IX

“DAMKIANNA SHALL NOT BRING BACK HER BURDEN IN THE FUTURE!”

A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA*

TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

A 78821 is a Neo-Assyrian tablet acquired by the Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago. The tablet was originally purchased in Baghdad in January 1930 by Henri Frankfurt
and later was donated to the Oriental Institute. It preserves 36 lines and recounts a previously
unknown mythological episode about Marduk, Enlil, Damkianna, and the gods of Eshumesha.
The tablet suffered damage on its left side, and about one fifth of the entire text is missing.
There is a duplicate in the cuneiform tablet collection of the British Museum, BM 27776. This
tablet was acquired by the museum as part of the collection 98-7-11. Unlike A 7882, this
exemplar is written in Neo-Babylonian script. The condition of its reverse is almost complete
while the surface of the obverse is almost totally lost except for the last four lines. A good
portion of the second half of the episode was recovered by combining the accounts given in
these two manuscripts, yet many uncertainties and difficulties still remained, mostly at the
beginning of the text. It is great pleasue to present this text to Joan Goodnick-Westenholz, who
spent many years in Chicago and the Oriental Institute, with my admiration of her deep
passion and love for the ancient world.
The plot of the story is as follows: it seems that the text begins with a disturbance in
Nippur that is caused by the arrival of Marduk and his army (line 1). Enlil (or Nippur) is
devastated (most likely by flood) (lines 3-4). This catastrophe forces the gods of Eshumesha to
take cover in the temple (line 5). Being annoyed by the act of Marduk and his army, Enlil(?)
orders the gods of Eshumesha to seize the Anunnaki gods (line 7). Although it is not clear due
to the lacunae, it seems that Marduk is also captured together with the Anunnaki. Marduk
orders his front-runner, Mushteshirhablim, to fight against the capturers of the Anunnaki gods

*
A part of this paper was prepared with a generous grant from The British Academy during the summer 2006. I am
grateful for the opportunity given by the Academy and my host, SOAS and Prof. A. R. George. I would like to
thank also the Trustees of the British Museum for the kind permission to publish the British Museum tablet and also
the museum staff, particularly Dr. I. Finkel and Dr. J. Taylor, for their assistance. I am equally grateful to the
Oriental Institute for the kind permission to publish A 7882. Prof. W. Farber and J. Tenney are especially thanked
for their aid and also sending me photographs of A 7882 in the initial stage of preparation of this article. I would
like to thank Prof. A. R. George for his comments on my primary edition of the text and also showing me his draft
of the BM manuscript. And finally, my gratitude is due the Alexadner von Humboldt Fund and my current host in
Germany, the Altorientalisches Institut and Prof. Michael P. Streck of Universität Leipzig.
1
The identifications of A 7882 and BM 27776 were given by Sigrist, Zadok and Walker (2006: 155).

145
 TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

(lines 10-11). At the same time, he commands Neretagmil to alert Nabu (line 13). When the
gods of Eshumesha hear the words of Nabu (which could be a scribal error in place of Marduk
or Neretagmil), they come out of the temple and search for Nabu (lines 14-16). Neretagmil
runs to Damkianna to report the incidents (lines 16-17). The news makes Damkianna lose her
temper and she releases her ‘burden’ (line 20).2 Marduk captures 360 gods of Eshumesha, and
Enlil was among them (lines 24-25). Enlil asks Marduk for an explanation for his deed,
implying that he and the gods of Eshumesha are wrongly accused (lines 27-28). When he hears
the words of Enlil, Marduk commands the gods of Eshumesha to be questioned by the
Anunnaki gods (probably to prove their guilt). He also demands that they admit to their
offense (lines 29-31). The tablet concludes with pleas to Damkianna that this tablet should be
shown to two particular groups in the future: first to the gods, so that Damkianna will not bring
back her ‘burden’, and also to mankind, so that they will learn from the episode (lines 33-34).
The last two passages of this text are warnings to the future gods and humans to not repeat the
same crime that may trigger some kind of large-scale natural or celestial catastrophe caused by
Damkianna’s ‘burden’. As the ancient notion of this ‘burden’ of Damkianna escapes us, we
cannot know the exact nature of the event.
Before we discuss other issues, we first need to ask a very fundamental question: Who is
this Damkianna? Litke suggests that Damkianna is a later form of Damkina, the wife of Enki/
Ea, in his reconstruction of the god list An=Anum.3 Even if we accept this interpretation, it is
still not clear why she needed to be alerted about the act of the gods of Eshumesha and their
capture of Marduk. For instance, in the SB Anzu-myth, when Ninurta faced difficulties in
defeating Anzu, he sent his messenger Sharur to Ea to ask him for advice, (SB Anzu, Tablet II,
70ff).4 It would be easier to understand if Marduk had sent Neretagmil to his father Ea, rather
than to his mother.
Another possible interpretation is that this Damkianna is actually not the wife of Ea and
the mother of Marduk, but rather Marduk’s consort, Zarpanitu. This can be supported by the
ritual instruction of the Akitu-festival of Nisan in Babylon5. This instruction includes the
recitation of a prayer to Beltiya, but the addressee in this prayer itself is ddam-ki-an-na (lines
318-333). The following is the relevant part of the prayer (lines 324-332):
d
324. dam-ki-an-na bé-lat AN u KI GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
325. DIL.BAD na-bat MUL.<MEŠ> GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
326. BAN ŠUB-át dan-nu-tú GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
327. ÙZ ba-rat AN-e GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
328. ḪÉ.GÁL.A MUL nu-uḫ-šú GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
329. BAL.TÉŠ.A MUL bal-tú GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
330. MAR.GÍD.DA mar-kàs AN-e GAŠAN.MU MU.NE

