UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA

KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico

Volume 17

2020

LoGisma editore
Firenze 2020
 UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA

KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 17 _ 2020

Direzione _ Editorial Board

Stefano de Martino, Frederick Mario Fales, Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Lucio Milano,
Simonetta Ponchia
Consiglio scientifico _ Scientific Board
Yoram Cohen, Paola Corò, Stefano de Martino, Frederick Mario Fales, Francis Joannès, Michael
Jursa, Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Cécile Michel, Lucio Milano, Daniele Morandi Bonacossi,
Simonetta Ponchia, Michael Roaf, Jack M. Sasson
Segreteria scientifica e di redazione _ Editorial and Scientific Assistant
Stefania Ermidoro
Progetto grafico _ Graphic project
Daniele Levi
Direttore responsabile _ Managing Director
Ines Thomas
Editore _ Publisher
LoGisma editore – Via Zufolana, 4 – I-50039 Vicchio (Firenze) www.logisma.it
Stampa _ Print
Press Up srl – Via Cassia Km 36,300 – I-01036 Nepi (VT)
Distribuzione _ Distribution
Orders can be either addressed to the publisher, or to:
Casalini Libri s.p.a. _ Via B. da Maiano 3 _ I-50014 Fiesole (Firenze) http://www.casalini.it

All articles submitted to KASKAL have undergone a peer-review process.

ISBN 978-88-94926-41-5
ISSN 1971-8608
Stampato nel maggio 2021
 KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 17 (2020)

FROM THE ELECTRONIC BABYLONIAN LITERATURE LAB 8–15

8. “Taqīš-Gula and Gimil-Gula, Scholars of Nazi-Maruttaš”, Enrique Jiménez

9. “Tiāmtu’s Corpse (Enūma Eliš IV 136)”, Adrian C. Heinrich
10. “New Fragments of Gilgameš Chiefly from the ‘Babylon Collection’”, Enrique Jiménez
11. “Two New Fragments of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi II”, Aino Hätinen
12. “New Fragments of the Hymn to the Queen of Nippur”, Zsombor J. Földi
13. “A Fragment of a Literary Hymn to Marduk”, Tonio Mitto
14. “A New Bilingual Fragment of Enlil and Sud from First-Millennium Babylonia”, Tonio
Mitto – Jeremiah Peterson
15. “K.9191: A join to an Erša~uĝa ritual”, Uri Gabbay

The compilation of the Electronic Babylonian Literature (eBL)’s Corpus and its Fragmentarium has
continued at a good pace since the publication of the previous installment of the series. The
Fragmentarium contains, as of February 2021, transliterations of ca. 17,500 fragments, totaling over
215,000 lines of text. The electronic critical editions of several major texts, such as Enūma eliš, Ludlul
bēl nēmeqi, the Counsels of Wisdom, and the Catalogue of Texts and Authors are now finished or nearly so.
New pieces of all these texts have been identified and will be gradually published in this series. The
present installment contains new fragments of Gilgameš (n. 10), Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (n. 11), the Hymn to
the Queen of Nippur (n. 12), and a literary hymn to a god (n. 13).
Beginning in this installment, articles stemming from work in the Fragmentarium, but not
directly related to the core corpus of the eBL project, will be included. The first such article, by J.
Peterson and T. Mitto, deals with the text Enlil and Sud (n. 14). The second, by U. Gabbay, presents
a new reconstruction of a ritual prescribing the recitation of sundry Balaĝs and Erša~uĝas (n. 15).
The articles have been read by all team members, an exercise that has resulted in many suggestions
and corrections. New tablets are published by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

***

Almost every non-administrative document in the range BM 30000 to BM 36696 has been
transliterated in the eBL’s Fragmentarium, enabling hundreds of identifications and dozens of joins
232 Enrique Jiménez et al.

to be discovered. Some of the discoveries originating from these works are published here, in notes
nn. 10 (Gilgameš) and 14 (Enlil and Sud).
As originally planned, a list of fragments identified and/or joined in the framework of the eBL
project would have been published in this installment. The list, numbering over 4,000 identified
fragments and ca. 650 proposed joins, has been compiled, but the impossibility of checking most of
the joins in the museum due to the pandemic has recommended that the publication be delayed
until such tests are again possible.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge here our debt to two colleagues who, in the last year, have granted
us access to their collections of transliterations, the fruits of many years of painstaking work: U.
Gabbay and A.R. George. We would also like to express our gratitude to the editor of this journal
for his continuous support throughout the last year.
258 Enrique Jiménez et al.

Figure 1. K.8612+ (edges restored)

14. A New Bilingual Fragment of Enlil and Sud from First-Millennium Babylonia, Tonio Mitto
– Jeremiah Peterson44

BM 36088 (Sp-III.634) is a fragment of a single-column bilingual exemplar of the Marriage of Enlil

and Sud, the only exemplar of the text that we are currently aware of from first-millennium

44. We would like to thank Zsombor Földi, Uri Gabbay, Adrian Heinrich, Enrique Jiménez and Piotr
Michalowski for their extensive and most helpful input in conjunction with this communication, the
contents of which we bear the sole responsibility for. We would also like to thank Susanne Paulus of the
Oriental Institute and Klaus Wagensonner of Yale University for generously furnishing us with digital
images of sources for Enlil and Sud.
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 259

Babylonia. No colophon is preserved, but paleographic criteria suggest it was written before the last
third of the first millennium BCE. The fragment belongs to the bottom left of the tablet,
presumably reflecting either an extract or a serialized tablet of the composition. It adds to the
extensive diachronic and geographic distribution attested for this text, which also includes Old
Babylonian Nippur, Sippar(?) and Susa, Middle Babylonian Nippur, and Neo-Assyrian Nineveh and
Sultantepe. The existence of Enlil and Sud in first-millennium Babylonian tradition is further
confirmed by a Late Babylonian commentary to the so-called Neo-Babylonian Grammatical
Texts,45 which quotes line 24 of Enlil and Sud as an example of the use of the Sumerian verb of
motion ĝen in the command form to introduce direct speech.
The contents of the fragment edited here are most reflective of VS 10 177, which perhaps
originated from OB Sippar. Unfortunately this source is now destroyed by salt damage (see Civil
1983, 48 and fn. 11) and only available from Zimmern’s copy. In particular, both of these sources
uniquely feature an extra line against the other extant sources from Nippur and Susa. This seems to
indicate that one avenue of transmission for this text from Old Babylonian traditions was through
Northern Babylonia.
BM 36088 preserves portions of lines from near the end of the composition (lines 147-154, 160-
164), permitting several improvements to the text. Here, the newlyweds Enlil and Ninlil/Sud have
intercourse and in the immediate aftermath of the consummation of their marriage, a complex
syncretism of Ninlil/Sud with other goddesses occurs as commanded by Enlil. Enlil assigns Ninlil
the roles of the birth goddess Nintur both as a creator and a midwife, and their eventual resulting
offspring seems to be incorporated into the grain cycle, the domain of Ninlil/Sud’s mother Nisaba
and the divine personification of grain, Ezina/Ašnan.
The following is an edition of BM 36088 accompanied by a source transliteration of the
preserved lines from other extant manuscripts, all of which date from the Old Babylonian period
and were used by Civil in his edition of the text.46 As an appendix to this article, two additional
newly identified fragments from Kuyunjik covering further portions of Enlil and Sud (12-14, 62-75)
are given in transliteration.

45. FLP unn72 13 (Frazer 2016b).

46. Civil 1983, 48 sources L (3N-T 385), P (UM 29-16-483), Q (CBS 13104), S2 (Sb 12361), and T (VS 10 177).
The Susa landscape extract Sb 12361, which is the most complete exemplar for this portion of the text that is
currently recovered, has now been copied and collated by Cavigneaux 2020, 72-74, with important
improvements.
260 Enrique Jiménez et al.

Figure 1. BM 36088 (by T. Mitto)

147
3N-T 385 = A 30229 omits
VAT 1352 r ii 11 é-kur é d + en-líl-ke 4 mu-un ! -ši-in-ku 4 x [...........................]
Sb 12361 o 6 é-kur n a 4 za-gìn-n a mu-n i-in-ku 4 ì saĝ igi-ni mi-{ni ? -in-dé}
BM 36088 o 1’ [ana ekur bīt d+en-l]íl ? { i ? -ru?}-[ub ? ...]

