Here A God There A God Conceptions of Di PDF

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1, 68107
Michael B. Hundley
Here a God, There a God:

An Examination of the Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia 1
Abstract
Much ink has been spilled on the examination of Mesopotamian conceptions of the divine in the past,
and the topic has received renewed attention in the present. The following article offers yet another
synthetic analysis of the Mesopotamian divine sphere, amassing in one place a vast array of data and the
scholarly assessments of that data. More particularly, after examining what constitutes a god in ancient
Mesopotamia and the essential and characteristic qualities of Mesopotamian deities, the article attempts
to sort the divine sphere, focusing on the relationship between the various beings that populate the
divine world and between a single deity and its various aspects. However, although synthetic, the present
contribution offers several new insights. Most prominently, it posits the concept of divine constellations
as a model for understanding Mesopotamian deities, in which the major Mesopotamian deities are
presented as a constellation of aspects that may be treated as (semi-)independent beings or as a unity
depending on the context.
Keywords: Mesopotamian Gods, Divinity, Deification, Ancient Near Eastern Panthea, Anthropomorphism
The divine is seemingly ubiquitous in Mesopotamian society, yet despite its all-pervasiveness, it remains conceptually elusive.2 The divine sphere is vast and complex, such
that it is hard to delimit and to distinguish between its various parts. In fact, there is no
simple answer to even the most basic question: what is a god?3 The divine world is also
characterized by a fluidity not found in modern western religions. For example, Istar of
Arbela, Istar of Nineveh, and Istar the planet Venus are all Istar, yet in different contexts
are treated as different Istars.4 In addition, although the divine is present seemingly every1
I would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for providing me the time and resources to finish this study and Friedhelm Hartenstein for his helpful feedback.
Its richness and complexity have also interested the modern mind (see, e.g., the classic treatments of
Jacobsen 1976 and Bottro 2001). The term elusive has been applied to the biblical god by Terrien
(1978).
In Porter (2009a), various scholars ask and attempt to answer this question without coming to any
consensus.
A major part of Allens dissertation (2011) addresses the relationship between the multiple attestations of Istar.
DOI 10.1524/aof.2013.0005
Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1
69
where, Mesopotamians themselves make little attempt to systematically unravel its complexities. As such, modern scholarly attempts to do so in some ways go against the grain of
ANE thinking and thus are somewhat artificial. Even the term Mesopotamia itself is
somewhat artificial, as various cultures populated what we classify as ancient Mesopotamia
and perspectives varied within and across cultures, both synchronically and diachronically.
We thus cannot expect a synthesis of Mesopotamian perspectives to accurately reflect the
perspective(s) of every place at every time.5 Nevertheless, despite all of these deficiencies,6
fruitful generalizations may be made that allow the modern mind (limited) access into the
complex and contoured ancient Mesopotamian conceptions of the divine sphere, which
have exerted a significant influence on the Bible, the rest of ANE, and the modern West.7
To this end, the following article offers a synthetic study8 of the divine sphere in Mesopotamia, bringing together in one place a vast array of data and research on this important
topic. Rather than claiming to be the last word on the matter, it attempts to arrange the
various pieces into a more-or-less coherent and understandable system, providing an orientation and interpretive framework to facilitate further discussion.9 Although synthetic and
expansive in scope, it nonetheless offers several insights of its own along the way, most
prominently in positing the concept of divine constellations to explain the Mesopotamian
conceptions of the divine world, in which the major Mesopotamian gods consist of a constellation of aspects that may be treated (semi-)independently or as an unity depending on
the context.
Conceptual Background
Mesopotamian conceptions of divinity may be informed by aspective theory, which contends that ancient Near Easterners tend to focus on individual aspects and on representing
those aspects in their fullness, often at the expense of the whole.10 In order to present the
5
10
Despite the diversity, a remarkable conservatism of religious expression and practice emerges, such
that fruitful generalizations may be made, generalizations that allow for exceptions and multiple alternative perspectives. Lambert (1990: 123), e.g., contends that no major changes took place over history
except in the organization of the gods into a pantheon, and except where cities completely died out
and ceased to be inhabited. Although somewhat optimistic, Lamberts claim nonetheless has a substantial grain of truth to it.
Note esp. Oppenheims famous Why a Mesopotamian Religion Should Not be Written (1977:
171183).
An opinion shared by Assyriologists, as indicated by steady publications on the topic (see, e.g., Porter
2009a).
Synthetic in the sense that it attempts to synthesize a vast array of deities and in that it is a somewhat
artificial undertaking.
Although generally applicable to all of Mesopotamia, at least non-Sumerian Mesopotamia, the
following study is especially suited to the first millennium, with slightly more attention to Assyrian
evidence than to Babylonian.
See Brunner-Traut (1990). In positing the theory, Brunner-Traut builds on the work of her mentor,
H. Schfer (1963). In the present analysis, only an aspect of her aspective theory is promoted, namely
her assertion that the Egyptians and ANE people focused especially on individual aspects. Other
elements of her presentation are more questionable. For example, her evolutionary model of develop-
70
Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God
whole, especially when it is complex, they frequently amass and juxtapose various individual elements, most often without systematically attempting to fit those elements into a
consistently articulated, all-encompassing organic unity.11 In fact, they focus on the individual aspects or elements to such an extent and with such an attention to capturing them in
all their fullness that they are often conceived of as (semi-) independent.12
By contrast, a perspectival approach, more characteristic of the modern West, focuses on
the larger organic whole, such that the individual elements are subordinated, perhaps even
distorted, to present the whole as a unity. In art, the perspectival approach attempts to
portray the world as it appears visually, i.e., like a photograph, which gives the illusion of
three dimensions on two dimensional canvas (Brunner-Traut 1990: 8). The picture prompts
its viewer to view it as a whole. When individual parts are examined, it becomes apparent
that certain elements are shortened in pursuit of this end. For example, when drawing a
cube, accuracy demands that all sides be equal and all angles 90 degrees. Yet, in order to
depict the dimensionality of a cube on paper, one must compromise these rules, even
though they are essential to the definition of a cube.
These contrasting perspectives likewise apply to the divine realm and may be helpful in
comparing a typical ANE approach to the divine with its modern Western counterpart. Influenced by the aspective approach, Mesopotamian deities are characterized by a fluidity13
that, to the modern mind, is maddeningly inconsistent, or worse, embarrassingly primitive.
Conversely, the modern holistic approach often concerns itself with presenting the whole
according to the dictates of Western logic, and with logically fitting every aspect into that
whole no matter how unnatural the fit. In order to present a consistent whole, the whole
and the place of the individual aspects must be understood and logically articulated. However, rather than embracing this approach, the ANE thinker would likely find such categorizations maddeningly restrictive or, worse yet, the height of hubris.14 In fact, the ancient
perspective finds some backing in the nature of religious language, namely, in the classical
problem of trying to define and describe the supernatural divine in natural, human terms
that the divine, by definition, transcends.15
11
12
13
14
15
ment and the association of ANE people with children, the mentally ill, and the untrained are problematic, as is her general exclusion of the Egyptian understanding of the parts as part of the whole
(regarding the latter, see Assmanns critique 2001: 3436).
As we will see, although in many contexts they focus on the individual aspects, in other contexts there
is a tendency to view the deity as an organic unity (e.g., in the context of mythology).
This is not to say that there is no room for systematic thinking in ancient Mesopotamia (see, e.g.,
the god list An = Anum). Rather, aspective theory explains a prominent aspect of their approach to
divinity.
See below under Sorting the Divine Sphere for an explanation of this fluidity.
In ancient Egypt, e.g., unity is an undesirable quality that refers to the undifferentiated mass (the nonexistent) from which creation emerged and which continues to threaten the ordered world. By contrast, all that is created is diverse, multiple. Indeed, the more diverse a being, the more potent and
important that being becomes. For example, creator gods divided or multiplied themselves into millions, while other important gods are commonly referred to as rich in manifestations (Hornung
1982: 125126, 170185).
On the nature and complexity of religious language, see, e.g., Soskice (1985).
71
Viewed through this lens, the modern effort to define the divine, to logically understand
the whole and its parts, is problematic from the start. Although many modern scholars are
careful in their classifications, they often end up categorizing the divine in binary terms
with consistent abstract principles. Such clear and consistent categories consistently limit
the deity so carefully described and are consistently distant from the complex textual
portraits.
By contrast, ANE texts make little attempt to systematically define or categorize the
divine. Rather than searching for a single all-encompassing presentation of deities and
applying it to all contexts, the Mesopotamian approach is context-specific. In presenting
deities, as we will see, they stress the most effective strategy for each context, without
undue concern whether their presentation in one context fully aligns with their presentation in other contexts.16 When attempting to present the whole, they recognize that any
representation is merely an approximation and thus pile on approximates in the hopes of
approaching plenitude. Rather than attempt and fail to sufficiently describe the whole, they
accumulate various aspects. They adopt a multiplicity of approaches (Frankfort 1948: 4)
in order to better encapsulate the complex divine and the complexity of perceived human
encounters with it in its various aspects in various locales. Their concern lies not in strictly
defining a deity nor in logically unifying all of its perceived aspects, since for them no
description or portrait of a deity in its fullness exists or can exist.17 Rather they are often
concerned with not neglecting any single aspect, and by extension understanding each
element as part of the larger, more complex whole. Likewise, amassing all aspects would
not encapsulate a deity, since they believe a deity may always be expressed in different
ways and pick up new aspects.18 For them, inconsistencies, which may simply result from
the limits of human cognition, are far preferable to consistent yet consistently restrictive
categories. In other words, for them, it is better to allow the deity to be practically limitless
even if that limitlessness baffles the mind than to confine the deity to the limited boundaries that are a necessary product of the human mind.19 Thus, rather than being cast as more
primitive and inferior, the aspective model should simply be understood as different,
with its own set of rules and advantages.20 With this distinction in mind, we proceed to
16
17
18
19
20
I.e., their context-specific approach is pragmatically driven. Since they are not bound to any one presentation of deity, they apply the one that fits best in context.
Indeed, nowhere do we find the theological profile of a deity really systematized and assembled. The
pressure to form a compendium is a modern phenomenon, a pure construct that nowhere lands in
the reality of the ANE world (Berlejung 2007: 10, 32; translated from German).
For example, in amassing 50 names for Marduk in the Enu
ma elis, the writers were not concerned with
describing Marduk in his fullness, with presenting everything that he is. Rather, they used the number
50 to give a sampling of Marduks aspects, brought together to indicate his power and importance.
On its connection to An = Anum and the usurpation of older divine qualities, see Dalley (1997: 167);
Allen (2011: 160161).
In making this claim, I am not arguing that ancient Mesopotamians were aware of the implications of
their conceptions. Rather, I am putting what I understand their rationale to be in modern terms and a
modern context.
Despite its association with the ancient past, the aspective model has its modern proponents. For example, while aware of both approaches, certain modern artists, including such painters as Picasso, have
opted for a more aspective model, contending that the individual parts should not be subsumed under
72
survey the different types of Mesopotamian deities before trying to explain their complex
relationship in the divine sphere.
The Gods 21
Based largely on myths, hymns, and prayers, scholars have traditionally understood
Mesopotamian gods to be anthropomorphic, both externally and internally (Van der
Toorn 2003: 77) yet with gigantic size and superhuman powers (Black / Green 1992: 93),
who populated a divine society [that] was as a replica of human society (Roux 1964: 88)
albeit on a grander scale.22 However, while anthropomorphism is indeed the most prominent mode of perceiving the divine, it does not begin to exhaust the possibilities.
Rather than relying on modern sensibilities to determine what is and what is not a god,
we turn to the classifications made in the Akkadian texts themselves. Deities can be
identified in texts in at least three distinct ways (Porter 2009c: 161): 1) they may be marked
with the Sumerian divine determinative dingir (ilu in Akkadian); 23 2) in addition to being
labeled a god, they may be called a god explicitly 24 or behave in ways characteristic of the
gods, such as conferring blessings or receiving prayers; 3) they may receive food offerings
in the temples, offerings which are presented exclusively to deities.25 There are also various
iconographic signs that point to the divinity of visually depicted beings, most prominent of
which is the horned crown.26
21
22
23
24
25
26
the greater whole. For them offering an illusion of reality that subsumes all of the parts into the larger
whole is not more real than examining the individual elements in their fullness and expressing inner
truths that may not be outwardly visible (Brunner-Traut 1990: 66).
The following is merely a survey and in no way attempts to be exhaustive. Most notably, the occasional
deification of humans has been omitted, who at times have been raised above other humans and thus
are ambivalently located in the divine sphere (on the deification of kings, see, e.g., Machinist 2006:
152188). In addition, the data has been culled from different regions and different times and thus
presents a composite picture rather than representing any one Mesopotamian culture at any time.
Roux (1964: 88, 190), Jacobsen (1976: 9), von Soden (1994: 175), Black / Green (1992: 93), Bottro
(2001: 44), and to a lesser extent Lambert (1957: 544; 1990: 125127) exemplify this position (see
further Porter 2009b: 113). While anthropomorphism refers specifically to the human -like form of
the deities and anthropopathism to the human-like divine emotions, anthropomorphism will be
employed for both categories for the sake of simplicity.
For example, the text describing the Assyrian takultu ritual labels with the divine determinative particular elements in the temple, like pipes (ratati) running between the vat for preparing drinks
to the platform upon which the anthropomorphic divine statue stood (III: 15) (Menzel 1981: 61
[VAT 10126], T 138144; Porter 2009c: 165). On the function of determinatives, see Huehnergard
(1997: 111112).
For example, an Assyrian text mentions the ziggurat of the city of Assur alongside various anthropomorphic deities as being the gods of the temple of Anu (II 2324) (Menzel 1981: 54 [K.252],
T 113125; Porter 2009c: 163).
For example, Anus chariot received daily offerings in Neo-Babylonian Uruk equal in quantity and
quality to those presented to the citys most important anthropomorphic deities (Beaulieu 2003: 295;
Porter 2009c: 168).
See, e.g., Boehmer (1975: 431434); Wiggermann (1994: 233); Asher-Greve (19951996: 181189);
Cornelius (1997: 31); Ornan (2005a: 168).
73
Anthropomorphic deities, presented in iconography and narrative and hymnic literature,

meet all of the above criteria. In addition to the well-known anthropomorphically envisioned deities, there is also significant evidence of non-anthropomorphic deities (see esp. the contributions in Porter 2009a). A common type of representation combines the human form
with natural elements blended into the divine body (Ornan 2009: 127). For example, the
male and female deities on the outer wall of the Eanna temple of Uruk have a human upper
body melded with lower bodies that resemble mountainous and watery skirts respectively.27
Another possible example is the depiction of a deity in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud as a
fusion of the winged sun disc, an anthropomorphic figure, and a tail-like lower body.28
Other deities are depicted as human-animal or animal-animal hybrids.29 For example,
a text from the Neo-Babylonian archive of the Eanna temple at Uruk marks the urdimmu
(lion-man) and urmahlhu (lion-centaur) with the divine determinative and indicates that

