ArticlePDF Available

The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology

Authors:
DISSERTATIONES THEOLOGIAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS
19
DISSERTATIONES THEOLOGIAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS
19
PEETER ESPAK
The God Enki in
Sumerian Royal Ideology and
Mythology
Usuteaduskonna nõukogu otsusega 18. oktoobril 2010 on Peeter Espaki
doktoritöö “The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology”
(“Jumal Enki Sumeri kuninglikus ideoloogias ja mütoloogias”) lubatud
kaitsmisele TÜ usuteaduskonna nõukogus filosoofiadoktori (usuteadus) kraadi
saamiseks.
Juhendajad: prof. Thomas Richard Kämmerer, PhD (Tartu Ülikool)
prof. Tarmo Kulmar, dr theol (Tartu Ülikool)
Eelretsensendid: prof. Vladimir V. Emelyanov (Peterburi Ülikool)
prof. Annette Zgoll, PhD (Göttingeni Ülikool)
Oponent: prof. Vladimir V. Emelyanov, PhD (Peterburi Ülikool)
Kaitsmine toimub 14. detsembril 2010 kell 16.15 TÜ nõukogu saalis
ISSN 1406–2410
ISBN 978–9949–19–522–0 (trükis)
ISBN 978–9949–19–523–7 (PDF)
Autoriõigus: Peeter Espak, 2010
Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus
www.tyk.ee
Tellimus nr. 692
5
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 9
1. EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD .................................................................. 15
1.1. Ur-Nanše ............................................................................................ 15
1.2. Eanatum .............................................................................................. 18
1.3. Enanatum I ......................................................................................... 22
1.4. Enmetena ............................................................................................ 24
1.5. Uru’inimgina ...................................................................................... 26
1.6. Ur-Lumma and Giša-kidu of Umma .................................................. 29
1.7. Elili of Ur ........................................................................................... 30
1.8. Lugalzagesi of Uruk ........................................................................... 30
1.9. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 33
2. THE DYNASTY OF AKKADE ................................................................ 34
2.1. Naram-Su’en ...................................................................................... 34
2.2. Lugal-giš of Adab ............................................................................... 39
2.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 40
3. THE SECOND DYNASTY OF LAGAŠ ................................................... 41
3.1. Puzur-Mama ....................................................................................... 41
3.2. Ur-Bau ................................................................................................ 41
3.3. Gudea ................................................................................................. 42
3.4. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 51
4. UR III PERIOD .......................................................................................... 52
4.1. Ur-Namma .......................................................................................... 52
4.2. Puzur-Inšušinak of Elam .................................................................... 58
4.3. Šulgi ................................................................................................... 58
4.4. Amar-Su’en ........................................................................................ 72
4.5. Šu-Su’en ............................................................................................. 77
4.6. Ibbi-Su’en ........................................................................................... 78
4.7. Puzur-Eštar of Mari ............................................................................ 81
4.8. Iddin-Su’en of Simurrum ................................................................... 85
4.9. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 85
5. THE DYNASTY OF ISIN ......................................................................... 87
5.1. Šu-ilišu ............................................................................................... 87
5.2. Iddin-Dagan ........................................................................................ 88
5.3. Išme-Dagan ........................................................................................ 89
5.3.1. The City Laments .................................................................... 99
5.4. Lipit-Eštar .......................................................................................... 105
5.5. Ur-Ninurta .......................................................................................... 107
5.6. Bur-Su’en ........................................................................................... 110
6
5.7. Enlil-bani ............................................................................................ 111
5.8. Religious Ideology of Isin Texts Reflected in Sumerian Myths ....... 112
5.8.1. Enki and the World Order ....................................................... 113
5.8.2. Enki’s Journey to Nippur ......................................................... 116
5.8.3. Inanna and Enki ....................................................................... 117
5.9. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 119
6. THE DYNASTY OF LARSA .................................................................... 120
6.1. Gungunum .......................................................................................... 120
6.2. Nur-Adad ............................................................................................ 121
6.3. Su’en-iddinam .................................................................................... 122
6.4. Su’en-iqišam ...................................................................................... 124
6.5. Kudur-mabuk and Warad-Su’en ........................................................ 125
6.6. Rim-Su’en .......................................................................................... 127
6.7. Su’en-kašid of Uruk ........................................................................... 138
6.8. Iahdun-Lim of Mari ............................................................................ 138
6.9. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 139
7. THE FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON .................................................. 141
7.1. Hammurapi ......................................................................................... 141
7.2. Samsu-iluna ........................................................................................ 150
7.3. Abi-ešuh ............................................................................................. 155
7.4. Ammi-ditana ...................................................................................... 156
7.5 Ammi-saduqa ...................................................................................... 156
7.6. Ipiq-Eštar and Takil-ilišu of Malgium................................................ 156
7.7. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 159
8. ENKI (EA) IN THE MYTHOLOGY OF CREATION .............................. 160
8.1. Enki and Ea as Cosmic Entities .......................................................... 160
8.2. Enki (Ea) and the Emergence of the Present World ........................... 165
8.3. The Nature of Sumerian Abzu ........................................................... 174
8.4. Enki as the Creator of Man ................................................................ 184
8.4.1. Enki and Ninmah ..................................................................... 186
8.4.2. Atrahasis .................................................................................. 189
8.4.3. Enuma eliš ............................................................................... 191
8.4.4. Other Accounts ........................................................................ 193
8.4.5. Parallels from Genesis ............................................................. 195
8.4.6. The Creation of the First Woman ............................................ 197
8.5. The Copulation Motive ...................................................................... 198
8.5.1. Enki and Ninmah ..................................................................... 199
8.5.2. Atrahasis .................................................................................. 200
8.5.3. Reflections in Genesis ............................................................. 202
8.5.4. Enki and the Mother-Goddess ................................................. 204
8.5.5. Enki and Ninhursag ................................................................. 207
8.6. Enki as the Originator of Human Mortality ....................................... 213
8.7. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 214
7
9. ENKI AND THE ARCHAIC SUMERIAN RELIGION: THE
QUESTION OF RIVALRY BETWEEN THE THEOLOGIES OF ENKI
AND ENLIL ................................................................................................... 215
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 236
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ 239
Bibliographical Abbreviations .................................................................. 239
Textual Abbreviations ............................................................................... 245
Royal Inscriptions and Hymns .......................................................... 245
Literary Compositions ....................................................................... 252
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 254
SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN ......................................................................... 272
ELULOOKIRJELDUS ................................................................................... 280
CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................ 283
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank my supervisor Professor Thomas Richard Kämmerer for pro-
viding me with several useful comments and general advice in the course of the
completion of the dissertation. The topic of the study “Enki (Ea) in Ancient
Near Eastern mythology and religion” was proposed by Prof. Kämmerer in
2004. Such a choice of topic was merited by the fact that although the mytho-
logy of Enki/Ea forms the central point in all the periods of Mesopotamian and
Ancient Near Eastern history of religions, few detailed and extensive academic
treatise have been written on the subject during the last decades.
