Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros99ArticlesOld Babylonian god-lists in retro...


Old Babylonian god-lists in retrospect: A new edition of TH 80.112

Grégoire Nicolet
p. 9-78


Rétrospective sur les listes divines de l’époque paléo-babylonienne. Une nouvelle édition de TH 80.112
– La découverte de nouveaux fragments de la Liste divine de Mari en 1998-2000 et les nouvelles lectures proposées par les chercheurs depuis sa publication initiale permettent une meilleure compréhension de ce texte. Il est par exemple démontré que la section sur les divinités en Nin- est organisée selon le principe du cycle de la vie. L’article met également en évidence les liens entre le texte de Mari et d’autres listes divines paléo-babyloniennes qui forment un groupe dont la structure remonte au IIIe millénaire : les listes d’Isin, de Mari et d’Uruk, ainsi que d’autres dont la provenance est inconnue, sont reliées par leur organisation principale et par des groupes thématiques de divinités basés, entre autres, sur le motif des mères éplorées ou des sept enfants d’Enmešara. Enfin, cet article propose plusieurs nouvelles lectures dans ces listes et vise aussi à clarifier la fonction de certaines divinités mineures durant cette période, telles que NINniĝar, Ninsig, Ninpiriĝ ou Ninkur(a), à travers l'analyse de leur place dans les différentes listes.

Haut de page


Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

This article is based on a dissertation chapter written in 2013, here heavily revised and extended. It would have not been possible without the help of many scholars. Foremost, I would like to thank Antoine Cavigneaux for his time spent in reviewing the original chapter and this article. I am also grateful to Laith Hussein and Manfred Krebernik for sharing unpublished materials. My thanks also go to Christian W. Hess and Emmert Clevenstine for reviewing the English version; to Camille Lecompte for reading the earlier dissertation chapter; and especially to the reviewers of Syria for their suggestions for improvements.

Texte intégral

  • 1 Margueron 2015, p. 44-47, p. 65-68, p. 98-102.
  • 2 See the last synthesis on OB education in Veldhuis 2016.

1In 1998-2000, Jean-Claude Margueron excavated a large number of school tablets at ‘Chantier K’,1 outside the palace of Zimrī-Līm, king of Mari (Tell Hariri), an ancient city located in modern-day Syria on the banks of the Euphrates River. Among these texts, dating from around 1760 BCE, were found lists of divine names, also known as god-lists. While the outlines of the system(s) reflected in the god-lists and their organization have been known for a long time, many details remain obscure. During the Old Babylonian (OB) period, the god-lists were integrated in different ways into the curricular system established by the Mesopotamian scribes:2

  • at a practical level they were part of the teaching of writing: they allowed the learning of different complex logograms which render divine names (DNs), as evidenced by the last section of Proto-Diri, and also ensured the repetition of known signs (AN, NIN, EN, etc.). In this sense, they can be read as acrographic lists;
  • in the cultural development of children, the god-lists accustomed pupils to the specific ‘pluralism’ of the Sumerian tradition and created for the students in more specialized sectors (priests, exorcists, doctors, etc.) a faithful reflection of the world in which they were living.3
  • 4 According to Lecompte 2013, p. 152-153, the conception of their incipit goes back to the ED I-II p (...)
  • 5 See, with supplementary bibliography: Dijk 1963, p. 7-8; Krebernik 1986, p. 164-165; Wiggermann 19 (...)
  • 6 See the definition of the pantheon in Mesopotamia in Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 294-295 §1, and, on th (...)
  • 7 See Peterson 2009a, p. 5-8, or Lisman 2013, p. 85, for the details of these different principles o (...)
  • 8 Richter 2004, p. 12. The at least partial reliance of some sections of the large Ur III offering l (...)
  • 9 The term microstructure is here taken in its primary sense as a constituent and structured part of (...)

2In origin, these lists represent an innovation of the Early Dynastic (ED) period.4 Their internal principles of association are essentially identical to other lexical texts, while already leaving room for mythological, theological, or geographical narrations, mainly visible in their incipits.5 Only at the beginning of the 2nd millennium did the god-lists begin to be organized according to theological principles. Divinities were classified according to their family relationship, their place in the panthea,6 their different attributes, or their affiliation with the circles of more important deities.7 While the complete reorganization of the god-lists seems to date back to this period, the lack of lexical lists for the end of the 3rd millennium makes it difficult to assess to what extent later lists are based on an older tradition.8 These lists have been subject to extensive discussion and commentary in order to reconstruct the panthea of Mesopotamia. The chosen approach in this article will favor the analysis of the microstructures of the Mari god-list (MGL), that is, particular divinities or groups of divinities and their position in the list,9 in order to highlight relations to other god-lists by determining identical associations.

Old Babylonian god-lists

  • 10 Lambert 1985a. See also Oelsner 1989, p. 22-23 for the identification of the tablet as a type II ( (...)
  • 11 See annex A for TH 80.112, with corrections and parallels explained here throughout. An underlined (...)
  • 12 As it has been called by Lambert RlA 3, p. 473 §1.

3An overview of the OB sources provides the background to the subsequent analysis of the structure of the Mari god-list (MGL) and the examination of the specific tradition to which it belongs. Five different comprehensive, complete or practically complete god-lists are known from this period: the Nippur god-list (NGL), the Isin god-list (IGL), the Šaduppûm god-list (ŠGL), the Weidner List (WeL), and the list published by Henri de Genouillac in TCL 15 10 (GeL). In addition to these lists, the substantial god-list found in ‘Chantier A’ of Mari (TH 80.112) and edited by Wilfred G. Lambert represents the longest extract.10 Unfortunately, the thirty tablets and fragments of the MGL discovered during the excavations of ‘Chantier K’ at Mari do not preserve such an extensive sequence of names. However, they allow for a better understanding of the organization of the whole.11 Apart from these larger god-lists, extracts are known from different cities—Babylon, Kiš, Ur, Uruk, Sippar, Susa—and from unknown sources. Some of these lists have been influenced by the local pantheon of their place of origin, as will be seen, but, above all, they organize the deities according to their affiliations, while still maintaining a ‘lexical arrangement’.12

The Nippur god-list (NGL)

  • 13 Peterson 2009a.
  • 14 Peterson 2009a, p. 7.
  • 15 Lambert RlA 3, p. 474 §3. On this familial ordering, see also i.a. Fritz 2003, p. 61; Edzard 2004, (...)
  • 16 Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, p. 80.
  • 17 Richter 2004, p. 17.
  • 18 Peterson 2009a, p. 79ff., and Johandi 2019, p. 114-115. Note that HS 1804 contains a small section (...)

4Among the OB god-lists, a thorough analysis is available only for the NGL.13 The NGL contains ca. 270 entries (including gaps) and shows a high degree of standardization.14 W. G. Lambert underlines that this god-list ‘[was] arranged largely on theological principles [with] some lexical grouping [at the end]’,15 while Julia Asher-Greve and Joan Goodnick Westenholz assert that the principles are patriarchal: ‘[…] the male spouse always precedes the female even where the female is more important’.16 This list only partially reflects the known pantheon of Nippur; see for example the section of Ninḫursaĝa.17 At Nippur, other fragments of god-lists have also been discovered which are not related to this standardized text.18

TCL 15 10 (GeL)

  • 19 Lambert RlA 3, p. 475 §5; Edzard 2004, p. 583; Veldhuis 2014, p. 201.
  • 20 Genouillac 1930, see also Genouillac 1923 and 1928.
  • 21 Veldhuis 2014, p. 201 and 237, with reference to Litke 1998, p. 3.
  • 22 Peterson 2009a, p. 79.
  • 23 Richter 2004, p. 13-16, esp. p. 14, followed by Lisman 2013, p. 96: 3.2.7, and Johandi 2019, p. 10 (...)
  • 24 On the lexical lists as Kunstwerk, see Edzard 2007, p. 17ff.

5TCL 15 10 (AO 5376 [P345354]), also dubbed Proto-An=Anum, has 10 columns of 46 to 50 lines each (38 lines for the last column), for a total of 473 divinities. The lines are practically all preserved and classified by theological criteria.19 This list is cited here according to its numbering in TCL 15 Pl. 25-31.20 It is considered to be the precursor of the Middle Babylonian (MB) list An=Anum.21 The provenance is unknown, but Jeremiah Peterson proposes that the tablet comes from Nippur.22 The suggestion accords with the remarks of Thomas Richter on its provenance from the South of Mesopotamia,23 due to the absence of all major deities from the North, the Diyala region, and Syria. If correct, it can be added that NGL was created to fulfill a didactic aim: the NGL relates to the Weidner List (WeL) in the same way that ‘Silbenalphabet B’ (SA B) from Nippur relates to SA A from elsewhere in Mesopotamia. TCL 15 10 may thus be one of the few lexical tablets from the OB period which are not a product of the schoolroom, but rather the masterpiece of a scholar or group of scholars.24

  • 25 Ceccarelli 2020, p. 29-40 (quote p. 30).

6Another OB precursor of An=Anum (unknown provenance) has recently been published by Manuel Ceccarelli, who assesses the contents as ‘näher an der kanonischen An=Anum-Liste als an deren Vorläufer TCL 15 10’.25

The Weidner list (WeL)

  • 26 Simons 2017a, p. 97-98, esp. p. 82ff. See also Richter 2004, p. 18-20; Tanret 2002, p. 123 no. 65; (...)
  • 27 Gantzert 2008, vol. 3, p. 164.

7Frank Simons has proposed an update of the sources available for this list alongside the edition of its Hurro-Akkadian version.26 This list is remarkably stable throughout its history27 and contains between 205 and 245 entries:

  • 205 entries for the OB version according to VS 24 20 [P347139];28
  • 234 entries for the Ugarit version;29
  • 245 entries in the 1st millennium.30
  • 31 On the OB dating of VAT 6563 see Pomponio RlA 9, p. 21 §4 (Pomponio 1978, p. 20 n. 31 apud Richter(...)
  • 32 Veldhuis 2003, p. 628.
  • 33 Veldhuis 2014, p. 200.
  • 34 Gesche 2001, p. 75, e.g. BM 62741 in Wiggermann 2010, p. 329, 346, n. 70.
  • 35 Lambert RlA 3, p. 474 §2; Gesche 2001, p. 75; Lisman 2013, p. 93 or OBO 259, p. 79 and 99.

8This list is first attested in the OB period,31 and all sources of the WeL may only be late OB according to Niek Veldhuis.32 However, according to M. Krebernik (p. c.), the association of some deities could point to an earlier conception in the Ur III period. During the OB period, N. Veldhuis relates the WeL to the school tradition of northern Babylonia in the same way as ‘Silbenalphabet A’ (SA or SA A), Syllabary A (Sa), and Proto-Hh I-II of Sippar.33 During the 1st millennium, supplementary ‘descriptive’ columns are sometimes added, making the WeL closer to lexical lists like Ea or Diri.34 The whole structure of the list is difficult to understand and the principles which led to the associations of the different deities remain somewhat elusive.35

The Isin god-list (IGL)

  • 36 Wilcke 1987, p. 93ff., and Wilcke 2018, nos. 146-147.
  • 37 Lisman 2013, p. 93, and Richter 2004, p. 221 (quoted). See also his discussion of different sectio (...)

9This god-list from the houses of the Isin scribes has been published by Claus Wilcke and contains around 330 entries, of which a little more than half is preserved.36 His interpretation is summarized by Jan Lisman and followed by T. Richter:37

‘[C. Wilcke] points to the independence of the Isin lexical tradition which is impressively shown in the Isin god list. There exists no parallel of it outside Isin. The list has been composed according to a theological and a lexical order. This last one can be shown by the group of names beginning with dnin-. The theological principle has been combined with local patriotism […].’

  • 38 Wilcke 2018, no. 138.
  • 39 Krebernik 1992, p. 110
  • 40 Wilcke 2018, nos. 148-152, 139, 144-145.

10The investigation of the MGL along with the lists related to the Urukean tradition will show that the structure of the IGL belongs to the mainstream of the OB god-list, without calling into question the reorganization of the dnin- section dependent on the Isin pantheon. As at Nippur, according to the reverse of IB 76738 and the lentil IB 1667,39 many variants likely coexisted at Isin—add fragments IB 911, IB 1488a, IB 927, IB 771, IB 1616, and perhaps IB 773, IB 772, IB 769,40 unfortunately poorly preserved.

The Urukean tradition: AUWE 23 154, MVAG 21 Taf. 4 and the Šaduppûm god-list (ŠGL)

  • 41 Richter 2004, p. 317-318, suggests that AUWE 23 58 is a fragment of a god-list belonging to the tr (...)
  • 42 The god-list from Šaduppûm will be published by L. Hussein and M. Krebernik.

11Five tablets with god-lists from Uruk have been published by Antoine Cavigneaux: AUWE 23 58 [P349061]41 and 151-154 [P349154-7]. AUWE 23 154 is the most interesting in content, a type II-tablet with three columns partially preserved on the reverse. MVAG 21 Taf. 4 (VAT 8371) is a tablet of unknown provenance which can be related to AUWE 23 154, since the reverse contains a god-list practically identical to column iii of AUWE 23 154 and to a section of the ŠGL.42

  • 43 Oelsner 2015, p. 430 n. 41, citing Horst Klengel.
  • 44 Oelsner 2015, p. 430.

12Even if the extract from AUWE 23 154 is shorter than the other variants, their relationship can hardly be called into question, as demonstrated below (table 6). Furthermore, the column ii of AUWE 23 154, very badly preserved, also seems to feature parallels with the preceding section in the ŠGL (ii 5′, 6′ and 11′ could respectively correspond to A 3.9′, 10′ and 15′). Regarding MVAG 21 Taf. 4, a provenance from the South can at least be inferred from its VAT-number (8371), since VAT-numbers between 8344 and 9206 mainly come from Larsa.43 Moreover, a provenance from Uruk for MVAG 21 Taf. 4 can even be suggested inasmuch as this city is thought to be the provenance for some of the mathematical texts which bear VAT-numbers within the same range.44 Finally, MC 25 482 (YBC 7186) should belong to the same tradition, though the extract is shorter than the others (o. 1-6 = MVAG 21 Taf. 4 r. 1-6).

God-lists from Ur

  • 45 See Veldhuis 2010, p. 397 and Veldhuis 2014, p. 91-92.
  • 46 Mander 1986, p. 108 and n. 33, with edition of the fragment.

13As one can observe in table 6, the god-list on the reverse of UET 7 80 [P347043]—the upper part of a tablet (without excavation number)—seems to relate to the Urukean tradition, but the extract is unfortunately too short to draw any conclusion. It is however interesting to note that the obverse contains a list of geographical names (GNs) which parallels the list of ED cities (SF 23/24 and OIP 99 21, 22),45 the second part of which also comprises a god-list. Pietro Mander notes that it is not certain that the god-list on the reverse of UET 7 80 is a parallel to the SF 23/24 god-list.46

  • 47 Friberg 2000.
  • 48 Gadd and Kramer 1966, p. 8.
  • 49 Richter 2004, p. 21 n. 92.
  • 50 As emphasized by Wiggermann 1997, p. 34.
  • 51 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 612 §2, with comments on lines 14-19.
  • 52 On line 22, see now Krebernik RlA 15, p. 395 §2.3.5.

14Two other god-lists underline the originality of the scholastic/scholarly tradition of Ur, which has already been highlighted for the mathematical texts from this city.47 The poorly preserved UET 6/2 411 [P346451] ‘gives the names of many strange gods, some of them perhaps West Semitic (Amorite). The remainder of the lines, now missing, would probably have explained these […]’, and UET 6/2 412 [P346452] (annex C) ‘is a list of gods of the regular Babylonian pantheon, each described as “king” of his own city, on the right of the tablet, but the latter names are almost wholly destroyed’.48 The absence of digression (spouse and children) and the right column make this composition unique among the OB god-lists. The place of Nanna at the head of the list reflects a local tradition,49 and the deities of lines 6-7 and 9-14 are classified together due to their relationship to the underworld and their ophidian characteristics (7, 9, 11-13), as well as their likely geographical distribution.50 One can add that the whole organization of the list is also remarkable, as observed by A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik in referring to ‘die nach dem Schema “Gott X: Herr von Y, Gott Y: Herr von Z” aufgebaute Liste’.51 This organizational principle can be deduced from the three last lines on the reverse, where the twins Lugalirra and Meslamtea are said to be lord(s) of Akkad (21-21bis), while Ilaba, found in the next line, would be excepted (22).52 This principle is identical to the one governing the structure of the 1st millennium god-list found in the Aluzinnu-text:

  • 53 Rumor 2017, p. 199 n. 65.

‘[…] the first column […] begins with a (poorly preserved) list of tutelary deities, each of whom is matched to the name of a city. The correspondences are nonetheless purposefully misaligned so that each god is matched to the city in the subsequent or previous line. It has been suggested that the list might represent a parody of king lists. In any case, the humorous effect is obtained by the relentless disruption of what is expected, […].’53

  • 54 Transcription DCCLT.

15Since the beginning of this tablet (K4334 [P395487]) and the city names on the right of UET 6/2 412 are lost, the extent to which both lists are related remains unclear, apart from the aforementioned organizational principle. The three-line lentil UET 6/3 824 [P346861], with a colophon bearing the name of the pupil (reverse uninscribed), is perhaps related to this list (see annex C), but can also simply represent a warrior and/or underworld section: Ninazu, his son Ninĝišzida followed by Ninĝirsu.54

OB tablets and fragments from other cities

  • Adab: Jacob Lauinger describes OIM A715 as a ‘four-sided prism, listing gods.55 Only corner preserved’ and OIM A642 and 643 as ‘Lentil-shaped tablet listing gods’.
  • Babylon: many entries containing god-lists are listed by Olof Pedersén in 2005 without the possibility to identify them exactly.56 Among those published in VS 24, only the fragment VS 24 19 [P347138] belongs to the OB period (early OB according to J. van Dijk): column ii contains 11 entries with a section on the mother-goddess57 and column i has 10 entries, unfortunately very poorly preserved (see annex B for transcription).
  • Diyala region: tablets containing divine names from Tulūl Ḫaṭṭāb (mound A) remain unpublished.58 According to DCCLT, A 07738 [P392114], a fragment? of a cylinder, comes also from the Diyala, but is poorly preserved.59
  • Kiš: on PRAK tablets containing DNs, see Bowen 2017, p. 68-71, where he identifies PRAK B69 and PRAK B276 as part of a Kiš version of the WeL (though not an exact parallel to the ‘standard’ version).
  • Sippar: Vincent Scheil60 seems to have discovered only one text (lentil?) on which a section of the WeL appears: 1. da-ru-ru, 2. dnin-tur5, 3. dnin-maḫ, which correspond to WeL 218-220 (see also maybe no. 728 in the catalog). A small fragment of the WeL was also discovered at Sippar-Amnānum.61
  • Southern Mesopotamia: the low IM-number of TIM 9 86 (IM 11053, 45) suggests a provenance from the South. It is the lower-left corner of a four-column tablet, of which the first three are partially preserved on the obverse, the reverse being uninscribed (transcription on DCCLT). In §44-46 below (table 4), the composition of the second column is analyzed in detail,62 in order to show that the organization of the DNs depends on the knowledge of a group of divinities which has later been identified with the seven sons of Enmešara in An=Anum. The organization of this second column also finds an echo in a dnin- section of the NGL.
  • Susa: Mehrnoush Malayeri has catalogued all the known sources and edited a large part of them. Even if some associations of DNs are also found in OB god-lists, there is no clear evidence of a link between any of the OB god-lists known from Mesopotamia and the tradition attested in Susa.63
  • Unknown provenance: twelve tablets in CUSAS 12 contain god-lists (8.6.1, 8.6.3-13), of which three can be found on DCCLT (CUSAS 12 8.6.1, 8.6.6, 8.6.13); all photographs are available on CDLI. The most interesting is CUSAS 12 8.6.8 [P253234], since the beginning is preserved (cf. table 2). A duplicate of this list is CUSAS 12 8.6.10. CUSAS 12 8.6.9 and CUSAS 12 8.6.11 could belong to the same tradition. The recently published volumes CUSAS 42 and MC 25 also present tablets containing OB god-lists (respectively 24 and 5): CUSAS 42 556-578 and 598; MC 25 479-482 and 484. Since they appeared after this paper was already submitted for review, the tablets are not integrated here, but transcriptions for god-lists in MC 25 can be found on DCCLT.
  • See finally: MM 418+ (DCCLT) [P283786];64 AUAM 73.2712 (DCCLT) [P249963]; X.3.297 (DCCLT) [P433269]; and NABU 2017/38.

The organization of the sections beginning the MGL and its relationship to the other god-lists

  • 65 Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 295 §1.

‘Die Götterwelt bildet so neben der Keilschrift die zweite grosse kulturelle Konstante des Alten Orients.’65

  • 66 Also called ‘primeval deities’ (Peterson 2009a, p. 83, and OBO 259, p. 17) or ‘deified phenomena’; (...)
  • 67 The arguments have been summarized by George 2016a. A detailed summary of past studies on the subj (...)

16Much has been written on the beginning of OB god-lists and the list of the ‘ancestors’ of Enlil.66 Without minimizing their importance for our understanding of Mesopotamian cosmogony or theogony,67 this section is limited to emphasizing the similarities between the beginnings of the OB god-lists, with a focus on the MGL and IGL (table 1).

  • 68 See most recently George 2016a, p. 9, and Gadotti and Kleinerman 2017.

17Thanks to new duplicates from the ‘Chantier K’ of Mari, we now know that An also headed the MGL, as in other OB god-lists except for the GeL. The fact that the ‘ancestors’ are not exactly identical either among the IGL, MGL, and GeL, or even in the different sources from Mari is not unexpected.68 In both the MGL and the IGL, the two sections following the ‘ancestors’ are those on Enki and the one on the ‘mother-goddesses’. Moreover, on the one hand, the three names beginning the Enki section are only found together in this order in these two lists. On the other hand, Enlilbanda, another name for Enki, is unattested in the other OB god-lists. Table 2 also shows that the IGL and the NGL shared the same order, although NGL lacks the list of ancestors and IGL lacks the Sîn section.

Table 1. Comparison between the beginnings of MGL and IGL

MGL (TH 80.112 + TH99-T579) IGL
1. an 1. an
  2. duraš
2. den-lil2 3. den-lil2
  4. dnu-nam-nir
3. dnin-lil2 5. dnin-lil2
4. den-ki 6. den-ki
5. dnin-ki 7. dnin-ki
6.-23. Pairs of ancestors 8.-21. Pairs of ancestors
24. den-ki 22. diĝir-maḫ
25. den-lil2-ban3-da 23. da-ru-ru
26. dnu-dim2-mud 24. dnin-tur5
27. dnin-(IGI.)NAĜAR.BU 25. dnin-men-na
27. […] 26. dnin-ḫur-saĝ-ĝa2
28. dsin3 27. dnin-…
29. dnanna 28. dšul-pa-e3?a
30. dim2-babbar2 29-30. … ?
31. dnin-gal 31. den-ki
32. dnin-ḫur-saĝ-ĝa2 32. den-lil2-ban3-da
33. dnin-tur5 33. dnu-dim2-mud
34. dnin-šubur 34. dam-an-ki
35. da-ru-ru […]
a. (=69) Collation Wilcke 2018, p. 67. Šulpaʾe is also found in IB 1542+ (B) v 2, see §60.

Table 2. Ordering of sections at the beginning of preserved OB god-lists

MGL IGL NGL GeL CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. i (r. to l.) CUSAS 12 8.6.1 type IV 4 lines
An 1 1-2 31-33 1. 1.
- 2. Uraš 3 34 (35-37) 2. -
Enlil-Ninlil 3-4 4-6 38-75 3-4 2-3
Ancestors 5-21 - 1-30 - -
Enki 31-34 22-26 76-111 11-12 4
Sîn - or lost 17-19 148-168 5-6 Ningal 7 Babu  
Mother-goddesses 22-27 7-16 112-130
Enlil’s court (warriors + viziers) - or lost 34-39 131-147 (viziers) 7-8 Ninĝirsu + 9-10 Children
Healing divinities 43?ff. 40-44 358-399 lost?

The beginning of OB WeL is not preserved (later the order is grosso modo An, Enlil, Sîn, Inana…). UET 6/2 412 cannot be considered a ‘classic’ school OB god-list, since no digression (spouse, children…) is added to the main gods. The list begins with Nanna, Enlil, Enki, Iškur, Utu, Dumuzi, etc.

  • 70 The beginning of the ŠGL is largely lost, but the Enki section was followed by the Sîn section, as (...)
  • 71 Espak 2011, p. 51.
  • 72 This inconsistency was already pointed out by Lambert 2013, p. 420.
  • 73 See already Lambert RlA 3, p. 473 §1: ‘Theological ordering [of the god lists] rests on the concep (...)
  • 74 In this sense and on the origin of Enlil, see Lisman 2013, p. 112.
  • 75 On the importance of origins reflected in the creation of longer and longer genealogies, see Lisma (...)
  • 76 On the notion of antiquarianism in Mesopotamia, see Beaulieu 2013.

18The beginnings of these six lists thus show that a broad consensus already existed during this period as to which group of deities should be put at the beginning of a god-list.70 The origins of this consensus in the 3rd millennium is shown inter alia by the canonical order of divinities appearing in the inscriptions of the Ur III rulers: An, Enlil, Ninḫursaĝa, Enki, Sîn, Utu, Inana.71 It is also reflected in the later canonical An=Anum (briefly, I: An and Enlil, II: Mother-goddess and Enki, III: Sîn + etc.). Apart from any cosmogonic considerations, the fact that the GeL, though closer to the late An=Anum than the other god-lists, did not begin with An like the other OB lists could be explained as a way to give ancestors both to An and Enlil instead of only to Enlil. This explanation is sustained by the presence of the same ancestors of An and Enlil in the lists of their respective ancestors in An=Anum, namely the pair den/nin-šar2 (AA I 10-11 and 116-117).72 The OB god-lists reflect first and foremost the divine genealogy.73 The goal of this list of ancestors is to legitimize the place of Enlil,74 then of An, at the head of the Pantheon. In this respect, the Sumerian King List (SKL) arises from the same need for legitimation during this period, serving here the rulers of the Isin Dynasty.75 This antiquarianism, typical of the thinking of the OB scribes, is more generally reflected in the conservatism of the Sumerian tradition.76

The section of the mother-goddesses and the case of Ninšubur

  • 77 Regarding the NGL, see Peterson 2009a, p. 6 and 48 (8-16), with bibliography. See also a compariso (...)