2
The Akkadian word is ellētu, a later from e’iltu. Further discussion of this word, see the note for the line 20 below.
3
Litke 1998: 88, commentary for II 174.
4
For the transliteration, see Annus 2001: 24.
5
For a recent edition, see Linssen 2004: 220-221.

146
 A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

múl
331. e4-ru6 ba-nát ri-ḫu-tú GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
múl
332. NIN.MAḪ BA-át DIN GAŠAN.MU MU.NE
324. (She is) Damkianna, the lady of the heavens and the earth, her name is ‘My Lady’.
325. (She is) Venus, the most brilliant of the stars, her name is ‘My Lady’.
326. (She is) the Bow-star, the one who cast the might, her name is ‘My Lady’.
327. (She is) Goat-star, the one who watches the heavens, her name is ‘My Lady’.
328. (She is) Abundance-star, the star of fertility, her name is ‘My Lady’.
329. (She is) Baltesha-star, the star of dignity, her name is ‘My Lady’.
330. (She is) Wagon, the centre of the heaven, her name is ‘My Lady’.
331. (She is) Eru’a-star, the one who creates progeny, her name is ‘My Lady’.
332. (She is) Ninmah, the one who grants life, her name is ‘My Lady’.
Since Beltiya (lit. ‘My Lady’) is Zarpanitu in the other parts of the ritual instruction of the
Akitu-festival in Babylon, it is very likely that this Damkianna and Zarpanitu were syncretized,
and Zarpanitu gained the status of mother-goddess, at least by the Late-Babylonian period. If
this is the case, Damkianna in our text could be treated as Zarpanitu.
Another essential question: Who are the Anunnaki gods or ‘your’ Anunnaki
(anunnakīkunu)? It is obvious that they are not the great gods of the heavens known by the
same name in the Old Babylonian period or earlier.6 At the same time, it is not clear if this
word indicates the gods of the underworld as known from the texts from the first millennium
either.7 Given the fact that they are called ‘your (those of the gods of Eshumesha) Anunnaki
(anunnakīkunu)’, it is also possible that the author of this text considered them as being
subordinate to the gods of Eshumesh who were headed by Enlil. Judging from what has
survived of the text, it is clear that they were understood as being the gods responsible for the
disturbance in Nippur at the beginning of the story. Yet, due to the lacunae, the nature of the
disorder is not clear.
The epithet of Marduk, ‘the king of the gods’ (line 26 and possibly line 22), indicates that
this text was composed no earlier than Marduk’s rise to supremacy in the Mesopotamian
pantheon which can be dated to the time of Nebuchadrezzar I.8 In addition, the orthograph ṭè-
en-gu-nu for ṭēmkunu (line 30) indicates the Kassite period or later. Moreover, the use of a t-
prefix for 3rd feminine singular (line 23), in addition to a Pseudo-Akkadian form ti-iš-šá-la for
taššâlā (line 29), indicate Aramaic influence, and therefore suggest a first millennium date.
Based on these points, we tentatively date this composition to the first quarter of the first
millennium.
Like many instances of ancient texts with multiple exemplars, there are several variations
between these two manuscripts. For example lines 16 (A: il-su-MU, B: i-la-a[s-s]u-[um]); 21
(A: i-na-sa-su, B: i-na-as-su-uk); 24 (A: é-šu-me-za, B: é-šu-me-ša4) and 29 (A: tir-ra, B: ti-iš-
šá-l[a]). In addition, the scribe of the Neo-Assyrian exemplar omitted line 30. In fact, some
lines are so different that Sigrist, Zadok, and Walker noted BM 27776 as a “partial duplicate”

6
See Falkenstein 1965 and Kienast 1965.
7
Kienast 1965: 144ff.
8
Lambert 1984: 4.

147
 TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

of A 78829. It seems that these differences are, rather interestingly, a result of the carelessness
of the scribe of the Chicago manuscript. The most notable are the orthographies of the name of
the abode of these gods, Eshumesha. Like elsewhere in this text, and according to numerous
other sources, the name ought to be written, ‘é-šu-me-ša4’10. However, there are two places
where the scribe of this manuscript made errors: line 14 (é-⌈UŠ⌉-me-šá) and line 24 (é-šu-me-
ZA). The inconsistency in line 18 between the two manuscripts can also be a result of another
scribal error of the Assyrian exemplar. Under these circumstances, in case of disagreement
between the two manuscripts, MS B is generally to be preferred for the composite text.