I also wish to thank my co-supervisor Professor Tarmo Kulmar for the
support and advice, which he kindly provided in numerous areas relating to
general and comparative studies of history of religions. This advice was crucial
in helping the author to grasp the underlying context, and thus approach the
subject not merely as a sub-chapter of Assyriological studies, but rather of
religious studies in general. Extensive discussions with Prof. Kulmar about the
water-cults in different religions, the nature of archaic tribal cultic and political
unions, the structure of Indo-European mythology and the mechanisms of
archaic fertility-cults were all useful in developing the current text.
I also wish to thank other teachers, colleagues and advisors who have always
provided me with useful comments and help during the composition of the
dissertation: Vladimir Sazonov, Amar Annus, Urmas Nõmmik, Liina Ootsing-
Lüecke, etc. Since the biggest obstacle in completing the study has been the
lack of a large scientific library of Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Estonia, I
especially wish to thank all the co-students and teachers who have helped me to
get access to literature from foreign libraries, which has made the composition
of the current study possible. I am grateful to Elmer Kohandi as well as to
Adrian Bachmann and Parviz Partovi for reviewing the English text of the
dissertation.
9
INTRODUCTION
Hannes D. Galter begins his dissertation about the Sumero-Akkadian Ea/Enki
from the year 1983 Der Gott Ea/Enki in der akkadischen Überlieferung. Eine
Bestandsaufnahme des vorhandenen Materials with the observation that under-
standing religion is one of the most important means of comprehending the
entire cultural complexity of Mesopotamia:
Untersuchungen der Religion bilden nach wie vor einen der wichtigsten Wege
zum Verständnis einer Kultur. Und nirgends spiegeln sich Mentalität und Vor-
stellungskraft der Menschen deutlicher wider als in den Gestalten ihrer Götter.
Dies gilt in besonderem Maß für den Bereich der mesopotamischen Kulturen.1
His description can be complemented by Paul Tillich’s famous but often
neglected statement “Religion is the essence of culture, and culture is the form
of religion.”2 Although this sentence can be interpreted in a number of ways,
and there is no universally accepted definition for the terms “religion” and
“culture,” Tillich makes it clear that we cannot speak of religion as distinct from
culture and there is no culture disjointed from religion. Bronislaw Malinowski
interprets these questions in anthropological terms and tries to see a clear
distinction between the notions of religion/magic and science, thus dividing
culture into two separate parts – sacred and profane:
There are no peoples however primitive without religion and magic. Nor are
there, it must be added at once, any savage races lacking either in the scientific
attitude or in science, though this lack has been frequently attributed to them. In
every primitive community, studied by trustworthy and competent observers,
there have been found two clearly distinguishable domains, the Sacred and the
Profane; in other words, the domain of Magic and Religion and that of Science.3
This kind of distinction might be called artificial at least to some extent, since
both, religion/magic and science are complementary as well as interdependent.
In most cultures and civilisations, it is impossible to scientifically describe or
analyse one aspect separately from the other. This is especially the case with
Ancient Near Eastern religions. As summarised by Niek Veldhuis: “In fact, the
divine realm somehow affects everything; there is no separate province in either
thinking or in social reality that we may isolate as either ‘religious’ or
‘secular’.”4 This statement can be applied to the topic of the current research as
well. The god Enki does not belong to another reality definable as “divine” or
“religious” in Mesopotamian culture but forms an integral part of all the
1 H. D. Galter, Ea/Enki, p. viii.
2 P. Tillich, Theology of Culture (1959), p. 42.
3 B. Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion (1948), p. 1.
4 N. Veldhuis, Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše
and the Birds (2004), p. 16.
10
imaginable spheres of life. The current dissertation is more dedicated to the
official religion, royal ideology and mythology. However, all these aspects are
studied in light of comparative material from all kinds of textual examples.
The Current Study in the Frameworks of Previous Research
Anton Deimel defined the nature of the Babylonian god Ea in his Pantheon
Babylonicum in 1914 as: “É-a, deus abyssi et aquae (dulcis?); deus sapientiae et
artium; deus magorum.”5 Enki/Ea is described as the god of the underground
sweet water region Abzu, the god of wisdom and crafts, and the god of magic.
The article by Erich Ebeling “Enki (Ea)” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 1938,
also taking into consideration the change of the divine concept in different
periods of history, describes Enki and Ea in similar terms to the definition given
by Deimel. E. D. van Buren established the connection between the deity with
streams flowing out from his shoulders and the god Enki/Ea in 1933 in the
study The Flowing Vase and the God with Streams. The results of this early
study have proved adequate up to this day and the emergence of new material
has not produced any major new theories or perspectives in the understanding of
the representation of the gods Enki and Ea in Ancient Near Eastern art. Both
great pioneers of Sumerology, Samuel Noah Kramer and Thorkild Jacobsen
were the authors of numerous shorter studies about the nature of Enki and Ea in
Sumero-Akkadian mythology. A major study about the city of Enki, Eridu, was
undertaken by Margaret W. Green’s doctoral dissertation at the University of
Chicago in the year 1975, titled Eridu in Sumerian Literature. The work offers a
detailed survey about Enki’s city Eridu in archaeology, history, Mesopotamian
mythology and literature. The most recent book about Enki and Ea in
mythology and Mesopotamian literary tradition is Myths of Enki, the Crafty
God by S. N. Kramer and J. Maier, published in 1989. The study is meant for
the general reader interested in ancient literature, history of religions and com-
parative mythology. The topic has been discussed in shorter forms by almost
every scholar involved in Ancient Near Eastern Studies of literature, mythology
or history of religion, due to the high importance of the gods Enki and Ea
during all the periods and all the geographic locations of Ancient Mesopotamia
and beyond.
H. D. Galter’s doctoral dissertation Der Gott Ea/Enki in der akkadischen
Überlieferung. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des vorhandenen Materials (1983) has
remained the only longer study dedicated to the phenomenon of Enki/Ea in
Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Galter’s dissertation is still up to date when
compared to several modern theories and interpretations concerning the topic.
The main focus of his dissertation was the god Ea/Enki in Akkadian contexts,
although the Sumerian material available during the composition of the
5 P. 111.
11
dissertation was also analysed and presented. The current research6 is mainly
dedicated to the god Enki in Sumerian sources, starting from the first royal
inscriptions of the Lagašite state from ca. 2500 BC. The last period under obser-
vation is the Dynasty of Hammurapi where it is no longer possible to speak
about the Sumerian language or Sumerian mythology as living entities.
Objective, Method and Structure
The aim of the current study is not to define the god Enki and to try to answer
the question “who the god Enki was?” The main objective is to understand how
the god Enki was described by ancient priests and scribes, and how that
description and mythology evolved during the different periods of Sumero-
Akkadian history.
Before beginning with the task of the composition of the current text, some
theoretical questions concerning the god Enki were raised in the study plan of
the dissertation by this author. The questions were based on observations made
during the previous studies concerning the topic.
