and Alḫa as especially prominent examples, which therefore gave their names to the principle
as a whole.
The epithet phrase describing the five ILLATs as ‘dwellers in the high mountains, the high peaks’ is presumably a
relatively accurate description of the phenomenon. Ponors form only where a karst system exists. That is to say, they
are the result of a landscape made of soluble rocks such as limestone. In such a setting, cracks in the bedrock can be
steadily eroded by water, resulting in the formation of a drainage system beneath the rock. Landscapes composed of
limestone are often very hilly, and so it is natural to describe ponors as dwellers in the high mountains.

35 This line is mirrored in line 48. The idea seems to be to list different natural phenomena, mostly linked to water.
Gallati, translated ‘roiling’ here is in fact untranslatable. It is only known as a word describing the sea but it is not
clear what precisely is implied about the sea from its use. 330

327
ETCSL.
328
Lambert 1987-1990a: 133.
329
Lambert 1976-1980b: 179.
330
e.g. Leichty 2011: 16, ii 67; Koch 2005: 112, 3.34.

Page 91 of 147
36-42 This section consists chiefly of catch-all lists designed to cover every possible divine force and every possible problem
that will hopefully be removed after the patient has performed the ritual, including witchcraft, omens, and problems
brought on by the patient’s own actions. It is, to a large extent, repeated in ll. 72-74 below.
It is important to note that the subject of the litany phrase from here onwards is no longer the gods but rather the
sanctions that the patient hopes they will remove. This makes the first few lines of this section quite confusing, as the
gods and days mentioned are not apparently connected to any verbs. In order to make sense of this section with the
minimum emendation, it is necessary to incorporate prepositions into the text. The assumption in the translation is that
Amurru is the main focus of the litany, but that all the other gods are also addressed, as indicated by the opening phrase
of line 37. The list of days are also invoked by the litany.

36 Amurru, as this line makes clear, is an exorcist as well as the god most closely associated with the gamlu-stick that
plays such an important role in this text. The translation adopted here understands each of the words following nāš
‘bearer(s)’ as a separate item. This offers a plausible explanation for the presence of both forms of Amurru in this line
– 4 items is more than a single god can carry.
The point is to demonstrate that Amurru is the best equipped god to help clear away the problems facing the patient. It
seems likely, though there is no evidence beyond this line, that the officiant of the ritual took the role of Amurru at this
point and used the items named to purify the patient.

37 The opening phrase of this line is to be understood as a blanket address to all divine figures. It is paralleled in line 6,
above, in which the creatures of the rivers and dry lands are addressed, though they are then enumerated. It is also
paralleled in Maqlû I:331
63 ša šamê qūlā ša erṣeti šimâ Those of the heavens, pay heed! Those of the netherworld, listen!
This is a simple catch-all term to address any divine figure that might be helpful but has not been addressed by name.
The rest of the line is devoted to a list of specific days. Livingstone describes this list as ‘a catch-all list of days of the
month and festivals.’332 The point is that these days are invoked in just the same way as the gods listed above. They
are lucky or unlucky days, and possess their own powers to act on the patient’s behalf.

38 This line continues the list of days and begins the list of problems. Both are simply comprehensive lists of their
subjects.

39 The list of problems continues on this line.

40 This line lists all the conceivable targets of the problems faced by the patient.

39a-40c These lines are found only on Bab1A and X1, and are possibly adapted from the similar list in ll. 72-74. Alternatively,
they may simply represent the expansion of the original idea preserved in l. 39-40, no doubt due to the multitude of
magical texts in which these or similar lines occur. 333
Due to the relatively formulaic nature of these lines, it has been possible to suggest restorations for most of the broken

331
After Abusch 2016: 286.
332
Livingstone 1999: 133-135
333
CMAwR passim.

Page 92 of 147
 sections, but two such breaks cannot be convincingly filled, 40c […GÁ]L?meš, just a single wedge of which is
preserved, and 39a ḪI?-x[…]-KUR? which is apparently duplicated in line 73 as ḪI-AŠ-DIŠ, for which no meaning can
be found.

41 This line is self-explanatory, but it bears pointing out that the verbs in it are all in the Ntn-stem, and so the problems are
all understood as being persistent.

42 From this point the litany phrase changes. The gamlu-stick is not apparently included in the new phrase, possibly
because the exorcist now wields four different tools of purification, as detailed in l. 36.

43-70 This section consists of a list of māmītu and a request that they be undone. The concept of māmītu is crucial to
developing an understanding of Šurpu. As well as the present list, Tablet III consists almost entirely of a list of māmītu
and a prayer that ‘[Asalluhi], exorcist among the gods, will undo,’ 334 and throughout the incantations māmītu, and its
Sumerian equivalents nam.erim2 and sag.ba, recur frequently. Reiner translates all three terms simply as ‘oath.’ She
supports this on the grounds that it is the ‘first meaning of the word, and is clearly its meaning in the first thirteen lines
of (Tablet III).’335 This is not convincing. In the first place, there is no reason to suppose that the ‘first’ meaning
should be correct. In the second place, as will be discussed below (ll. 51-52), the first thirteen lines are not related to an
oath.
It is easily demonstrated that ‘oath,’ is an inadequate translation for most instances of māmītu in the text. Five lines
drawn more or less at random from Tablet III are representative of the general inapplicability of the translation: 336
III 56 māmīt itê īli ētequ the ‘oath’: to transgress the limitation set by a god
III 58 māmīt šīr šurqi akālu the ‘oath’: to eat stolen meat
III 87 māmīt rābiṣē muttaggišūti the ‘oath’ of the lurking-demons who sneak around
III 50 māmīt ḫarrāni amēlu ṣabātu [the ‘oa]th’ that a man has set out on a journey 337
III 45 māmīt šēdi u lamassi [the ‘oa]th’ of protective spirit or protecting goddess
Over a hundred similar examples could be found with no difficulty. Reiner suggests that many of the māmītu could
best be explained as ‘something evil,’338 but this makes little sense unless we understand māmītu as nothing more than
a label.
CAD gives two definitions for māmītu: ‘oath (sworn by the king and the gods)’339 and ‘curse (consequences of a broken
oath attacking the person who took it, also as demonic power).’ 340 Geller has argued for a nuanced and shifting
definition within Šurpu. In his view, three types of māmītu should be distinguished: 341
1. Oaths or curses of/by family, friends and deities
2. Taboo or prohibited acts
3. Oaths or imprecations sworn by inanimate objects.
He ties these together by arguing that the concept of māmītu ‘refers to a theoretical oath ostensibly taken by an

334
Reiner 1958: III, 2.
335
Reiner 1958: 55, III, 1.
336
Reiner 1958: 18-21.
337
Following Reiner’s translation, but see below l. 46 for a more likely interpretation.
338
Reiner 1958: 55, III, 1.
339
CAD M Part 1: 189.
340
CAD M Part 1: 189.
341
Geller 1980: 183-4.

Page 93 of 147
 ancestor, or even seven generations of ancestors, which forbids the swearer or his progeny from committing various
private acts.’342 There are several difficulties with this line of argument. In the first place, there is no evidence
whatsoever for the theory of a belief in theoretical ancestral oaths. More fundamentally, however, Geller’s categories
of māmītu are based on the same misunderstanding as Reiner’s translation. The entries in Šurpu III and IX are almost
always abbreviated. This will be seen regularly in the following commentary by comparison of the lines in Šurpu IX
with those with similar content in Šurpu III and other texts, but a single example will demonstrate the problems:
III 46 māmīt bīni u gišimmari Māmīt of tamarisk or datepalm
III 121 māmīt balti u ašāgi Māmīt of camelthorn or yanqout
IX 67 māmīt balti ašāgi bīni gišimmari nasāḫu Māmīt of ripping up camelthorn, yanqout, tamarisk or datepalm.
These lines are discussed more thoroughly below (l. 67). For now the key point is that they clearly describe the same,
or similar, ideas. This is important because in Geller’s system, the lines from Tablet III are examples of oaths sworn by
inanimate objects, whereas that of IX is an example of a taboo act. As the majority of lines do not have counterparts
elsewhere, and as many that do are no more explicit, it is impossible to categorically disprove Geller’s argument.
However, it is logical to assume that as many of the lines describing types of māmītu are abbreviated, the rest may be as
well. If this is accepted, Geller’s categories 1 and 3 cease to exist – each type of māmītu can be seen to be related to a
taboo or prohibited act, or more broadly to misconduct involving the objects described.
We should not stop here, however, as understanding each line to be a description of a taboo suffers from the same
shortcomings as Reiner’s ‘something evil’ - it relegates māmītu to little more than a generic categorisation. Šurpu III 1-
3 makes clear that the list is more than that:
1. ÉN māmīt kalāma ša amēlu mār ili[šu iṣbātu] Incantation: Any māmīt the man, son of [his] god [is seized by]
2. upaššar mašmaššu īlī Asalluḫi Asalluhi, exorcist of the gods, will undo.
3. māmīt abi u umma amēlu ṣabati The man is seized by the māmīt of father and mother
The restoration in line 1 is made from line 3 and seems certain. The point is that the patient is clearly suffering from
having been ‘seized by’ the māmīt and it is the seizure that Asalluhi is expected to undo. The māmītu enumerated in
Šurpu, therefore, must be taken as the consequences of breaking a taboo, not as the mere taboo itself. As van der Toorn
has made clear, in the Mesopotamian worldview the concepts of crime, guilt and punishment were logically connected.
Thus, just as arnu means both ‘sin’ and ‘punishment for sin,’ 343 we might understand māmītu to mean both
‘misconduct involving X’ and ‘sanction (for misconduct) involving X’. This is unnecessary, however. As every
example used by Geller to reach the definition ‘taboo’ was drawn from the two lists of Šurpu, and as this is now clearly
insufficient, we can simply jettison the definition and take māmītu to mean only ‘sanction (for misconduct) involving
X.’
This gains support also from Maqlû I:344
d
38. Gilgameš bēl māmītikunu Gilgamesh is the enforcer of your māmīt
Abusch translates ‘oath’ and understands this line to refer to the implicit oath of all members of a society, including the
witches with whom the line deals, to live within its bounds. 345 The phrase bēl māmīti is also known elsewhere as an
epithet of Adad and Šamaš, Sîn, Išhara (as GAŠAN māmīti) and the gods generally.346 Following our argument, we

342
Geller 1990: 113.
343
van der Toorn 1985: 52.
344
Abusch 2016: 284
345
Abusch 2002: 273.
346
See CAD sub voce māmītu 1e.

Page 94 of 147
 can instead understand māmīt as ‘punishment (for misconduct).’ The description of Gilgamesh as the enforcer (lit.
‘lord’) of the punishment is perfectly in accord with his character - as a divine judge he is naturally to be understood as
an enforcer of divinely imposed sanctions (for misconduct). This is also the case for Adad and Šamaš, 347 as well as the
gods generally.348 Sîn and Išhara are not generally known as divine judges, though as the text which describes them as
bēl māmīti is from Hattuša, there is perhaps a Hittite dimension to be considered.
There are several advantages to our proposed definition. In the first place it accords more harmoniously with the
definition given by the CAD ‘curse (consequence of a broken oath)’ than does Geller’s, though there is still a difficulty
with the parenthetical element, which will be discussed below. Another point in favour of the new reading is that it
diminishes the apparent semantic homogeneity of māmītu, arnu and ikkibu, each of which are generally understood to
define a group of prohibited actions, but with substantial overlap.349 If māmītu is understood rather as the sanction for
committing a prohibited action, it can be removed from the group of words approximating the modern concept of
‘taboo.’ This has the added effect of removing a layer of apparently pointless repetition from Šurpu. As has been
stated frequently, Tablet II and Tablet III are very similar in terms of content. Tablet II is a list of misconduct which
the patient may have committed and many of the entries are repeated almost verbatim in Tablets III and IX, the major
difference being that they are described as māmītu in the latter two. We should, according to the interpretation
presented here, understand the list in Tablet II as representing actions committed by the patient, while those of Tablet
III and IX enumerate the sanctions accrued by these, or similar, acts.

There is a major difficulty with the argument as presented. The chief meaning given to māmītu by CAD is ‘oath, sworn
agreement,’ and there is ample evidence for the validity of this definition. The second meaning in CAD, with which
our proposal broadly accords, is ‘curse (consequences of a broken oath attacking the person who took it, also as
demonic power)’. The argument we have presented, however, contains no oaths. Geller’s proposal of theoretical oaths
sworn by ancestors is possible, but as mentioned above, there is no evidence for such a belief. Maul has argued along
similar lines that the behaviour banned by māmīti was understood as embodying an oath with the gods, 350 which is
broadly in agreement with Abusch’s proposal mentioned above. 351 Again, however, there is no evidence for belief in
such an oath. A more likely solution can be found through a re-evaluation of the definition.
Several dozen examples are given in CAD to support the meaning ‘curse (consequence of a broken oath),’ 352 most of
which are drawn from Šurpu. A small number of the examples demonstrate the accuracy of the definition:
ma-mit ilāni … ša ētiqu … ikšudanni jâti the oath by the gods which I have broken has caught up with me 353
ma-mi-it itmû awīlam ṣabtat the oath he took has seized the man354
In these instances māmīt clearly refers to the consequences of having broken an oath that has been sworn. The vast
majority of the examples given by CAD, however, rely wholly on inference to produce a connection to an oath. A
handful of examples will suffice:
arnu ma-mit ša ana šuzzuq amēlūti iššaknu Punishment and m. that were created to torment mankind 355

347
Lambert 2009: 1-5.
348
Krebernik 2006-2008b: 358.
349
See e.g. Geller 1990: 115ff.
350
Maul 2004: 87.
351
Abusch 2002: 173.
352
CAD M: 193.
353
Leichty 2011: i 23.
354
Goetze 1947: 51 iv 29.
355
Šurpu IV 88.

Page 95 of 147
 māmīt ilim awīlam ṣabtat The m. of a god has seized the man356
arnu ma-mit … nīš ilāni … bulluṭu … ittikama It is in your power (Marduk) to heal (from the consequences of)
sin, m. and nīšu-oath357
Although each of these is plainly concerned with a punishment or curse, in no instance is a māmītu-oath implied. A
simple solution presents itself. While the concept of a māmītu-oath is well-established,358 and while it is evidently
sometimes responsible for the māmītu-curse which is common in Šurpu and elsewhere, we should not understand the
curse chiefly as the consequence of the oath. Rather, we should reverse the order of entries given in CAD so that the
curse is paramount. Following this, we should understand the māmītu-curse as the sanction (for misconduct), and the
māmītu-oath as a type of oath which, if broken, results in a māmītu-curse.359 If this is accepted, the complexity of the
concept of māmītu disappears – it refers universally to the divine sanction resulting from misconduct, occasionally with
specific reference to behaviour against which an oath has been sworn.

A final factor that must be taken into consideration is the manifestation of the māmītu-sanction as a demonic figure. It
is probable that māmītu in these lines should in fact be understood as the demon, rather than simply as the abstract
divine sanction which it represents. It does not seem to be the case that the demon and the sanction were understood as
identical. This is evident from the bilingual Tablet VII of Šurpu:
3. nam.erim2 šà.an.na.ta im.ta.e11.d[è] Nam.erim2 came down from the midst of heaven
4. māmītum ultu qereb šamê urda Māmītu came down from the midst of heaven
27 mu sag.ba adda.bi tab.tab.e.dè Oath (and) sag.ba have set his body aflame
28 nīšu māmīt pagaršu uṣṣarrip Oath (and) māmīt have set his body aflame
Context makes clear that the first pair of lines refer to the demonic manifestation of māmītu, while the second pair refer
to the divine sanction. While the Akkadian does not differ, the Sumerian uses nam.erim2 for the demon and sag.ba for
the sanction. These literally translate to something like ‘enemy-ness’ (nam.erim2) and ‘on its head’ (sag.ba), which
offers a logical explanation for the division – the demon is the manifestation of an enemy, while the sanctions are an
infliction which could be understood as having been brought down on the victim’s head. Judging by the exemplars in
CAD, the distinction seems to be routinely made. Although it is not clear whether nam.erim 2 is used exclusively for the
demon, whenever the demon is unambiguously meant nam.erim2 is the Sumerian used. 360
In the present list there are no Sumerian translations, but a parallel from elsewhere in Šurpu offers a hint:
V 50 tu6.dug4.ga nam.erim2 dEn.ki.ga.ke4 By the incantation of Enki, nam.erim2
V 51 māmīt ina tuduqqî ša Ea By the incantation of Ea, māmītu
V 52 sum.sar.gim hé.en.zil May be peeled like garlic
V 53 kīma šūmī liqqalip May be peeled like garlic
This is from the end of the Ea-Marduk dialogue which immediately precedes the burning ritual. The reference to garlic
describes the burning, in which various items, beginning with garlic, are broken up and burnt as an act of sympathetic
magic. Each of the burnings is accompanied by an incantation, the last line of which reads:
VI 13 māmīt littaṣīma anāku nūra lūmur May the māmītu leave and I become free361

356
King 1898: 6:68
357
Reiner 1958: 26, l.56
358
CAD sub voce māmītu definition 1.
359
This broadly accords with Schwemer’s argument (2007: 162), though he did not go so far.
360
CAD sub voce māmītu.
361
VI 13 = Reiner V-VI 72. The line is repeated throughout tablet VI. ‘Become free’ = lit. ‘see the light’ for nūra lūmur as an idiomatic

Page 96 of 147
 The form of māmītu intended here is not made clear – both the demon and the sanction could be thought of as leaving.
In light of the lines just quoted, however, it is very likely that the demon is intended. This is important as it establishes
a common theme for the incantation as a whole, as the burning ritual and the present list were very likely aimed at the
same target. As discussed above (ll.1-35), the gods invoked in the Kultgötterbeschwörung are chiefly united in that
they are those figures most able to fight demonic forces. The māmītu-demon is presumably at least one of their targets.
Nonetheless, given it is not certain that nam.erim2 is an unambiguous reference to the māmītu-demon, it has been
considered most sensible to translate the term ‘sanctions (for misconduct) related to X.’ As these sanctions doubtless
included demonic infestation, the meaning is at least implied. A translation ‘Sanction-demon related to (misconduct
involving) X’ might be more accurate, though no less clumsy.

Following this reading, the meaning of this list and that of Šurpu III is much clearer – the patient is suffering from the
ill-effects of having committed an act of misconduct involving any of a number of subjects. The litany requests that
these ill-effects be removed. Some lines explain the type of misconduct in some detail, while others simply list groups
of subjects. It is possible that no specific action was meant for the latter type of line – any type of misconduct
regarding a field, for instance, could have breached a taboo and simply listing the subject covers all of these. It was
perhaps more sensible to ask that the ‘sanctions (for misconduct) related to a field’ be removed than the ‘sanctions
related to pushing a cow in a field while wearing a hat’ – the second (purely fictional) is subsumed within the first.
In the following commentary, an attempt has been made to elucidate the more explicit lines. The other lines are not
discussed at length unless comparable lines from elsewhere warrant an examination of the type of taboo that may have
been implied. In these cases there is no reason to suppose that the taboo discussed is the only one implied by the text.
Individual lines contain clearly connected groups of subjects, 362 but while a few lines seem semantically linked with
their neighbours, there is no evident organisational principle in the list as a whole and so this is not discussed.
The chief source for comparable material is Tablet III of Šurpu, which duplicates, in either expanded or contracted
form, several of the lines written here. Often māmītī written together in Tablet IX are presented separately in Tablet III,
so though the present list is not quite as extensive as the other list, there are more Other relevant lists are found in a
Namburbi partially published in transliteration by Frankena, 363 and in an incantation belonging to the fifth house of the
Bīt rimki ritual series.364

43 The grouping principle in this list is that of domesticity. Each of the places listed is connected with civilised life. A
wide array of activities related to these places must have been prohibited, and so we should understand this as a catch-
all list.
Šurpu III has a comparable line, but is no more explicit:
83. māmīt ibrati u nēmedīša Sanctions (for misconduct) related to the open-air altar or its cult
platform.
A similar list is presented in a different context in Maqlû V:365
36. ēpišti u muštēpištī My sorceress and the woman who instigates sorcery against me,

phrase see CAD amāru 21a.

362
e.g. boat, river, mooring place (l . 47); path, road, highway (l. 46).
363
The tablet number is A 185. Frankena 1960: 174.
364
‘Šamaš, judge of heaven and earth, who tames? the widespread earth.’ Laessøe 1956: 57-58.
365
Abusch 2016: 329.

Page 97 of 147
 37. libalkissi sūqu u sulû May wide street and narrow street turn against her,
38. libalkissi ibratu u nemedīša May open-air altar and its cult platform turn against her,
39. libalkitūšima ilū ša ṣēri u ali May the gods of the steppe and the city turn against her,
The image is of the sorceress being cast out of civilisation, which demonstrates the grouping principle here. The
inclusion of field and orchard in this line is to be contrasted with their appearance in line 64 where a different principle
is intended.

43a This line is present only in Nin1 and Nin3. It repeats line 42, presumably as that line is followed by a ruling and thus
marks the close of a distinct block of text. Evidently, the scribes of these two tablets felt that the litany phrase should
not pass through the ruling.

44 This line follows the same pattern as line 67. The meaning behind this line is not immediately obvious. Reeds were a
crucial material in Mesopotamia, and cutting them cannot have been universally worthy of sanction. Likewise, both
šammu and sassatu-grass had to be removed from farmland and so their removal must have been acceptable. 366
There are parallels to this line in both Šurpu III and Bīt rimki:
Š.III 25/B.R. 82 māmīt šammē ina ṣēri nasāḫu Sanction for ripping up šammu-grass in the steppe
Š.III 26/B.R. 85 māmīt qanê ina appari ḫaṣābu Sanction for cutting reeds in the marshland
This clarifies the situation to a certain extent, at least for the grasses. The injunction against pulling up the grass applies
specifically to the plains, and so weeding fields is not included. The reasoning behind this is also understandable.
Šammû has not yet been identified, but Civil has identified sassatu-grass with Poa Sinaica, for which he gives the
common names ‘meadow grass’ and ‘bulbous bluegrass.’ 367 The common names are inaccurate. The former is the
common name for all species of Poa, while the latter is for a distinct species Poa Bulbosa. Bluegrass is the common
name for Poa in America, but again this is not specific to Poa Sinaica. The most widely accepted English common
name for Poa Sinaica is ‘Sinai meadow grass.’368 The important point, however, is that Poa Sinaica, and presumably
šammû-grass as well, is an extremely valuable pasture plant.369 Sheep and goats were a major strand of Mesopotamian
agriculture, and good pasture was therefore crucial. The destruction of such a useful plant in land that was not needed
for farming would diminish the quantity of productive pasture available for grazing and so the injunction against such
an action is understandable.