148
3N-T 385 r i 13 é ki-nú-{a} {ĝeš-nú} {gi-rin}-[na] / tir š i m . ĝ e š {eren}-gin 7 {ì ? }-[o]
VAT 1352 r ii12 {ki-nú}-a {ĝeš}-nú girin -{na} ĝ e š tir š i m . ĝ [ e š .. ...... ....... ........ ....]
Sb 12361 o 7 é ki-n ú-a ĝeš-n ú gi-r in-na tir š i m . < ĝ e š eren >-na-gin 7 du 1 0
BM 36088 o 2’-3’ [(o) o o]-{a} ĝeš-nú g[i ? -rin ? -na ? .........................................]
[ina? ma-a-a-l]i (erasure) er-ši e[l-li ...]

149
3N-T 385 r i 14 { d + en-líl} sal.uš.dam-a-ni ĝèš [o o o (...)] / [m]u-ni-in-~i-li-[o o]
VAT 1352 r ii13 d + e[n-lí]l { SAL.UŠ.DAM}-a-ni {ĝ èš} x x [..................................................]

Sb 12361 o 8 d + en-líl S A L . U Š -a-ni ĝèš-a-ni x i[m ? ]-mi- in-{du 1 1 ? } 47 {mu}-n i-

ib-~i-li-~i-l i
BM 36088 o 4’-5’ [ en-líl S A L ].{ U Š }. D A M -a-ni {ĝèš } [......................................]
d + ?

[dMIN ~i-rat]-{su} ir-~i-m[a? ...]

47. The authors read this sign differently: Mitto reads D U with Cavigneaux 2020, 72-73, while Peterson reads
K A = du 1 1 .
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 261

150
3N-T 385 r i 15 [.............................]-{ka} {mu}-[o o o (o)] / [..............................]
VAT 1352 r ii omits
Sb 12361 o 9 bára nam- d+ en-líl-lá-ka-ni mu-{ni}-{x}-[(o)] šùd mu-ni-in-{ša 4 ! ? }
BM 36088 o 6’-7’ [bára ? nam- d+ en-líl-l]á-ke 4 nam-mu-{un}-[(x)-tuš .................]
[ina? parak?] {d+en-líl}-ú-{ti} ú-ši-i[b ? -ma ...]

151
VAT 1352 r ii 14 en du 1 1 -g a-a {úru/u 1 8 }-ru nin x [............................................................]
Sb 12361 o 10 en du 1 1 -g a-ni b anšur ni n munus ! tam-tam-ma ! -ni nam
~é-em-<mi>-{ib ? }-tar-re
BM 36088 o 8’-9’ [o o o]-{a?}-ni {úruru} {nin} [.........................................................]
[ša? bēli ? qí]-{bit-su?} {nak-lat/liš } x [...]

152
VAT 1352 r ii 15 d {nin ! -tu ! } {munus nu ? }-ù-t[u .........................................................]
Sb 12361 o 11 d nin-tu-r e ni n ù-tu nin du 1 0 b ad mu(-)še 2 1 m[u-r]i ? -in-še 2 1

BM 36088 o 10’-11’ [d nin-t]u níĝ ù-tu [..........................................................]

[db]e-let-ì-lí mu-al-[li-da-at ...]

153
VAT 1352 r ii 16 {šà ? -zu ? } tib ira mùš-m[e ...........................................]
Sb 12361 o 12 [š]à-zu tibir a mùš-me mi-ni-in-sig 7 {ù ? }-dím-[d]ím
BM 36088 o 12’-13’ [d ? š]à-zu tibira {mùš ?} -x [...........................................]
{šab}-su-tu4 qur-qur-ra-{at} [...]

153a
VAT 1352 r ii 17 ĝeš-ge-en-n a sig 7 x [...]
BM 36088 o 14’-15’ ĝeš-ge-en-ge-na sig 7 x x [...]
ba-na-at meš-re-e-t[i ...]

154
3N-T 385 r ii 2 [..........................................]-{n e} / [o o] {nu}-bar-re-dam
VAT 1352 r ii 18 {sa ? gi 1 7 -ib} n íĝ-n am [..........................................]
Sb 12361 o 13 [s]a gi g-ga níĝ-nam munus-e-ne lú igi nu-b ar-re
BM 36088 o 16’-17’ {sa ? gi 1 7 -ib} níĝ-nam munus-{e}-[ne ..........................]
[še-er]-{’a?-na?} {mar}-#a ina x [...]

155
3N-T 385 r ii 3 [...] {x} [(x)] {x} ki / [... .D ] U
VAT 1352 r ii 18 ki {x} {x} {x} [...]
Sb 12361 o 14 [k]i-ni ì-ĝál {zi} ti-l[e-d]è saĝ-e ~ é-na- P A . @ U B
BM 36088 o 18’ [o o] x {ki/di ?} x [...]
262 Enrique Jiménez et al.

BM 36088 end of obverse and beginning of reverse broken

BM 36088 r 1’ [(o) o o] x x x [...]

160
CBS 13104 o 6 d iškur kù-ĝál ú-a-zu ~é -em a šu-ta mi-ri-ib- d[u 1 1 ]
UM 29-16-483 r ii 6’ [..........................................................-r]i ? -i n-dé
3N-T 385 r ii 2’ [.........................-z]u ~ é-em / [...........-r]i ? -ib-gu 7
Sb 12361 r 1 [o o o]-ĝál ú-a-bi ~é-me- {en} a šu-ta n a 8 -n a 8
BM 36088 r 2’-3’ [d]{iškur} gú-gal ú-a-z[u ...................................]
d{IŠKUR} gú-gal-lu lu-u za?-[nin?-ki ? ...] / [(...)]

161
CBS 13104 o 7 zà-mu-a gu saĝ g ibil-gi bil-za še saĝ gibil-gibi l-za
UM 29-16-483 r ii 7’ [................................................................ gi b]il- za
3N-T 385 r ii 3’ [............................... gib i]l ? -i -za / [............... gibi ]l ? -i-za
Sb 12361 r 2 [o o (o)] še saĝ mú-mú-dè gu saĝ mú-mú-dè
BM 36088 r 4’-5’ zà-mu še saĝ gibil-da [.........................................]
ina re-eš šat-{ti} {ŠE}-um reš-tu-{ú} {ina} u[š?-šu?-ši? ...]

162
CBS 13104 o 8 d + en-líl d n in-lí l-bi kúrku-a ~ é-mu-ni-í[b ? ]-{ù ? }-[tu ? -d]è ? -eš

UM 29-16-483 r ii 8’ [.........................................................................] {ù}-tu-ni

3N-T 385 r ii 4’ [...............................].N I . S I -a / ...............................(-)t]u-ni
Sb 12361 omits
BM 36088 r 6’-7’ + en-líl d {nin}-[lí]l-{bi} kúrku-{gin 7 } [..................................]
d

dMIN u {d}[MIN?] (x) iš-ta-{ra}-niš [...]

163
CBS 13104 o 9 lú li-bí-in-du1 1 -ga-ĝu 1 0 lú-érim-bi ~é-[o (o)] / usu kalam-bi tu-lu-ab
UM 29-16-483 r ii 9’-10’ [................................................... ~]é-{me}-en / [.................... tu-lu-a]b ?
3N-T 385 r ii 5’ [.........................................].R U -bi ~é-em / [.........................]-{lu}-ab
Sb 12361 r 3 [o o o]-in-du 1 1 -ga-zu NE . DU -bi na-nam usu kalam-bi dul-lu-ab
BM 36088 r 8’-9’ {lú?} li-bí-i[n?-d]u11-ga-{zu} érim-ĝál-b[i ...................................]
[š]u-a-tu4 šá la [(o) o]-x-x-{ka} {lu}-u {a-a-bi}-š[á? ...]