One of the main observations was based on the fact that most of the theories
about Sumerian and Ancient Near Eastern mythology are interpreted using the
mythology and cosmogony of Enuma eliš and several other Babylonian mytho-
logical texts available in the earlier phases of Ancient Near Eastern Studies.
Based on these, the Sumerian god Enki is always defined as the god of sweet
waters, the god who personifies or embodies those waters. His divine domain
Abzu is usually translated as “the under-earth sweet water ocean.” One of the
first truly modern studies dealing with Mesopotamian religion was E. Douglas
van Buren’s The Flowing Vase and the God with Streams, published in 1933,
where the image of flowing water in Mesopotamian art was connected with the
god Ea. Van Buren states:
Enki, the ideogram with which his name was written, designated him as “Lord of
the Watery Deep”, because after he had overcome Mummu and Apsû by means
of a powerful spell he founded in the Heavenly Ocean his dwelling called “the
house of wisdom”. In the hidden depths all secrets were thought to lie concealed,
thus Ea is lord of hidden, unfathomable knowledge, the counsellor of gods and
men, the god of oracles which he revealed to men in dreams, the chief magician
of the gods in whose province were all spells, the great exorcist. His, too, was the
purifying water used in spells and magic rites, and as ruler of the waters of the
6 The dissertation is preceded by the master’s thesis of the current author (Ancient Near
Eastern Gods Enki and Ea: Diachronical Analysis of Texts and Images from the
Earliest Sources to the Neo-Sumerian Period) defended at the Faculty of Theology of
the University of Tartu in 2006.
12
Under World he was lord of rivulets and brooks which had their sources in the
sweet-water ocean and flowed thence to make the land fertile.7
Van Buren describes the god Ea in later Babylonian religion, and all the
functions of Ea described by her are truly present in the later layers of Ancient
Near Eastern religion and mythology. However, when studying the 3rd
millennium authentic Sumerian texts, not a single one of them seems to describe
Enki as “water personified.” There are no texts available describing the Sume-
rian Abzu as an under-earth sweet water ocean. Therefore, one of the theoretical
questions aimed to be analysed on the pages of the current dissertation was
formulated as Is the Sumerian god Enki originally a water-god?
Samuel Noah Kramer was one of the Sumerologists who during his entire
career always tried to seek out the evidence about the rivalry of the theologies
of Enki and Enlil. One of the best examples of his theories, the study titled
“Enki and His Inferiority Complex.”8 can be drawn as an example. Although
already Thorkild Jacobsen observed that there is no trace of actual rivalry
available between the two gods,9 there has not been any definitive solution or
opinion about the matter Is there any detectable power struggle between the
theologies of Enki and Enlil?
Possibly resulting from the theories of rivalry or at least being somewhat
influenced by them, different schools of Sumerian mythology and theology
have also been proposed to have been in existence. The two most influential of
them are defined as the school of Eridu and the school of Nippur. Jan van Dijk,
in his exceptionally influential paper “Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumé-
rienne,”10 tried to seek different theological and even tribal origins of Sumerian
cosmogony and creation mythology reflected in different mythological nar-
ratives. The fact that there are two kinds of different possibilities to create
something new in Sumerian mythology is clearly attested: (1) by sexual inter-
course between two divine creatures and (2) by forming something as a result of
handiwork. Do the different mythological motives reflect different “schools” of
mythology? is among the questions under consideration, based on the actual
material available.
The question of structuring a dissertation or a study dedicated to a certain
Mesopotamian god has remained the same as described by H. D. Galter in the
introductory part of his dissertation published in 1983:
Bisher wurden bei ähnlichen Arbeiten zwei verschiedene Wege gewählt. Zum
einen der Versuch, den Egbert von Weiher machte, ein chronologisch-religions-
historisches System aufzustellen, dass das Phänomen einer Gottheit erklären
kann. Zum anderen die Neuedition des einschlägigen Textmaterials mit dem
7 P. 9.
8 OrNS 39 (1970), pp. 103–110.
9 Fs. Talmon (1992), p. 415.
10 AcOr 28 (1965), pp. 1–59.
13
Ziel, daraus das Wesen des Gottes zu erkennen, wie es Åke Sjöberg versuchte.
Beide Wege sind nicht zur Gänze zufriedenstellend.11
Different types of texts, which directly or indirectly deal with the gods Enki and
Ea, have become so numerous that within the frameworks of one dissertation,
the study of all the available material would only be possible in the form of a
catalogue. The current dissertation studies the available and relevant material
from Mesopotamian royal inscriptions and hymns, and does so by following a
chronological order. The chronologically ordered texts are illustrated by using
examples from other written records from different periods and are commented
on by relevant opinions from secondary sources.
The first seven chapters of the dissertation present the texts mentioning or
describing the god Enki in Sumero-Akkadian royal inscriptions and hymns. The
texts are presented in chronological order and grouped under the sub-chapters of
Mesopotamian rulers of different dynasties and city states. Chapter 1 describes
the Early Dynastic royal inscriptions and other available materials from the
period. Most of the inscriptions mentioning the god Enki come from the state of
Lagaš, but some texts are available also from Umma and Uruk. Chapter 2
contains the inscriptions of Naram-Su’en of Akkade mentioning the god Enki.
Some other aspects from that period are discussed as well. Chapter 3 deals with
the sources of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš. The longest preserved text from
that period is the Temple Hymn of Gudea, containing abundant information
concerning Enki. Chapter 4 describes and presents the sources of the Ur III
Dynasty rulers in chronological order. Royal hymns and royal inscriptions from
that period are rich in number and mostly come from the ruling period of the
king Šulgi. Texts of the rulers of other states of the period, such as Puzur-Eštar
of Mari and Iddin-Su’en of Simurrum, are also discussed in the fourth chapter.
Chapter 5 presents the relevant inscriptions from the period of Isin. Most of the
texts from that period describing Enki come from the reign of the king Išme-
Dagan. The city laments and different Sumerian myths datable up to the period
of Isin, are also discussed under that chapter. Chapter 6 is dedicated to the next
major power centre of Mesopotamia, the Dynasty of Larsa. The most abundant
sources dealing with Enki and other gods of his circle come from the period of
the king Rim-Su’en. Su’en-kašid of Uruk and Iahdun-Lim of Mari are also
included in the Larsa Dynasty material. Chapter 7 is the last chapter presenting
the chronologically ordered texts and is dedicated to the sources from the First
Dynasty of Babylon. During the reign of Hammurapi and Samsu-iluna, the
concepts of Mesopotamian religion go through a significant change, and it
becomes apparent that the Sumerian mythological thinking, as well as the
Sumerian language, is being replaced by the ideology of Babylon. The Semitic
name Ea is making its appearance in the royal inscriptions and is often used
instead of the Sumerian divine name Enki. The texts of Ipiq-Eštar and
Takil-ilišu of Malgium, which are rich in material describing Enki/Ea and
11 Pp. viii–ix.
14
Damgalnunna/Damkina, are also covered under this chapter. Every chapter is
concluded by a summary of conclusions, where the most significant characte-
ristics, changes and new elements in ideology are shortly underlined.