19The section dedicated to the mother-goddesses was partly lacunar in TH 80.112 (31-35), but with TH00-T127a from ‘Chantier K’, lines 34-35 can now be restored. Table 1 shows again that the lists of Mari and Isin share commonalities, but this situation is probably due to the relative ‘stability’ of this section across the OB god-lists, where it is also more developed (IGL 22-27 [28-30?], GeL 112-121, NGL 8-16; add WeL 218-222 (223-224?) and VS 24 19 ii′ 7′-11′).77

  • 78 Cf. inter alia Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 490ff.; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 284ff.; Richter 2004, p. 299ff (...)
  • 79 Although the Akkadian texts are clearly referring to Ninšubur/Ilabrat as a male god from a grammat (...)
  • 80 On CBS 15119+, see Cavigneaux and Wiggermann 2014, p. 27 with previous bibliography.

20Besides the main, well-known figures, the presence of Ninšubur at Mari in the middle of the different figures of the mother-goddess is especially noteworthy. The large number of studies which have been written on the complex nature of this deity make it difficult to provide a summary without a certain degree of schematization.78 Originally, she is the female vizier of Inana, at home in the city of Akkil, and is identified/equated in Akkadian contexts with Ilabrat, a ‘non-Sumerian’ male deity and male vizier of AN, already at the end of the 3rd millennium.79 Both are later equated with the male deity Papsukkal. During the OB period, the male and the female Ninšubur continue to coexist separately. This duality is conveyed in an OB hymn in which An hands Ninšubur to Inana, thereby constituting a kind of etiological explanation for its dual gender.80

  • 81 Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 495 §3.
  • 82 Peterson 2009a, p. 58: 112-113.

21This double personality is less reflected in the OB god-lists, but its place is clearly not fixed: in the WeL, the female Ninšubur is assigned to the court of Inana/Ištar, while in the GeL (413) the same Ninšubur appears with her ‘spouse’ Meslamtaʾea (412), here a name for Nergal,81 alongside other divinities belonging to the Netherworld (Ninazu 400, Ereškigal 403) after the section of the healing goddesses (358-399) and before the section on Nergal (418ff.). However, in the IGL, she is listed in the dnin- section devoted to Ninisina and Inana/Ištar (see below §35-36). In NGL 113, the male figure is already identified with Papsukkal (NGL 112), as in AA I 41-42,82 while her cult in the same city is associated with the circle of the healing goddess Nintinugga. These differences led T. Richter to propose:

  • 83 Richter 2004, p. 112.

‘Der Grund für die Annäherung kann nur in dem andernorts zu skizzierenden, u.a. aus Isin bekannten Synkretismus zwischen der Heilgottheit und Inana/Ištar gesehen werden.’83

22Regarding the lexical tradition, therefore, the place of Ninšubur in the MGL is unique. The reason for her classification among these figures of the mother-goddess is to be found in the very nature of this divinity:

  • 84 Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 496-497 §4.

‘As one close to the divine court as well as to its human subjects her most salient characteristic is intercession, to the profit of both parties. Inana adresses her endearingly as “my mother” (CBS 14073: 29f.), she is “mother/deity of the nation” (ibid. 37f. […]) and ‘(my) mother’ in third millennium PN’s […]. N[in-šubur]’s qualities of intercessory figure and (protective) mother explain her relative popularity in the corpus of dedicatory inscription […] and as family god in OB seal inscriptions.’84

  • 85 L. 74-75 in Alberti 1985, p. 8, and Mander 1986, p. 25.
  • 86 OBO 259, p. 59. In Mari and the western periphery, since the Amorrite period, Ninḫursaĝa in PNs re (...)

23Ninšubur’s classification as a mother-goddess in the MGL thus reflects an ancient tradition apparently found in the Abū Ṣalābīḫ god-list, where she is associated with Ningal,85 a tradition which obviously had already been reinterpreted in the OB lists of Southern and Central Mesopotamia. Incidentally, our section begins with a juxtaposition of Ninḫursaĝa and Nintur(a) (cf. table 1), only to be found in MGL. This association seems also to be based on an ancient tradition, since they were ‘originally the birthgoddesses of wild and domesticated animals, respectively’.86 This conservatism of the MGL’s tradition is again underlined in the following sections.

The section of the healing goddesses of TH02-T578 and its relationship to TH 80.112

  • 87 OBO 259, p. 84.

‘The healing goddesses are a typical case of functional congruence between divine entities.’87

  • 88 Lambert 1985a, p. 186. See inter alia Krebernik RlA 10, p. 167 §7; Peterson 2009a, p. 49: 34-36; G (...)

24W. G. Lambert notes that in NGL 34-44 Pabilsaĝ(a) accompanied by the various figures of his wife Gula directly followed the warriors of Enlil, reflecting the classical syncretism between Ninurta, Ninĝirsu, and Pabilsaĝ(a).88 On the basis of this observation, he proposes that in TH 80.112:

‘[…] so one can explain that when, in the course of redaction and expansion of the Mari list, the section of Enlil’s court ll. 40-45 was inserted, it was placed so as to separate Pabilsag from the others. The earlier male names could be identified simply with the first, but Pabilsag’s spouse Nintinugga was too clearly a major deity from Isin to occur in a presentation of Enlil’s court, so these two lines are given as an Isin section.’

  • 89 On the cult of the healing divinities at Isin, see Richter 2004, p. 183ff.
  • 90 See Charpin and Durand 1985, p. 319-321, who show that the fragment had wrongly been joined to the (...)
  • 91 Richter 2004, p. 214-225, studies these sections extensively, as well as their relationship to the (...)

25Although Nintinugga is in fact the main healing goddess of the city of Nippur, and this since the 3rd millennium, W. G. Lambert was right to see there a section recalling the pantheon of Isin, since TH02-T578 shows that it is a whole section of the healing goddesses (or goddesses of Isin89) which follows Pabilsaĝ(a) in an identical order to a fragment found in the ‘Grand palais royal de Mari’,90 closely parallel to the GeL (364-369, without the different names of Pabilsaĝ[a]) and also close to the NGL (34-44).91

  • 92 The relationship between these two deities is complex, see the nuances in Fritz 2003, p. 17ff.; Ka (...)
  • 93 On this byname, see Richter 2004, p. 223-224, and Krebernik RlA 10, p. 162 §2.3.
  • 94 One can notice that the omitted section of the healing goddesses and apparently the misplacement o (...)

26There are several reasons for considering TH99-T578 as a parallel to TH 80.112 and not as an extract belonging to a god-list from a different tradition. On the one hand, the first column of TH99-T578 contains the beginning of the list with the ‘Ancestors of Enlil’ identical to TH 80.112. On the other hand, the position occupied by Alla and probably by Lugalšudde in TH 80.112 in lines 51-52 can only be explained through the passage of TH99-T578, in which Damu, one of the sons of the healing goddess, allows us, according to the ‘syncretism’ between Damu and Dumuzi,92 to associate the ‘Isin section’ with Ninĝišzida and his court, of which Alla and Lugalšudde are the viziers. After these entries, the extract of TH99-T578 ends with Gunura and Šumaḫ, who both belong to the circle of the healing goddess, while in TH 80.112 Alla and Lugalšudde are followed by an entry which could be read dgu-ur5!-an-na. This might be interpreted as a confusion between Gunura and dniĝ2-gu2-ur5-an-na, a byname of Pabilsaĝ(a).93 One is thus compelled to conclude that the student of TH 80.112 omitted or mixed certain passages at the end of column ii, in addition to his numerous other errors.94

  • 95 The divinities are written with ŠE; on this association see Peterson 2009a, p. 59: 122 with biblio (...)
  • 96 As suggested by Lambert 1985a, p. 187: 48-50.
  • 97 Lambert 1985a, p. 187: 48-50.
  • 98 On the juxtaposition of the sections on Adad and Nisaba, see note 180.
  • 99 On the reasons for the proximity of Šamaš and Adad in the lists, see Schwemer 2007, p. 145 (Schwem (...)
  • 100 Edition of UM 29-13-84 in Peterson 2009a, p. 99.

27In the absence of a longer parallel, an additional difficulty consists in understanding the insertion in TH 80.112 of the divinities Maziat, Mamud, and Šakkan (48-50) between Nintinugga and Alla (47 and 51). The solution proposed here would be that Maziat, identical to Tiran(n)a, was originally classified with the Nisaba group (MGL 57-61) as in the NGL (118-122) and the WeL (199-204), as a result of a principally acrographic association.95 The transposition of her name into Akkadian made her settle with Mamud (acrography and/or homophony).96 Mamud had to be associated with Šakkan since both are the children of Utu/Šamaš.97 Both would have just preceded the Nisaba section (MGL 57-61) and the Adad section (MGL 54-56),98 which is already almost the case in TH 80.112, since Šakkan usually precedes Iškur/Adad in the god-lists:99 GeL 188 and 190, AA III 191-200 and 206, probably CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. ii 1-2, and to a lesser extent UM 29-13-84 i 6 and 8.100

  • 101 On this section of GeL (298ff.), see Richter 2004, p. 218-219 and Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 369 §2.

28Unfortunately, the loss of the beginning of the section on the healing goddesses in the IGL prevents us from drawing a comparison with the MGL. However, the extract of TH02-T578, and to a lesser extent the fragment of the GPR, testify to a first parallelism with the GeL. Indeed, although both sections of the healing deities and of Ninĝišzida are much more developed in the GeL, their structure is close to the one observed in TH02-T578, and, more importantly, they are the only OB lists which suggest an identification between Dumuzi/Damu-Geštinanna and Ninĝišzida-Azimua.101

The dnin- section

  • 102 Lambert 1985a, p. 181-182, 189.

29The main characteristic of the MGL is that it contains a large section of DNs beginning with dnin‑, forty-four names (l. 63-106) which W. G. Lambert interprets as having no theological purpose and as representing a foreign insertion in the context of this list.102 However, this large dnin- section deserves to be studied in more detail, since this tradition of classifying the dnin-DNs acrographically goes back to Fāra and is perpetuated, in an attenuated way, in various OB god-lists.

  • 103 The decline or ‘marginalization’ of the goddesses with respect to the gods at the turn of the 3rd  (...)

30Moreover, the proposed corrections for the dnin- section of MGL (63-106) and the subsequent publications of the other god-lists allow for some more precise observations on this large section. In the following chapters, the similarities between the different lists will be highlighted in order to show that the MGL reflects a transitional stage in the reorganization of this section between the archaic lists, and the GeL together with the NGL, the IGL being at an intermediate stage between the MGL and the NGL. Furthermore, the classification of the deities in different microstructures will allow to identify the organizational principle of the whole section, namely the cycle of life. More generally, this reorganization of the dnin- section also testifies to the phenomenon of ‘marginalization’ of the goddesses at the beginning of the 2nd millennium,103 essentially through processes of equation within the lists.

Similarities between the MGL and the Fāra lists: The importance of NINniĝar

31Regarding the dnin- section of the the god-lists of Fāra, M. Krebernik observes:

  • 104 Krebernik 1986, p. 163. In the same vein, see OBO 259, p. 45 and Lisman 2013, p. 88-89. Add also t (...)

‘Hinsichtlich der Namenstypen fällt zunächst der hohe Anteil an mit NIN- gebildeten Namen auf: von 466 genügend erhaltenen oder ergänzbaren Namen gehören dazu 194, also über 40% […] Auf inhaltlicher Ebene ist zunächst zu bemerken, dass das deutliche Überwiegen mit NIN- gebildeter Namen vielleicht eine wichtigere Rolle des weiblichen Elements reflektiert, wobei allerdings zu beachten ist, dass solche Namen nicht immer feminin sein müssen.’104

  • 105 See the argument in Krebernik 1986, p. 166; Lisman 2013, p. 89 and 92-93, especially n. 371 for G. (...)

32M. Krebernik and J. Lisman note the special place occupied by Inana in this list (third position), not only to underline the more important role of the female element but also to show that the tradition to which this list is attached could come from the city of Uruk, or at least reflect the dominant position occupied by this city.105

  • 106 Edition in Krebernik 1986, p. 170-171. The section is followed by dnin-ĝeš-zi-da whose relationshi (...)
  • 107 On this reading of PEŠ2, see Krebernik 1984, p. 292, perhaps referring to uš-bar ‘weaver’.

33This dnin- section practically begins the list from i 11 to vii 14, just after the small section on Nisaba. M. Krebernik indicates that there are several small groups within this section whose organization is explained by other texts. Among these, he mentions the group of the ancestors of Enlil, who appear without their counterparts in den-. According to him, this attests to the seniority of SF 1 (VAT 12760 [P010566]) compared to the other god-lists of this time. The group that begins column iv is also interesting for the organization of the dnin- section and the evolution of the god-lists, since it contains divinities related to the field of incantations:106 2. dnin-piriĝ, 3. dnin-maš, 4. dnin-gilingi4-li2, 5. dnin-PEŠ2(ašbarx),107 6. dnin-ki-di. This section dedicated to the deities of magic is partly paralleled in the Urukean tradition, as well as at the end of the dnin- section of the MGL (cf. below §51-65).

  • 108 Concerning the IGL, Nisaba and her circle are absent or not preserved; it is therefore likely that (...)
  • 109 Mander 1986, p. 108-110: SF 23 = VAT 12573 [P010600] and SF 24 = VAT 12763 [P010602]. N. Veldhuis (...)

34A second observation concerns the order of appearance of the divinities: Nisaba and Nanibgal are followed by the dnin- section in SF 1, which corresponds to their order of appearance in the MGL. Even if the Nisaba section is a little more developed in the MGL, the succession is identical.108 It appears again at the end of SF 23/24: Inana, Nanibgal, followed by a section of twenty-five dnin-DNs (SF 23 vi 16ff.). These sections are preceded by the section of the pairs den/dnin, ‘ancestors’ of Enlil.109

  • 110 Instead of dNIN-niĝarĝar as in the IGL (A ii+ 4). On the reading of U.UD.KID, see Mittermayer 2006 (...)

35The position of NINniĝar in SF 1 14 (fourth name in dnin-) is noteworthy as well, since this divinity, written dNIN-e2-˹niĝar˺[ĝar],110 initiates the dnin- section in the MGL and occupies, in addition, in the IGL, an important organizational role which affords the transition between the figures of Ninisina and Inana:

  • 111 Richter 2004, p. 224 n. 954.

‘Zu Ninnigara im Kreis der Inana/Ištar oder als Inana/Ištar-Gestalt siehe Krecher 1966, p. 128-130. Allerdings ist zu beachten, dass ni9-gar in der Tempelhymnensammlung (Z. 388, siehe Sjöberg/Bergmann 1969, p. 39) ein Epitheton des Tempels der Ninisina in Isin ist [Three temples of Inana also bear this name: Šuruppak, Akkade and Zabalam, cf. RlA 9, p. 477]. Vielleicht hat man es hier mit einem weiteren Indiz für den Synkretismus zwischen Ninisina und Inana/Ištar zu tun. Auffällig ist, dass der Name dnin-ni9-gar-ra sich in An=Anum und der IGL, nicht jedoch in TCL 15, 10 findet. Da ni9-gar als Epitheton des Ninisina-Tempels in besonderer Weise auf die Heilgöttin als Herrin von Isin weist, unterstreicht das Vorkommen des Namens den lokalen Hintergrund der IGL ebenso wie er eine Herkunft der Liste TCL 15, 10 aus Isin unwahrscheinlich macht.’111

  • 112 Richter 2004, p. 222-223 inter alia; Ceccarelli 2009, p. 46 n. 93.

36T. Richter proposes to see in the first part of the dnin- section of the IGL (B ii 4-27) different figures/names of Ninisina. Since some of them refer to Inana/Ištar, they therefore reflect the syncretism between Ninisina and Inana/Ištar which, in Isin, already dates back to the 3rd millennium.112 However, it can be seen that, from an organizational point of view and despite the gaps, the divinities preceding NINniĝar (B ii 7) in the IGL relate only to the field of healing (dnin-kar-ra-ak, dnin-tin-ug5-ga, dnin-ti-la-ug5-ga B ii 4-6), while those following NINniĝar (B ii 7) may belong to the circle of both Ninisina and Inana/Ištar (dnin-šubur, dnin-igi-zi-bar-ra, dnin-ḫi-nun-na B ii 8, 14, 16), or even exclusively to Inana/Ištar (dnin-gir-gi4-lu, dnin-e2-gab2-ba, dnin-ib-gal, dnin-me-ur4-ur4, dnin-[(x)]-DAR-a, dnin-šen-šen-na, dnin-a-mu-un-KAS4 B ii 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21). dNIN-arali (B ii 27) may be an exception which would belong only to the circle of Ninisina, but which one finds twenty lines after NINniĝar.

  • 113 Mander 1986, p. 109.

37To return to SF 1, the position occupied by NINniĝar also seems important (see table 3): the divinities in dnin- that precede her are dnin-irigal2(UNUG), dnin-girimx, and dnin-gal (SF 1 i 11-13). The first two reflect the Urukean tradition (cf. below table 6), and Ningal is one of the main figures of the mother-goddess. NINniĝar is followed by dlama-nin-sumun2 (Ninsumun), who is also a prominent deity at that time. Furthermore, in SF 23/24,113 Inana and Nanibgal are followed by dnin-irigal2 (SF 23 vi 19 = dnin-UNUG of SF 1 i 11) and dnin-gal (SF 23 vi 20 = SF 1 i 13). NINniĝar is not attested/preserved there, in her place is a dnin-ni3-saĝ (SF 23 vi 21 and 24 i 3ʹ). This latter divinity appears just after NIN-e2-niĝar in the MGL (dnin-ni3-˹saĝ?˺ l. 63-64), again highlighting similarities between the MGL and these Fāra lists.

Table 3. Beginning of the dnin- section

SF 1 SF 23 vi MGL IAS 82 vii
3. dinana 17. |AN-MUŠ3| inana - (Transcription in

p. 484 §1)
9. dnisaba2 57. dnisaba
10. (d)nanibgal 18. nanibgal 59. d˹nisaba˺‑[gal]
11. dnin‑UNUG 19. nin‑irigal2
12. dnin‑girimx -
13. dnin‑gal 20. nin‑gal
14. dNIN‑niĝar - 63. dNIN‑e2‑˹niĝar˺[ĝar]
- 21. nin‑ni3‑saĝ 64. dnin‑ni3‑˹saĝ?˺
15. dnin‑sun2.LAMMA vii 1. ˹nin˺‑[…]
16. dnin‑LAK 358
17. dšara2
18. dnin-BARA2
19-28 …
ii 1-19 …
20. dNIN‑naĝar
21. dnin‑NAĜAR.AB
22. dnin-NAĜAR.BU SF 24 r. ii
23. d˹nin-mug˺ 2ʹ. nin‑azu 12ʹ. [d]˹BAḪAR˺
24. dnin‑˹ sigx˺ 3ʹ. nin‑sigx 65. dnin‑sigx 13ʹ. dnin-˹sigx˺
4ʹ. NIN‑naĝar 14ʹ. dnin-KA.SAR
15ʹ. dnin-˹ĜIŠ?˺.KA
  • 114 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 477.

38In other god-lists and offerings lists of this time, NINniĝar is always preceded by Nintinugga: ‘Die Nachbarschaft mit Nin-tin-uga legt es nahe, in N. eine Erscheinungsform der Heilgöttin zu sehen, was durch spätere Götterlisten bestätigt wird’.114 Thus, for example, in the IGL or in AA (V 135) she is identified with Ninisina/Ninkarrak. In SF 1, her association with the various ‘Urukean’ deities would reflect, on the one hand, her origin and, on the other hand, a probable link with a temple or a room of a temple of Inana at Uruk. However, her position between two deities of major importance at that time (Ningal and Ninsumun) raises the question whether she did not fulfil other functions. The definition of the Niĝar by M. Stol makes it possible to define better what the attributes of the ‘Lady of the Niĝar’ could be:

  • 115 ‘Die Verbindung zwischen ni9-ĝar u. Inanna wirft die Frage auf, ob ni9-ĝar wie ib ursprünglich ein (...)
  • 116 Gula and Ninḫursaĝa were also responsible for cutting the umbilical cord (see respectively OBO 259 (...)
  • 117 See also the translation of Civil 2011, p. 282: ‘to open the door for the fetus’.
  • 118 Stol and Wiggermann 2000, p. 29, followed by Krebernik RlA 10, p. 326, or Weiershäuser 2008, p. 15 (...)

‘The normal sumerian word for an unborn fœtus is nigin3 but it is never found outside the lexical texts. Temples of the goddesses Inanna and Ninisina sometimes have a chapel named Nigar115 […] and a passage in honour of Ninisina, goddess of medicine, links this room with birth: there, she “deals rightly with the afterbirth, she cuts the (umbilical) cord with a reed116, she determines the fate (of the child), she puts her hand on the door of the Nigar117, she makes the malformed birth come out (?)”. The Nigar is a metaphor of the womb. Th. Jacobsen has suggested that Nigar […] was a temple which served as a cemetery for still-born or premature babies and as a depository for afterbirths. We add that the birth goddess is associated with the god Pap-nigin3.gar.ra. In temples, there was a chapel “House of the nigingara”.’118

  • 119 See further M. Stol’s comments on the temple of the mother-goddess in the city of Keš: ‘Darkness c (...)
  • 120 Krebernik RlA 10, p. 325-326.
  • 121 Ceccarelli 2016, p. 23.

39This etymology for the sanctuary niĝar ‘place of the foetus’,119 the absence of nigin3 for foetus outside the lexical corpus, and the existence of the divinity Pa(p)niĝara120 associated with Nintur(a)—a figure of the mother-goddess—, thus suggest the possibility that niĝar comes from a popular etymology expressing a metaphor between a specific room of a goddess’ temple (niĝar) and the uterus. Since Nintur(a) serves as the deified personification of the uterus,121 her association with Pa(p)niĝara would reflect this metaphor.

  • 122 Krebernik RlA 8, p. 515 §7.5; see also Böck 2014, p. 30-34, and Rodin 2014, p. 195-196, 270.
  • 123 On the syncretism between Gula and Sud in the WeL, see Krebernik RlA 9, p. 455 §3.1.10, and OBO 25 (...)
  • 124 Krebernik RlA 8, p. 515 §7.1 and comments in §7.6.

40This NINniĝar thus has a link with the domain of birth. This is appropriate to her juxtaposition with Ninisina/Nintinugga, since ‘Die Heilgöttin […] ist als Ärztin auch für Schwangerschaft und Geburtshilfe zuständig’.122 Her place after Gula (151) and Sud (153) in the WeL (155) confirms this double aspect.123 On the relationship between NINniĝar and Inana/Ištar, an association of Inana/Ištar with birth is not unexpected, since, as one of the main female deities of the Sumerian pantheon, it is normal that her nature reflects the ‘classic’ female attributes. More precisely, her association with birth is reflected in the DN (d)AMA.dINANA (= amalū also designating a priestess), who would represent an ancient aspect of Inana as a mother-goddess,124 as well as in her association with fertility as the tutelary goddess of the city of Uruk:

  • 125 OBO 259, p. 44. For an opposite view on the nature of Inana, see the bibliography in OBO 259, p. 4 (...)

‘According to Gebhard Selz (1990, p. 16), functions of a city deity of either gender were the security of the city and its population and the fertility of the land. These identical functions (assimilation by similarity) give rise to the possibility of constructing syncretisms between various different city gods. A process of assimilation might explain Inana’s association with fertility.’125

  • 126 Farber-Flügge 1973, p. 109: 47; Bottéro and Kramer 1993, p. 233: 47-52.

In order to underline again the relationship uniting these two divinities, we can add that the ‘holy niĝar’ is one of the me which Enki entrusts to Inana/Ištar.126

  • 127 Cf. Mayer and Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 100 §8.3; on the translation gu2-ne ‘oven’, see Huber Vulliet(...)
  • 128 P. c. Fabienne Huber Vulliet.

41Finally, note that the association of NINniĝar with Ninnesaĝ in the MGL seems also to be the result of a secondary interpretation of the Sumerian term gu2-ne-saĝ-ĝa2 ‘Ort für Libationen’127. This room exists in every temple and is especially well documented in the Ekišnugal at Ur (of Nanna, of Ningal, of Nanna from Muriannabâ, of Alamuš), where the term can be translated as ‘sacristy’ when it refers to this room.128 The scribes seem thus to have associated a ‘Lady of the Niĝar’ with a ‘Lady of the (gu)Nesaĝ’.

42Regarding the context of the MGL, it was important to describe the different attributes which NINniĝar could receive, since the first part of the dnin- section in MGL (62-79) consists of deities which can be associated with the domain of birth, as shown in the next section. Here, the presentation of certain sections of god-lists and their parallels in the other lists may obscure the diversity of the associations and the richness of these lists (especially those of Ur III). However, within the limits of this section, this presentation serves above all to highlight the context of certain deities.

Organizational principles of lines 62-79 of the MGL

  • 129 On this myth, see lastly the edition in Ceccarelli 2016.