they are the recipients of offerings.30 The aladlamm, the often winged, human-headed bulls
or lions that famously guard the entrances to Assyrian palaces and temples, are also listed
with the divine determinative.31 Lamastu, described as having the head of a lion, the teeth of
a donkey, naked breasts, a hairy body, stained hands, long fingers and nails, and bird talons,
is marked with the divine determinative and is the daughter of the sky god Anu (see, e.g.,
Farber 19801983: 439446). Pazuzu, represented with a canine-like face with bulging eyes,
a scaly body, a snake-headed penis, bird talons, and wings, is likewise considered an ilu.32
There is also evidence of a deity portrayed in purely animal form. For example, an Assyrian wall relief from the Central Palace at Nimrud depicts what seems to be a primary cult
statue in the form of a large bird of prey.33 Another text refers to the taking of an oath
before Ninmars bird, which is marked with the divine determinative.34
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
PKG, pl. 169; Ornan (2009: 127 and fig. 26). Such a seamless transition resembles Egyptian portrayals,
where often human and animal attributes are so well melded that the composite form appears entirely
natural.The beings may be identified as deities because of their horned crowns.
Layard (1849: pl. 13, 21, 25). Although Samas remains more likely, for the identification of the figure
as Assur, see Ornan (2005b). See also the image of a deity within a winged disc on a glazed tile of
Tukult-Ninurta II (Andrae 1925: 27, pl. 8). See further, e.g., Mayer-Opificus (1984: 189236).
Regarding hybrid creatures, see Wiggermann (1992: esp. 143187; 1994: 222246); Green (1994:
246264).
Beaulieu (2003: 355368). See, e.g., Green (1994: 230231, 256) for the lion-man and lion-centaur respectively; Braun-Holzinger (1987: 99102).
So also is the female form, the apsas. See further Foxvog et al. (19801983: 446453); Spycket
(19801983: 453455).
See, e.g.,Wiggermann (2004: 372381); Heeel (2002).
Layard (1849: pl. 67A). The relief pictures the removal of two large captured statues from Babylon
(identified because of the fallen date palm and in accordance with Tukult-apil-Esarra (TiglathPileser) IIIs campaign to Babylon in 731) by Assyrian soldiers. The first seemingly life-sized statue
depicts an anthropomorphic figure, identified with Marduk because he holds a spade (marru), Marduks primary divine attribute. The second, as indicated, portrays a large bird of prey, which may
perhaps be identified as Ninurta. The prominence of the portrait and the size of the statues suggest
that both were primary cult statues (Barnett/Falkner 1962: xvi, 17, pl. VII; Tadmor 1994: 239240, 272;
Ornan 2009: 122 and fig. 21).
Jean (1931: 58:21); Charpin (1980: 243); CAD S/3 surinnu 1.a: 345. A lion deity is also marked with the
divine determinative and presented with offerings (Menzel 1981: 54, K. 252).
74
In addition, we find evidence for the divinity of elements that in a modern context are
thought to be inanimate. Various stars, planets, and other celestial bodies are marked with
the divine determinative, called gods, presented with offerings, and addressed with
prayers.35 Natural phenomena, like mountains and rivers, may be marked with the divine
determinative, presented with offerings, and ascribed god-like activity.36 Other natural
elements, like metals, semi-precious stones, woods, and plants are at times equated with the
gods.37 In addition to the famous cult statues,38 other human-made objects, such as citygates, ziggurats, temple doors and door locks, platforms for cult statues, temple pipes, and
divine crowns, beds, chariots, weapons, musical instruments, symbols, and standards are
likewise identified as deities in various contexts and in various ways.39 Finally, more abstract elements like illnesses, numbers, and qualities also may be deified.40
35
36
37
38
39
40
See esp. Rochberg (2009: 4191). See also Rochberg (1996: 475485); Brown (2000).
E.g., the Tigris is labeled as a god with the divine determinative and used in personal names (e.g.,
d
idigna-reminni, Tigris have mercy on me) (Porter 2009c: 161), while the Bal h receives offerings
alongside other gods in Old Babylonian Mari (Nakata 1991: 256257) and Early Dynastic Ebla (Pettinato 1979: 150 v 45; Lambert 1983: 84). Rivers as a collective entity are also marked with the divine
determinative, are included in a list of gods and, are identified in river ordeals as the (personified)
judge and marked with the divine determinative (Menzel 1981:54 [K.252] VI 19; CAD N/1: naru A 11
2: 374f.; Porter 2009c: 162). Regarding mountains, an image of Mt. Ebih is presented with offerings
and marked with the divine determinative (Menzel 1981: 54 [K.252] II 15, 28; Porter 2009c: 169),
and is listed as a god and ascribed godly activity in theophoric names (Porter 2009c: 169). It is even
possible that the primary Assyrian god Assur is in fact the deified city, or more particularly its most
prominent hill (Lambert 1983). It remains an open question in what way the pictorially depicted
mixed form deities with mountainous or watery lower bodies are related to the textual attestations of
deified mountains and rivers.
See, e.g., Livingstone (1986: 92112, 171204). In 1999, Stefan Maul gave a lecture at Harvard University entitled, Constructions of Divinity: Thoughts on the Notions of God in the Ancient Near East,
in which he presented evidence that Mesopotamian gods were represented by or in some sense
equated with various metals.
Divine statues are often simply referred to as gods (CAD IJ: 102103; Renger 19801983: 307). See
further, e.g., Berlejung (1998);Walker / Dick (2001); Hundley (forthcoming).
See, e.g., the Fara God Lists (Selz 1997: 171172) and the Assyrian takultu ritual (Menzel 1981: 54
[K.252], T 113125 and 61 [VAT 10126], T 138144; see earlier Frankena 1954). See further surinnu,
CAD S/3: 345 f.; Pongratz-Leisten et al. (1992: 291356); Selz (1997); George (2000: 289299); Beaulieu
(2003); Porter (2000: 211272; 2006: 307331); see esp. Porter (2009c).
E.g., epilepsy (bennu) is frequently marked with the divine determinative (Porter 2009c: 158). Stol
(1993: 6 and passim) argues that it is not a real god, largely because it does not have personality.
However, in making such a statement, he seems to be applying a modern model of deity that differs
from the one presented in the Akkadian texts (Porter 2009c: 158159). This is not to say that Mesopotamians did not distinguish between deities (see further below); it suggests rather that they had a
broader definition of deity than many modern perspectives. Regarding numbers, many major deities
seemed to have a number with which they were closely associated (e.g., Istar with 15, or Sn with 30),
such that they are often identified by their number (e.g., d15 for Istar) (Rllig 1971: 499500; Porter
2000: 244). Regarding abstract qualities, see, e.g., Justice (dmisarum) and Truth (dkittum), both of
which are marked with the divine determinative (Ringgren 1947: 5259; Porter 2009c: 186). See also
the determined order, fate (dsimtu) (Lawson 2004).
75
Occasional Deification
To further muddy the interpretive waters, although many different beings and objects
are labeled divine, they are not all labeled divine consistently. The major anthropomorphic
deities are consistently referred to as divine, and indeed seem to be the quintessence of
divinity. The other, non-anthropomorphic elements, however, are not always so consistently presented. For example, celestial bodies are at times presented as deities,
addressed in prayers and listed with the divine determinative. However, at other times,
they are simply referred to as stars (mul) with no reference to their divinity (see, e.g., Rochberg 2009). Likewise, while at times deified, rivers and other natural features are most commonly referred to simply as rivers (marked with determinative for river [D]) and the like.41
While sometimes associated or equated with deities, metals, semi-precious stones, woods,
and plants are most often simply natural objects with their own genus and genus-marking
determinatives. Hybrid creatures, which are often referred to as demons or monsters by
modern scholars, are likewise only occasionally marked with the divine determinative.
Illnesses too form an interesting and complicated case. Epilepsy (bennu) is referred to
often as a demon (which itself is only occasionally deified), sometimes as a deity in its own
right and sometimes only as a natural phenomenon. Its label and interpretation depend on
place and time (Porter 2009c: 159). In addition, abstract qualities, like truth and justice, are
only occasionally marked with the divine determinative,42 while numbers are more often
than not simply numbers. The associated elements like crowns, musical instruments,
weapons, and various parts of the temple are only deified during certain periods and in
certain places.43 For example, weapons stop being deified in southern Mesopotamia after
the Ur III period, yet are deified from Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian times in northern
Mesopotamia (Porter 2009c: 181). Crowns are not treated as gods in Babylonia after the
Fara God Lists, yet in Assyria continue to be deified and treated as deities of some significance (ibid. 185).
Likewise, it is not always clear why some associated elements are deified and others are
not, why some are believed to partake of the divine essence, presumably by absorption, and
others are simply mundane. For example, it remains unclear why elements like the passuru
tables upon which offerings were presented to the gods were not deified, when temple
pipes were occasionally deified, and the dais (parakku) upon which the statue stood was
often deified (ibid. 165, 171).
41
42
43
See CAD N/1 naru A: 364367; see further Reiner (1956: 129149).
Truth and Justice are especially associated with Samas. More often than not simply understood as
attributes or aspects of Samas, they are also at times presented as (semi-)independent divine beings
in Samas divine entourage (cf. Ringgren 1947: 5758).
Regarding the third millennium, see Selz (1997).
76
How Can the Phenomenon of Occasional Deification Be Explained?

The Mesopotamian vocabulary lacks graded terminology when referring to the gods, such
that an entity or object is either an ilu or not. While the anthropomorphically conceived
deities are the quintessence of divinity, other (occasional) deities comprise a borderline
category. This need not mean that these are somehow lesser beings, only that they are different from the quintessential deities and thus may be described using different terms.
While they are no doubt important and often especially potent, interpreters must decide on
a case by case basis whether or not they belong in the ilu category and, if not, how to stress
their potency and danger. When these (occasional) deities are labeled divine, the text must
find different ways of hierarchically dividing the divine sphere.44
Sometimes texts use non-divine designators as alternative means of conceptualizing the
same element or in complementary ways. For example, the Tigris river is labeled with both
the determinative for river (d) and for deities (dingir), which suggests that while it is a
deity, it remains in river form rather than anthropomorphic form (Freydank / Saporetti
1979: 71; Porter 2009c: 161). In the majority of cases, however, it seems that there is some
disagreement about whether these elements should be deified at all. All Mesopotamians
likely would believe that these sometimes-deified elements are important and potent in
their own right and/or by association. Nonetheless, opinions differed over whether their
otherness and specialness qualified them as deities (ilu), or if a different label would be
more appropriate. Hybrid creatures, for example, are clearly powerful and superhuman,
yet they are different from other ilu in nature and function, such that it is difficult to classify
their relationship with either the other gods or humanity. Temple elements and divine possessions are also clearly special, worthy of reverence, and often understood to be charged
with divine energy, owing to their close connection to the deity. Nonetheless, it remains
an open question how far to take this connection, whether to decide they are simply to be
treated with care because of their specialness and dangerous potency or whether they are
in fact to be understood as deities in their own right.
General Characteristics of Divinity

Given the vastness (and oddity) of the divine sphere, what intrinsic characteristics make a
god a god? What are the general and/or minimal qualities necessary to warrant divine
status? The concept of divinity in any lived system is too complex to be reduced to a set of
rules. When we posit fixed criteria for determining divinity, we inevitably misrepresent the
system and undermine its complexity. Thus, instead of positing (a) fixed qualification(s) for
divinity, we will present a minimal quality that seems to apply consistently to Mesopotamian deities, followed by some of the most prevalent characteristics of divinities. Many
deities appear in several different categories and many appear in each category. Thus,
rather than positing a definitive taxonomy, the following serves more as an orientation for
the following discussion.
44
This analysis will feature below.
77
Potency and Perceived Power 45

Deities may be minimally classified as anything perceived to possess a power capable of
positively or negatively affecting humanity. In other words, the necessary characteristic of
divinity seems to be potency, such that all deities must be approached with care. Rather
than being mere abstractions, the Mesopotamian conception of the divine was primarily
practical. They were not primarily interested in developing a systematic or exhaustive
system of deities;46 instead, they addressed as divine the forces that they believed had a
meaningful impact on their daily lives.47 This of course applies to the major anthropomorphic deities, who control the elements associated with them (e.g., Samas), and to
awesome natural phenomena, like the storm and a mighty river, who can save or destroy
crops or even cause human death. Nonetheless, it is also true of more peripheral deities,
like a divine bed.48 In one Neo-Assyrian letter, sheep offerings are presented to the bed as
long as it remains aboard the ship (l. 13rev. 1. 1), offerings which are otherwise presented
to the great gods Assur, Nab, and Marduk (Porter 2006: n. 12; 2009c: 193). The letter
speaks of the profound uneasiness with which the state treasurer and his king appear to
have approached it, with no hint that it was the divine owner of the beds whose wrath
the king and his official actually feared; it is the bed itself that is solicitously escorted and
placated with its own offerings (ibid.). Thus, like the major deities, even silent and seemingly inert non-anthropomorphic deities are somehow charged with an ominous aura of
living divinity that appears to have been basic to the nature of all of Mesopotamias gods
(ibid.).
Other Inherent Qualities of Divinity 49