Chapter 8 is dedicated to Enki’s role in different creation accounts and gives
an overview of the nature of his abode Abzu and Enki’s role in the process of
creating mankind. Comparative material from the later mythological stories,
such as Atrahasis, Enuma eliš and Hebrew Genesis, are also taken into conside-
ration. The chapter does not always follow the previously used chronological
order of texts since the age of mythological ideas, their origins, evolution and
techniques of composition are impossible to determine with probative force.
Even when a certain tablet’s time of composition can be established with rela-
tive certainty, there is no way of determining the age of the mythological ideas
it contains. This is also the case with different royal inscriptions and hymns –
the occurrence of a royal name does not necessarily mean that the mythological
ideas reflected in the text come from that period. However, it facilitates the
establishment of a certain relative chronology of the ideas and motives. When a
certain motive was never present in the records of previous periods, it becomes
possible to suggest that influences from other national groups, geographical
areas, but also internal developments of religion, might have arisen. On the
other hand, when a motive is present from the earliest sources onwards, it
allows us to determine its archaic (or Sumerian) nature.
Chapter 9 is an overview of Enki’s place and nature in the hypothetical
archaic Sumerian pantheon and religion. The questions of the so-called “ri-
valry” between the theologies of Enki and Enlil are also discussed in this chap-
ter. The discussion is illustrated by several relevant modern theories by different
authors. The chapter aims to be a comparative summary of the previous parts of
the dissertation which mostly relied on authentic sources and mainly used
secondary theories for illustrating the original texts.
As a summary, it may be stated that tracking the historical evolution of the
concept of Enki, based on the chronologically ordered texts from Mesopotamian
royal ideology, is the most important goal of the dissertation. On the other hand,
the last two chapters try to offer a synthesis or a summary of the divine concept
and also to understand or describe “the nature” of the god. Every synthesis
trying to summarise Mesopotamian religious phenomena or mythological ideas
usually reflects the personal understanding and scholarly speculations of its
author and can therefore never give a satisfactory overview of the ancient hypo-
thetical reality which was in constant fluctuating change and never had a certain
static point of departure or finalised form. On the other hand, every imaginative
scenario of events, although never reflecting “the real situation,” helps to point
towards certain possibilities in archaic religion and mythology.
None of the raised theoretical issues can be considered as the primary aim of
the study, which is instead to present and subsequently analyse the available and
relevant sources concerning the god Enki. However, the aim is to at least
consider if some of the theories, which still influence the study of Ancient Near
Eastern mythology, can be considered accurate based on the analysed material.
15
1. EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD
The Early Dynastic corpus of royal inscriptions largely comes from the state of
Lagaš where Enki features in the inscriptions of Ur-Nanše, Eanatum, Enanatum
I, Enmetena and Uru’inimgina. Among the rulers of other states, Ur-Lumma
and Giša-kidu of Umma, Elili of Ur and Lugalzagesi of Uruk have composed
texts where the god Enki is mentioned. The presented material mostly reflects
the theology of Southern Mesopotamian Lagaš and might therefore give a
biased picture of the overall religious situation in Sumer. However, also the
Lagašite inscriptions reflect the majority of the most important deities of other
regions. All the characteristics given to the god Enki in the inscriptions of Lagaš
do not differ greatly from the later inscriptions from Ur III or Isin periods. The
numbering of the Early Dynastic inscriptions corresponds to D. Frayne’s RIME
1 which is significantly different from the previous standard edition FAOS 5/I–
II by H. Steible.
1.1. Ur-Nanše
One text from the city of Girsu from the reign of Ur-Nanše written on a diorite
plaque describes the building of Ningirsu’s temple. The first three columns
where the god Enki(g) and Enki and Nunki deities are mentioned seem closer to
an incantation than to a regular royal inscription.12 The last two columns of the
inscription describe the building of the temple of Ningirsu at the city of Girsu in
similar terms to all the other royal inscriptions.
Urn-Nanše 32: 13
i gi kù Pure reed!
gi ¡eš-gi engur Reed of the canebrake of Engur!14
gi pa-zu5 Reed, your top (arms)
su4-su4 are growing (or: are red ?)15
úr-zu5 Your root16
12 G. Cunningham, StPohl 17, p. 6.
13 Ur-Nanše 32: RIME 1 = Urnanše 49: FAOS 5/I.
14 Th. Jacobsen, JNES 5 (1946), p. 139: “Here, accordingly, the engur is the sub-
terraneous waters as they come to the surface in the marshes.” Reeds of Engur are
constantly associated with the city of Eridu and Abzu in later hymns and myths. As
Jacobsen states, the Engur here probably designates the waters of the marsh or lagoon
where the reed is growing and where the canebrakes (¡eš-gi) are situated.
15 H. Steible, FAOS 5/I, p. 110 translates “sind (rot)braun.” D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118:
“you whose branches grow luxuriantly.”
16 Cf. Th. Jacobsen, JNES 2 (1943), p. 118 finds that pa-zu5 and úr-zu5 indicate to “thy
top” and “thy root” which seems a likely interpretation.
16
ii den-ki Enki
ki buru5 ¡ál (in) the earth-hole has placed.17
pa-zu5 Your top
u4 šù[d] mu-¯² when (I come to) pray (or: bless),18
su6-zu5 your beard
za-gìn (is) lapis-lazuli!
gi kur šùba DU Reed, brought from the pure mountains!19
gi en-ki nun-ki Reed, Enki and Nunki
du10 `é-¡á-¡á may (they) come down (to your roots)!20
iii den-ki Enki,
éš-bar-kí¡ the omens / prognostics21
`é-e let speak out!
ŠEŠ.IB k[ù](?)-¯ge² ...?... holy22
zà-me-bi (to) its praise
den-ki ¡eš-bu10 Enki the (magic) circle
šè-šub has cast.23
dnin-¡ír-sú To Ningirsu
zà-me is the praise!
iv dšul-MUŠxPA Šul-MUŠxPA,
di¡ir-lugal the god of the king,
17 D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118: “After the god Enki set your roots in the (post) hole.” G.
Cunningham, StPohl 17, p. 29: “had set in the underworld.” Cf. Th. Jacobsen, JNES 2
(1943), p. 118: “thy root being at one place with Enki.”
18 G. Cunningham, StPohl 17, p. 29: ud-sudx (ŠÙD) mu-DU: “he made you bear per-
petually.” Th. Jacobsen, JNES 2 (1943), p. 118: “When I bring a prayer to thy top.” D.
Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118: “your branches greet the day (or the sun god).”
19 H. Steible, FAOS 5/I, p. 111: “Rohr, (dein) Antlitz reicht (bis) ins Fremdland.” D.
Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118: “O reed that comes forth (from) the shining mountain.”