Manuscripts
MS A: A 7882 (N.Ass.) ............ Copy, p. 158, Photograph, p. 159
MS B: BM 27776 (N.B.) .......... Copy, p. 160, Photograph, p. 161

Transliteration
(Lines 1-14 are preserved only in MS A.)
1. … ] x a-na NIBRUki ERÍN-šu ⌈iṭ⌉-[ṭ]e4?-ḫi
2. … i]na-s[a]-qu pa-ni-šu
3. … i]r-ra-ḫi-iṣ d+en-líl
4. … a?-n]a? ṣi-ri-i [i]m-da-lu-u
5. … i]ṣ?-b[a?-t]u tub-qa-ti é-šu-me-ša4
6. [den-líl? KA-šú DÙ-ma] DUG4.GA ana DINGIR.MEŠ da-nun-na-ki INIM MU-kùr
7. [aš?-šu? ta-ad]-dal-ḫa-ma e-nen-na ta-ṣa-ba-AT da-nun-na-ki-ku-nu
8. [bi-ri-šú-nu dA]MAR.UTU KA-šu DÙ-ma e-qab-bi a-na ka-ši-di
9. [a-na? dmuš-te]-šir-ḫab-lim a-ma-ta i-zak-kar
10. [a-lik] maḫ-ri-ia qar-[r]ad DINGIR.MEŠ at-ta-ma (over an erasure)
11. [ki?-mi?-š]u-nu-te-ma a-na ⌈d⌉a-nun-na-ki-⌈ku⌉ (over an erasure)-nu su-is-su-nu-te
12. [ana] ⌈d⌉né-er-e-tag-mil a-lik EGIR-šú a-ma-ta iz-zak-kar
13. [a]-na dAG dup-sar é-sag-íla šu-kun tuk-ka
14. [ki] ⌈a⌉-ma-TA dAG <<ša>> iš-mu-ú DINGIR.MEŠ <ša> é-⌈UŠ⌉-me-šá
15. [it-t]i DINGIR zi-za-a-t[i] a-pa-ti it-ta-ṣu-ú
A 15. [it-t]i DINGIR zi-za-a-t[i] a-pa-ti it-ta-ṣu-ú
B 1'. … ]-a-t[i … ] x ⌈it⌉-t[a …
16. [ù] ⌈i⌉-pa-ar-ru-ú-šu dné-er-e-tag-mil i-la-a[s-s]u-[um]
A 16. [ù] ⌈i⌉-pa-ar-⌈ú⌉-[š]u? dné-er-e-tag-mil il-su-MU (for -um)
B 2'. … -a]r-ru-ú-šu dné-er-e-tag-mil i-la-a[s-s]u-[um]

9
Sigrist, Zadok and Walker 2006: 155.
10
It is always so in the BM manuscript, BM 27776. For other attestations, see George 1993: 147, no. 1065.