In addition to potency, various other qualities are especially associated with deities,
although not every being or force that possesses these qualities is deified. Awesomeness
i.e., the ability to elicit fear, fascination, and humility applies to such natural elements as
45
46
47
48
49
On the potential yet problematic association of ilu with power, see with references Smith (2001: 8).
To say that most are pragmatically oriented of course does not mean that all address only pragmatic
concerns. As we will see, the gods were examined in various different contexts, some of which are
closer to systematic studies (e.g., the various god lists); in other contexts, like Enu ma elis, texts serve
the rhetorical purposes of exalting a particular deity.
This does not argue for an animistic understanding of deity, where deities are simply the elements
they are associated with (e.g., Samas is simply the sun) (see, e.g., Mark Smiths warning against such a
reductionist and potentially misleading exercise 2004: 103). Nor does it posit any form of an evolutionary perspective, tracing the development of deities from their primitive origins to their more complex progeny. Rather, it serves only as a general categorization that helps to orient the modern reader.
For the texts, see Parpola (1987: no. 54 and 55, pp. 5052). For a discussion, see Porter (2006: 307331;
2009c: 192194).
Immortality has also been suggested as a category of deity. However, it is hard to say if some deities
are alive at all (e.g., divinized furniture). Likewise, certain gods, e.g., Qingu in the Enu
ma elis, do in
fact cease to exist. In addition, one could even argue that humans, or at least some humans, are immortal, i.e., they continue to exist in some form after death. See also Cassin (1987: 222235).
78
the sun, the storm, mountains, and powerful rivers.50 Uncontrollable forces, especially those
forces that humanity must reckon with, are also deified. Such forces often are also assigned
a divine personality. For example, Anu is related to the sky, Samas is related to the sun, Sn
to the moon, Istar to the planet Venus, and Adad to the weather.51 In addition, elements
that are uncontrollable yet necessary for survival also tend to receive a divine designation.
While by no means terrifying or deified in itself, food and vegetation were absolutely
necessary for survival and their production depended on several uncontrollable factors
like appropriate weather and thus warranted their own god(s), e.g., Tammuz (see, e.g.,
Jacobsen 1970). Illnesses too fall into the often terrifying, uncontrollable, and necessary to
avert category. As an intangible force with devastating effects, epilepsy, for example, is
dangerous, frightening, uncontrollable, and a prevalent affliction that must be addressed.
In addition to simply appealing to nature and natural forces, Mesopotamians also used
their imaginations to envision other potent creatures, which are appropriately classified as
deities. Hybrid creatures in particular fall into this category. As a fusion of powerful beings,
hybrid creatures are both dangerous and volatile and have ambivalent relationships with
both the major gods and the people.52 Although not necessarily terrifying, what today are
perceived as abstract qualities, like truth and justice, were also regarded as tangible, potent
powers at work in the world.53 Like Egyptian Maat, understood to be deified truth and
justice (Fox 1995: 37 48), Mesopotamian truth and justice were at work in the world and
against their opposite, the chaotic forces.54 In addition to the deified powerful forces and
powerful hybrid creations, other anthropomorphically conceived deities are connected
with important elements in human society, e.g., with places (e.g., Assur and Marduk), and
activities (e.g., Nab and scribes).
Rather than examining each deity as an individual and trying to understand how and in
what contexts it qualifies as a deity, it is perhaps better to examine the function of the pantheon as a whole for ancient Mesopotamians, an endeavor consonant with the communal
mindset of the ANE world. Indeed, rather than envisioning the development of the pantheon as a series of individual encounters with the numinous, the Mesopotamian divine
50
51
52
53
54
Cf. Ottos mysterium tremendum (1923). Mountains and rivers, for example, can dangerous and imposing, uncontrollable, so much so that they have been understood as the traditional (source of)
enemies of the gods (Wiggermann 1994: 227, 232). Of course, while many awe-inspiring forces and
beings are deified, not all are so designated. For example, animals like lions elicit fear, fascination, and
humility yet are not deified.
See further below for a discussion of the relationship between these awesome aspects of nature and
the major anthropomorphic deities.
For example, terrifying and powerful hybrid creatures are often credited with inflicting illnesses, while
more terrifying and powerful hybrids are appealed to in order to ward them off.
Cf. Koch (1991: 56): It can hardly be denied that in the language of antiquity the demarcation between abstract and concrete magnitudes, between immaterial and material, for usself-evident and
insurmountable, does not exist (translated from German).
As with Maat in Egypt, people could work with and support these forces in order to help bring them
to fruition, or alternatively appeal to them when in need. Although by no means deified, Lady Liberty,
i.e., the Statue of Liberty, is somewhat similar. She represents personified liberty, which is very much
at the heart of the American ethos and is fought for and appealed to by those in need.
79
system seems to be predicated on the ANE understanding of cosmos itself.55 Instead of

simply deifying elements in their environment they deemed potent, the Mesopotamians
seemed to view their pantheon as a holistic ordering of the world, with a specific deity
assigned to the areas of the cosmos they deemed important, from nature to culture or
government.56 Whether in nature or society, the placement of divine beings in charge of
specific areas of the cosmos reveals the ancient Mesopotamian attempt to understand and
in some sense control the meaningful world around them.57 This overarching framework
would encompass the positive, ambivalent, and negative elements of their environment precisely because it was understood to explain, and, more practically, to influence their environment, especially those elements that were dangerous, necessary, and beyond their control.
Divinity by Association
With the general anthropomorphization of the divine sphere,58 elements associated with
the deity, and more particularly with its cult, like crowns, weapons, chariots, beds, musical
instruments, and temple elements, became deified in their own right by association.59 It
would seem that divinity is in some ways contagious and can be acquired by certain elements especially closely associated with and owned by the deity.60 For example, elements of
a deitys home, like the all-important doors that separated its home from the outside world,
and elements in its possession and used for its service, like the dais upon which the cult
statue stood and musical instruments, are in some contexts divinized.61 Other elements like
metals, stones, wood, plants, and numbers likewise seem to gain their significance from
their association to particular deities.62
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
However, such an organization of the divine sphere is more appropriate to urban and monarchic
culture than it is to family religion (see, e.g., the contributions in Bodel / Olyan 2008).
W. Sallaberger, personal communication; cf. Sallaberger (2004: 297). For example, brewing and woodworking were considered important enough to have their own patron deities Ninkasi and Siras, and
Ninduluma respectively (Sallaberger 2004: 297, 306).
As will become clear below, this world also contained evil influences that possessed their own areas
of expertise, who were understood and managed largely by associating them with and subordinating
them to the primary anthropomorphic gods.
See below under The Anthropomorphic Core of Divine Constellations.
Porter speaks of their deification by contagion (2009c: 191): these associated elements became
deities by contagion, by a transfer of divinity to them from the inherently numinous gods that owned
them and with whom they were in frequent contact.
Alternatively or perhaps in addition, one may argue that these elements are deified not by contagion,
but because they are deemed important and thus worthy of being deified or controlled by a divine
force. In either case, their importance is derived from the major anthropomorphic deity to whom they
are associated.
Musical instruments may also have been deified in their own right because of their persuasive powers
of speech, i.e., their ability to produce beautiful music (cf. Porter 2009c: 175).
Once again, each of these elements could also be deified or controlled by divinity because they are
considered important elements in society. They then may have become prominent or divine by their
association to a major anthropomorphic deity, who is both powerful and approachable. Indeed, as will
become clear below, a deitys prominence is often directly related to the areas of the world over which
it exercises mastery.
80
Luminosity
For the most part, whether or not their divinity is inherent or inherited, deities are perceived to be surrounded by a divine radiance, especially in the first millennium.63 This stunning
brilliance is most commonly associated with the term melammu and most often applied to
the anthropomorphic deities. Nonetheless, the same language is also applied to the astral
bodies, which shine with a divine radiance,64 and even extends to the divine cult images,
which conceptually and literally partake of the divine radiance, since they are made of the
most precious elements in the natural world.65 By extension, since the most precious elements make up the divine image and are often most precious because of their luminosity,
they too partake of the divine radiance, especially when they are closely linked to a deity
(e.g., lapis-lazuli and Istar), as do their accouterments (e.g., the crown of Assur, also known
as the deified Lord Crown).
Sorting the Divine Sphere

How does one navigate this complex system of deities? How are these various deities
connected and distinguished? In the ANE mindset, as will be clarified below, there is often
more than one manifestation or aspect of a single deity, each of which appears to be simultaneously connected and distinct, and many of which are connected with inanimate objects. It would thus seem that each deity may simultaneously adopt many different forms
and be in many different places at once.66 For example, most major gods are identified with
an anthropomorphically conceived divine person, a statue, a number, a semi-precious
stone, a mineral, an animal, an emblem, a star, constellation or other celestial entity, and
various characteristic qualities.67 Istar in particular is simultaneously identified as a divine
person who dwells in heaven, yet is localized in various terrestrial temples (most prominently Arbela and Nineveh), the planet Venus, the number 15, the semi-precious stone
lapis-lazuli, and the mineral lead, and understood as the embodiment of such qualities as
love and war.68
63
64
65
66
67
68
For example, in the Enu

ma elis, Tiamat endowed (certain beings) with radiance [melammu
], (and
thus) turned (them) into gods (I 138, II 24). For a discussion of the matrix of the terms, e.g., melammu,
pulhu, puluhtu and namrirru, see esp. Cassin (1968: 1751); see further Aster (2006: 29176).
Rochberg (2009: 49); Samas is the most obvious example: you, Samas, have covered the heavens
and all the countries with your radiance (melammu) (Langdom 1927: 51: 910, cited in Rochberg
2009: 49).
For example, an incantation describing a newly inaugurated statue describes the statue as clothed in
splendor, he is surrounded with radiance, he is endowed with an awesome radiance, he shines out
splendidly, the statue appears brilliantly (STT 200: 110; translation after Walker / Dick 1999: 98).
However, unlike in the rest of the ANE, there is little evidence of the Mesopotamian deities of the 1st
millennium changing between their various forms (e.g., changing from anthropomorphic to animal
form). Instead, while they simultaneously occupy forms at once, each form seems to remain unchanging. Nonetheless, each deity also may come to occupy new forms (e.g., a new cult image).
Porter (2000: 243). For a fuller list of potentialities, see Berlejung (2007: 10).
Porter (2000: 243244). Istar may also be alternatively presented as male and female (Groneberg
1986a: 2546; however, cf. Bahrani 2001: 141160).
81
Each of these interconnected divine networks composed of many distinct elements may
be viewed as a divine constellation,69 in which the various elements are connected to a
more or less unified entity and share in its identity. In other words, each major god consists
of a constellation of aspects, which may act and be treated (semi-)independently. Most
divine constellations consist of several connected deified aspects, with an anthropomorphic
core that is always deified and other occasionally deified elements like heavenly bodies,
abstract qualities, and metals. Each aspect represents a competency, whether it means control over a specific natural element or force (e.g., a star or a metal), function (e.g., writing),
quality (e.g., truth), or geographical area (e.g., being localized in various temples). Like a
star cluster, the elements in the network closest to the anthropomorphic core are more
firmly connected to that core and, as one moves further out from the center, the core exerts
an increasingly smaller gravitational pull, giving these elements greater independence.
Thus, most major deities are made up of several detachable parts that may be treated independently or as a unit depending on the context and the interpreters perspective and
rhetorical purposes. In other words, according to the logic of the Mesopotamian world,
each major deity can be taken apart and put back together again.
In Mesopotamia, the whole deity is considered to be the sum of its parts, and with each
new added part the whole deity becomes greater. Mesopotamians adopt an additive
approach: often the more aspects added, the more potent the deity.70 Likewise, the Mesopotamians nowhere synthesize all of the parts into one cohesive whole71; rather they amass
and juxtapose a representative sample, which always may be expressed differently or
increased.
However, although a deitys range may expand or in some cases contract,72 it is not unlimited. A deity generally operates within a more or less loosely defined range, determined
by its primary attributes.73 Even with divine fluidity, certain boundaries are not crossed. For
example, Sn is not associated with the sun, Samas is not associated with the moon, Assur
and Marduk are not the gods of Nippur, Marduk is not the god of Assyria, and Assur is not
the god of Babylonia.
In addition, several other classes of deities rest outside of these divine constellations,
outside of the divine collective. Although they are related in some way to the anthropomorphic deity, they are not part of the divine person. For example, Assurs crown is a god,
but it is not Assur.74 This slightly more peripheral category includes divine accouterments
that belong to the deity, divine servants who serve the major anthropomorphic deities,
69
70
71
72
73
74
This use of the term is to be differentiated from Assmanns use of constellation (1984: 117135), which
refers primarily to iconic representations of myths.
The addition of (new) aspects was often accomplished through the accumulation of names or epithets
by which the various aspects were verbally ascribed to a particular deity (e.g., Marduks accumulation
of 50 names served as the accumulation of aspects see, e.g., Bottro (1977: 528) or the accumulation
of 15 names by Ninurta in the Anzu myth) (cf. Heimpel 1997: 550).
To do so, they would have to subtract conflicting elements in order to make the whole cohesive,
at least according to modern western standards, thus making the deity less rather than more.
See below under Divine Overlap and Competition and Character Poaching.
On the various aspects that make up the theological profile of a deity, see, e.g., Berlejung (2007: 10).
Regarding divinized crowns, see Porter (2009c: 184186), and the references cited therein.
82
protective deities, hybrid creatures, including so-called demons and monsters,75 rivers,
mountains, and illnesses. These deities may be subdivided into two broad categories:
interior and domesticated versus exterior and wild. The divine entourage (e.g., family,
friends, and servants) and the deified objects associated with the anthropomorphized deity
belong to the domesticated interior and are closely affiliated with and often docilely serve
the major anthropomorphized deity, while rivers and mountains exist on the periphery and
remain wild and untamed. These generally undomesticated destructive forces on the outside, like demons, monsters, and illnesses, may infiltrate the interior or alternately may be
assimilated into the interior as divine servants.
Our analysis will proceed to explore the divine constellations, beginning with the
anthropomorphic core and working outwards, addressing some of the individual elements
and the conceptions of the fluid relationships between their parts. We will then examine
deities outside the constellations, addressing the divine entourage and accoutrements, protective deities, and hybrid creatures, with a view toward illuminating their relationships to
the anthropomorphic deities at the heart of the constellations.
Divine Constellations
The Anthropomorphic Core of the Constellations
For the most part, divine constellations have an anthropomorphic core, and most major
anthropomorphic gods are part of divine constellations. For example, in addition to their
other powers and attributes, Marduk, Istar, and Samas are understood to have a primary
anthropomorphic form and primarily human-like minds and emotions.
Such anthropomorphization of the major deities serves a practical purpose. Ancient
Mesopotamians naturally speculated about the nature of the world and their place in it.
However, their musings were not merely philosophical abstractions; through them they
sought to find meaning in their lives and in the world, to use all the powers available to succeed in a dangerous and volatile world. To do this, they strove to understand and approach
the gods, perceived to be the ultimate sources of power and purpose.
Awesome, uncontrollable forces and those necessary to sustain life are largely incomprehensible unless predicated on the human model (Ornan 2005a; 2009; Hamori 2008: 2664).
In order to make these deified forces more understandable, approachable, and manageable, they were often thought to be, or be controlled by, personified deities. Since many of
the gods are understood primarily as human-like beings, humans may meaningfully communicate with them.76 Since many of the gods are understood to be both comprehensible
75
76
Regarding these classifications, see further below.