164
CBS 13104 l.e. buru 1 4 ezen g al d + en-l íl -l[á-o (o)] / s aĝ a[n ]-šè mi-ni-[(o)-íl]
3N-T 385 r ii 6’ omits (?)
Sb 12361 r 4 [o (o) bu]ru 1 4 ezen g al d + en-líl-lá ùĝ ur 5 sì-ge ~ é-me-en
BM 36088 r 10’-11’ [o o o d + en-líl-lá]-{ke 4 } [....................................]
[...] { d?} MI[N? ...]
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 263

o 1’ (147) akk.: She ent[ered the Ekur, the house of Enl]il [...]
o 2’-3’ (148) [In the bedro]om, on the ho[ly] bed [...]
o 4’-5’ (149) [Enlil] coupled with his [wi]fe and [...]
o 6’-7’ (150) He sa[t down on the throne of E]nlilship [and ...]
o 8’-9’ (151) [(With)] his mighty [command, the lord ...] the lady [...]
akk.: [The com]mand of [the lord] (was) artful(ly) ... [...]
o 10’-11’ (152) [Nint]ur (akk.: [B]ēlet-ilī), who gives birth to (all) there is [...]
o 12’-13’ (153) [Š]azu (akk.: The midwife), the smith of fac[es ...]
o 14’-15’ (153a) She, who creates limbs ... [...]
o 16’-17’ (154) Aching sinews, everything (pertaining) to wom[en ...]
akk.: The aching [sin]ew in ... [...]
o 18’ (too damaged for translation)

r 1’ (too damaged for translation)

r 2’-3’ (160) May Iškur, the canal inspector, be you[r] provider! [...]
r 4’-5’ (161) The zamu festival, when the first barley is to sprout [...]
akk.: At the beginning of the year,
when making the first barley e[merge anew ...]
r 6’-7’ (162) Enlil and Ni[nli]l [...] like ... (akk.: like Ištarān) [...]
r 8’-9’ (163) Who(ever) does not obey you (“your he-does-not-speak-about-it-man”),
[(...)] the[ir] enemy [...]
akk.: [H]im, who does not [...] ... you, may [(...)] be h[er] enemies [...]
r 10’-11’ (164) [... of Enl]il [...]

Commentary
147) BM 36088 seems to have contained the same phrase é-kur é d + en-líl-lá as the OB
Sippar source. The é-kur n a 4 za-g ìn-na of the Susa exemplar features a frequent epithet that has
been understood to possibly reflect the full name of the Ekur temple (George 1993, 118).
149) The root nir read by Civil, which usually occurs with du 1 0 “knee,” and by extension
“testicle” with the meaning “to ejaculate” rather than ĝèš “penis,” was probably not present in any
source. The correspondence of ĝèš ... du 1 1 with the Akkadian verb re~û furnished by BM 36088 is
well established (for the auxiliary construction, see Attinger 1993, 540-547). The signs following the
noun and possessive suffix are badly broken and unclear in the Susa source: thus, Cavigneaux’s
reading of ~aš 4 “thigh” is not certain. A modal construction of the verb du 1 1 may be all that
occurred.
150) The expression šùd ... ša 4 “intone a prayer,” may be describing Enlil’s introduction of
Ninlil in lines 152f. rather than a praise of Enlil himself.
151) The lexeme spelled úru r u reflects either /uru(n)/ “mighty,” etc. (see Civil 1989, 55), or
/uru/ “flood.” The former is more compatible with the graphic resumption with -ru and the
apparent translation with Akkadian naklu, while the latter is more compatible with the GIŠGAL/ÚRU
sign. Compare the descriptions of divine speech with u 1 8 -lu in various other contexts (Išme-Dagan S
1, Būr-Sîn A 34-35, and the Rīm-Sîn inscription RIME 4.2.14.6 line 8). The grapheme RU is clearly
264 Enrique Jiménez et al.

present in VS 10 177 from Zimmern’s copy but not the broken preceding sign, which could be
either GIŠGAL or ÚRU. The BANŠUR in the Susa source may be a misunderstanding of the
graphemic sequence GIŠGAL.RU, possibly conditioned by the occurrence of BANŠUR elsewhere in
the text or breakage of the respective signs in a source text.
152) For a recent treatment of this passage, see Avila – Sigrist – Gabbay 2017, 388-389.
153) The correct reading of the beginning of the line was ascertained by Cavigneaux 2013, 6 fn. 15
(see also Cavigneaux 2020, 73), who translates the line as “(Nintur), accoucheuse et orfèvre, a ébauché
la forme; quand elle l’eut travaillée avec grand soin …”. To judge from the space in the break, the
beginning of the Sumerian line in BM 36088 is to be restored as the divine name dŠà-zu, “midwife”, a
name of the birth goddess with several different additional qualifiers, with the ensuing tibira perhaps
serving as an epithet, as reflected by the separation of the lexemes šabsūtu and qurqurratu in the
Akkadian translation. No OB source appears to have used a divine determinative. Compare the
designations of the birth goddess d tibira-kalam-ma 48 and d tibira-diĝir-e-ne (An = Anum 2 27-
28, UM 29-15-229 i’? 7’), one of several artisan designations applied to the birth goddess and her craft,
as well as the description of Mama as qú-ur-qú-ra-at dA-nun-na-ke4 in the OB Akkadian hymn to the
mother goddess HS 1884 rev. i 22’ und 24’ (Krebernik 2003/2004, 16). Thus, the line continues the
portrayal of the role of Ninlil/Sud as a birth goddess and divine midwife that is begun in the previous
line with Enlil naming her as Nintur.
Cavigneaux understands the prefix of anteriority ù- to occur with the verb dím in the Susa
source. It does not seem to fulfill the standard functions of this prefix (for which see Civil 2008),
but perhaps it was intended to coordinate the verb with the preceding synonymous sig 7 = banû
“create” or it was intended to describe a sequence of the development of the fetus culminating in
childbirth without the typical application to all finite verbs in the sequence.
153a) This line, of which only the first part is recovered, is included only in BM 36088 and VS
10 177. It seems to continue the anatomical progression of creation in the previous line from mùš-
me “face” to ĝeš-g e-en-(ge-n a) “limbs, extremities”. Lambert 1983, 65 and Cavigneaux 2013, 6
fn. 15 favor a sense of “foetus” or “forme” for mùš-me, but the anatomical specificity of ĝeš-ge-
en-(ge-na) in the ensuing additional line could point to the primary meaning “face” for mùš-me,
at least for the variant expanded version.
154) The reading sa gig-ga for the Susa exemplar by Cavigneaux (2020, 73) appears to be
plausible for all the extant sources, with gi 1 7 -ib in BM 36088 and probably also VS 10 177
reflecting an isolated Emesal form of the word. The reading is further confirmed by the clear
presence of the word mar#u in the Akkadian translation. The modified noun is probably to be
restored as šer’ānu “sinew, tendon, etc.”. The Akkadian phrase may indicate that the phrase was
intended to describe labor pain rather than an illness. No source appears to contain nu-gig
“midwife,” as read by Civil (1983, 57, 63; Civil 2011, 281-283).
The exact connotation of Sumerian non-finite verb igi . .. b ar here is somewhat elusive. It may
be describing the involvement of portions of the female anatomy that non-intimate male partners

48. The epithet ti bir a ka l a m- m a is also applied to Ninmug in Enki and the World Order 409 (discussed by
Cavigneaux – Krebernik 2001, 472).
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 265