The logic is not so clear in the case of the reeds. In the first place, reeds can only be cut in the marshland as this is
where they grow, so the line in Šurpu III cannot be taken literally. Moreover, unless cut back regularly, reed beds
eventually dry up due to the accumulation of plant litter, at which point scrubland and eventually forests encroach. 370
As with the grasses, young reeds could be used as pasture, while old reeds were useful as fodder.371 As reeds were also
useful materials for construction and agriculture 372 the watchword must have been management. Perhaps the line
indicates not that reeds must not be cut, but rather that some restraint should be shown in cutting reeds – removing the

366
Civil 1987: 48.
367
Civil 1987: 48.
368
Ibrahim, Hosni & Peterson 2016: 135 no. 200.
369
Guest 1966: 71.
370
White, Self and Blyth 2013: 27.
371
Civil 1987: 44.
372
See, e.g. Civil 1999: 259.

Page 98 of 147
 entirety of a reed bed would not be wise. We should probably also understand this in reference to the forests mentioned
in this line, though with no comparable material from elsewhere this can only be a suggestion.

45 The theme for this line is farming. As with line 43, there were presumably any number of taboos to be broken
involving the objects listed here and so we should not be too concerned with trying to choose one. That said, Šurpu III
offers some slightly expanded parallels:
III 54 māmīt kudurru u nukkuru Sanction for fixing a boundary stone and then moving it
III 60 māmīt udē miṣri u kudurru Sanction (for misconduct) relating to marking a boundary or
boundary stone
Moving a boundary stone once established is understandably taboo. Kudurru stones bore curses threatening anyone
who tampered with them as they were so important. It is difficult to imagine any action relating to a kudurru stone
other than moving or damaging it, and so we should perhaps understand this as the only taboo referred to here.

giš
The meaning of tukul ‘kak’ in this line is not entirely clear. Plainly it refers to a part of the plough, and the most
likely candidate is the blade/share. However, a similar line occurs three times in the Lamaštu series: 373
II 103 nīš kakki ḫarbi u? epin zēri By the power of the handle of a ḫarbu-plough and? a
seeder-plough
II 117/III 40 suggin kakki ḫarbi epin zēri teleqqe you take a splinter from the handle of a ḫarbu-plough
and a seeder-plough
The context is that the splinters, along with a plethora of other materials, are tied into the cord of an apotropaic amulet
against Lamaštu. Farber translates handle without explanation. It is likely that the ploughshare of a subsoil plough was
at least partially made of copper, though perhaps around a wooden core to save on expense. Suggin ‘splinter’ can also
rarely refer to copper shavings so does not tell us much. 374
In Lamaštu it is unclear whether the kak of one or both ploughs is involved. Judging by the word order, kak qualifies
only the subsoil plough in Šurpu, which implies that the share rather than the handle is meant as the handles of the two
types of plough are not distinct whereas their blades differ. There is no need to single out the subsoil plough except if
the ploughshare is the distinguishing feature.
It seems likely that the misconduct here revolves around damaging the valuable ploughs, in particular the large
(copper?) blade of the subsoil plough. In the absence of further evidence, however, it is not possible to be confident. It
is not clear what actions were considered misconduct in relation to the furrow.

46 The grouping principle of this line seems to be that the subjects are all types of channel. The line is repeated with only
minor variants in the Namburbi published by Frankena:375
A.185 57 ina iki palgi titurri meteq[i] alaka ḫarran min min for? ditch, canal, causeway, path, road, highway
ditto, ditto
Unfortunately, as Frankena did not publish the entire text, the context of the line is not entirely clear. Since the text
repeats many lines from this list and that of Šurpu III it is likely that the same idea was intended. In any case, as it
stands, this does not add materially to our understanding of the line.

373
Farber 2014: 172-175 & 189.
374
CAD S: 378 sub voce sumkinnu
375
Frankena 1960: 174.

Page 99 of 147
 More helpful are three lines of Šurpu III:
III 49 māmīt palgi u titurri Sanction (for misconduct) related to canal or
causeway
III 50 māmīt ḫarrāni amēlu ṣabātu Sanction for seizing a man on the road
III 57 māmīt palgi pitê sekēru Sanction for damming up an open ditch
The first of these offers no help, but the other two detail specific instances of the sort of misconduct that might incur a
sanction. ‘Seizing a man on the road’ must refer to something like the actions of a footpad. Naturally this is worthy of
divine (and profane) punishment. Presumably the misconduct related to the various thoroughfares revolved around the
same sort of concepts, though damaging a road is also conceivably implied in this line.
Damaging a ditch is certainly what is meant in III 57. A palgu was an irrigation ditch or canal, and therefore provided
crucial water for farms. Damming it would prevent the flow of water and thereby harm the crops. The same idea is
presumably to be understood for the iku, a larger irrigation canal, though as the latter could also act as a boundary line,
there may also be a connection with the idea enumerated in line 45.

47 The grouping principle is clear, the line deals with riverine craft and places associated with them.
Parallels are found in both Šurpu III and the Namburbi published by Frankena, though nothing more explicit than the
present line:
III 47 māmīt elippi u nāri Sanction (for misconduct) related to boat or river
III 48 māmīt kāri u nēbiri Sanction (for misconduct) related to mooring-place or ferry

A. 185 58b ina nāri kāri nēbiri min min for? river, mooring-place, ferry ditto, ditto
Presumably a wide range of activities related to boats and rivers could be considered misconduct, but we are not in a
position to suggest any examples.
The word šīlum is known only here and in a broken line from the Dispute of Tamarisk and Date Palm, 376 and the latter
is not certain. It has been assumed that it represents a river boat, though it could just as easily be something else
connected to travel on rivers. Assuming the line in the dispute does contain the word sīlum, we should perhaps
understand it to be a sort of boat made from either date-palm or tamarisk. Boats made of tamarisk wood are known
from Abydos, but perhaps more likely is an early form of Shasha – a traditional fishing craft of the United Arab
Emirates made using every part of the date palm. 377 This is more fitting with the context of the dispute poem, as ‘the
object is to Gunga Din your neighbour, I’m a better man than you’s the acid test.’ 378 While a tamarisk boat could be
made of some tamarisk, a palm boat needed every part of the date palm and so would be a better boast. This is, of
course, entirely speculative and cannot be proven on current evidence.

48 The theme in this line is fresh water sources. CAD describes a kuppu as ‘a man-made enlargement of a spring for the
purpose of ensuring water supply.’379 A mountain stream and a reservoir need no further explanation.
The word baliḫu is confusing, however. Reiner translates ‘the Balihu river’, a river in northern Syria. As no other line
mentions a specific place, however, this is to be discarded. In fact, as Gordon has demonstrated, baliḫu, and more

376
Lambert 1960: 136. IM 53946 l. 8. This has not been included in any of the many re-editions of the composition.
377
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/shasha-heritage-in-sturdy-hands
378
Flanders and Swann, Sounding Brass (Parlophone PCS 3052).
379
CAD K: 551.

Page 100 of 147

 especially its logogram dKASKALxKUR which is written in Nin2, is a word for a kind of underground water course
known as a ponor.380 This, as a source of fresh water, accords perfectly with the rest of the list.
There are no exact parallels to this line, though some comparisons should be made. In the first place lines 34-35 of the
present Tablet are concerned with the same group. As discussed above, however, the intention of these lines is
different.
More relevant are two lines from Šurpu III:
63. māmīt nāri šânu u nāri kâʾa Sanction for urinating in a river or vomiting in a river
?
64. māmīt nāri saliḫu u nārī Sanction for spattering? a river (with something unpleasant?) or
(for misconduct relating to) rivers
The second line here is difficult, partly owing to the fact that only one Šurpu tablet preserves these lines, though line 64
is also recorded on an ancient commentary. 381 The first nāri in line 64 is restored from this commentary. 382 Reiner
reads ídSaliḫu u nāri ‘the river Salihu and (other) rivers,’ and is reluctantly followed by Frahm. 383 This is very unlikely,
however, for two reasons. First, there is no known river Salihu, and second, as with Balihu in the present line, the lists
in Tablets III and IX are not concerned with specific geography. The idea of the lists is to be as non-specific as
possible, thereby covering the widest possible pool of sanctionable offences. The translation presented above assumes
that the same idea is presented in each line – that of contaminating the river. Line 63 lists two specific examples of
contaminants, while line 64 is apparently more general, first listing any sort of contamination, and then simply any sort
of misconduct. CAD gives the secondary definition ‘to spatter (with venom, saliva, blood, urine)’ for salāḫu and this
has been followed here.384
The relevance to the present line is not assured as rivers are specifically the objects of the contamination in Šurpu III.
However, as sources of fresh water are evidently the focus, it is not unreasonable to assume that this is the sort of
misconduct that was imagined.

48a This line is present only in Nin1. It is the second line on the reverse of the tablet and the preceding line does not
contain ditto marks. The scribe was fastidious in making sure that the ditto marks on this tablet had a clear object.

49 The principle in this list is civic and financial misconduct, though some elements are unclear. No parallel lines can be
adduced from the usual sources. The precise meaning of the first half of the line is particularly difficult. Two options
seem possible ‘secret place of city (and) house’ or ‘secret place, city, house’. The latter has been adopted as the rest of
the line consists of a list of essentially independent clauses, and as it removes the necessity to emend the text by adding
u ‘and’. In either case, the meaning is not apparent. Considering the rest of the line, it seems likely that business or
civic matters are implied. ‘Misconduct related to the city’ is easy enough to reconcile with this, but neither ‘secret
place’ nor ‘house’ fit as neatly.
Unfortunately, although CAD lists two other texts in which dūtum is defined as ‘secret place’ neither is helpful. The

380
Gordon 1967: 80 (JCS 21)
381
CAD mentions an unpublished tablet from Khorsabad (CAD sub voce šânu: 409b). I have asked John Brinkman about this, who has
initiated a search in Chicago. Martha Roth has found a typed transliteration made by Erica Reiner of a tablet from the OI collection
containing a 20-line excerpt from Šurpu, which parallels III 54-73. On the typescript, the introduction indicates: "There is no number on the
tablet and the provenience and source are unknown." On the top of the typescript there is a handwritten note "Khorsabad" added by Reiner.
There is no tablet among the Chicago Khorsabad materials which matches the transliteration. Susanne Paulus is initiating a search among
other tablets in the OI collection to see whether the tablet can be located. (Personal communication, John Brinkman, 7/3/17).
382
KAR 94, l. 51’. http://ccp.yale.edu/P369075.
383
http://ccp.yale.edu/P369075. Note 25.
384
CAD S: 87a.

Page 101 of 147

 first is an as yet unedited zi-pa exorcistic incantation.385 It simply lists the dūtum among other recesses. The second is
from a prayer to Marduk and the personal god, recently edited by Oshima, but dūtum is probably to be understood as
part of an idiomatic phrase dūtu emēdu ‘to take refuge,’ and so is not relevant.386 Given the context of the present line,
we might understand ‘misconduct related to a secret place’ to imply something like embezzlement, but this is pure
speculation. ‘Misconduct related to the house’ could mean almost anything, and so we refrain from such speculation.
We are on much firmer ground with the rest of the items listed in this line. The breaking of a sceptre is mentioned in
the epilogue of Hammurabi’s laws:387
xlix 45-52 Anum rabûm abu ilī nābû palêya melimmī šarrūtim līṭeršu ḫaṭṭašu lišbir šīmātišu līrur
may the great god Anu, father of the gods, who has proclaimed my reign, deprive him of the sheen of
royalty, smash his sceptre, and curse his destiny
The subject of the curse is any successor who does not observe the laws inscribed on the stele. The smashing of the
sceptre is a symbolic act depriving such a successor of authority. The ḫaṭṭu-sceptre was the insignia of civic office and
so to smash it was to deprive the holder of his office. This element of the line should therefore be understood as
something like ‘falsely depriving someone of their office.’
Misconduct related to turtu ‘restitution’ refers to financial fraud – presumably either a failure to pay, or making an
illegitimate claim for restitution. Likewise, misconduct in the certification of accounts is a clear reference to financial
wrongdoing.
The māmītu of a māmītu is an example of the relationship between oath and curse discussed above. 388 It should be
understood as ‘the sanction for breaking a sanction-worthy oath.’

50 This line is difficult to understand, and our translation is not remotely certain. No parallels can be adduced to help.
Reiner reads ‘Together with the ‘oath’ of seeing (its just value?) but receiving income (consisting) of cattle, sheep and
slaves.’
This is very unsatisfactory as it requires substantial emendation of the text. The structure of the line is the same as that
of lines 51, 52, 61 and 65, i.e. a list followed by two verbs, presumably describing contradictory actions. It seems
likely that amāru u maḫāru ‘seeing and receiving’ is an idiomatic phrase meaning something like stealing, but without
further evidence it is not possible to say. This would, however, neatly follow the preceding line concerning financial
fraud.

51 This line follows the pattern of lines 52, 61 and 65. It is fairly self-explanatory. It is not a good thing to curse one’s
friends and associates behind their backs. Parallels to this line are found in Šurpu III:
10 māmīt ibri u tappê Sanction (for misconduct) relating to equal and partner
11 māmīt rūʾi u itbari Sanction (for misconduct) relating to friend and associate
These lines do not discuss the specific nature of the misconduct. Cursing friends and acquaintances and denying it is
very unlikely to have been the only type of misconduct that was considered sanctionable, and so this is a sensible way
to cover all possibilities.

385
CBS 13858+ (Lutz 1919: 115).
386
Oshima 201: 294.
387
Roth 1997: 134.
388
ll. 43-70.

Page 102 of 147

 An almost identical enumeration is found in Maqlû IV:389
80 ÉN attīmannu kaššāptu ša zikurruda ippuša Incantation: Whoever you are, O witch, who performs
Zikurruda magic against me
81 lū ibru lū tappû Whether equal or partner
82 lū aḫu lū itbāru Whether brother or associate
83 lū ubāra lū mār āli Whether foreign guest or fellow citizen
While the list is the same, the concept of these lines differs from that of the present line. In Maqlû the list describes
those who may have attempted to harm the patient, while in Šurpu IX the list describes those the patient may have
harmed.

52 This line follows the pattern of lines 51, 61 and 65. As with these lines, little explanation is necessary here – cursing
one’s family and lying about it is not the done thing. Parallels are apparently to be found in Šurpu III and in the Bīt
Rimki incantation:
Š.III 3 māmīt abi u ummi lu ṣabāti Sanction (for misconduct) relating to father and mother which
possesses him
Š.III 4 māmīt abi abi u ummi ummi Sanction (for misconduct) relating to grandfather and
grandmother
Š.III 5 māmīt aḫi u aḫāti Sanction (for misconduct) relating to brother and sister

B.R. 72 [lū] māmīt abiya lū māmīt ummiya [Whether] sanction (for misconduct) relating to my
father or sanction (for misconduct) relating to my mother
B.R. 73 [lū] māmīt aḫiya lū māmīt aḫātiya [or] sanction (for misconduct) relating to my brother or sanction
(for misconduct) relating to my sister
While grandparents are not mentioned in the present line, and while brother and sister are specified as ‘elder’ brother
and sister, the concept here is evidently the same. As with line 51, the lines in Šurpu III and Bīt rimki should be taken
as generalised forms of the line in Tablet IX.
ṣabāti ‘which possesses him’ describes the divine sanction, as discussed above (ll.43-70).

53 The line as we understand it is fairly straightforward - it describes an injunction against swearing in irritation, i.e.
damning by a god when one drops a cup. There is a difficulty with our reading of this line, however. This is that we
should expect u ‘and’ to be written between ḫepû and šum. A similar problem exists in lines 54 and 66. It is possible
that here, as well as in those lines, we should understand the writing ḫe-pu-u šum in Nin1 and Nin3 as ḫe-pu u šum.
Alternatively, it is possible that the missing u is simply a haplographic error. The reading is supported by the writing in
Urk1, which gives ḫa-pu-ú? u, thereby removing any doubt regarding the errant u.
The line is paralleled in both Šurpu III and Frankena’s namburbi:
III 19. māmīt kāsi u paššuri Sanction (for misconduct) related to cup or table

A.185 48 […p]aš[šuri š]ebēru kāsi ḫepû šum ili zakāru […b]reaking a [t]ab[le], smashing a cup and ? invoking
the name of a god

389
After Abusch 2016: 322.

Page 103 of 147

 Neither of these is helpful, however. The Šurpu line is too abbreviated, while the namburbi does not vary in any
meaningful way from the text as it appears here.

54 The line as we have translated it follows the pattern of line 70 but with a different subject – furniture. Evidentally
swearing by certain items was governed by a code of practice. There is a difficulty with this line, which is that there is
an errant u in both Nin1 and Urk1, and probably in Nin3. In addition, there is a missing u ‘or’ between the last two
items in the list. A similar problem is found in lines 53 and 66. In our reading we have assumed an error of
transposition, though it must be said that the number of tablets on which the same error apparently occurs makes this a
slightly unsatisfactory solution. There are parallels in both Šurpu III and Frankena’s namburbi:
III 20. māmīt erši u mayāli Sanction (for misconduct) related to bed or couch

A.185 60b ina erši mayāli kussî tam[û min min] For? swearing by bed, couch, (or?) chair ditto, ditto
The namburbi line supports the reading adopted here in that it omits the u between kussî and tamû, but it also omits the
u between mayāli and kussî.
In the absence of any better explanation, we should read the line as translated.

55 The theme of this line appears to be the aggressive removal of women’s clothing. The line is paralleled in Frankena’s
namburbi, though this does not add any information:
50. [ina naḫlapti na]kāsi du[dittu šeb]ēru [for? ri]pping [a cloak, brea]king a pec[toral] or cutting off a
u dādi batāqu min [min] dādu-undergarment ditto, [ditto]
The variant dādu for didu is Old Akkadian according to CAD, 390 though as the text was apparently excavated at Aššur
and is likely to be from the first millennium it is likely just a regional variant.
It is suggested in CAD that the idea of this line is the complete removal of a woman’s clothes. 391 This is unlikely,
however, judging by the format of the other lines in this list. The majority of lines refer to several distinct actions, and
so u must be translated ‘or’ not ‘and’. This is also more in keeping with the idea of generalisation – if we translate
‘and’ the patient has to have completed three separate actions to be covered by the appeal, with ‘or’ each of the actions
is covered individually.
Cutting, ripping and breaking a woman’s clothing is obvious misconduct in almost any circumstance, so there is little
mystery about this line.

56 This line is very unclear. It is paralleled, though not helpfully, in Frankena’s namburbi:
56. ina sissikti batāqu [u] patri šalāpu min [min] for? cutting a hem or drawing a dagger ditto, ditto.
Some clarity is brought with the knowledge that ‘to cut the hem’ is a euphemism for divorce.392 A wide array of
misconduct related to divorce is imaginable, though as none is specified we will not speculate here.
It seems likely on the basis of the first half of the line that ‘to draw a dagger’ is a euphemism for another kind of
lawsuit, but to the best of my knowledge, no such euphemism is attested elsewhere. The use of a dagger as a divine
symbol in judicial contexts is known, 393 however, and it is possible that there is a connection to this.

390
CAD dīdu: 135b.
391
CAD dīdu: 135b.
392
See CAD sissiktu: 322 for many examples.
393
See CAD patru: 283 for examples.

Page 104 of 147

57-59 These lines and line 60 describe sharp business practice. They are paralleled by a line in Šurpu II:
II 37 ina ṣeḫerti ittadin ina rabīti imtaḫar He sold with a small (measure), he bought with a large (measure)
There is no generic term for ‘a measure’ in Akkadian. The present lines list three of the most common weights and
measures, while the line in Tablet II is non-specific. The practice described is less common now than in the past due to
the standardisation of measurements. In the ancient world measuring vessels and weights could differ substantially in
size while retaining the same name. Thus a ‘small sila’ and a ‘large sila’ would give different quantities, but both
would give 1 sila. The use of this practice by unscrupulous businessmen is commonly attested. 394
The Great Šamaš Hymn gives an idea of the consequences for this activity: 395
112 ṣābit sūti ēpiš ṣi[lipti] The merchant who practices trickery as he holds the sūtu-vessel
113 nādin šīqāti ana biriʾyi mušaddin atra Who lends by the medium šīqu-measure (but) collects by the
larger one
114 ina la ūmešu arrat nišē ikaššassu The curse of the people will overtake him before his time.
The benefits of not indulging in this sort of misconduct are also found in the Great Šamaš Hymn:
ŠH 118 ummânu kīnu nādin šeʾim ina [kabr]i The honest merchant who weighs out barley with the large
pāni ušattar dumqu pān-measure increases good fortune.
ŠH 119 ṭâb eli Šamaš balāṭa uttar It is pleasing to Šamaš, and he will prolong his life

60 This line is similar in tone to lines 57-59, again describing sharp practice. Parallels to the first clause can be found in
Šurpu II and in the Old Testament:
Š II 42 zibānīt la ketti iṣṣab[at zibānīt? ketti? ul? iṣba]t? He us[ed] an untrue balance, [he did not use a true balanc]e?
Prov 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.
Using a false balance, much like using differently sized weights, would allow the merchant to lie about the weight of
his products and his customers’ payment. This would allow the unscrupulous merchant to overcharge for goods.
As with lines 57-59, the Great Šamaš Hymn demonstrates the consequences for this sort of practice:
107 ṣābit zibā[nīti ēpiš ṣ]ilipti The merchant who [practices] trickery as he holds the bala[nce]
108 muštēnû [ab]ān kīsi uzaqqar ušappal Who raises or lowers the pan of the balance by substituting weights396
109 uštakaṣṣab ana nēmelima uḫallaq kīsa He is disappointed in the matter of profit and loses his capital
As well as the benefits of acting appropriately in this regard:
110 ša kīni ṣābit zibānīti maʾd[a…] The honest merchant who holds the balance, (has) much [profit?]
111 mimma šumšu maʾd[i] qīšaššu […] Much of everything is presented to him […]
That scrupulous business practices are preferred to unscrupulous ones by the gods is unsurprising, but as Šamaš is
occasionally known as bēl māmīti,397 we should perhaps think of the consequences listed in the hymn as representative
of the sanctions which the participant in the Šurpu ritual hopes to have absolved.

There are presumably dozens of ways to falsify a balance, but an example from (relatively) modern times is represented

394
See e.g. Lambert 1960: 331, n. 107-108.
395
After Lambert 1960: 132-133, as are all quotes from this hymn for the commentary on lines 57-60.
396
CAD Šapālu: 425a. An unpublished duplicate (found by Lambert) is quoted to restore the line which is broken in his edition. This is
presumably the unnumbered BM tablet that is mentioned in the index to Lambert’s notebooks as being collated on page 1592.
Unfortunately, this page is not yet available so cannot be checked.
397
See above commentary to ll. 43-70.

Page 105 of 147

 by a phrase my grandmother was used to when she worked in a butcher’s shop in the early 1940s. The butcher, when
he thought he could get away with it, would hand her cuts of meat saying “Elacs etnews.” This was back-slang for
‘swing the scale’, meaning to throw the meat on the scale and pick it up quickly before the scale could settle so that the
customer believed the meat to be heavier than it really was.
That this practice was worthy of divine sanction is not a surprise, though my grandmother was very young at the time.

