Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
A newly reconstructed manuscript of the Sumerian Flood Story from Old Babylonian Ur furnishes us with further content of the composition, most notably the divine appointment of the first king, Alulim of Eridu. It appears that this text contained an etiology for the pervasive royal image of the king as shepherd of the people.
Melammu Workshops and Monographs 2, 2019
The Sun-god's particular patronage of the legendary first dynasty of Uruk is well documented in the Sumerian epic tradition, even as evidence for the veneration of the god in this city is minimal. It is argued here that the Sun-god's special status is part of a broader network of relationships centering upon the goddess Inana, which sought to identify the kings-of Uruk and later of Ur-not only with her lover, Dumuzi, but also with her twin brother, Utu, thereby doubly affirming their bond with the patroness of Uruk. The equation of the ostensibly contradictory roles of lover and brother, a unity of opposites, motivates aspects of the imagery and metaphorical language of the Uruk I epic cycle. * I am indebted to Nicole Brisch, Monica Crews, and Jennie Myers for their comments, suggestions, and assistance. Citations of Sumerian literary texts follow Black et al. 1998-2006, with the following abbreviations for literary sources: DG = Death of Gilgamesh, EE = Enmerkar and Ensuhkeshdana, ELA = Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, GA = Gilgamesh and Aka, GBH = Glgamesh and the Bull of Heaven, GEN = Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld, GHa = Gilgamesh and Huwawa A, GHb = Gilgamesh and Huwawa B, LB1 = Lugalbanda 1, LB2 = Lugalbanda 2, SKL = Sumerian King List. The abbreviations of publications used are those of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and/or The Sumerian Dictionary of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Citations and translations of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (Gilg.) follow George 2003.
Aula Orientalis, 2008
L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà, J. Sanmartín (edd.), Time and History in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona, 26-30 July 2010, Winona Lake, Indiana: EISENBRAUNS 2013, 635-644.., 2013
This paper proposes to investigate three aspects of the highest political office of the Sumerian city of Ur at the very beginning of the third pre-Christian millenium, between the very inauguration of Ur as the land’s first-rate political center at the beginning of the 3rd millenium and the regnal period of king Mesannepada of Ur and Kish (2563–2524 b.c.e.).
Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(4), 2002
G.B. Lanfranchi, R. Rollinger (Eds.) The Body of the King. The Staging of the Body of the Institutional Leader from Antiquity to Middle Ages in East and West Proceedings of the Meeting Held in Padova, July 6th‒9th, 2011 History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs Vol. 16, 2016
Kings, Gods and People Establishing Monarchies in the Ancient World, 2016
When the Akkadian empire lost its pre-eminence during the chaotic rule of the last kings of the Akkade Dynasty, the Gutians became the most important rulers and the dominant element in Mesopotamia. The paper discusses and interprets different available sources that allow making conclusions about the formation of the Neo Sumerian state. It is concluded that the versions of the Sumerian King List and the Sumerian Temple Hymns that considered Eridu the first city might all have been developed as an ideological programme for confirming the legitimate status of the city of Ur as the seat of kingship and for underlining the Ur III dynasty’s certain divine genealogical relations. It is argued that it seems stange that the Sumerian King List does not mention any dynasty of the powerful Lagašite kings. The complete omittance of Lagaš leads to the conclusion that the list might have been composed by an ideology that considered Lagaš as its enemy or rival. As testified by the Utu-hegal inscriptions and the later incorporation of the state of Lagaš under the control of the centralized Ur III empire, the kings of Ur had a serious rivalry and most probably violent confrontation with Lagaš.
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1983
The Ancient Near East Today 4/11, 2016
KASKAL, 2017
Modern historians of ancient Mesopotamia are chiefly concerned with the deeds of the kings and mainly use sources which reflect conditions at the apex of Mesopotamian society. This paper attempts to investigate possible traces of discontent and opposition as well as the criteria involving the loss of the legitimacy of power in Early Mesopotamia. We will deal with two major types of sources: the early curse formulas in "royal" inscriptions, and the school-based tradition of Sumerian proverbs. Especially the latter allow for a more socially-balanced understanding of history.