were not supposed to see,49 or perhaps it is describing the non-experience of labor pain by males
via semantic extension. It could also be describing the elusive locus of the physical affliction itself:
one could compare contexts such as Nintinuga’s Dog 8-9 (Kleinerman 2011, 174, 301), where the
special ability of the healing goddess to physically locate illness as a preliminary to treatment is
praised. The inside of the body, in particular the womb, was often understood to be profoundly
dark (see, for example, the discussion of Woods 2009, 219-225; Böck 2014, 33-34, with further
literature), so the connotation of negated igi ... b ar “to see” could be intended to be quite literal
(compare perhaps the broken context of the hymn to a healing goddess contained in the collective
tablet fragment CBS 2248 o i’ 12’ (Peterson in press), where an operating site may be described via
analogy to the darkened Abzu).
155) This line, which resumes line 154 in description of the abilities granted to Ninlil as a birth
goddess via the verb saĝ .. . rig 7 , is only substantially preserved in the Susa source. The poorly
preserved Nippur and Sippar sources may have been substantially divergent for this line.
Cavigneaux (2020, 73) translates “c’est devenu son domaine (?), Il le lui a confié pour sauvegarder la
vie”. It seems possible that the ki of the Susa source is describing the exact location of the
affliction sa gig-g a/gi 1 7 -ib, with the third person possessive suffix possibly describing a
hypothetical female patient. Compare the use of ki as the locus of disease ascertaining by the
healing goddess in the potentially partially analogous context of Nintinuga’s Dog 8-9.
160) The Nippur imgida CBS 13104 and the Susa source have the adverbial ablative phrase šu-ta
rather than the ki-ta read by Civil. The construction a šu-ta ... du 1 1 /dé is attested in description
of irrigating grain and other plants elsewhere in Sumerian literature (Summer and Winter 110, Heron
and Turtle 174). The Susa source seems to have a non-finite form of the marû reduplication class
verb naĝ “to drink”, apparently treating personified grain as an human/animal entity, while the
broken Nippur House F source clearly features the finite verb gu 7 : perhaps the intended image was
of Iškur “feeding” the personified grain with irrigated water, drawing upon the normal semantic
thrust of ú-a “provider”.
162) In two broken Nippur sources a command form seems to have occurred, possibly a
command with a suffixed locative (see Foxvog 2008, 115) rather than a modal construction, thus
echoing the command in the following line.
The exact meaning of the elusive and notably polysemous lexeme /kurku/ 50 is difficult to
establish for the current context. As Civil notes, the same expression /kurku/ ... ut ud also
occurs in the Gudea Cylinders (Gudea Cylinder A xx 17, where the lexeme is spelled as kur-ku 4 ),
where an action is performed by Ĝatumdug on the brick(s) or brickwork of the Eninnu. In the
current context, the construction /kurku/-a/-gin 7 ... utud describes an action performed by
Enlil and Ninlil that initiates or co-occurs with the growth of grain and flax, perhaps involving the
offspring engendered by their marital union. The idea that Enlil and Ninlil’s sexual union

49. Note the remarks on this passage by Lambert 1983, 65 and compare the use in several contexts of the
similar expression lú -da nu - u 6 -d i with the anatomical reference to scratching the ~a š 4 ga l in the
context of female mourning (see the citation and discussion of Gabbay 2019, 308).
50. See, for example, the treatments of Sjöberg 1965, 65-70; Sjöberg – Bergmann 1969, 92; Jaques 2004, 223-
225; Jaques 2006, 40 fn. 83, 143-144; Lämmerhirt 2012, 76.
266 Enrique Jiménez et al.

engendered growth also seems to be succinctly described in lines 6-7 of the cultic song of Ninlil
that begins the collective Ni 2275 (BE 31 4) and duplicates (see Peterson 2019, 49). A connection
between /kurku/ and the beginning of the barley cycle is also known from the Ur III cultic
calendar: Sallaberger (1993, 146) has collected several attestations of /kurku/ offerings/feasts that
all took place during the months viii-ix (November-December), i.e. around the time of year at which
the newly-sown barley51 began to sprout.
The new fragment furnishes the Akkadian translation ištarāniš for a comparative construction
kúrku-gin 7 . The Akkadian adverb is elusive in its exact interpretation both in general and in the
current context. Numerous independent contexts without an adverbial morpheme confirm the
presence of the adverbial ending -iš rather than the morphemic variant -āniš (GAG §67c). The word
probably reflects either the god Ištarān or a separate application of the putative analysis of the
divine name as an Akkadian dual “the two Ištars,” possibly referencing Inana/Ištar as the Morning
and Evening Stars (see Woods 2004, 68), or possibly also, theoretically, simply the generic “two
goddesses” with unclear reference. Given the pervasiveness of the association between kúrku and
Ištar’s Sumerian counterpart Inana in Sumerian literature, it is hard to dismiss the possibility that it
is Ištar/Inana that is involved here: note the uncertainties expressed in CAD I/J, 274.
The bilingual association of kúrku with ištarān and derivatives is present in the following
contexts:
[kúrk]u, [k urku] = iš-ta-ra-an
OB Diri Nippur 9 11-12 (MSL 15 32)
kúrku, kurk u = [iš-ta-ra-an]
OB Diri Oxford 554-555 (MSL 15 49)
kur-ku = KA . N I . I S = iš-ta-ra-nu
Diri Ugarit I 76 (MSL 15 69)
gù kúrku = ri-ig-mi iš-ta-ra-an
Kagal D section 7 5’ (MSL 13 246)
kúrku = MIN (diš-tar da-nim)
Lu IV 21 (MSL 12 129)
[ ] EN-á-nun : ama [kúrk u] : iš-ta-ra-niš šá-su-u
d

An = Anum 5 124 (only in K.4349D (CT 24 21) 8’-10’): see Bergmann 1964, 16-17, Litke
1998, 179, Richter 2004, 121.
[ EN-á-nun] ama kú[rku-(ke 4 )] : [...] um-{mi} iš-ta-[...]
d

unidentified balaĝ SBH 50 + CTMMA 2 11 o 22’, Cohen 1988, 238 (there treated as a
source for Mutin nunus dima), CAD I/J, 274 : Cohen’s restoration iš-ta-[ri-ti] is not verified:
note the more likely restoration iš-ta-[ra-an] by CAD.52

51. For an overview of the grain cycle in Mesopotamia with its related festivals see the table in Sallaberger 1999, 390-391.
52. The goddess d EN-á - nu n, who was associated with Pabilsaĝ in offering lists from OB Nippur and was
later understood as the mother of Gula (see Richter 2004, 116, 121-122, 205, 215) and the epithet a ma
k ú rk u are well attested in the Gula litanies in the balaĝ tradition (for these contexts, see Bergmann 1964,
16-17; Marchesi 2006, 42-43 and fn. 184, 53, 57; Gabbay 2014, 51).
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 267

Some of these attestations, such as the Kagal and An = Anum variant, seem to indicate a vocal
phenomenon that is somewhat overlooked among the various apparent meanings of /kurku/. Such a
meaning could be compatible with the likely meaning of the components of the Diri compound gù an-
né si as “the shout that fills heaven”, which may have originally referred to Inana’s well-known heavenly
cry. It may have specifically indicated a cry attributed to Ištarān, perhaps involving the elusive god’s
possibly more original astral role. 53 Other contexts implicate kúrku as a component of musical
performance or possibly even a musical performer.54 How such a meaning is involved with the procreation
of Enlil and Ninlil/Sud and the initiation of the agricultural cycle is unclear: perhaps a representation of the
piercing cry of a newborn or a musical performance accompanying childbirth was intended.
The Lu tradition also identifies kúrku as a type of cultic functionary, which seems to be reflected
further by the Diri tradition. This entry furnishes the same translation, diš-tar da-nim, apparently an
interpretation as the pair of Urukean deities Ištar and Anu or a genitival phrase meaning roughly
“Ištar of heaven”,55 as the preceding egizi’ana priestess, a rare and prestigious title of unclear function
held by the daughters of Old Babylonian kings of Isin that was associated with Ninlil and Nintinuga in
the Ur III period and was also an epithet of the birth goddess Nin~ursaĝa, already known from the
Barton Cylinder (see Steinkeller 2005, 301-303; Huber Vulliet 2019, 88, 99). The homophonous
kurku = ME.AN.NISABA, which is further explained as the “purification priest of Nisaba” in SB Diri56
and may also be translated by ištarān in OB Diri if the Nippur and “Oxford” versions were
immediately reflective of each other, could implicate the involvement of the poorly attested cult of the
grain goddess Nisaba, whose involvement in an event coinciding with the beginning of the agricultural
cycle as presented in the current line would be an obvious fit for our context. The direct involvement
of a human cultic functionary in this line, however, is not sufficiently demonstrable: note that Civil
(1983, 64) suggests a play on the functionary may have occurred in the current context.57
163) Speechlessness or non-communication can indicate hostility in Sumerian literature (see, for
example, contexts such as Gudea Cylinder A x 21-22, Ninurta and the Turtle (UET 6/1 2 30)). There is