20 Cf. Th. Jacobsen, OrNS 54 (1985), p. 67 and 69 for lines ii 8–9: gi ki.en(-na) ki.nun(-
na-ka) / dùg `é-¡á-¡á(-an): “may you be settling down, / O reed in a lord’s place, a
prince’s place!” D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118: “O reed, may the Earth lords and the Earth
princes bow down (before you).” The line can be interpreted by comparing it to an Early
Dynastic incantation where the roots of a tamarisk tree are probably equated or
compared with Enki-Ninki gods: ¡šinig ¡eš-gi ¡eš-an / úr-pi ki-šè / den-ki dnin-ki / pa-
pi-ta / an gudu4-nun / ¯kar kù² lá: “Tamarisk, unique tree (or: canebrake?), tree of
heaven (or: upper tree?) / its roots (are) in the earth / (they are ?) Enki and Ninki / from
its branches / An, the priest (?) / to the holy quay stretches out (leads ?):” M. Krebernik,
Beschwörungen, pp. 96–97, no. 19 = G. Pettinato, OA 18 (1979), p. 339 text a: i 4–iii 1.
The symbolic used is similar to the Ur-Nanše text – it speaks about the roots of tamarisk
and then refers to its branches. It might mean that Enki-Ninki are asked to come to the
roots of the reed to give it strength.
21 This line refers to the oracles performed prior to the start of the temple’s construction:
J. S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions I (1986), p. 33.
22 D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118: “Its shining renowned standard(?).”
23 Cf. M. Civil, JNES 26 (1967), p. 211: “Enki will put you in a (magic) circle.” D.
Frayne, RIME 1, p. 118: “The god Enki cast it (with?) his (magic) loop.”
17
dusu kù the pure basket (of bricks)
e-íl carried.
ur-dnanše Ur-Nanše,
lugal king of
lagaš Lagaš,
dumu gu-NI.DU son of Gu-NI.DU,
dumu gur-sar (who was) son of Gursar,
v èš ¡ír-su shrine of Girsu
m[u]-dù he built.
The structure of the composition is unique since incantational material usually
does not form part of royal inscriptions.24 A connection between the “reeds of
Enki” and the shrine of Girsu (èš-¡ír-sú) in Ur-Nanše 32 has been proposed.25
The “pure reed” is probably a metaphor symbolising the temple èš-¡ír-sú26 of
Ningirsu which Ur-Nanše is going to build.27 The natural characteristics of the
reed growing in Engur’s canebrake are described as the future temple desired to
be constructed. Its foundations (roots of the reed) are placed inside the earth by
Enki and they reach his underground Abzu. Enki-Nunki gods are asked to give
strength to the foundations of the temple and Enki is asked to give his
favourable prognostics to the temple building. At the end of the incantation,
Enki gives ¡eš-bu1028 which should be somehow connected to the temple
24 J. C. Cooper, RA 74 (1980), p. 104 proposes that the text might show the “efficacy of
reeds used in a ground breaking ceremony;” or the inscription might be a scribal
exercise. A scribal exercise on a diorite plaque however does not seem to be the best
explanation.
25 H. Steible, FAOS 5/II, p. 148.
26 G. Selz, UGASL, p. 119 suggests a connection with the temple of Ningirsu,
mentioned in Enmetena 8, iii 3-iv 1: èš gi-gi-gù-na dnin-¡ír-[]-ka: “reed shrine of
Ningirsu’s giguna.” Cf. p. 120 for the cultic structure or a place of offerings named den-
ki ki ¡ešgi-gíd: “Enki of the place of reeds.”
27 Th. Jacobsen, OrNS 54 (1985), p. 66: “the building for incantatory purposes was seen
under the image of a reed structure.” Jacobsen, JNES 2 (1943), p. 118 also gives an
explanation about the function of the reed in this text using parallels from Gudea Cyl.
A: xxii 11–13 where the foundations of the E-ninnu temple are described as being
connected to Abzu: “The notion underlying the passage appears to be that the reed,
rooted in the waters of the subsoil, Enki’s abode, is able to communicate a prayer
addressed to its top to the god Enki at its root below.”
28 D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 117 concludes that the term “GIŠ.BUR could refer either to a
GIŠ.bu10 = kippatu ‘loop’ (M. Civil, JNES 26 (1967), p. 211) or a giš-búr = gišbúrru
‘king of magicians wand’ (M. W. Green, JCS 30 (1978), p. 147).” The same inter-
pretation is given by J. S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions I (1986),
p. 33. Cf. G. Cunningham, StPohl 17, p. 76. This circle can also be understood as a
place for symbolic separation from the temporal world; or a domain where human
contact with the divine is possible. Since the previous part of the incantation stated that
Enki gave oracular prognostics for the temple building and afterwards the construction
18
building. In Gudea’s Temple Hymn (Cyl. A, xvii 17), Enki gives the ¡eš-`ur
(“the plan”) for building the temple of Ningirsu. Although the ¡eš-bu10 is not
relatable directly to ¡eš-`ur, the symbolism is similar.
The text on a votive plaque of Ur-Nanše describes the construction of the
temples of Ningirsu, the little Abzu temple and the temple of Nanše.
Ur-Nanše 2 (text situated next to the upper figure of the king), 5–10:
é nin-¡ír-su The temple of Ningirsu
mu-dù built,
abzu bàn-da the little Abzu
mu-dù built,
é- dnanše the temple of Nanše
mu-dù built.
The buildings of Abzu temples (Abzu-banda, Abzu-e, Abzu) are recorded in
several inscriptions of Ur-Nanše. Among the temples built for the local Lagašite
deities, frequent is also the mentioning of the Ibgal temples of Inanna.29 The
huge importance of Abzu temples in the written records of Ur-Nanše is
probably referring to the early prominent position of the god Enki in the
pantheon and religious system of Lagaš. Enki cannot be considered the chief
god or head of the pantheon based on the inscriptions of Ur-Nanše since the
local gods Ningirsu and Nanše are clearly considered to have the pre-eminent
position. However, the fact that so many different Abzu temples are listed
shows that during the period when the first longer written inscriptions appeared,
the cult of Enki must have been spread over the whole region of Mesopotamia.
1.2. Eanatum
The victory stele of the king Eanatum (“Stele of the Vultures”) of Lagaš
(grandson of Ur-Nanše and son of the previous king Akurgal) describes the
victory of the state of Lagaš over the forces of the hostile neighbouring state of
Umma. The text has a long listing of curses intended to frighten the rulers of
works are described to have started successfully, then “casting the circle” probably
designates a favourable answer from Enki or a permission to start with the building.
29 Ur-Nanše 4, 5–1 lists the temples of Ningirsu and Nanše before Abzu-banda. Ur-
Nanše 5 has the order Ningirsu, Abzu-banda, Nanše. Ur-Nanše 6b, iii 2–v 7 lists the
temples and gods in the order of: Bagara, Ibgal, Nanše, shrine Girsu, Ki-NIR, Gatumdu,
Tiraš, Ningar, Nin-MAR.KI, Edam, Abzu-e. Ur-Nanše 10, ii 2–v 3: shrine Girsu, Nanše,
Ibgal, Ki-NIR, Gatumdu, Abzu-e, Tiraš, shrine Bagara, E-dam. Other Abzu temples in
the inscriptions of Ur-Nanše are: Ur-Nanše 11, v 6: abzu-e; Ur-Nanše 12, iv 1: abzu;
Ur-Nanše 14, iv 4: abzu-e; Ur-Nanše 20, iii 5: abzu-e and iv 6 abzu-bànda; Ur-Nanše
23, 12: abzu-bànda. The name of the spouse of Ur-Nanše is men-bára-abzu according to
Ur-Nanše 6a.