148
 A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

17. … ṭè?-e?-m]a iš-šá-kin a-na ddam-ki-an-[n]a

A 17. [ … iš]-šá-kín a-na ddam-ki-a[n-n]a
B 3'. … ṭè-e-m]a iš-šá-kin a-na ddam-<ki>-an-[n]a
18. … ] ⌈i⌉-na É.GAL-šá-a-ma
A 18. … ] x a-na é-šu-me-[ša4]
B 4'. … ] ⌈i⌉-na É.GAL-šá-a-ma
19. [dAMAR.UTU at-ta-ma LUGAL] dam-qu e-ki-a a-i ú-še-ṣu-ka-a-ma KÁ é-šu-me-ša4
A 19. … ] dam-qu e-ki-am ú-š[e-ṣu-ka …
B rev 1. … ] x ⌈e⌉-ki-a a-i ú-še-ṣu-ka-a-ma KÁ é-šu-me-ša4
20. [ddam-ki-an-na a]r-ra-ta il-ta-si : ud-du-ur ŠÀ-ba-šú ú-paṭ-ṭa-ra il-let-sa
A 20. … a]r-ra-ta il-⌈ta⌉-[si]
A 21. … ŠÀ-b]a-š[u] ⌈ú⌉-paṭ-ṭa-ra el-⌈let⌉-sa
B 2. … -t]a il-ta-si: ud-du-ur ŠÀ-ba-šú ú-paṭ-ṭa-ra il-let-sa
21. … -m]a ti-ik-ka-šá i-na-as-su-uk
A 22. … ] ti-ik-ka šá i-na-SA-su
B 3. … -m]a ti-ik-ka-šá i-na-as-su-uk
22. [x] x ⌈LUGAL DINGIR⌉.MEŠ dAMAR.UTU i-na KÁ É.GAL-šá iz-za-az-ma
A 23. … ] x ⌈d⌉AMAR.UTU ina KÁ É.GAL-šá iz-za-az-mu
B 4. … ] x ⌈LUGAL DINGIR⌉.MEŠ dAMAR.UTU i-na KÁ É.GAL-šá iz-za-az-ma
23. [a?-na?] ddam-ki-an-na šá tu-paṭ-ṭe-ru il-let-sa
A 24. … ] ⌈d⌉[d]am-ki-na šá tu-paṭ-ṭa-[r]a el-let-s[a]
B 5. [a?-na?] ddam-ki-an-na šá tu-paṭ-ṭe-ru il-let-sa
24. ⌈3⌉ me 60-šu DINGIR.MEŠ šá é-šu-me-ša4 dDUMU-É šá ABZU iš-te-ni-iš ik-ta-šad-su-[nu-
ti]
A 25. … ]-šu DINGIR.MEŠ šá é-šu-me-ZA <d>DUMU-É šá ABZU DIŠ-niš ik-[…
B 6. [ina? D]Ù? [K]A-šu DINGIR.MEŠ šá é-šu-me-ša4 dDUMU-É šá ABZU iš-te-ni-iš ik-ta-šad-su-[nu-ti]
d
25. en-líl i-na bi-ri-šu-nu a-na dDUMU-É šá ABZU a-ma-ta iz-kur
A 26. [d+en-l]íl ina bi-ri-šu-nu a-na dDUMU-É šá ABZU a-ma-ta M[U-kùr]
d
B 7. en-líl i-na bi-ri-šu-nu a-na dDUMU-É šá ABZU a-ma-ta iz-kur
d
26. DUMU-É šá ABZU at-ta-ma LUGAL dam-qu at-ta-ma
A 27. [dDUMU]-⌈É⌉ ša ABZ[U] at-ta LUGAL dam-qu at-ta-[m]a
d
B 8. DUMU-É šá ABZU at-ta-ma LUGAL dam-qu at-ta-m[a]
27. am-mì-ni ka-šad lem-nu-ú-ti ta-kaš-šad-an-na-a-⌈ši⌉
A 28. … -n]i ⌈ka⌉-šad lem-nu-ti ta-kaš-šad-an-na-a-⌈ši⌉
B 9. am-mì-ni ka-šad lem-nu-ú-ti ta-kaš-šad-an-na-[a-ši]
28. LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ dAMAR.UTU pa-a-šu DÙ-ma DUG4.GA a-na den-líl a-ma-ta i-zak-
[kar]
A 29. … d]AMAR.UTU pa-a-šu DÙ-ma DUG4.GA ana dIDIM INIM [MU-k]ùr
B 10. LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ dAMAR.UTU pa-a-šu DÙ-ma DUG4.GA a-na den-líl a-ma-ta i-zak-[kar]

149
 TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

29. al-ka-a-ma i-na da-nun-na-ki-ku-nu a-ḫa-miš ti-iš-šá-l[a]

A 30. … ] ⌈d⌉a-nun-na-ki-ku-nu a-ḫa-miš tir-ra
B 11. al-ka-a-ma i-na da-nun-na-ki-ku-nu a-ḫa-miš ti-iš-šá-l[a]
30. ki-i pi-i iš-te-ni-iš ṭè-en-gu-nu a-na a-ḫa-miš tir-ra
B 12. ki-i pi-i iš-te-ni-iš ṭè-en-gu-nu a-na a-ḫa-miš tir-ra
31. um-ma mi-na-a ni-pu-uš-ma dDUMU-É šá ABZU ka-šad lem-nu-ú-ti i-kaš-šad-an-na-a-ši
A 31. … ]-⌈a⌉ ni-pu-uš a-na dDUMU-É šá ABZU ka-šad lem-nu-ti ta-kaš-ša-dan-na-a-ši
B 13. um-ma mi-na-a ni-pu-uš-ma dDUMU-É šá ABZU ka-šad lem-nu-ú-ti i-kaš-šad-an-[na-ši]
32. i-na u4-mi-šu-ma a-na ddam-ki-an-na iq-ta-bu EŠ.BAR
A 32. … ] ddam-ki-an-na an-na-a iq-bu-u NIŠ-ŠI (error for EŠ.BAR)
B 14. i-na u4-mi-šu-ma a-na ddam-ki-an-na iq-ta-bu EŠ.BAR
33. lu-ú kul-lum a-na DINGIR.MEŠ ar-ku-ú-ti el-let-ki šá tap-ṭu-ru la tu-tar-ri
A 33. … ] ⌈a⌉-na DINGIR.MEŠ ar-ka-ti el-let-ki šá tap-ṭu-ri [l]a tu-tar-ri
B 15. lu-ú ku-lum a-na DINGIR.MEŠ ar-ku-ú-ti el-let-ki šá tap-ṭu-ru la tu-tar-[ri]
34. ⌈ù⌉ UN.MEŠ šá la i-da-a li-mu-ra ar-ka-tam
A 34. … š]a la i-da-a li-mu-[r]a ar-ka-tam
B 16. ⌈ù⌉ UN.MEŠ šá la i-da-a li-mu-ra ar-ka-[tam]