43We thus first need to explain the reasons for the restitution of Šuziana in line 62 of the MGL (preceding NINniĝar), as these testify to the intertextuality both among the god-lists and between them and other genres. First, Šuziana’s nursing status is an argument in favor of her juxtaposition with NINniĝar, and her presence in Enlil’s court is appropriate to the ‘context’, as in GeL 335 she is found five lines after dku3-su3, dindagara and dnin-sigx—the Nisaba section preceding them as in the MGL, since Kusu is here one of Nisaba’s names (AA I 298). Her position in TIM 9 86 seems at first less relevant, five lines separating her from dnin-sigx (cf. table 4 below). Nevertheless, the section of TIM 9 86 where Šuziana appears needs to be analyzed in more detail, because two divine groups known from other texts can be identified: the deities who will be associated with the seven sons of Enmešara in the later tradition and the ‘midwives’ of the myth Enki and Ninmaḫ (abbreviated EnNin).129

The deities associated with the seven children of Enmešara

  • 130 Lambert 2013, p. 214-215. On the seven sons of Enmešara who follow the ancestors of Enlil in AA, s (...)

44In his discussion of the groups of deities defeated by Ninurta or Marduk, W. G. Lambert mentions the seven sons of Enmešara from AA I 139-146 (AA I 146: imin-am3 dumumešden-me-šar2-ra-ke4) and notes that the divinities associated with them in the descriptive sections and in the rituals are also scattered in the enumeration of the court of Enlil in AA I and in the GeL:130

‘The tradition of these seven in the god-lists is not immediately reconcilable with the implications of the expository texts. In the lists, the seven are scattered over a big section, and no one could have guessed that they form a group of seven. The first two are specified as female, which is not grammatically impossible with the collective “sons”, though rebel gods, as Enmešarra’s sons were, would hardly have included divine Amazons. The female character of these two and Ninšar is confirmed by these being three of seven birth goddesses in Enki and Ninmaḫ, and the epithets assigned in O 175 and An=Anum to the first two clearly depend on the knowledge of this tradition.’

  • 131 Cf. n. 117.

45As can be observed in table 4, TIM 9 86 is the only OB god-list where six of the seven divinities later associated with Enmešara’s children appear together. The organization of this section depends therefore on the knowledge of this group of seven deities. Apart from Nuska, six of them are related to vegetation, growth, or birth (see also below) and are represented by heaps of flour in the lilissu ritual.131 In the same ritual, Nuska is standing in the middle, and, in An=Anum, he ends the enumeration, like a supervisor in an administrative text. Both places are thus appropriate with his function of vizier.

Table 4. Divinities associated with the seven children of Enmešara (in bold)

TIM 9 86 o. ii AA I 139-146 EnNin MGL NGL GeL AA I Enlil
[…] 139 Ninimma + =40 171 313 306
1ʹ. d˹nuska˺ 145 44 ≈169 (10′?) 131/135 252
2ʹ. dsa-taraḫ-nun‑na 45 11′ 136 257
3ʹ. dnin‑e2!‑gal 99 172? 201 IV 100
4ʹ. dšu‑zi‑an‑na 140 + 62? - 335 184
5ʹ. dnin‑ka‑si 144 - 103 332 336
6ʹ. den‑nu‑ug5‑gi 141 - - 324 318
7ʹ. dku3‑su3<<˹UD˺>> 142 41/58 - 328 298/324
8ʹ. d[nin]‑˹piriĝ(+)˺ x? 87 - 316 (186) 314 (III 141)
9ʹ. dnin‑sigx 143 x? 65 175 330 328
10ʹ. dnin‑˹maš˺ 86 170 - -
11ʹ. dnin‑mug + 78 174 - VI 21
12ʹ. dḫendur‑˹saĝĝa˺ - 88 - -
- Ninmada 73 49/89 - 346
  • 132 As emphasized by Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 482 §2, and by Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 281: 15 (...)

46As pointed out by W. G. Lambert, this group already figured in the Ur III great offerings list from Umma TCL 5 6053 (= AO 6053 [P131767], Šulgi.41.05.30). The context is not as clear as TIM 9 86, since the deities are scattered, but the end of column ii on the obverse and the beginning of column i on the reverse group different deities which belong to the entourage of Ninimma.132 In table 5 we compare TCL 5 6053 with passages from the reverse of MVN 10 144 (= BV 9 [P115914], Puzrīš-Dagan Ibbi-Suen.02.09.03), since the same group in which the place of Ninimma and Ninpiriĝ(+) is specified still appears.

Table 5. The seven children and the group of healing divinities in Ur III offering lists

MGL EnNin TCL 5 6053 (in bold the seven children) MVN 10 144
44 o. i 13. dnuska r. i 1
57 58 o. ii 10. dnisaba o. ii 11. dku3-su3 - r. ii 13
o. ii 12. den-da-˹gara2˺ r. ii 14a
o. ii 13. dšara2 -
65 +? o. ii 14. dnin-sigx r. ii 14b
o. ii 17. den-nu-gi4 r. ii 15 […]
73 + o. ii 21. dnin-ma-da -
62 + o. ii 22. dšu-zi-<an>-na -
46 o. ii 24. dpa-bil-saĝ r. i 25
o. ii 25. dnin-isin2(SI)-na r. i 26
87 +? o. ii 26. dnin-piriĝ r. i 29
o. ii 27. da-ba-ba r. i 30
o. ii 28. dlugal-eš3-sa2 -
33 o. ii 29. dnin-tur5 r. i 27
o. ii 30. dnin-ĝidru -
o. ii 31. dnin-me-an!-ki!(NA) -
r. i 1. dnin-ka-si r. i 9
99 r. i 2. dnin-e2-gal -
40 + r. i 3. dnin-im-ma r. i 28

The group of divinities assisting Nammu in the myth Enki and Ninmaḫ

  • 133 Ceccarelli 2016, p. 104.

47To return to TIM 9 86, one can ask why Ninpiriĝ(+) (8ʹ) was inserted between Kusu (7ʹ) and Ninsig (9ʹ), since Kusu and Ninsig belong to the seven children and their association goes back to the 3rd millennium (cf. table 5). Moreover, the separation of Ninpiriĝ(+) (8ʹ) and Ninmaš (10ʹ) is also unexpected since both are found together already in SF 1 iv 2-3 and later in incantations. Finally, according to other god-lists (Fāra lists, MGL, NGL, cf. above tables 3 and 4), Ninsig (9ʹ) and Ninmuga (11ʹ) should not have been separated by Ninmaš. It thus seems that a second organizational principle was applied, namely that of the birthing goddesses or midwives who assist Nammu in the myth Enki and Ninmaḫ. Since the passage has been interpreted in various ways, it is quoted here in full, following the edition by M. Ceccarelli [P259234]133:

  • 134 On the possible reading dmu2-mu2-du8, see Ceccarelli 2016, p. 164.
  • 135 On the different possible readings of this name, see Ceccarelli 2016, p. 164-165.

33. dnin-maḫ-e an-ta-zu ḫe2-AK-˹e˺
34. dnin-imma3dšu-zi-an-na dnin-ma-da / dnin-BARA2dnin-BARA2
35.dnin-mug dŠAR.ŠAR.GABA134 dNIN-˹x˺-na135
36. TU.TU-a-zu ḫa-ra-gub-bu-ne

  • 136 Lambert 1992, p. 130ff.; Lambert 2013, p. 336-337 and 506; Stol and Wiggermann 2000, p. 82; Rodin (...)
  • 137 Benito 1969, p. 58: 34; Bottéro and Kramer 1993, p. 190: 34; Wilcke 2007, p. 31; ETCSL 1.1.2.
  • 138 Jacobsen 1987, p. 156-157 n. 10; Römer 1993, p. 391: 34; Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 336 4; (...)
  • 139 Among all additions and dittographies in the corpus studied by Delnero 2012a, p. 25-60, which incl (...)
  • 140 See Lambert 2013, p. 504; Krebernik RlA 12, p. 88; Ceccarelli 2016, p. 21ff.; and Archi 2018. Sinc (...)
  • 141 Pryke 2016, p. 11.
  • 142 In the same myth, Ninmaḫ forms seven creatures, then Enki an eighth one (on this second part of th (...)

48The repetition of dnin-BARA2 in line 34 has been interpreted in different ways: some scholars see it as an error of the scribe and read either dnin-šara/šar6136 or dnin-b/para(g),137 while others propose to see two deities dnin-BARA2/b/parag/para10 and dnin-BARA2/šara/šar6.138 First, it should be noted that additions or dittographies of a full name are relatively rare in OB literary texts.139 Moreover, although seven deities corresponding to the seven šassūrātu (or kṯrt) would be expected,140 the presence of eight deities would not present a major problem. If Ninmaḫ, who performs ‘midwifing duties for Enki’s mother, Namma’,141 is added to these eight deities, the resulting total of nine deities could also be seen as appropriate.142

49In the context of the present discussion, the decision is largely secondary. It is more important to understand that the DN dnin-BARA2 in the myth of Enki and Ninmaḫ could refer either to Ninpiriĝ(+) and Ninsig. This helps to understand their different attributes. The organization of TIM 9 86 was thus based on the knowledge of two groups of divinities sharing similarities, which highlights the intertextuality of the god-lists and other textual genres, and that Ninsig (and to a lesser extent Ninpiriĝ(+)) could be associated with the field of birth.

50The majority of the deities of the first part of the dnin- section in the MGL are consequently organized according to their relationship to birth, vegetation, or the mother-goddess: Šuziana (62), dNIN-e2-niĝar (63), Ninnisaĝ (64), Ninsig (65), dnin-buluĝ3?-ĝa2 (66), dnin-DA-gal (67), Ninḫinuna (68), Ninguʾenna (69), dnin-E2.NUN-na (70), dnin-ša3?-gal-zu (71), dnin-MAR.KI (72), Ninmadra (73), dnin-ur2-sal4 (74), Ninmuga (78), Nintil (79). Interestingly, the connection of two deities with Ningal (68 and 70) recalls the organization of the Fāra lists, where Ningal precedes either NINniĝar in SF 1 or Ninnisaĝ in SF 23/24.

Inana/Ištar’s epithets (l. 80-83) and the deities linked to the magic realm (l. 83-105)

  • 143 See edition in Peterson 2009a, p. 93-94.

51The section of the MGL comprising lines 80-83 parallels GeL 213-215 (Inana/Ištar GeL 197ff. epithets section), except for dnin-e2-gab2-ba (MGL 81), which corresponds to GeL 233 (same section). To these epithets of Inana belongs also Ninarazu (MGL 76 = GeL 231). We note finally that dnin-gir-gi-lu (82 = GeL 214) is juxtaposed with dnin-e2-gab2-ba (81 = GeL 233) as in the IGL (A ii + 6 and 7). The association between dnin-e2-gab2-ba and dnin-ib-gal in the IGL (A ii+ 7 and 8) is also found at Nippur in a short dnin- section on the reverse of CBS 2182 + r. iʹ 4-5.143

  • 144 On this function, see Gabbay 2014, p. 103-114.

52At the end of this subsection of Inana/Ištar’s epithets in the MGL, the last entry, dnin-GABA (MGL 83 = GeL 215), enables a transition to the following subsection, which contains deities who play a role in incantations and/or are related to the realm of magic (83-88, 92?, 97, 101, 103-104). The main ones of which are found in the small section of SF 1 iv 2ff. (see above §33). Within this subsection, other types of associations are also at work, determined by the function (gu4-balaĝ144 94-95, 97), kinship (97-98; 90-91?, 104-105), same circle (88-89; 93?, 95, 97, 98; 99-100), or geography (Uruk 100-101) associated with these divine names.

The end of the dnin- section: Ninkur(a) and the Urukean tradition

  • 145 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 451.
  • 146 Walker and Dick 2001, p. 23 n. 68-69.
  • 147 See Löhnert 2010, p. 188.

53According to A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik,145 this deity appears in the MGL (106) under its masculine? aspect as the deity of artisans, an aspect also found in rituals146 and in AA II 362, where he is the husband of Uttu, the deity of weavers.147 Since the preceding DN Ninmur(u) (105) is also masculine, two male deities would have been classified at the very end of the list of the dnin- deities. The figure of Ninkur(a) is however more complex, as the name reflects different hypostases or different aspects of the same divinity. Moreover, its place at the end of the dnin- section, preceding the deities of the underworld, is consistent in OB god-lists. This again underscores the relationship between these lists. Following a brief review of the literature we will characterize its place in the god-lists.

Ninkur(a) outside the god-lists

  • 148 See respectively source A: 126-127, and source C: 1 in Attinger 1984, p. 18.
  • 149 Ambos 2004, p. 180ff., and Simons 2018, p. 133-134. Ninkur(a) is restored by Simons 2018, p. 131, (...)
  • 150 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 473 §6.
  • 151 Walker and Dick 2001, p. 60 n. 90, and Rendu-Loisel 2016, p. 209 n. 44.

54According to the myth Enki and Ninḫursaĝa, Ninsig is the progenitor of Ninkur(a), who will give birth either to Uttu or to Ninimma,148 who will in turn give birth to Uttu. In the same category of sources falls the narrative beginning of the ritual planned for the renovation of a sanctuary (enūma Anu ibnû šamê): Ninkur(a) is classified after three divine craftsmen, the last of whom is Ninzadim.149 The latter figure is in turn connected with Ninmuga. This association may have developed secondarily from one of the latter’s masculine aspects.150 Moreover, these craftsmen associated with Ninkur(a) are found in the mīs pî ritual, in which they belong to a sequence of nine deities belonging to fields such as birth, purification, and crafts, though Ninkur(a) there precedes the craftsmen.151

  • 152 Rodin 2014, p. 141.
  • 153 Katz 2003, p. 374ff.
  • 154 Katz 2003, p. 389 and 379 n. 46 for the argumentation.
  • 155 On the role of mater dolorosa, attributed to many goddesses during the OB period, see note 103. Mo (...)

55Ninkur(a) is otherwise attested in two elegies. In line 63 of the Elegy on the Death of Nawirtum, this deity is asked to stand by the side of the deceased.152 The context in the First Elegy of the Pushkin Museum153 is much more interesting. Ninkur(a) appears there after Nergal among the underworld divinities, where she is asked to adopt the deceased (93. su! bar-ra nin-kur-ra ḫe2-me-en arhus ḫu-mu-ra-an-TUKU.TUKU). Dina Katz suggests seeing Ninkur(a) as an early counterpart of Ereškigal, another spouse of Nergal, perhaps from a northern or Semitic pantheon.154 We observe in the next table and chapters that Ninkur(a) precedes a section of mourning (mother‑)goddesses155, followed by lugal-names in the three variants of the Urukean tradition. This place may thus weigh in favor of D. Katz’s suggestion, since Ereškigal was also regarded as one of the main wailing mothers (see below §58).

Table 6. End of the dnin- section in the Urukean tradition: edition of MVAG 21 Taf. 4 rev. and AUWE 23 154 r. iii

AA MGL UET 7 80 ii′ NGL MVAG 21 Taf. 4 r. ŠGL (Courtesy L. Hussein and M. Krebernik) AUWE 23 154 r. iii (new edition)
Beginning of a sequence of DNs in dnin- at the end of col. ii, which likely resumed in the lost upper part of col. iii (1′-4′ traces).
5′. [d]˹nin˺-[x]-˹x˺
V 33 104 - - 1. dnin-gi4-li2 6′. dnin-girimx!(ḪA.g!.KUD!.DU!)
II 157 26 - 13′. 2. dnin-IGI.NAĜAR.BU Gap 7′. dnin-gilin!?
I 353 101 4′. 14′. 3. dnin-girimx(ḪA.g.KUD.A.DU) A 4.01′. ˹dnin?˺[…] 8′. dnin-˹IGI˺.[NAĜAR.BU]
- 86 - 170 4. dnin-maš A 4.02′. ˹dnin?˺[…] 9′. dnin-maš
II 179 79 3′. 176 5. dnin-til3 A 4.03′. dnin?-[…] 10′. dnin-til3
II 362 106 - - 6. dnin-kur-ra A 4.04′. dnin‑kur‑˹ra˺ 11′. dnin-kur-ra
III 30 97 5′.! 21 7. dnin-gublaga - -
II 68 109+ - 158 8. d{NIN}?.ŠI.<<LU>>.GI - -
II 70 - - 196 9. dli9-si4 A 4.05′. dli9‑si4 12′. dli9-˹si4˺
II 71 88 - - 10. dnin-sikil-la A 4.06′. dnin‑sikil‑la 13′. dNE-sikil?-la
II 334-340 - - 73 11. dgibil6 - 14′.dgibil6 (NE.GI)
II 341 - - - 12. dnin-uri(m)xki-ma A 4.07′. dnin‑uri2ki‑gal
II 19 33 - 11 - A 4.08′. dnin‑tur5‑ra
- - - 77 13. dig-alim-ma A 4.09′. dig‑alim‑˹ma?!˺
- - - - 14. dšul-ša3-ga-ni A 4.10′.dšul‑ša3‑ga‑na
II 64 - - - 15. dli-lum A 4.12′. dlil2(E2)‑lum
II 109 - - - 16. dzar-za-ru-um A 4.13′. d˹x˺‑za‑zum 15′. d[zar]-˹za˺-ru-˹um˺
II 68 109+ - 158 - A 4.14′.˹d˺AŠ.KAM?.GI End of col. iii
II 62 - - - - A 4.15′. dpa5‑UD.UD.˹UD?˺‑ra
VI 1 - - - 17. dnergal! (KIŠ!.AB) End of tablet ŠGL continues with five DNs in dlugal-, of which some are names of Nergal in AA before a gap. The beginning of col. iv is broken, but the preserved lower part continues with DNs in dlugal-, of which some are names of Nergal in AA.

Organization of the section presented in table 6

  • 156 Ternary schemes are found in every type of list, and some also reveal that the empirical, even cas (...)

56Regarding the dnin- section, lost in the ŠGL, one can observe that, among the first five deities, three are related to the realm of magic: Ningilin, Ningirima, Ninmaš. The presence of Nin-IGI.NAĜAR.BU, the carpenter god, at the side of Ningirima is probably explained by the ternary organization of AUWE 23 154:156

  1. the names of the three divinities in lines 6ʹ-8ʹ consist of complex signs or compounds, and their order in this sequence could be secondary, since MVAG 21 Taf. 4 and YBC 7186 propose a different order; the association of Ningirima and Nin-IGI.NAĜAR.BU is also taken up in the NGL 13ʹ-14ʹ;
  2. lines 9ʹ-11ʹ comprise deities whose reading this time is simple (kur, maš, ti); a graphic principle organizes these six deities into dnin-, but some also have a connection with the field of magic;
  3. the divinities of lines 12ʹ-14ʹ all begin with NE.
  • 157 Cf. Mander 1986, p. 8 and 106. The association of Gibil and Lisin without Ninsikila figures also i (...)

57In MVAG 21 Taf. 4, Ningublaga, Gibil, even Ninsikila also belong to the same field of competence. The association in the group in lines 9-11 recalls the beginning of the WeL: 7-9 (Gibil, Lisin, Ninsikila). The originally acrographic association between Gibil and Lisin (as already attested in the archaic divine lists IAS 82 f. v 18-19 and IAS 46/53 3-4157) explains the scribal error in line 13ʹ of AUWE 23 154.

  • 158 For the pantheon of Adab during the 3rd millennium, see Such-Gutiérrez 2005/2006. During the OB pe (...)
  • 159 Katz 2003, p. 364-365.
  • 160 See Cavigneaux 2018, p. 98, based on a proposal by Selz 1997, p. 190 n. 72.
  • 161 Even if the presence of Ninirigala among these divinities probably finds its origin in the acrogra (...)

58The variant of the ŠGL in the second part of the section—after Ninkur(a)—is the most complete and the absence of Gibil makes the structure clearer. Ninkur(a), a deity with originally the same attributes as Ereškigal, the spouse of Nergal, ends a dnin- section and is followed by the female divinities Lisin, Ninirigala, and Nintur(a), who can be understood as figures of the mother-goddess. The list continues with the children of Babu and Ninḫursaĝa / Nin(/Diĝir)maḫ: Igalima, Šulšagana, Lil(u), Zarzarum, Ašgi. The section ends with dlugal- names (cf. below §66), probably part of a section devoted to the underworld according to MVAG 21 Taf. 4 and AUWE 23 154. Even if some deities of this section recall the pantheon of Adab (or Keš),158 the presence of Ninirigala (Uruk), Nintur(a), and that of Igalima, Šulgana, and Zarzarum (Girsu) imply instead that it is the theme of the mourning mother and the young dying god found in Sumerian literature which underlies this classification and explains the insertion of this small section between Ninkur(a) and a section on the underworld. Indeed, Lisin, who starts the enumeration in the three variants, can be considered as one of the main figures of the weeping mother, alongside Ninḫursaĝa, Ereškigal, and Duttur.159 Moreover, since Igalima’s task as a gate-god was to serve as an intermediary between the human and the divine world,160 one can assume that he also played a transitional role in our section between the world of the living and the world of the dead, while recalling that he is already found in Nergal’s circle in the NGL.161 The position of Lisin and Igalima testifies thus that our section was built around the theme of the mourning mother and the young dying god, a thematic analogous to the MGL where Ninkur(a) at the end of the dnin- section is followed by Šulpaʾe, the husband of the (mourning) mother-goddess, and Dumuzi, the young dying god par excellence.

Ninkur(a) at the end of the dnin- section

  • 162 For Šulpaʾe, see Krebernik RlA 8, p. 508 §4.2.5, and Delnero RlA 13, p. 284ff. (add Owen 2013, p.  (...)

59Within the MGL, Ninkur(a) precedes Šulpaʾe, Amaʾarazu, and Dumuzi, where TH 80.112 ends. As Šulpaʾe is the husband of the mother-goddess and Dumuzi the young dying god in Sumerian literature,162 one may suggest that these deities represent or were followed by a section of mourning (mother‑)goddesses in the MGL. Moreover, a section of the IGL permits a link between this ending of the dnin- section in the MGL and the one in the Urukean tradition, in addition to the presence of Ninkur(a).

  • 163 Wilcke 2018, p. 219.

60In the IGL (A iii 5), Ninkur(a) appears near the end of the dnin- section. The last name in dnin- is found seven lines later (IGL A iii 12), followed by a gap of about 13 lines before the first dlugal- names and the name of Nergal, a section of about 25 lines in total (see below §66). Consequently, there is again a gap of about 25 lines, followed by a section (B v 2-4) containing part of the pantheon of Adab: 2. Šulpaʾe, 3. Barauleĝara, 4. Ašgi. As we have observed, there is a close relationship between this pantheon and the mourning (mother‑)goddesses. The extract of the IGL is unfortunately poorly preserved, but thanks to the copy of C. Wilcke163 and to the parallels, Lil(um) and, probably, ddumu-˹zi?˺ can be restored in lines 5 and 8, respectively, since the latter does not otherwise appear in the preserved sections of the IGL. Alternatively, Dumuzi could be restored in the gaps between the dnin- section and the dlugal- section. Although the restoration of Dumuzi is uncertain, this passage of the IGL suggests that the presence of Šulpaʾe after Ninkur(a) in the MGL can only be explained through the knowledge of the Urukean tradition, where Ninkur(a) precedes a section on the mourning (mother‑)goddesses.

  • 164 Krebernik RlA 8, p. 365 §3.2.
  • 165 See the comments in Richter 2004, p. 317-318.
  • 166 One of the two sheperds of Enlil (AA I 350), see Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 327; Peterson (...)
  • 167 On the etymology see Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 313, and Peterson 2016, p. 38 12′ ‘the eptithet a-ra- (...)

61Finally, the presence of Amaʾarazu in the MGL has yet to be explained. In the WeL, she is the daughter of Sîn (and Ningal) together with her sister, ama-ra-ḫe2-aĝ2-a, later written amar-ra-ḫe2-e3-a in AA III 142.164 This Sîn section is followed by Inana and Dumuzi.165 In the GeL, she does not appear with her sister (166) in the moon god’s section, but would be in line 307 (dama-a-˹ra?-zu?˺ [P345354]), after her daughter dnin-amaš-ku3-ga (305, MGL 90).166 The MGL thus contains no direct theological implication in her classification and one can suggest that the meaning of her name ‘Mother supplication’ has been favored over her family’s connections in the choice of her place between Šulpaʾe and Dumuzi, an explanation fitting the highlighted context of the weeping mothers.167

The attributes of Ninkur(a) in the god-lists

  • 168 nin kur-ra ‘lady of the netherworld’ is found as an epithet of Nungal in an incantation (Cavigneau (...)

62Katz’s proposal to see in Ninkur(a) an early consort of Nergal is therefore supported by her place in the OB god-lists, since the large section following the dnin- section in the Urukean tradition and in the MGL is that of the deities going—as dying gods—or belonging to the underworld (just as in the IGL, to a lesser extent). The presence of kur in Ninkur(a) naturally also plays a role in this classification.168 It is thus conceivable that Ninkur(a) is still considered in the Urukean tradition as a female deity with attributes of the (mourning) mother-goddess, as attested in the literature, as well as with a link to the realm of magic, according to the OB lists of Mari and Uruk.

  • 169 Edition of SF 5/6 in Krebernik 1986, p. 189-190. SF 5 = VAT 12626 [P010570]; SF 6 = VAT 12644 [P01 (...)
  • 170 Kraus 1951, p. 64, taken up by Richter 2004, p. 112.
  • 171 The arguments of Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 246-248, have been summarized by Asher-Greve and Goodnick (...)
  • 172 Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 246.

63Moreover, in the MGL, the association with Ninmur(u) also appears to be based on gender and on phonetics. All these different aspects (birth, underworld, magic), combined with the indeterminate gender (female/male), contribute to the complex nature of this deity. Another tradition exists for Ninkur(a), which underscores this complexity. In the list of fish-eating deities (SF 5/6), Ninkur(a) stands between DIĜIR.TAB and dgu2-la2 (SF 5A ii 3-5).169 The first deity is difficult to interpret, perhaps ‘companion deity’. More interesting is the presence of dgu2-la2. If we follow the identification of Fritz Kraus,170 for SF 1 ix 25, where gu2-la2 = gu-la, this divinity is identical to Gula. This identification can therefore be considered as an indication that Ninkur(a) may also be associated with the healing field. However, M. Such-Gutiérrez posits that the two divinities dgu2-la2 and dgu-la were still distinct in the 3rd millennium.171 Even if the original character of dgu2-la2 should remain unknown, the syncretism between the two Gulas would already have been effected by the OB period.172

  • 173 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 451 §3.
  • 174 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 451 §4.
  • 175 Charpin 1990, p. 257 n. 8.