The second clause is also paralleled in Šurpu II:

43 kasap lā ketti ilteqi ka[sap ketti ul il]qi He took dishonest silver, he [did not take honest?] sil[ver]
This line is not at all certain, chiefly because it does not make sense. A prohibition against taking dishonest money is
perfectly logical, but it is hard to see the point of a prohibition against not taking honest money. It is also hard to
believe that anyone ever refused to take honest money. If the restoration is correct, we should perhaps understand
silver as wages, and the honesty or dishonesty as referring to the job for which it was paid. That is to say ‘He took
wages for dishonest work, he did not take wages for honest work.’ This is speculative however, and the present line is
substantially less difficult in any case. Taking false silver under oath is a reference to either shady business dealings or
theft, depending on how lā ketti ‘false’ is interpreted.

61 This line follows the pattern of lines 51, 52 and 65. Unlike lines 51 and 52, however, it does not appear to be paralleled
elsewhere in Šurpu. Nonetheless, the idea of the line is clear – to curse someone and deny it is an offence, irrespective
of the social stature of the victim.

62 This line is not straightforward. Fortunately, parallels from Šurpu III, two non-canonical Lamaštu incantations,398 and
a text related to Udug-ḫul I:399
III 116. māmīt nadītu u qadištu Sanction (for misconduct) related to Nadītu-woman or Qadištu-woman
d
III 117. māmīt kūbi enti Sanction (for misconduct) related to the foetus of a high priestess

Lam. ND 11 […uta]mmīki kūbī enēti [… I conj]ure you by the foetuses of high priestesses
Lam. ND 12 […k]ūbī nadâti […the fo]etuses of Nadītu-women
Lam. ND 13 [utammīki k]ūbī Narām-Sîn Šarru-kīn [I conjure you by the f]oetuses of Narām-Sîn (and) Sargon
Lam. Ug 8 utammīki kūbī en[ē]ti [nadâti u qa]diš[ti] [… I conj]ure you by the foetuses of high priestesses, [Nadītu-
women and Qa]diš[tu-women]
Lam. Ug 9 utammīki kūbī Narā[m-Sîn] u Šarru-k[īn] I conjure you by the foetuses of Narā[m-Sîn] and Sarg[on]

UH 27 kūbī nadītu u qadiš[ti] (I adjure you by) the foetus of Nadītu-woman or Qadištu-woman
The idea is still not completely without difficulty, as dKubu can also be a demon, but it seems likely that the line is an
injunction against impregnating certain classes of priestess. It is clear that kubu ‘foetus’ in the present line must refer to
the entire following list, not just to the Entu ‘high priestess.’ The lines regarding the foetuses of Narām-Sîn and Sargon
are not clear, but probably are not relevant in this context.
We should probably understand the present line as having two clauses. The first is ‘sanction for misconduct involving

398
Farber 2014: 294-297.
399
Geller 2016: 65.

Page 106 of 147

 a daughter of god,’ i.e. a priestess. The second is more specific, ‘sanction for misconduct involving the foetus of any of
several classes of holy woman.’ In the latter clause, we should perhaps understand foetus as a synonym for
impregnation.

63 The grouping principle here is clear – the upper echelons of society, from god to judge. There are no parallels for this
line in the usual lists, but the group is represented in two unrelated texts. The first half of the list can be found in a
prayer to Marduk contained in an anti-witchcraft ritual:400
40 ila šarra kabta u rubâ ušasḫirūninni They have caused god, king, magnate, and prince to turn away from me.
‘They’ are witches who have cursed the person reciting the text. Plainly, one would not want this group to turn away.
The second half of the list is written, with one addition, in a royal inscription from the reign of Aššur-etel-ilāni:401
11 šumma rubê šû lū šaknu lū šāpiru lū dayānu If that prince or governor or commandant or judge
12 lū šakkanaku or viceroy
The context of these lines is that the king has repatriated the body of a Chaldean leader and placed it in a tomb. The
people listed are warned not to disturb the tomb lest Marduk and Nabu destroy them.
Neither of these add materially to our understanding of the present line, but as it is relatively self-explanatory this is no
great misfortune.

64 The theme of this line is farming. There are no parallel lines for this list, but it is not difficult to imagine prohibited
actions related to farms, as evidenced by the existence of the modern Country Code.
The word saḫḫu ‘meadow, waterlogged land’ is preserved on only one manuscript, and the signs are not clear. The
reading is possible from the signs and the context of the line makes it likely.

65 This line follows the pattern of lines 51, 52 and 61. Unlike lines 51 and 52, however, it does not appear to be paralleled
elsewhere in Šurpu. Like line 51, the idea is that cursing one’s family and denying it is a bad idea. Whereas line 51 is
concerned with the patient’s birth family, however, the present line is focussed on his marital family.

66 The idea behind this line seems to be related to frivolous speech. Inappropriate joking and laughter along with the
failure to fulfil a promise are obvious forms of misconduct. There is a difficulty with our reading of this line, however.
This is that both enû ‘retract’ and lā nadānu ‘did not give/fulfil’ apply to the same word - qabû ‘speech, promise.’
While this is possible, we should expect u ‘and, or’ to be written between enû and lā. A similar problem exists in lines
53 and 54. It is possible that here, like in those lines, we should understand the writing e-nu-u la in Nin1 and Nin3 as
e-nu u la. Alternatively, it is possible that the missing u is simply a haplographic error. Several parallels lend support
to our translation. Šurpu III has:
Š III 55 māmīt qabê u enê Sanction for promising and retracting
This demonstrates that the sanction could be applied for misconduct not involving lā nadānu. In both a Dingir-ša-dib-
ba incantation402 and a Lipšur Litany we read the following line:403
DŠ 124 [aq]bima ēni utakkilma ul addin [I p]romised and then reneged, I gave my word but then did not pay

400
Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 225.
401
Frame 2016: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003861/
402
Lambert 1974: 280-281.
403
Reiner 1956: 142-143.

Page 107 of 147

 L II/1 53 aqbima ēni utak[kilma] ul addin I promised and then reneged, I gav[e my word] but then did not pay
The context is an apology for improper actions, offered to Šamaš in the Lipšur text and to the personal god in the
Dingir-ša-dib-ba incantation. The line is particularly helpful because, while qabû lā nadānu could be understood as
‘not giving a promise’, the word utakkilma is from takālu ‘to make a promise’ and therefore specifies that the promise
has already been given. As such, lā nadānu must refer to the failure to fulfil a promise, rather than the failure to give
one.
The phrase is also apparently written in the wisdom text known as the Counsels of Wisdom: 404
CW 163 […] tukkulu nadû […] to create trust and then to abandon
? ?
CW 164 [qabû e ]-ni la nadānu ikkib Mardu[k] [to ret]ract? [a promise?], not to fulfil (a promise)? is an
abomination to Marduk
If the restoration is correct, the u is lacking again, but in this case neither haplography nor a movable u is available to
solve the problem. The restoration is by no means certain, however, and on balance the reading we have suggested
seems safe.
It is worth noting that going back on one’s word is evidently abhorrent to both Šamaš and Marduk, as well as the
personal god, and therefore a fitting cause for sanction.

67 The meaning of this line is not immediately obvious. Parallels can be found in Šurpu III, the namburbi published by
Frankena, and the incantation from Bīt rimki:
Š III 46 māmīt bīnu u gišimmari Sanction (for misconduct) relating to tamarisk and date palm
Š III 121 māmīt baltu u ašāgu Sanction (for misconduct) relating to camelthorn and yanqout

A.185 53 [ina bal]tu ašāgu bīnu gišimmaru [for?] ripping up [camel]thorn, yanqout, tamarisk, date palm
nasāḫu mi[n min] ditto, ditto

B.R. 81 māmīt baltu u ašāgu Sanction (for misconduct) related to camelthorn or yanqout
These do not help to understand the line, except insofar as they demonstrate that the two weeds and the two trees were
dealt with separately in III.
Yanqout (Prosopis Farcta) is a voracious weed with medium-sized edible, if unappealing, fruit and thorns.
Camelthorn (Alḫagi Maurorum) is similar. Both have extensive and deep root networks and can regrow quickly from
small pieces of root left in the soil. In modern farming both are extremely problematic. Why, then, should it be an
offence to cut them away?
A likely answer to this is to be found in farming techniques which persisted in Iraq until the mid-20th Century. In his
description of yanqout, Guest writes:
P. Farcta is usually an indicator of good agricultural land – deep well-drained alluvial soil with not
too high a table-water. It has a very deep root system … It lies dormant and leafless in the
winter and … it does not shoot again until the early summer after winter crops have been harvested.
It thus protects fallow land to some little extent against the fierce dry heat of summer while driving
its own moisture and nourishment from the sub-soil water many metres below the surface. In
December its leaves are shed again adding some hummus to the parched impoverished soil… it is

404
Lambert 1960: 106.

Page 108 of 147

 of the utmost importance to the shepherd since it covers immense tracts of barren land throughout
the summer after the annual herbs have died down and when grazing is very scarce. 405
This description offers several advantages to the presence of yanqout. As the roots reach down to the water table, it
does not compete with crops, it improves the fertility of the soil by dropping leaves and it provides useful fodder for
shepherds. Most importantly, however, it shields the fields from the sun, thereby preventing evaporation leading to
increased salinity. Camelthorn is described in similar terms. These facts cannot have been unknown to an agricultural
civilisation. Though no specific evidence is available from ancient sources, a study of farming techniques in Iraq from
1900-1960 makes clear that the benefits of these two weeds were well established:
Russel was puzzled that no intertillage of row crops was carried out after sowing despite the work
done to prepare the land etc., "They pull a few weeds and they clip grasses to an extent with hand
sickles. They do not use hand hoes, or wheat hoes, or any type of animal drawn cultivators. They
will argue heatedly that it is not good to kill the weeds" 406
If, as seems likely, the same understanding of the benefits of these weeds were understood in ancient times, the fact that
ripping them up was a sanctionable offence is completely understandable.
Another possible consideration in the case of both camelthorn and tamarisk is that they are prominent sources of the
sweet sap known as manna.407 There is no firm evidence for the ancient use of manna, but there are several words for
resin and it is possible that one represents the sweet edible variety. Campbell Thompson has discussed the evidence for
manna, but his study is now antiquated. 408 In the absence of a wider study it is not possible to be certain that manna
was gathered, though it is an appealing possibility.
Irrespective of manna, the sanction for ripping up tamarisk and date palm is more immediately understandable – both
provide a wide array of crucially important materials for everyday life. These are detailed extensively in the Debate
between Tamarisk and Date Palm.409 The majority of these materials - including fruit, leaves, resin, and twigs - can be
gathered from the trees without destroying them, and so to rip them up would be a wasteful and destructive act.
Nonetheless, it must have been necessary to a certain extent for fields to be weeded, or else camelthorn and yanqout
would have turned them into briar patches. Likewise, occasionally the trees must have been chopped down for timber.
We should presumably understand this line in the same way as line 44 – the proper management of plants was fine, but
mismanagement would incur divine sanction.

The translation of ašāgu as yanqout needs justification. As early as 1937, Landsberger 410 identified the plant in
question as Prosopis Stepḫaniana, and this identification has since been confirmed by Civil. 411 Since Landsberger’s
note, however, confusion has set in - ašāgu has been identified variously as Lycium Barbarum,412 Prosopis
Stepḫaniana, Prosopis Farcta,413 Arabic ‘Šōk,’414 ‘a kind of acacia,’415 ‘false carob,’416 and ‘mesquite.’417

405
Guest 1974: 41.
406
Charles 1990: 54.
407
Guest 1974: 496-499.
408
Campbell Thompson 1949: 270ff.
409
Most recently translated by Cohen 2013: 177ff.
410
Landsberger 1937-1939: 139-140, n. 26.
411
Civil 1987: 47.
412
Campbell Thompson 1949: 182ff.
413
Civil 1987: 47; Maekawa 1990: 124.
414
Stol 1988: 181.
415
CAD A/2 ašāgu; Veldhuis 1997: 108. Also CAD passim
416
Maekawa 1990: 124; Civil 1991: 40; Heeßel and al-Rawi 2003: 237 i 27; Robson 1999: 163 n. 82; Molina & Such-Guttierez 2004: 9
(with a question mark); Freedman Šumma Ālu 55, l. 2. (Available on academia.edu)
417
Civil 1991: 40.

Page 109 of 147

 The Linnaean names here cause no difficulty. Lycium Barbarum, better known as Goji berry or Wolfberry, is in fact to
giš
be identified with edettu, which is written with the same logogram, Ú.GÍR, as ašāgu.418 Prosopis Stepḫaniana and
Prosopis Farcta are synonymous with each other and with the Arabic Šōk.
The common English names, however, are problematic. Both CAD 419 and the ePSD translate ašāgu as ‘a kind of
acacia,’ and this error is regularly repeated.420 Five distinct species of acacia are native to Mesopotamia:
 Faidherbia Albida, Winter Thorn,
 Vachellia Gerrardii, Red Thorn or Grey-haired Acacia
 Vachellia Nilotica, Egyptian Thorn or Gum-Arabic tree
 Vachellia Tortillis, Umbrella Thorn
 Vachellia Oerfota (syn. Nubica), Green-barked Acacia?421
None of these are now scientifically classified as Acacia owing to the 2005 segregation of this genus, in the light of
phylogenetic studies, into five distinct genera.422 Scientifically speaking, acacia should be reserved for the
overwhelmingly Australian genus, which comprises 981 species just 10 of which are native to other countries. For our
purposes, however, acacia can be taken to mean these five. Neither Faidherbia nor any species of Vachellia can be
identified with ašāgu. The root of this misidentification seems to be a brief note by Meissner.423 In this note, Meissner
offers an ingenious logical chain based on an entry in Uruanna I: 424
163 úsamṭu = gišÚ.GÍR ša Meluḫḫa Samṭu-plant = gišÚ.GÍR of Egypt
Meissner equated samṭu with Arabic sanṭ ‘acacia’ (Vachellia Nilotica), and inferred that both words descended
giš
ultimately from Egyptian šnḏ.t ‘acacia.’ As Ú.GÍR is most commonly used as the logogram for ašāgu, and as ašāgu
heads this section of Uruanna, the identification of the logogram was taken as proof of the identity of the Akkadian
giš
word. As has already been noted, however, Ú.GÍR was used logographically for at least two completely different
plants – edettu ‘goji-berry’ and ašāgu.
The name ‘false carob’ appears to have been invented by Assyriologists. No such plant is listed in the databases of
Kew Gardens or the Royal Horticultural Society, and a search on Google returns almost exclusively Assyriological
publications. It is nonetheless frequently used in translating ašāgu, often without further detail.425 Those who do
elaborate include the Linnaean name, 426 mesquite,427 the Arabic Šok,428 or a combination of these names. 429 The use of
false carob in translating ašāgu is presumably due to the fact that the seeds of the plant were named ḫarub in several
giš
ancient sources, not least Uruanna. 430 Ḫarubu is the etymological root of the modern word carob, but as with Ú.GÍR,
it was used for the fruit of a number of plants. We should probably understand it to mean ‘legume.’
Apart from the fact that it is not attested outside Assyriological literature, false carob is a poor choice of common name

418
CAD E edettu
419
CAD A/2 ašāgu and other volumes passim; ePSD sub voce kišig.
420
eg. Abusch and Schwemer 2011: 468; Veldhuis 1997: 108; Freedman 1998: 81, l. 52; Reiner 1995: 37, n. 153 (especially confusing as
Reiner also gives the Linnaean Prosopis Farcta and the Arabic Šōk, neither of which are names of acacia).
421
The common name is given in Dharani 2006: 122 but is elsewhere the name of several other varieties of Vachellia.
422
Murphy 2008: 10ff.
423
Meissner 1903: 266-267.
424
Köcher Unpublished: I. My thanks to H. Stadhouders for this reference.
425
e.g. Heeßel & al-Rawi 2003: 237; Robson 1999: 163; Molina & Such-Gutiérrez 2004: 9; Freedman Šumma Ālu 55, l. 2 (available on
academia.edu).
426
Held 1965: 397.
427
Maekawa 1990: 123.
428
CAD E: 23b.
429
Civil 1991: 40.
430
There is a possibility that false carob is taken from the Spanish algarroba, the name given to both the carob and to Prosopis Juliflora,
honey mesquite, due to the superficial resemblance between them. Prosopis Farcta is not so known, however.

Page 110 of 147

 for Prosopis Farcta. In the first place, there is practically no similarity between the carob and Prosopis Farcta. The
former is a large, imposing thornless tree, while the latter is a knee-height, thorny, pernicious weed. Moreover, when
the name is given without elaboration it is easily confused with a number of other species
Among the very few non-Assyriological references to the false carob identifies it with Cercis Siliquastrum, the Judas
tree.431 The identification is made on the basis that the scientific name of carob is Ceratonia Siliqua, and Siliquastrum
is a ‘pejorative term’ describing the false version. While this is accurate to a certain extent, the inference that the Judas
tree is the false carob is not. As Dalla Francesca notes, both Siliqua and Siliquastrum have the common Latin root
siliqua ‘pod’, the difference being that the Judas tree also bears the suffix –aster which expresses incomplete
resemblance. Thus, the carob is named for its pods, while the Judas tree is named for its almost-pods. Another
possible source of confusion is the Robinia Pseudoacacia, the false acacia, or black locust tree. The fruit of the carob
is also known as the ‘locust bean,’432 and the two are frequently confused on this basis. As Robinia is known as false
acacia and easily mistaken for the carob, the name ‘false carob’ is certain to lead to misunderstanding, despite the fact
Robinia is native to America and was not introduced to the Old World until the 17 th Century.433
As a weed native to no English speaking countries, Prosopis Farcta does not have a common English name in any real
sense. It is called Syrian mesquite by the United States Department of Agriculture, 434 on the basis that it is a member
of the same genus as the native American Prosopis ‘mesquite.’ This is a misnomer in several ways, however. In the
first place, ‘mesquite’ should be reserved for species belonging to the section Algarobia of the Prosopis genus. There
are 44 known species of Prosopis, divided taxonomically into five sections. 30 species, all of which are native to the
Americas, belong to section Algarobia. There are three old world species of Prosopis, all of which belong to section
Prosopis and none of which have generally accepted vernacular names. 435 Further, though present in Syria, Prosopis
Farcta is relatively uncommon. In Jordan, Iran and Central Asia, on the other hand, it is extremely common.436 In
simple terms, to paraphrase Voltaire,437 Syrian Mesquite is neither Syrian nor Mesquite.
As Syrian Mesquite will not do, and no other English common name is apparent, it is necessary to find a new common
name. A professional botanist with an extensive history of research into Prosopis advised me to gather a list of
common names in the languages of countries to which P. Farcta is native.438 This list eventually consisted of 44
different names in 17 languages, but unfortunately offered no clear favourite. As the plant currently has no acceptable
common name, however, he selected the Arabic name Yanqout439 on the basis that it belongs to the most common
language in the regions to which the plant is native, and is not ambiguous in that, as far as is known, it refers only to
Prosopis Farcta.
An interesting side note can be made concerning the identification of gišÚ.GÍR.ḪAB. This plant is listed in Uruanna I :
giš giš
178 Ú.GÍR.ḪAB = úda-da-nu Ú.GÍR.ḪAB = Dadānu
giš
As discussed above, Ú.GÍR is a more or less generic marker for thorny plants bearing a resemblance to yanqout.
ḪAB is to be translated ‘malodourous.’ While it cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt, a likely candidate for a

431
Dalla Francesca 2016: 235.
432
OED sub voce Locust II 5.
433
If this is doubted, it should be noted that the current writer spent over an hour perplexed at the apparent presence of Robinia in
Mesopotamia before lighting upon the entry in CAD E.
434
https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=PRFA2
435
Pasiecznik 2001: 20.
436
Pasiecznik, N. personal communication.
437
‘The Holy Roman Empire is in no way Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.’
438
Pasiecznik, N. personal communication. The list is due to be published in the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International’s
Invasive Species Compendium (http://www.cabi.org/isc/).
439
Though Tamūr al-Fakîra 'Poor woman's dates' was a close second. The hint of a pun in Dr Pasiecznik’s choice of the name Yanq-Out for
an undesirable weed is, as far as I know, unintentional, but I noticed it several days later and not to draw attention to it would be remiss.

Page 111 of 147

 stinking thorn plant similar to yanqout, is Vachellia Oerfota (syn. Nubica), ‘green-barked acacia.’ This is a plant native
to east Africa and Arabia, with a range extending into southern Iraq. It is described as having a very unpleasant odour
when cut.440

68 The grouping principle behind this list is fire. Parallels are found in Šurpu III, Frankena’s namburbi, and Maqlû
III 15 māmīt nappāḫātu u kinūni Sanction (for misconduct) related to brazier and bellows
III 32 māmīt KI.UD.BA ana pān amēlu sakānu Sanction for placing the cultic brazier in front of a man

A 185 52 [ina utūn l]apti tinūri kinūni [KI.UD.BA u] [for? kiln, b]arley oven, oven, brazier, [cultic brazier or]
nappāḫāti min [min] bellows ditto, ditto

M IV 23 ana utūni lapti tinūri kinūni KI.UD.BA u You have handed me over to kiln, barley oven, oven,
nappāḫāti tapqidāʾinni brazier, cultic brazier or bellows
The majority of these do not materially add to our understanding of the line, but Šurpu III 32 offers a hint as to the type
of action that could be considered misconduct. The reason that placing a KI.UD.BA in front of somebody was
prohibited is not clear, though a comparable statement is to be found in the Diagnostic and Prognostic series
Sakikku:441
I 3. DIŠ KI.UD.BA īmur marṣu šu māmītu iṣbatsu If he sees a cultic brazier, that person is suffering from
uzabālma imât a māmītu-sanction, he will languish and die
The translation cultic brazier is made on the basis of three commentaries to the line in Sakikku which demonstrate that
the KI.UD.BA was some type of cultic fixture connected with sacrificial offerings and purification. 442 The context of
the present line indicates that it must have been connected with fire, which is in any case to be expected when both
sacrificial offerings and purification are involved.
The purpose of the first Tablet of Sakikku is to list the prognoses for a patient’s recovery based on what the exorcist
sees on the journey to the patient’s house. In this case, seeing a cultic brazier means the patient is doomed. This
prognosis is presumably based on the same idea as the prohibition against placing the cultic brazier in front of
somebody. Evidently, the cultic brazier had a negative connotation that has not been clearly identified.
The fact that māmītu-sanction is mentioned in the diagnostic portion of the line is notable. The prognosis that the
patient will languish and die is presumably to be understood as the final form taken by the sanction. It seems entirely
possible that Šurpu would have been recited to help such a patient.
The remainder of the items in the present line are too ubiquitous for the references to them to yield useful information,
and so the line must simply be understood as embodying the general message that playing with fire is a bad idea.