Translation
1. … ] ., to Nippur, his (Marduk’s?) army came close.
2. … t]hey (the Anunnaki gods?) chose his side (lit. face).
3. … ] . Enlil was devastated/ flooded.
4. … t]o? the brim they (the gods of Eshumesha?) have become full.
5. … they to]ok cover? at the corners of Eshumesha,
6. [Enlil? opened his mouth and] spoke, he said to the gods of Anunnaki:
7. “[Because? you (pl) (the gods of Eshumesha?) were] disturbed, now you (pl) shall catch your (pl)
Anunnaki.”
8. [Among them, M]arduk opens his mouth and speaks of the capturers,
9. [To the god Mushte]shirhablim, he says:
10. “[The one who goes] in front of me, the hero of the gods, you are,”
11. “[Overcome t]hem, for your Anunnaki, smite? them!”
12. [To the god] Neretagmil, the one who follows him, he said again and again,
13. “[T]o Nabu, the scribe of Esagila, send a warning!”
14. [When] the gods of Eshumesha heard the words of Nabu,
15. [Wit]h the god of shares of the numerous (people), they have come out,
16. [and t]hey look for him. Neretagmil ru[ns (away)]. (MS A. ran)
17. [ … The new]s reached Damkianna,
18. [ … ] in her palace,
19. “[Marduk, you are the] good [king]. How should not they let you leave the gate of Eshumesha?”
20. [Damkianna] has cried out a curse: His/Her heart was very disturbed. She releases her burden,
21. … an]d she turns her neck with wrath?.
22. [ . ] . Marduk, the king of the gods, stands at the gate of her palace.

150
 A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

23. [For?] Damkianna, whose burden she has released,

24. Mar-Biti of Apsu captured 360 gods of Eshumesha all together.
25. Enlil was among them. He said to Mar-Biti of Apsu:
26. “Mar-Biti of Apsu you are, you are the good king,”
27. “Why do you get to us to capture the evildoers?”
28. The king of the gods, Marduk, opened his mouth and spoke, to Enlil he says:
29. “Come here. (All of) you should be questioned one by one by your Anunnaki,”
30. “As a single mouth, deliver your (pl.) report for each other,”
31. “Saying: “whatever we do, Mar-Biti of Apsu will get to us to capture the evildoers.”
(MS A: “[whatever] we do to Mar-Biti of Apsu, you will get to us to capture the evildoers.”)
32. Then, to Damkianna, they have said (MS A adds ‘this’) the decision:
33. “This should be shown to the future gods (so that) you would not bring back your burden that you
have released,”
34. “And the people who do not know should see this in the future.”

Philological Notes
1. a-na NIBRUki ERÍN-šu ⌈iṭ⌉-[ṭ]e4?-ḫi: It seems that this line refers to the arrival of Marduk
and his men at Nippur. As the Akkadian word itti can be written with the Sumerogram KI, one
may speculate that the scribe actually saw two KI signs (the determinative ki for the city name
and KI for itti), but erroneously omitted the second KI when he copied the tablet. If this is the
case, the subject of the verb must be Marduk and the phrase should be rendered, ‘… Marduk]
has approached Nippur with his army’.
2. [i]na-s[a]-qu pa-ni-šu: Lit. ‘they chose his face’. The Anunnaki gods are to be taken as
the most likely subject of this sentence, and this sentence probably recounts that they took the
side of Marduk who came to Nippur with his army. It seems that they either sabotaged the
irrigation system of Nippur, or stopped digging the canals and clearing dirt from the riverbeds
because line 3 refers to the flooding of Enlil (or Nippur).
3. d+en-líl: It is also possible that this is actually an error for NIBRUki (= EN-LÍLki) i.e.,
Nippur.
4. The idiom, ana ṣirî malû, ‘to become full to the brim’, also means ‘to be fed up (with a
situation)’, see CAD Ṣ, p. 210, ṣirû A, b). There are two Winkelhakens before the sign ṢI.
Given this idiom, it is most likely either an error for NA, or the end of another word but with
omission of ana after it. Then one could render this phrase with a concrete sense, i.e., either
the irrigation system or the land was completely flooded.
5. é-šu-me-ša4: Eshumesha is the temple of Ninurta in Nippur (George 1993: 147, no. 1065).
Otherwise it is also known as a chapel of Ninurta in the temple of Ninimma at Nippur (ibid.
no. 1066) and the temple of Ninurta in the Esharra complex at Assur (ibid. no. 1067). Very
interestingly, there is no mention of the god Ninurta in the preserved portions of this text. It is
very probable that this text was initially composed for Ninurta but later modified to explain
how Marduk replaced Enlil. See also the commentary on line 15.