19
Umma if they ever decided to overrule the terms of defeat and start another
dispute over the Guedina farmlands. The curses start by mentioning the god
Enlil (xvi 15), the second god listed is Ninhursag (xvii 23). Enki is the third in
row and is titled to be “the king of Abzu.”
Eanatum 1, xix 1–7:
¯u4²-da mu-bal-e When I (Umma) transgress the border,
sa-šus-gal the great battle-net of
den-ki Enki,
lugal abzu-ka the king of Abzu,
nam e-ta-ku5-rá according to the oath taken (or: curse given)
¡KÚŠUki-a upon Giša (Umma)
an-ta `é-šuš from the sky let cover!
The text continues with Eanatum releasing carp-fish said to be sent or going to
Abzu. It looks like Eanatum uses carp-fish30 to intermediate the oath taken or
superimposed on the state of Umma to Enki situated in his Abzu. The carp-fish
are therefore carriers of the message and informers of Enki. This might also
mean that it was imagined that one of the ways of accessing the underworld
region of Abzu was by the waters of rivers and marshes.
Eanatum 1, xix 17–19:
su`urku6 abzu-šè gub-gub-ba (To) the carp-fish released/sent to Abzu
é-an-na-túm-me Eannatum
KA a-ku5-de6 swore31 (=gave the oath to be taken to Abzu)
The gods mentioned next as witnesses to the oath taken by Umma are Su’en (xx
1), Utu (rev. i 3) and then Ninki (rev. iii 6). It is interesting to notice that Utu,
Su’en and also Ninki are associated with irrigation canals in the oaths of the text
(xx 20–xxi 1; rev. I 20–21, rev. v 2–3). Utu is titled to be “the master of
vegetation” (rev. i 4ff.). These are features associated with Enki in several texts
30 Cf. R. M. Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit (1965), p.
87 who identifies one Early Dynastic cylinder seal (491) with a seated male god having
two fish laying under his feet as the god Enki. E. D. van Buren, Iraq 10 (1948), pp.
108–109 denies the identification because the flowing water motive is missing from the
seal. However, the god with streams appears during the Akkade period cylinder seals
and the information given by the Akkadian seals cannot be attributed directly to the
earlier periods.
31 E. Sollberger – J.-R. Kupper, IRSA, IC5a, p. 52 tranlate: “Les carpes qui sont au
service de l’Apsu, moi, E-ana-tuma, je leur rendis hommage.” H. Steible, FAOS 5/I, p.
135: “Bei den su`ur-Fischen, die für den Abzu (als Opfer) hingestellt sind.” Cf. Å. W.
Sjöberg, PSD A/II (1994), p. 184: “Eannatum swore (?) by the carp…for the abzu.”
After the oaths taken by Su’en, Eanatum releases doves carrying the oath towards the E-
kišnugal temple of Su’en in Ur (xxi 14–xxii 6). Therefore the fish sent to Abzu probably
have the same meaning of message carriers as the doves sent to Su’en.
20
from the Ur III and Isin periods. The goddess Ninki seems to be occupying the
later canonical position of Inanna in the listings of deities. The name Ninki is
usually associated with the Enki-Ninki primordial gods and the occurrence of this
deity instead of a major female goddess32 is unusual in Sumerian texts. The oath
taken by Ninki is intended to frighten Umma with snakes33 sent by her from the
earth which are described as able to bite the feet of Umma (rev. v 23–26).
The text of the stele of Eanatum’s victory ends with the titulary formula of
Eanatum mentioning all the most important gods of Sumer. Enki is described as
giving ¡éštu to the king. This function is repeated in relation to Enki throughout
the history of Sumerian texts. The direct rendition of the Sumerian ¡éštu would
be “ear,” Akkadian uznu. In the abstract sense, the word denotes the capability
to receive instructions or “words of wisdom” (through the ears) and would be
translatable as “understanding.” On the other hand, ¡éštu also means the
capability to use or master the received (heard) wisdom or directions, and there-
fore a suitable translation would be “(practical) skill,” “craft” or “cleverness.”34
An English translation which would fit all the abovementioned characteristics
would be “knowledge.”
Eanatum 1, rev. v 42–54:
é-an-na-túm Eanatum,
lugal king
lagaški of Lagaš,
á šúm-ma given strength
den-líl by Enlil,
ga zi kú-a nourished with true milk
dnin-`ur-sa¡ by Ninhursag,
mu du10 sa4-a given a good name
dinanna by Inanna,
¡éštu šúm-ma given knowledge
den-ki by Enki,
šà pà-da chosen in the heart
dnanše of Nanše
32 Ninki occurs separately also in SF 1 god-list vi 25ff: M. Krebernik, ZA 76 (1986), p.
164.
33 The god Enki is related to snakes in Early Dynastic incantations: muš den-ki / KA mu-
kú: “snake (of?) Enki / eats the mouth” (M. Krebernik, Beschwörungen, pp. 176–178,
no. 35: xiv 10–11 = G. Pettinato, OA 18 (1979), p. 350, no. 26: v 10–vi 1); ki muš gi6 /
ZU.AB šà: “place (of the?) black snake / inside Abzu” (M. Krebernik, Beschwörungen,
pp. 180–183, no. 36: xv 9–10 = G. Pettinato, OA 18 (1979), p. 350, no. 27, vi 9–10).
34 Cf. H. D. Galter, Ea/Enki, pp. 95–99. Cf. S. Denning-Bolle, Wisdom in Akkadian
Literature (1992), p. 36: The connection of ‘wisdom’ and ‘understanding’ with ‘ear’
shows how auditory ancient culture was. The ear was considered to be the seat of
intelligence.
21
Other gods mentioned are Ningirsu, Dumuzi-Abzu, Hendursag. Lugal-URUx
KAR and Inanna (rev. vi 1–9). In the current listing, Enlil, Ninhursag, Enki and
Inanna represent the overall Mesopotamian pantheon; other gods such as Nanše,
Ningirsu, Dumuzi-Abzu are the deities of the local pantheon of Lagaš.