Mountains and rivers, e.g., with no clear anthropomorphic form may still be anthropomorphized,
which as loosely understood refers to far more than physical form (e.g., anthropomorphization may
include human[-like] emotions or actions). Namely, they may be presented with offerings suggesting
that they can eat or at least in some way enjoy them.
83
and approachable,77 their favor can be secured and their powers brought to bear on
peoples behalf. Likewise, when humans are understood to be created in the image of the
gods at least to some extent,78 they have greater dignity and a greater affinity to the gods.
Thus, humanizing the divine is both unavoidable and profitable.79 Although not all Mesopotamian deities are humanized, Mesopotamians often appeal to the more humanized
deities to deal with those that are less understandable and approachable, more primal and
thus more dangerous.80
Consequences of Divine Anthropomorphization and Strategies for Divine Elevation

A potential problem arises when the sentient core of the divine constellations is depicted
and understood like humans internally and externally: how does one differentiate the gods
from humans? This is especially pronounced with the anthropomorphization of the cult,
wherein the deities in the form of their cult statues require nourishment, drink, clothing,
jewelry, cleansing, travel, music, perfume and sex.81 Like humans, the gods were also often
organized in family units and the greater gods were understood to be divine kings ruling
over their divine courts, with viziers, messengers, and servants (see, e.g., Renger 1974:
435446; Garelli 1974: 446452).
In general, the major Mesopotamian gods are distinguished from the Mesopotamian
people in that they are superior to them in every conceivable way.82 As we have seen, they
are in charge of vast cosmic domains and possess superhuman powers. Likewise, although
they may behave in a less than salutary manner (e.g., Enlil attempts to destroy humans for
disturbing his sleep), the mind of the god(s) is [nevertheless] as remote as the inner part of
the heavens (Lambert 1960: 86:256).
To distinguish them from humanity visually, they are depicted as superhuman in size and
wearing horned crowns upon their heads.83 To further distinguish them from humanity and
from each other, they often carried their distinct attributes in their hands, attributes which
no humans could bear. Adad, for example, holds the thunderbolt in his hand along with his
characteristic animals (the bull-calf and a lion-dragon) on a leash (Cornelius 1997: 3132;
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
The gods are by no means simply equated with humans externally or internally. Their superiority
renders them somewhat ineffable, while their similarities to humanity render them somewhat understandable, far more so than, e.g., an abstract storm.
See, e.g., Enu
ma elis in which humanity is created from slain body of the god Qingu.
In making this claim, I am saying nothing of the evolution of deities, whether they were originally
conceived of as potent forces or abstract qualities that later were humanized and/or humanized
deities absorbed several potent forces and abstract qualities into their divinity.
Regarding Pazuzu, see further the hybrid section below.
Dick (2005: 47); cf. Bottro (2001: 66, 136). See more specifically, e.g., Bottros treatment of the sacred
marriage (2001: 154158).
Bottro (2001: 5861); he identifies power, sublimity, and omnipotence as the primary characteristics
of deity (5961).
Regarding their size, see, e.g., Black / Green (1992: 93); for a representative survey, see Hartenstein
(2008: 4147). Regarding the horned crowns, see above n. 26. The other primary marker distinguishing
deity from human was the flounced skirt or garment (Curtis 1990: 40).
84
1994: fig. 30; cf. fig. 5). Perhaps more strikingly, while they share an anthropomorphic form
with humans, they are not limited to this form and may be present, at least to some degree,
in various other forms in various other places simultaneously.84 In other words, they transcend humanity by transcending the limits of humanity, whether it be in form, function,
range, or power.85
The relationship of the gods to the hybrids is another important difference. It seems that
humans, both modern and ancient, cannot escape perceiving the gods as human-like and
likely would be uncomfortable depicting their gods in forms too deviant from themselves
(Ornan 2005a: 168). Thus, instead of depicting the major gods as freakish beings, composed
of an odd assortment of other powerful beings and forces, they depict them as superior to
these freakish beings,86 and thus far superior to humans.
Other Elements in the Divine Constellation

Although understood anthropomorphically and conceptually approachable, the core of
the constellations often remains practically inaccessible. It remains an open question
whether anthropomorphic Mesopotamian deities are invisible to humans, invisible or
visible according to their preference, or simply so far away that they are practically invisible. All options are practically the same, since Mesopotamian deities rarely visit the
human sphere and in the first millennium rarely visit earth at all.87 How then did Mesopotamians access their gods? It would seem that the other elements in the constellation like
stars, statues, powers, numbers, semi-precious stones, and emblems serve to make the
anthropomorphic deity more visible, accessible, and potent.88
Within the larger divine constellation, people had two primary access points which
made the invisible deity visible and the distant deity present. In the luminous celestial
bodies and the luminous cult statues, the invisible and inapproachable deities are made
visible and approachable.89 Mesopotamians could interact with the gods by discerning their
will through observation of the activity of the celestial bodies and respond appropriately to
ensure a good omen or avert a bad omen (see, e.g., Rochberg 2004). Statues too through
ritual activation can serve as fully-functioning loci of divine presence, which can be served,
addressed, and appealed to as the otherwise distant deity itself.90 However, although in
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
However, although they seem to be present to some extent simultaneously and may pick up new
forms, e.g., new cult statues, there is little evidence of them changing forms (cf.Wiggermann 1994: 237).
Hendel (1997) speaks of a transcendent anthropomorphism, whereby, although generally predicated on a human model, the gods transcend that model in every conceivable way.
Wiggermann appropriately refers to these so-called monsters as supernatural freaks (1992: 151
152). See further, the hybrid section below.
See, e.g., the survey in Hamori (2008: 129149).
Rather than being direct, most divine communication came (indirectly) through omens and oracles
(see the comprehensive survey of Maul 2005: 4588).
Regarding stars, in Enu
ma elis V 12, the stars are referred to as the likenesses of the great gods,
which seems to indicate that the images of the gods are made visible in the stars (Rochberg 2009:
65); cf. regarding stars, Sallaberger (2004: 297).
See, e.g., Berlejung (1998); Hurowitz (2003: 147157); Hundley (forthcoming).
85
many cases equated with the deity, stars and statues are also in some ways distinct. Stars are
alternatively described as the gods, simply as stars, or as personified stars (Rochberg 2009).
Deities, in turn, are equated with the stars, understood as the powers that control the stars,
or stars are conceived as a single manifestation or aspect of the larger divine nexus. Likewise, while a statue is the image of a deity (s.almu), its receptacle, and symbiotically the
deity itself, a statue is not coterminous with the deity. A deity can dissolve its otherwise
strong connection with the statue (cf. Marduk in the Erra epic),91 the destruction of a statue
does not mean the destruction of the deity,92 and the deity is perceived to be simultaneously present in various other forms in various other locales, often including celestial
bodies, their heavenly homes, and other statues. By making the deity more accessible, stars
and statues in essence extend the divine rule, and thus divine power, into new arenas: into
the realm of the heavenly bodies and the realms of the temple and the city.93
While present in the heavens as celestial bodies and in the temples as cult images, deities
were made manifest outside of the temple in the human sphere as divine emblems (e.g.,
standards, weapons, and symbols).94 Although the extent of the connection between the
emblem and the deity is debatable, the emblems nonetheless served as different kinds of
divine access points (cf. Groneberg 2006: 141; Berlejung 2007: 37). Battle standards, for
example, were treated in much the same way as primary cult images (e.g., they were presented with offerings and incense was burned before them) (Deller 1992: 291298). Listed
with the divine determinative, e.g., durigallu, the divine standard, is both associated with
and distinct from the deity it represented. A common trope in royal inscriptions, the gods
who go before me (in battle), is functionally equivalent to the phrase, the divine standard
that goes before me (in battle),95 which seems to intimate that the presence of the
standard is functionally equivalent to the presence of the deity. However, another inscription states that the king fought with the support of Assur my great lord, and the divine
standard (durigallu) that goes before mewith the supreme might of the divine standard
that goes before me,96 suggesting that Assur is to be differentiated from the divine standard, which also bears significant divine power. Whether the standard is a deity in its own
right or simply an extension of Assur, Assurs power is brought to bear by means of his
standard. Namely, the standard is a means of presencing Assur, more particularly, his
91
92
93
94
95
96
However, a damaged statue in need of repair is still referred to as the god, even though it must
undergo a mouth-washing ritual to raise its status to that of a fully-functioning (locus of the) deity
(TuL 27: 118; see texts and translation in Walker / Dick 2001: 230233). It would seem that the differentiation between statue and deity was made only when necessary (e.g., when the statue was
destroyed by an enemy or in the Erra epic when the plot required it).
It only signals the absence of the deity and disruption of the cult until a suitable substitute is found.
However, although humans could communicate with and care for deities through their cult images so
that deities would care for them, deities rarely communicated with humans through their cult image
(for the anomalous cases of processions, see Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 258 and, more fully, Sallaberger
2000: 227262). Instead, the gods spoke (indirectly) through omens and oracles (see the comprehensive survey of Maul 2005: 4588).
Groneberg (2006: 141); Ornan (2009: 142143); see also processions (e.g., Pongratz-Leisten 1994:
193195).
Holloway (2001: 260261); regarding the latter statement, see also Grayson (1991: 134: 48).
RIMA 2,A.0.101.1 ii 2528; translation after Holloway (2001: 260).
86
power, outside of the temple sphere.97 In addition to being an extension of the divine
power and potentially presence in the context of battle, when the presence of the divine
cult image is impractical, standards (surinnu) and weapons (kakku) also serve as suitable
surrogates for the deity in witnessing oaths, effectively binding the god depicted to punish
the oath-taker if he breaks his oath.98 Thus, such emblems simultaneously make the deity
more accessible and extend its power in the terrestrial sphere, since it and its terrestrial
power are not bound to its home city.
Although there is little indication that the symbols on an entitlement nar,99 seal, or
victory monument are animated with the divine presence or receive offerings (Slanski
2003a: 321), the presence of such symbols nonetheless serve as access points to the deity.
The presence of the divine symbol invokes the protection of the deity depicted, in an
apotropaic capacity and/or to enforce ones claim to territory or some other entitlement
and the benefits derived therefrom (serving as, e.g., the pictorial equivalent of listing the
names of multiple divine witnesses in treaties).100 Instead of being the deity, divine symbols
in such contexts serve as an appeal to or mark of divine support, and thus an effective
means of accessing the deity.101 Like the weapons and battle standards mentioned above,
such symbols extend the divine influence beyond the city and temple.
Like stars and statues, associating a deity with abstract qualities, or to the Mesopotamian
mind active forces, whether these forces are deified or not, both enhances the sphere of the
deity i.e., associates it with potent forces and more practically makes those forces more
comprehensible, approachable, and available. Incorporating more peripheral natural elements like metals, minerals, wood, and plants serves to expand the divine sphere, thereby
97
98
99
100
101
Like the divine bed mentioned above, the divine standard seems to be deified by association. It seems
to possess its own (semi-)independent numinous power that must be placated with offerings to ensure its favor, or, alternatively, the deity itself must be placated from afar to ensure that the standard
remains charged with divine power. Either way, the effect is the same; the standard must be presented
with offerings to ensure that it brings its power to bear on the peoples behalf.
With the absence of Assur shrines outside of Assur, the weapon of Assur seems to serve this function
(Holloway 2001: 265) and, given its power, serves as an effective enforcer. Indeed, rather than take
oaths before an anthropomorphic cult image, there is evidence that standards and weapons were
kept in temples and used for oath taking purposes in court contexts, on the premise that no one
would swear a false oath and risk the consequences of divine censure (Slanski 2003a: 308323). On
the long history of the use of weapons in promissory oaths, see briefly ibid. (253); regarding the use
of symbols in court contexts, see further Dombradi (1996: esp. 84, 333334). See also the extensive
references to the use of standards (dsurinnu) in oath-taking and as a means of enforcing oaths (CAD
S/3: 345).
On this term, see Slanski (2003b).
Slanski suggests that rather than representing the deity, the symbols on these monuments represent
the symbols in the temple that played a decisive role in the determination and enforcement of justice
(Slanski 2003a: 310, 321). Whether or not this is the case makes little practical difference. In each instance, the divine symbols suggest divine sanction and divine enforcement, such that the entitlement
or other benefit and the monument or seal themselves are protected.
Although not (always) equated with the deity, symbols of the deity are nonetheless part of the divine
constellation because they are extensions of the deity that extend its power (and presence) wherever
they are depicted. In the case of the victory monument, e.g., the divine symbol buttresses the statement of royal power with divine power and the threat of divine reprisal for rebellion.
87
making the deity greater and more expansive, and making it more immanent in the human
sphere, more approachable and thus more apt to be revered.102
The Multidimensionality of Divine Constellations

The complexity of the presentation of deities in images and texts may increase or decrease
based upon the context (Berlejung 2007: 34). Since there is no fixed articulation of deities,
defining their identities and the relationship between aspects, Mesopotamians could
choose to conceptualize deities and the relationship of their various parts in different ways
in different contexts. In many contexts, rather than appealing to the fullness of the deity,
one appeals to the individual aspect that is most relevant to the current situation. For
example, when in need of justice, one appeals to the judging aspect of a deity like Assur.103
In other contexts, such as in Enuma elis and Assur-bani-aplis (Assurbanipals) hymn to
Assur, the authors amass a wide assortment of attributes and ascribe them to a single god,
here Marduk and Assur respectively. The amalgamation of various attributes serves to
highlight the multidimensionality and thus greatness of the deities described, differentiating them from and elevating them over other deities. Even here, however, as indicated
above, such an amalgamation was not an attempt at plenitude, but rather a representative
sample often chosen for rhetorical purposes.104
As a genre, lexical god-lists amass various aspects of deities, yet do so for different purposes.105 Rather than exalting any particular god, they often represent a scholarly exercise,
serving as a more synthetic attempt to make sense of the large more or less disordered
and confused group of deities.106 Nonetheless, rather than always assimilating all deities
with a shared forename107 into a single divine form, (semi-)independent aspects are occasionally grouped together, demonstrating both their identity and difference. For example, the Old Babylonian Nippur List groups together several deities with the first name
Inanna/Istar.108
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
I.e., worshipers reverence the deity because they can approach it and benefit from such an approach.
Cf. ibid. For example, there is evidence of a cult image of Assur called Assur-Dayyani (Assur-thedivine-judges). The second name in the title seems to qualify the first, here associating the statue of
Assur with his quality as divine judge (Porter 2009c: 237).
Hymns, e.g., display henotheistic tendencies, naturally addressing the deity in the most glowing of
terms, often by accumulating epithets, attributes, and divine powers in order to make the deity more
favorably disposed to the petitioners pleas.
Regarding the title lexical god-lists and its content, see, e.g.,Allen (2011: 142157).
Bottro (2001: 48); cf. Litke (1998: 2). They also serve to preserve the names and record of more
ancient deities, and in some cases divine names may have been created to enhance the list (Lambert
1969: 474;Allen 2011: 143).
The forename inexactly refers to the common divine name (e.g., Is tar), while the surname refers to
appended epithets, whether referring to a place or a quality (e.g., of Arbela, in Is tar of Arbela) (Allen
2011: 4 and passim).
Entries 5462 in Peterson (2009: 14). It is interesting and perhaps telling that Inanna without an
epithet appears first in the list, either as a heading of sorts or to indicate the supremacy of this unaffiliated Inanna.
88
Although perhaps not as exhaustive as the god lists, the witness lists of treaty texts also
invoke a substantial number of deities with the same forename, e.g., Istar, which seem to
be connected yet for practical purposes are treated independently.109 Invoking multiple
deities110 furnishes a more potent curse.111 For example, rather than appealing to the single
Istar presented in mythological texts, multiple Istars and divinized aspects of Istar are invoked. Such a multiplication holds each party more firmly to their end of the deal (cf. Allen
2011: 176), by bringing the fullness of Istar to bear on transgressors, since a deitys plenitude is found in an accumulation of its aspects. In a similar though opposite vein, the blessing section of personal letters or in witness lists may invoke multiple divine manifestations
in order to bestow a greater blessing.112
In a ritual context, rather than appealing to a single pertinent aspect or ascribing several
aspects to a single divine entity, ritual tradents appeal to and isolate various different
aspects to cover their bases. In the context of offerings, they make sure to present offerings
to each cultic manifestation, i.e., image, many of which are of the same deity, so as not to
neglect any and thereby invite ritual failure.113 For example, the Assyrian takultu ritual
texts contain substantial god lists, which invoke the various representations and forms of
gods that were worshipped in one or another temple (Porter 2000: 231232). They thus
seem to be intentionally repetitive, or, perhaps more precisely, thorough, so as to ensure
that every deity or divinized object in the temple was included (Van Driel 1969: 51; Porter
2000: 231232; Allen 2011: 195). In fact, assuming that each image is enlivened with the
mouth-washing and mouth-opening rituals, through which the image and deity are symbiotically joined, each is perceived to be a distinct deity in a real way and thus cannot be
ignored.114
Practical and Theoretical Approaches to Divine Constellations