151
 TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

6. ana DINGIR.MEŠ da-nun-na-ki: Anunnaki are often called ilānu rabûtu, ‘the great gods’,
see, for example, Enuma Elish III 104, (Kienast 1965: 150). Cf. da-nun-na-ki but without ilānu
rabûtu in Enuma Elish, I 156; II 42; III 46.11 However, a rendering like, ‘he said to the
Anunnaki gods: “ … you shall catch your Anunnaki,”’ does not really make good sense in this
context. Thus, it should be taken as a genitive chain and translated, ‘the gods of the Anunnaki
gods (i.e., the gods who belong to Anunnaki or the gods who master Anunnaki)’. This
interpretation best explains the expression da-nun-na-ki-ku-nu (your Anunnaki) seen later in
this text.
One may also offer an emendation; inserting <ka-ši-di> here and taking it in apposition
for DINGIR.MEŠ. It is also possible that é-šu-me-ša4 was also omitted by mistake and a fuller
restoration could be ana DINGIR.MEŠ <é-šu-me-ša4 ka-ši-di> da-nun-na-ki, ‘to the gods of
Eshumesha, the capturers of Anunnaki’. Note that later in this text, the gods of Eshumesha and
Enlil are caught by Marduk and made to be questioned by the Anunnaki, probably about their
deeds against Anunnaki. However, this interpretation offers no explanation for da-nun-na-ki-
ku-nu (your Anunnaki).
7. As the beginning of the previous line is missing, the following cannot be claimed with
certainty; but it is most likely that this speech was made by Enlil to the gods of Eshumesha.
Thus we restore here [ta-ad]-dal-ḫa-ma (dalāḫu N-stem, preterite, 2nd, pl.). Accordingly,
although ta-ṣa-ba-at seems to be in the 2nd masculine singular form or the 3rd feminine
singular, it is very likely that the sign -AT is an inverse writing for the syllable -ta, i.e.,
taṣabbatā, the 2nd masculine plural. For ta- prefix for the 3rd feminine singular, note line 23.
a-nun-na-ki-ku-nu: See the commentary for line 6 above.
8. a-na ka-ši-di: It seems that Marduk himself fell to the hands of the capturers of the gods
Anunnaki and he is talking to his warriors about it. It is also likely that these words are actually
an intrusion from another line, such as line 6.
9. [dmuš-te]-šir-ḫab-lim: The restoration was suggested by A. R. George in a private
communication. Mushteshirhablim is a deity related to Marduk and Madanu. It was the lion-
demon (ugallu) of Marduk in Babylon and possibly a weapon of Marduk. According to
TIN.TIR II, 34', his cella is é-di-ku5-maḫ, ‘House of the Exalted Judge’. Judging from his
relationship with Madanu as well as the name of his station in Esagila, it is very likely that his
role in this story is to punish evildoers, i.e., the gods of Eshumesha who wrongly seized the
Anunnaki-gods. For further discussions of Mushteshirhablim, see George 1992: 293,
commentary for TINTIR II 34'.
11. su-is-su-nu-te: This verb is taken as sâdu the D-stem (probably means ‘to kill, smite’,
with an emphatic sense of the G-stem) imperative although the dictionaries (namely CAD and
AHw) do not list the D-stem of this verb. It is not totally impossible because a synonym nêru,
‘to slay’, has the D-stem.12 One may offer an emendation, zu!-is-su-nu-te, for zâzu D-stem

11
For the composite text of Enuma Elish and the edition, see Talon 2005.
12
Synonym list, An VIII 45, see CAD S, p. 20, sâdu lex. section.

152
 A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

imperative, and translate, ‘distribute/divide them!’. In order to establish a correct reading, we