The other type of royal titles listed by Eanatum, more dedicated to the local
Lagašite pantheon, is the following:
Eanatum 5, i 2 – ii 3:
é-an-na-túm Eanatum,
énsi city ruler
lagaški of Lagaš:
mu pà-da nominated
den-líl-ke4 by Enlil,
á šúm-ma given strength
dnin-¡ír-sú-ka-ke4 by Ningirsu,
šà pà-da chosen in the heart
dnanše-ke4 of Nanše,
ga zi kú-a nourished with true milk
d[n]in-¯`ur²-sa¡-ka-¯ke4² by Ninhursag,
mu ¯du10² sa4-a given a good name
dinanna-ka-ke4 by Inanna,
¡éštu šúm-ma given knowledge
den-¯ki²-ka-ke4 by Enki,
ki-á¡ beloved
ddumuzi-abzu-ka-ke4 of Dumuzi-Abzu,
¡iskim-ti trusted one
d`endur-sa¡-ka-ke4 of Hendursag,
ku-li ki-á¡ beloved friend
dlugal-URUxKÁR-ka-ke4 of Lugal-URUxKAR.
dumu a-kur-gal Son of Akurgal,
énsi city ruler
lagaški of Lagaš
Most of the inscriptions of Eanatum consider Enlil the most important god for
the king and he always heads the listings of deities. Equally important is the
chief god of Lagaš Ningirsu, titled ur-sa¡ of Enlil – “hero/warrior of Enlil”
(Eanatum 10, i 1–3). One of the most frequently mentioned deities is the
goddess Nanše, sister of Ningirsu and daughter of Enki, as known from some
later sources.35 As far as the royal ideology is concerned, Enki is not among the
most prominent gods for the king, but he features often in a major position.36
35 Cf. W. Heimpel, RlA 9 (1998–2001), p. 155.
36 The complete listings of Eanatum mentioning at least four gods in a row are the
following:
Eanatum 1, xvi 14–rev. v 36: Enlil, Ninhursag, Enki, Su’en, Utu, Ninki.
22
1.3. Enanatum I
Enanatum I was the son of Akurgal and the topic of his royal inscriptions is
strongly influenced by the conflict with the neighbouring state of Lagaš, as was
the case with his late brother Eanatum. One inscription describing the conflict
states that the god Hendursag is “the herald of Abzu.”
Enanatum I, 2 i 1–ii 11:
d`endur-sa¡ To Hendursag,
GAL.NI¤IR abzu-ra the great herald of Abzu:
en-an-na-túm Enanatum,
[é]nsi city ruler
[laga]ški of Lagaš,
[mu pà-d]a nominated
den-líl-lá by Enlil,
ga zi kú-a nourished with true milk
dnin-`ur-sa¡-ka by Ninhursag,
šà pà-da chosen in the heart
dnanše of Nanše,
énsi gal great city ruler
dnin-¡ír-su-ka of Ningirsu,
gù zi dé-a truly summoned
dinanna-ka by Inanna,
mu pà-da nominated
d`endur-sa¡-ka by Hendursag,
dumu tu-da son given birth
dlugal-URUxKÁRki-ka byLugal-URUxKAR.
dumu a-kur-gal Son of Akurgal,
énsi city ruler
lagaški-ka of Lagaš
Eanatum 1, rev. v 45–vi 9: Enlil, Ninhursag, Inanna, Enki, Nanše, Ningirsu, Dumuzi-
Abzu, Hendursag, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Eanatum 2, iv 5–12: Enlil, Ninhursag, Nanše, Ningirsu.
Eanatum 5, i 5–ii 13: Enlil, Ningirsu, Nanše, Ninhursag, Inanna, Enki, Dumuzi-Abzu,
Hendursag, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Eanatum 6, i 10–ii 14: Enlil, Ningirsu, Nanše, Ninhursag, Inanna, Enki, Dumuzi-Abzu,
Hendursag.
Eanatum 8, i 5 – ii 5: Enlil, Ningirsu, Nanše, Ninhursag, Inanna.
Eanatum 9, i 4–11: Enlil, Ninhursag, Ningirsu, Nanše.
Eanatum 18, i 1–ii 4: Enlil, Enki, Hendursag, Lugal-uru.
Enki is mentioned in most of the listings, but his name does not occur when the two
pairs Enlil-Ninhursag and Ningirsu-Nanše are mentioned. The later canonical order of
the Sumerian pantheon occurs only in Eanatum 1 where the name of An is omitted and
Ninki has the usual place of Inanna. One anonymous fragment of an inscription from
Lagaš (V. E. Crawford, JCS 29 (1977), p. 198) mentions Enki and Nanše together.
23
Enki is not mentioned in the formula, but all the other gods known from the
titles of Eanatum are present. It could be that Enki is left out of the listing
because the name of his cosmic region Abzu had already been listed in the first
lines of the text. Enki is described as the granter of ¡éštu to the king Enanatum I
in another inscription.
Enanatum I 9, i 1–ii 8:
en-an-na-túm Enanatum,
énsi city ruler
lagaški of Lagaš,
á [šm-ma given strength
[d]e[n-líl-lá(?)] by E[nlil],
[šà pà-da] [chosen in the heart]
[dnanše] [of Nanše],
[énsi gal] [great city ruler]
[dnin-¡ír-sú-ka] [of Ningirsu],
m[u du10 s]a4-a given a good name
dinanna-ka by Inanna,
¡éštu šúm-ma given knowledge
den-ki-ka-ke4 by Enki,
dumu tu-da son given birth
dlugal-URUxKÁRki-ka byLugal-URUxKAR.
dumu a-kur-gal Son of Akurgal,
énsi city ruler
la[ga]ški of Lagaš
The text mentions Enki after the goddess Inanna and before Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enki’s position has not changed compared to earlier inscriptions of Eanatum.37
37 The Enanatum I listings can also begin with the local chief god Nanše, although
Enlil’s position is still prominent. Enki is mentioned only once after Inanna:
Enanatum I, 2: i 1 – ii 8: Enlil, Ninhursag, Nanše, Ningirsu, Inanna, Hendursag, Lugal-
URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 5: i 6–ii 1: Nanše, Ningirsu, Inanna, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 8: i 4–9 / Enanatum I, 15: i 10–15: Nanše, Ningirsu, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enanatum I, 9: I 4–ii 3: E[nlil], [Nanše], [Ningirsu], Inanna, Enki, Lugal-URUxKAR.
24
1.4. Enmetena
Enmetena, who was the son of the previous ruler Enanatum I, continues the
long struggle against the state of Umma. One of his inscriptions describes how
Il, the ensi of Umma, has diverted the water from the dikes of Ningirsu and
Nanše. The titulary formula of Enmetena is different from the earlier rulers and
lists Enlil, Enki, Nanše and Ningisru as the most important gods for the king.
Enmetena 1, v 19–29: 38
en-TE.ME-na Enmetena,
énsi city ruler
lagaški of Lagaš,
¡idri šúm-ma granted sceptre
den-líl-lá by Enlil,
¡éštu šúm-ma granted knowledge
den-ki-ka by Enki,
šà pà-da chosen in the heart
dnanše of Nanše,
énsi gal great city ruler
dnin-¡ír-su-ka of Ningirsu
The listing of Enlil and Enki / Nanše and Ningiršu as the pre-eminent gods shows
that the composers of the inscriptions were probably aware of the notions “local
pantheon” and “overall pantheon.” This means that they knew that their own local
pantheon system did not represent the totality of Sumerian divine forces but only
the political and religious ideology of their own state. Awareness of the overall
Sumerian pantheon on the other hand shows that the “general canonical
pantheon” of Sumer had already been developed. Whether this system con-
sidering Enlil and Enki pre-eminent divine forces (both complemented by the
mother-goddess figure) was developed by some sort of an early political union
(with its (political) centre or meeting-place in Nippur; and religious and cultic
centre and meeting-place in Eridu?) or as a natural and internal religious process
is hard to answer. What seems certain is the fact that Enlil and Enki were seen as
the two most prominent overall Sumerian male gods for the pantheon of Lagaš.