How then did worshippers understand the unified deity and the connection of its parts?
From a practical point of view, worshipers focused on a single aspect. When the people
accessed their deity, through whatever media they were able, their focus was often single;
they focused all their attention on the manifestation before them as if it was the only mani109
110
111
112
113
114
In the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition, treaty tablets include far more deities in their witness lists than
the tablets concerning grants, decrees, and gifts (Allen 2011: 176). The increased witnesses testify to
the relative importance of the treaty (ibid.) and also to its more troublesome and precarious nature.
More divine witnesses are necessary to ensure mutual cooperation.
Such evocations include ensuring that the deities are present in their various cult images at the oath
ceremony (Koch-Westenholz 1995: 118; Lewis 1996: 404).
It may also honor the one pronouncing the curse, whose status is indicated by the large number of
deities to whom he can appeal.
As with the curse, this amassing of deities may also demonstrate the importance of the one pronouncing the blessing by demonstrating the number of deities to whom he may appeal (Allen 2011:
176).
Regarding ritual failure, see, e.g., the contributions in Hsken (2007).
Mouth-washing and mouth-opening do not automatically deify an object.To become divine, the deity
must join with the image through the course of the ritual process.
89
festation, or, more precisely, as if it was not a manifestation at all, but rather the deity in its
fullness. Their focus meant that there was little room for concern about its place in the
larger divine constellation, and little concern for the exact nature of the relationship between the deity and their access point to it. Their concern was purely practical; their effective access to the deity was all that mattered. For example, in theophanic texts, although
one may surmise that the deity is still in heaven and other locales, the theophanic appearance is treated as the fullness of the deity, such that in that moment there is no other aspect
or manifestation. In fact, the deity in its fullness that is, the deity with all of its various
aspects is encountered in one place at one time.
In the case of Istar, the common people would have viewed their local Istar as the Istar,
distinct from other alternatively localized Istars,115 and perhaps even equated their Istar
with the statue in their sanctuary.116 Each local Istar was Istar for the local populace, such
that, while both Istar of Arbela and Istar of Nineveh were related, they were locally perceived as different Istars.117 Nonetheless, although they differentiated local Istars, all
worshipers would likely have connected their Istar with the one presented in mythology,
with the planet Venus, the number 15, and various qualities like love and war, thus in some
ways connected her to the larger Istar constellation. The worshipers singular focus and
peripheral awareness of the larger divine constellation would also bring an additional
benefit; for when they addressed their Istar, they believed that they were addressing the
larger Istar constellation, such that all of her multifold powers and attributes could be
brought to bear on their behalf. Although the fullness of deity could not be described or
depicted in any one place, it could be experienced, albeit often in mediated form, in every
encounter with the deity.
Although worshipers often had a single focus, from a broader perspective and according
to the additive approach, various aspects in various locales meant various simultaneous
divine manifestations.
Thus, from a theoretical standpoint, the deity is present in multiple forms in multiple
locales all at the same time.118 For example, Samas is present in the sun, in his heavenly
115
116
117
118
See, e.g.,Allen (2011) who argues that each Is tar is in fact a different god.
Since they benefit from a connection (e.g., it allows for intimate interaction with the deity, bringing its
power to bear, and grants prestige to the city), people only differentiate between the statue and deity
when necessary (e.g., when a connection would impugn the deity, like when the destruction of the
statue may be associated with destruction of the deity).
In this way, each Is tar functions somewhat like a clone. Each has the same (divine) DNA and is thus
essentially the same. However, on a practical level each occupies a different body and has different
experiences in different locales and is thus different. Regarding clones, although each clone is born
essentially the same as the original, i.e., with the same DNA, it will develop its own distinct personality and experiences (see, e.g., Levine 2007; Wilmut / Highfield 2007). Regarding cult statues, many are
connected to different cities and take up the identity and experiences of those cities. Likewise, in the
case of Is tar, if in certain locales Is tar assimilated a local goddess, the local Is tar would likely take up
the characteristics of the assimilated deity in a way that other local Is tars would not. Thus, Is tar of
Arbela and Is tar of Nineveh, while the same, are also substantially different.
Cf. Sommer (2009). This seemingly bizarre phenomenon finds a parallel in quantum mechanics:
physicists have demonstrated that (sub-)atomic particles may manifest themselves in more than one
place at the same time and that the various manifestations may act synchronously while far apart
although they have no apparent way to communicate (for an introduction to quantum mechanics,
90
abode, and in his various cult manifestations. The most prominent of the divine forms, e.g.,
the cult images, are fully Samas,119 yet not the fullness of Samas, since the fullness lies in the
accumulation of the various parts, of which the statue is but one prominent example. In
other words, the statues are but one locally realized aspect of a larger (loosely) connected
divine entity. On the theoretical level, it thus seems the deity in some way consists of
multiple detachable aspects, which are related and in some way independent. The exact
relationship between the parts and of the parts to the whole is unclear and is expressed differently in different contexts by different writers. In other words, one attaches or detaches
them as the context dictates, e.g., detaching them in approaching a single manifestation of
the deity and differentiating it from others and attaching them when writing a hymn to
exalt the greatness of the deity.
Although in some cases individual manifestations in different locales were treated as
different deities, multiple statues in the same locale seem to represent different aspects of
the same deity, i.e., they may have been used for different functions. For example, when
Sennacherib captured the statue of Marduk used in the aktu festival from Babylon, the
festival could not be performed even though there were multiple other statues of Marduk
in the Esagil temple of Babylon.120 In addition to serving a different function, the various
statues in the same location bore different names.121 Since a name represents but one
aspect of a deity and a deity may accumulate aspects by accumulating names (e.g., Marduk
in Enuma elis ), by giving the various statues in the sanctuary different names and different
functions, the Mesopotamians increased the range and prominence of their deities.122
The association of each statue with a different name and thus a different function likewise accords with the Mesopotamian comprehensive mentality and the desires of the
rulers. Since more statues meant more prestige for the deities, various rulers could furnish
the gods with additional statues in order to enhance their prestige and elicit divine protection and prosperity. Since each statue was in some way symbiotically joined with the deity,
new ones could not simply replace the old ones. Thus, in effect, having multiple simultaneous manifestations focusing on a single aspect meant greater power and prominence
for the deity and for the rulers who served them.
119
120
121
122
see, e.g., Omns (1999); Liboff (2002); Bernstein (2009); cf. Folgers provocatively titled article, If
an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once,Why Cant You? (2005).
They become fully Samas through the accumulation of various aspects of Samas, such as the image
and the name, and Samas willingness to symbiotically join with the statue, all through the medium of
ritual.
Berlejung (2002: 196230, esp. 216218; 2007: 36). Regarding the multiple statues of Marduk and their
different names, see further George (1997: 6570).
See, e.g., the takultu ritual texts, which (exhaustively) list temple cult images, often referring to what
appear to be the same deities under many different names, many of which seem to be focusing on an
aspect or function of the deity (see Porter 2000: 230239).
One finds evidence for the multiple divine names also, e.g., in lexical lists, royal inscriptions, hymns,
and epic poetry (Allen 2011: 205). Through a name, a deity differentiates itself from all others.
Through multiple names with multiple functions, it reserves for itself the benefits attached to the
multiple functions, which through the multiple names are ascribed to it.
91
Deities Outside of the Divine Constellations

The Divine Court123
In addition to often extensive family relations, the major anthropomorphically-understood
gods were conceived as divine kings with a court, a court that reflects the terrestrial court
of a king.124 Although not part of the constellation that makes up the divine person and
shares in its identity, the divine court consists of deities who serve the divine person and
thus are within its sphere of influence. In general, there are three kinds of divine servants.
First, certain deities serve the head of the pantheon in matters of state, advising and acting
as its representative and messenger. Second, some deities ensure the satisfaction and
personal needs of the gods. Third, other deities oversee the upkeep of the household (e.g.,
cooks, guards, and gatekeepers) (Renger 1974: 437).
As roughly equivalent to a human vizier, the divine sukkallu deserves special mention.125
The sukkallu is a deity in its own right, who is responsible for thinking, planning and representing its divine master, often serving as a bridge between its master and the other
gods and between its master and the terrestrial sphere.126 In fact, without the sukkallu the
high god could not give instructions to its divine and human subjects or communicate with
his divine brethren (Wiggermann 19851986: 21). For example, in the divine sphere, Nuska,
as the sukkallu of Enlil in the Atrahasis epic, protects and advises his lord, summons the
divine assembly, conveys their decision to the lower gods, and also represents him as his
deputy in the divine court (Dietrich 1997: 5860). In the divine sphere as well, the sukkallu
is associated with doors and responsible for allowing and mediating access to the high god
(Wiggermann 19851986: 17). In the human sphere, Ilabrat, as sukkallu of Anu in the
Adapa epic, serves as an expert in terrestrial matters for the distant sky god (Dietrich 1997:
6061). In accord with the human model, petitioners also often approach the vizier to bring
their message before the inaccessible king/high god.127 To this end, the sukkallu, like the
lamassu, is depicted as leading worshipers into the divine presence.128
123
124
125
126
127
The divine court is part of the larger divine entourage, which refers loosely to family, servants, and
other deities who are especially closely associated with the major anthropomorphic deity. When
understood as divine servants, monsters and even demons may form part of this entourage.
Jacobsen (1954: 149, 206ff.); Falkenstein (1966: 90); Renger (1974: 436);Wiggermann (19851986: 16).
For a list of sukkallu-gods and their divine masters, see CAD S sukkallu 1c: 358f. Although often
presented in anthropomorphic form, the sukkallu-gods were also portrayed with non-human or
superhuman body parts (e.g., more heads or a snakes tail; see, e.g., Groneberg 2006: 144). In addition,
although the sukkallu is naturally subordinate to the god whose vizier he functions as, he is not necessarily a minor god. For example, in various incantations of the Marduk-Ea type (see TUAT 2/2,
189191; Dietrich 1997: 6466), Marduk acts as vizier of Ea and in many contexts Nab is the vizier of
Marduk.
Dietrich (1997: 5051, 58).The divine sukkallu is modeled after his human counterpart, who performs
multifaceted functions as deputy of the king before his subjects or in the provinces (Wiggermann
19851986: 23; Dietrich 1997: 5758; cf. Parpola 1995: 389392, the role of the vizier-sukkallu in the
Neo-Assyrian cabinet).
A symbol-socle from Assur, e.g., bears an inscription to Nuska, the grand vizier (sukkalmahhu) of
Ekur , attendant of Assur and Enlil, who daily repeats the prayer (teslt) of Tukulti-Ninurta, the
king whom he loves, before Assur and Enlil and who [obtains (?)] for him in the Ekur the fixation of
92
Divine Accoutrements
Though not part of the larger divine entity, various other deified elements are associated
with anthropomorphic deities. As with the divine entourage, the deification of divine
accoutrements, such as crowns, furniture, and weapons, serves to enhance rather than detract from the prestige and power of the anthropomorphic deity. The deification of divine
accoutrements renders the deity greater since even the objects associated with it and over
which it exercises control are divine. In other words, not only is the deity divine, but so also
is its immediate environment over which it exercises dominion.
Protective Deities129
The female lamassu and its male counterpart sedu are the quintessential protective deities.130 Both figures are often presented in anthropomorphic guise, and the lamassu in particular is depicted as leading worshipers into the presence of the deity and more generally
serves to protect individuals from all sorts of ills, including demonic influence (Foxvog
19801983; Herles 2006: 231232; Ornan 2009: 130131). In addition to protecting individuals and mediating between those individuals and the major deities, they also protect
places; they are especially connected with temple doorways and come to be associated with
the entrances of palaces. While their anthropomorphic appearance is no doubt comforting
to the individual, at doorways they are represented as hybrid creatures in first millennium
128
129
130
his might (Wiggermann, 19851986 : 10). Likewise, in numerous incantations, the supplicant calls on
the high god through the mediation of its sukkallu (Dietrich 1997: 62).
E.g., Ninsubura, the most prevalent sukkallu, is often depicted leading a worshipper by the hand to
the high god (Dietrich 1997: 67). However, the sukkallu is generally replaced in art by the lamassu
in leading visitors into the divine presence (Wiggermann 19851986: 18), perhaps since lamassu-goddesses have a closer relationship to their human senders and thus would plead their case more
vigorously and effectively. Even though the sukkallu is supplanted by the lamassu in art, the sukkallu,
alongside the lamassu and the wife of the implored deity, remain the most common interceding
deities in the divine court (ibid. 20). Although they overlap to some degree, the primary difference
between the lamassu and the sukkallu seems to be a matter of position and perspective (pace Groneberg 1986b: 93108). The lamassu is most closely associated with the worshiper in the terrestrial
sphere and with the deity in its temple. She serves to protect both her human and divine charges and
to liaise between them. Her intercessory role largely derives from her intimate, protective function.
The sukkallu, on the other hand, is most closely associated with the high god, especially in inaccessible regions, like heaven and the underworld. As a vizier, it protects, advises, and represents its
masters in all matters of state. Its intermediary role derives largely from its role as divine representative, expressing its masters will with his servants and peers. As such, since it represents the face of its
god (Dietrich 1997: 70), it may be approached with petitions to deliver to the otherwise inaccessible
high god.
While lamassu-deities are sometimes part of the divine entourage, protecting the deity in the temple,
at other times they protect humans. While they are sometimes hybrid, they are often presented
anthropomorphically. In turn, they do not fit comfortably into either category and thus may be said to
form their own.
When written with the logogram lamma, the lamassu is always listed with the divine determinative
(Foxvog et al. 19801983: 447).
93
Assyria, stressing their ability to ward off all unwanted company. Aladlamm,131 the wellknown lamassu and sedu figures that stand on either side of entryways to palaces and
presumably also temples are depicted as often winged, colossal human-headed bulls or
lions. As such, like powerful hybrid demons like Pazuzu, they are the ideal supernatural
bouncers, potent enough to protect against any manner of intruder.132 However, although
mixed, unlike Pazuzu, they appear majestic, befitting the sphere they protect. Given their
imposing presence and prime position, they also serve two related functions. First, in the
context of the temple, they are appropriate boundary markers, indicating the importance
of the space they protect and indicating that, although they may appear in or as an anthropomorphic statue, the deities within are potent enough and different enough from humanity to control such majestic beasts. In the palace context, Neo-Assyrian kings borrow from
the prestige of the divine sphere, using such gatekeepers to indicate their importance and
power and also to strike appropriate fear in all who visit the royal precincts. Second, in the
temple context, they introduce guests to the deity.133 In their function as gatekeepers, they
both protect the divine sphere from unwanted attention and introduce appropriate guests
to the deity. Thus, the lamassu-deities of the various deities, which are the same as the
lamassu-deities of their temples, are important divine servants (Foxvog et al. 19801983:
450451).
Hybrid Creatures:Monsters and Demons134