53. Note that a similar (re?)-analysis could be performed on the Diri compound dKA.DI that is used to write
the god's name, which might be understood as a form of g ù ... du 1 1 /e /d i “to shout”, for which see
Attinger 1993, 526-536 n. 5.3.63. The involvement of Ištarān’s ophidian incarnation cannot however be
entirely excluded, since k úrk u is associated with snakes in a few contexts. The construction k úrk u KA
... si- il may describe a noise made by a snake in conjunction with e me ... è “to stick out the tongue,”
with an apparent contextual definition of “to hiss” in Lugale 11 (see the discussion of Karahashi 2004,
116; Peterson 2007, 160, 524 and fn. 2032), and compare the analogous context of Nungal Hymn 23
(Attinger 2003, 28), which features reptiles rather than a composite creature and the obscure, possibly
synonymous, E.NE.DAG ... si -i l in conjunction with e me ... è and one OB exemplar of the incantation
against zé (CBS 10474 o 4, see Michalowski 1981, 15), where the verb varies with expressions describing
the dispersal of poison (zé ... g ur 5 /dú b) in other sources of this text.
54. See, for example, Temple Hymns 391 and K.8462 (BL 147) 7’-8’.
55. See Stol 2020 for instances of Sumerian and Akkadian divine names of this approximate type.
56. k ur-k u = ME.AN.NISABA = išippu ša dNISABA, SB Diri IV 69 (MSL 15 152), see also Civil 1983, 64,
Lambert 1983, 64. A direct connection between this Diri compound, the ME.AN.AN.NISABA and
ME.AN.NISABA of the ED IIIa lexical text OIP 99 53 o iii’ 3’-4’ and the personal name written
ME.AN.NISABA attested from ED IIIa to OB is not presently demonstrable.
57. Note as well that Sjöberg – Bergmann 1969, 92 hesitate to draw a definite lexemic boundary between
k urk u = ME.AN.NISABA and kúrk u = KA.AN.NI.SI.
268 Enrique Jiménez et al.

a discrepancy between the 1st and 2nd person possessive suffix in the sources: the first person may
refer back to Enlil, the narrator of the passage.
This line probably contains a reference to Nergal or another warrior god wielding a sickle at the
completion of the grain cycle: compare Nisaba C/Išbi-Erra E 89-91 (Reisman 1976, 362), 58 where
Nergal is described along with Iškur and Šakkan/Sumuqan as contributing the grain cycle and its
watering, harvesting and processing at the threshing floor. Note that the image of the decapitation of
an enemy likened to harvesting grain with a sickle is encountered several times in Sumerian literature
(Lugale 6, Išme-Dagan N (STVC 73) 39, and note also the related context of Sîn-iddinam to Utu 15).
Civil read Á.KAL as lirum 4 , perhaps on the strength of analogy with the lirum ... tu-lu =
rummû ša kirimmi of Antagal F 229 (MSL 17 218).59 However, the reading lirum 4 for this graphic
sequence is not unequivocally attested in the Old Babylonian period. The variant verbal renderings tu-
lu/dul of the OB Nippur and Susa exemplars may reflect an attempt to render du 6 . l, “to store”
(for this verb see Michalowski 1989, 89, Civil 1994, 92) or a later misunderstanding or re-interpretation
of this verb, which is better known from Ur III administrative texts and only rarely attested from the
Old Babylonian period onwards. The Susa version may reflect the confusion of the somewhat similar
DUL sign with DU6 conditioned by homophonous and much more commonly attested verb dul “to
cover”. If the verb du 6 .l was original to this line, in may be describing storing harvested grain as
sheaves. Compare Farmer’s Instructions 82-83, which seems to be describing gathering sheaves by
specialized workers as a product of their manpower (usu) in conjunction with the verb du 6 . l, which is
uniform across the sources, as well as the profession l ú garadin du 6 -ul-du 6 -ul = mupa~~ir kurulli of
OB Lu A 195 (see Civil 1994, 92, 221).
Ezina/Ašnan is described as in Sumerian literature as the usu kalam=ak in Enki and the World
Order 332 and Tree and Reed 23. 60 Note as well the description of Ezina/Ašnan’s usu lending
strength to the warrior on the battlefield in Sheep and Grain 78-81 (see, most recently, Mittermayer
2019, 40-41). The genitival expression usu kalam=ak may also be reflected in the sequence Á.KAL
UN-bi, assuming that a defective genitive phrase is modified by deictic -bi or a possessive here. It is
also possible, perhaps more likely, that a possibly analogous usu ùĝ(=ak) “power of the people”
was intended. Regardless of the particulars of the second noun in the current passage, the thrust of
the expression seems to be the role of grain as the primary foodstuff in Southern Mesopotamia that
could be released or stored for use after the harvest.
164) The expression s aĝ an -šè … íl is performed by Ezina/Ašnan in the analogous contexts of
Tree and Reed 23 and Summer and Winter 60, as well as Gudea Cylinder B xi 19-20. In these contexts,
the expression saĝ an-šè … íl may be describing the straightness of the grain stalk at the ideal
moment for harvest, i.e., before its starts to droop from over-ripeness, which seems to be reflected by
the expression ur 5 … gúr (for this expression, see Civil 1994, 89). Compare also the similar context of

58. We would like to thank Piotr Michalowski for sharing his new edition of this text with us in advance of
publication.
59. This Akkadian expression is used in description of Lamaštu in SB Lamaštu 1 143 (see the discussion of
Farber 2014, 213-214), as well as in description of the disrobing Šam~at in SB Gilgameš I 180.
60. Van Dijk 1965, 45, 47: the source Ni 4598 has the divergent variant á-k a l- l a according to the copy in
ISET I pg. 166, which may be an isolated error.
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 269

Nisaba A 18-19, where the agent is Nisaba, who instead rubs her body (su ... su-ub) perhaps in order
to exfoliate grain from herself as personified grain as a metaphor for the grain harvest.
The divergent Susa version probably intended the phrase ùĝ ur 5 sa 6 -g e “gladden the liver of the
people”: the non-finite verb may be the result of a corruption of ùĝ gù téš-a sì-g e with ùĝ ur 5
sa 6 -g e.

Appendix – New Fragments of Enlil and Sud from Kuyunjik

In the following transliterations, the fragments in question and the relevant parallel lines of the Old
Babylonian version of Enlil and Sud are given. Restorations are made on the basis of the respective
versions (Old Babylonian/1st millennium).

1) K.16753
Identification: J. Peterson
Hand Copy: CTL 1: n. 229
Script: Neo-Babylonian
Translation: Interlinear
Parallel Lines: OB 12-14 // STT 2: n. 154 9’-13’
Description: Fragment from lower edge, close to left edge. Entire lower edge and first 7 lines of
reverse preserved. The original tablet must have held less than ll. 1-24, i.e. approximately the
first eighth of the composition.

OB 12 kur gal d en-líl-le kalam kíĝ-k íĝ-da-ni éreš k i -a b í ? -[in ? ]-gub

r1 [kur] gal ! d + en-l íl-lá [kalam k in-k in-na-š è éreš k i ...]
r2 [K]U[R G]AL d+en-líl [māta ina šite’’i(šu) ...]

OB omits
r3 [(o) pa U D . D ] U -a [til la 4 nir-ĝál-bi ...]
r4 [(o) šu]-pu-ú [sulâ etelliš? ...]

OB 13 igi i-ni-in-bar munus šà-ga-n a-ke 4 im-ma-n i-in- pà-dè

r5 [igi mu-u]n-b ar-ra [munus šà-g a-...]
r6 [(ša) ip-pa]l-la-{su!?} [...]

OB 14 mu-un-na-te šà ~úl- la si-a-n a in im mu-un- da-b al-e

r7 [(o) o o o]-{te ? } [...]
Figure 2. K.14877 + K.17725
2) K.14877 + K.17725
Identification: K.17725: W.G. Lambert;
K.14877 and join: E. Jiménez
Hand Copy: Lambert apud Civil 1983, 49 (K.17725)
Script: Neo-Assyrian
Translation: —
Parallel Lines: OB 62-75 (// 91-102) // K.5243+ 2’-29’
Description: Fragment from center, 14 lines preserved.
270 Enrique Jiménez et al.

Approximately spans the third of four quarters of the tablet’s original width.