64The context is again different when one takes into account the last attestation of Ninkur(a) in a god-list. Indeed, the name still appears at the end of the Ugarit version of the WeL (table 7). The only attestation of Ninkur(a) in the WeL would therefore be at the very end of the Ugarit version, preceding a local deity. Due to the other deities present at the end of this version of the WeL, she would have been considered a deity associated with Inana/Ištar. This figure of Ninkur(a) would still correspond to that of the passage of a 1st millennium god-list: ‘In CT 25, 30 K 2109 Rs. I 5ʹ scheint Nin-kur(a) mit der Muttergöttin und Ištar gleichgesetzt zu sein: dnin-kur = ˹MIN˺ [(MIN?)]’.173 Since it is only in Ugarit that she is attested in the WeL, a connection should also be envisaged between this figure of Ninkur(a) and the figure of Ninkur(a), which plays an important role in Emar in the MB period.174 There, she is identified with Bēlet mātim, also attested under the name of Ninkalam.175 Ninkur(a) would therefore represent a local addition to the WeL tradition of an important western goddess on behalf of the Ugaritic scribes.

Table 7. End of the WeL.

Nougayrol 1968, p. 222-225 VAT 7759 r. iii Weidner 1924/1925, p. 5 EA 374 [P270865] r. iii Readings proposed by the DCCLT; the passage is very damaged UM 29-16-636+ Transcription from Peterson 2008, p. 47
229. dnin-KU7 - 3′. dnin-KU7 -
230. dnin-igi-zi-bar-ra 3. dnin-igi-zi-bar-ra 4′. ˹dnin-ki-zi-bar-ra˺ 11′. dnin-˹ki˺-zi-bar-˹ra˺
4. dLUM-˹ma?˺ - -
231.dGUL-la2 - - 12′. dGUL!-˹la3˺
5. dnin-˹GUL˺-[(x)] 5′. ˹dnin-GUL-la2˺ 13′. dnin-˹GUL?!˺-na?
232.dnin-BAD3 End of the list […] End of the list
233. dnin-kur    
  • 176 In discussing occasional deification, Hundley 2013, p. 8, underlines that ‘the label and the inter (...)

65The deity Ninkur(a) thus provides one of the best examples of the fluidity of the divine essence of the dnin- DNs. The deity can be linked to many fields of competence (birth, magic, healing, love/sexuality) and become a male deity (crafting). The vast geographical space in which it evolves certainly plays an important role in this variety of characteristics.176

The underworld deities: MGL 109+

66As shown in §56-58, a section of underworld deities follows a dnin- section (more specifically dnin- DNs related to the field of magic) in the Urukean tradition. This organization is also common to the IGL and MGL:

  1. The end of the dnin- section is lost in the IGL, but the enumeration of epithets of Nergal (DNs in dlugal-, section of about twenty-eight lines) follows a fourteen-line gap after the last dnin- DN.177
  1. A similar section should also follow the dnin- section in the MGL, since Dumuzi is mentioned right after this section, where unfortunately TH 80.112 ends. Five fragments with dlugal- DNs were discovered in ‘Chantier K’, (TH99-105, TH99-114a-b, TH99-T114e, TH99-T169b and probably TH99-T053b). The archaeological context of the discoveries of ‘Chantier K’178 and the similarities already underlined with the other god-lists enable us to assert that this section was not very far removed from Dumuzi in the MGL.

The macrostructure of the lines 57-109 in the MGL: The cycle of life

  • 179 Regarding the so-called ‘structural inconsistencies’ in lexical lists, see Scheucher 2012, p. 43-4 (...)

67In the previous sections, different group of deities could be defined according to their main attributes. This leads us to an interpretation of the hierarchization of these different groups. This again requires a certain degree of schematization, since many associations are the result of ‘attractive insertions’ (by homophony, by acrography, by circle, etc.), which tend to interrupt the thematic continuity of a given section.179

  • 180 That the members of the Nisaba group are primarily regarded as grain deities is shown by their jux (...)

68With these stipulations in mind, the analysis of the different deities leads to the identification of the following groups: 57-61 circle of Nisaba or grain deities;180 62-79 goddesses associated with birth, creation or growing; 80-83 epithets of Inana/Ištar; 84-106 deities linked to the realm of magic; 107+ deities related to death or the underworld. Each of these groups could embody a specific stage of the life cycle:

  • the grain deities would represent the beginning of all life or what makes life possible;
  • the birth goddesses represent the beginning of human life;
  • Inana/Ištar’s epithets are identified with love and procreation, but also war (and military age/service); they could thus stand for the middle of life;
  • the deities related to purification or magic reflect knowledge or wisdom; they are the experts (ummânu) and as such portray maturity or even old-age;
  • the underworld divinities represent the end of life;
  • 181 Vanstiphout 2009, p. 25. To a lesser extent, this principle in the form of a ‘bow’ is found in the (...)

69Although this organizational principle is often interrupted, especially at lines 75-79 and 90-100, the fact that NINniĝar (niĝar ‘the foetus’) and Ninkur (kur here ‘the world of the dead’) respectively begins and concludes the dnin- section is no coincidence and provides a strong argument in favor of this interpretation. This principle is also not unexcepted, since the conception of time as a circle ‘underlies the Babylonian philosophy of (political) history, as can be seen, e.g., in the Sumerian King List and in the conclusion to the “Historical” Lamentations’.181

Conclusions: the tradition of Old Babylonian god-lists and their reorganization through the prism of dnin- sections

70With respect to the transmission of knowledge, the analysis of the association of Ninkur(a) with the mourning (mother‑)goddesses and the young dying god section highlights the existence of a relationship between Uruk and Šaduppûm. A likely connection can also be drawn with the MGL and the IGL as shown in §59-61 and 66. While the gaps in the following section (dlugal- DNs) prevent us from seeing how far the parallel extends, MVAG 21 clearly shows that the structure of this section of the ŠGL comes from Uruk. It cannot simply be considered as an assemblage of deities belonging to the same circle or field of competence, as is the case, for example, with the section of mother-goddesses, which can be found in many god-lists.

71This common knowledge can also be seen in the parallels between the MGL and the GeL, which are based more on similarities of the microstructures between them than on the macrostructure. The best example is the Nisaba section, where Kusu-Indagara is followed by Ninsig, attested already in the Ur III offering lists. Furthermore, the similarity in the macrostructure of the MGL and the IGL, even with the Urukean tradition, makes it difficult to speak of a strict ‘independence’ of the IGL. In particular, the beginning of the MGL is characterized by an almost identical order of appearance of the different groups of divinities (inversion of the circle of Enki and that of the mother-goddesses, but with an identical order of DNs in Enki’s group). To this tradition can also be related the beginning of CUSAS 12 8.6.8, even if the beginning has been shortened: the succession seems to adopt the one described for the IGL and the MGL. This tradition is therefore probably attested in at least three different sites. Although the beginning of the Urukean tradition has not reached us, the relevant section of the deities of magic, followed by wailing mothers and by names of Nergal, links this tradition to that of the preceding ones. Furthermore, even if the divinities of the healing section are separated from the dnin- section in the MGL, NINniĝar also plays a transitional role in the IGL. This position of NINniĝar in the MGL seems to find its origin in the classification of SF 1, while another tradition associates it with the healing goddesses (SF 5/6, AA). The IGL unites precisely these two traditions. The positions of Nisaba and Nanibgal preceding the dnin- section in the MGL and the presence of Ninnisaĝ recall the order of the lists of Fāra (SF 1 and SF 23/24), underlining the conservatism of the tradition reflected in the MGL. Other antiquarian elements are:

  • Enmešara’s position outside the list of Enlil’s ancestors;
  • the classification of Ninšubur in the mother-goddesses section;
  • the placement of Ninsig within the dnin- section, but approaching Enlil’s court;
  • the presence of dnin-E2.NUN-na, a DN found only in an Ur III lentil tablet;
  • the deities linked to Ningal following NINniĝar and Ninnesaĝ;
  • the presence of Ninduba, which provides one of only two OB attestations—the other is UET 7 80, a tablet which also includes a list of GNs paralleled in an archaic list;
  • the absence of Lisin at Ninsikila’s side;
  • the existence of a section devoted to the deities of the field of magic as in SF 1, but much more developed thanks to other types of associations, perhaps drawing inspiration from the Urukean tradition;
  • the classification of the section of underworld deities after the dnin- section.
  • 182 Taylor 2008, Veldhuis 2010 and Veldhuis 2014, p. 60-102, p. 128-129, with an exhaustive synthesis o (...)

72From these different sets of data, it is possible to imagine a common origin of the MGL and the IGL, which is also reflected in the GeL. The existence of the list UET 7 80 at Ur provides further proof that the tradition of Fāra lists was still alive during the OB period.182

  • 183 The obverses of CUSAS 12 8.6.8, 2.2.1 and 3.1.9 share exactly the same characteristics. Civil 2010, (...)

73Obviously, each of these lists has its own characteristics. The structure of the NGL after line 44 or the structure we can infer from TIM 9 86 or CUSAS 12 8.6.8 reveal other interesting traditions. For example, the presence of Babu-Ninĝirsu and their children at the beginning of CUSAS 12 8.6.8 before Enki-Damgalnuna suggests that this god-list, or at least the relevant tradition, should come not too far from OB Girsu.183

  • 184 Regarding the case of the 3rd millennium god-lists, see Rubio 2011, p. 109.

74At Isin, the scribes reorganized the beginning of the dnin- section following NINniĝar to keep only the names/figures of Inana/Ištar and/or Ninisina (cf. above §36 for the nuance) in order to highlight the local pantheon and the syncretism between Ninisina and Inana/Ištar, as argued by C. Wilcke and T. Richter. The same kind of operation was carried out in the NGL, where the scribes grouped in lines 169-180 all the minor dnin- deities who did not have an immediate connection with Inana/Ištar or Ninisina. These deities were not even retained by the scribes who conceived the NGL (compare the section of the Inana/Ištar epithets in GeL 197ff.). Their importance seems to be due to their belonging partly to the group of deities later equated with the seven sons of Enmešara. This group of seven in TIM 9 86 and the place of Ninkur(a) also highlight the interconnection between OB god-lists and other genres of texts and illustrate their Sitz im Leben in the world of the literati, as was already the case for 3rd millennium god-lists.184

  • 185 Michalowski 2002; Stol 2016, p. 59.
  • 186 See, among others, Bottéro 1974, p. 143, on divinatory practices or Gantzert 2011, p. 3 and p. 66-7 (...)
  • 187 This change also corresponds to the tendency of Mesopotamians to worship a deity as if it were the (...)
  • 188 The distinction made by Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 307, between the panthea of the 3rd and 2nd millenni (...)
  • 189 ‘Von Soden (1985a, p. 9) placed the beginning of the syncretistic reductionism at the hands of the (...)

75This relationship among the god-lists leads to a renewed examination of the reasons for the reorganization of the dnin- section. The decline of the goddesses relative to the gods is certainly one of these reasons. It should be noted, however, that the male gods already occupied the summit of the Sumerian pantheon in the 3rd millennium.185 Thus, the analysis of the local Mesopotamian pantheons should also take into account the break in the ancient Mesopotamian system of knowledge which began at the beginning of the 2nd millennium, at the latest,186 with the establishment of an educational system aimed at preserving the Sumerian heritage through teaching. This is especially true for the god-lists, as the curriculum was intended for members of the clergy, as for example at Sippar, Ur, and Uruk. As social processes, the disappearance or decline of certain cities and the appearance of a ‘semi-state’ (semi-étatique) society, where the family god as well as the tutelary gods of the great kingdoms gained in importance,187 certainly influenced the pantheon at the beginning of the 2nd millennium.188 However, the image given to us by the OB god-lists also derives from a strategy of simplification (‘rationalization’?) in order to perpetuate certain traditions, as the lack of uniquely identifying characteristics of many deities precluded the maintenance of their own individual status within the pantheon. While the other lexical lists were subject to the process of standardization during the MB period, the stability of the WeL as well as the appearance of An=anum in an almost complete state at that time attest to the conservation of the Sumerian heritage, first carried out on the theological level.189

Annex A. New edition of TH 80.112 with parallels from Chantier K

TH 80.112 r. i-iv TH99-T578 o.? i An=Anum References (D for Annex D; T. for Table)
  1. [(...)] an I 1 §16-18; T. 1, 2
1. d˹en˺-[lil2] 2. [d]˹en-lil2˺ I 148 §16-18; T. 1, 2
2. d˹nin˺-[lil2] 3. d˹nin-lil2˺ I 176 §16-18; T. 1, 2
3. den-[ki] 4. [d]˹en˺-ki I 96 D dnin-buluĝ3?-ga; T. 1, 2
4. dnin-[ki] 5. [dnin]-˹ki˺ I 97 D dnin-DA-gal; T. 1, 2
5. den-[kur?] 6. [den]-˹buluĝ3˺ I 120 | 108 D ‘Ancestors’; T. 1, 2
6. dnin-˹kur?˺ 7. [dnin-buluĝ3] I 121 | 109 D ‘Ancestors’, dnin-buluĝ3?-ga; T. 1, 2
7. den-šar2 8. [den]-˹šar2˺ I 116 §16-18; T. 1, 2
8. ˹dnin˺-šar2 9. [dnin]-˹šar2˺ I 117 §16-18; D dnin-BARA2 n. 1; T. 1, 2
9. [d]˹en˺-gereš 10. [den]-gereš I 114 D ‘Ancestors’; T. 1, 2
10. [dnin]-gereš 11. [dnin]-˹gereš˺ I 115 D ‘Ancestors’; T. 1, 2
11. [den]-mul 12. ˹d˺[en]-˹mul?˺ I 100 T. 1, 2
12. [dnin]-˹mul˺ 13. ˹d˺[nin]-˹mul?˺ I 101 T. 1, 2
12b. dnin [(...)]     Mechanical repetition from the scribe (?)
13. den-[ul] 14. ˹den-ul?˺ I 98 T. 1, 2
14. ˹dnin˺-ul 15. d˹nin˺-ul I 99 T. 1, 2
15. den-da-šurum-ma 16. d˹en˺-[da]-˹šurum˺-ma I 132 T. 1, 2
16. d˹nin˺-da-šurum-ma 17. d˹nin˺-[da-]˹šurum˺-ma I 133 T. 1, 2
17. den-du6-ku3-ga 18. [den-du6-ku3]-˹ga?˺ I 134 T. 1, 2
18. dnin-du6-ku3-ga TH00-T179a o.? I 135 T. 1, 2
19. d˹en˺ ama a-a den-lil2-la2 9′. d˹en ama!? a-a˺ d˹en˺-[lil2-la2] I 138 T. 1, 2
20. dnin ama a-a den-lil2-la2 10′. ˹dnin ama!? a-a d˹en˺-[lil2-la2]   T. 1, 2
21. den-me-šar2-ra 11′. [den]-˹me-šar2?˺-[ra] I 136 §16-18; D ‘Ancestors’; T. 1, 2
22. dnin-me-šar2-ra [...] I 137 §16-18; D ‘Ancestors’; T. 1, 2
23. den!-ki   II 129 §17-18, 40, 43-44, 47-49, 54, 71, 73; D Lisin, dnin-IGI.NAĜAR.BU, Nintil; n. 70, 142; T. 1, 2
24. d˹en˺-lil2!-˹ban3-da?˺   II 134 §16-18; T. 1
25. dnu!(NIN)-dim2?-mud ˹x˺   II 133  
26. d˹nin˺-˹IGI.NAĜAR.BU?˺   II 157 §56; D dnin-IGI.NAĜAR.BU; T. 6
27. [...]      
28. dsin3   III 2 §16-18, 61; D dnin-[(x)]-DAR-a; n. 70; T. 1, 2
29. d˹nanna˺   III 1 §14, 41; D dnin-DA-gal, Ningal, Ningublaga; T. 1
30. d˹im2˺-babbar2   III 26  
31. dnin-gal TH00-T127a o. ii′ III 27 §23, 37-38, 41, 50, 61, 71; D dnin-DA-gal, Ninirigala, Ningal, Ninnisaĝ; T. 1, 2, 3
32. ˹dnin-ḫur˺-saĝ-ĝa2 1. ˹dnin˺-ḫur-˹saĝ?-ĝa2˺ II 3 §4, 18, 23, 54, 58; D Ašgi, Lisin, dnin-BARA2 1, Ninḫursaĝa, Nintil; n. 86, 116, 142; T. 1
33. d˹nin˺-tur5 2. ˹dnin-tur5˺ II 19 §23, 39, 58; D Lisin, dnin-BARA2 2, Nuska; n. 140; T. 1, 5
34. [...] ˹x˺ 3. ˹dnin-šubur˺ I 41/42/45 §19-23, 36, 71; T. 1
35. [...] ˹x˺ 4. [d]˹a-ru?-ru˺ II 25 D Ašgi; n. 158; T. 1
36. [...] ˹x˺      
37. [d]nin-[urta]   I 227 §24, 44; D Igalima, Ninimma; n. 88
38. dza-˹ba4˺-[ba4]   V 49 D dnin-BARA2 n. 19
39. dnin-ĝir2-su   V 56 §15, 24, 73; D Igalima, Lisin, Ningal, Ninimma, Zarzarum; T. 2
40. dnamma! (LAGAB!×A)   I 306 §46-48, 54; D E/Indagara c, dnin-BARA2, Ninegalla 2, Ninimma, Ninnisaĝ, Ninmadra; n. 194; T. 4, 5
41. dku-us2   I 324 D Kusu
42. dšudu3--ku3   I 327 D Kusu
43. ˹d x˺ LU/ZU?      
44. dnuska   I 252 §45; D Ninegalla, Nuska; T. 4, 5
45. ˹d˺sa-taraḫ-nun-na TH99-T578 o.? ii I 257 D Nuska; T. 4
46. dpa-bil-˹ḪUR?˺-saĝ 1. dpa-˹bil-saĝ˺ V 125 §24-26; D Damu; n. 108; T. 5
47.˹d˺nin-tin-ug5-ga 2. d˹nin-tin?-ug5?-ga?˺ V 117 §21, 24-25, 27, 38, 40; D Damu, Gunura, Ninkarrak, Nintinugga, Šumaḫ
48. dma-zi-a-at §27; D Maziat
49. dma-˹mu2˺ III 149 §27; D Mamud
50. d˹saĝšakkan(6?)˺ III 191ff. §27; D Šakkan
3. d˹nin-in-si-na˺ V 128 §21, 35-36, 38, 40, 74; D Damu, Gunura, NINarali, Ninigizibara, Ningirgilu, Ninkarrak, Ninnisaĝ, Nintinugga, Šumaḫ; n. 108; T. 5
4. d˹nin-kar-ra?-ak˺ V 129 §38; D Ninkarrak, Ninnisaĝ, Nintinugga
5. d˹gu˺-[(...)]-˹la˺ V 55/137 §24, 40, 63; D Damu, Gunura, dnin-buluĝ3?-ga, dnin-DA-gal, Ninigizibara, Ninimma, Ninkarrak, Nintinugga, Nuska; n. 115, 116, 123, 171
6. ˹dda˺-[(...)]-˹mu˺ V 165 §26, 28; D Damu, Gunura
7. ˹dnin-ĝeš-zi-da?˺ V 250 §15, 26, 28; D Lugalšudde, Ninĝišzida; n. 106
8. ˹dia?-zi-mu2!-a˺ V 252 §28; D Azimua
9. ˹dnin?-TUG2?˺ {...}? [...]
51. dal-la2 10. dal-[la(2)] V 263? §26-27; D Gunura
52. dlugal!(LU2)-šušud3!-˹de3!˺ 11. dlugal-˹KA˺-[NE] V 265 §26; D Lugalšudde
53. dgu-ur5!-an-na 12. dgu-nu-˹ra?˺ 53: V126/196 ? §26; D Damu, Gunura, dgu-ur5!-an-na
13. dšu-[maḫ] V 174 §26; D Šumaḫ
Fin de l’exercice
54. dadamin(x)! III 211... D Ninmur(u)
55. ˹dmur!˺ III 207 D Ninmur(u)
56. dme-˹dim2-sag9˺ III 241
57. d˹nisaba˺ I 294 §27, 33-34, 43, 68, 71; D E/Indagara b, Kusu, Ningirima, Nisaba, Nisaba-gal, dšu-ĜAR-DUR2-na; n. 98, 103, 108, 177, 180; T. 3, 5
58. dku3-su3 I 298 §43, 47, 71; D E/Indagara, Kusu, Lisin, Ningirima, Ninpiriĝ(+), Nisaba; n. 10, 180; T. 4, 5
59. d˹nisaba˺-[gal] I 321 D Nisaba-gal; T. 3
60. dḫa-˹ia3˺ I 293 D Kusu, Nisaba; n. 8
61. d˹ezinam3!˺ I 288 D Šuziana
62. dzi-šu-˹an?˺-[na?] I 184? §43-50; D dnin-BARA2, Nuska, Šuziana; T. 4, 5
63. dNIN-e2-˹niĝar˺[ĝar] V 135 §31-43, 50, 69, 71, 74; D dnin-buluĝ3?-ga, Ninkarrak, dNIN-naĝar, Ninnisaĝ; n. 110, 115; T. 3
64. dnin-ni3-˹saĝ˺ V 92? §50, 71; D Ninnisaĝ
65. dnin-sigx I 328 §47, 49-50, 54, 71; D E/Indagara, Lisin, Ninazu, dnin-BARA2, dnin-buluĝ3?-ga, Ninduba, Ninimma, Ninmadra, Ninmuga, dNIN-naĝar, Ninnisaĝ, Nintil, Šara; T. 3, 4, 5
66. dnin-buluĝ3?-ĝa2 TH99-T94 o. iiʹ (r. to l.) §50; D dnin-buluĝ3?-ga
67. dnin-DA-gal 1-11 traces V 186? §50; D dnin-DA-gal
68. dnin-ḫi-nun-na V 187 §36, 50; D dnin-DA-gal
69. [d]˹nin˺-gu2-˹en˺-na II 14/V 65 §50; D dnin-DA-gal
70. dnin-E2?.NUN-na §50, 71; D dnin-DA-gal
71. dnin-˹ša3?˺-gal-˹zu˺ (≈II 29?) §50; D dnin-DA-gal
72. dnin-MAR.KI III 70 §50; Ninmadra
73. dnin-ma-˹da/ra?˺ III 71/I 348 (≅ 346) §50; D dnin-BARA2, Ninduba, Ninegalla, Ninmadra, Ninnisaĝ; T. 4, 5
74. dnin-˹ur2˺-sal4 I 26 §50; D dnin-ur2-sal4
75. dnin-˹dub˺ §50, 71; D Ninduba, Ninmadra, dnin-ur2-sal4
76. dnin-a-ra-zu IV 43 §51; D Nintil
77. dnin-UR-gi-na Not attested: see the suggestion for gin6 on DCCLT
78. dnin-mug 12. ˹d˺[nin]-˹mug˺ VI 21 §50, 54; D Ḫendursaĝa, NINarali, Ninmaš, Ninmuga, Nintil; T. 3, 4
79. dnin-til3 13. ˹d˺[nin]-˹til3?˺ II 179 D Ninduba, Nintil; T. 6
80. dnin-e2!(MA)-MUŠ3.A 14. ˹dnin-e2?-x.A˺ IV 24 §51-52; D Nintil
81. dnin-e2-gab2-ba 15. [d]˹nin-e2-gab2?-ba˺ [IV...?] §36, 51-52
82. dnin-˹gir˺-gi-lu 16. ˹dnin-gir-gi4?˺-lu IV 26 §36, 51-52; D Ningirgilu
83. dnin-GABA 17. [d]˹nin˺-GABA [IV...?] §51-52; D dnin-GABA
84. dnin-KA-gi-na 18. [d]˹nin-x-gi?˺-na (IV 28 dnin-KA-imin) D dnin-GABA
85. dnin-su3-ud-aĝ2!? 19. [dnin]-˹BU?˺-[…]-˹x˺ D Ninsudaĝ
86. dnin-maš […] §33, 47, 56; D Ḫendursaĝa, Ninmaš, Ninpiriĝ(+), Ninsudaĝ; T. 4, 6
87. dnin-piriĝ+!   I 314 (III 141?) §33, 46-49; D dnin-BARA2, Ninpiriĝ(+); T. 4, 5
88. dnin-sikil   II 71 §57, 71; D Gibil, Lisin; n. 157; T. 6
89. dnin.KA.UŠ.limmu2   (IV 29 dnin-KA-limmu2) D Lisin
90. dnin-˹amaš-ku3-ga˺ GeL 305 I 350 §61; D dnin-[(x)]-DAR-a; n. 166
91. dnin-˹KA?˺   I 352? n. 166
92. d˹nin-lamma?-ka3˺ GeL 308 dkal-kal (I 281) or I 279(dlamma-ka3-ka3)?  
93. [dnin-(x)]-˹DAR?˺-a   III 65 (or IV 27) D dnin-[(x)]-DAR-a
94. d˹nin˺-igi-zi!-bar-ra   IV 73 §36; D dnin-[(x)]-DAR-a, Ninigizibara; T. 7
95. dnin-da-gal-zu   III 59 D dnin-DA-gal
96. dnin-ĝa2-edin? GeL 236 dnin-gu2-edin-na ? [IV 48?]  
97. dnin-gublaga-   III 30 §57; D Ninduba, Ningublaga; T. 6
98. dnin-e2-i3-gara2   III 36 D Ningublaga
99. dnin-e2-gal   IV 100 D Ninegalla; T. 4, 5
100. dnin-e2-an-na   IV 12 D Ninegalla
101. dnin-˹girimx!˺   I 353 §37, 56; D dnin-BARA2 2, Ninduba, Ninegalla, Ningirima; T. 3, 6
102. dnin-u-gu-maḫ?   (≈II 107?)  
103. dnin-gi-na   III 146 / V 35 D Ningina
104. ˹d˺nin-gilin TH99-T556 V 33 §33, 56; D Ningilin, Ningina, Ningirima, Ninmur(u), Ninpiriĝ(+); T. 6
105. d˹nin˺-mur-ra 1. dnin-˹mur˺-ra V 38 §53, 63; D Ninmur(u)
106. d˹nin˺-kur-ra 2. dnin-[kur]-ra II 362 §53-65, 69-70, 74; D dGUL-la2, dnin-BARA2 1, Ninmur(u); n. 149; T. 6, 7
107. dšul-pa-e3-a 3. ˹dšul˺-pa-e3-a II 46 §58-61; D Ašgi; n. 69, 162; T. 1
108. [d]˹ama-ra˺-a-zu   III 41 §59, 61
109. [ddumu]-˹zi˺   [IV 194+] §26, 28, 58-61, 66; D dnin-[(x)]-DAR-a; n. 10, 162; T 2

Annex B. VS 24 19 [P347138]

r. ? i′  
1′. [dpa]-˹bil2-saĝ˺-/ĝa2 V 125
2′. [d]˹ḫendur˺-saĝ-ĝa2 ≊ VI 16
3′. [d]˹ĝeštin?˺-an-na […]  
4′. [d]˹da?˺-mu V 165
5′. [d]˹lugal˺-ban3-da V 1
6′. [d]˹BUR2?˺.GAL VII 5
7′. [d]˹indagra˺ I 326
8′. [d …] ˹x-gal?˺  
9′. [d …] ˹x˺  
10′. [d …]  


1′. ˹d˺[...]  
2′. d˹nin?˺-[...]  
3′. d˹asal?˺-[...]  
4′. dnin-ku3?-[sig17?] I 194
5′. dgaz-˹ba˺ IV 275
6′. dḫa-mun!?-˹na?˺ (ou {x}) I 43 ?
7′. diĝir-maḫ II 1
8′. dnin-maḫ! II 2
9′. dnin-tur5 II 19
10′. dnin-tur5-maḫ sic
11′. dnin-˹nam?-tar?˺-ra II 8

Annex C. UET 6/2 412 [P346452]

1. dnanna […] III 1
2. den-lil2 […] I 148
3. den-ki ˹lugal˺ […] II 129
4. dIM ˹lugal˺ […] III 206
5. dutu ˹lugal˺ […] III 97
6. ddumu-zi ˹lugal˺ […] [IV 194+]
7. dnin-˹ĝeš˺-zi-da ˹lugal˺ […] V 250 UET 6/3 824: 2
8. dbara2-ul-e-ĝar-ra ˹lugal˺ […] II 60
9. dnin-a-zu lugal […] V 239 UET 6/3 824: 1
10. dnin-ĝir2-su lugal ˹x˺-[…] V 56 UET 6/3 824: 3
11. dtišpak ˹lugal x x˺ [x] V 273
12. dinšušinak ˹lugal x˺ […] (dMUŠ3.ERINki)
13. ištaran˺ ˹lugal x˺ […] V 287
14. d˹nergal˺ ˹lugal˺ […] VI 1
15. dnin-EZEN ˹lugal˺ […] II 310
16. dnin-urta ˹lugal˺ […] I 227
17. dnu-muš-˹da˺ ˹lugal a?-x ˺-[…] -
18. dnin-˹šubur?˺ ˹lugal x˺-[…] I 41
19. dmarduk ˹lugal x˺-[…] II 191
r. 20. dlugal-ban3-da ˹lugal x x ki?˺ V 1
21. dlugal-ir9-ra d˹mes-[lam-ta-e3-a] V 296 298
21bis. lugal a-ga-˹de3?˺[ki ?]
22. dil3-a-ba4 lugal ˹x˺ […] III 135

Annex D. List of commented deities190 (see note 11)


76MGL 51: see Gunura, dgu-ur5!-an-na, and Lugalšudde.