Hybrids form an especially broad and illustrative category of unattached deities. Within
this category, one finds so-called monsters, demons, and protective beings (some of which
have been treated above).135 While the major anthropomorphic gods are at the heart of and
responsible for the ordered cosmos, so-called monsters136 dwell outside of and threaten
131
132
133
134
135
136
Although not attested in syllabic writing, for the sake of convenience I follow Landsberger in rendering dalad. dlamma.mes as aladlam or the Sumerian logographic equivalent of dsedu and dlamassu.
Esarhaddon describes their function in the palace context as those who because of their appearance, turn back an evil person, guard the steps and secure the path of the king who fashioned them
(Ash. 62 f. 41 ff).
This introductory function likely derives from their presence at doorways, and in some ways allows
them to usurp the divine viziers (sukkallu) role in this respect (Wiggermann 19851986: 18, 26).
While they form the most common genus of hybrid beings, monsters and demons are not the only
hybrids (e.g., protective deities and even some sukkallu-gods may have a mixed form). Here, they
feature as the major representatives of the category.
Although not absolute, monsters and demons may be generally differentiated by their functions and
areas of activity. Monsters serve as cosmic agents, who interact primarily with the gods in the divine
world, while demons are especially active within the human or natural world, afflicting or protecting
human beings (see further Sonik 2010).
Wiggermann distinguishes monsters from both the gods and demons, since on the one hand they do
not appear in the god-lists, are only sporadically listed with the dingir determinative, generally do
not wear the horned crown of divinity, while on the other hand they are not listed among the utukku
lemnu (roughly translated as evil demons; see CAD U-W: 339342), nor are they demons of disease
listed in the medical texts (1994: 231). Although they may be generally distinguished from gods and
demons, there is no generic term to describe monsters as a category. Monsters in general are
94
that order (see Wiggermann 1994; 1996: 207230). While the major anthropomorphic gods
are more or less clearly differentiated and have their own spheres of activity in the ordered
cosmos, monsters are largely undifferentiated in terms of identity and function.137 As a
general rule, these hybrid creatures are considered the anthropomorphic gods closest
rivals, who were defeated in the ancient past and now serve as divine servants, pets, mounts,
and emblems (Wiggermann 1992: 225229). Thus, portraying these beings as defeated foes
and servants at once demonstrates their lesser status and exalts the anthropomorphically
conceived deities.
Mesopotamians thus walked a fine theological line in describing their anthropomorphic
gods. On the one hand, in order to make them understandable and approachable, the gods
were perceived to be like humans. On the other hand, in order to demonstrate their ultimate power, they defeated these supernatural freaks (Wiggermann 1992: 151152), who
in their form embodied all that was powerful and terrifying in the world. Such potent
supernatural beings are in all contexts superior to humans and different from the anthropomorphic deities, in most contexts subordinated to the anthropomorphic deities, and in
some contexts considered deities themselves.
Demons, for lack of a better term, are another important and complex category of divine
being.138 Like the major gods, demons are in many ways anthropomorphized, in order to
make them more comprehensible and their effects easier to avert, especially through the
incantation literature (van der Toorn 2003: 67, 72). However, although somewhat anthropomorphized and although they partake of the divine nature (ilutu), demons often lack
gender, individual identity, families, as well as the desire and ability to respond to prayer
and supplication, and they are thoroughly predictable in their actions (ibid. 7778).
As supernatural beings, demons are presented in an ambivalent manner. On the one
hand, they are presented as the source of all sorts of human afflictions, most prominently
137
138
presented as hybrid beings, who combine various potent natural elements into one form. For example, Anzu, associated with the clouds, was presented as a bird-lion hybrid, representing prominent
aspects of the storm, air and roaring respectively (Wiggermann 1994: 225).
Monsters are only individuated under specific conditions and not for their own intrinsic value but
rather as a vehicle for exalting a particular god. For example, in the combat myth of Ninurta and the
Enu
ma elis, Ninurta and Marduk defeat monsters with clear identities, Anzu and Tiamat respectively.
In both cases, Anzu and Tiamat are used to explain the power and cult of the emergent gods (in fact,
Enu
ma elis is dependent on and adopts the same strategy as the Anzu myth; see Wiggermann 1992:
163). In other words, Ninurta and Marduk are powerful and important because they have defeated
powerful monstrous foes, in Ninurtas case indicating how he rather than Enlil is the master of Anzu
(Wiggermann 1992: 151164). More expansively, both myths are concerned with the setting up of the
cosmos in its present ordered form (Livingstone 1986: 170). Anzu and Tiamat are used as a means to
this end.
There are various Akkadian terms used to denote demons, though none that may be equated with
the modern English term. Instead demons should be understood more simply as a kind of supernatural being, which has an ambivalent relationship with both the anthropomorphic gods and
humanity (cf. Hutter 2008: 21).The most general Akkadian term is utukku (see the now dated but still
useful survey in Ebeling 1938: 107113; CAD U-W: 339342). To specify that the demons in question
are in fact evil, the text often adds the modifier lemnu (evil) (CAD U-W: 339342; utukku lemnu
series).
95
diseases.139 On the other hand, they may also be viewed as beneficent creatures, used to
counteract the effects of the evil demons, whether through incantations or as apotropaic
boundary markers, particularly of houses.140 It would seem then that the most awesome
and powerful features of several creatures were combined in a single being either to personify the terrifyingly potent powers of evil or to create a being scary and powerful enough
to counteract it.141 Lamastu and Pazuzu form prime examples of both categories of
demons. Lamastu, who is marked with the divine determinative and listed as the daughter
of Anu, is especially responsible for disrupting pregnancy and harming young children (see
Farber 19801983; Wiggermann 2000: 217252). In order to protect the home and counteract and banish Lamastu, parents appeal to Pazuzu, king of the evil winds (lil), in essence
using a being even scarier than Lamastu to scare her away.142
The relationship of evil demons with the major gods was expressed in two primary ways.
Demons are either a divine nuisance independent from yet subordinate to the major gods,
or the loyal agents of certain deities, commissioned to carry out evil intentions.143 Good
demons likewise partake of the divine nature, counteract evil and are either independent
or agents of the anthropomorphic deities.
Other Effects of Divine Multiplicity

Before concluding, the article will examine some of the potential pitfalls of divine multiplicity, which have been much discussed in biblical circles, in order to see them more clearly
through a Mesopotamian lens. Analysis of two important phenomena divine overlap and
character-poaching that enhance the complexity and flexibility of the divine realm will
follow, which have implications for other ANE religions and religious expressions.
139
140
141
142
143
Indeed, instead of simply being responsible for diseases, demons are often equated with diseases.
However, at other times, as we have seen, diseases are deified in their own right or merely treated as
conditions affecting the body.
See, e.g., Green (1994: 246).Although some demons may be alternatively presented as evil or good,
the majority are presented as one or the other. Demons also appear in palaces and temples. For
example, Huwawa heads are fastened at the front of temples and are attested at Tell Rimah. (Wigger
mann 19851986: 26). See above for the hybrid creatures known as aladlamm.
Gadd (1934: 14); Kendall (1977: 49); Green (1994: 246). It must be noted that in the third and second
millennia animals like dogs, snakes, and scorpions were most prominently presented as the agents of
evil. Only in the first millennium did the personified evils gain prominence, while the animals became
subordinate to these personified evils (van der Toorn 2003: 6567; cf.Wiggermann 1994: 132133). For
example, according to the first millennium Lamastu series, a black dog is Lamastus regular companion (I 114).
See Wiggermann (2004). Pazuzu seems to have largely replaced Huwawa as an apotropaic boundary
marker in the first millennium, both of which scared off intruders with their frighteningly potent
faces.
Van der Toorn (2003: 76). For example, in the Atrahasis epic, child-snatching demons act under Enkis
command to keep the population at bay (ibid. 75). In general, however, demons are associated with
Erra or Nergal and his spouse Ereskigal, which by extension demonize their masters (ibid. 74).
96
Potential Pitfalls of Divine Multiplicity

Divine Fragmentation144
Although, and perhaps because, the fluid Mesopotamian divine world allows for multiple
complex ways of conceiving and depicting deities, divine multiplicity brings with it
potential pitfalls. For example, as is already apparent, the relationship between aspects may
become tenuous as well as the relationship of each aspect to the whole. In some cases, with
Istar in particular, different local manifestations are treated as different deities all together.145 For example, a hymn of Assur-bani-apli addresses the distinct Istars of Nineveh
and Arbela (Livingstone 1987: 1013; Sommer 2009: 14).
For the most part, however, various manifestations did not diminish the whole.146 Rather,
by the additive principle they enhanced it. Since each aspect represents a competency, such
as control over a natural element or force, function, quality, or geographical area, the more
aspects added, the more potent the deity becomes. Even if the relationship of the manifestations to the whole is somewhat murky, the fact that there is a relationship adds another
aspect to the deity and co-opts whatever characteristics the particular aspect carries. Likewise, such potential fragmentation on the local scale often did not detract from the larger
constellation; it simply meant that there were different local Is tars, all of whom were
connected to the other common traits of Istar. In fact, various local Istars extend the sphere
of influence of the larger Istar constellation and established more places where she was
perceived to be present and active. In addition, some brought their own unique traits into
the collective, which they inherited from various other associations. For example, Istar of
Nineveh brought an association with Mullissu, who was Assurs wife, granting her greater
prestige and extending the range of the larger Istar, making her greater, not smaller.147
Nonetheless, with various independent local manifestations, there is some danger that
the various Istars could act in contradictory, perhaps even combative, ways. For example, it
was not always out of the realm of possibility that Nineveh could go to war against Babylon, thus bringing Istar of Nineveh to war against Istar of Babylon. In a less extreme case,
local shrines could compete for worshipers. There could even be a debate in the same
temple over which cult image was the real deity, whereby a king could signify that the
image he supplied should replace the previous image as the primary cult statue.148 Even
with such competition, the fact that there are competing claims in different areas suggests
144
145
146
147
148
Fragmentation is the word employed by Sommer, referring to several deities with a single name who
somehow are and are not the same deity (Sommer 2009: 13). The possibility and implications of the
term will be addressed below.
See esp. the extensive evidence presented by Allen (2011).
Nor did multiple manifestations mean that each manifestation possessed less power, as if the larger
divine entity had a limited amount of power to be divided among its manifestations but not reduplicated in each. Rather, each manifestation could theoretically represent the fullness of the deity
without diminishment, a fullness enhanced by the addition of more elements.
Meinhold (2009: 200ff.); Allen (2011: 311ff.). This connection was conceivably cemented when the
capital moved to Nineveh and Assur became associated with the city.
See, e.g., the now famous Sippar tablet of Nab-apla-iddina.
97
that Istar is perceived to be especially present and active in various locales.149 Thus,
although worshipers could fight over which surname and form was more important
(whether that last name signaled a place or a characteristic, whether the form was symbolic
or anthropomorphic), if anything, the forename and the divine constellation that bore it
benefited from such infighting. Likewise, regarding the individual manifestations, since
each manifestation adds to the range of the larger divine constellation, each divine locus in
effect is competing over a larger pot.
In addition, the strong differentiation between the local manifestations of Is tar seems to
be the exception rather than the rule. For most other deities there was no such fragmentation. Although they were worshiped in various locales simultaneously in various forms,
other deities were presented far more coherently. It thus seems that the size of the fissure
between forms varied according to time, place, and person. Various factors may also contribute to Istars complexity. Most prominently, Istars popularity, as evidenced by her presence in more than 100 local cults (Groneberg 2006: 139140), and her relatively minor
status among the major gods (Allen 2011: 202203) may have made her more prone to
develop various (conflicting) selves.150 By contrast, although they were presented in
various guises, especially within the same temple, the national gods Assur and Marduk
seemed to be presented more holistically, perhaps because of their prominence and the
undisputed prominence of their central cultic locations, Assur and Babylon respectively.
Indeed, if (semi-)independent local manifestations within the nation were especially
stressed, they may have detracted from the larger whole. Since Assur and Marduk are
already national gods, local manifestations within the nation do not add to the divine range.
Rather they threaten to dilute the deity and detract from the central importance of Assur
and Babylon as terrestrial divine abodes and axes mundi.151
Divine Displacement
Nonetheless, when an associated element is entirely dissociated from a deity, there is some
threat that the dissociated element could usurp some of the deitys worship. For example,
although more prominent in Syria-Palestine, one finds potential examples of an image
149
150
151
In a modern context, competition over which Mary is most significant makes Mary more and not
less important, giving her more places in which she is venerated and in which she can be especially
accessed.
In addition, each deity could multiply itself i.e., establish a new local cult and be present in local
cult images. Most often each new manifestation seems to be an expansion outward from an original
divine prototype. However, in Hittite Anatolia, although there is some evidence of a deity expanding
outward from an original prototype (e.g., the expansion of the storm god of Aleppo to Hattusa and
the neighboring locales; see, e.g., Singer 1994: 8688, and the establishment of a new satellite temple
for the Goddess of the Night, Miller 2004), it seems that some of the most prominent weather gods
existed side-by-side from the beginning, making their full equation less palatable. As the quintessential goddess, Istar too could have had multiple (simultaneous) origins, which thus are more prone
to be treated as distinct (so too Adad in the north and west, where, unlike in the south, rain was
especially necessary for survival).
In fact, in Neo-Assyrian times, there is no evidence of shrines of Assur outside of the city of Assur
(Hollaway 2002: 6568, 160 ff.; Cancik-Kirschbaum 2003: 53), perhaps to avert this threat.
98
replacing the deity as the object of adoration. For example, s.almu (image) was written
with a divine determinative and became a deity in its own right (Dalley 1986: 85101; Curtis
1990: 37). However, s.almu may have simply been the name of a cult symbol for Samas of
Larsa (Van der Toorn 1997: 11), and thus represented but one aspect of Samas that was
comfortably integrated into the larger whole. There is also evidence for the deity Sikkanu
(stela) in Old Babylonian Larsa in the name of a judge, Warad-Sikkani (slave of Sikkanu) and for the god Abnu (stone) appearing with a divine determinative in the OB
period (ibid. 910). Although there is little evidence to this effect, it is possible that these
deified objects replaced the deities they represented as the objects of worship. For example, since the deified object bore a different forename than its (originally) associated
deity, it could be more easily distanced from the deity, and thus worship directed toward
the object may have been directed away from the god. In other words, people could start
worshipping the immediate aspect and lose sight of the affiliated deity.152
Influence and Fluidity among Divine Constellations