OB 62 a-ba za-gin 7 kur gal-d a u 4 -d a šà kúš-ù

1’ [a ? -ba ? za-e-k e 4 ? (.. .)] {kur gal}-[da ? o o o o (o o)]

OB 63 kíĝ lug al šubur bí-in-dab 5 -ba me-e a-na a-da-mìn ì-ak

2’ [kíĝ lugal šubur-ni in-... a ? -d]a-an-mi[n o o (o o o)]

OB 64 [níĝ mu-e-du 1 1 -ga- z]a g i-na ~[é-em ní ĝ-lu l nam-me-a]

3’ [níĝ ? mu-e-du 1 1 -g a-za gi-na ~é ? -e]m níĝ-lu l x [o o (o o)]

OB 65 [ma~ diri o o o o a-b]a ~ul [ba-an- gig]

4’ [ma~ dir i lú gi šu g i 4 -g]i 4 a-ba ~u[l o o o]

OB 66 [(o) o o o o ur 5 šà mu-o-o-~]úl g a-nam ì-[ud bí-d u 1 1 ]

5’ [(o) o é ? -zu-ta ur 5 šà m]u-{ni}-íb-~úl ga-na {ì }-[o o o o (o o)]

OB 67 níĝ-dé-a mu pà-da túm-túm-da šu- kár i[m-ma- ab-gi 4 -gi 4 ]

6’ [níĝ ? -d é ? -a mu pà-da] tú m-túm-mu šu šà [o o o (o)]

OB 68 ù-n[a-du 1 1 ] ùšbar-ĝu 1 0 ~é-me-en ní ĝ šà- za ak [e-še]

7’ [ù ? -mu ? -un-ne-e-du 1 1 m u n ] us? {ušbar 6 }-zu ~é-me-en níĝ [šà-zu ? ak ? o (o)]

OB 69 kur g al [ d ]en-lí l-ra ù-na-a-du 1 1 níĝ šà-za ak e-š e

8’ [kur gal d + en-líl-lá-ra ù- m]u-un-{ne}-du 1 1 {ní ĝ} [šà-zu ak o (o)]

OB 70 gú-ri-ta nin 9 -a-ni ~é-en-ĝen gú-e-ta ~é-en- da- ĝen

9’ [gú ? -še-r a-ta nin 9 -a-ni ~é]-en-ĝen gú-{e}-t a [~é-en-da-ab-o]

OB 71 [d a]-ru-ru e-ri-ib-a-ni na-nam é ~é-n[a]-ra- ab-l á-lá

10’ [d a-ru-ru a-ru 5 -íb]- {a}-ni ~é-na-nam {é}-[a ~é-ni-íb-lá-o]

OB 72 [o-zu-úr ki-ùr o]- a-ni u r 5 -gin 7 du 1 1 -mu-na-ab

11’ [en ? -zu-ra ki-ùr m]a~-a-ni ur 5 -g[in 7 du 1 1 -mu-un-na-ab ? ]

OB 73 [o o o o o o o-ga-n]a ù-g a-na-dè-d a~

12’ [d + en-l íl-ra it ima kù sì g-ga-n]a ù ĝ-[ĝe 2 6 ù-mu-u n-ne-du-o]

OB 74 [...]-ra á mu-da-an-áĝ-ta
13’ [(o) o d nisaba sukk al èš-ma~-a]- {ta} {á} [mu-u n-da-an-áĝ-a-t a ?]
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 271

OB 75 [...-g]ub d nusku d úr bí-i n-ĝar

[ĝ e š gu-za šu niĝin-na mu]-{un ? }-[na-šub d nusku ? dúr bí-in ? -ĝ ar ?]
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 273

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al Rawi F.N.H. – George A.R. 2014, “Back to the Cedar Forest: The Beginning and End of Tablet
V of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgameš”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 66, 69-90.
Annus A. – Lenzi A. 2010, Ludlul bēl nēmeqi. The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer
(State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 7), Helsinki.
Attinger P. 1993, Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di “dire” (Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis Sonderband), Göttingen.
––––– 2003, “L’hymne à Nungal”, in W. Sallaberger – K. Volk – A. Zgoll (Hgg.), Literatur, Politik und
Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14), Wiesbaden, 15-34.
Avila M. – Sigrist M. – Gabbay U. 2017, “Within the Ekur: Sitz im Leben for a Literary Topos
Regarding Nintur”, in O. Drewnowska – M. Sandowicz (eds.), Fortune and Misfortune in the
Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Warsaw 21–25 July
2014, Winona Lake, 383-408.
Beaulieu P.-A. 1995, “Theological and Philological Speculations on the Names of the Goddess
Antu”, Orientalia NS 64, 187-213.
Bergmann E. 1964, “Untersuchungen zu syllabisch geschriebenen sumerischen Texten”, Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 56, 1-43.
Bezold C. 1894, “Zwei weitere Fragmente mit Beschreibungen babylonisch-assyrischer
Göttertypen”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 9, 405-409.
274 Enrique Jiménez et al.

Böck B. 2014, The Healing Goddess Gula: Towards an Understanding of Ancient Babylonian Medicine (Culture
and History of the Ancient Near East 67), Leiden - Boston.
Boivin O. 2018, The First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records
20), Boston - Berlin.
Borger R. 1996, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G,
H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften, Wiesbaden.
Budge E.A.W. 1887, “The Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 10, 86.
Cavigneaux A. 2013, “Le monstre du troisième acte dans la ‹Lamentation sur Uruk›”, Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 103, 4-15.
––––– 2020, “Les traditions littéraires suméro-akkadiennes à Suse: fragments littéraires susiens
(suite)”, Revue d’assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 114, 63-102.
Cavigneaux A. – Krebernik M. 2001, “Nin-muga, Nin-zed, Nin-zadim?”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 471-473.
Charpin D. 1999, “Review of: Pientka R. 1998, Die spätaltbabylonische Zeit: Abiešu~ bis Samsuditana.
Quellen, Jahresdaten, Geschichte (Imgula 2), Münster”, Archiv für Orientforschung 46/47, 322-324.
––––– 2004, “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002-1595)”, in P. Attinger – W.
Sallaberger – M. Wäfler (Hgg.), Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
160/4), Fribourg, 24-480.
––––– 2007, “Le «scribe accroupi» en Mésopotamie”, NABU 2007/61.
Civil M. 1983, “Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 103, 43-64.
––––– 1989, “The Statue of Šulgi-ki-ur5-sag9-kalam-ma. Part One: The Inscription”, in H. Behrens
– D. Loding – M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg
(Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11), Philadelphia, 49-64.
––––– 1994, The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 5),
Barcelona.
––––– 2008, “A Sumerian Connective Particle and Its Possible Semitic Counterparts”, Aula
Orientalis 26, 7-15.
––––– 2011, “The Law Collection of Ur-Namma”, in A.R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions
and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17;
Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform Texts 6), Bethesda, 221-286.
Cohen M. 1988, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia, Potomac.
Deimel A. 1912, Enuma eliš sive epos babylonicum de creatione mundi (Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici),
Rome.
Delitzsch F. 1885, Assyrische Lesestücke. Nach den Originalen theils revidirt theils zum ersten Male herausgegeben.
Nebst Paradigmen, Schrifttafel, Textanalyse und kleinem Wörterbuch. Dritte durchaus neu bearbeitete Auflage,
Leipzig.
––––– 1896, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos, Leipzig.
Dhorme P. 1907, Choix de textes religieux assyro-babyloniens. Transcription, traduction, commentaire (Études
Bibliques), Paris.
van Dijk J.J.A. 1962, “Die Inschriftenfunde”, Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka
18, 39-62.
––––– 1965, “Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumérienne”, Acta Orientalia 28, 1-59.
Ebeling E. 19262, “Die Geschichte eines Leidenden und seine Erlösung”, in H. Gressmann (Hg.),
Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament (Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament), Berlin
- Leipzig, 273-281.
Eliade M. 19782, The Forge and the Crucible. The Origins and Structures of Alchemy, Chicago.
Falkenstein A. 1952, “Inannas Erhöhung”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 9, 88-92.
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 275