‘Ancestors’ of Enlil; corrections and comments on this section in TH 80.112

77In lines 5-6, PAP.PAP (buluĝ3) seems more likely instead of KUR due to the parallel TH99-T578 i 6-7, although the traces somewhat correspond to TH 80.112; as noted by W. G. Lambert (1985a, p. 182), this also applies to the restitution of the KUR.

78In lines 9-10, W. G. Lambert (1985a, p. 182), A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 485 §2) suggest reading this entry buluĝ3. However, J.-M. Durand’s copy has rather ḪI׊E (gereš) in line 10: compare TH99-T578. On the pair ‘Lord/Lady butterfly’, see Volk RlA 9, p. 367. J. Lisman’s suggestion (2013, p. 118) that the butterfly could symbolize the beginning of life already in the Fāra lists remains hypothetical: the reading gerešx for UḪ is highly uncertain in these lists (Volk RlA 9, p. 367); for the translation of en/nin-uḫ in ‘Lord/Lady louse’, see Krebernik 1986, p. 165 n. 7.

79TH00-T179a indicates that the place of Enmešara(/Ninmešara) outside the list of Ancestors in MGL 21 is not a scribal error (a possibility considered by Lisman 2013, p. 95 n. 389) and therefore represents a different tradition than the one found in GeL or AA, where this couple is included among the Ancestors (Lisman 2013, p. 113 and n. 471). In MGL, this position may refer to the myth Enlil and Namzitarra (see Lisman 2013, p. 113 and n. 475; this myth is also analyzed in Cooper 2017 with a detailed discussion on Enmešara on p. 42-45). More importantly, this placement also suggests that the MGL’s tradition is older than the one found in GeL.


80MGL 35? (TH00-T127a o. ii′ 4): see above (OB tablets from other cities, note 158 and Ašgi.


81The line 8 of MVAG 21 Taf. 4 (table 6) appears to be a writing for the god Ašgi, since Ašgi appears in the ŠGL after Lil(u) and since both of them, together with Lisin, belong to the circle of the mother-goddess: they are children of Ninḫursaĝa / Nin(/Diĝir)maḫ in AA II 64, II 68, with the male manifestation of Lisin II 70, originally the sister of Ašgi (cf. Lisin and Lil(u)). However, no proper solution has been found to establish a correspondence between this sequence of signs and those known for this god: the NIN could have been erased following a suggestion from the DCCLT’s editor; the IGI is also different from the IGI of line 2. GUL is thus possible, but doesn’t make much more sense here; one solution is to consider the LU as a mechanical error like the one in TIM 9 86 dku3-su3-<<UD>> (cf. table 4 and Kusu).

82On dAŠ.ŠIR.GI(4) to be read ašgi2gi(4), cf. Mittermayer 2006, p. 13: 28 (for a different reading, see Mittermayer 2006, p. 193: 28); on the different spellings of this god, see bibliography in Owen 2013, p. 77 n. 188; and on the evolution of the spelling of the god Ašgi / *Ašig(?), see Cavigneaux 1987, p. 45.

83In the OB lists, he is associated with different deities from Adab or Keš—Barauleĝara, Baraniĝara and Pa(p)niĝara—which will be equated in the later An=anum (II 60-62): he is followed in IGL B v 5 by dBARA2-ul-e-ĝar-ra, in NGL 158 and AUWE 23 153 by dBARA2-niĝarĝar-ra and in WeL 110 by dpa4-niĝarĝar-ra as in ŠGL A 4.15′ (on Pa(p)niĝara see also p. 23-24, and Goodnick Westenholz and Westenholz 2006, p. 17-18; on Barauleĝara, Black 2005, p. 44-45). He appears in IGL B v 4 after Šulpaʾe, the husband of Nin(/Diĝir)maḫ, and in AUWE 23 153 after Aruru, another figure of the mother-goddess.

84All the OB contexts are thus quite consistent with the later An=Anum and with the 3rd millennium tradition, since he was the son of the mother-goddess at Adab (Krebernik RlA 10, p. 325-326), possibly originally her husband (Such-Gutiérrez 2005/2006, p. 6ff.; OBO 259, p. 19 and 59, nuance in n. 53). We can note also the frequent onomastic occurrence of Ašgi in the texts from Irisaĝrig (Sigrist and Ozaki 2019, p. 155 and 168), as well as the presence of his temple there, as highlighted by D. I. Owen (2013, p. 77 n. 185), fitting perfectly with the Irisaĝrig-Keš connection, described for example in Viano 2019 and Steinkeller 2022.

85Ašgi would have been assimilated to Iškur/Adad (due to the homophony?) early; see Schwemer 2001, p. 85: 23.


86In TH99-T578 ii 8 (annex A), the orthography with IA in the name (Nin)azimua does not seem to be attested, but a fragment from Chantier K likely gives the orthograph with IZI which is found in the statues of Gudea (a-izi-mu2-a or izi-mu2-a, an epithet of Geštinanna, but which can also refer to Azimua; see Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 345, and RlA 9, p. 369 §2). The spelling with IA could therefore be due to a homophonic effect with the spelling with IZI (a-izi < ia-zi). One could also read A2, but the sign apparently ends with two verticals superimposed.


87For the reading of her name, see the discussion under Ningal.


88Already in the 3rd millennium, Damu (§26, 28) is associated with Nintinugga (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 296 17.4.1), but has also a relationship to Ištaran (Steinkeller 2013), and as such a connection with the underworld (on Ištaran, see §14 and annex C l. 13). During the OB period, he is the son of Ninisina in the Isin pantheon (Richter 2004, p. 209-210) and worshipped with Gunura in her temple at Isin, in Nintinugga’s temple at Nippur, and Gula’s temple at Ur (Ceccarelli 2009, p. 33). In god-lists, Abba, Gula’s husband, is his father (Richter 2004, p. 117-118, 198), rather than Pabilsaĝ(a) as in the MGL.


89In TCL 5 6053 o. ii 12 (table 5), den-da-gara2 is a syllabic spelling for the deity E/Indagara, later written NINDA2×GUD and Nin-NINDA2×GUD, with Kusu as the wife of E/Indagara (Michalowski 1993, p. 158; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 337). Moreover, as observed §43, the three deities Kusu, E/Indagara, and Ninsig also appear together in GeL 328-330 in the same order as MVN 10 144 (the copy gives only one unique line for line 14, but the photographs clearly show a separation line dividing two distinct lines, 14a and 14b). The inclusion of Šara between E/Indagara and Ninsig in TCL 5 6053 is thus rather unexpected, along with the fact that the text comes from Umma, where Šara was the tutelary divinity. The underlying reasons remain difficult to determine:

  • a. Since E/Indagara was later identified with Iškur/Adad (Michalowski 1993, p. 158; Litke 1998, p. 59-60; Schwemer 2001, p. 17; Selz 2002, p. 676-677; cf. note 180), this could imply that Šara was already regarded as a wind deity, but this hypothesis contradicts our knowledge of Šara’s nature during the 3rd millennium (Huber Vulliet RlA 12, p. 31ff.; Gibil).
  • b. Since Nisaba and Kusu are grain deities, this could mean that it was also one aspect of Šara. As the tutelary deity of Umma, he was indeed regarded as the protector of the fields, but above all as a deity supervising domestication (Huber Vulliet RlA 12, p. 31ff.). This explanation is again not entirely satisfactory.
  • c. The inclusion of Šara could have resulted from a phonetic association with dnin-SAR, but SAR in this DN is pronounced sigx, see Schrakamp 2015a. The abandonment of the reading dnin-ni3-si in the MGL (cf. Ninnisaĝ), as well as the close association between Ninsig and Ninimma(SIG7) [cf. dnin-BARA2], support Ingo Schrakamp’s arguments.
  • d. An association between the reading sigx for SAR and the use of the sign SIG7(imma3) in the writing of the DN Šara (dLAGAB×SIG7) is also conceivable, but again quite speculative.

90Among the four possibilities, the third appears most plausible. We are thus compelled to suggest that the reading sigx was not always followed, or at least that the writing with the sign SAR could lead to acrophonic, acrographic, and/or conceptual associations—the association in IAS 82 7 13ʹ-14ʹ of dnin-sigx with dnin-saĝ-mu2-<mu2> (following the proposal by P. Mander [1986, p. 57: 148], Nin-saĝ-mu2-mu2 being attested in AA II 12 among the names of the mother-goddess) may be comparable. Mechanical errors may also play a role: see the writing dnin-ĜEŠ.SAR for dnin-SAR at Ur III Nippur, explained as a contamination from ĝeškiri6 (Schrakamp 2015a, p. 197). F. Simons (2017b, p. 9-10) still notes a possible writing with EZEN.


91With regards to MVAG 21 Taf. 4 rev. 13-14, Igalima and Šulšagana are Ninĝirsu’s children (Selz 1995, p. 146 and p. 279; Selz 1997, p. 171; Krebernik RlA 13, p. 287; on the role of Šulšagana at Lagaš, see Schrakamp 2015b, p. 335, 338). Although Šulšagana seems to be the older brother (Cavigneaux 2018, p. 96), Igalima always precedes him in the four god-lists where they are attested together (to ŠGL and MVAG 21 Taf. 4, add CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. I 9-10 following Babu-Ninĝirsu and SF 1 xiii 4-5, Edzard 2004, p. 582 n. 402). This inversion is most likely due to the greater importance of Igalima as the gate-god of the Eninnu (Cavigneaux 2018, p. 96). During the OB period, Igalima is associated with Ninurta/Ninĝirsu and belongs to the circle of Nergal in NGL 77ff. (for the argumentation, see Peterson 2009a, p. 53) or to the circle of Nungal according to a hymn (Cavigneaux 2018, p. 96).


92Interestingly, Girra/Gibil—the torch god, but also god of purification (Michalowski 1993, p. 156; Peterson 2014, p. 302ff.)—, followed by Lisin, is preceded by a Šara section in CUSAS 12 8.6.8, which suggests that Šara had already been reinterpreted as a wind deity (on the association of Gugallum (Adad), Girra and Šara in the Anzû epic, see Huber Vulliet RlA 12, p. 31 §2.1). This classification also finds an echo in the organization of the GeL, where the couple Lisin-Ninsikila (356-357) is inserted after the Šara section (349-351), but interrupts the enumeration of the underworld divinities beginning with Ugur (354) and Šī-šarrat (355): Gibil is there reclassified at the end of the list with fire divinities (465-467), while Irḫan (352) allows for the transition between the Šara section—Kumulmul (351) has also ophidian characteristics like Irḫan (Wiggermann 1997, p. 42 n. 84)—and the underworld section.

93See §56-58.


94Given the parallels and the context in table 7, it is difficult to decide whether the divinity dGUL-la2 of the Ugarit version of the WeL really corresponds to the brick god Kulla as suggested by A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 451). Since this deity is not being present in the older version, the attestation of a dnin-GUL-na?/la2 could have caused some confusion. Even though the end of the WeL is not very well preserved in the temple of Nabû, the divinity dGUL-la2 is still attested in the 1st millennium version without Ninkur(a) (Cavigneaux 1981, p. 98).


95During the Ur III period, Gunura (MGL 53) always appears within the circle of Nintinugga (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 296). During the OB period, a filiation exists between Gunura and Ninisina (Edzard RlA 9, p. 388 §3; Richter 2004, p. 210 and n. 917-918; OBO 259, p. 84 and n. 345; Johandi 2019, p. 113, Ceccarelli 2020, p. 39; and see also her cult with Damu). In the 1st millennium, Gunura is harmonized with Gula; see Cohen 1988, p. 619 source L c+247. The NGL offers an interesting parallel to TH99-T578, where Gunura (alone) is followed by Alla (NGL 181-182). The tradition attested at Mari thus hints at the reasons which led to this association in the NGL (on the ortography dgu-nu-um for Gunura, see Peterson 2009a, p. 67: 181).


96W. G. Lambert (1985a, p. 187) proposes a reading dušum?-dubur?-an-na for MGL 53 on the basis of dlugal-dubur2 AA III 222 (circle of Adad, cf. Schwemer 2001, p. 61) and dlugal-dubur2-an-na AA VI 30 (Litke 1998, p. 202), or a reading of the first sign as NAĜAR, an orthography for Alla (cf. Lugalšudde). The DCCLT’s editor suggests dgu-gu2-an-na, a reading which is the closest to the signs.


97The restoration of line 12′ in TIM 9 86 o. ii (table 4) follows a proposal of J. van Dijk. The spelling with saĝĝa instead of saĝ-(ĝa) would be unique (on other spellings, see Attinger and Krebernik 2004, p. 22: 2.1.1). However, C. Lecompte points out (personal communication) that the spelling saĝ-ĝa is likely related to the use of lists such as Proto-Ea, where saĝĝa is written in this way.

98The nature of Išum/Ḫendursaĝa has been described in detail in Weiershäuser 2010 and George 2015 (add George 2016b and Bodine 2015, p. 82-87).

99Note that in the WeL, where Ḫendursaĝa is separated from Išum in the older versions (Attinger and Krebernik 2004, p. 30: 2.4.2), Išum precedes Ninmuga and Ninmaš (cf. Attinger and Krebernik 2004, p. 24: end 2.2.2.). In TIM 9 86, these last two divinities precede Ḫendursaĝa, without mention of Išum. The Ur III list of offerings FH 5 ii 8-9 (Förtsch 1917, p. 23 Taf. 3), mentioned by W. G. Lambert (2013, p. 242), classifies Ninmuga with Ḫendursaĝa. P. Attinger and M. Krebernik (2004, p. 31: 2.4.4) propose that the association between Ninmuga and Ḫendursaĝa was motivated by the assimilation of Išum and Ḫendursaĝa, and FH 5 testifies that this equation apparently already dates back to the 3rd millennium. During the OB period, the association of Ninmuga and Išum is still found in CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. ii 9-10 and AbB 13 164 (see Charpin 2017b, p. 250-251, and Ceccarelli 2018, p. 122).


100The reading of line 7′ in TIM 9 86 o. ii (table 4) is proposed by the DCCLT. Concerning the error of ku3-babbar, the student could have first mechanically written ku3-babbar before adding BU in the middle, as this sign is not ‘correctly’ aligned in the upper part of the line.

101As observed by W. G. Lambert (1985a, p. 186), followed by F. Simons (2018, p. 124 and p. 128), the MGL is the only god-list apart from the later An=Anum to include two Kusu: 1. a name of Nisaba (MGL 58, AA I 298), and 2. the sanga-maḫ of Enlil (AA I 324), written dku-us2 in MGL 41, followed by her daughter dšudu3--ku3 (MGL 42, AA I 327). The two Kusu represent the different aspects of this deity: grain goddess and purification goddess (see, with supplementary references, Michalowski 1993; Richter 2004, p. 98-99; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 335-337; Löhnert 2010, p. 188-190; OBO 259, p. 69 and n. 274, p. 100 and n. 419; Simons 2018, esp. p. 128 for the writing dku-us2 in the MGL and p. 145 for the evolution of the different aspects of this goddess).

102TH00-T087a+, a lentil from Chantier K, offers a variant where Ašnan and Ḫaja (MGL 60-61) are probably preceded by E/IndagaradNINDA2˺×[GUD?]), the husband of Kusu (MGL 58).

103See under Ninpiriĝ(+) regarding their association in TIM 9 86 o. ii 7′-8′.


104Regarding ŠGL A 4.12′ (table 6), M. Krebernik pointed out to me that, since both duplicates of the ŠGL have a clear E2, E2 = lil2 as in the writing of Enlil in the 3rd millennium.

105See also see Krebernik RlA 7, p. 19; Löhnert 2008, p. 428-429; Delnero 2020, p. 77-78 and p. 212; and comments under Ašgi.


106With regard to table 6, Lisin-Ninsikila are also one of the couples in the OB lists (to the three lists of table 6, add GeL 356-357 and WeL 8-9) where the female spouse precedes the male: examples are numerous, especially in the GeL; see inter alia Kusu-E/Indagra (GeL 328-329) and Ninsig-Erragal (GeL 330-331), or Babu-Ninĝirsu in CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. I 7-8.

107Lisin, whose city is unknown, can at least be associated with the pantheon of Adab (or Keš), due to her connection with the mother-goddess and Ašgi in the 3rd millennium (Michalowski RlA 7, p. 32). The nature of the OB Lisin is essentially inferred from the OB liturgical texts, where she takes the role of mourning mother over her dead child (Michalowski RlA 7, p. 32; Katz 2003, inter alia p. 17-18; OBO 259, p. 57). At some point during the 2nd millennium, she will be masculinized, while Ninsikila, her spouse, is equated with Meskilak, the goddess of Dilmun (Krebernik RlA 8, p. 93-94). It seems that it is her place before Ninsikila in the OB god-lists that leads later in An=Anum (II 70-71) to the gender mutation (Michalowski RlA 7, p. 32-33; Cavigneaux and al-Rawi 1995, p. 202 n. 19; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 339 and n. 1473 with additional references to the reading li9 of NE; OBO 259, p. 103). In the 1st millennium, she is clearly considered to be a figure of the mother-goddess (RlA 7, p. 33; on the transfer of parents’ attributes to their children, cf. note 103). Her proximity in the ŠGL with the mother-goddess Nintur(a) (Ceccarelli 2016, p. 23 with bibliography) and her possible syncretism with Ninḫursaĝa already during the OB period (Katz 2003, p. 18 n. 46), seem to imply that Lisin had assumed the attributes of her mother Ninḫursaĝa / Nin(/Diĝir)maḫ and was thus considered to be a mother-goddess, or at least a wailing (mother-)goddess, in the OB god-lists (in CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. iii 10, Ninḫursaĝa, is found three lines after Lisin [iii 7], without Ninsikila).

108The MGL, where Lisin is absent, lists the male Ninsikila (88) known from magic texts (e.g. Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1995, p. 202-203 and n. 19, and for the spelling with sikil already attested in Gudea, see Krebernik RlA 8, p. 93-94). In the MGL, the following line (89), to be read dnin.KA.UŠ.limmu2 according to A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 530), is related to the DN d(NIN).UŠ.KA.LIMMU2 (‘[der] Zusammenhang [ist] noch nicht erkannt’), a deity who is often listed next to Enki and perhaps identical with his vizier Isimud. There is thus likely an association with the previous line, as Ninsikila is also one of Enki's children in the myth Enki and Ninḫursaĝa (Attinger 1984), according to this myth this Ninsikila is male (271: en-ma2-gan-na), since the female one is equated with Ninḫursaĝa in the same myth (Attinger 1984, p. 846, followed by Rodin 2014, p. 208).


109My proposal to read dlugal!(LU2)-šušud3!-˹de3! (or dlugal!-šuKA!.NE!) in TH 80.112 (MGL 52) is based on the parallel with TH99-T578 and on the association with Alla (§26-27 and Wiggerman RlA 9, p. 369; add a temple of Alla in Irisaĝrig, cf. Owen 2013, p. 77 and n. 185). On the writing of this DN, dlugal-KA.NE or dlugal-šud3-de2—the first represents the original orthography—, see Peterson 2009a, p. 60-61 and p. 96: ii′ 2. The deity is not attested or preserved in the GeL, but is listed in AA (VI 87) with the other DNs in dlugal-. The WeL 139-144 provides another kind of association, where he is associated with three ‘different’ dNAĜAR (see comments in Krebernik 2002, p. 292), with Ninĝišzida following two lines after.


110dLUM-ma (table 7) appears among the deities of Enlil’s court in GeL 53. On his function as guardian of the Ekur and his association with dḫa-da-ni-iš, see Marchesi 2006 and Peterson 2009a, p. 64: 160-161. A synthesis of the attestations of this divinity in the 3rd millennium can be found in Selz 2014, p. 213, who also offers an interpretation of the ‘title’ LUM-ma on p. 212-215.


111§27 and MGL 49: the ‘Dream (deity)’, see Zgoll 2014, p. 304-305.


112§27 and MGL 48: for her identification with Tiran(n)a, see her relationship to the rainbow in Lambert 1985a, p. 187: 48-50. Her cult is only attested at Nippur and Larsa, cf. Richter 2004, p. 199 and p. 398.


113In MVAG 21 Taf. 4 rev. 17 (table 6), the reading—which suits the context (see §58)—follows the proposal of the DCCLT’s editor. The initial reading of this line was dsirsir (BU+BU.AB), by which the association in MVAG 21 Taf. 4 with Zarzarum would have been phonetic (see Krebernik RlA 12, p. 554; DUMU-AB was also proposed in Krebernik RlA 13, p. 287).


114On the link between Ninisina and NINarali (§36), see Richter 2004, p. 189ff. in which he refutes the equation of NINarali with Inana/Ištar at Isin postulated by W. G. Lambert (Richter 2004, p. 192). In his interpretation of this section of the IGL, he shows that NINarali appears among the circle of healing deities in GeL 387, to be read dnin-aE2!(ĜA2).KUR.BAD; see Richter 2004, p. 217 (which would provide a link with the deity dNin-ĜA2×MUŠ, on which see Krebernik 1986, p. 197). If indeed one of the four daughters of Išum is meant (AA VI 24?), it is also possible that she could be assigned characteristics of a birth deity, since her mother would be Ninmuga (on the transfer of parents’ attributes to their children, see note 103).


115In SF 24 r. ii 2′ (table 3), the presence of Ninazu, son of Ereškigal (Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 330 §2), just before Ninsig would already be an association linked to the underground world as in the GeL where Ninsig is preceded by Erragal who is her husband in AA I 332 and who is identical to Nergal (on this link between the GeL and AA, see RlA 9, p. 484 §2; on Ninsig and Erragal see also Simons 2018, p. 125; on the cult of Ninazu, see the discussion in Saporetti 2010, p. 355-362 spec. on his connection with the god Tišpak, and on the importance of Ninazu and his town Enegi(r) during the 3rd millennium, see Cooper 2016, p. 3).


116Table 7: AA IV 39 a name of Inana/Ištar; see RlA 9, p. 335.