69 The theme of this line is not entirely clear. Several of the items (door, bolt, lock door-jamb) share an obvious theme,
but it is not clear how the others (cattle shed, drainpipe, bench) are connected to this. One possibility is that the type of
misconduct imagined is the same for all items in the list. This gains some support from the parallels in Šurpu III and
Frankena’s namburbi:
III 70 māmīt dalti u sikkuri napāṣa Sanction for breaking down door or lock

440
Dahrani 2006: 122.
441
George 1991: 142-143.
442
George 1991: 146-147.

Page 112 of 147

 A 185 51 [ina sippu] šigaru daltu sik[kuru tak]kannu [for?] destroying [door-jamb], bolt, door, lo[ck, be]nch
lapātu min m[in] ditto, dit[to]
The namburbi is especially helpful here in that it lists not only the obvious group of door and door furniture, but also
the less clearly related bench. The prohibited action in both the namburbi and Šurpu III is the destruction of the items.
George has established that nanṣabu ‘drain pipes’ were made of short lengths of tapered clay pipe which slotted
together.443 Such pipes must have been fairly easy to destroy by digging in the right place, which would presumably
cause the same sorts of difficulties faulty plumbing causes in modern homes. The most obvious reason that the
destruction of doors, locks and plumbing would be prohibited is that this line refers to something along the lines of
deliberate vandalism or breaking and entering. In the absence of clearer evidence, however, it is perhaps best not to
overinterpret, and in any case, the principle of a general list of items which could be involved in misconduct makes an
explicit explanation unnecessary.

70 The group in this line is clear - weaponry. The use of tamû ‘to swear’ at the end of the line is difficult, but the most
likely explanation is, as Reiner translates, that the line relates to the swearing of an oath by the various weapons. The
misconduct involved is presumably to do with having broken the oath.
Parallels are found in Šurpu III:
27 māmīt qāšti u narkabti Sanction (for misconduct) related to bow or chariot
28 māmīt patar siparrim u sukurri Sanction (for misconduct) related to bronze dagger or spear
29 māmīt asmarê u tilpānu Sanction (for misconduct) related to lance or tilpānu-weapon
A variant to line 28 has patri ‘dagger, sword’ instead of patar siparrim ‘bronze dagger, sword’, which is closer to the
present line but immaterial as the idea is the same.
A line in Frankena’s namburbi, while not paralleling the present line, is related to line 29 of Šurpu III:
A 185 49 [… g]išGAG.T[I asmar]ê u tilpānu min [min] [… a]rrow, lance or tilpānu-weapon ditto, [ditto]
Though bearing a completely different list, we should nonetheless understand this line to be based on the same
principle as the present line.
Another namburbi text is relevant to this line: 444
1. […n]amburbu lumun qašti mimma Namburbi to undo the evil of every bow
This line is followed by a ritual to be performed in order to avert the portended evil. While not certainly related to the
present line, the idea of evil portended by types of bow is very similar in essence to the idea of sanctions related to
misconduct with types of weapon. Unfortunately, even assuming a connection, this does not materially increase our
understanding of the present line.

71-75 This section is a catch-all list of the problems that will hopefully be removed after the patient has performed the ritual,
including both witchcraft and problems brought on by the patient’s own actions. It resumes much of the list in ll. 39
and 39a-40c, and is more or less a standard refrain in Mesopotamian magical texts. 445 The exact wording varies, but
the concept, and indeed most of the specific details, remains the same.

443
George 2015: 83.
444
Caplice 1970: 117, l.1.
445
See, e.g. Abusch & Schwemer 2011: passim; Abusch & Schwemer 2016: passim.

Page 113 of 147

71 The gods invoked here are presumably those listed in the Kultgötterbeschwörung, though it is possible that only the
chief gods, or perhaps those known as bēl māmīti, are intended. In any case, the line asks, once again, that the
sanctions listed in the preceding section be lifted.

72 The list is a standard one, and not worth thorough investigation here. mašaltu ‘interrogation’ has been restored from
many sources.

73 The same list continues in this line. Two points are worth particular attention here. Māmītu is evidently to be
understood in the same sense as in the preceding section, that is, sanctions for misconduct, and arnu is to be understood
likewise as ‘punishment’ rather than ‘sin’. It seems likely that nīšu ‘oath’ is to be understood in a similar manner,
which is in keeping with the general Mesopotamian understanding of crime and punishment, as noted by van der Toorn
and discussed above.446
X2 writes ḪI?-AŠ?-DIŠ? which is presumably reflected in Nin1 HI?-[…]. We can suggest no reading for this, though it
is probably repeated in l. 39a, in which X1 has ḪI-x[…] and Bab1A has […]-KUR?.

74 The list continues in much the same vein in this line. The restoration ša amēlūti ‘of men’ is again based on numerous
sources.447

75 This line simply restates the thesis of l. 71 – that the problems should be dismissed immediately.

76-83 The final action of the ritual is described in these lines. This is a cleaning and purification using specially sanctified
water. Upon its completion, the patient should be both physically and spiritually clean.

76 This list of synonyms is presumably simply for emphasis, but a parallel in Astrolabe B deserves brief consideration: 448
ii 23 … giš!šu.nir.ne.ne … The divine emblems
lu
ii 24 kù.kù mu nam.lú.ùlu umun in.dadag are sanctified. The oath of the people and prince is cleared
ii 31 šubātu ūtallalā The shrines are purified
ii 32 nišū u rûbu ūtabbabū The people and the prince are cleansed
The Akkadian lines roughly translate the Sumerian, and so for line 32 we should probably understand the cleansing of
the people and prince to involve a mu or nīšu-oath. That this is not written is perhaps due to haplography – nīšu nišū is
easily omitted. The importance in the present instance is that some of the same of words for cleaning and purifying are
used, in a roughly similar context. Evidently, the nuance of spiritual purification was well established for the word
ūtabbib.

77 There is a small break at the end of this line in which we have restored rapašti ‘vast’ from Šurpu VI: 449
131. ittika linūḫ ayabba tâmatu rapašti May the vast sea and ocean calm down with you
This is likely on the basis of the comparison with the other half of the line, in which both Tigris and Euphrates are

446
ll. 43-70.
447
Abusch & Schwemer 2011: passim; Abusch & Schwemer 2016: passim.
448
Horowitz 2014: 35
449
= Reiner V-VI 190.

Page 114 of 147

 described as ellūti ‘pure.’
Aš1 writes ameš íd dumeš […] ‘running river water,’ in place of Tigris and Euphrates, but perhaps these were mentioned
in the break.

78-80 These precious materials are the ingredients required for the creation of an egubbû-vessel full of sanctified water.
Though not clear from the present text, the vessel would have been filled with water and these materials, then left
overnight in a bīt Kusi ‘House of Kusu’ where it could be purified by fumigation. The creation of an egubbû-vessel is
part of the Mis-pî ritual and is described more fully by Walker and Dick, 450 as well as by Maul.451 The important point
for our purposes is simply that such a vessel is the subject of these lines.
The entire list of materials is also written in the explanatory text CBS 6060,452 in very nearly the same order, though the
plants appear before the stones, date palm comes before maštakal, and an additional stone, dmār-bīti šá ma-lak, is
included between engisû-stone and pink-red chalcedony. In the text, each item is equated with a deity, though the
nature of these equations is not always clear. Schuster-Brandis’ assertion453 that this text describes the materials
necessary for performing the entire ceremony of Šurpu is certainly possible given the fact that an unknown amount of
material is missing from Tablet VIII.454 However, several items mentioned in CBS 6060, such as a goose (l. 58) and
rancid oil (l. 61) are not known from Šurpu, and those that are known – the stones and plants, coloured wool (l. 38) and
even the living sheep (l. 49) which must have been required judging by the incantation ‘You grass’ in Tablet VIII –
were presumably required in a number of ceremonies, and so we cannot certainly take CBS 6060 to be related to Šurpu
in particular.
Concerning the specific ingredients, little can be added to the work of Schuster-Brandis,455 though some brief notes
seem worthwhile.
Schuster-Brandis notes that turminû must be a dark stone since it is described in the following terms in the stone list
Abnu Šikinšu:
87. NA4 GAR-šu gim a-[r]i?-b[u]?mušen na4
˹DUR˺.˹MI˺.NA MU.[NI]

The stone like a crow?, Turminû is its name.

She supports this with reference to a copy of Hh XVI from Ugarit, which describes turminû as aban mūši ‘stone of the
night.’456 This is all very sensible, but Schuster-Brandis does not offer an identification. Livingstone identifies turminû
as breccia.457 This gains a great deal of support from the line in Hh XVI, if we take ‘night’ to mean ‘night sky.’
Breccia is a rock composed of broken fragments of other rocks cemented together with fine gravel. This very often
results in stones that are dark black with spots of white, mimicking, rather neatly, the night sky.
Substantially more speculative, possibly even silly, is a remark that can be made about zibītu. This is identified as a
kind of seashell by Schuster-Brandis.458 Given this identification, is it possible that É/bītu in the shell’s name is to be
understood as house?
Finally, the identification of úsikil.la as sea squill (Drimia Maritima) was made by Maddalena Rumor in a paper at the

450
Walker and Dick 2001: 54-56
451
Maul 1994: 41-47.
452
Livingstone 1986: 176-177.
453
Schuster-Brandis 2008: 438.
454
See chapter 1.
455
Schuster-Brandis 2008: 391ff.
456
Landsberger & Reiner 1970: 42 l. 140.
457
Livingstone 1986: 177, l.24.
458
Schuster-Brandis 2008: 456, no. 116.

Page 115 of 147

 61st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Maštakal is apparently to be understood as a type of squill as well,
though the precise identification is not known.

81 This line links the ritual activity taking place to Marduk, thereby giving divine support to the action.

82 The meaning of mê ša zumrika ‘water of your body’ is not certain. Probably it refers to water in which the patient has
bathed, but according to line 77, the water in which the patient was cleaned has just been listed, meaning that itti
‘together with’ at the start of this line is redundant – the various types of water listed should be identical with the ‘water
of your body.’ An alternative possibility is that the phrase refers to urine. This would be more in keeping with
following phrase musâti ša qātēka ‘washwater from your hands’ which, as George has pointed out,459 must refer to the
water used for cleaning oneself after going to the toilet – liberally translated ‘bidet water’ here.
Either option is possible, but the point remains the same – all the various types of water should have absorbed the
patient’s problems.

83 This line describes the final elements of the ritual. In the first half, the water which has been used to wash the patient is
poured away, thereby releasing the patient through an act of magical transfer. The water, which has absorbed the
patient’s problems during the preceding lines, is absorbed by the ground and the problems go with it.
The second clause refers to the gamlu-stick which was used in the Kultgötterbeschwörung. Presumably the final act in
the ritual involved use of the stick, either on the wet ground, or on the now clean patient. Without ritual instructions, it
is impossible to say.

84 This is the catchline for Tablet X of Šurpu, which consists of Kultmittelbeschwörungen designed to enhance the
effectiveness of the materials used. It seems illogical that such incantations should follow, rather than precede, the
performance of the ceremony, but such considerations require a far deeper study than is possible here.

459
George 2015a: 86.

Page 116 of 147

 Excursus – Kusu
Despite being relatively well attested in the corpus of ritual and incantation literature, Kusu is nonetheless a
source of considerable confusion. There has been a great deal of debate among scholars concerning whether the
name refers to one or two deities, and whether it should be understood as male or female, or as one of each. No
fully acceptable consensus has yet been reached, and so we must examine the evidence in detail.
Kusu occurs in four contexts:
1. As šangamaḫḫu ‘purification priest’ of Enlil
2. As a grain goddess
3. As the deified censer
4. As one of the sons of Enmešara

While Michalowski has argued for a single goddess Kusu, 460 and Ambos for a single god Kusu461 it has been
relatively common practice462 to distinguish two Kusus - one female, a grain goddess identified with Nisaba, the
other male, the deified censer and šangamahhu of Enlil, by virtue of which he is included among the craftsman
gods. The connection with the sons of Enmešara has been largely ignored, as will be the case here since an
effective investigation of the topic would take far more space than is available.
This division cannot be accepted on the evidence of An=Anum I 308-311:

308 dkù.sù sangá.maḫ den.líl.là.ke4 Kusu Chief Purification Priest of

Enlil
d.MIN
309 GUD A: šu B:MIN Kusu A: The same B: Ditto
d d
310 indagara (NINDÁ x GUD) dam.bi iškur Indagar Her Husband, Iškur
d 463 d
311 šùdu.kù.ga dumu.munus kù.sù.ke4 Šudkuga Daughter of Kusu464
To deal with the simpler elements of this first, Indagara, the ‘divine breed-bull’465 is certainly masculine, as is
demonstrated by his identification here with the storm god Iškur, as well as with Haia, husband of the grain
goddess Nisaba, in the Old Babylonian hymn to that god. 466
Šudkuga is, to the best of the writer’s knowledge, known otherwise only from the Mari god list:
37 [d]nin-urt[ta]
38 dza-b[a4-ba4]
39 dnin-gír-su
40 dnammu
41 dku-ús
42 dšùd.kù
43 dx-[L]U/zu
44 dnuska

460
Michalowski 1993: 138; 1998-2000: 576a. In both Michalowski argues that Kusu as a grain goddess is simply the result of confusion
regarding an epithet.
461
Ambos 2004: 28, n. 204.
462
Krecher 1966: 133; Conti 1997: 256-7; Lambert 1985: 186; Lambert 1997: 6-7; George & Taniguchi 2010: 103.
463
Lambert transliterates dšudx.kù.ga. CT 24 3-11 r. ii. 14 has dnundun(KA x NUN).kù.ga. Landsberger (Litke 1998: 60 n. 327) suggested
that this was a mistake for KA x SA = sum4 (= su6). In light of the evidence of the Mari God list (l. 42, see below) it is more likely a mistake
for KA x ŠU = šùdu, as is written in the Middle Assyrian dubgallu tablet, YBC 2401 ii 109 (Litke 1998: pl. 7).
464
The transliteration is according to Lambert’s unpublished manuscript, but the translation is my own.
465
George & Taniguchi 2010: 103.
466
Charpin 1986: 344-6, l. 18; Kramer 1977: 46, l.18-19.

Page 117 of 147

45 dsa-dàr-nun-na467
The first three names here are those of warrior gods and sons of Enlil, understood elsewhere - and possibly in
this text - as forms of a single god. Lambert understands Nammu here as a dialectal variant of dnin-ìmma,
‘Enlil’s scholar, scribe, and wet-nurse for Sīn.’468 Nuska is Enlil’s vizier, Sadarnunna is Nuska’s wife. Ku-ús is
plainly a spelling of Kusu, and Šudku must be a spelling of Šudkuga. Apart from confirming her connection to
Kusu and the court of Enlil, this gives us no further information concerning her identity.
The interpretation of An=Anum I 309 is more complicated. In the translation we have understood MIN in the
god’s name as a phonetic gloss for the following logogram. That is ‘the sign GUD, to be pronounced Kusu.’
The variant readings of the second half of the line are therefore to be interpreted as, respectively: šu ‘the same
(as the gloss i.e. Kusu) and MIN ‘Ditto (Chief purification priest of Enlil).’ An alternative is that the god’s
name is to be read dMIN-gu4 ‘Ditto (i.e. Kù.sù)-gu4’ giving the name Kusugu. In this case, šu in the second
column should be understood as ‘the same (i.e. Kusugu)’ and MIN would still mean ‘Ditto (Chief purification
priest of Enlil).’ A third possibility, dMINgud ‘The signs KÙ-SÙ, to be prounounced Gud’ is unlikely as the
signs are in the wrong order. For this reading we should rather expect either dKÙgu-udSÙ or d.gudMIN.
While the second reading is grammatically possible, it results in Enlil having two chief purification priests, and
breaks the passage up strangely. In this reading Indagara is the husband of Kusugu, not Kusu, but the pair are
interpolated between Kusu and his daughter. As such the first reading is to be preferred: Kusu, written either
d
kù-sù or dGUD, is the wife of Indagara and mother of Šudkuga, as well as being the chief purification priest of
Enlil.
That GUD ‘ox’ should be a sign for Kusu is no doubt related to the fact that Indagar is a cattle god – the most
commonly used logogram for his name, NÍNDA x GUD, features the same sign. Thus, according to An=Anum,
Kusu in her role as šangamaḫḫu of Enlil is certainly feminine.

In An=Anum I 285469 Kusu is said to be a form of Nissaba.

281 dnissaba [d]am.bi.munus Nissaba His (Haia’s) wife
d.MIN
282 ŠID MIN Nissaba Ditto
d
283 ul.šár.ra MIN Ulšarra Ditto
d
284 nin.bar.še.gùn.nu MIN Nunbaršegunu Ditto
d
285 kù.sù MIN Kusu Ditto
d
286 ama.me.dib MIN Amamedib Ditto
d
287 en.zi.kalam.ma MIN Enzikalamma Ditto
d
288 dà.dà MIN Dada Ditto
It is worth noting here that line 282 agrees with our reading for line 309 above - the MIN in the second column
d.MIN
demonstrates that ŠID was the wife of Haia, and therefore indisputably a form of Nissaba, written with the
ŠID sign but read Nissaba, and not an independent deity. That Kusu must be female in this role is self-evident,
and so we must accept, at least according to the evidence of An=Anum that at least two of the facets of Kusu’s
identity are female.

467
Lambert 1985: 182.
468
Lambert 1985: 186.
469
Lambert unpublished.

Page 118 of 147

Evidence from elsewhere, however, does present a problem with this argument. Šangamaḫḫu is the
Akkadianised form of Sumerian sanga.maḫ. In Sumerian, which does not distinguish grammatically between
feminine and masculine, there is no difficulty in understanding the role to have been held by a female. In
Akkadian, however, šangamaḫḫu is evidently masculine, and for a female holder of the role we should expect to
read *šangamaḫḫatu. That the feminine form is not known in any of the many occurrences of the title 470 gives
some cause for concern. Likewise, in an Egalkura spell, we read dkù-sù mul-li-lu ti-bi KI-ia = Kusu mullilu tibi
ittiya ‘Kusu, the purification priest, stands ready with me,’471 mullilu ‘purification priest’ is masculine. It is
instructive to consider the analogous case of Ninšar. An=Anum I mentions Ninšar twice:
28 d
nin.ša.arBÁRA an-tum diš-tar Ninšar Antu (and) Ištar
... ...
d
312 nin.šar gír.lá é.kur.ra.ke4 Ninšar Butcher of Ekur
[ṭa-bi-ḫ]u šá é-kur [Butche]r of Ekur
d.MIN
313 MUḪALDIM MIN Ninšar ditto
d.MIN
314 GÍR MIN Ninšar ditto
d
315 unú.dù.dù MIN Unududu ditto
d d
316 ír.ra.gal dam.bi nè.eri11.gal Irragal Her Husband, Nergal
317 d.MINŠUL MIN Irragal Ditto
Lines 313, 314 and 317 once again demonstrate the same form as line 309. In each case, the alternative name
sign describes the deity: muḫaldim ‘cook’, gír ‘knife’, šul ‘hero’. Unududu can be translated ‘Preparer of good
food’ and so is also relevant to Ninšar as butcher, but as it was not written with a single sign, it was presumably
not possible to treat it in the same way. The key point to note here is that Ninšar is unquestionably a feminine
deity – she is equated with Antu, wife of Anu, and Ištar, and is said to be married to Irragal, a form of Nergal.
Her role in line 312, gír.lá, being Sumerian does not have a grammatical gender. When translated into
Akkadian, however, gír.lá becomes either tābiḫu ‘butcher’, as in the gloss to line 312, or the more literal nāš
patri ‘knife carrier’, as in Gattung II iv 78, discussed below. Both of these are masculine. Lambert offers the
solution to this contradiction: ‘The term nāš patri may have been unchangeably masculine in Akkadian because
among humans the profession was exclusively male.’472 If this reasoning is accepted, there is no reason not to
expand it to cover the chief purification priest as well, thereby removing the difficulty of a female šangamaḫḫu.

A question remains whether to understand the two feminine Kusu names presented in An=Anum as one deity or
two. Their separation in An=Anum is due to the organisation of the list – Nissaba has to appear where she does,
as does Enlil’s šangamaḫḫu. As such, it is not useful to draw conclusions from their positions in the list.
However, in the Middle Babylonian forerunner to An=Anum, CBS 331, the organisation had not yet been so
fully realised:473

470
Utukku Lemnutu IX 44' (Geller 2016: 309); Bīt salaʾ mê (Ambos 2013: 220, 19'), Mis Pî (Walker and Dick: 95, 29; 96, 54; 110, 27-28;
151, l. 89/90) building rituals (Linssen 2004: 303, l. 36; Lambert 2013: 380 l. 36); priest purification ritual (Borger 1973 168, III 1'; 169, III
19'; 170 IV 21 & 26; Ishtar and Dumuzi Incantation (Farber 1977: 60, 58); Gattung II (Ebeling 1953b: 394, 79-86).
471
My thanks to H. Stadhouders for alerting me to this text. tibi is for tebi, stative of tebû
472
Lambert Unpublished commentary to An=Anum I, 28.
473
Veldhuis? (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ckst/pager) transliterates:
r.ii.15 dkù-sù d
NISABA
r.ii.16 d.ku-˹su?˺GUD
r.ii.17 d˹indagara˺ d
IŠKUR

Page 119 of 147

r.ii.15 dkù-su11 d
NISABA Kusu Nisaba
d.ku-sú!
r.ii.16 GUD Kusu
d d
r.ii.17 indagara (NÍNDAxGU4) IŠKUR Indagara Adad
Two points should be noted here. R.ii.16 offers support to our reading of An=Anum I 309 – MIN is here
replaced with ku-sú! confirming that this is meant by the ‘ditto’ of the later source. While this does not preclude
a reading kusugu(d), in light of the analogous forms in lines 313, 314 and 317 discussed above, Kusu is by far
the most likely reading. More importantly for the question at hand, however, it is clear that Kusu as Nisaba and
Kusu as wife of Indagara were understood to be the same deity. It is, of course, not clear whether Kusu was
understood as šangamaḫḫu in this text, but as Indagara is identified with Adad in both texts it seems reasonable
to assume that her credentials were likewise identical.
A possible bolster to the identification of the grain goddess with the šangamaḫḫu is to be found in an Old
Babylonian Sumerian text against field pests:
1 maš.maš edin gu i.ni.in.lá The exorcist, in the steppe he sets the snares
474
2 edin ki-su8-ba/ki-šu-up-pa gu i.ni.in.lá In the steppe, the shepherd place/the uncultivated
place, he sets the snares
3 edin ki da.g̃al.lá gu i.ni.in.lá In the steppe, the vast place, he sets the snares
4 edin ki ḪI.ba gu i.ni.in.lá In the steppe, the … place, he sets the snares
5 ša.tu.um ša.tu.um edin gu i.ni.in.lá In the hills, in the hills of the steppe, he sets the snares
6 AḪ.ru.um AḪ.ru.um edin gu i.ni.in.lá In the valleys,? in the valleys? of the steppe he sets the
snares
7 a.ri.ta gu i.ni.in.lá Away from the fruitful place? he sets the snares
?
8 nu.ri.ta gu i.ni.in.lá Away from the fertile place he sets the snares
9 eme.ḫa.mu.na edin gu i.ni.in.lá Despite (lit. in) the mutually opposed languages, in the
steppe he sets the snares
10 dal.ḫa.mun.na edin gu i.ni.in.lá Despite (lit. in) the whirlwinds,475 in the steppe he sets
the snares
11 dub.sar.an.na.ke4 edin(.na) gu i.ni.in.lá The scribe of heaven, in the steppe s/he sets the snares
12 šág̃a.maḫ.e edin(.na) gu ì.ni.in.lá The chief purification priest, in the steppe s/he sets the
snares
13 šág̃a.gal.e edin(.na) gu ì.ni.in.lá The high priest, in the steppe s/he sets the snares
14 e.zi.na.am ku.ús.sù ni.ib.ri.mi gu im.lá.lá.e.ne Ezinu, Kusu and Ninpirig̃,? They set the snares.476

Both sets of half brackets are superfluous – the signs are completely preserved in the photograph of the tablet
(http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/search_results.php?SearchMode=Text&ObjectID=P257777). Veldhuis’ sù in l. 15 is a mistake for su 11. l. 16
reads d.ku-baGUD. BA here must be a defective writing of ZU, for which we understand sú.
474
The manuscripts differ for this word, but the sense remains the same – the land used by shepherds is the uncultivated land.
475
Eme ḫa.mu.un ‘mutually opposed tongues’ is probably a phrase describing the many languages spoken in and around Sumer. According
to Sumerian Temple Hymn 1, line 153 (Sjoberg 1969: 26) the mašmaššu, the subject of this part of the text, is supposed to be master of
these. Dal.ḫa.mu.un literally translates to ‘mutually opposed blowing’ and so is equated with whirlwind in several wordlists (Sjoberg 1969:
83). Cavigneaux and al-Rawi (2002: 39-40) translate ‘Le maître des correspondances verbales tendit des rets dans la steppe’ and ‘Le maître
des dissonances tendit des rets dans la steppe.’ This is followed by Wasserman 2010: 345).
While this is plausibly defended in their commentary, it requires substantial emendation of the text. Instead, we understand the locative
ending –a, subsumed by the adjectival qualifier, to mean something along the lines of ‘In the face of’. This gives a clearer sense of the line
without emendation. The point seems to be that the exorcist is adept at staving off the confusion and disorder endemic to the steppe.
476
After Cavigneaux & al-Rawi 2002: 24-25, 12-14., and their commentary 37-41. Note two duplicates recently published as CUSAS 32
nos. 9 and 16 (George 2016: Pl. 32, iv 8-26 & Pl. 51, v 15-23). Unfortunately, neither duplicate is particularly helpful regarding the
remaining problems with this section of the text.