This is similar to the situation in UD.GAL.NUN texts where the two gods
constantly appear together. A different listing is given in another inscription of
Enmetena where Nanše and Ningirsu are listed first.
38 Other inscriptions of Enmetena do not mention Enki in the titles list at all: Enmetena
5b has Nanše, Ningirsu, Inanna, Lugal-URUxKAR; Enmetena 18: Enlil and Ninhursag;
Enmetena 20: Nanše, Ningirsu, and Nin-DAR; Enmetena 22: Nanše, Ningirsu and
Gatumdu; Enmetena 26: Enlil, Ninhursag, Nanše, Ningirsu, and Lugal-URUxKAR;
Enmetena 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 17, 23, 30 only list Nanše and Ningirsu.
25
Enmetena 15, i 3–iii 1:
en-TE.ME-na Enmetena,
énsi city ruler
lagaški of Lagaš,
š[à pà]-da chosen in the heart
dnanše of Nanše,
énsi gal great city ruler
dnin-¡ír-sú-ka of Ningirsu,
¡éštu šúm-ma granted knowledge
den-ki-k[a] by Enki,
dum[u] e[n]-an-n[a]-t[úm] son of Enanatum
One text of Enmetena refers to the cultic chariot dedicated to Ningirsu. The
chariot is called (Enmetena 4, ii 8–10) “Heaper up of the foreign (enemy) lands
of the god Nin¡irsu on the road (to) Eridu, the radiance of whose gam[gam] bird
reaches into the heart of the foreign (enemy) land(s):” ¡ešgígir kur-dub dnin-¡ír-
sú-ka `a`ar-ra-an eriduki-ka GAM4.GAM-bi / ní-bi kur-šà-ga / mu-na-dím.39 The
name of the vehicle of Ningirsu obviously refers to the cultic journeys
undertaken to Eridu by the gods.
Enmetena’s inscriptions record that he had built an Engur temple for the god-
dess Nanše in Zulum:
Enmetena 4, iii 6–8:40
dnanše For Nanše
é-engur-ra zú-lum-ma the Engur temple of Zulum
mu-na-dù has built
An inscription dedicated to Nanše’s temple titles her dnanše é-engur-ra: “Nanše
of E-Engur” (Enmetena 19, i 1–2). The fact that the known temple name Engur
of Enki can also designate the temple of Nanše underlies the close relations the
deities had in the Lagašite pantheon. The building of Nanše’s Engur temple is
recorded in other inscriptions of Enmetena. The texts also state that a temple for
Enki was built.
39 Translation of D. Frayne, RIME 1, p. 204. The mentioned gam-gam birds are present
also in the myth Enki and the World Order 187, and it seems that they are equated or
related with the Lahama-Abzu deities of Eridu. According to Frayne (p. 203), the birds
are probably decorative elements of the chariot.
40 The same is recorded in: Enmetena 16, 14–16; Enmetena 17, ii 6–8; Enmetena 19, ii
3–6; Enmetena 25, i 1–3.
26
Enmetena 16, 34–37: 41
den-ki To Enki,
lugal eriduki-ra king of Eridu,
abzu pa5-sír-ra Abzu of Pasira
mu-na-dù has built
In Enmetena 1 inscription there is a reference to a building structure or a field
situated near the bank of the Tigris and in the region of Girsu called (iv 8–9)
nam-nun-da ki-¡ar-ra den-líl-lá den-ki-ka dnin-`ur-sa¡-ka: “With princeliness
(nam-nun) constructed by (for?) Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag.” It is possible that
the three are seen together as a group of major Sumerian gods.
The listings of the gods of Enmetena,42 which occur in several different
inscriptions of the king, seem to be less systemised as compared to the earlier
inscriptions of Eanatum which always begin with Enlil. The position of Enki
seems to be more important in the ideology of Enmetena since the mother-
goddess is often listed after Enki. Enki has the most prominent place either
directly after Enlil or after Ningirsu and Nanše, the chief gods of Lagaš.
1.5. Uru’inimgina
The text known under the title “The Reform Laws of Uru’inimgina” has a
reference to “the reeds of Enki.” By the context, it seems obvious that the
passage explains the taxes demanded for bringing a dead person to a burial
place outside the city. The preceding part of the text describes the taxes
demanded for bringing a dead body for a burial into a grave (Uru’inimgina 1, vi
4: ki-ma`). It would be reasonable to believe that also “the reeds of Enki” might
designate a necropolis at a marshland area where the reeds are growing.
41 Cf. Enmetena 12, iv 5– v 1; Enmetena 17, ii 9–12; Enmetena 25, i 4–7.
42 Listings of gods of Enmetena:
Enmetena 1, v 23–vi 7: Enlil, Enki, Nanše, Ningirsu, Šul-MUŠxPA, Ningirsu, Nanše.
Enmetena 5b, obv. ii 2–iii 1: Nanše, Ningirsu, Inanna, Lugal-URUxKAR.
Enmetena 12, ii 6–vii 2: Ningirsu, Lugal-URUxKAR, Nanše, Enki, Ninhursag,
Ningirsu, Enlil, Gatumdu, Nanše, Ningirsu.
Enmetena 15, ii 2–6: Nanše, Ningirsu, Enki.
Enmetena 16, 1–38: Ningirsu, Nanše, Enlil, Gatumdu, Ninmah, Lugal-URUxKAR,
Enki, Ningirsu.
Enmetena 17, I 17–iv 5: Ningirsu, Lugal-URUxKAR, Nanše. Enki, Ninhursag,
Ningirsu, Gatumdu, Nanše, Enlil, Šul-MUŠxPA.
Enmetena 20, 7–11: Nanše, Ningirsu, Nin-DAR.
Enmetena 22, 6–10: Nanše, Ningirsu, Gatumdu.
Enmetena 26, i 7–ii 7: Enlil, Ninhursag, Nanše, Ningirsu, Lugal-URUxKAR.
27
Uruinimgina 1: vi 15–22 (cf. ix 35–x 4):
gi den-ki-ka-ka (when) to the reeds of Enki
lú ù-DU a man was brought43
kas-ni 7 dug his beer was 7 jars
ninda 420-nam bread was 420
2 (ul) še 2 ul of barley
1 túg 1 garment
1 ¡ 1 bed
¡dúr-gar (one) chair
Attempts have been made to interpret that a person was brought to “the reeds of
Enki” for ritual purposes, such as healing rituals for an ill person.44 The
assumption seems baseless since the contex