  1. Regarding line 34 of the myth Enki and Ninmaḫ (§47-49), A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 336 §4) follow T. Jacobsen’s interpretation that one of the two writings refers to dnin-BARA2/šara. In AA I 29, the latter is identified with Ištar: dnin-(ša-ar)BARA2 = an-tum diš-tar. In AA IV 254, it appears in the epithet section of Inana/Ištar; on her correspondence with telītum, an epithet of Ištar, in the Emesal Vocabulary (MSL 4, p. 8: 85), see Jacobsen 1987, p. 157 n. 10; RlA 9, p. 336 §3; Krebernik RlA 13, p. 513. Moreover, W. G. Lambert (2013, p. 506) saw this Nin-BARA2/šara as corresponding to Ninsig(SAR), while M. Krebernik (RlA 8, p. 510 §4.3.15) associates the divinity Ninsig(SAR) of the myth Enki and Ninḫursaĝa with this Nin-BARA2/šara, who would have been distinguished from the Ninsig, butcher of the Ekur (AA I 328). However, the scribes seem not to have always followed the reading -sigx (see E/Indagara). Alternatively, they were aware of the reading and of the signification of the writing SAR and have allowed themselves to play with the different aspects of this goddess. The numerous values of SAR (mu2 ‘grow’, (ĝeš)kiri6 ‘garden’, sigx ‘green’, nisig ‘greenery’ etc.) or its phonetic correspondences (SIG7, šara/šar6, šara2, šar2191) thus contributed to the formation of these various aspects.192
    Ninsig, the butcher of the Ekur, belongs in TIM 9 86 to the seven children of Enmešara and is also associated with Ninpiriĝ(+) and Ninmuga. The association with the latter is known since the first god-lists (SF 1 or SF 5/6, see table 3) or later in the NGL (table 4), since Ninmuga is the consort of Išum, who in turn could be equated with Nergal. Although they both belong to the netherworld, Ninmuga is known as a birth goddess and appears among the midwives in the myth Enki and Ninmaḫ. Ninsig is also closely associated with another of these midwives in several other contexts, namely Ninimma:
    • a. they both give birth to other divinities in the myth Enki and Ninḫursaĝa: Ninsig to Ninkur(a) and Ninimma to Uttu (cf. Attinger 1984, p. 16 and 21; see also Dickson 2007, p. 3, 14, and Couto-Ferreira 2017, p. 53: the first one underlines that the four deities are ‘functionally identical’ in the narration, since the story repeats itself, and the second one shows that the order of appearance of all the deities is based on the organizational principle a capite ad calcem);
    • b. the proximity of Ninsig and Ninimma in the NGL (cf. table 4);
    • c. the association of Ninsig and Ninimma in the later version of the WeL: in OB sources, only nin-SIG7-gi4 followed by dkal-kal seems to be attested (DCCLT VS 24+ r. i 1); in Ugarit, dnin-imma3 (with parallel nin-GI4-[…], Nougayrol 1968, p. 218: 128) is followed by dnin-ezen-na (128a), a writing for Ninisina, rather than one of Enki/Ea’s gu4-balaĝ, according to M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 351 1); their first association seems thus to be attested at Emar, where dnin-sigx precedes dnin-imma3 (Arnaud 1987, p. 34-36) and where she would later follow dnin-imma3 (KAV 65 r. iii 20-21 or Cavigneaux 1981, p. 92: 139-140). Regarding the OB version and the Ugarit parallel, one can ask which deity was really meant here.
    The context of the WeL is also interesting, since Ninimma is usually associated with Nisaba as divine scribe, but Ninimma in the WeL is preceded by underworld deities and followed by the section of the healing deities. It is thus rather her aspect as goddess of vegetation and goddess of healing (Focke RlA 9, p. 385 §2; Rodin 2014, p. 137-141; Ceccarelli 2016, p. 162) which is brought to the fore in the WeL. In addition to the homophony of the different readings of the signs in their DNs (SAR/sigx and SIG7/imma3) and their belonging to the same semantic field,193 Ninsig also belongs, on the one hand, to the underworld divinities. On the other hand, as interpreted by J. Bottéro and S. N. Kramer (1993, p. 161), Ninsig in the myth Enki and Ninḫursaĝa is the eldest child of the couple Enki and Ninḫursaĝa and represents all the edible plants directly useful to man. We can see in her name (‘The green lady’) an allusion to this myth, which emphasizes her aspect as goddess of vegetation and of birth/healing as much as her juxtaposition with Ninmuga and association with Ninimma do. Even if it is difficult to reconcile this name with her function as butcher of the Ekur as underscored by A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 485 §1), the function of butcher could have been relevant at some point during the delivery: think of the act of cutting the umbilical cord, which is said to be the task of Ninisina (see M. Stol’s quote in §38). Ninsig is also associated with Ninisina in one Ur III offerings list (RlA 9, p. 485 §3; Rodin 2014, p. 138). Therefore, the organization of TIM 9 86 and the close link between the two groups analyzed raise the possibility that the scribe of this tablet of Enki and Ninmaḫ was referring to Ninsig, the Ekur butcher, with a spelling dnin-šara.
  2. Since the Fāra list, dnin-b/parag(BARA2) is usually associated with the mother-goddess (RlA 9, p. 336 4.). During the OB period, the writing dnin-piriĝ(+), would rather be a (male?) equivalent of dnin-BARA2 as sukkal of Utu (RlA 9, p. 336 1. and 481 §1, AA III 141 and GeL 186). However, Ninpiriĝ(+) is already associated with mother-goddesses in Ur III lists: directly followed by Ababa194 (MVN 10 144 r. i 29-30; TCL 5 6053 o. ii 26-27), preceded by Ninimma (MVN 10 144 r. i 28) or Ninmada and Šuziana (TCL 5 6053 o. ii 21-22), the mother-goddess Nintur(a) being not too far (r. i 27 and o. ii 29), who is also the patron of divination during the Ur III period (OBO 259, p. 65 and n. 257). Later, in GeL and AA, both are identified with Ninimma (AA I 314 for the equation with Ninpiriĝ(+)). The writing dnin-BARA2 is also found in an OB incantation with an epithet usually associated with Ningirima (CUSAS 32 II.A.5 ii 25), which probably reflects a writing for dnin-piriĝ(+). During the OB period, this confusion likely finds its origin in the alternation of b/parakkum (<BARA2) with pirikkum (for an exhaustive discussion on the use of pirikkum and its equivalence with parakkum, see Jacquet 2011, p. 32-34; and on the occasional deification of the parakkum, see Porter 2009, p. 171 n. 64). dnin-piriĝ(+) in TIM 9 86 could thus refer to the feminine form of dnin-b/parag(BARA2). Inversely, the dnin-b/parag(BARA2) of the myth EnNin could then also refers to dnin-piriĝ(+).195


117The interpretation of MGL 66 remains uncertain (RlA 9, p. 485 §2), since this deity in the OB period is predominantly found among Enlil’s ‘ancestors’ as a couple (without -ĝa2). In the MGL, buluĝ3 could semantically echo the ḫi-nun of line 68 in dnin-hi-nun-na ‘Lady (of the) abundance’, interpreted as a spelling for ḫe2-nun = nuḫšum (RlA 9, p. 378; Richter 2004, p. 212 n. 922), either one of Gula’s gu4-balaĝ (cf. dnin-DA-gal) or the last of the eighteen messengers of Inana/Ištar (AA IV 160). The -ĝa2 would thus mark a distinction between den/nin-buluĝ3 and dnin-buluĝ3-ĝa2 (‘Lady of growth’?), similar to the distinction applied to Ninki: Enki/Ninki (‘ancestors’ of Enlil) and a different Ninki written dnin-ki-ke4/ka at Umma (cf. RlA 9, p. 445-447 §1 and §3). Since both DNs are associated with the idea of ‘growing’, they fit the context. Moreover, if we follow G. J. Selz (1997, p. 172) on the reading bulug4 of NAĜAR in the DN dNIN-naĝar ‘Lady [of the] chisel’), a confusion (reinterpretation?) with dNIN-naĝar might also be taken into account, due to the association of NINnaĝar with NINniĝar and of Nin-AB.NAĜAR with Ninsig (see table 3).


118Regarding MGL 67, W. G. Lambert (1985a) proposes an emendation dnin-a2!-gal for the smith god (‘Lord of the big arms’ GeL 470, RlA 9, p. 325; Simons 2018, p. 134), but A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 378) suggest reading dnin-DA-gal, since dnin-ḫi-nun-na follows in the MGL (68). dnin-ḫi-nun-na is with dnin-gal a Gula’s gu4-balaĝ (AA V 186-187), this dnin-gal ‘does not necessarily represent the same deity as the wife of’ Sîn (Litke 1998, p. 185 n. 186). We may probably observe here a confusion between dnin-gal, the gu4-balaĝ of Gula, dnin-da-gal-zu, one of Ningal’s gu4-balaĝ (AA III 59-60 with dnin-da-maḫ-di, RlA 9, p. 337), and Ninagala. The original association may be based on the professions (or tools) cook (64), butcher (65), carpenter (66), and smith (67) ; the last two of which were reinterpreted (‘contaminated’) in light of the other deities linked to birth or growing:

  • a. a figure of the mother goddess (Ninguʾenna ‘Lady, major’ or maybe ‘Lady of the assembly hall’, cf. Lambert 1985a, p. 187: 69, and Krebernik RlA 8, p. 505 §3.19) appears at line 69. The same DN appears also in AA V 65 as guardian deity of the Eninnu;
  • b. according to the context, dnin-E2.NUN-na in line 70 likely refers to the temple of Ningal at Ur: on the writing E2.NUN or ĝa2-nun for this temple, see Michalowski 1989, p. 105-106. The alternation allows for a reading in this line in the MGL as either E2 (RlA 9, p. 350) or ĜA2 (Lambert 1985a, p. 183). D. Charpin interprets the E2.NUN(-ku3) as a ‘chambre-à-coucher’ of Ningal in reference to the ‘mariage sacré’ (Charpin 1986, p. 212-213; Steinert 2010, p. 270 and n. 99), an association apparently also at play in the Ur III lentil MVN 13, where one can find the other attestation of this deity, associated this time with dnin-ku3-nun-na. Following this interpretation, dnin-E2.NUN-na would be a deity linked to the field of conception.
  • c. Although this deity is not attested, the suggested restoration for the -ša3- could fit the context of the midwives.


119Since this DN is followed by Ninigizibara in the IGL (B ii 13-14 and A ii+ 10-11, cf. §36), it is probably the same that appears in MGL 93, with Ninigizibara being in line 94 (the form of DAR in TH 80.112 (dnin-x-aby W. G. Lambert) is closer to the ḪU as it occurs in some lentils of ‘Chantier K’). This writing could correspond either to dnin-dar-a or to dnin-e2-gun3-a, or even to dNIN-gun3-na:

  • a. dnin-dar-a (dara-a) is Nanše’s husband: for the 3rd millennium see Selz 2012, p. 66-67 (on his name ‘Lord cock’ Selz 1995, p. 215 n. 1015); GeL 294-295; AA III 67. He can bear the epithet ‘shepherd of the herds’ (Wiggermann 2010, p. 330) and his true nature still escapes us (see the bibliography in Peterson 2009a, p. 66: 177).
  • b. dnin-e2-gun3, understood as ‘Lady of the multicolored house’ (RlA 9, p. 347), seems to have been Dumuzi’s companion at Ur III Nippur (cf. Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 239 and n. 1042 with bibliography), before becoming one of Geštinanna’s bynames, as in GeL 300; see the analysis of this passage in Richter 2004, p. 158-159.
  • c. dNIN-gun3-na is an epithet of Inana: degie-gun3-nu GeL 217; degiigi-nun3 AA IV 27. On the homonymous, but different deity, ending in -na, in Enki and Ninmaḫ, see RlA 9, p. 377; for other possible readings, see Ceccarelli 2016, p. 164-165.

120Among the three possibilities, the last one, an epithet of Inana, seems the more likely for the IGL and the MGL, but in the latter Nanše’s husband, who is equated with Sîn in AA, is also possible, since the deities following Ninigizibara (94) belong to the circle of Sîn (95, 97, 98) and he is also a shepherd like Ninamaškuga (MGL 90, see note 166).


121The proposal to read dnin-dub in MGL 75 (instead of dnin-UM by W. G. Lambert) is based on the proximity between Ninduba and Ninmada in Gudea Cylinder B iv 2-4, where Ninduba is Eridu’s išib-maḫ (Edzard 1997, p. 90); this exorcist function corresponds to his classification in SF 1 iv 22 where this ‘Lord of the tablet’ (RlA 9, p. 339) is in the same column as the group of divinities linked to incantations (SF 1 iv 2-6, cf. §33) and that of UET 7 80 ii′ 5′ where this divinity is present among Ningirima, Nintil and Ningublaga (see table 6).

122Regarding the organization of this section of the MGL and its relationship to the archaic lists, note again that a divinity written dnin-˹dub2˺ in SF 23 vii 12 appears near Nintil (MGL 79) and Ninsig (MGL 65). With UET 7 80, which contains a list of GNs parallel to those of the Fāra period, it is thus the second OB attestation of Ninduba and still underlines the seniority of the tradition attested by the MGL.


123Correction to IGL (B ii 10 cf. §36) in Wilcke 2018, p. 67.

124MGL 81: see §51.


125Ninegalla and Nineanna (MGL 99-100) both belong to Inana/Istar’s circle, but both names are also phonetically similar in Sumerian as well as in Akkadian: bēlet ekallim and bēlet ajakki. On these deities see, respectively, Durand 2008, p. 209-211, Peterson 2009a, p. 58: 114, Charpin 2012, p. 70, 80-82; RlA 9, p. 341, and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 366 §6, on the association with the next line (Ningirima) based on the same place of cult (Uruk).

126Regarding NGL 172 in table 4dnin-˹x˺-gal (SLT 124 = NI-2 vi 23 [P264047], see Peterson 2009a, p. 40: 172)—, even if dnin-e2-gal already appears in NGL 114 (Peterson 2009a, p. 34), this divinity is probably also meant here:

  • a. NINĝidru is the epithet of dnin-e2-gal in Gudea (cf. Edzard 1997, p. 134-135: 36 1-2 and Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 348 and n. 1542); this also gives clues on the reasons for its ranking next to Nuska in TIM 9 86;
  • b. the context of TCL 5 6053 where dnin-e2-gal (r. i 2) is interposed between Ninkasi and Ninimma, the proximity with the latter and with NINĝidru (three lines above) also supports J. Peterson’s restitution of Ninimma in NGL 172 (cf. Ninimma);
  • c. there is another DN appearing at two different places in the NGL, namely Ninmada, representing two different aspects of this deity (one feminine [NGL 49] and one masculine [NGL 89], see Peterson 2009a, p. 50 and 55-56; Simons 2018, p. 132-133). The case could thus also be the same with dnin-e2-gal: in NGL 114, a ‘manifestation of Inana’ (Peterson 2009a, p. 58)—as in the MGL—and in NGL 172 a figure belonging to Nuska’s circle as in TIM 9 86.


127MGL 80: see Nintil.


128MGL 70: see dnin-DA-gal b.


129On the one hand, dnin-GABA (MGL 83) is a byname of Inana/Ištar (see Lambert 1985a, p. 188, and RlA 9, p. 351). On the other, du8 is the Sumerian equivalent of Akkadian paṭārum, which is used in exorcistic texts (CAD P 290 3) as well as in PNs of the type DN-puṭram (‘O DN, release me’). The following deity in the MGL seems to be linked to this signification of GABA: dNin-KA-gi-na ‘(Lord/)Lady of the reliable word’ (MGL 84) is elsewhere unattested (RlA 9, p. 440), but can be compared to dlugal-KA-gi-na (NGL 132-133; cf. Peterson 2009a, p. 15) as well as to the PN nin-KA-gi-na (see DUROM N 2458 [Girsu], where it appears several times; see Such-Gutiérrez 2015, p. 27-37).


130As spouse of Nanna(/Sîn) and one of the main figures of the mother-goddess (See Zgoll RlA 9, p. 352 and 353 §3.1; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 79; OBO 259, p. 49, 3; Rendu-Loisel 2016, p. 176-177), Ningal allows the transition between the two sections in the MGL (cf. table 1): conceptual and acrographic principles. It seems also to be the case in CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. i 6, where she is followed by Babu (cf. table 2 and for a synthesis on the reading of U2 in this name, see Keetman 2018 and 2019). As Babu is the only female consort to precede the male one in this column, one can surmise a conceptual association of the same type to allow the transition with Ninĝirsu and their children, even if a mourning (mother-)goddesses section begins apparently at the middle of the third column (cf. Lisin).

131See also dnin-DA-gal (esp. b).


132In line 7′ of AUWE 23 154 r. iii, the sign PEŠ2 would be simplified, but the restoration fits the context (UG is also possible from that point of view, but, based on the parallel of MVAG 21 Taf. 4 and YBC 7186, PEŠ2 is more likely).

133Regarding the reading in MGL 104, see under Ninpiriĝ(+).

134On her attributes, see Ningirima, and on her husband, see Ninmur(u).


135The presence of dnin-gi-na in MGL 103 (GeL 183, RlA 9, p. 361) is probably the result of a confusion with dnin-k/gida/i, a fish-eating deity who often accompanies Ningilin (MGL 104) in the lists (RlA 9, p. 447). Both Akkadian counterparts are quite close, kittum (niĝ-gi-na, which may also be deified, see Klein RlA 9, p. 311, and Selz 2018, p. 423) and kitû, as gada also serves in writing the goddess Ninkida since the OB period, e.g. in GeL 287 and later, see the references RlA 9, p. 447.


136‘Lady of Girgilu’ (MGL 82) is well documented during the Ur III period as belonging to the entourage of the goddess Inana/Ištar, see RlA 9, p. 362, and Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 351. On her link with Iškur during the Ur III period, see Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p 253: 10.3. During the OB period, apart from the god-lists, there is no evidence to link her to the entourage of Inana/Ištar and even less to that of Ninisina (Richter 2004, p. 131: 5.7.3).


137The reading dnin-A.˹BU˺.ḪA!(A).DU!(PI) in MGL 101 is suggested by M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 363 §1.1); on the different spellings, see RlA 9, p. 363 §2, and Krebernik 1984, p. 233ff., as well as comments in Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 351, n. 1569, and Peterson 2009a, p. 73: 14′. In the 3rd millennium, Ningirima is a goddess of great importance exercising a supra-regional influence. She is, among others, one of the deities par excellence in the field of magic (purifier), whose religious center was located in the region of Uruk-Kullaba (see, with additional references, Krebernik RlA 9, p. 365-366 §4-6; OBO 259, p. 54, 18; Böck 2014, p. 98; Rodin 2014, p. 196-199; Simons 2018, p. 138-140; Johandi 2019, p. 20 and p 43-51). Her decline at the beginning of the 2nd millennium (RlA 9, p. 365 §4) is reflected in her reclassification in the god-lists of this period alongside Ningilin, as in the MGL: phonetic proximity and field of competence (on shared similarities between Ningilin and Ningirima, even though both retain their own identities, see Krebernik RlA 9, p. 366 §7; on the mongoose divinity Ningilin, see Heimpel RlA 8, p. 423-425, and Böck 2014, p. 40 n. 165 with previous bibliography). Ningirima’s decline probably already begins during the Ur III period, when her role was restricted to that of divine purifier, as underscored by J. M. Asher-Greve and J. Goodnick Westenholz (2013, p. 65), and her role in incantations would continue to gradually diminish to the benefit of Asarluḫi/Marduk during the 2nd millennium (Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 306 §14b; Rodin 2014, p. 59, 196; Johandi 2019, p. 185-188). In the 1st millennium, she continues to occupy a place in rituals, just like Kusu and Nisaba: ‘These three goddesses constitute the triad of the primary purification goddesses’ (OBO 259, p. 118).


138MGL 69: see dnin-DA-gal a.


139Ningublaga (MGL 97) belongs to the circle of Nanna. On the one hand, he plays an important role in magical rituals: see among others his epithet lugal ḫul-ĝal2-la ‘Lord, who fights/hits evil’ or his designation as maš-maš in a hymn to the temple (see RlA 9, p. 375 §6). On the other hand, he is connected with the netherworld (see Simons 2017b, p. 9). Both aspects explain his place in MVAG 21 Taf. 4. On his worship at Ur, see the exhaustive description in Richter 2004, p. 441-444, and the remarks of Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 352-353; during the OB period there’s possibly a syncretism with Numušda (see Peterson 2014, p. 292). In the MGL 97-98, he is followed by his spouse dnin-e2-i3-gara2 (see Charpin 2017a, chap. 6 §31-32).


140For VAT 7759 r. iii 5 (table 7), E. Weidner rejects the possible reading dnin-sumun2 because Ninsumun already appears higher in the WeL. The parallel UM 29-16-636 makes this reading possible, but unfortunately the passage is quite badly preserved (see the remarks by J. Peterson). The Emar version gives an ending in -la2. In light of the descriptive section of column vi of KAV 63 (Weidner 1924/1925, p. 80-81), this dnin-GUL-la2 in the Emar parallel would be identical with dnin-gu-la, a figure of Inana/Ištar (RlA 9, p. 376), rather than with dnin-kul-la2 (AA VI 305), an underworld divinity (?) [RlA 9, p. 450].


141On Ninĝišzida (TH99-T578 ii 7, annex A), one of the main deities of the underworld, and his court see inter alia Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 368ff.; Krebernik 2002, p. 294-295; Peterson 2009a, p. 60-61: 137; and recently Ceccarelli 2018, p. 119.


142MGL 68: see dnin-DA-gal.


143MGL 32: see §19-23 and annex A.

144See inter alia Heimpel RlA 9, p. 379ff.; Huber Vuillet 2010, p. 140-143; OBO 259, p. 137-141 (59 for bibliography); Rodin 2014, p. 90ff.; Viano 2019, p. 36-37; and recently on her cult at Mari Steinkeller 2019.


145§36: see Ninigizibara b.


146In lines 26-27 of TH 80.112, W. G. Lambert proposes a restoration d˹dam˺-[gal]-˹nun˺-na! and [ddam-ki-na]. However, Damkina appears on a lentil of ‘Chantier K’ (TH99-T169d), followed by Ea and perhaps preceded by Ninsumun (note that in the IGL Ea ends the list). Moreover, in line 26, the reading BU, which better corresponds to the unique sign of the copy (instead of nun-na), would suggest a reading dnin-[(IGI).NAĜAR].˹BU!˺. This carpenter god is closely related to Enki (GeL 84 and AA II 157-158 among Enki’s names). The name could be read Ninduluma (RlA 9, p. 340, and Mittermayer 2006, p. 198: 233) or Ninildum (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 244, n. 1063), since SLT 125 iiiʹ 2ʹ (NIIR-10[P229281]), which corresponds to the entry of NGL 13ʹ dnin-NAĜAR.BU (NI-1 vi 13ʹ, Peterson 2009a, p. 45), has dnin-˹am˺. J. Peterson (2009a, p. 73: 13ʹ) thus proposes a reading dnin-ildag3, which he understands as a phonetic error for /ildum/. Regarding this compound, note additionally the use of IGI.NAĜAR.BU instead of NAĜAR.ZA(tugul) in SC 4146: 33 (Couto-Ferreira 2009, p. 242).


147According to T. Richter (2004, p. 212-213), Ninigizibara (§36, table 7), ‘A Lady with a noble gaze’ (or ‘Well-regarded lady’ in Böck 2014, p. 131), originally belonged to the Ninisina/Gula circle and was only associated with Inana’s entourage after the syncretism between Ninisina and Inana (Richter 2004, p. 212-213) to become a lyre goddess at her service (Peterson 2009a, p. 51-52: 65; Gabbay 2014, p. 105-106). This assumption is based on two texts:

  • a. in IB 1006a (cf. Richter 2004, n. 925), this DN appears after the circle of Ninisina, which would be the best indication for her belonging to this group of divinities;
  • b. the interpretation of the passage in the second text used by T. Richter (2004, p. 213: Umma 3 1885) dating from the Ur III period is more problematic, since Ninigizibara does not only accompany Gula of Umma during the ritual u2-saĝ-še3 e3-a ‘going out to the first grass’ (Sallaberger 1993, p. 233: 2.1.4., connected to the OB version of the balaĝ eden-na u2-saĝ-ĝa2-ke4, cf. Gabbay 2014, p. 183-184), but especially Ninibgala, one of Inana’s names and the name of her temple at Umma (RlA 9, p. 382). This passage is used by W. Heimpel (RlA 9, p. 383) and W. Sallaberger (1993, p. 234) to link Ninigizibara to the circle of Inana already during the Ur III period and not to the circle of Ninisina.

148At Mari, her name can also be written phonetically: dnin-gi-zi-(ip)-pa-ra in the Eštar ritual (Durand and Guichard 1997, p. 47, with the attestations of this goddess in Mari and Tuttul; see also Durand 2008, p. 339). N. Ziegler (2007, p. 55ff.) and U. Gabbay (2014, p. 174-175, 182-183, and 87, 98, 157 n. 24) have also commented in detail this ritual; N. Ziegler’s bibliography touches on the role of the gu4-balaĝ in this ritual, probably a lyre adorned with an ox’s head (see A. Cavigneaux apud Ziegler 2007, p. 60); on the meal taking place during this ritual, see Jacquet 2011, p. 12; on the gender of Ninigizibara and its connection with the gala/kalû, see Gabbay 2014, p. 112-113; on the use of the balaĝ Uruamairabi during this ritual, see also Delnero 2015, p. 96-98, Delnero 2016, p. 155-156, Delnero 2020, i.a. p. 106-109; on the identification in the iconography of both players of the divinized lyre Ninigizibara, see Shehata 2017.