Page 120 of 147

The evidence offered by this text is by no means clear cut. It is not certain whether the deity referred to is Kusu
or Ezinu-Kusu. Ezinu (Akk. Ašnan) is a form of the grain goddess, and Kusu is possibly an epithet of her here.
We have assumed, with Cavigneaux and al-Rawi, that two goddesses are named, but there is ample evidence of
a single goddess Ezinu Kusu, Ezinu-Kusu is perfectly possible.477 This need not concern us unduly, however, as
whether epithet or avatar, it is clearly to the grain goddess with whom Kusu is associated that the text refers. 478
Cavigneaux and al-Rawi defend their reading of Ninpirig̃ on phonetic grounds, but the significance of the name
here is not clear. The authors suggest that the connection may be with Ninmaš, with whom Ninpirig is regularly
associated, as a deity connected to magic, though this seems very tenuous. 479 Ninpirig is best known as a
sukkal.maḫ ‘grand vizier’ of Šamaš,480 though the name also appears as a form of Ninimma. 481 Ninpirig is
certainly masculine,482 while Ninimma is almost invariably female. 483 Lambert sees the association of the two
as an error on the part of the editors of An=Anum. 484 In any case, no convincing connection between Šamaš’
grand vizier or Ninimma and the subject of the text is obvious. It seems most likely that Ninpirig is not the
correct reading of the name, though we can offer nothing better.
The crucial point for the question at hand, however, is the juxtaposition of šangamaḫḫu and Kusu as the grain
goddess. One possibility is that the gods named are to be equated with the titles in the preceding lines. That is
to say, Ezinu is understood as the dub.sar.an.na.ke, Kusu is the šangamaḫḫu and Ninpirig̃? is to be identified
with the šangagallu. While this is not certain, it should be remembered that the grain goddess Nisaba is also a
goddess of writing, and so ‘scribe of heaven’ is not an unexpected title. Likewise, Ninpirig̃?, if correctly read,
though not known elsewhere as šangagallu is frequently involved with incantations by virtue of his connection
with Ninmaš,485 and so the role is not unlikely.
This reading is likely in any case, as the poetic characteristics of the text seem to demand it. Lines 1-13 make
use of the phrase edin gu ì.ni.in.lá ‘supervises the nets in the steppe’ or gu ì.ni.in.lá ‘supervises the nets’ as a
refrain. Line 1 introduces the idea – the exorcist watching the nets in the desert. Lines 2-4 expand on this as a
triplet, apparently describing the dimensions of the steppe. Lines 5-6 add height and depth to the steppe, and 7-
8 contrast the steppe with settled land, while 9-10 describe the qualities of the exorcist. These are self-evidently
couplets. Lines 11-13 are evidently a triplet, and cannot reasonably be understood to refer to the exorcist –
while it is possible that šangamaḫḫu and šangagallu are synonymous titles a maš.maš could hold, it is hard to
see how he could be dub.sar.an.na.ke4. As there is no suggestion in the text that further officiants are involved,
they must refer to gods. If line 14 is interpreted as suggested, it forms a natural pair for the triplet, and a neat
conclusion to this section of the text. This is emphasised by the grammatically required alteration of the verb to
im.lá.lá.e.ne in line 14.

477
There are several references to this goddess in literary texts, listed in Krecher 1966: 132, to which can be added a neo-Babylonian
Eršemma (Gabbay 2015: 82, 10) and a recently published Old Babylonian incantation from the Schøyen collection (George 2016: 86, 46
rev. 16’ & 87, 12f 4). Although George understands Ašnan and Kusu, context makes it clear that Kusu is simply an epithet of the grain
goddess.
478
Michalowski 1993: 159.
479
Cavigneaux & al-Rawi 2002: 40.
480
An=Anum III 129
481
An=Anum I 300.
482
Lambert unpublished: commentary to III 129
483
Ninimma’s otherwise unattested equation in the Šumma Ālu commentary, K. 1 r. 36 with ‘Ea of the Scribe’ (Jimenez 2016:
http://ccp.yale.edu/P237754) is unlikely to be relevant as it is known only from a single tablet written around a thousand years after the text
in question. Likewise, her equation with Zababa in the triple-column edition of the Weidner godlist (Weidner 1924-1925: II 11b) is likely a
mistake.
484
Lambert unpublished: commentary to III 129.
485
See commentary l. 16 Endibgim.

Page 121 of 147

If this, admittedly tentative, interpretation is accepted, this text offers a clear suggestion that the grain goddess is
to be identified with the šangamaḫḫu.
Another text which offers support to the idea that the grain goddess should be identified with the šangamaḫḫu is
an incantation recently published by Geller in the introduction to his edition of Utukku Lemnutu. Geller states
that the incantation is ‘not specifically related to UH nor can the text be identified.’ 486 While this is true, it is
worth noting that two lines are exactly paralleled in a Muššu’u/sag.gig.ga.meš incantation. 487 Muššu’u Tablet
IV is sag.gig.ga.meš Tablet VII,488 and so the incantation in question belongs to both series. It is not necessary
to quote either incantation in full here, but as the Muššu’u incantation is useful in restoring the incantation
published by Geller, the duplicated lines are as follows:
BM 35321 (Geller 2016: 14)
6’ ˹d˺MIN dgibil6 dšakkan dkù-sù daš-na-a[n… God-ditto, Girra, Šakkan, Kusu, Ašna[n…
d
7’ [k]i.min asal-lú-hi sa-kip ha-a-a-ṭu Ditto, Asalluhi who fends off the ‘watcher’
mu-t[er-ri gi-mil-li... demon and is avenger of […

Muššu’u IV/g
81 ú-tam-mi-ku-nu-ši dgibil6 dšakkan dkù-sù I adjure you by Girra, Šakkan, Kusu,
d
aš-na-an dsiraš u dnin-giš-zi-d[a] Ašnan,489 Siris and Ningišzid[a]
…. …
d
86 ki.min (utammikunuši) asal-lú-hi sa-kip Ditto (I adjure you by) Asalluhi, who fends off the ‘watcher’
ha-a-a-ṭi mu-kil SAG.ḪUL-tim -demon and ‘holder of evil’-demon490

The remaining parts of these two incantations match in tone, but not in content. The principle is clearly the
same in each, but only these two lines are duplicated. The traces at the end of line 7’ appear to support a reading
k[il, so we can restore this confidently in place of Geller’s reading. The exact sequence of gods in lines 6’ & 81
is otherwise unparalleled, though Gattung II offers a comparable list, which we shall examine in a moment.
Ašnan is the Akkadianised version of the grain goddess Ezinu, and so Kusu here could be understood simply as
a grain goddess. However, Girra is the deified fire and is therefore chiefly a god of purification, so could be
expected to be associated with the šangamaḫḫu. In addition, in both texts Ningirimma, another purification
goddess, plays an important role. As such, Kusu’s role here is unclear, and she could reasonably be understood
to be both grain goddess and šangamaḫḫu. The evidence of Gattung II offers some support for this
interpretation.
Gattung II is one of several related but distinct exorcistic texts in which ‘all the members of the pantheon are
listed in theological order so as to drive away demons with their help.’ 491 These texts are therefore quasi-
godlists. Gattung II is known from Late Assyrian and Late Babylonian copies, the relevant manuscript is one of

486
Geller 2016: 14.
487
Böck 2007: 165, 81 & 166, 86. Incantation IV/g
488
Linton 1976: 130ff.
489
A single manuscript, BM 45405+, presumably defective, has dna-na in place of Ašnan, Böck 2007: 166, though note that the line
numbers do not match the copy, for F 12’ read F 13’.
490
Böck 2007: 165, 81 & 166, 86
491
Lambert 1957-1970: 478b

Page 122 of 147

the latter.492 As Ebeling’s edition of the text is often antiquated, and occasionally inaccurate, it has been re-
edited here.
77 zi dnin-šar gír-lá é-ku[r-ra-ke4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Ninšar, butcher/knife carrier of
78 niš dMIN na-áš paṭ-ri šá é-k[ur] E[kur]
d d
79 zi kù.sù šanga.maḫ [ en.líl.lá.ke4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Kusu, chief purification
d d
80 niš MIN šá-an-gam-ma-ḫu šá MIN priest [of Enlil]
d d]
81 zi ŠIM muhaldim.gal [an.na.ke4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Siris, great cook of An
d d
82 niš MIN nuḫatimmi (muhaldim) rabî (gal) šá a-nim
83 zi dnin.ma.da! šùd d][an.na.ke4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Ninmada, worshipper of An
d d
84 niš MIN ka-rib a-nim
85 zi dnisaba nin nig.nam.ma.ke4 šu.sikil.[la.ke4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Nisaba, lady who keeps
d
86 niš MIN be-el-ti mu-š[a-li-mat mím-ma šum-šu] everything safe and he[althy]
d
87 zi ḫa-ià bulug an-sal-me-me gi-na˼-˻k[e4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Haya, who expands the
d
88 niš MIN mu-kin pu-lu-[uk-ki šá šamê rapšūti] boundaries o[f] vast heaven
d
89 zi la-ma an-e-da-[x ḫé] Be exorcised by Lamassu, xxx[…
d ? ?
90 niš MIN an-na[m /mu[d ]
91 zi d+en.líl.lá an.na.ke4 [ ḫé] Be exorcised by Enlil, (lord?) of heaven[…
92 zi dnin.líl.lá an.na.˻k[e4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Ninlil, (lady?) of heave[n…
93 ˻zi dma.mi an.˻n[a.ke4 ḫé] Be exorcised by Mami (lady?) of hea[ven…
94 niš dbe-lit [šá šamê ] /The Lady, (lady?) [of heaven…]
(CBS 13858a, ll. 7-24 = PBS 1/2, 115, ll. 77-95)493
The list is superficially dissimilar from that in the Muššu’u incantation, but they share an underlying rationale.
The first three gods in this list, Ninagal, Ninkurra and Ninzadim, are known from a number of texts, notably Mīs
Pî as members of a group of ili mārē ummâni ‘gods of the craftsmen.’494 As they usually appear together, two
other members of the group, Guškinbanda 495 and Ninildu, were probably written in the gap which precedes this
fragment. A number of other deities, including Kusu and Girra, are often associated with them, especially in the
Mīs Pî ritual in which they are responsible for the manufacture of the statue which must be purified by the
purification deities. More importantly, the transliteration of a unilingual Sumerian version of Gattung II found
on the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary website restores Girra, as well as Nusku and Ninildu, in the break
before the start of this fragment. 496
The equivalence of Ninšar and Šakkan is not completely clear, but in light of the fact that goddesses of grain and
beer are mentioned in these lists, it seems likely that the connection is the provision of food. Ninšar is the divine
butcher, and as such is responsible for the preparation and provision of meat. Šakkan is in charge of wild
animals, and can therefore be understood as responsible for the provision of meat as well. 497 This is provided
some measure of support by the unilingual Sumerian version, in which Ninšar is preceded by Ninamaškuga,

492
Lambert 1957-1970: 478b.
493
After Ebeling 1953b: 393-395 but note in particular, line 80, Ebeling read, following Lutz’s copy (1919: 115) niš dMIN šá-an-gam-ma-ḫu
šá da[-nim]. The photograph reveals Lutz’s A as MIN, and so we have restored Enlil, as would be expected.
494
Walker and Dick 2001: 76 & 81, 58.
495
Previously read Kusibanda, but see Lambert 2013: 377.
496
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/PSD/html/uniss/incantation/Gattung_II.htm Lines 101ff. No information seems to be available concerning
the authorship or sources for this transliteration, and so it cannot be checked. It is referred to in the discussion here, but no firm arguments
can be based on its evidence alone.
497
Wiggermann 2011-2012: 308-309.

Page 123 of 147

who is ‘Enlil’s Shepherd’ according to both An=Anum 498, and a mythological commentary to a ritual for curing
a sick man.499 As divine shepherd, Ninamaškuga is unquestionably responsible for the provision of meat,
especially when in association with Ninšar. Šakkan is, to all intents and purposes, shepherd of the wild animals,
and so his role must be the same here.

Nisaba is the most common form of the grain goddess in the first millennium, and Haya is her husband.
Ninmada is the brother of Ninazu in the Sumerian myth ‘How Grain Came to Sumer’, 500 where he is also said to
be ‘worshipper of An.’ Ninazu is the father of Ningišzida, 501 and the two are very regularly grouped together as
chthonic snake gods, and Ninmada is described in An=Anum as muš.laḫ4 šudx.dè an.na.ke4 ka-ri-ib da-nim
‘snake charmer, worshipper of An.’502 In Lambert’s view503 this is a conflation of two different Ninmada’s – a
male worshipper of An and a female snake charmer. He provides no evidence for this however, and in light of
the fact that the worshipper of An is said to be the brother of Ninazu in the Sumerian myth, it seems unlikely.
Wiggermann has argued persuasively that there is just one Ninmada. 504 Ningišzida occurs earlier in Gattung
505
II, and presumably the compiler did not wish to repeat him. This seems, however, to undermine the point of
the text. Ningišzida, as Lambert has demonstrated, 506 was very likely associated with alcoholic drinks –
specifically wine – and so was a good pairing for Siris. Ninmada has none of the same connotations and so the
point is lost. The unilingual Sumerian version does not suffer from the same problem as it does not name Siris,
but rather an obscure god Tíbir (TAGxŠÙ). This god is distinct from Tibira, a smith who is mentioned in CT 29
46 4’ and the partial duplicate CT 25 46 4’, which are fragments of an explanatory godlist. No other reference
to this god is known to the writer, but the word tibir is Sumerian for ‘hand’ 507 so we should perhaps imagine a
deified hand. Gattung II describes Tíbir as muhaldim.gal an.[n]a.ke4 ‘great cook of An.’508 The Late
Babylonian version of the text describes Siris in the same way, though this role is otherwise unattested for her.
It is possible that Ninmada’s role in bringing grain to Sumer makes him a reasonable partner for Siris as either
brewer or cook, or Tíbir as a cook – without grain there is no beer or bread. His placement immediately before
Nisaba in the list supports this, though this seems a rather arbitrary choice of grain god. Ninmada, as far as we
are aware, was not an important grain god and as Nisaba fills the role in any case, must have been superfluous.
An alternative possibility is that Ninmada has an alcoholic aspect which is not clearly evidenced. Katz 509 has
suggested that the myth of bringing grain to Sumer may be aetiological of Ninazu’s character as a dying god.
That it might also cover the origins of alcohol inherent in Ninmada, while not yet evidenced, is not beyond the
realms of possibility.

As such, while the names are different, the deities in Gattung II are plainly based on very similar organisational
principles:

498
Lambert Unpublished: I 333.
499
Livingstone 1986: 172-173, 7.
500
ETCSL 1.7.6; Streck 2016: 531.
501
Van Buren 1934: 63 and note 11.
502
Lambert Unpublished: I, 329.
503
Lambert 1985: 187, 73.
504
Wiggermann 1989: 122.
505
Ebeling 1953b: 393, 64.
506
Lambert 1990a: 300; Lambert 1990b: 105.
507
ePSD and references there.
508
ePSD line 111 has muhaldim-gal-an-[n]a-ke4. In light of the LB version, the god An, rather than heaven is more likely.
509
Katz 2004: 37

Page 124 of 147

Table 7 - Feast gods
Muššu’u &c. Gattung II

Preparation/comfort Girra Fire and Craft gods

Meat providers Šakkan Ninšar

Grain/šangamaḫḫu Kusu Kusu

Grain Ašnan Nisaba (& Haya)

Brewer/cook Siris Siris/Tíbir

Snake god/Wine god Ningišzida Ninmada

A third text makes this organisation explicit. The incantation enuma danu ibnū šamê ‘When Anu had created the
heavens’, was recited as part of the rites for renovating a temple. In essence it is a paean to the mythical first
brick, describing the various divine and natural forces created by the god Ea to create and serve the brick: 510
24. e-nu-ma da-nu ib-nu-ú šamêe When Anu had created the heavens,
d
25. nu-dím-mud ib-nu-ú apsâ šu-bat-su When Nudimmud had created the Apsû, his abode,
d
26. é-a ina apsî ik-ru-ṣa ṭi-ṭa-[am] Ea nipped off clay from the Apsû,
d
27. ib-ni kulla ana te-diš-ti-[ki] He created Kulla to renovate [you],
giš giš
28. ibni apa(gi) u qīšta ana ši-pir He created reed bed and forest for the task of [your]
nab-ni-t[i-ki] creation,
d d d
29. ib-ni nin-ildú nin-simug u a-ra-zu He created Ninildu, Ninsimug and Arazu to be
ana mu-šak-lil ši-pi na[b-ni-ti-ki] those who perform the task of [your creation],
30. ib-ni ša-di-i ù ta-ma-a-ti ana mim-ma He created mountains and seas to make all things
šum-šu14 du-u[š-šá-a] [abound],
d d
31. ib-ni guškin-bàn-da nin-á-gal He created Guškinbanda, Ninagal, Ninzadim and
d d
nin-zadim u nin-kur-ra ana Ninkurra to [… your] rituals
ep-še-t[i-ki]
32. ù ḫi-ṣib-šu-nu du-uš-šá-a ana and to make their wealth abound for your great
nin-da-bé-ki ra-bu-ti x […] food-offerings […]
33. ib-ni daš-na-an dla-ḫar dsiris (ŠIM) He created Ašnan, Laḫar, Siris, Ningišzida, Ninšar
d d d
nin-giš-zi-da nin-šar a-da[g …] and Ada[g…]
34. ana mu-deš-šu-ú sa-at-[tuk-ki-ki] to be those who supply in abundance [your] regular
offerings,
d
35. ib-ni umun-mu-ta-àm-gu7 He created Umunmutamgu and Umunmutamnag,
d
umun-mu-ta-àm-nag ana mu-kil who maintain [your great] food-offerings,
nin-da-[bé-ki ra-bu-ti]
36. ib-ni dkù-sù šánga(GA.MÁxSIG7)-maḫ He created Kusu, chief purification priestess of the great

510
Lambert 2013: 380-381, with slight emendation to the translation of lines 29 and 36 (Ninsimug for NinSIMUG; priestess for priest).

Page 125 of 147

 ilānimeš rabûtimeš ana mu-šak-lil gods, to be the performer of your rites […]
par-ṣi-ki x […]
37. [i]b-ni šarra ana za-ni-nu […] He created the king to be the provisioner of […]
38. [ib-n]i a-me-lu-ti ana i-tab-bu-l[u …] He created mankind to bear […]

The gods listed here, excluding Kulla who has responsibility for bricks, 511 are exactly equivalent to those
discussed so far. Ninildu, Ninsimug, Guškinbanda, Ninagal, Ninzadim and Ninkurra are the craftsmen gods.
As the name is otherwise unattested, Lambert reads NinSIMUG and points out that the similar dSIMUG is read
d
Ninagal, a fact he considers problematic due to the close proximity of the two. 512 The name means ‘Lord
Smith’, and while this is also Ninagal’s role, the duplication is not unduly troubling. Ninsimug is grouped
together with Ninildu and Arazu as a creator of the brick, while Ninagal is grouped together with gods who
provide luxurious resources. The two are performing different types of metalwork, and therefore must either
represent different gods or different names of the same god. In either case, it was necessary for the sense of the
text to include a smith god in both groups, and the method used avoids unnecessary repetition. The reverse of
the tablet muddies the waters somewhat by listing Guškinbanda, Ninsimug, Ninzadim and Ninkurra, in which
list we should expect Ninagal. While we might expect slightly greater standards of consistency, the two names
are evidently interchangeable and, considering the polynomialism inherent in Mesopotamian religion, this
should not be a cause for concern. As such, we read Ninsimug.
Arazu is otherwise known only in a set of incantations designed to exorcise Kulla from a house once it was
built.513 Lambert argues that this is an unusual spelling of Amarazu, a daughter of Sîn, 514 but this is not certain.
Regardless, in both the current text and the exorcistic incantation, the context in which the name occurs makes
clear that it represents a craftsman deity. In light of the fact that carpentry and metalwork are already
represented in the guises of Ninildu and Ninsimug, we might assume that Arazu has a special responsibility to
those working with clay.
Lahar is a sheep god and, according to the Theogony of Dunnu, the son of Šakkan. 515 In the Sumerian Debate
between Sheep and Grain,516 Lahar and Ašnan (Sum. U8 and Ezinu) are paired, arguing about which of them is
most important. Ada[g… is known otherwise only from a small fragment, apparently in Istanbul but currently
lost, which was copied by Geers.517 This fragment also names Lahar, Ašnan and Ninšar, but is otherwise too
broken to be of much use. The two gods Umunmutamgu and Umunmutamnag, whose names mean ‘What has
my lord eaten?’ and ‘What has my lord drunk?’ appear under the Akkadian equivalents Minâ-īkul-bēlī and
Minâ-ištī-bēlī in An=Anum II 253-254,518 where they are called MUHALDIM ‘cook’ and ŠIM ‘brewer’ of the
Esagil respectively.
At this point it is instructive to return to our table:

511
Lambert 2013: 377.
512
Lambert 2013: 378.
513
Ambos 2004: 94ff.
514
Lambert 2013: 378.
515
Lambert 2013: 393, 15.
516
Alster and Vanstiphout 1987: 9-21; Black et al. 2004: 225-230
517
Si. 902 or Si. 909. Lambert 2013: 379.
518
Lambert Unpublished: II 253-254.