While the previous section on potential pitfalls addressed the complexity and competition
within a constellation, we now turn to the complexity and competition between constellations, namely, the opportunity for divine overlap and the roles of competition and character-poaching.
Divine Overlap
Although not as prominent as in Egypt, there is some evidence in Mesopotamia, particularly in the takultu ritual texts, that Mesopotamian deities overlapped to some degree.153
The texts combine the names of two gods into a single name on at least eleven occasions,
such as Ninurta-Assur and Assur-Adad, each of which is treated as a single deity (Porter
2000: 235). By analogy with the other instances of a divine name modified by a descriptive
word or phrase,154 it seems that the second gods name in the paired names is probably
152
153
154
Here it is worth pausing to compare the Mesopotamian perspective and particularly its pitfalls with
the biblical Priestly (P), Deuteronomic (D), and Deuteronomistic (Dtr) perspectives. P, D, and Dtr
present the deity differently, likely in response to the risk of: 1) the statue being destroyed or deported; 2) divine fragmentation, such that there are many different YHWHs rather than only one;
and 3) too close an association between deity and statue, deity and human-made object. Rather than
limiting the deity themselves, P, D, and Dtr contend that the deity limits the way he may be worshiped, namely, in one locale, with no cult statue, and without being inextricably bound or limited to that
locale or to any particular form (pace Sommer 2009).
Takultu literally means the meal but in practice was a symbolically charged and elaborate royal
presentation of food offerings (Porter 2000: 230; for the ritual texts, see esp. Menzel 1981: 54
(K. 252),T 11325 and 61 (VAT 10126),T. 13844).
In each case the word or phrase following divine name is descriptive, identifying a particular form
or representation of that god worshipped in the temple in question: a local form of the god, a form of
the god characterized by the exercise of a particular function, a physical form taken by the god, or a
particular visual representation of that god (Porter 2000: 236).
99
also descriptive, identifying a particular form in which the first god was worshipped in the
temple in question, probably a form of that god characterized by the main quality, power,
or role associated with the second god (ibid. 236237). It is probable that in combination
the first deity is described as like, or equivalent to, or incorporating the qualities of, the
second god; Assur-Adad, in other words, should probably be understood to mean, Assur in
the form in which he resembles Adad (probably as a storm god) and not vice versa (ibid.
237). As he appears first in the majority of combinations, the text presents Assur as unusually powerful, a singularly potent locus of divine power who embodied qualities and
powers usually attributed to several other gods (ibid. 237238). However, the context
also makes it clear that the juxtaposed names imply no absorption of the second god by the
first; in almost every case, both gods named in juxtaposition appear elsewhere in the text
as independent deities, each invoked and presented with offerings as two gods with independent existences and separate powers (ibid.).
Likewise, in a hymn to Ninurta, the Assyrian poet refers to other gods as parts of Ninurtas body. In doing so, he exploits this fluid Mesopotamian concept of ilu to praise Ninurta
in different ways in each of the three sections of the poem playing first on the concept of
ilus as divine persons, second on their aspect as celestial entities, and third on their role as
powers and activities (Porter 2000: 248). In the first section, Ninurta receives the praises of
other deities recognized as independent divine persons, who share their powers with
Ninurta.The second section refers to ilu
as celestial bodies, which are co-opted into the vast
cosmic body of Ninurta, whose head is the sky itself, with all its planets and stars (ibid.
250).The third section refers to ilu
as powers, qualities and natural phenomena acting on
earth, ranging from storm to contentment and from judgment to creation and the provision
of abundance (ibid.). In other words, the poem seems to play on and claim for Ninurta the
various aspects that are and that make up other deities.155 Once again it must be stressed
that Ninurta does not assimilate other deities or their attributes. Instead, although the
other deities remain distinct and their powers and aspects remain their own, the poem
contends that Ninurta also possesses or shares in these powers and aspects. Thus, from the
above examples it would seem that aspects of different deities may overlap and, since a
deity consists of various aspects, deities also may overlap to some extent.
Competition and Character-Poaching