Editions of Cuneiform Texts II (Oxford, 1923), no. 444, pp. 13 if.; pis. I-IV. A definitive critical edition was produced by T. Jacobsen, incorporating supplementary material, as The Sumerian King List, Assyriological Studies 11 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1939). Cf. A. L. Oppenheim in ANET 265. 2 G. Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: Allen and Un win, 1964) 97. 3 There is some debate about the dating. See M. B. Rowton, "The Date of the Sumerian King List," JNES 19 (1960) 156-162; CAH 1/6 (2d ed., 1962) 30-31; C. J. Gadd in CAH 1/13 (2d ed., 1962) 15-17. 4 Since the earliest traces of Sumerian culture have been recovered from the site of Eridu, this statement is of more than ordinary significance. 5 Usually identified with Tell Medain near Telloh. 6 Possibly Tell el-Wilaya near Kut el-Imara. 7 The modern Abu Habba, twenty miles southwest of Baghdad. 8 Identified with Tell Fara, some forty miles southeast of Diwaniyah.
Some Sumerian narratives include an appeal for help to the sun god. Interestingly, only in an OB version of Dumuzi's appeal the sun god appears as judge.
Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires [N.A.B.U.], 2023
texts, seems to be more of an epithet than a divine name; the god's actual name does not appear in these texts, nor in any other legal or administrative text from the late Achaemenid period. However, a compilation of esoterica, commonly referred to as the Nippur Compendium (GEORGE 1992: 143-162), will shed some light on the matter. The Nippur Compendium (nibru ki ní.bi.ta dù.a) is known primarily from two late Babylonian manuscripts (IM 44150; IM 76975) with the same structure and content, and three additional, smaller tablets, two of which come from Nineveh (K 2892+ K 8397; K 10062) and the third one is a late Babylonian excerpt tablet (BM 38413, GEORGE 1992: 145-146). 2) The text begins with a listing of the names and titles for the city of Nippur and its main temple, Ekur, followed by a list of deities. This list, in which each deity is represented as 'lord of (my) city + of place name', occurs only in the two late Babylonian manuscripts, and is of particular interest to our case as it contains a series of 'dieux topiques' and their localities. Among the legible place names in the list, we find the lords of Borsippa and Dēr, but also deities of smaller settlements in the region between Uruk and Nippur, such as the lords of Šalammu and Kār-Ninurta (GEORGE 1992: 150: 19'; 21'; 24'). 3) Interestingly, the list happens to mention a deity by the name of Erimabinutuku, who is designated as the 'dieu topique' (bēl-āliya) of a place named uru sá.sá.érim (GEORGE 1992: §7, 22'). We suggest to slightly emend the reading of the toponym to sá.di.érim (sá=di), because this spelling (sá.di.érim) stands for the city of Šāṭir, as demonstrated by the late 5 th century BCE text TÉBR 32 (ll. 11 and 14). As noted earlier, the 'dieux topiques' section in the Nippur Compendium, refers not only to Šāṭir, but also to several other sites in the region between Nippur and Uruk, such as Šalammu and Kār-Ninurta, which, like Šāṭir, were still inhabited in the 5 th century BCE. Thus, our suggestion matches the evidence in the section on 'dieux topiques' in the Nippur Compendium in more than one way: they share the same spelling for Šāṭir (sá.di.érim), the same geographical horizon, and the same chronological framework. If we come back to the question of the identity of Lord-of-Šāṭir, it is now clear that according to the Nippur Compendium the deity Erimabinutuku is the Lord-of-Šāṭir. Despite the scarcity in textual sources regarding Erimabinutuku, the Sumerian composition Angim, allows us a better understanding of his nature. According to Angim, Erimabinutuku, the worshipped entity of Šāṭir, is named after one of Ninurta's divine weapons known 'to have established the people in heaven and earth' (COOPER 1978: 82, 146; GEORGE 1992: 447). Notes 1. See, for example, the case of 'Bēl-ālīya-ša-Šarrabānu'('lord-of-my-city-of-Šarrabānu', Baker 2004: 127:128). The city was also located in Bīt-Amukānu.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 2018
This article studies the lives of two men pivotal in the history of (Old Babylonian) Babylon: Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El. Sumu-abum was an Amorite tribal and military leader who led groups of Amorite warriors between ca. 1890 and 1860 BCE. He managed to conquer large swaths of northern Babylonian and the Lower Diyala region. In the wake of these conquests, numerous small Amorite kingdoms were set up by his subordinates. The most important one was Sumu-la-El (1880-1845 BCE), who founded the First Dynasty of Babylon. After Sumu-abum's death, Sumu-la-El subjugated several other petty kings in Babylon's vicinity and built a string of fortresses around his territory. Through his actions he formed the core of the Babylonian kingdom.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Jeremiah Peterson