Page 126 of 147

Table 8 – Feast Gods redux
Muššu’u &c. Gattung II Brick incantation

Comfort Girra Fire and Craft gods Craft gods

Meat providers Šakkan Ninšar Lahar and Ninšar

šangamaḫḫu/Grain Kusu Kusu Kusu

Grain goddess Ašnan Nisaba (and Haya) Ašnan

Siris, Umunmutamgu
Brewer/cook Siris Siris/Tíbir
and Umunmutamnag

Snake god/Wine god Ningišzida Ninmada Ningišzida

Apart from the slight expansion to the list in the brick incantation, the only notable difference is the absence of a
fire god. This is easy to understand when we consider the purpose of each text. The brick incantation is
concerned with the provision of a ritual meal – the comfort of the brick is not important provided the food
offerings are complete and so fire is omitted. This is clear from the role given to Guškinbanda, Ninagal,
Ninzadim and Ninkurra: ‘to make their wealth abound for your great food-offerings…’ These four are
responsible for gold, metalwork, seals and precious stones respectively. Their products were valuable and could
therefore be sold to provide food, but their intrinsic congeniality was not considered. Fire could not be sold for
food and so is not relevant, though we are perhaps justified in imagining that cooked food offerings would be
more appealing to the brick. The other two texts, however, are exorcistic and the gods involved are invoked to
command the demons to leave. The gods of food will not support the demon if it remains, and neither will those
responsible for the pleasant things in life – warmth from the fire gods, goods from the craftsmen.
The three texts are nonetheless clearly based along the same lines. Gattung II offers an expanded version of the
Muššu’u list introduction of the craft gods, presumably due to their association with Girra and Kusu, and the
exchange of Ninmada for Ningišzida. The fact that the grain goddess does not appear in the same place in the
two lists is possibly further evidence that Gattung II has missed the point of the list. In Muššu’u, Kusu is
playing the role of the grain goddess, and so is grouped with Ašnan. In Gattung II, she is chiefly playing the
role of šangamaḫḫu, and as such Nisaba need not be grouped with her so closely. This is not certain, however,
and if the unilingual Sumerian version is accepted as evidence, the order of Gattung II was presumably settled
much earlier than the Late Babylonian version might lead us to believe. The craft gods may have been simple
embellishment, as would be expected in the switch from a one line list to a 25 line list. The separation of Kusu
and Nisaba could be seen as no more than a stylistic decision, perhaps to allow the inclusion of Haya without
interrupting the flow too much.
It is perhaps worth noting that several of the gods mentioned also appear together in the ‘Divine Directory’ of
the Nippur Compendium.519 While there are several groupings within this text, perhaps the most interesting in

519
George 1992: 156-159.

Page 127 of 147

this context is that in lines 15-16: ‘15Kusu, Urmah, Nuska, Ninimma, Šuzianna, 16Bēlet-ṣēri, The Sibittu, Bēl-
āliya, Sirāš, Ningišzida.’ Urmah is a deified lion who shares a šubtu ‘seat’ with Šakkan in the É-šarra at Aššur:
ur.máš.tùr ‘Pen of Lions and Wild Beasts.’ 520 Belet-ṣeri is a title of Geštinanna, wife of Ningišzida. 521 The idea
behind this text is, however, different to that behind the lists discussed. The gods listed here are ten of 14àm
ilūmeš bīt dgu-la ’14 gods, the house of Gula’, presumably statues housed together in this specific temple. That
said, however, this section of Gattung II has a Nippur-ish bent. Not only are the gods discussed found together
in the Nippur compendium, but Enlil and Ninlil, chief god of Nippur and his wife, are found in lines 90-91.
For our purposes, however, the important question is the role of Kusu. Irrespective of the original intent of the
text, it is very likely that Kusu is a grain goddess in Muššu’u - her position in the list, between Šakkan and
Ašnan, and the lack of any explanatory gloss labelling her the šangamaḫḫu make it impossible, without
reference to the other texts, to think of her as anything but the grain goddess. On the other hand, she is certainly
šangamaḫḫu in Gattung II and the brick incantation, as it is stated explicitly. On balance, though not absolutely
clear-cut, these texts speak in favour of the identification of the two Kusus as a single goddess.

One further text offers information concerning the separation or identity of the two female Kusus.
The Mari god list presents two difficulties in understanding Kusu as a single goddess. Both forms of Kusu are
mentioned in the list, but are separated by several lines. Moreover, the šangamaḫḫu form is not spelt as we
should expect:
40 dnammu
41 dku-ús
42 dšud.kù
43 dx-[L]U/zu
…
57 dnisaba
58 dkù-[s]ù
59 dNI[SABA-gal]
The separation of the two names is easily explained in the same way as their separation in An=Anum – the list is
arranged on theological grounds, and therefore Nisaba and her avatars are kept apart from the section dealing
with the rest of Enlil’s court.522 The variant spelling in line 41 warrants further discussion. Lambert
understands this as a phonetic spelling, and links it to a personal name from Old Babylonian Ur, ku-ùs-ra-bi.523
This is very likely correct in view of the evidence of the Old Babylonian Nippur recension of the lexical list
DIRI=(w)atru:
11.30 [dkù-sù d
]KÙ.SUD ku-us-sú
d d
11.31 [ indagarax ]NÍNDAxAŠ in-da-ga-[r]a524
The purpose of DIRI=(w)atru was to elucidate difficult logograms – in particular, signs whose pronunciation
and meaning could not be discerned by the sign form. In its canonical form, Diri featured four parallel
subcolumns:

520
George 1992: 188-189, 31’ & 170, 31’; George 1993: 156, 1183.
521
Lambert 1990: 299.
522
Lambert 1985: 186 n.40-45.
523
Lambert 1985: 186; Ormsby 1972: 97, 23, 3.
524
Civil 2004: 38

Page 128 of 147

 1. Sumerian pronunciation
2. Logogram
3. Sign name
4. Akkadian translation

The Old Babylonian Nippur recension does not feature the third of these, and in the lines under consideration,
the first is broken. We have restored it according to the sense of the line, though the actual signs may have been
different. The presence of Indagar confirms the identity of this Kusu as the feminine form. The Akkadian
translation ku-us-sú is therefore instructive. While it is not identical with the Mari form ku-ús, the emphasis on
the u in the context of an Akkadian gloss to an unusual word must be understood as a guide to pronunciation. 525
As the logogram in the second column is simply the common spelling kù-sù, we should understand the Mari
form as an abbreviated version of the Akkadian pronunciation, and not as a different god.
The evidence is therefore, if not unequivocal, at least strongly suggestive. In the absence of any definite
evidence to the contrary, and in light of the clues in the evidence just discussed, we can feel reasonably
confident in identifying šangamaḫḫu Kusu and grain Kusu as different aspects of one and the same goddess.

We must now investigate Kusu’s connection with the nignakku ‘censer.’ Kusu’s association with the censer is
common in the ancient sources; it is often mentioned alongside her. A question remains, however, as to whether
this constitutes the identification of Kusu as the numinous force within the censer, as Michalowski has
implied,526 or simply pairs the goddess with her most notable object. The available evidence inclines heavily
towards the latter. On a number of occasions it is certainly impossible that Kusu and the censer are understood
as one and the same. Utukku Lemnutu 9 44’ 527 is unfortunately broken, but enough survives of the line to be
certain that Kusu cannot have been understood as the censer:
d
kù-sù sanga6-mah den-líl-lá-ke4 na-izi ˹nir˺[…]
d
MIN šá-an-gam-ma-hu šá dMIN ina si-riq ˹qut-rin˺-na šá x […]
Kusu, šangamaḫḫu-priest of Enlil, when sprinkling the incense of […] 528
Plainly, if Kusu were the censer she could hardly be said to be ‘sprinkling’ the incense. The verb sarāqu ‘to
sprinkle’ is regularly used to describe the action of filling a censer with incense, 529 and can scarcely apply to
any action undertaken by the censer itself. In a similar vein, a Mis Pî incantation associates Kusu with the
censer in a manner that cannot have been intended to conflate the two: 530
[d]kù-sù sanga4-maḫ-[d]˹en-líl˺-lá-˹ke4˺ [níg-n]a ˹gi-izi-lá ba-ni-íb-è
d
MIN MIN-ḫu ša dMIN MIN MIN-ú uš-bi-˹’u˺-ma
Kusu the chief exorcist of Enlil swung the censer and the torch
If Kusu is intended to be understood as the censer this line is nonsensical – the censer cannot swing itself, and
far less can it swing the torch. Moreover, this line associates Kusu equally with a second implement, the gizillû-

525
It is worth noting that the name is written ku.ús.sù in the Sumerian pest incantation discussed earlier (p.116, l. 14), and ku-ús-sa in an Old
Babylonian incantation against scorpion sting (George 2016: 116, r. 3).
526
Michalowski 1985: 222 n.9. & Michalowski 1993: 159.
527
Geller 2016: 309.
528
After Geller 2016: 309.
529
See below, note 567
530
Walker and Dick 2001: 106 & 110 ll.27-28.

Page 129 of 147

torch. This association is repeated elsewhere in Mis Pî:531
89a d
kù-sù sanga6-maḫ den-líl-lá-ke4 a-gúb-ba
89b d
MIN MIN šá dMIN ina a-gub-bé-e
90a
níg-na gi-izi-lá šu-kù-ga-a-ni-ta sikil-bi
90b
NÍG.NA GI.IZI.LÁ ina ŠUII-šú KÙ.MEŠ ul-lil
Kusu, the chief purification priest of Enlil, has purified it with a holy-water-basin, censer, and torch
with her pure hands
While none of these instances absolutely preclude the identification of Kusu as the numen of the censer in other
circumstances, they do offer a reasonable alternative which should not be rejected without good reason. Kusu is
associated with the censer simply as a notable item. A comparable case can be seen in the incantation Marduk
bēl mātāti šalbābu rašubbu ‘Marduk, lord of (all) the lands, raging, terrifying,’ one of a number of incantations
required in an apotropaic anti-witchcraft ceremony for the anḫullû-plant published most fully by Abusch and
Schwemer as CMAwR 8.28:532
86
libbibūninni nignakku gizillû ša Girra u533 Kusu
May the censer (and) torch of Girra and Kusu cleanse me
Girra is a fire god, closely linked with Nuska, the torch god. As this line suggests, in order to fulfil his duties
Girra possessed or at least used the torch but it would be wrong to say that he is its numen. This is clear from
the use of šá ‘of’, but is emphasised by the content of a broken line from Utukku Lemnutu 9: 534
d
gibil6 gi-izi-lá izi izi-izi-k[e4 …]
d
MIN ina gi-izi-le-e i-šá-ti ˹gir˺-[ri-nu-ri …]

Girra, [applying] fire and flame to the torch […]

As the fire god, it makes good sense for Girra to be lighting the torch. Likewise, the censer belongs to Kusu
who uses it in her role as šangamaḫḫu. As these texts suggest, the two are regularly associated with one
another, as well as with the egubbû ‘holy water vessel’, the numen of which is almost invariably the goddess
Ningirimma. This is known from many sources, but a single example from Utukku Lemnutu 9 will suffice: 535
42a’ d
nin-girimma nin ˹a-gúb˺-[ba…]
42b’ d
MIN be-let e-gup-pe-e el-lu x […]
Ningirimma mistress of the egubbû-vessel…
It is worth examining two apparent exceptions to this standard identification, however, as Lambert has recently
presented them inaccurately.536 In Utukku Lemnutu 3 the goddess Nammu is given Ningirimma’s usual title:537
175a d
nin-girimma ˹nin˺ d+e[n-líl-lá-ke4] ˹á˺-zi-da-mu hé-˹gub˺
175b d
MIN a-hat dMIN [ina im-ni]-ia li-iz-ziz
176a d
nammu nin a-gúb-ba dadag-ga-ke4 á-gùb-bu-mu hé-˹gub˺
176b d
nammu be-let A.GÚB.BA-e el-lu ina šu-me-li-ia liz-iz-ziz
May Ningirimma, sister of Enlil, be present on my right.

531
Walker and Dick 2001: 143 & 151 ll.89-90. Walker and Dick read ‘his pure hands.’
532
Schwemer and Abusch 2016: 243, l. 86.
533
This word is only present in one of the two manuscripts.
534
Geller 2016: 309.
535
Geller 2016: 309. Geller translates ‘lady of the pure censer’, but this is certainly incorrect.
536
Lambert 2013: 431-432.
537
After Geller 2016: 127.

Page 130 of 147

 May Nammu, mistress of the pure egubbû-vessel, be present on my left.
Geller reads m[u7-mu7-ke4] in place of our d+e[n-líl-lá-ke4] based on a duplicate text from Emar. The Emar
tablet, however, as is common with material from the western periphery, frequently contains variants from the
standard text. In this case, as is clear from the Akkadian translation of line 175b, we should expect the name of
a god, specifically the brother of Ningirimma, rather than an epithet. Geller translates the Akkadian line as
‘sister of Anu’ in line 175, presumably following Lambert’s translation.538 Lambert’s version, based only on a
single manuscript though another was certainly known to him as it was published in a book he edited, 539 is due
to a misreading of the second MIN sign as a-[nim], a mistake likely derived from Campbell’s Thompson’s
erroneous copy in CT 16.540 Examination of a photograph of K. 224+541 proves both m[u7...] and a-[nim] to be
incorrect. d+e[n…], while only slightly preserved, is a plausible reading for Geller’s m[u 7...] and has the added
virtue of being attested elsewhere – Ningirimma is the sister of Enlil in both An=Anum542 and in the
unpublished Sumerian incantation, K.10111.543
Lambert argues that Nammu here is no more than a type of Ningirimma, though this seems unlikely as the two
gods are supposedly standing on opposite sides – a fact omitted from Lambert’s version as the second half of
each line is broken off in the manuscript he followed. It is more likely that Nammu, as a watery goddess, could
be matched with the egubbû when Ningirimma was otherwise engaged. The two are also mentioned together in
Gattung II544 and so were presumably thought of as being closely connected.

In An=Anum I the egubbû is not, as Lambert states, a name of Ningirimma, but a separate god. To argue this,
Lambert follows Litke’s version:
d
nin-girimma = nina-hat den-líl-lá-ke4
d
a-gúb-ba = šu sukkal daddag-ga NUNki-ga-ke4
Ningirimma = Sister of Enlil
Egubbû = The same (i.e. Ningirimma). Pure vizier of Eridu. 545
In his own unpublished edition, however he reads:
335 d
nin.girimma (A.ḪA.KUD.DU) = nina-hat den.lil.lá.ke4
336a d
a.gúb.ba = šu.luḫ daddag.ga eriduki.ga.ke4
336b
mu-ub-bi-ib ˹šu-luḫ˺-ḫi šá eri4.˹du10˺
337 d
a.ta.e11.dè = dam.bi.munus
Ningirimma = Sister of Enlil
Egubbû = Purifier of the šuluhhu-purification rites of Eridu
Ata’ede = His wife.546
While the sign in question can be read as either SUKKAL or LUḪ, that the second of these is correct is certain
both from the Akkadian translation in line 336b, and from the fact that Ata’ede is said to be the preceding god’s
wife – impossible if Egubbû is simply a form of the female Ningirimma. The fact that the egubbû has a separate

538
Lambert 2013: 431. Lambert also translates ‘lady of the pure censer.’ It is incorrect here too.
539
Geller 2005: 136-141.
540
Campbell Thompson 1911: Pl. 7, l. 254.
541
http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P393797.jpg
542
Lambert Unpublished: I 335.
543
Lambert 2013: 432.
544
Ebeling 1953b: 384 1-6, but see Lambert 2013: 428 for a better version of these lines.
545
Lambert 2013: 432.
546
Lambert Unpublished: I 335-337.

Page 131 of 147

entry in An=Anum, however, need not concern us – both the nignakkû-censer and the gizilla-torch are given
their own entries in the text,547 the latter of which certainly has a specific numinous deity, Nusku.
Ningirimma’s identification with the egubbû is germane to the discussion of Kusu because Kusu’s connection to
the egubbû-vessel is as strong as is her connection to the censer. Apart from the lines quoted above, three more
instances are known to the writer, two from Mīs Pî and one from a version of the ritual for reskinning a
kettledrum:
šipta egubbû ša dKusu u dNingirim
You recite the incantation: “Holy-water-vessel of Kusu and Ningirim.”548
mê sebet egubbê tasâbma ina bīt Kusu tukān
You draw water (for) seven holy-water-basins, and you place it in the chapel of Kusu. 549
[2 dug] ˹A˺.GÚB.BA a-na dKÙ.SÙ u dNIN.GÌRIM (A.ḪA.KUD.DU) GUB-an
You will set up [2 holy water]-basins for Kusu and Ningirim.550
The first of these refers to an incantation that is not extant, though the last 4 lines are possibly preserved on STT
208 (+) 209.551 As in the line from CMAwR 8.28 discussed above, the use of ša ‘of’ demonstrates that the text
does not equate the egubbû with either goddess, but it does associate it equally with each of them. The second
reference mentions the ‘house of Kusu,’ which is also known from elsewhere in mīs pî, and from the bīt rimki
‘House of Bathing’ and bīt salā’ mê ‘House of Sprinkling’ rituals, as well as in other texts. 552 This is a small,
temporary reed structure in which purification takes place, presumably through treating objects with incense,
fire, water and incantations. The egubbê here are simply being prepared – Kusu’s connection is minimal. The
final reference belongs to the preparatory stages of the ritual for reskinning a kettledrum. Purification of
everything involved is a very important element of this, and the egubbê are apparently set up for the use of Kusu
and Ningirimma. That is to say the holy water vessels are to be utilised by the purification goddesses. Again,
there is no suggestion here that either goddess is the numen of the egubbû, but nor is one more closely
associated with it than the other. Were it not for the fact that many other texts equate Ningirimma and the basin,
we would not be justified in identifying her as the numen of the egubbû.
The same reasoning should apply to Kusu’s equation with the censer. There is no evidence whatsoever that
Kusu was understood as the god of the gizzilû-torch or the egubbû-vessel – these were Nusku and Ningirimma
respectively – but she is regularly mentioned in association with them both. Her connection with these
implements is no slighter than is her association with the censer, and so we should understand all three as being
connected to her in the same way. That the three deities Kusu, Girra and Ningirimma553 are regularly spoken of
together is not surprising – all three purify by means of the implements they possess without necessarily
becoming a shorthand reference for the items themselves.
The most logical conclusion we can come to is that as šangamaḫḫu ‘Chief Purification Priest’ of Enlil, Kusu
role required all three implements. The ritual instructions at the end of the anti-witchcraft ceremony mentioned

547
Lambert Unpublished: II 322-323.
548
Walker and Dick 2001: 56, l. 44. Nineveh Ritual text.
549
Walker and Dick 2001: 74 & 78, l. 15. Babylonian Ritual text.
550
Linssen 2004:252 & 256, l. 16.
551
Walker and Dick 2001: 109, l. x+1-x+6.
552
e.g. van Dijk, Goetze & Hussey: 1985.
553
These 3 or a subset of them appear together 7 times in Mīs Pî (Walker and Dick 2001: 53, 11; 60, 105; 64, 146; 67, 202; 75&79, 27;
76&81, 58; 149, 43), twice in Esarhaddon’s royal inscriptions (Leichty 2011: 137, 49’; 324, 9’-10’) twice in the consecration rituals for a
priest of Enlil (Borger 1973: 169 & 173, ll. III 17’-20’; 170 & 174, ll. IV 21-22), and once in a Namburbi incantation (Caplice 1967a: 19 &
20, 12. Caplice reads Kubu for Kusu). This is not an exhaustive list.

Page 132 of 147

above provide a good example of this. The officiant is instructed as follows:
114 115
kīma annâ ana muḫḫi anḫulli taqtabû ina kišādīšu tašakkan ana libbi šamni ša ina napšalti
116 117
taskarinni šaknu ÉN ezzêtta šalāšīšu tamannū-ma kayyān taptannaššaš ina ūmēšu-ma egubbâ
118 119
nignakka gizillâ tušba’ šu-ma ila usalla utnênšu mimma lemnu ul iṭeḫḫēšu šumšu ana damiqti
izzakkar
114 115 116
As soon as you have spoken this over the anḫullu-necklace, you put it around his neck. You
115 116
recite the incantation “You are furious” three times over the oil that is in the boxwood bowl and
117 554
you rub him repeatedly (with it). At the appropriate time, you move the holy water vessel, censer
118
(and) torch past him, and he will appeal to (his) god and pray to him. No evil will approach him;
119
he will be spoken of with favour. 555
Ignoring the specifics, this exactly mirrors Kusu’s behaviour in Mis Pî discussed above – the priest moves the
basin, torch and censer past the patient. This is coupled with the recitation of incantations, which, as another
Mis Pî incantation demonstrates, were also part of Kusu’s repertoire:
29 d
kù-sù sanga4-maḫ-den-líl-lá-ke4 gi-ùri-gal ḫé-x
30
[ka-inim-m]a mu-un-dù-dù nam-šub [ba-an-sum]
31
[mu]-un-sikil-la mu-un-dadag-ga
29
May Kusu, the chief exorcist of Enlil, … the urigallu-reed-structure.
30
She will perform the [incantatio]n, recite the conjuration,
31
purify and cleanse (the urigallu-reed-structure)556
This roughly précises the activity of the ritual instructions in the previous quote – recite incantations, purify and
cleanse. This is Kusu’s sphere of activity and in her performance there is no reason to assume that she takes on
the guise of the censer, any more than she takes on the guise of the torch, the egubbû or the incantations.
There is a strong argument, then, that Kusu and the censer are distinct entities. There are, however, two texts
which appear to contradict this. The first of these is relatively straightforward. It is an esoteric commentary to a
ritual for curing a sick man:557
nignakku (níg.na) gizillû (gi.izi.lá) šá ina bīt lúmarṣi šak-ni
:nignakku (níg.na) dkù-sù gizillû (gi.izi.lá) dnusku
The censor sic and torch placed in the house of the sick man.
:The censor sic is Kusu. The torch is Nusku.558
The purpose of this text is to provide a mythological explanation for a set of ritual practices which were carried
out to treat an illness. The first line gives the ritual action, and the second provides a theological justification –
in this case, a torch and censer were used as part of the ritual. They are identified with their gods – Kusu and
Nusku. As has already been mentioned, Nusku is certainly the numen of the gizillû-torch and as such it is
difficult to see how this text can be describing Kusu as anything other than the numen of the censer. The
purpose of the text should be remembered, however. It is one of a group of very learned commentaries in which
‘there is usually in addition to the artificial connection between the items a genuine connection. The genuine

554
This is omitted from one manuscript.
555
Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 244, ll. 114-119.
556
Walker and Dick 2001: 92-93 & 95, ll. 29-31.
557
Livingstone 1986: 172, 8. Kusu is unnecessarily emended to Kušu in the following discussion (pp. 174 & 184). This is misleading as
Kušu is a completely unrelated figure. He is one of the Asakku-demons, and equated with the scapegoat in CBS 6060, 48 (Livingstone
1986: 179, 48).
558
Livingstone 1986: 172-3, line 8.