Farber W. 2014, Lamaštu: An Edition of the Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related
Texts from the Second and First Millennia B.C. (Mesopotamian Civilizations 17), Winona Lake.
Finkel I.L. 1988, “Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kīn-apli, and the Series SA.GIG”, in E. Leichty – M.
deJ. Ellis – P. Gerardi (eds.), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (Occasional
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9), Philadelphia, 143-159.
––––– 2005, “Documents of the Physician and Magician”, in I. Spar – W.G. Lambert (eds.), Literary
and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium BC (Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2),
New York, 155-175.
––––– 2014, The Ark Before Noah. Decoding the Story of the Flood, London.
Földi Zs.J. 2019, “Bullussa-rabi, Author of the Gula Hymn”, KASKAL. Rivista di storia, ambienti e
culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 16, 81-83.
Foster B.R. 20053, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, Bethesda.
Foxvog D. 2008, Introduction to Sumerian Grammar (Unpublished Manuscript).
Frazer M. 2013, “Nazi-Maruttaš in Later Mesopotamian Tradition”, KASKAL. Rivista di storia,
ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 187-220.
––––– 2016a, “An Elementary Late Babylonian Scribal Exercise Featuring Nazi-Maruttaš”,
KASKAL. Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 13, 175-183.
––––– 2016b, “Commentary on Neo-Babylonian Grammatical Text (9) (CCP 6.6)”, in E. Frahm –
E. Jiménez – M. Frazer – K. Wagensonner, Cuneiform Commentaries Project, 2013–2021. Available
online at https://ccp.yale.edu/P461061, last accessed 22/02/2021).
Gabbay U. 2014, Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods. Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millennium BC
(Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 1), Wiesbaden.
––––– 2015, The Eršema Prayers of the First Millennium BC (Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 2), Wiesbaden.
––––– 2019, “Akkadian gadādu, ‘lacerate’”, Orientalia NS 88, 306-316.
Gabbay U. – Jiménez E. 2019, “Cultural Imports and Local Products in the Commentaries from
Uruk. The Case of the Gimil-Sîn Family”, in C. Proust – J. Steele (eds.), Scholars and Scholarship in
Late Babylonian Uruk (Why the Sciences of the Ancient World Matter 2), Cham, 53-88.
Gabriel G. 2014, enūma eliš – Weg zu einer globalen Weltordnung. Pragmatik, Struktur und Semantik des
babylonischen ‘Lieds auf Marduk’ (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 12), Tübingen.
Geller M.J. 2016, Healing Magic and Evil Demons. Canonical Udug-hul Incantations (Die babylonisch-
assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 8), Boston - Berlin.
George A.R. 1993, House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Civilizations 5),
Winona Lake.
––––– 2003, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Oxford.
––––– 2007, “The Gilgameš epic at Ugarit”, Aula Orientalis 25, 237-254.
––––– 2009, Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and
Sumerology 10; Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform Texts 4), Bethesda.
––––– 2014, “SB Gilgameš V, Revised in the Light of T.1447”, available online at
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/3343/1/SB%20GilgV_Partitur.pdf (last accessed 23/02/2021).
George A.R. – Frame G. 2005, “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King
Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting”, Iraq 67, 265-284.
George A.R. – Taniguchi J. (eds.) 2019, Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W. G. Lambert, Part One
(Mesopotamian Civilizations 24), University Park.
Gesche P.D. 2000, Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 275), Münster.
Gong Y. 2000, Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 268), Münster.
Hallo W.W. 1974, “Toward a History of Sumerian Literature”, in S.J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological
Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday (Assyriological Studies 20), Chicago, 181-
203.
276 Enrique Jiménez et al.

Harris R. 1993, “Gendered Old Age in Enuma Elish”, in M.E. Cohen – D.C. Snell – D.B. Weisberg
(eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda, 111-
115.
Haupt P. 1891, Das Babylonische Nimrodepos. Keilschrifttext der Bruchstücke der sogenannten Izdubarlegenden
mit dem keilinschriftlichen Sintfluthberichte (Assyriologische Bibliothek 3), Leipzig.
Heeßel N.P. 2010, “Neues von Esagil-kīn-apli. Die ältere Version der physiognomischen
Omenserie alamdimmû”, in S.M. Maul – N.P. Heeßel (Hgg.), Assur-Forschungen. Arbeiten aus der
Forschungsstelle »Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur« der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 139-187.
Helle S. 2018, “The Role of Authors in the ‘Uruk List of Kings and Sages’: Canonization and
Cultural Contact”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 77, 219-234.
Hilgert M. 2004, “Akkadisch sa/erku(p)pu(m) in der Ur-III-Zeit – zur Landwirtschaft in Tell Išān
Mizyad”, in H. Waetzoldt (Hg.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato zum
27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient
9), Heidelberg, 73-92.
Hölscher M. 1996, Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur (Imgula 1), Münster.
Horowitz W. 1998, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Mesopotamian Civilizations 8), Winona Lake.
Hrůša I. 2010, Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru. Eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und
Kommentar (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 50), Münster.
Huber Vulliet F. 2019, Le personnel cultuel à l’époque néo-sumérienne (ca. 2160-2003 av. J.-C.) (Biblioteca del
Próximo Oriente Antiguo 14), Madrid.
Hunger H. 1968, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 2), Kevelaer -
Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Izre’el Sh. 2001, Adapa and the South Wind. Language Has the Power of Life and Death (Mesopotamian
Civilizations 10), Winona Lake.
Jakob S. 2018, Ritualbeschreibungen und Gebete III (Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 9),
Wiesbaden.
Jaques M. 2004, “Inanna et Ebi~: Nouveaux textes et remarques sur le vocabulaire du combat et de
la victoire”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 94, 202-225.
––––– 2006, Le vocabulaire des sentiments dans les textes sumériens. Recherche sur le lexique sumérien et
akkadien (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 332), Münster.
Jensen P. 1900, Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek 6/1) Berlin.
Jiménez E. 2017, The Babylonian Disputation Poems. With Editions of the Series of the Poplar, Palm and
Vine, the Series of the Spider, and the Story of the Poor, Forlorn Wren (Culture and History of the Ancient
Near East 87), Leiden - Boston.
––––– 2018, “New Fragments and Extracts of Akkadian Disputation and Fables Chiefly from
Babylonian Schools”, Orientalia NS 87, 157-167.
––––– 2019a, “Mesopotamian Literature”, in A. Lassen – E. Frahm – K. Wagensonner (eds.),
Ancient Mesopotamia Speaks: Highlights of the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven, 149-155.
––––– 2019b, “Road to the Cedar Forest (Gilgameš III 75–84)”, KASKAL. Rivista di storia, ambienti e
culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 16, 76-77.
Kämmerer T.R. – Metzler K.A. 2012, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma Elîš (Alter Orient und
Altes Testament 375), Münster.
Karahashi F. 2004, “Fighting the Mountain: Some Observations on the Myths of Inanna and
Ninurta”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63, 111-118.
King L.W. 1902, The Seven Tablets of Creation. Volume 1 (Luzac’s Semitic Text and Translation Series 12),
London.
Kleinerman A. 2011, Education in Early 2nd Millennium BCE Babylonia: The Sumerian Epistolary
Miscellany (Cuneiform Monographs 42), Leiden.
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 277

Kouwenberg N.J.C. 1997, Gemination in the Akkadian Verb (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 33), Assen.
––––– 2010, The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background (Languages of the Ancient Near East 2),
Winona Lake.
Krebernik M. 2003-2004 “Altbabylonische Hymnen an die Muttergöttin”, Archiv für Orientforschung
50, 11-20.
Labat R. 1935, Le poème babylonien de la création, Paris.
––––– 1970, “Les grands textes de la pensée babylonienne”, in R. Labat – A. Caquot – M. Sznycer
–M. Vieyra (édd.), Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique. Textes babyloniens, ougaritiques, hittites, Paris,
15-349.
Lämmerhirt K. 2012, Die sumerische Königshymne Šulgi F (Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht
Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena 9), Wiesbaden.
Lambert W.G. 1960a, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford.
––––– 1960b, “Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians”, Archiv für Orientforschung 19, 47-66, pls.
viii-xxiii.
––––– 1962, “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16, 59-77.
––––– 1971, “Critical Notes on Some Recent Publications”, Orientalia NS 40, 90-98.
––––– 1982, “The Hymn to the Queen of Nippur”, in G. van Driel – Th.J.H. Krispijn – M. Stol –
K.R. Veenhof (eds.), Zikir šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his
Seventieth Birthday (Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 4), Leiden, 173-218.
––––– 1983, “Further Notes on Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud”, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 103, 64-66.
––––– 1992, Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum: Third
Supplement, London.
––––– 2013, Babylonian Creation Myths (Mesopotamian Civilizations 16), Winona Lake.
Lambert W.G. – Parker S.B. 1966, Enuma Eliš. The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The Cuneiform Text, Oxford.
Landsberger B. 1922, “Babylonisch-assyrische Texte”, in E. Lehmann – H. Haas (Hgg.), Textbuch
zur Religionsgeschichte, Leipzig, 277-330.
––––– 1968, “Zur vierten und siebenten Tafel des Gilgamesch-Epos”, Revue d’assyriologie et
d'archéologie orientale 62, 97-135.
Langdon S. 1922/1923, “Babylonian Wisdom”, Babyloniaca 7, 129-229; pls. XI-XVI.
––––– 1923a, The Babylonian Epic of Creation. Restored from the Recently Recovered Tablets of Aššur.
Transcription, Translation ό Commentary, Oxford.
––––– 1923b, “Hymn in Paragraphs to Ishtar as the Belit of Nippur”, Archiv für Keilschriftforschung 1, 12-
18.
Larsen M.T. 1987, “Orientalism and the Ancient Near East”, Culture and History 2, 96-115.
Lenzi A. 2008, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship”, Journal of
Ancient Near Eastern Religions 19, 137-169.
––––– 2017, “Review of: Oshima T. 2014, Babylonian Poems of Righteous Sufferers Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi
and The Babylonian Theodicy (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14), Tübingen”, Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 76, 180-187.
Litke R.L. 1998, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: dA-nu-um and An: Anu šá
amēli (Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3), New Haven.
Machinist P. 2014, “Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Religion”, in A. Wagner (Hg.), Göttliche
Körper – Göttliche Gefühle. Was leisten anthropomorphe und anthropopathische Götterkonzepte im Alten
Orient und im Alten Testament (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 270), Fribourg - Göttingen, 67-99.
Marchesi G. 2006, LUMMA in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia (History of the
Ancient Near East/Studies 10), Padova.
Maul S.M. 1988, Herzberuhigungsklagen: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Erša~unga-Gebete, Wiesbaden.
––––– 20146, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, München.
278 Enrique Jiménez et al.