need additional duplicates.
12. dné-er-e-tag-mil: The God List, An=Anum II 282, lists dne-e-er-e-tag-mil as the vizier
(sukkal) of the god Nāru (dÍD).13
13-14. It is not altogether clear which role Nabu is playing in this text. It is very likely that
Nabu was to inform Damkianna about the troubles in Eshumesha although the surviving
portions of this text make us believe that it was Neretagmil who brought the news to her.
Incidentally, the second reference to Nabu in line 14 could actually be a scribal error for
Marduk (or Neretagmil) because there is no phrase that was spoken by Nabu in these two lines.
Either way, one should take TA at the end of ⌈a⌉-ma-TA as an inverse writing.
14-15. Without emendation, the phrase ought to be translated: ‘[When] the word of Nabu
which the gods (of) Eshumesha heard came out with the god of the shares ...’.
14. é-⌈UŠ⌉-me-šá: This must be a scribal error for é-šu-me-ša4. The sign UŠ can be an inverse
writing for -šu- while šá at the end could be a phonetic writing for ša4. It is also possible that
the scribe confused šá, which we expect after DINGIR.MEŠ as in line 23. Incidentally, MS A
line 25 has é-šu-me-ZA!.
15. zi-za-a-t[i] a-pa-ti: We take zi-za-a-t[i] as the plural form of zittu, ‘share, dividing line’.
and a-pa-ti for for apâtu, ‘numerous,’ which is generally used as an epithet for humankind.
A syncretistic hymn to Ishtar or Baba, BM 75974, a duplicate of KAR 109, rev. 32 reads,
ina é-šu-me-ša4 kal-lat d+en-líl mu-za-i-za-át zi-za-[ti]: ‘In Eshumesha, she is the daughter-in-
law of Enlil, the one who distributes the shares’. Clearly this passage in BM 75974 refers to
Ninurta’s responsibility that is attributed to the goddess in this particular text. Note also a
prayer to Marduk in the Akītu-Festival ritual instruction refers to Marduk as muza’’iz isqēti,
‘the one who destributes the shares’, see now, Linssen 2004: 215, line 14. Yet, it is not clear if
this ‘the god of the share’ is Marduk or Ninurta.
16. ⌈i⌉-pa-ar-ru-ú-šu: The verb is taken as pâru, ‘to search, look for’.
MS A has il-su-MU at the end of this line instead. It seems that the subject of this verb is
Neretagmil while the subject of the other verb in this line is the gods of Eshumesha. Thus, we
take -mu at the end of the line as an inverse writing for the syllable -um.
18. The sequence of events in lines 18-19 is not certain due to broken lines. However, it
seems that a-na é-šu-me-[ša4] of MS A is a scribal error. The scribe probably confused this
line with another line.
19. MS A has e-ki-am instead of e-ki-a a-i of MS B. Based on MS A, one can also read e-ki-
a-a <<i>>, ‘how (did you let yourself come out)?’ In this case, ‘you’ must be either
Neretagmil or Nabu, who brought the news to Damkianna, judging from the context.
Incidentally, if the rendering based on MS A is correct, our restoration of the first half of this
line should be altered.

13
Litke 1998: 100.

153
 TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

ú-še-ṣu-ka-a-ma KÁ é-šu-me-ša4: For a similar example, see CT 15, pl. 47, rev. 39
(Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld):
DIŠ-en KÁ ú-še-ṣi-ši-ma
He let her (Ishtar) leave the first gate.
20. ŠÀ-ba-šú: The pronominal suffix probably indicates Neretagmil or Nabu who brought the
news to Damkianna. One may also consider the option of taking –šú as an error for –ša (i.e.,
Damkianna) although it is less likely as the both manuscripts have –šu and –šú.
il-let-sa: This word is spelled el-let-sa in MS A. There are two possible analyses for this
word — either a later form of e’iltu, ‘obligation, bond, sin’, or illatu, ‘horde’. Here we take it
with the former sense. The word e’iltu is often attested with paṭāru, ‘to release, undo’, like in
our text and it generally means ‘to absolve sins’. For example, The Shamash Hymn, l. 163: šu-
ut ik-kam-sa el-let-si-na ta-paṭ-ṭar, ‘You (Shamash) clear the sin of those who bow themselves
down’, (Lambert, 1960: 136). Judging from the context, it is evidently not our case but rather
contrary: Damkianna here probably set off some ill-fortune, e.g., plague or natural disaster.
Whatever the exact meaning of this word is, it acted as the main agent of the disaster while it
probably contributed to the release of the Anunnaki-gods from captivity. Here we tentatively
suggest ‘burden’ as its translation based on the primary sense of the verb e’ēlu, ‘to bind,
oblige’. Incidentally, it is also possible to take the word as ‘horde, group of men’. If so, as it
seems that Damkianna and Zarpanitu were syncretized by the Neo-Babylonian period, it would
also be possible that Damkianna’s ‘horde’ are stars because the above-cited prayer to Beltiya
for the Akitu-festival attributes different stars and constellations to the goddess.
21. It is not altogether clear what is going on in this line. Literally this line means, ‘… ] and
he/she drops/throws down her head’ (certainly this ‘her’ indicates Damkianna). There is an
example where tikku and nasāku appear together, the Dialogue of Pessimism, lines 81-82
(Lambert, 1960: 148):
ti-ik-ki ti-ik-ka-ka še-bé-ru a-na ÍD na-šá-ku ṭa-a-ba
to break my neck and your neck, to throw (both of us) into the river, (that) is good.
Yet, it is hard to believe that this is relevant, as such a development of the story makes no
logical connection with the events before and after this line. One would speculate that the
lacuna in line 21 refers to decapitation of Damkianna. But again, it is hard to believe that
someone would behead her. There is an idiom, nadû kišādu, ‘lit. to throw the neck’, that
indicates the act ‘to turn away (with wrath)’.14 Based on this, we tentatively offer to take
nasāku tikku as a similar expression as nadû kišādu. For nadû kišādu see also, Mayer, 1976:
97-98.
Another possibility is to take ti-ik-ka-šá for tīku+ša, ‘her rain’. Thus, we can render the
line, ‘she cast her rain’. As the word nasāku also means ‘to shoot (an arrow)’, it is possible that
this line depicts hard rain, which could have contributed to the disaster that Damkianna caused.