149Regarding AA I 139 in table 4, the commentary O 175 gives Gula instead of Ninimma in the first line (Livingstone 1986, p. 190, and Lambert 2013, p. 213). In TIM 9 86 o. ii (table 4), this entry could be restored in the gap at the end of column i and beginning of column ii. Ninimma would have followed the divinities associated with Ninĝirsu (end column i), as would also be the case in the MGL if we follow W. G. Lambert’s interpretation (1985a, p. 186) and understand theentry of MGL 40, written dnamma, as an ‘error’ for Ninimma (followed by Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 136 §1, contra Lisman 2013, p. 107). This could be explained by the brother-sister relationship with Ninĝirsu/Ninurta, who immediately precedes this divinity in the MGL (39) as in SF 1 v 19′-20′ (on this relationship see also OBO 259, p. 102). As underlined by F. Wiggermann, Nammu and Ninimma are ‘distinct, but functionally similar’. At least according to the NB scribes, they also share a common etymology: na-am: SIG7: bunnannû (MSL 14, p. 530 B12), with the reduplication /*namnam/ interpreted as the origin of the name Nammu (Civil 1985, p. 27, apud Ceccarelli 2017, p. 6), while the Emesal list MSL 4, p. 5: 24 equates the elements imma3 and nammu. On Ninimma’s role as Enlil’s scribe, see her hymn in Focke 1998 and supplementary references in OBO 259, p. 96 n. 401; Lambert 2013, p. 434-436 (with the nuances in Ceccarelli 2017, p. 6-7); Selz 2018, p. 423, n. 37 maybe ‘Lady of Everything’; Simons 2018, p. 124 n. 11 and 129-130. The restitution in the NGL follows the proposition of J. Peterson (2009a, p. 66: 171), which also fits the context. On her association with Ninsig, see under dnin-BARA2 1.


150See comments under Nintil.


151Regarding table 6, the parallel of the ŠGL confirms the suggestion of A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 511) that line 12 of MVAG 21 Taf. 4 represents an ‘error/confusion’ for Ninirigala instead of Ninurima, since Ninirigala is the consort of Girra/Gibil in GeL 169 and AA II 341 (cf. Krebernik RlA 9, p. 387)—the compound seems to be ŠEŠ.AB×GAL (see variants in Mittermayer 2006, p. 50: 128), instead of ŠEŠ.UNUG, hence uri(m)x. Note that the determinative ki does not seem to have ever been used in the writing of Ninirigala. NinUNUG/irigala bears witness to the Urukean tradition, as Irigal is a sanctuary of Uruk-Kullaba; see OBO 259, p. 49: 1. and n. 160 with bibliography. In the Abū Ṣalābīḫ god-list, she is also associated with Ningal—another figure of the mother-goddess; see the composite edition in Mander 1986, p. 25: 75-76. This place next to Ningal and the importance of Ninirigala during the 3rd millennium (RlA 9, p. 387) suggests that her attributes were not unlike those of the mother-goddess.


152See TH99-T578 ii 3 (annex A) and bibliography under Nintinugga.


153Ninisina is assimilated to Ninkarrak (TH99-T578 ii 4, annex A) in several lists, see Goodnick Westenholz 2010, p. 381-382; Edzard RlA 9, p. 387 §2; and Durand 2014; Ninkarrak ‘est presque totalement limitée à des contextes akkadiens’ (Durand 2008, p. 262), which is illustrated by T. Richter (2004, p. 193 n. 852) by the means of the bilingual texts where Ninisina appears in the Sumerian part, and Ninkarrak or Gula in the Akkadian part. The meaning of her name remains uncertain (Goodnick Westenholz 2010, p. 380), note however that J.-M. Durand proposes on the basis of the Akkadian context that ‘la forme de ce nom n’exclut pas qu’il faille plutôt la comprendre comme une “bêlet-Kar(r)ak = Dame de/du K.”, une réalité concrète que nous ne comprenons plus’ (Durand 2008, p. 262 and n. 286 for the use of the root KRK, karkât ekallim probably referring to a part of the palace). Following J.-M. Durand’s suggestion, it is even possible to suggest that the DN Ninkarrak is a ‘Semitic’ reinterpretation of the DN NINniĝar (<NIN-niĝar-ak), since niĝar is referring to a specific place of a goddess’ temple (§38-39), an interpretation which is also supported by the proximity of NINniĝar and Nintinugga in the 3rd millennium god-lists and offering lists (§38). Such reinterpretation may also explain the OB orthography dnin-ni-ka-ra-ak mentioned in Goodnick Westenholz 2010, p. 381.


154For some references to this goddess, see under Ninegalla b, Ninmadra, and Nintil.


155In table 7, based on the context, this is likely a name of Ištar; see RlA 9, p. 450.


156A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 462) propose to restore -ra in MGL 73 (instead of -da by W. G. Lambert) due to the proximity of dnin-MAR.KI (MGL 72) and dnin-mar-ra in AA III 70-71 (Litke 1998, p. 125). Regardless of whether Ninmada or Ninmara is restored, the use of the DN dnin-ma-ra in AA I 348 as a phonetic variant of dnin-ma-da in AA I 346 (RlA 9, p. 468 1) suggests that the two deities could well have been regarded as identical during the OB period. The absence of evidence for a Ninmada cult during the OB period (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 95), despite numerous attestations for Ninmar at the same time (at least in Larsa and Ur; see Richter 2004, p. 396-398 and 498), would also go in the direction of an equation between the two, especially since T. Richter (2004, n. 1661) tends to consider dnin-ma-ra, dnin-ki-ma-ra, and dnin-MAR.KI as the same divinity during the OB period as the result of a confusion between different traditions (for the bibliography on dnin-MAR.KI, see lastly OBO 259, p. 54, 20; add Attinger 1995).

157Regarding her place in the MGL, the restitution of dnin-dub (75; see Ninduba) two lines further may imply the male exorcist Ninmadra (on this male figure, see RlA 9, p. 462, Rodin 2014, p. 266, and the comment regarding the NGL under Ninegalla c). Given the presence of birth deities preceding this entry, this classification in the MGL may reflect an attempt to reconcile the two aspects of Ninmadra, the second being that of a birth goddess (see most recently Ceccarelli 2016, p. 163), perhaps due to the equation with Ninmar (see the DNs dnin-mar-ama-ĝu10 and dnin-marki-ama-ĝu10 cited in Attinger 1995, p. 27). Regarding the group associated with the seven children of Enmešara, it is worth noting that, according to W. G. Lambert’s restoration (2013, p. 215), she might appear with Ninlil before those divinities in an incantation fragment. She also figures with three of them in the Emesal list: MSL 4, p. 5—24. Ninimma, 27. Ninsig, 28. Ninkasi, 29. Ninmada, 31. Diĝirmaḫ (cited in Krebernik RlA 9, p. 443 §4.1, and Rodin 2014, p. 208, to underline Ninkasi’s belonging to Enlil’s court and her aspect of birth goddess, respectively).


158MGL 72: see comments under Ninmadra.


159Regarding TIM 9 86 o. ii 10 (table 4), according to the traces, the remaining space, and the context, MAŠ is the only possible reading. The association of dnin-mug and dnin-maš also appears in WeL 97-98. In the NGL, ‘the juxtaposition of dnin-maš to the divine name NINĝidru (dnin-PA) here is presumably based on the graphic similarity of the PA and MAŠ signs’ (Peterson 2009a, p. 65: 170; Johandi 2019, p. 113).

160For further details on her association in god-lists, see under Ḫendursaĝa, Ninpiriĝ(+) and Ninsudaĝ.


161§36: Ceccarelli 2020, p. 39, Richter 2004, p. 222 n. 949, as well as RlA 9, p. 470-471.


162The restoration of l. 23 in SF 1 can be found in RlA 9, p. 485 §2 (see the same association with Ninsig in SF 5/6 38-39). Ninmuga is a complex deity with a feminine origin, who fulfills as much the role of divine blacksmith as of creative/birth deity and whose companion is Išum/Ḫendursaĝa (on both deities and their relationship to Ninmuga in god-lists, see under Ḫendursaĝa). The name’s proximity to Ninsig in archaic lists is also noteworthy, see RlA 9, p. 471-473. Our current understanding of Ninmuga is summarized in OBO 259, p. 55: 24, and n. 202-204 with bibliography (add Rodin 2014, p. 267-268; Ceccarelli 2016, p. 163-164). W. G. Lambert (2013, p. 242-243) remarks that the DN dnin-mug is also reinterpreted during the 2nd and 1st millennia as dnin-ma3-ug5 ‘Lady of the house of death’. This secondary reinterpretation likely echoes the equation of Išum with Nergal.


163A reading dnin-ḪAR-ra, an underworld deity, is possible in MGL 105; see AA VI 304 (Schwemer 2001, p. 32 n. 151, and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 377). Nevertheless, we propose reading dnin-mur-ra for Ningilin’s husband (MGL 104): Nin(m)ur(u) ‘Lord of Muru’, usually written with the sign IM as in dnin-IMki in GeL 291, as Ningilin precedes in line 289 (RlA 9, p. 474). On the relationship of this deity with Iškur, see Schwemer 2001, p. 12. In the MGL, the proximity with Ninkur(a) has also led to the final -ra rather than -ru. The writing ḪAR for mur instead of IM figures also in MGL 55 (copy has HI×TAB, instead of ḪI×AŠ), preceded by dEN. This was considered to be an error for dIM by W. G. Lambert (1985a), but more likely reflects one of the bynames of Iškur in AA III 206ff., written EN*EN (see Schwemer 2001, p. 18-19 and his remarks on p. 58-60, on the writing d mu-urIM, see p. 18 and p. 31: 207; note also M. Krebernik’s restoration [RlA 7, p. 617] d˹IM˺ for line 55, though the sign seems too close to the end of the line). In light of the association in the MGL, the question whether the deity dNIN.ḪAR of AA VI 304 is separate from dnin-IMki or a remnant of an earlier association of Ningilin and Ninmur(u), where Ningilin was placed at the end of the dnin- section preceding underworld deities (MGL or Urukean tradition), is left open.

dNIN-naĝar and dnin-NAĜAR.AB

164In the Zami hymn Nr. 68 from Abū Ṣalābīḫ, dNIN-naĝar (table 3) alternates with dNIN-niĝar(NIGIN3), see RlA 9, p. 474; on the archeological relationship between the Zami hymns and the god-lists, see Rubio 2011, p. 106ff. The link between Nin-AB.NAĜAR (or NAĜAR.AB) and Ninsig outside the god-lists in the 3rd millennium is shown in RlA 9, p. 485 §3 and §4, with Nin-AB.NAĜAR perhaps a byname of Ninsig (RlA 9, p. 475).


165MGL 63: see §31-42.


  • 196 There are unfortunately no new duplicates of this part of AA (p. c. M. Krebernik).

166With regard to MGL 64, A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 484 §1) suggest that this entry provides a syllabic writing dnin-ni3-˹si˺ of dnin-sigx in the following line (65). However, according to the organization of the signs in line 64 in TH 80.112, a longer sign than SI can be expected: the traces visible on the photograph (Lambert 1985a, p. 190) correspond more to SAĜ. A syllabic writing of a preceding line would also be unexpected in a OB god-list. The sign order may be uncertain (RlA 9, p. 483) due to DNs such as dsaĝ-ĝar (AA IV 281) or dsaggar2 (WeL 99, and Cancik-Kirschbaum and Ziegler 2018, p. 83-84). However, the presence of the DN dnin-ĜAR.SAĜ at the beginning of the dnin- section in SF 23 vi 21 thus suggests this restoration, likely to be read dnin-ni3-saĝ, since a deity written dnin-nesaĝ2-x is now attested in CUSAS 42 575 o. 5 and r. 2. A deity dnin-nesaĝ appears also in a PN of the lentil AUCT 5 210 [P249360] (1. ur-dnin-ma-da, 2. ur-dnin-nesaĝ-ĝa2, 3. ur-dnin-imma3[SIG7)]. The same PN seems to be present in PRAK A 40 ‘ur-nin-ne-sag’ (PRAK II, p. 46). Moreover, the same deity can be restored in AA V 92 as well: the entry dnin-ĜAR-[...],196 one of Babu’s three muḫaldim, is found in the large section of healing deities such as NINniĝar (AA V 135), identified with Ninisina/Ninkarrak. Combined with the phonetic association (saĝ/sig), this provides another argument in favor of identifying the entry with our deity, since this culinary function is also suitable for her juxtaposition with Ninsig, the butcher of Ekur, in the MGL. In the 3rd millennium, this deity could not be found in offering lists, but ni3-saĝ-x exists as a PN element in the Ebla lexical list MEE 3 67 rev. i 4 (Bonechi 2016); compare also the PN Lugal-nesaĝ in the collections of Sumerian letters copied by OB students (cf. SEpM 8 and 18, Kleinerman 2011, p. 136 and 167).
Even if other attestations, especially in literary texts or offering lists, are missing, it can be suggested that Ninnisaĝ belonged to the field of birth with some aspects of a goddess of vegetation due to her place between Ninmada and Ninimma in AUCT 5 210, after Ningal in SF 23 and between NINniĝar and Ninsig in the MGL (on the relation between these deities, see Ninmadra and §47-50).


167In TIM 9 86 o. ii 8′ (table 4), the presence of dnin-maš two lines further on, and of the bottom horizontal on the copy, encourages one to read PIRIĜ or PIRIĜ+ (UG), rather than PEŠ2. This association of Ninpiriĝ(+) and Kusu is also in line with the proposition of A. Cavigneaux and F. al-Rawi (2002, p. 40) to see this deity in the spelling ni-ib-ri-mi after Kusu in the Sumerian incantation against field pests (H 73 et H 74 i 14; the text was recently studied in Simons 2018, p. 129-130 with supplementary references).

168In MGL 87, this entry was read dnin-sumun2 by W. G. Lambert, but A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik (RlA 9, p. 469) suggest dnin-PIRIĜ! instead, due to the association with dnin-maš (MGL 86) in incantations. From the point of view of the proposed context, this deity therefore fits perfectly. Moreover, the entry read dnin-piriĝ+ by W. G. Lambert in MGL 104 has to be read dnin-gilin, since in the third column of the obverse of TH 80.112, the sign begins with TUG2, which is one of the characteristics of PEŠ2 used to write the name of the goddess Ningilin: on the graphic evolution of the sign, see Krebernik 1984, p. 288, and on the distinction of the term designating a ‘rodent’ (d)nin-ka6(PEŠ2), with the orthographic variant (d)nin-ka5(LUL), see Veldhuis 2002, p. 67-68, and Peterson 2009a, p. 103-104: 6′-7′.

169See also under dnin-BARA2 2.


170MGL 88: see comments under Lisin.


171See E/Indagara for line 14b of MVN 10 144 r. ii (table 5) and for the spelling of SAR in this DN.

172MGL 65, see dnin-BARA2 1 for her attributes and proximity to Ninimma.


173On the importance of the ‘Lady of the wild cows’ during the 3rd millennium (§37), see Wilcke RlA 9, p. 501-504, and OBO 259, p. 52: 9 and n. 179-180 for bibliography (add Woods 2012; Mittermayer 2012, p. 316-317; Gabbay 2014, p. 111 n. 281; Cooper 2016, p. 8-9).


174MGL 71: see dnin-DA-gal c.


175Wilcke 2018, p. 67; dnin-šen-šen-na (§36) appears among the bynames of Inana/Ištar in other god-lists (RlA 9, p. 487).


176MGL 34 (TH00-T127a o. ii′ 3): see §19-23.


177Line 85 of the MGL is read dnin-su3-ud-a<g2>? by W. G. Lambert (1985a, p. 188: 85), a DN which may figure in SF 1 iv 17 following the group of divinities linked to the realm of magic (Krebernik 1986, p. 171, with the comments in RlA 9, p. 500). His reading fit the context, as the next name in the MGL is dnin-maš, a deity primarily found in exorcistic texts (not in AA; for the WeL see Richter 2004, p. 159 and for the other god-lists see Peterson 2009a, p. 65: 170, both with bibliography). The last wedge (or LA2) in MGL 85 would be an abortive attempt by the pupil to write the complex sign NINDA2×NE.


178Already attested in the Fāra list, Nintil (MGL 79) usually appears among the divinities linked with the field of magic in the OB god-lists (see table 6 and §56). She is the mother of Ninkasi in the hymn to Ninkasi A (Sallaberger 2012, p. 303 II 9 and 11). This also explains her place in AA II 179, where she is harmonized with Damgalnuna/Damkina, wife of Enki. She also appears in the myth of Enki and Ninḫursaĝa as the penultimate deity, brought into the world to heal Enki’s ribs. Pascal Attinger (1984, p. 47: 266) nevertheless distinguishes between the two divinities; on the etymology of this DN as ‘Lady of the ribs’ or ‘Lady giving life’, see Attinger 1984, p. 47.

179With regard to line 80 of TH 80.112, the -ma proposed by W. G. Lambert would be more cursive than the other -ma of TH 80.112 reverse, while the traces in TH99-T94 are more reminiscent of E2: dnin-e2-MUŠ3.A (RlA 9, p. 349) is attested in GeL 213 among Inana’s bynames, preceded by Ninintina. The parallelism between the GeL and the MGL in the following lines, where different epithets of Inana appear, raises the question of a possible confusion or equation of Ninintina and Nintil in the MGL or GeL, given:

  • a. that the subsection of epithets of Inana/Ištar may already begin with Ninarazu (MGL 76);
  • b. that Nintil is absent from the GeL;
  • c. that she usually appears among divinities connected with the field of magic in OB god-lists.

180The name Ninintina refers to Inana’s fight against dEN.TI (Ebiḫ); see Krebernik RlA 9, p. 386 (not to be confused with den-ti one of Enki names, AA II 165, cf. RlA 9, p. 505). On the equation between dnin-til3 and dNIN-ti-ḫal (NGL 101), see Peterson 2009a, p. 57: 101 with previous bibliography. Note finally that the lines NGL 174-177 give the order Ninmuga, Ninsig, Nintil, dnin-SUḪ(MUŠ3ĝunu)-a, which recalls the organization of the MGL.


181‘Lady who gives life to the dead’ (MGL 47) is one of the figures of the healing goddess with Gula, Ninisina and Ninkarrak, on these goddesses see with previous bibliography Wagensonner 2008, p. 286-287; Ceccarelli 2009, p. 33ff.; Peterson 2009b, p. 237; Huber Vulliet 2010, p. 134, 145; OBO 259, p. 82ff.; Böck 2014, p. 9ff.; Rodin 2014, p. 193ff.; Charpin 2017a, chap. 1 §1ff.


182MGL 33: see §19-23, 39, 57, Lisin and dnin-BARA2 2.


183‘Lady of the spread legs’ (MGL 74), she is dam-ban3-da of An (‘etwa “Nebenfrau”’ RlA 9, p. 511), written dnin-ur2-sal-la in AA I 26 (for the identification see Lambert 1985a, p. 188 and Lambert 2013, p. 418: l. 16). Her association with dnin-dub in the MGL may derive from a confusion with or reinterpretation of dnin-ur3, since both are often associated during Presargonic and Ur III periods (Selz 1995, p. 217-218; RlA 9, p. 339-340). The latter may also already be the result of a confusion with dnin-ur4, the wife of Šara, whose name can be used as an epithet for Umma: Ummaki ur4-SAL (IAS 282 viii 7ʹ apud RlA 9, p. 510).


184On Nisaba (MGL 57), see particularly Robson 2007, esp. the synthesis on p. 227-229 and literary extracts p. 232-233 (see also inter alia Lion 2011, p. 91-92; Wiggermann 2011, p. 683; Glassner 2012, p. 46; OBO 259, p. 19 and 52: 10 n. 181; Waetzoldt RlA 12, p. 264-265 §12; Charpin RlA 12, p. 268 (Charpin 2017a, chap. 4 §9-13 and chap. 6 §37); Stol 2016, p. 370-371; Simons 2018, p. 123-135; cf. §68 note 180). On Ḫaja (MGL 60), the spouse of Nisaba in the city of Ereš, see Michalowski RlA 9, p. 576 §5; Weeden 2009, p. 90ff.; Lisman 2013, p. 145-150). On Ezinam/Ašnan (MGL 61), a grain goddess, see Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 230-231; OBO 259, p. 52 n. 182; and Simons 2018, p. 136 and 145. Note that Ezinam/Ašnan is also playing a role in the incantations in order to stop the post-natal bleeding (OBO 259, p. 65 and 241). Regarding her proximity with Kusu in the god-lists, both were ‘merged’ into the deity Ezinam-Kusu (OBO 259, p. 69-70), which is also one of the titles of Nisaba in her form as vegetation goddess (see Black 2005, p. 48 and bibliography n. 40).

185See §43 and Kusu.


186On the alternation Nisaba-gal and Nanibgal (cf. table 3: SF 1 10, SF 23 vi 18; MGL 59), see McEwan RlA 9, p. 151,


187For references on Nungal, see note 168 and Igalima.


188Regarding TIM 9 86 o. ii 1′-2′ (table 4), the context in which the couple Nuska-Sataraḫnuna appears in the god-lists is thoroughly reassessed by Mark E. Cohen and M. Krebernik (RlA 11, p. 482 §3; on the reading taraḫ of DAR3 see Mittermayer 2006, p. 144: 365; on the name Nuska/Nusku see Streck RlA 9, p. 629-633, Lambert 2002, Mittermayer 2006, p. 57). The tradition of the group of seven also likely played a role in the association between Nuska and Šuziana at Nippur, which T. Richter (2004, p. 87-88) explains by appeal to the prism of the Enki and Ninlil myth.

189According to the context of the NGL 169-175 (table 4), it seems that NINĝidru was equated with Nuska for several reasons: J. Peterson (2009a, p. 65: 169 and 68: 188-189) cites an unpublished manuscript of AA (CBS 331 r. I 15) in which NINĝidru is associated with Nuska. Evidence of this association in earlier times is reflected in NINĝidru’s proximity to Ninmešudu in SF 5 i 8 (Krebernik 1986, p. 189) and in the GeL 147, with Ninmešudu associated in AA I 258 with Sataraḫnuna, Nuska’s wife (on the link between Ninmešudu and dNINĝidru, see RlA 9, p. 470; RlA 9, p. 480; and Selz 2014, p. 204-205). On NINĝidru’s relationship with the mother-goddess, see RlA 9, p. 480, especially her juxtaposition with Nintur(a) in TCL 5 6053 (cf. table 5) or Gula in CT 24 35: 32-33 (cf. Richter 2004, p. 83-84). On the reading ĝidru of PA in this DN, see Bramanti 2017, p. 26 and 28-30. It should be noted that this name could also be read in Akkadian (see the spelling dNIN-ḫad-da, akk. ḫaṭṭu), while taking into account A. Bramanti’s remarks (2017, p. 129 n. 13). Finally, there is probably only one deity hiding behind this DN, instead of two—NIN-ḫad and NIN-ĝidru—as proposed by G. Marchesi (2006, p. 31 n. 134 f apud Peterson 2009a, p. 65: 169): The reading dNIN-ḫad-(da) (RlA 9, p. 480) does not contradict P. Michalowski’s interpretations (apud RlA 9, p. 480) on the meaning given to PA in this DN (‘scepter’). The Akkadian/Semitic reading of dnin- deities can also be seen through associations or equations in the god-lists (see for example under Ninegalla or Ningina). See further references concerning NINĝidru known since the lists of Fāra in Selz 1995, p. 263, Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 357 n. 1611, and Bramanti 2017, p. 140.


190ŠGL A 4.15′ (table 6): see comments under Ašgi.


191TIM 9 86 o. ii 2′ (table 4): see comments under Nuska.


192W. G. Lambert considers his proposal to see Šakkan/Sumuqan at line 50 of TH 80-112 too hypothetical, but this is based on a reading GAN2 of the last sign instead of a poorly drawn ARAD, for a compound of the type ANŠE?.ARAD with a /šakkan/ value (compare with the ARAD in contracts of ‘Chantier K’). On this personification of the male of all herbivores, pronounced Šaḫan at Mari (Durand 2008, p. 251), see Cavigneaux 1999, p. 261; Wiggermann RlA 13, p. 308-309 (Wiggermann 2010, p. 331-332); Gabbay 2014, p. 255-256; and Simons 2018, p. 132-135.


193Regarding the inclusion of Šara between E/Indagara and Ninsig in TCL 5 6053 (table 5), see under E/Indagara.

194On the Šara section in GeL, see Gibil.


195MVAG 21 Taf. 4 r. 8 (table 6): see Ašgi.


196table 7 ; see Nougayrol 1968, p. 230 l. 233: ‘cette divinité, qui, à en juger par son nom, a pour mission de préserver les demeures, paraît avoir joui d’un prestige particulier chez les scribes lettrés d’Ugarit qui aimaient à se dire ses serviteurs, d’après plusieurs colophons encore inédits. Peut-être s’agit-il là d’une figure d’Išḫara’. The deity is perhaps rather a figure of Nisaba, but the proposal has yet to be substantiated.


197MGL 107: see §58-61.


198table 6: see Igalima.


199Šumaḫ is a ‘byname’ for many deities (Krebernik RlA 13, p. 290). According to the context of TH99-T578 ii 13, it is the one belonging to the circle of the healing goddesses: to Nintinugga at Ur III or OB Nippur (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 296; Richter 2004, p. 111) or to Ninisina, his vizier or udug at Isin (Richter 2004, p. 213-214, and Ceccarelli 2020, p. 40, with additional bibliography).


200Regarding line 62 of TH 80.112, J.-M. Durand’s copy has dzi-šu-˹x˺-[x] and W. G. Lambert (1985a, p. 187) restores dzi-ša3-ĝal2, a name of Ašnan (MGL 61). However, the traces following ŠU look more like AN and there is room for one more sign, so it is suggested to see rather a metathesis for Šuziana (dzi-šu-˹an˺-[na]), a minor figure of the mother-goddess (Lambert 1992, p. 134-135), as evidenced by the various attestations listed by Krebernik RlA 13, p. 377-379; Rodin 2014, p. 265-266; or Cooper 2017, p. 43). See also on her cult at Ur III Nippur Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 299ff., and during the OB period Richter 2004, p. 86ff.

201See §43-50.


202On Zarzarum (table 6), see recently Krebernik RlA 15, p. 221. Z. was at first considered to be a goddess and belonged to the maš-7 of Babu, also described as the lukur or ban3-da of Ninĝirsu. She was later made masculine in AA and classified as one of the children of the mother goddess. This deity bears the same title as Ašgi (Krebernik RlA 15, p. 221). The line A.4.13′ of the ŠGL (table 6) likely also refers to Zarzarum. The proximity with Lil(um) and the male children of Ninĝirsu in MVAG 21 Taf. 4 may also explain the reasons for her masculine transition in AA.