Page 133 of 147

connection is speculative, or arises from the basic meaning of the items… there are genuine connections
between the myths and rituals associated in the present texts, as well as the artificial connection based on
symbolism.’559 This provides a reasonable explanation for the text – Kusu is associated with the censer
elsewhere and so, when trying to find a mythological parallel for its use in the ritual, the author fixed upon her.

The second text which appears to identify Kusu as the numen of the censer is the anti-locust incantation,
Zuburudabbeda 17.560 This is not altogether straightforward, as it is necessary to examine several of the
Zuburudabbeda texts before the meaning becomes clear. Zuburudabbeda 17 contains a prayer addressed to be-
lum d˹Kù˺-[sù] ‘Lord Kusu.’ In this incantation, Kusu is seated on a throne 561 and requested to guard a field
against the privations of locusts and other pests. This is an unexpected role for Kusu – it does not seem to match
any of the contexts in which we usually find the deity, and, more fundamentally, the sex of the deity is different.
This apparent peculiarity is almost certainly due to the fragmentary state of the manuscript. Much of the
beginning of the incantation, including the incipit, is lost, as is the context in which it is to be recited. The
evidence of two further Zuburudabbeda incantations, 21 and 24,562 offers a hint at the intention of the text.
Neither of these texts is completely preserved, but enough survives that a logical idea of the situation can be
gleaned. In text 24, the officiant is instructed to build a ‘house of Kusu’ ina qabli (murub4) eqli (a.šà) ‘in the
middle of the field.’563 He must then bury four cakes of zidnušumnu-flour at the corners of the house, set up a
juniper censer facing the sun and libate miḫḫu-beer. At this point, according to George’s restoration, [ana pān
(igi) bīt (é)] dkù-su13 nignak (níg.na) burāši (li) ana a-lu-lu ta-sár-raq ‘sprinkle (incense) [before] Kusu’s
[house] on the censer of juniper for Alulu.’564 We would prefer to restore [ina muḫḫi (ugu) bīt (é)] dkù-su13 ‘on
top of Kusu’s house’ or [i-na ūr (ùr) bīt (é)] dkù-su13 ‘on the roof of Kusu’s house’ in line with the usage in
incantation 21.565 Further, as demonstrated convincingly by Mayer, 566 the rest of the line should be read
nignakka burāša ana alulu tasarraq ‘you sprinkle the censer with juniper for Alulu.’567
The censing is followed by another libation and the recitation of an incantation of Alulu, which does not concern
us here. The next stage of the ritual opens with KIMIN ‘ditto’, presumably referring to the construction and
preparation of the house of Kusu, after which the text is not completely intact. After some unclear action
involving the presentation of four grubs to Kusu, an incantation addressed to a god is to be recited. The incipit
of the incantation is lost, but as the action immediately preceding it involves Kusu and takes place ina ˹mu˺-˹ši˺
‘in the night’568 it seems plausible that the incantation to be recited is that discussed above, preserved in
Zuburudabbeda 17. The incipit of this is also lost, but the ideas expressed in the text fit very closely with what
we might expect. As mentioned above, in this incantation Kusu is seated on a throne and it is requested that he

559
Livingstone 1986: 169.
560
George & Taniguchi 2010: 103ff.
561
George & Taniguchi 2010: 103-104, ll. 7-9. It should be noted that ‘throne’ here is restored.
562
George & Taniguchi 2010: 116, 9-10 and 128, 8-9.
563
George & Taniguchi 2010: 128, 8.
564
George & Taniguchi 2010: 128 & 133, 11-12.
565
George & Taniguchi 2010: 116 & 117, 9’-10’
566
Mayer 1994: 114-115. Mayer has convincingly argued that the commonest variant of this expression, NÍG.NA ŠIM.LI GAR-an, ought to
be normalized as nignakka burāša tašakkan, being a case in point of the verb šakānu with 2 acc. The variant of the expression as
exemplified in this text is a corner-stone of his hypothesis.
567
My thanks to Henry Stadhouders for bringing Mayer’s note to my attention.
568
George & Taniguchi 2010: 128 & 133, 14-15.

Page 134 of 147

1 maṣṣarat (en.nun) [mūši (gi6)? ti-šab-ma?] ‘[sit there] for one watch [of the night?].’569 There follows a
graphic description of the action that the god should take when the ‘great dogs [of Ninkilim]’ 570 (i.e. locusts and
other pests) arrive. He is instructed to

‘10’ Seize their backsides and mount them! 11’

Drive them off and chase them away! 12
’ Smite
13’ 14’
their skulls, turn them back! May they not return by the way they go, may they not come
back by the road they take! ’ May they move with the wind, may they travel with the storm! 16’
15

17’
Seize their road and cut off their path! Seize their teeth, seize their tongues, seize their
18’
weapons! Seize them by the hand and take them away!’571

After this, Kusu’s role in the rituals is over. The situation described, insofar as it is germane to our focus, is
therefore as follows:
A structure is set up in the middle of a field, on which is placed a censer. In the censer juniper and cedar are
burned, and Kusu is incited to chase away pests through the night.
Censing is usually intended to purify, by means of pleasant odour, whatever it is applied to. In this case,
however, we should not understand a simple purification ritual, but a practical attempt to rid the field of pests.
Cedar and juniper contain an essential oil which is deadly to many insects. Pliny the Elder states that papyrus
was often brushed with cedar oil to keep worms away, in the early modern era cedar blanket boxes were used to
prevent moths from damaging fabrics, and cedar oil based pesticides are commonly used by modern gardeners
to protect plants. When the wood is burned, the scent of the oil is carried in the smoke, which, while pleasing to
humans, is repellent to insects. This is doubly effective as smoke, whether cedar scented or not, repels most
insects and is a common method used by modern farmers to ward off swarms of locusts. 572 Perhaps more
important, there is clear evidence that fumigation with juniper was used as a method to deal with locusts in a
letter from a governor of Aššur, Ṭab-ṣilli-Ešarra, to Sargon II:

‘Write where the locusts have laid eggs! They shall fumigate (these areas) with juniper powder (ZÌ du-[p]ur-a-
[ni] ka-ṭi-ra)! At the moment of their hatching they shall overthrow them!’ 573

This is evidently describing a slightly different action than our text, in that the juniper smoke is applied to the
eggs rather than the swarm. The intention in the letter appears to be to have the eggs hatch – perhaps this hints
at an effort towards capturing the live locusts, drowsy from the smoke, in order to eat them. In any case, it is
clear that fumigation with juniper was used as a method to deal with insects in Mesopotamia. This provides the
key to understanding Kusu’s role in the Zuburudabbeda texts.

The ‘house of Kusu’ was placed in the middle of the field, and then a censer of juniper and cedar was placed on
top of it. It is likely that this as the action referred to in line 7’ of the Kusu invocation: ‘I seat you [on a throne

569
George & Taniguchi 2010: 103 & 104, 9’. The restoration is not mentioned in George’s commentary, but seems plausible from the point
of view of sense. Zuburudabbeda incantations aim to stop infestation by field pests, many of which, notably locusts, generally travel at
night.
570
George & Taniguchi 2010: 104, 8’.
571
George & Taniguchi 2010: 104, 10’-18’.
572
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/27/madagascar-locusts-united-nations-food-agriculture-organisation. Note
the last picture especially.
573
SAA 103 ll. 7-13, Radner 2003: 75.

Page 135 of 147

of... Sit there] for one watch [of the night(?)!],’ 574 and therefore we should understand this text as equating Kusu
with the censer. The throne, if this is the correct restoration, is the ‘house of Kusu’. During his watch, Kusu is
instructed to ṭu-ru-su-nu-ti-ma kušus (kur)-su-nu-t[i] ‘drive them (the locusts) off and chase them away.’ 575 In
his commentary576, George notes two instances of the use of the verbs kašādu and ṭarādu with the same sense as
this line, an incantation to Nusku and the names of two protective dog figurines. The first of these is
ud
particularly relevant here: ṭu-ru-ud ú-tuk-ku kušud(kur) lem-nu ‘drive away the utukku-demon, chase off the
wicked!’ Nusku is the god of the torch and is therefore present in the light it emits, as George notes, his ‘light
does not capture evil, but banishes it to the shadows.’ 577 Likewise, Kusu, understood here as numen of the
censer, is present in its emanations and so as the smoke he drives pests away from the field.
The key point for our purposes is that the masculine Kusu in the Zuburudabbeda texts is evidently the deified
censer. The unusual function of the bīt Kusu in the locust texts offers a possible explanation for this. When
mentioned in other ceremonies, its purpose is chiefly to do with purification – specifically the activity carried
out by a šangamaḫḫu. The censer plays a role in this, as do several other pieces of apparatus, but none is
fundamentally more important than the others. In the Zuburudabbeda578 texts, however, the structure functions
essentially as a plinth for the censer. As such, the ‘house of Kusu’ is also the ‘throne’ on which the censer sits.
The ‘house of Kusu’ could not reasonably be thought of as the ‘throne’ of another god, and so the deified censer
had to be Kusu. It could be objected that, as the šangamaḫḫu Kusu is not involved in the action of these rituals,
there is no reason to have named the censer’s plinth a ‘house of Kusu’ unless the censer were already
understood to be Kusu. This is reasonable, but can perhaps be answered by the consideration that any small,
temporary structure on which a juniper censer was set up can hardly have been easily differentiated from a bīt
d
kusu.
Whether or not the reason for Kusu’s identification with the censer in these texts is as we have argued, there
remains a question concerning the sex change from evidenced only in this text. This is perhaps explained by
two instances in which different figures are equated with the censer:
III 72.ma-mit dnin-urta b[e-el? nig/níg?-na]k-ku The sanction (for misconduct) related
? ?
to Ninurta, Lo[rd of the cens]er

39. rik-su dnin.urta Ritual apparatus: Ninurta

d
40. nignakku (níg.na) uraš Censer: Uraš579
The first of these is from Šurpu III, the second from another mythological explanatory work, the compendium
CBS 6060 and its duplicates. The line from Šurpu is not fully preserved in any of the four manuscripts
containing this line, and the restoration is by no means certain. However, the connection between Uraš and the
censer in CBS 6060, though open to the same criticism as the identification of Kusu with censer in BM 34035,
offers some level of confirmation. Ninurta could not be linked with the censer in the compendium as he was
equated with the ritual apparatus generally, and so was replaced with Uraš, one of his most commonly attested
avatars. Why this identification was not also used in BM 34035 is not clear. As in CBS 6060, Ninurta was

574
George & Taniguchi 2010: 104, 7’.
575
George & Taniguchi 2010: 103 & 104, 11’.
576
George & Taniguchi 2010: 104-105, n. 11’.
577
George & Taniguchi 2010: 105, n. 11’.
578
George & Taniguchi 2010: 128 and 133 ll. 8-12.
579
Livingstone 1986: 178-9.

Page 136 of 147

otherwise occupied – here he was identified with gypsum, opposed to the Asakku-demon identified with
bitumen. Uraš, however, is not mentioned in the text.
Livingstone suggests that Ninurta’s equation ‘may be connected with theories in which rites are explained by
myths of the defeat of enemy gods, since Ninurta is the warrior god par excellence.’ 580 In the light of Kusu’s
role in the Zuburudabbeda texts, this also seems a reasonable explanation of Uraš’s connection to the censer,
which Livingstone left unexplained. Ninurta/Uraš as the warrior god who chases demons away is a logical
identification as the deified censer, the purpose of which is precisely that. As such, we are perhaps justified in
understanding the censer Kusu as a form of Ninurta, and therefore necessarily male.
The development of Kusu might be understood as follows:
sù sù su
1. An epithet of the grain goddess Ezina, PA.SIKIL, to be understood kusu or kusux,581 meaning
something like ‘spangled with shining purity.’
2. A grain goddess in her own right due to the deification of the epithet
3. A deity of purification owing to the connotations of her name
a. Female šangamaḫḫu of Enlil, married to Indagar.
b. (Rarely) God of the censer, reinterpreted as masculine possibly due to the identity of Ninurta
with the censer.

To summarise the preceding discussion, it is fairly clear, as has almost always been supposed, that there are two
Kusus, one male and one female. The wrong aspect of Kusu has been marginalised, however. The grain
goddess is, in all likelihood, simply another aspect of the šangamaḫḫu. That is not to say that the grain goddess
was the chief purification priest, per se, but rather that both roles were held by one and the same goddess. This
can perhaps be more easily understood if we consider the analogous case of Ninurta, who was simultaneously
the warrior god par excellence, and a god of farming and agriculture. Both roles were his, but the two were not
enacted together.
Kusu’s other role – the numen of the censer – is not, it seems, as important as has been thought. There is very
little reason to believe that Kusu was generally understood to be the god of the censer. While occasional
identification of Kusu as the deified censer is undeniable, this must have been very limited. The only texts that
make the link either confuse Kusu’s sex or are based on artificial symbolism. The evidence for Kusu’s
relationship with the nignakku-censer is much more readily understood as associating the goddess with her most
notable tool, often together with the gizillû-torch and egubbû-basin, which were of equal utility in the
performance of her purifying duties. As such, while there are technically two Kusus, we should almost certainly
understand the female version to be intended wherever the name is used.

580
Livingstone 1986: 183.
581
Michalowski 1993: 159.

Page 137 of 147

 Conclusion

The aim of this thesis has been to make the text of Šurpu more intelligible. By far the most significant step in
this direction is the proposed reconstruction of the text discussed in the first chapter, in which, alongside sundry
smaller details, it is demonstrated that an entire Tablet has been omitted from all previous editions of the text.
Through reinstating this missing Tablet, it has been possible, for the first time, to get a good sense of the text as
a whole. The knowledge that Šurpu is a four stage ritual not only adds substantially to the text of the series, but
also allows an understanding of parts of the text that previously appeared meaningless, or at least highly
repetitious. Thus, Tablets VII and X can now be appreciated as integral parts of a coherent text. This will
doubtless continue to improve as additional fragments are discovered, but the argument presented in chapter one
provides the first clear explanation of the logic of Šurpu.

From chapter two, the focus switches from the general to the particular. To this end, a new edition of Tablet IX
in partitur, eclectic text and translation is presented. This new edition undoes several misconceptions about the
nature of the text. It is demonstrated that the Tablet consists of a single long incantation and not a string of very
short ones, improving our understanding not only of Šurpu, but of Maqlû and Bīt Salaʾ Mê as well. The
ceremonies detailed in these and other ritual texts were evidently more extensive than they have been
considered, and this will necessarily alter our understanding of the texts. In addition, a number of restorations
are made which demonstrate the essential unity of the text, notably the litany phrase lipṭurūka lipšurūka ašši
gamlīya apaṭṭarakka apaššarakka. The edition benefits from the inclusion of new manuscripts, including
one new join made by the present writer.

The line-by-line commentary in chapter three and the excursus provides the first thorough attempt to explain a
Šurpu Tablet. It is, in effect, a wide-ranging study of realia, in which an array of deities, plants, geographical
features, social mores, and a host of other things are examined. Particularly notable elements of this study are
the discussions of the gods Kusu and Erragal, which have unravelled the apparently conflicting picture
presented in the ancient source material and enabled us to understand these deities as relatively clear cut figures,
and the new interpretation of the word māmītu, which has facilitated a far clearer understanding of the concepts
underlying the lists both here and in Tablet III.

The text of Šurpu is now substantially complete and can be understood as a coherent and logically consistent
work. Tablet IX has been thoroughly examined and the vast majority of the difficulties it presents have been
cleared up. While some problems remain with individual lines, and although the remaining Tablets have not yet
been thoroughly investigated, the fundamental basis of the text is now clear and the groundwork has been laid
for future research.

Page 138 of 147

 Bibliography
Abusch, T. (2002) Mesopotamian Witchcraft (AMD 5), Leiden.
Abusch, T. (2016): The Magical Ceremony Maqlû (AMD 10), Leiden.
Abusch, T. & D. Schwemer (2011): Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals I (AMD 8/1), Leiden.
Abusch, T. & D. Schwemer (2016): Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals II (AMD 8/2), Leiden.
Alster, B. & H. L. J. Vanstiphout (1987): Lahar and Ashnan. Presentation and Analysis of a Sumerian
Disputation. In: Acta Sumerologica 9. 1-43.
Ambos, C. (2004): Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Dresden.
Ambos, C. (2013): Der König im Gefängnis und das Neujahrsfest im Herbst, Dresden.
Ankarloo, B. & S. Clark (2001): General Introduction. In: B. Ankarloo & S. Clark (eds.) Witchcraft and
Magic in Europe: Biblical and Pagan Societies, Philadelphia, xi-xvii.
Arnaud, D. (1987): Recherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI/4: Textes de la bibliothèque, transcriptions et
traductions, Paris.
Austin, J. L. (1962): How to Do Things with Words, Oxford.
Baker, H. D. (2004): The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family (AfO Beiheft 30), Horn.
Beaulieu, P-A. (2005): The God Amurru as Emblem of Ethnic and Cultural Identity. In: W. H. van Soldt (ed.)
Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia (48th RAI Proceedings), Leiden, 31-46.
Beaulieu, P-A. (2014-2016): Uṣur-awāssu. In: RlA 14, 511-512.
Behrens, H. & J. Klein (1998-2000): Ninegalla. In: RlA 9, 342-347.
Bezold, C. (1889): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection I, London.
Bezold, C. (1891): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection II, London.
Bezold, C. (1893): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection III, London.
Bezold, C. (1896): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection IV, London.
Bezold, C. (1899): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection V, London.
Birot, M. (1974): Lettres de Yaqqim Addu (ARMT 14), Paris.
Black, J. et.al. (2004): The Literature of Ancient Sumer, Oxford.
Boivin, O. (2016): On the Origin of the Goddess Ištar-of-the-Sealand, Ayyabītu. In: NABU 2016/1, 24-26.
Böck, B. (2007): Das Handbuch Muššuʾu ‘Einreibung’ (BPOA 3), Madrid
Borger, R. (1970): Vier Grenzsteinurkunden Merodachbaladans I. von Babylon, AfO 23, 1–26.
Borger, R. (1973): Die Weihe eines Enlil-Priesters. In: BiOr 30, 163-176.
Borger, R. (2000): Šurpu II, III, IV und VIII in “Partitur.” In: A.R. George & I. L. Finkel (eds.) Wisdom, Gods
and Literature (FS Lambert), Winona Lake, 15-90.
Borger, R. (2010): Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexicon, Second Edition (AOAT 305), Münster.
Bottéro, J. (1976-1977): Rapports sur les conferences: antiquités assyro-babyloniennes. In: AEPHE 1976/7, 93-
149.
Çağirgan, G. & W. G. Lambert (1991-1993): The Late Babylonian Kislīmu Ritual for Esagil. In: JCS 43, 89-
106.
Cagni, L. (1977): The Poem of Erra (SANE 1/3), Malibu.
Campbell Thompson, R. (1949): A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, London.
Caplice, R. (1967): Namburbi Texts in the British Museum II. In: OrNS 36, 1-38.

Page 139 of 147

Caplice, R. (1970): Namburbi Texts in the British Museum IV. In: OrNS 39, 111-151.
Caplice, R. (1971): Namburbi Texts in the British Museum V. In: OrNS 40, 133-183.
Cavigneaux, A. (1981): Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša harê, Baghdad.
Cavigneaux, A. & F. al-Rawi (2002): Liturgies exorcistiques agraires (Textes de Tell Haddad IX). In: ZA 92, 1-
59.
Cavigneaux, A. & M. Krebernik (1998-2000a): Nin-BÀD-<bar?>-ra. In: RlA 9, 335.
Cavigneaux, A. & M. Krebernik (1998-2000b): Ningublaga. In: RlA 9, 374-376.
Cavigneaux, A. & M. Krebernik (1998-2000c): Nin-maš. In: RlA 9, 468-469.
Cavigneaux, A. & M. Krebernik (1998-2000d): Nin-PIRIG. In: RlA 9, 481-483.
Cavigneaux, A. & M. Krebernik (1998-2000e): Nin-šenšena. In: RlA 9, 487 .
Cavigneaux, A. & M. Krebernik (1998-2000f): Nungal. In: RlA 9, 615-618.
Cavigneaux, A., H. G. Güterbock & M. T. Roth (1985): The Series Erim-ḫuš = anantu and An-ta-gâl = saqû
(MSL 17), Rome.
Charles, M. P. (1990): Traditional Crop Husbandry in Southern Iraq 1900-1960 A.D. In: BSA 5, 47-64.
Charpin, D. (1986): Le Clergé d’Ur au Siècle d’Hammurabi (HEO 22), Geneva
Civil, M. (1969): The Series lú = ša and Related Texts (MSL 12), Rome
Civil, M. (1971): Izi = išātu, Ká-gal = abullu and Níg-ga = makkūru (MSL 13), Rome.
Civil, M. (1979): Ea A = nâqu, Aa A = nâqu with their Forerunners and Related Texts (MSL 14), Rome.
Civil, M. (1987): Feeding Dumuzi’s Sheep: The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration. In: F. Rochberg-
Halton (ed.) Language, Literature and History (FS Reiner, AOS 67), New Haven, 37-55.
Civil, M. (1991): Ur III Bureaucracy: Quantitative Aspects. In: M. Gibson & R. Biggs (eds.) The Organization
of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (SAOC 46), Chicago, 35-45.
Civil, M. (1999): Of Reed Fences and Furrows. In: H. Klengel & J. Renger (eds.) Landwirtschaft im Alten
Orient (BBVO 18), Berlin, 259-264.
Civil, M. (2004): The Series DIRI = (w)atru (MSL 15), Rome.
Clay, A. (1912): Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period (YOSR 1), New Haven.
Cohen, Y. (2013): Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age (WAW 29), Atlanta
Conti, G. (1997): Incantation de l'eau bénite et de l'encensoir et textes connexes. In: MARI 8, 253-272.
Craig, J. A. (1897) Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, Vol. II, Leipzig.
Dalla Francesca, M. R. (2016): Biodiversity, Conviviality and Herbs in the Mediterranean Genus Loci. In: D. F.
Romagnolo & O. I. Selmin Mediterranean Diet: Dietary Guidelines and Impact on Ḫealtḫ and Disease, New
York, 229-238.
Dalley, S. (2009): Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 9),
Bethesda.
de Genouillac, H. (1923): Grande liste de noms divins sumériens, RA 20, 89–106.
del Olmo Lete, G. (2005): Halma of Emar and GLMT of Ugarit: a ‘Dark’ Deity.’ In: Kogan, L. et. al. (eds.)
Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, Winona Lake, 47-59.
Dharani, N. (2006): Field Guide to the Acacias of East Africa, Cape Town.
Durand, J-M. (1987): Noms de dieux sumériens à Mari. In: NABU 1987, 7-8.
Ebeling, E. (1919): Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts, Leipzig.