The idea of competition between deities follows closely from their overlapping function. In
a polytheistic context, a text does not often deny the existence of other gods or eliminate
them. Rather, to exalt a single deity, a text depicts that deity as co-opting the aspects of
other deities. Co-opting (some of) a deitys aspects in no way denies the existence of that
god; instead that deity is no longer the exclusive bearer of the attribute, such that one need
155
The poet has used the poem to play on the spectrum of potential meanings inherent in the multivalent conception of ilu, using its rich variety to paint a vivid image of Ninurtas impressiveness and
power as a god who is by turns a divine person, an astral phenomenon, and an embodiment of all
important earthly activities and powers in short, a god, rather ilu, par excellence (Porter 2000: 251).
100
not access it in order to access the attribute. As a result, when more than one god shares a
function, the less prominent deity may be forgotten because it is no longer necessary and
thus effectively relegated to non-existent status.156
In the takultu texts and Ninurta hymn mentioned above, e.g., a single god seems to be
exalted by sharing the aspects of other deities. Poaching divine aspects is especially characteristic of the national gods Assur and Marduk, who overcame relatively humble and obscure beginnings to become the most prominent gods in Assyria and Babylon respec ma elis is primarily designed to legitimate Marduks position
tively.157 For example, the Enu
as king of the gods. In addition to his triumph in battle against the seemingly unbeatable
enemy and her monstrous minions, the poem climaxes with Marduks 50 names, which
coopt aspects of other deities, thus rendering them largely unnecessary and himself
supreme.158 Assur likewise promotes himself by taking over the aspects of Enlil, Marduk,
Ea, Samas, Ninurta, and/or Adad.159
In an attempt to present the exalted god as the possessor of all important aspects, the
texts effectively present the other gods as unnecessary but by no means impotent. In fact,
the texts desire to poach their qualities is an indication of their potency. Thus, Mesopotamian gods are exalted over the other gods not by replacing them, but by partaking of their
previously exclusive aspects and adding them to their own.
Conclusion
In sum, in the complex and fluid Mesopotamian divine world, the major gods generally
consist of a constellation of aspects that may be treated as (semi-)independent or as part of
a larger organic unity, as the context dictates. Each element in the constellation adds to the
range of the deity, whose core is anthropomorphically presented, enabling it to have a far
greater reach and to be active in far more arenas. A deity may always expand its range by
taking on new attributes, including new cult images, sometimes through divine overlap or
by co-opting another deitys attributes. Likewise, a deitys range may contract, e.g., when
another deity adopts its power(s). In short, a deitys range depends on the quantity, quality,
and exclusivity of its associated aspects.
156
157
158
159
See, e.g., the god lists that attempt to preserve the (soon-to-be) forgotten deities.
In both cases, political expansion worked in tandem with the expansion of the deities aspects and
areas of competence (Sallaberger 2004: 299).
It is esp. reliant on An = Anum (Dalley 1997: 167). In another example, Babylon lays a claim to replacing Nippur as the axis mundi, and thus Marduk seeks to supplant Enlil as king of the gods (Maul
1997).
See esp. Berlejung (2007); cf. regarding Assurs assumption of Samas role as judge (Ringgren 1947:
5556). In a more extensive way than Babylon and Marduk, Assur, the city, and Assur, the god,
assume the character, personality, family, epithets, attributes and equipment of Enlil (Berlejung
2007: 12, translated from German). As with Babylon, Assur is cast as the new Nippur (ibid.; see
further Maul 1997). For an especially intense concentration of accumulating aspects, see Assurbanipals hymn to Assur (Berlejung 2007: 2529).
101
Deities outside of the constellation, who often consist of a single aspect, have a more
limited range both spatially and in terms of areas of competence. Their powers are further
curtailed in that most are situated under and in relation to the major gods. Thus, they are
generally lesser gods, in-between beings of one sort or another. The divine court and the
deified divine accouterments surround and are subservient to their divine master. The sukkallu in particular represents its divine master, serving as a go-between between its master
and all those with whom the master interacts.160 As the quintessential protective deity, the
lamassu stands between a deity or person and danger and, in its role as gatekeeper, allows
or prohibits access to the divine master. Monsters serve as defeated and sometimes domesticated foes, who as guardians stand between their masters and the outside world. In some
contexts, demons are servants of the major gods, who carry out their divine wills. Thus,
at the heart of the ubiquitous and complex divine world rests the anthropomorphically
conceived great gods, who incorporate various aspects into their persons and surround
themselves with various other independent deities who serve them in various capacities.
160
The sukkallus association with the door is also indicative of its role in leading people into the divine
presence or denying them access.
102
Bibliography
Allen, S. (2011): The Splintered Divine. A Study of Istar, Baal, and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine
Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Andrae,W. (1925): Coloured Ceramics from Ashur, London.
Asher-Greve, J. (19951996): Reading the Horned Crown.A Review Article,AfO 42, 181189.
Assmann, J. (2001).Tod und Jenseits im Alten gypten. Munich.
Assmann, J. (1984): gypten.Theologie und Frmmigkeit einer frhen Hochkultur, Stuttgart.
Aster, S. (2006): The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature. A Philological and Comparative Study, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Bahrani, Z. (2001): Women of Babylon. Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia, London.
Barnett, R./M. Falkner (1962): The Sculptures of Assur-nasir-apli II, 883859 B.C. Tiglath-Pileser III,
745727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681669 B.C., From the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud,
London.
Beaulieu, P.-A. (2003): The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period (Cuneiform Monographs 23), Leiden.
Berlejung, A. (1998): Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO 162), Fribourg.
Berlejung, A. (2002): Notlsungen Altorientalische Nachrichten ber den Tempelkult in Nachkriegszeiten. In: U. Hbner/E. Knauf (eds.), Kein Land fr sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palstina und Ebirnri fr Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (OBO 186), Fribourg,
196230.
Berlejung, A. (2007): Die Reduktion von Komplexitt. Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine
Umsetzung in der Ikonographie am Bespiel des Gottes Assur im Assyrien des 1. Jt. v. Chr. In: B. Groneberg/H. Spieckermann (eds.), Die Welt der Gtterbilder (BZAW 376), Berlin, 956.
Bernstein, J. (2009): Quantum Leaps, Cambridge, MA.
Black, J./A. Green (1992): Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An illustrated Dictionary, London.
Bodel, J./S. Olyan (eds.) (2008): Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, Oxford.
Boehmer, R. (1975): Hrnerkrone, RlA 4, 431434.
Bottro, J. (1977): Les noms de Marduk. In: M. de Jong (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (Memoirs of the CT Academy of Arts & Sciences 19), Hamden, CT,
528.
Bottro, J. (2001): Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, Chicago.
Braun-Holzinger, E. (1987): Lwenmensch, RlA 7, 99102.
Brown, B. (2000): Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology (CM 18), Groningen.
Brunner-Traut, E. (1990): Frhformen des Erkennens.Am Beispiel Altgyptens, Darmstadt.
Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (2003): Die Assyrer. Geschichte, Gesellschaft, Kultur, Munich.
Cassin, E. (1968): La splendeur divine. Introduction ltude de la mentalit msopotamienne (Civilisations et socits 8), Paris.
Cassin, E. (1987): La mort des dieux. In : Le semblable et le diffrent. Symbolismes du pouvoir dans le
Proche-Orient ancient, Paris, 222235.
Charpin, D. (1980): Archives familiales et proprit prive en Babylonie ancienne. tude des documents
de Tell Sifr (Hautes tudes orientales 12), Geneva.
Cornelius, I. (1994):The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baal (OBO 140), Fribourg.
Cornelius, I. (1997): The Many Faces of God: Divine Images and Symbols in Ancient Near Eastern Religions. In: K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of
Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (CBET 21), Leuven.
Curtis, E. (1990): Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible. A Comparative Study. In: W. Hallo (ed.), The
Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature, Lewiston, NY.
103
Dalley, S. (1986): The God S.almu and the Winged Disk, Iraq 48, 85101.
Dalley, S. (1997): Statues of Marduk and the Date of Enuma elis, AoF 24, 163171.
Deller, K. (1992): Gtterstreitwagen und Gtterstandarten. Gtter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im
Feldlager, BaM, 291298.
Dick, M. (2005): The Mesopotamian Cult Statue. A Sacramental Encounter with Divinity. In: N. Walls
(ed.), Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East (ASOR Books 10), Boston.
Dietrich, M. (1997): sukkallu der mesopotamische Gtterbote. Eine Studie zur Angelologie im Alten
Orient. In: G. Ahn/M. Dietrich (eds.), Engel und Dmonen. Theologische, anthropologische und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte des Guten und Bsen (FARG 29), Mnster, 4974.
Dombradi, E. (1996): Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden
(FAOS 20/1), Stuttgart.
Ebeling, E. (1938): Dmonen, RlA 2, 107113.
Falkenstein,A. (1966): Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagas. I. Einleitung (AnOr 30), Rome.
Farber,W. (19801983): Lamastu, RlA 6, 439446.
Folger, T. (2005): If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Cant You? Discover Magazine,
Online: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover.
Fox, M. (1995):World Order and Maat.A Crooked Parallel, JANES 23, 3748.
Foxvog, D., et al. (19801983): Lamma/Lamassu A. I. Mesopotamien. Philologisch, RlA 6, 446453.
Frankena, R. (1954): Takultu. De Sacrale Maaltijd in het Assyrische Ritueel met een Overzicht der in
Assur Vereerde Goden, Leiden.
Frankfort, H. (1948):Ancient Egyptian Religion.An Interpretation, New York.
Freydank, H./C. Saporetti (1979): Nuove Attestazioni dellonamastica medio-assira, Rome.
Gadd, C. (1934):The Assyrian Sculptures, London.
Garelli, P. (1974): Hofstaat. B.Assyrisch, RlA 5, 446452.
George,A. (1997): Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon, OrNS 66, 6570.
George, A. (2000): Four Temple Rituals from Babylon. In: A. George/I. Finkel (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and
Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert,Winona Lake, IN, 289299.
Grayson,A. (1991):Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC (RIMA 2),Toronto.
Green,A. (1994): Mischwesen B.Archologie. Mesopotamien, RlA 8, 246264.
Groneberg, B. (1986a): Die sumerisch/akkadische Inanna/Istar. Hermaphroditos?,WdO 17, 2546.
Groneberg, B. (1986b): Eine Einfhrungsszene in der altbabylonischen Literatur. Bemerkungen zum
persnlichen Gott. In: K. Hecker/W. Sommerfeld (eds.), Keilschriftliche Literaturen. Ausgewhlte Vortrge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Mnster, 8.12.7. 1985 (BBVO 6), Berlin,
93108.
Groneberg, B. (2006): Aspekte der Gttlichkeit in Mesopotamien. Zur Klassifizierung von Gttern und Zwischenwesen. In: R. Kratz/H. Spieckermann (eds.), Gtterbilder, Gottesbilder, Weltbilder I. gypten, Mesopotamien, Persien, Kleinasien, Syrien, Palstina (FAT 2/17), Tbingen, 131
165.
Hamori, E. (2008): When Gods Were Men. The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (BZAW 384), Berlin.
Hartenstein, F. (2008): Das Angesicht JHWHs. Studien zu seinem hfischen und kultischen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 3234 (FAT 55),Tbingen.
Heeel, N. (2002): Pazuzu. Archologische und philologische Studien zu einem altorientalischen Dmon
(AMD 4), Leiden.
Heimpel,W. (1997): Mythologie.A. I. In Mesopotamien, RlA 8, 537564.
Hendel, R. (1997): Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel. In: K. van der Toorn (ed.), The
Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient
Near East (CBET 21), Leuven.
Herles, M. (2006): Gtterdarstellungen in der 2. Hlfte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Das anthropomorphe
Bild im Verhltnis zum Symbol (AOAT 329), Mnster.
Holloway, S. (2001): The giskakki Assur and Neo-Assyrian Loyalty Oaths. In: T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Pro-
104
ceedings of the XLV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Part 1. Historiography in the Cuneiform World, Bethesda, MD, 449470.
Holloway, S. (2002): Assur is King! Assur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian
Empire, Leiden.
Hornung, E. (1982): Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt.The One and the Many, Ithaca, NY.
Huehnergard, J. (1997):A Grammar of Akkadian (Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45),Atlanta.
Hundley, M. (forthcoming): Gods In Dwellings. Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East
(SBLWAW Supplement Series),Atlanta.
Hurowitz,V. (2003):The Mesopotamian God Image. From Womb to Tomb, JAOS 123, 147157.
Hsken, U. (ed.) (2007): When Rituals go Wrong. Mistakes, Failure, and the Dynamics of Ritual (SHR
115), Leiden.
Hutter, M. (2008): Demons and Benevolent Spirits in the Ancient Near East.A Phenomonological Overview. In: F. Reiterer et al., Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature.Yearbook 2007.Angels.The Concept of Celestial Beings Origins, Development and Reception, Berlin, 2134.
Jacobsen,T. (1954): Frhlicht des Geistes. Wandlungen des Weltbildes im Alten Orient, Stuttgart.
Jacobsen, T. (1970): Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, Cambridge, MA.
Jacobsen,T. (1976):The Treasures of Darkness.A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven, CT.
Jean, C.-F. (1977):Tell Sifr.Textes cuniformes conservs au British Museum, Paris.
Kendall, T. (1977): Urartian Art in Boston. Two Bronze Belts and a Mirror, Boston Museum Bulletin 75,
2655.
Koch, K. (1991): Die hebrische Sprache zwischen Polytheismus und Monotheismus. In: Spuren des
hebrischen Denkens. Beitrge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Koch-Westenholz, U. (1995): Mesopotamian Astrology. An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian
Celestial Divination (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 19), Denmark.
Lambert,W. (1957): Gott. B. Nach akkadischen Texten, RlA 3, 543546.
Lambert,W. (1960): Babylon Wisdom Literature, Oxford.
Lambert,W. (1969): Gtterlisten, RlA 3, 473479.
Lambert,W. (1983):The God Assur, Iraq 45, 8286.
Lambert, W. (1990): Ancient Mesopotamian Gods. Superstition, Philosophy, Theology, RHR 207,
115130.
Langdon, S. (1927): Babylonian Penitential Psalms (OECT 6), Paris.
Lawson, J. (2004): The Concept of Fate in Ancient Mesopotamia of the First Millennium. Toward an
Understanding of simtu,Weisbaden.
Layard,A. (1849): Monuments of Nineveh. From Drawings Made on the Spot I, London.
Levine,A. (2007): Cloning.A Beginners Guide, London.
Lewis,T. (1996):The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith, JBL 115, 401423.
Liboff, R. (2002): Introductory Quantum Mechanics, Reading, MA.
Litke, R. (1998): A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-lists, an: da-nu-um and an: anu s
ameli (TBC 3), New Haven, CT.
Livingstone, A. (1986): Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian
Scholars, Oxford.
Livingstone,A. (1987): Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA 3), Helsinki.
Machinist, P. (2006): Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria. In: G. Beckman/T. Lewis (eds.), Text,
Artifact, and Image. Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (BJS 346), Providence, 152188.
Maul, S. (1997): Die altorientalische Hauptstadt Abbild und Nabel der Welt. In: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die
Orientalische Stadt. Kontinuitt,Wandel, Bruch. 1. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft, 9.10. Mai 1996 in Halle/Saale (CDOG 1),Wiesbaden, 109124.
Maul, S. (2005): Omina und Orakel.A. Mesopotamien, RlA 10, 4588.
Mayer-Opificus, R. (1984): Die geflgelte Sonne. Himmels- und Regendarstellungen im alten Vorderasien, UF 16, 189236.
105
Meinhold, W. (2009): Istar in Assur. Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v. Chr. (AOAT
367), Mnster.
Menzel, B. (1981):Assyrische Tempel (2 vols.), Rome.
Miller, J.L. (2004): Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals
(StBoT 46),Wiesbaden.
Nakata, I. (1991): On the Official Pantheon of the Old Babylonian City of Mari as Reflected in the
Records of Issuance of Sacrificial Animals,ASJ 13, 249258.
Omns, R. (1999): Understanding Quantum Mechanics, Princeton.
Oppenheim,A. (1977):Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago.
Ornan, T. (2005a): The Triumph of the Symbol. Pictoral Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and
the Biblical Image Ban (OBO 213), Fribourg.
Ornan, T. (2005b): A Complex System of Religious Systems. The Case of the Winged Disk in Near
Eastern Imagery of the First Millennium BCE. In: C. Suter/C. Uehlinger (ed.), Crafts and Images in
Contact. Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE (OBO 210), Fribourg,
207241.
Ornan,T. (2009): In the Likeness of Man. Reflections on the Anthropocentric Perception of the Divine in
Mesopotamian Art. In: B. Porter (ed.), What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic
Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2)
Winona Lake, IN, 93151.
Otto, R. (1923):The Idea of the Holy. Oxford.
Parpola, S. (1987): The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I. Letters from Assyria and the West (SAA 1),
Helsinki.
Parpola, S. (1995): The Assyrian Cabinet. In: M. Dietrich/O. Loretz, Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993 (AOAT 240),
Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Peterson, J. (2009): Godlists from Old Babylonian Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia
(AOAT 362), Mnster.
Pettinato, G. (1979): Le collezioni en--nu-ru di Ebla, OA 18, 329351.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1994): Ina sulmi rub. Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der
ak tu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BaF 16), Mainz am Rhein.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. et al. (1992): Gtterstreitwagen und Gtterstandarten. Gtter auf dem Feldzug und
ihr Kult im Feldlager, BaM 23, 291356.
Porter, B. (2000): The Anxiety of Multiplicity. Concepts of the Divine in Ancient Assyria. In: B. Porter
(ed.), One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (Transactions of the Casco Bay
Assyriological Institute 1), Casco Bay, ME, 211272.
Porter, B. (2006): Feeding Dinner to a Bed. Reflections on the Nature of Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,
SAAB 15, 307331.
Porter, B. (ed.) (2009a): What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity
in Ancient Mesopotamia (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2), Winona Lake, IN.
Porter, B. (2009b): Introduction. In: B. Porter (ed.), What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological
Institute 2),Winona Lake, IN, 113.
Porter, B. (2009c): Blessings from a Crown, Offerings to a Drum. Were there Non-Anthropomorphic
Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia? In: B. Porter (ed.), What is a God? Anthropomorphic and NonAnthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2),Winona Lake, IN, 153194.
Reiner, E. (1956): Lipsur Litanies, JNES 15, 129149.
Renger, J. (1974): Hofstaat, RlA 5, 435446.
Renger, J. (19801983): Kultbild.A. Philologisch (in Mesopotamien), RlA 6, 307314.
Ringgren, H. (1947): Word and Wisdom. Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East, Lund.
106
Rochberg, F. (1996): Personifications and Metaphors in Babylonian Celestial Omina, JAOS 116,
475485.
Rochberg, F. (2004): The Heavenly Writing. Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian
Culture, Cambridge.
Rochberg, F. (2009): The Stars Their Likenesses. Perspectives on the Relation Between Celestial
Bodies and Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia. In: B. Porter (ed.), What is a God? Anthropomorphic and
Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (Transactions of the Casco Bay
Assyriological Institute 2),Winona Lake, IN, 4191.
Rllig,W. (1971): Gtterzahlen, RlA 3, 499500.
Roux, G. (1964):Ancient Iraq, Middlesex, England.
Sallaberger, W. (2000): Das Erscheinen Marduks als Vorzeichen. Kultstatue und Neujahrsfest in der
lu, ZA 90, 227262.
Omenserie Summa A
Sallaberger,W. (2004): Pantheon A. I. In Mesopotamien, RlA 10, 294308.
Schfer, H. (1963):Von gyptischer Kunst. Eine Grundlage (4. ed.),Wiesbaden.
Selz, G. (1997): The Holy Drum, the Spear, and the Harp. Towards an Understanding of the Problems
of Deification in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. In: I. Finkel/M. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and
Their Representations (CM 7), Groningen, 167209.
Singer, I. (1994): The Thousand Gods of Hatti. The Limits of an Expanding Pantheon. In: I. Alon et al.
(eds.), Concepts of the Other in Near Eastern Religions (IOS 15), Leiden.
Slanski, K. (2003a): Representation of the Divine on the Babylonian Entitlement Monuments (kudurrus). Part I. Divine Symbols,AfO 50, 308323.
Slanski, K. (2003b): The Babylonian Entitlement nars (kudurrus): A Study in their Form and Function
(ASOR Books 9), Boston.
Smith, M. (2001): The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Israels Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic
Texts, Oxford.
Smith, M. (2004): The Memoirs of God. History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient
Israel, Minneapolis.
Sommer, B. (2009):The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge.
Sonik, S. (2010): Daimon-Haunted Universe. Conceptions of the Supernatural in Mesopotamia. Ph.D.
diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Soskice, J. (1985): Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford.
Spycket,A. (19801983): Lamma/Lamassu. B.Archologisch, RlA 6, 453455.
Stol, M. (1993): Epilepsy in Babylonia (CM 2), Groningen.
Tadmor, H. (1994): The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Critical Edition, with Introductions,Translations and Commentary, Jerusalem.
Terrien, S. (1978):The Elusive Presence. Toward a New Biblical Theology, New York.
van der Toorn, K. (1997):Worshipping Stones. On the Deification of Cult Symbols, JNSL 23, 114.
van der Toorn, K. (2003): The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel. Popular Belief and
Scholarly Speculation. In: A. Lange et al. (eds.), Die Dmonen. Die Dmonologie der israelitisch-jdischen und frhchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt,Tbingen.
van Driel, G. (1969):The Cult of Assur (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 13),Assen.
von Soden,W. (1994):The Ancient Orient.An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Walker, C./M. Dick (1998): The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian ms p Ritual. In: M. Dick (ed.), Born in Heaven, Made on Earth. The Making of the Cult Image in
the Ancient Near East,Winona Lake, IN, 55121.
Walker, C./M. Dick (2001): The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian Ms P Ritual.Transliteration,Translation, and Commentary (SAALT 1), Helsinki.
Wiggermann, F. (19851986): The Staff of Ninsubura. Studies in Babylonian Demonology, II, JEOL 29,
334.
Wiggermann, F. (1992): Mesopotamian Protective Spirits.The Ritual Texts (CM 1), Groningen.
Wiggermann, F. (1994): Mischwesen A. Philologisch. Mesopotamien, RlA 8, 222246.
107
Wiggermann, F. (1996): Scenes From the Shadow Side. In: M. Vogelzang and H. Vanstiphout (eds.),
Mesopotamian Poetic Language. Sumerian and Akkadian (CM 6), Groningen, 207230.
Wiggermann, F. (2004): Pazuzu, RlA 10, 372381.
Wiggermann, F. (2000): Lamastu Daugher of Anu. A Profile. In: M. Stol (ed.), Birth in Babylonia and the
Bible. Its Mediterranean Setting (CM 14), Groningen, 217252.
Wilmut, I./R. Highfield (2007):After Dolly.The Promise and Perils of Cloning, New York.
Michael B. Hundley
Georgetown University
Department of Theology
Box 571135
New North 120
Washington D.C. 20057-1135
mbhundley10@gmail.com

Here A God There A God Conceptions of Di PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Here A God There A God Conceptions of Di PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1, 68107

Here a God, There a God:

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Anthropomorphic deities, presented in iconography and narrative and hymnic literature,

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

How Can the Phenomenon of Occasional Deification Be Explained?

General Characteristics of Divinity

This analysis will feature below.

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Potency and Perceived Power 45

Other Inherent Qualities of Divinity 49

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

system seems to be predicated on the ANE understanding of cosmos itself.55 Instead of

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Sorting the Divine Sphere

For example, in the Enu

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Regarding these classifications, see further below.

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Consequences of Divine Anthropomorphization and Strategies for Divine Elevation

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Other Elements in the Divine Constellation

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

The Multidimensionality of Divine Constellations

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Practical and Theoretical Approaches to Divine Constellations

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Deities Outside of the Divine Constellations

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Hybrid Creatures:Monsters and Demons134

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Other Effects of Divine Multiplicity

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Potential Pitfalls of Divine Multiplicity

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Influence and Fluidity among Divine Constellations

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Competition and Character-Poaching

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

Michael B. Hundley, Here a God,There a God

Altorientalische Forschungen 40 (2013) 1

You might also like