14
STC 2, pl. 83, 95. For a recent edition, see Zgoll 2003: 47.

154
 A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

While the manuscript from the British Museum has i-na-as-su-uk, the Neo-Assyrian
exemplar reads šá i-na-sa-su, ‘which he/she moans’. It seems that this i-na-sa-su is a scribal
error, probably SA is an inverse writing for as and the last uk was omitted for some reason.
23. It appears to be that the subject of the verb paṭāru is Damkianna. Thus, it is very likely
that this form tupaṭṭeru is for the third feminine singular with the subjunctive -u.
25. If our restoration of line 8 is correct, the situation here is the exact opposite of line 8
where Marduk was among the captives of the gods of Eshumesha who were headed by Enlil.
27. ta-kaš-šad-an-na-a-⌈ši⌉: We generally expect the pronominal suffix to be accusative
rather than dative for the verb, kašādu. Nonetheless, a dative suffix may indicate the action of
reaching or approaching someone or something, rather than defeating or seizing someone. E.g.,
be-lí ak-tal-dàk-ka, ‘My lord, I have approached you’, (BMS 13, 27); a-ka-aš-ša-ad-ka, ‘I will
reach you’, (TCL 17, 22: 9) against a-ka-aš-ša-da-ak-ku, ‘I will reach you’, (Aro WZJ 8: 567
HS 110: 4).
One may also speculate that kašād lemnūti + kašādu in indicative means, ‘to treat
someone badly’.
29. ti-iš-šá-la: Judging from the context, the form ti-iš-šá-la is a hybrid form for šâlu N-stem
present the second plural with the prefix ti- instead of the expected ta-. This is probably a
result of an influence of Aramaic. Note a similar pseudo-Akkadian form that employs ti-
instead of ta- for the second person in the West where we expect ti- prefix for the second
person in the local language (e.g., Taanach 1, 1615). It seems that the scribe of MS A confused
this line with the line below and wrote tir-ra instead of ti-iš-šá-la, and erroneously omitted the
line 30.
32. The Neo-Assyrian exemplar adds an-na-a, ‘this’. It is just possible that the scribe was
again confused and wrote the second element of the divine name ddam-ki-an-na twice.
33-34. The epilogue instructs showing this text to the future gods and humans. This is rather
ironic because the colophon of the BM manuscript instructs, [Z]U-ú Z[U-a l]i-IGI NU ZU-ú
NU IGI NÍG.GIG d[AMAR.UTU?], ‘The one who knows shall reveal it to the one who knows,
the one who does not know, shall not see it. The taboo of [Marduk?]’. In other words, the
access to this text was limited to the certain intellectuals and not every person could see it.

15
See Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 131, ti-iš-mé instead of tašme or tešme.

155
 TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

Bibliography*
Annus, A.
2001 The Standard Babylonian Epic of Anzu (SAACT 3), Helsinki.

Falkenstein, A.
1965 “Die Anunna in der sumerischen Überlieferung,” in: H. G. Güterbock and Th.
Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday,
April 21, 1965 (AS 16), Chicago: 127-140.

George, A. R.
1992 Babylonian Topographical Texts (OLA 40), Leuven.
1993 House Most High: the Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, Winona Lake.

Horowitz, W. and Oshima, T.

2006 Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times,
Jerusalem.

Kienast, B.
1965 “Igigū und Anunnakkū nach den akkadischen Quellen’, in: H. G. Güterbock and Th.
Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday,
April 21, 1965 (AS 16), Chicago: 141-158.

Lambert, W. G.
1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford.
1984 “Studies in Marduk,” BSOAS 47: 1-9.

Linssen, M. J. H.
2004 The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic
Cult Practice (CM 25), Leiden-Boston.

Litke, R. L.
1998 A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-List, AN: dA-NU-UM and AN: ANU
ŠÁ AMĒLI, New Haven.

Mayer, W. R.
1976 Untersuchugen zur Formensprache der babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörungen,”
(Studia Pohl, Series Maior 5), Rome.

Reiner, E.
1974 “A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ,” JNES 33: 221-236.

*
Abbreviations follow CAD.

156
 A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

Sigrist, M., Zadok, R. and Walker, C. B. F.

2006 Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, III, London.

Talon, Ph.
2005 The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth, Enūma Eliš (SAACT 4), Helsinki.

Zgoll, A.
2003 Die Kunst des Betens: Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in
babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten zu Ištar (AOAT 308), Münster.

157
TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

A 7882

158
A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

A 7882

159
TAKAYOSHI OSHIMA

BM 27776

160
A NEW MYTHOLOGICAL TEXT OF MARDUK, ENLIL AND DAMKIANNA

BM 27776

161