Page 140 of 147

Ebeling, E. (1938): Enkurkur. In: RlA 3, 382.
Ebeling, E. (1953a): Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Berlin.
Ebeling, E. (1953b): Sammlungen von Beschwörungsformeln. In: ArOr 21, 357-423.
Falkenstein, A. (1931): Die Haupttypen der sumerischen Beschwörung (LSS NF 1), Leipzig.
Farber, W. (1977): Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi, Wiesbaden.
Farber, W. (2014): Lamaštu (MC 18), Winona Lake.
Foster, B. (2005): Before the Muses3, Bethesda.
Frankena, R. (1960): Review of ‘Erica Reiner, 1958, Šurpu.’ In: BiOr 17, 172-174.
Frayne, D. (1990): Old Babylonian Period (RIME 4), Toronto.
Freedman, R. D. (1975): The Cuneiform Tablets in St. Louis, PhD Thesis, Columbia University.
Freedman, S. (1998): If a City is Set on a Height I (OPSNKF 17), Philadelphia
Gabbay, U. (2016): The Eršema Prayers of the First Millennium BC (HES 2), Wiesbaden.
Gadd, C. J. & S. N. Kramer (1966): Ur Excavations Texts VI/2, London.
Gantzert, M. (2011): The Emar Lexical Texts. Vol. 1–3, Maastricht.
Gehlken, E. (2012): Weather Omens of Enūma Anu Enlil (CM 43), Leiden.
Geller, M. J. (1980): The Šurpu Incantations and Lev. V.1-5. In: JSS 25, 181-191.
Geller, M. J. (1990): Taboo in Mesopotamia: A Review Article. In: JCS 42, 105-117.
Geller, M. J. (2000): Incipits and Rubrics. In: A.R. George & I. L. Finkel (eds.) Wisdom, Gods and Literature
(FS Lambert), Winona Lake, 225-258.
Geller, M. J. (2005): Documents of the Incantation Priest: Utukku Lemnūtu. In: I. Spar & W. G. Lambert (eds.)
Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. (CTMMA 2), New York 134-154.
Geller, M. J. (2007): Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkkū Lemnūtu Incantations (SAACT 5), Helsinki.
Geller, M. J. (2016): Healing Magic and Evil Demons (BAM 8), Berlin.
George, A. R. (1991): Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney Smith: Part Two: Prognostic and Diagnostic
Omens, Tablet I. In: RA 85, 137-167.
George, A. R. (1992): Babylonian Topographical Texts (OLA 40), Leuven.
George, A. R. (1993): House Most High (MesCiv. 5), Winona Lake.
George, A. R. (2003): The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Vol. 1, Oxford.
George, A. R. (2015a): On Babylonian Lavatories and Sewers. In: Iraq 77, 75-106.
George, A. R. (2015b): The Gods Išum and Ḫendursanga: Night Watchmen and Street-lighting in Babylonia. In:
JNES 74, 1-8.
George, A. R. (2016): Mesopotamian Incantations and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 32),
Bethesda.
George, A. R. & J. Taniguchi (2010): The Dogs of Ninkilim Part 2: Babylonian Rituals to Counter Field Pests.
In: Iraq 72, 79-148.
Gesche, P. (2000): Schulunterricht in Babylonien, Münster.
Goetze, A. (1947): Old Babylonian Omen Texts (YOS 10), New Haven.
Gordon, E. I. (1967): The Meaning of the Ideogram dKASKALxKUR = "Underground Water-Course" and Its
Significance for Bronze Age Historical Geography. In: JCS 21, 70-88.
Grayson, A. K. (1975a): Two Fragmentary Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. In: Iraq 37, 69-74.

Page 141 of 147

Grayson, A. K. (1975b): Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley.
Guest, E. (ed.) (1966): Flora of Iraq I: Introduction, Baghdad.
Guest, E. & C.C. Townsend (eds.) (1974): Flora of Iraq III: Leguminales, Baghdad.
Gurney, O. R. (1973): Middle Babylonian Legal Texts and Other Documents (UET 7), London.
Gurney, O. R. (1986): Lexical Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. In: M. Civil (ed.) Materials for the Sumerian
Lexicon Supplementary Series I (MSL SS I), Rome, 45-71.
Gurney, O. R. (1989): Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (OECT 11), Oxford.
Gurney, O. R. & J. Finkelstein (1957): The Sultantepe Tablets, Vol. 1 (STT 1), London.
Gurney, O. R. & B. Hulin (1964): The Sultantepe Tablets, Vol. 2 (STT 2), London.
Güterbock, H. G. (1951): The Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text of the Hittite Version of a Hurrian Myth, JCS
5, 135–161.
Halévy, J. (1882): Documents Religieux, Paris.
Hall, M.G. (1985): A Study of the Sumerian Moon God, Nanna Suen, PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Heeßel, N. & F. al-Rawi (2003): Tablets from the Sippar Library XII. A Medical Therapeutic Text. In: Iraq 65,
221-239.
Held, M. (1965): Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography. In: H. G. Güterbock & T. Jacobsen (eds.)
Studies in Honour of Benno Landsberger on his 75 th Birthday (AS 16), Chicago, 395-405.
Hoffner, H. A. (1998): Hittite Myths (Second Edition) (SBL WAW 2), Atlanta.
Horowitz, W. (2014): The Three Stars Each: The Astrolabes and Related Texts (AfO Beiheft 33), Horn.
Hrůša, I. (2010): Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru (AOAT 50), Münster.
Hunger, H. (1976): SpätbabylonischeTexte aus Uruk I (SpTU I), Berlin.
Hunger, H. & Pingree, D. (1989): Mul.Apin (AfO Beiheft 24), Horn.
Ibrahim, K. M. H. A. Hosni & P. M. Peterson (2016): Grasses of Egypt, Washington.
Jacobsen, T. (1987): The Harps that Once… Sumerian Poetry in Translation, New Haven.
Jensen, P. (1884): De Incantementorum Sumerico-Assyriorum Seriei Quae Dicitur Šurbu Tabula VI, I. In: ZK
1, 279-322.
Jensen, P. (1885a): De Incantementorum Sumerico-Assyriorum Seriei Quae Dicitur Šurbu Tabula VI, II. In: ZK
2, 15-61.
Jensen, P. (1885b): Nachträge zur Erklärung der Tafel surbu VI, I. In: ZK 2 306-311
Jensen, P. (1885c): Nachträge zur Erklärung der Tafel surbu VI, II. In: ZK 2 416-425.
Jensen, P. (1886): Nachträge zur Erklärung der Tafel surbu VI, III. In: ZA 1, 52-68.
Jiménez, E. (2016): K.1 on: http://ccp.yale.edu/P237754.
Katz, D. (2004): TMH NF 3, no. 5. In: NABU 2004/2, 37.
King, L. W. (1897): Review of Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion. In: The American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 13, 142-148.
King, L. W. (1898): Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 5 (CT 5), London.
King, L. W. (1909): Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 25 (CT 25), London.
King, L. W. (1910): Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 29 (CT 29), London.
King, L. W. (1914): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum,
Supplement, London.

Page 142 of 147

Knudsen, E. E. (1957): A Version of the Seventh Tablet of Šurpu from Nimrud. In: Iraq 19, 50-54.
Koch, H. (1995): Theology and Worship in Elam and Achaemenid Iran. In: J. M. Sasson (ed.) Civilisations of
the Ancient Near East III, New York, 1,959-1,971.
Koch, J. (1993): Das Sternbild mulmaš-tab-ba-tur-tur. In: H. D. Galter (eds.) Die Rolle der Astronomie in den
Kulturen Mesopotamiens, Graz, 185-198.
Koch, U. (2005): Secrets of Extispicy (AOAT 326), Münster.
Koch-Westenholz, U. (1995):Mesopotamian Astrology (CNI 19), Copenhagen.
Köcher, F. (1954): Zur zweiten und dritten Tafel der Beschwörungsserie Šurpu. In: MIO 2, 218-244.
Köcher, F. (Unpublished): Uruanna.
Konstantopoulos, G. (2015): They Are Seven: Demons and Monsters in the Mesopotamian Textual and Artistic
Tradition, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan.
Kramer, S. N. (1977): The Ur Excavations and Sumerian Literature. In: Expedition Magazine 20.1,
Philadelphia, 41-47.
Krebernik, M. (2003-2005a): Pabilsag(a). In: RlA 10, 160-169.
Krebernik, M. (2003-2005b): dPalil (IGI.DU). In: RlA 10, 281.
Krebernik, M. (2003-2005c): dPa(p)-niğara. In: RlA 10, 325-326.
Krebernik, M. (2006-2008a): Qudma (Qudumu), Qadma. In: RlA 11, 190-191.
Krebernik, M. (2006-2008b): Richtergott(heiten). In: RlA 11, 354-361.
Krebernik, M. (2014): Ububu(l). In: RlA 14, 269.
Krecher, J. (1966): Sumerischer Kultlyrik, Wiesbaden.
Labat, R. (1976): Manuel d’Épigraphie Akkadienne, Paris.
Laessøe, J. (1955): Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bīt rimki, Copenhagen.
Lambert, W. G. (1957-1970): Götterlisten. In RlA 3, 473-479.
Lambert, W. G. (1959-1960): Two Notes on Šurpu. In: AfO 19, 122.
Lambert, W. G. (1960): Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford.
Lambert, W. G. (1966): Ancient Near Eastern Seals in Birmingham Collections. In: Iraq 28, 64-83.
Lambert, W. G. (1969): The Reading of the God Name dKA.DI. In: ZA 59, 100-103.
Lambert, W. G. (1971): The Converse Tablet: A Litany with Musical Instructions. In: H. Goedicke (ed.) Near
Eastern Studies in Honour of William Foxwell Albright (FS Albright), Baltimore, 335-354.
Lambert, W. G. (1974): Dingir.šà.dib.ba Incantations. In: JNES 33, 267-322.
Lambert, W. G. (1976–1980a): Išar-āliššu, Išar-kidiššu, Išar-mātiššu, Išar-NEriššu. In: RlA 5, 173.
Lambert, W. G. (1976–1980b): Isimu (Us(u)mû). In: RlA 5, 179.
Lambert, W. G. (1976–1980c): Ištarān. In: RlA 5, 211
Lambert, W. G. (1980-1983): Laguda. In: RlA 6, 430-431.
Lambert, W. G. (1985): A List of Gods’ Names Found at Mari. In: J-M. Durand & J. R. Kupper (eds.)
Miscellanea Babyloniaca (FS Birot), Paris, 181-189.
Lambert, W. G. (1987-1990a): Lugal-dimmer-ankia. In: RlA 7, 132-133.
Lambert, W. G. (1987-1990b): Lulal/Lātarāk. In: RlA 7, 163-164.
Lambert, W. G. (1987-1990c): Manziʾat/Mazziʾat/Mazzât/Mazzêt. In RlA 7, 344-346.
Lambert, W. G. (1990a): A New Babylonian Descent to the Netherworld. In T. Abusch et al. (Eds.) Lingering

Page 143 of 147

 over Words (FS Moran), Atlanta, 289-300.
Lambert, W. G. (1990b): Tears of Ningišzida. In: NABU 1990/4, 105.
Lambert, W. G. (1997): Sumerian Gods: Combining the Evidence of Texts and Art. In: I. L. Finkel & M. J.
Geller (eds.) Sumerian Gods and their Representations (CM 7), Groningen.
Lambert, W. G. (1999–2000): Literary Texts from Nimrud, AfO 46–47, 149–155.
Lambert, W. G. (2007): An Exotic Babylonian God-List. In: M. Roth et. al. Studies Presented to Robert D.
Biggs (AS 27), Chicago, 167-172.
Lambert, W. G. (2009): Babylonian Oracle Questions (MC 13), Winona Lake.
Lambert, W. G. (2013): Babylonian Creation Myths (MC 16), Winona Lake.
Lambert, W. G. (Unpublished): An=Anum I, II, III and V.
Lambert, W. G. & A. R. Millard (1969): Atra-ḫasīs, Oxford.
Landsberger, B. & E. Reiner (1970): The Series ḪAR.ra = ḫubullu XVI, XVII, XIX (MSL 10), Rome.
Langdon, S. (1913-1923): Miscellanea Assyriaca III. In: Babyloniaca 7, 93-99.
Langdon, S. (1915): A Fragment of a Series of Ritualistic Prayers to Astral Deities in the Ceremonies of
Divination. In: RA 12, 189-192.
Langdon, S. (1931): Assyrian Syllabaries and Other Texts. In: RA 28, 117-141.
Legrain, L. (1937): Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur (UET 3), London/Pennsylvania.
Leichty, E. (2011): The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC) (RINAP 4), Winona
Lake.
Linssen, M. J. H. (2004): The Cults of Uruk and Babylon (CM 25), Leiden.
Linssen, M. J. H. (2008): Unpublished Fragments from the Burning Ritual Series (Šurpu) in the British
Museum. In: R. J. van der Spek (ed.) Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society (FS Stol),
Bethesda, 47-52.
Linton, D. (1976): The Series Sag.gig.ga.meš and Related Incantations, PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham.
Litke, R. (1998): A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, A n : dA-nu-um and A n : Anu ša amēli
(TBC 3), New Haven.
Livingstone, A. (1986): Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars,
Oxford.
Livingstone, A. (1999): The Magic of Time. In: T. Abusch & K. van der Toorn (eds.) Mesopotamian Magic
(AMD 1), Groningen, 131-138.
Lutz, H. F. (1919): Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts (PBS 1/2), Pennsylvania.
Maekawa, K. (1990): Cultivation Methods in the Ur III Period. In: BSA 5, 115-145.
Maul, S.M. (1994): Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der
babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Mainz am Rhein.
Maul, S. M. (2004): Lösung von Bann. In: M. Horstmanshoff & M. Stol (eds.) Magic and Rationality in Ancient
Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine (SAM 27), Leiden, 79-96.
Maul, S. M. & R. Strauß (2011): Ritualbeschreibungen und Gebete I (KAL 4), Wiesbaden.
Mayer, W. (1994): Akkadische Lexikographie: "CAD" Š/1. In: OrNS 63, 111-120.
McEwan, G. J. P. (1983): dMUŠ and Related Matters. In: OrNS 52, 215-229
Meier, G. (1941-1944): Die Zweite Tafel der Serie bīt mēseri. In AfO 14, 140-152.

Page 144 of 147

Meissner, B. (1896
Meissner, B. (1903): Meluḫḫa. In: OLZ 6, 266-267.
Michalowski, P. (1985): On Some Early Sumerian Magical Texts. In: OrNS 54, 216-225.
Michalowski, P. (1987): Lisin. In: RlA 7, 32-33.
Michalowski, P. (1998-2000): Nisaba A. In: RlA 9, 575-579.
Michalowski, P. (1993): The Torch and the Censer. In: M. Cohen, D. Snell and D. Weisberg (eds.) The Tablet
and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda, 152–162.
Molina, M. & M. Such-Guttierez (2004): On Terms for Cutting Plants and Noses in Ancient Sumer. In: JNES
63, 1-16.
Murphy, D. J. (2008): A review of the classification of Acacia (Leguminosae, Mimosoideae). In: Muelleria
26/1, 10-26.
Myhrman, D. W. (1911): Babylonian Hymns and Prayers (PBS 1/1), Pennsylvania.
Ormsby, D. L. (1972): An Old Babylonian Business Archive of Historical Interest. In: JCS 24, 89-99.
Oshima, T. (2011) Babylonian Prayers to Marduk (ORA 7), Tübingen.
Panoyotov, S. (2013): A Copper Bell to Expel Demons? In: NABU 2013/3, 80-87.
Parpola, S. & K. Watanabe (1988): Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2), Helsinki.
Pasiecznik, N. (2001): The Prosopis Juliflora-Prosospis Pallida Complex: A Monograph, Coventry.
Paulus, S. (2014): Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen
Zeit (AOAT 51), Münster.
Perry, E. G. (1907): Hymnen und Gebete an Sin, Leipzig.
Peterson, J. (2009a): Godlists from Old Babylonian Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia (AOAT
362), Münster.
Peterson, J. (2009b): A Sumerian Literary Fragment Involving the God Irḫan. In: NABU 2009/2, 51-52.
Pinches, T. G. (1893): The New Version of the Creation Story. In: E. D. Morgan (ed.) Transactions of the Ninth
International Congress of Orientalists, Volume II, London, 190-198.
Pinches, T. G. (1904): Sapattu, the Babylonian Sabbath. In PSBA 26, 51-57.
Pinches, T. G. (1926): Assyriological Trifles by a Handicapped Assyriologist. In: C. Adler & A. Ember (eds.)
Oriental Studies dedicated to Paul Haupt, Baltimore.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1994): Ina Šulmi Irub (BaF 16), Mainz.
Radner, K. (2003): Ritual Locust Control in SAA 1 103. In: NABU 2003/3, 74-76.
Rawlinson, H. C. & Norris, E. (1866): The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (II R), London.
Rawlinson, H. C. & Smith, G. (1875): The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (IV R1), London.
Rawlinson, H. C. & Pinches, T (1891): The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (IV R2), London.
Rawlinson, H. C. & Pinches, T. (1909): The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (VR), London.
Reade, J. (1986): Introduction. In: E. Leichty, Tablets from Sippar 1 (CBT 6), London, i-xxxvi.
Reiner, E. (1956): Lipšur Litanies. In: JNES 15, 129-149
Reiner, E. (1958): Šurpu (AfO Beiheft 11), Graz.
Reiner, E. (1974): A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ. In: JNES 33, 221-236
Reiner, E. (1995): Astral Magic in Babylonia (TAPS 85/4), Philadelphia.
Richter, T. (2014): Tutu. In: RlA 14, 241-242.

Page 145 of 147

Robson, E. (1999): Mesopotamian Mathematics, 2100-1600 B.C. (OECT 14), Oxford.
Roth, M. T. (1997): Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Second Edition (WAW 6), Atlanta.
Rouault, O. (1979): Les Documents Épigraphiques de la Troisieme Saison. In: SMS 2/7, 1-12.
Sandowicz, M. (2012): Oaths and Curses (AOAT 398), Münster.
Scheil, V. (1905): Textes Élamites-Sémitiques (MDP 6), Paris.
Scheil, V. (1916): Notules. In: RA 16, 125-142.
Schroeder, O. (1920): Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Verschiedenen Inhalts (KAV), Leipzig.
Schuster-Brandis, A. (2008): Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel (AOAT 46), Münster.
Schwemer, D. (2007): Abwehrzauber und Behexung, Wiesbaden.
Schwemer, D. (2008): The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis and Recent Studies. Part
2, JANER 8/1, 1–44.
Scurlock, J. (2014): Sourcebook for Ancient Mesopotamian Medicine (WAW 36), Atlanta.
Seux, M-J. (1976): Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, Paris.
Sigrist, R. M. (1984): Les sattukku dans l’Ešumeša durant la periode d’Isin et Larsa (BiMes 11), Malibu.
Simons, F. (2016): The God Alammuš dLÀL / d.mùšLÀL. In: NABU 2016/1, 8-10.
Simons, F. (2017a): Alammuš Redux. In NABU 2017/1, 8-13.
Simons, F. (2017b): A new join to the Hurro-Akkadian version of the Weidner God List from Emar (Msk
74.108a + Msk 74.158k). In: AoF 44, 1-17?
Sjöberg, Å, W. & E. Bergmann (1969): The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns, Locust Valley.
Smith, G. (1870): Babylonian and Assyrian Libraries. In: The North British Review 51/102, 161-169.
Smith, S. A. (1887): Miscellaneous Assyrian Texts of the British Museum, Leipzig.
Steinkeller, P. (1982): The Mesopotamian God Kakka. In: JNES 41, 289-294.
Stol, M. (1979): On Trees (EOL 21), Leiden.
Stol, M. (1988): Old Babylonian Fields. In: BSA 4, 173-188.
Stol, M. (1993-1995): Milch(produkte) A. In: RlA 8, 189-200.
Streck, M. P. (1983): Kudurrus Schwur vor Muštēšir-Ḫabli. In: ZA 83, 61-65.
Streck, M. P. (2001a): Ninurta/Ningirsu A. In: RlA 9512-522.
Streck, M. P. (2001b): Nusku. in RlA 9, 629-633.
Streck, M. P. (2014-2016): Vegetationsgott(heiten) A I. In: RlA 14, 531-532.
Talbot, W. H. F. (1873): On the Religious Beliefs of the Assyrians III. In: Transactions of the Society of
Biblical Archaeologists, 2, 50-79.
Tallqvist, K. (1905): Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, Helsinki.
Thomsen, M. L. (2001): Witchcraft and Magic in Ancient Mesopotamia. In: B. Ankarloo & S. Clark (eds.)
Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Biblical and Pagan Societies, Philadelphia, 1-95.
van Buren, E. D. (1934): The God Nigizzida. In: Iraq 1, 60-89.
van der Toorn, K. (1985): Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia, Maastricht.
van Dijk, J, A. Goetze and M. I. Hussey (1985): Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals (YOS 11), New
Haven.
Veldhuis, N. (1997): Elementary Education at Nippur, Groningen.
von Weiher, E. (1983): Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk II (SpTU 2), Mainz am Rhein.

Page 146 of 147

von Weiher, E. (1988): Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk III (SpTU 3), Mainz am Rhein.
von Weiher, E. (1998): Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U. 18 (SpTU 5), Mainz am Rhein.
Walker, C. & M. Dick (2001): The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia (SAALT 1), Helsinki.
Wasserman, N. (2010): From the Notebook of a Professional Exorcist. In: D. Shehata et al (eds.) Von Göttern
und Menschen (FS Groneberg, CM 41), Leiden, 329-350.
Wee, J. Z. (2016): A Late Babylonian Astral Commentary on Marduk’s Address to the Demons. In: JNES 75,
127-167.
Weidner, E. (1924-1925): Altbabylonische Götterlisten. In: AfK (AfO) 2, 1-18 & 71-82.
Weidner, E. (1945-1951): Ein neues Bruchstück der Serie Šurpu Tafel IV. In: AfO 15, 80.
White, G., Self, M. & Blyth, S. (2013): Reed management handbook: Bringing reed beds to life – creating and
managing reed beds for wildlife. Sandy.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1981-1982): Exit Talim! Studies in Babylonian Demonology I. In: JEOL 27, 90-105.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1989): Tišpak, His Seal and the Dragon Mušḫuššu. In: O.M.C. Haex et al (eds.) To the
Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N van Loon, Rotterdam, 117-133.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1997): Transtigridian Snake Gods. In: I. L. Finkel & M. J. Geller (ed.), Sumerian Gods
and their Representations (CM 7), Groningen, 33–55.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1998-2000a): Nergal A. In: RlA 9, 215-223.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1998-2000b): Nin-šubur. In: RlA 9, 490-500.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1998-2000c): Niraḫ, Irḫan. In: RlA 9, 570-574.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (2011-2012): Sumuqan. In: RlA 13, 308-309.
Woods, C. (2004): The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-Apla-Iddina Revisited. In: JCS 56, 23-104.
Zimmern, H. (1896): Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion, Erste Lieferung, Leipzig.
Zimmern, H. (1901): Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion, Leipzig.
Zimmern, H. (1914): Zu den Maqlû, Šurpu und Šuila Beschwörungen. In: ZA 28, 67-74.
Zimmern, H. (1915-1916): Zu den «Keilschrifttexten aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts». In: ZA 30, 184-229.

Page 147 of 147