Mayer W.R. 1992, “Ein Hymnus auf Ninurta als Helfer in der Not”, Orientalia NS 61, 17-57.
McCaffrey K. 2021, “(Mis)Translating Gender: The Scribes Couldn’t Have Been Competent, They
Didn’t Go to Yale”, in K. De Graef – A. Goddeeris (eds.), Law and (Dis)Order in the Ancient Near
East. Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at Ghent, Belgium, 15–19 July
2013, University Park, 177-198.
Michalowski P. 1981, “Carminative Magic: Towards and Understanding of Sumerian Poetics”,
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 71, 1-18.
——— 1989, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (Mesopotamian Civilizations 1), Winona
Lake.
Mittermayer C. 2019, ,Was sprach der eine zum anderen?‘: Argumentationsformen in den sumerischen
Rangstreitgesprächen (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 15), Berlin.
Oshima T. 2011, Babylonian Prayers to Marduk (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 7), Tübingen.
––––– 2014, Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers. Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy
(Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14), Tübingen.
Parpola S. 1997, Assyrian Prophecies (State Archives of Assyria 9), Helsinki.
Paulus S. 2014, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit.
Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen (Alter Orient
und Altes Testament 51), Münster.
Peterson J. 2007, A Study of Sumerian Faunal Conception with a Focus on the Terms Pertaining to the Order
Testudines, PhD Diss., University of Pennsylvania.
––––– 2019, “The Sexual Union of Enlil and Ninlil: An uadi Composition of Ninlil”, Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 109, 48-61.
––––– in Press 2020, “A Poetic Description of Surgery and Disease Snatching Dogs? A Collective
of Sumerian Hymns to Healing Goddesses From Old Babylonian Nippur”, Oriens Antiquus Series
Nova 2.
Picchioni S.A. 1981, Il Poemetto di Adapa (Assyriologia 6; Az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Ókori
Történeti tanszékeinek kiadványai 27), Budapest.
Reiner E. 1985, Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut. Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria
(Michigan Studies in Humanities 5), Michigan.
Reisman D. 1976, “A ‘Royal’ Hymn of Išbi-Erra to the Goddess Nisaba”, in B.L. Eichler (ed.),
Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 25), Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn, 357-365.
Richardson S.F.C. 2019, “The Oracle BOQ 1, “Trouble,” and the Dūr-Abiešu~ Texts: The End of
Babylon I”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 78, 215-237.
Richter T. 20042, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit
(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 257), Münster.
Rogers R.W. 1912, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, London.
Sallaberger W. 1993, Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7), Berlin.
––––– 1999 “Riten und Feste zum Ackerbau in Sumer”, in H. Klengel – J. Renger (Hgg.),
Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XLI. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Berlin, 4.–8.7.1994 (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 18), Berlin, 381-391.
Sassmannshausen L. 2001, Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit
(Baghdader Forschungen 21), Mainz am Rhein.
Schaudig H. 2019, Explaining Disaster: Tradition and Transformation of the “Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn” in
Babylonian Literature (Dubsar 13), Münster.
Schuster-Brandis A. 2008, Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der
Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 46), Münster.
 From the Electronic Babylonian Literature Lab 8–15 279

Sjöberg Å.W. 1965, “Beiträge zum sumerischen Wörterbuch”, in H.G. Güterbock – Th. Jacobsen
(eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 21, 1965 (Assyriological
Studies 16), Chicago, 63-70.
––––– 1975 “Der Examenstext A”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 64, 137-176.
Sjöberg Å.W. – Bergmann E. 1969, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (Texts from Cuneiform
Sources 3), Locust Valley.
von Soden W. 1976, “Bemerkungen zum Adapa-Mythos”, in B.L. Eichler (ed.), Kramer Anniversary
Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25),
Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn, 427-433.
––––– 1990, “»Weisheitstexte« in akkadischer Sprache”, in O. Kaiser (Hg.), Weisheitstexte, Mythen und
Epen (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 3/1), Gütersloh, 110-135.
Stadhouders H. 2018, “The Unfortunate Frog: on Animal and Human Bondage in K 2581 and
Related Fragments With Excursuses on BM 64526 and YOS XI, 3”, Revue d’assyriologie et
d'archéologie orientale 112, 159-176.
Stadhouders H. – Johnson J.C. 2018, “A Time to Extract and a Time to Compile: The Therapeutic
Compendium Tablet BM 78963”, in S.V. Panayotov – L. Vacín (eds.), Mesopotamian Medicine and
Magic. Studies in Honor of Markham J. Geller (Ancient Magic and Divination 14), Leiden, 556-622.
Steinkeller P. 2005, “The Priestess égi-zi and Related Matters”, in Y. Sefati – P. Artzi – Ch. Cohen –
B.L. Eichler – V.A Hurowitz (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda, 301-310.
Stol M. 2000, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting (Cuneiform Monographs 14),
Groningen.
––––– 2020, “Mesopotamian Gods of ‘Heaven’”, in U. Gabbay – J.-J. Pérennès (édd.), Des
polythéismes aux monothéismes. Mélanges d’assyriologie offerts à Marcel Sigrist (Études bibliques 82), Leuven,
451-467.
Talon P. 1990, “Le mythe d’Adapa”, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 7, 43-57.
––––– 2005, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš (State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts
4), Helsinki.
Thureau-Dangin F. 1922, “Notes assyriologiques XXXV. Fragment de vocabulaire”, Revue
d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 19, 79-83.
Veldhuis N. 2018, “Translation in The Elevation of Ištar”, in C.J. Crisostomo – E.A. Escobar – T.
Tanaka – N. Veldhuis (eds.), The Scaffolding of Our Thoughts. Essays on Assyriology and the History of
Science in Honor of Francesca Rochberg (Ancient Magic and Divination 13), Leiden - Boston, 183-206.
Wilcke C. 1965/1971, “Sumerische Lehrgedichte”, Kindlers Literatur Lexikon. Band VI, Zurich, 2135-
2142.
––––– 2007, “Vom altorientalischen Blick zurück auf die Anfänge”, in E. Angehrn (Hg.), Anfang
und Ursprung. Die Frage nach dem Ersten in Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaft (Colloquium Rauricum 10),
Berlin - New York, 3-59.
Winckler H. 19093, Keilschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, Leipzig.
Witzel P.M. 1935, “Zur Erklärung der 2. Tafel Ludlul bêl nimêqi”, Orientalia NS 4, 107-123.
Woods Ch. 2004, “The Sun God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies
56, 23-103.
——— 2009, “At the Edge of the World: Cosmological Conceptions of the Eastern Horizon in
Mesopotamia”, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9, 183-239.