Haut de page


List of the articles cited from the Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie (RlA), ed. D. Ezard (vol. 4 to 10) and M. P. Streck (vol. 10 ff.), Berlin - New York

A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nin-agala », p. 325-326.
« Nin-amaškuga », p. 327.
« dNIN-BÀD », p. 335.
« dNin-BARAG », p. 335-336.
« dNinda-gal-di/zu », p. 337.
« Nin-duba », p. 339-340.
« Nin-duluma », p. 340-341.
« Nin-Eanna », p. 341.
« dNin-eguna », p. 347-348.
« dNin-é-MÙŠ.A », p. 349.
« dNin-É.NUN-na », p. 350.
« dNin-GABA », p. 351.
« Nin-gina », p. 361.
« Nin-girgilu », p. 362.
« Nin-gublaga », p. 374-376.
« Nin-gula », p. 376.
« NIN-gun(a/u) », p. 376-377.
« Nin-ḫinuna », p. 378.
« Nin-ibgala », p. 382.
« Nin-KA-gina », p. 440.
« Nin-ki », p. 445-447.
« Nin-kida/i », p. 447.
« dNin-KU7 », p. 450.
« dNin-kula », p. 450.
« Nin-kur(a), dNIN-KUR », p. 451.
« Nin-mada », p. 462.
« Nin-mar(r)a », p. 468.
« Nin-maš », p. 468-469.
« Nin-me-šudu », p. 470.
« Nin-me-urur », p. 470-471.
« Nin-muga, Nin-zed, Nin-zadim? », p. 471-473.
« Nin-(M)ur(u) », p. 474.
« NIN-naĝar », p. 474-475.
« dnin-NAGAR.AB », p. 475.
« NIN-niĝara », p. 477.
« dNIN-PA  », p. 480.
« dNin-PIRIG/PÌRIG  », p. 481-483.
« Nin-SAG.GAR », p. 483.
« dNin-SAR », p. 484-486.
« dNin-šár », p. 486.
« Nin-sudaĝ », p. 500.
« dNin-ti », p. 504-505.
« Nin-ura », p. 510
« Nin-Urima », p. 511.
« Nin-ursala », p. 511.
« Nin-uru(a)-mu(n)DU », p. 528.
« d(NIN.)UŠ.KA.LÍMMU », p. 530.
« Numušda », p. 611-614.

D. Charpin, RlA 12, 2009-2011
« Schreiber. B », p. 266-269.

M. E. Cohen and M. Krebernik, RlA 11, 2006-2008
« Sadar(a)nunna, Sadir(i)-nuna », p. 481-483

P. Delnero, RlA 13, 2011-2013
« Šulpaʾe », p. 284-286.

D. O. Edzard, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nin-Isina », p. 387-388.

K. Focke, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nin-imma », p. 384-386.

W. Heimpel, RlA 8, 1993-1997
« Mungo », p. 423-425.

W. Heimpel, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nin-ḫursaĝa », p. 378-381.
« Ninigizibara I und II. », p. 382-384.

F. Huber Vulliet, RlA 12, 2009-2011
« Šara », p. 31-34.

J. Klein, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Niĝgina/Kittum », p. 311-312.

M. Krebernik, RlA 7, 1987-1990
« Lil », p. 19-20.
« Medimša », p. 617.

M. Krebernik, RlA 8, 1993-1997
« Meskilak, Mesikila, Ninsikila », p. 93-94.
« Mondgott. A. I. », p. 360-369.
« Muttergöttin. A. I. In Mesopotamien », p. 502-516.

M. Krebernik, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« dnin-EZEN(-na) », p. 351.
« Nin-girima. I. », p. 363-367.
« dNIN.ḪAR », p. 377.
« Nin-intina », p. 386.
« Nin-irigala », p. 386-387.
« Nin-kasi und Siraš/Siris », p. 442-444.
« Ninlil », p. 452-461.

M. Krebernik, RlA 10, 2003-2005
« Pabilsaĝ(a) », p. 160-167.
« Pa(p)-niĝara », p. 325-326.

M. Krebernik, RlA 12, 2009-2011
« Šassūru, Šassurātu, Šasurra », p. 88.
« Šidada », p. 452.
« Sirsir », p. 554-555.

M. Krebernik, RlA 13, 2011-2013
« Šulšaga(na/i) », p. 286-287.
« Šumaḫ », p. 290.
« Šuzi-ana », p. 377-379.
« Telītu(m) », p. 513.

M. Krebernik, RlA 15, 2016-2018
« Zarzarum », p. 221-222.
« Zurmu und Zar(i)mu », p. 348.
« Ilaba », p. 392-397.

W. G. Lambert, RlA 3, 1957-1971
« Götterlisten », p. 473-479.

W. R. Mayer and W. Sallaberger, RlA 10, 2003-2005
« Opfer. A. I. », p. 93-102.

G. J. P. McEwan, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nanibgal », p. 151.

P. Michalowski, RlA 7, 1987-1990
« Lisin », p. 32-33.

P. Michalowski, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nisaba. A », p. 575-579.

F. Pomponio, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nabû.A », p. 16-24.

W. Sallaberger, RlA 10, 2003-2005
« Pantheon. A. I. In Mesopotamien », p. 294-308.

D. Schwemer, RlA 15, 2016-2018
« Wettergott(heiten).A », p. 69-91.

M. P. Streck, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nusku », p. 629-633.

M. P. Streck, RlA 14, 2014-2016
« Türhütergottheiten », p. 163-164.

K. Volk, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nin-giriš », p. 367.

H. Waetzoldt, RlA 12, 2009-2011
« Schreiber. A », p. 250-266.

F. A. M. Wiggermann, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Nammu », p. 135-140.
« Nin-azu », p. 329-335.
« Nin-ĝišzida », p. 368-373.
« Nin-šubur », p. 490-500.

F. A. M. Wiggermann, RlA 12, 2009-2011
« Siebengötter. A. », p. 459-466.

F. A. M. Wiggermann, RlA 13, 2011-2013
« Sumuqan. A. », p. 308-309.

C. Wilcke, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« dNinsun », p. 501-504.

A. Zgoll, RlA 9, 1998-2001
« Ningal. A. I. », p. 352-356.

Ancient texts

AUWE 23 = Cavigneaux 1996.

CUSAS 12 = Civil 2010.

A. R. George, Mesopotamian Incantations and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 32), Bethesda, 2016.

A. Gadotti and A. Kleinerman, Elementary Education in Early Second Millennium BCE Babylonia (CUSAS 42), University Park, 2021.

IAS = OIP 99.

I. J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region (MAD 1), Chicago, 1952.

MC 25
A. R. George and J. Taniguchi (ed.), Cuneiform Text from the Folios of W. G. Lambert: Part Two (MesCiv. 25), Winona Lake, 2021.

G. Pettinato, Testi lessicali monolingui della biblioteca L. 2769 (MEE 3), Napoli, 1981.

MVAG 21 = Förtsch 1917.

MVN 10
J. P. Grégoire, Inscriptions et archives administratives cunéiformes. Première partie (MVN 10), Roma, 1981.

NABU 2017/38 = Gadotti and Kleinerman 2017.

OBO 259 = Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013.

OIP 99
R. D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (OIP 99), Chicago-London, 1974.

H. de Genouillac, Premières recherches archéologiques à Kich I-II, Paris, 1924.

A. Deimel, Die Inschriften von Fara. II: Schultexte aus Fara (WVDOG 43), Leipzig, 1923.

H. de Genouillac, Textes économiques d’Oumma de l’époque d’Our (TCL 5), Paris, 1922.

TCL 15 = Genouillac 1930.

TIM 9 = Dijk 1976.

UET 6/2 = Gadd and Kramer 1966.

UET 6/3
A. Shaffer and M.-C. Ludwig, Literary and Religious Texts, 3 (UET 6/3), London, 2006.

UET 7 = Gurney 1974.

VS 24
J. van Dijk, Literarische Texte aus Babylon (VS 24), Berlin, 1987.

Electronic ressources

Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (

Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts (

The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (

Modern studies

Adams 2009
R. McC. Adams, « Old Babylonian networks of urban notables », CDLJ 2009/7 (online, URL:, consulted 01/12/2022).

Alberti 1985
A. Alberti, « A reconstruction of the Abū Salābīkh god-list », SEL 2, p. 3-23.

Ambos 2004
C. Ambos, Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., ISLET, Dresden.

Archi 2018
A. Archi, « 2. Eblaite dGú-šar and dGú-ša-ra-tum ‒ Ugaritic kṯr and kṯrt », NABU 2018/1, p. 2-3.

Arnaud 1987
D. Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI/4 : textes de la bibliothèque, transcriptions et traductions, Paris.

Artemov 2012
N. Artemov, « The elusive beyond: Some notes on the netherworld geography in Sumerian tradition », in C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin (ed.), mu-ni u4 ul-li2-a-aš ĝa2-ĝa2-de3. Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger (OBO 256), Fribourg-Göttingen, p. 1-30.

Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013
J. M. Asher-Greve and J. Goodnick Westenholz, Goddesses in Context. On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationship and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources (OBO 259), Fribourg.

Attinger 1984
P. Attinger, « Enki et Ninḫursaga », ZA 74, p. 1-52.

Attinger 1995
P. Attinger, « 33. dnin-mar-ki-ga », NABU 1995/2, p. 27-29.

Attinger and Krebernik 2004
P. Attinger and M. Krebernik, « L’hymne à Ḫendursaĝa (Ḫendursaĝa A) », in R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004 (AOAT 325), Münster, p. 21-104.

Baker et al. 2010
H. D. Baker, E. Robson and G. Zólyomi (ed.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends, London.

Beaulieu 2013
P.-A. Beaulieu, « Mesopotamian antiquarianism from Sumer to Babylon », in A. Schnapp et al. (ed.), World Antiquarianism: Comparative Perspectives, Los Angeles, p. 121-139.

Benito 1969
C. A. Benito, “Enki and Ninmaḫ” and “Enki and the World Order”. Sumerian and Akkadian Texts with English Translations and Notes, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor.

Black 2005
J. Black, « Songs of the goddess Aruru », in P. Artzi, C. Cohen, B. Eichler, V. Hurrowitz and Y. Sefati (ed.), An Experienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing, Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda, p. 39-62.

Black and Green 1992
J. Black and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary, London.

Böck 2014
B. Böck, The Healing Goddess Gula: Towards an Understanding of Ancient Babylonian Medicine (CHANE 67), Leiden.

Bodine 2015
D. Bodine, « Les anges de la colère, de la grâce et du repentir divins en Ezéchiel 14, 12-23 et en Gilgameš XI, 181-198 », in J.-M. Durand, L. Marti and T. Römer (ed.), Colères et repentirs divins : actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 24 et 25 avril 2013 (OBO 278), Fribourg-Göttingen, p. 71-87.

Bonechi 2016
M. Bonechi, « 1. On two Ebla lexical lists with personal names (MEE 3 67, 59) », NABU 2016/1, p. 1-3.

Bottéro 1974
J. Bottéro, « Symptômes, signes, écritures en Mésopotamie ancienne », in J.-P. Vernant (ed.), Divination et rationalité, Paris, p. 100-103.

Bottéro and Kramer 1993
J. Bottéro and S. N. Kramer, Lorsque les dieux faisaient l’homme, 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1989), Paris.

Bowen 2017
J. Bowen, A Preliminary Study of the Sumerian Curricular and Lamentational Texts from the Old Babylonian City of Kish, PhD Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Bramanti 2017
A. Bramanti, « The scepter (ĝidru) in Early Mesopotamian written source », Kaskal 14, p. 121-152.

Bruschweiler 1987
F. Bruschweiler, Inanna. La déesse triomphante et vaincue dans la cosmologie sumérienne (Les cahiers du CEPOA 4), Leuven.

Cancik-Kirschbaum and Ziegler 2018
E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and N. Ziegler, « Zur Toponymie Nordmesopotamiens im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr.: 2. Von Göttern und Menschen », in K. Kleber, G. Neumann and S. Paulus (ed.), Grenzüberschreitungen. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Hans Neumann zum 65. Geburtstag am 9. Mai 2018 (Dubsar 5), Münster, p. 79-98.

Cavigneaux 1981
A. Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša Harê, Baghdad.

Cavigneaux 1987
A. Cavigneaux, « Notes sumérologiques », Acta Sumerologica 9, p. 45-66.

Cavigneaux 1996
A. Cavigneaux, Uruk, Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI-4/5, nach Kopien von Adam Falkenstein (AUWE 23), Mainz.

Cavigneaux 1999
A. Cavigneaux, « A scholar’s library in Meturan? », in T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn (ed.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (AMD 1), Groningen, p. 251-273.

Cavigneaux 2018
A. Cavigneaux, « Portes, dieux portiers et dieux-portes », in P. M. Michel (dir.), Rites aux portes (EGeA 4), Bern, p. 93-99.

Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1995
A. Cavigneaux and F. Al-Rawi, « Textes magiques de Tell Haddad (textes de Tell Haddad II). Troisième partie », ZA 85, p. 169-220.

Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 2002
A. Cavigneaux and F. Al-Rawi, « Liturgies exorcistiques agraires (textes de Tell Haddad IX) », ZA 92, p. 1-59.

Cavigneaux and Wiggermann 2014
A. Cavigneaux and F. A. M. Wiggermann, « Vizir, concubine, entonnoir… Comment lire et comprendre le signe SAL.ḪUB2 ? », in Sassmannshausen and Neumann 2014, Leiden-Boston, p. 25-36.

Ceccarelli 2009
M. Ceccarelli, « Einige Bemerkungen zum Synkretismus Bau/Ninisina », in P. S. Scafa and S. Viaggio (ed.), Dallo Stirone al Tigri, dal Tevere all’Eufrate: Studi in onore di Claudio Saporetti (AIO 477), Roma, p. 31-54.

Ceccarelli 2016
M. Ceccarelli, Enki und Ninmah: Eine mythische Erzählung in sumerischer Sprache (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 16), Tübingen.

Ceccarelli 2017
M. Ceccarelli, « Bemerkungen zu Namma und weiteren Wassergottheiten », AoF 44, p. 1-8.

Ceccarelli 2018
M. Ceccarelli, « Bemerkungen zur vermittelnden Gottheit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der sumerischen Königshymnen », in P. Attinger et al. (ed.), Text and Image: Proceedings of the 61e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Geneva and Bern, 22-26 June 2015 (OBO Series Archaeologica 40), Leuven, p. 117-129.

Ceccarelli 2020
M. Ceccarelli, « Ein neuer An=Anum-Vorläufer und ein Siegel mit Lobpreis auf den Gott Enki », in J. Baldwin and J. Matuszak (ed.), mu-zu an-za3-še3 kur-ur2-še3 ḫe2-g̃al2: Altorientalistische Studien zu Ehren von Konrad Volk (Dubsar 17), Münster, p. 29-47.

Charpin 1986
D. Charpin, Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi, Genève.

Charpin 1990
D. Charpin, « La Cité-État d’Imâr à l’époque des rois de Mari », MARI 6, p. 39-92.

Charpin 2008
D. Charpin, Lire et écrire à Babylone, Paris.

Charpin 2012
D. Charpin, « Temple-palais et chapelles palatiales en Syrie », RA 106, p. 73-82.

Charpin 2017a
D. Charpin, La vie méconnue des temples mésopotamiens, Paris (online, DOI: 10.4000/books.lesbelleslettres.106).

Charpin 2017b
D. Charpin, « L’intercession dans la civilisation mésopotamienne », in T. Römer, B. Dufour, F. Pfitzmann and C. Uehlinger (ed.), Entre dieux et hommes : anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires : actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (OBO 286), Fribourg-Göttingen, p. 238-254.

Charpin and Durand 1985
D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, « La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim », Mari 4, p. 293-343.

Civil 1985
M. Civil, « On Some Texts Mentioning Ur-Namma », Orientalia 54, p. 27-45.

Civil 2010
M. Civil, The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 12), Bethesda.

Civil 2011
M. Civil, « XIII. The law collection of Ur-Namma », in A. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 17), Bethesda, p. 221-286.

Cohen 1988
M. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia, Bethesda.

Colman 2015
A. M. Colman, A Dictionary of Psychology, 4th edition, Oxford.

Cooper 2016
J. Cooper, « Sumerian literature and Sumerian identity », in K. Ryholt and G. Barjamovic (ed.), Problems of Canonicity and Identity Formation in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (CNI Publications 43), p. 1-18.

Cooper 2017
J. Cooper, « “Enlil and Namzitara” reconsidered », in L. Feliu, F. Karahashi and G. Rubio (ed.), The First Ninety Years. A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil (SANER 12), p. 37-53.

Couto-Ferreira 2009
M. E. Couto-Ferreira, Etnoanatomía y partonomía del cuerpo humano en sumerico y acadio. El léxico Ugu-mu, PhD, University of Chicago.

Couto-Ferreira 2017
M. E. Couto-Ferreira, « From head to toe: Listing the body in cuneiform texts », in J. Z. Wee (ed.), The Comparable Body: Analogy and Metaphor in Ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman Medicine, Studies in Ancient Medicine 49, p. 43-71.

Delnero 2012a
P. Delnero, The Textual Criticism of Sumerian Literature (Journal of Cuneiform Studies Suppl. 3), Boston.

Delnero 2012b
P. Delnero, « Memorization and the transmission of Sumerian literary compositions », JNES 71, p. 189-208.

Delnero 2015 P. Delnero, « Texts and performance: The materiality and function of the Sumerian liturgical corpus », in P. Delnero and J. Lauinger (ed.), Texts and Contexts: The Circulation and Transmission of Cuneiform Texts in Social Space (SANER 9), Berlin-New York, p. 87-118.

Delnero 2016
P. Delnero, « Divination and religion as a cultural system », in J. C. Fincke (ed.), Divination as Science: A Workshop Conducted during the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Warsaw, 2014, Winona Lake, p. 147-166.

Delnero 2020
P. Delnero, How to Do Things with Tears: Ritual Lamenting in Ancient Mesopotamia (SANER 26), Boston-Berlin.

Dickson 2007
K. Dickson, « Enki and Ninḫursaĝ: The trickster in paradise », JNES 66, p. 1-32.

Dijk 1963
J. van Dijk, « Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumérienne », Acta Orientalia 28, p. 1-59.

Dijk 1976
J. van Dijk, Cuneiform Texts: Texts of Varying Content (TIM 9), Leiden.

Durand 2008
J.-M. Durand, « La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des archives de Mari », in G. del Olmo Lete (ed.), Mythologie et religion des sémites occidentaux. Volume I : Ebla, Mari, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, p. 161-752.

Durand 2014
J.-M. Durand, « 17. À propos des noms d’années d’Isin paléo-babyloniens », NABU 2014/1, p. 26-28.

Durand and Guichard 1997
J.-M. Durand and M. Guichard, « Les rituels de Mari », FM 3, p. 19-78.

Edzard 1982
D. O. Edzard, « Der Aufbau des Syllabars „Proto-Ea“ », in M. Dandamayev et al. (ed.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff, Warminster, p. 42-61.

Edzard 1997
D. O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty (RIM 3/1), Toronto.

Edzard 2004
D. O. Edzard, « Teil 2: Altbabylonische Literatur und Religion », in D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard and M. Stol, Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit (OBO 160/4), Fribourg-Göttingen, p. 481-640.

Edzard 2007
D. O. Edzard, « Die altmesopotamischen lexikalischen Listen—verkannte Kunstwerke? », in C. Wilcke (ed.), Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Sprache, Religion, Kultur und Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden, p. 17-26.

Espak 2011
P. Espak, « Some early developments in Sumerian god-lists and pantheon », in T.  R. Kämmerer (ed.), Identities and Societies in the Ancient East-Mediterranean Region. Comparatives Approaches. Henning Graf Reventlow Memorial Volume (Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia 1, AOAT 390/1), Münster, p. 47-57.

Farber-Flügge 1973
G. Farber-Flügge, Der Mythos “Inanna und Enki” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Liste der me (Studia Pohl 10), Roma.

Finkel and Geller 1997
I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller (ed.), Sumerian Gods and their Representations (CunMon 7), Groningen.

Focke 1998
K. Focke, « Die Göttin Nin-Imma », ZA 88, p. 215-224.

Förtsch 1917
W. Förtsch, « Zwei altbabylonische Opferlisten », MVAG 21, p. 22-34.

Friberg 2000
J. Friberg, « Mathematics at Ur in the Old Babylonian period », RA 94, p. 97-188.

Fritz 2003
M. M. Fritz, “… Und weinten um Tammuz”: Die Götter Dumuzi-Ama’ušumgal’anna und Damu (AOAT 307), Münster.

Frymer-Kensky 1992
T. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, New York.

Gabbay 2014
U. Gabbay, Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods: Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millenium BC (HES 1), Wiesbaden.

Gadd and Kramer 1966
C. J. Gadd and S. N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts: Second Part (UET 6/2), London-Philadelphia.

Gadotti and Kleinerman 2017
A. Gadotti and A. Kleinerman, « 38. A new forerunner to An = Anum », NABU 2017/2, p. 67-69.

Gantzert 2008
M. Gantzert, The Emar Lexical Texts, Parts 1-3, Maastricht.

Gantzert 2011
M. Gantzert, The Emar Lexical Texts, Part 4, Maastricht.

Genouillac 1923
H. de Genouillac, « Grande liste de noms divins sumériens », RA 20, p. 89-106.

Genouillac 1928
H. de Genouillac, « Liste alphabétique des dieux sumériens du catalogue AO. 5373 », RA 25, p. 133-139.

Genouillac 1930
H. de Genouillac, Textes religieux sumériens du Louvre, 1-2 (TCL 15/16), Paris.

George 2015
A. R. George, « The gods Išum and Ḫendursanga: Night watchmen and street-lighting in Babylonia », JNES 74, p. 1-8.

George 2016a
A. R. George, « Die Kosmogonie des alten Mesopotamien », in M. Gindhart and T. Pommerening (ed.), Anfang & Ende: vormoderne Szenarien von Weltenstehung und Weltuntergang, Darmstadt, p. 7-25, 132-33, 140.

George 2016b
A. R. George, « Enlightenment on Išum », NABU 2016/100, p. 164-166.

Gesche 2001
P. Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien (AOAT 275), Münster.

Glassner 2012
J.-J. Glassner, « Droit et divination », JCS 64, p. 39-56.

Goodnick Westenholz 2010
J. Goodnick Westenholz, « Ninkarrak - an Akkadian goddess in Sumerian guise », in Shehata et al. 2010, p. 377-405.

Goodnick Westenholz and Westenholz 2006
J. Goodnick Westenholz and A. Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Old Babylonian Inscriptions, (CunMon 33), Leiden-Boston.

Guichard 2016
M. Guichard, « 39. H.E.416: une copie scolaire de la “Weidner god-list” », NABU 2016/2, p. 66-67.

Gurney 1974
O. R. Gurney, Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts (UET 7), London.

Huber Vulliet 2010
F. Huber Vulliet, « Un festival nippurite à l’époque paléobabylonienne », in Baker et al. 2010, p. 125-150.

Hundley 2013
B. H. Hundley, « Here a god, there a god: An examination of the divine in ancient Mesopotamia », AoF 40, p. 68-107.

Ismaʻel 2007
K. S. Ismaʻel, Old Babylonian Cuneiform Texts from the Lower Diyala Region: Telul Khattab (Edubba 9), London.

Jacobsen 1987
T. Jacobsen, The Harps that once… Sumerian Poetry in Translation, New Haven-London.

Jacquet 2011
A. Jacquet, Documents relatifs aux dépenses pour le culte (FM 12, Mémoires de NABU 13), Paris.

Johandi 2019
A. Johandi, The God Asar/Asalluḫi in the Early Mesopotamian Pantheon (Dissertationes Theologiae Universitatis Tartuensis 37), Tartu.

Jursa 2001/2002
M. Jursa, « Göttliche Gärtner? Eine bemerkenswerte Liste », AfO 48/49, p. 76-89.

Kağnici 2018
G. Kağnici, « Insights from Sumerian mythology: The myth of Enki and Ninmaḫ and the history of disability », Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 33, p. 429-450.

Katz 2003
D. Katz, The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources, Bethesda.

Katz 2015
D. Katz, « Myth and ritual through tradition and innovation », in A. Archi (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome (4-8 July 2011), Winona Lake, p. 59-74.

Keetman 2018
J. Keetman, « Die Götternamen dba-bu11 und dab-bu11 und die Möglichkeiten für Approximanten im Sumerischen », RA 112, p. 15-22.

Keetman 2019
J. Keetman, « 41. Mit bu11/pu11 (Ú) geschriebene Personennamen », NABU 2019, p. 67-68.

Kleinerman 2011
A. Kleinerman, Education in Early 2nd Millenium BC Babylonia: The Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany (CunMon 42), Leiden-Boston.

Kraus 1951
F. R. Kraus, « Nippur und Isin (1949) », JCS 3, p. 111-228.

Krebernik 1984
M. Krebernik, Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Untersuchungen zur ältesten keilschriftlichen Beschwörungsliteratur (TSO 2), Hildesheim.

Krebernik 1986
M. Krebernik, « Die Götterlisten aus Fāra », ZA 76, p. 161-204.

Krebernik 1992
M. Krebernik, « 5. Inschriften. 5.1. Die Textfunde der 9. Kampagne (1986) », in B. Hrouda (ed.), Isin - Išān Baḥrīyāt IV. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1986-1989 (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlungen, NF 105), München, p. 102-144.

Krebernik 2002
M. Krebernik, « Geschlachtete Gottheiten und ihre Namen », in O. Loretz (ed.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich (AOAT 281), Münster, p. 289-298.

Lambert 1985a
W. G. Lambert, « A list of god’s names found at Mari », in J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper (ed.), Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à M. Birot, Paris, p. 181-190.

Lambert 1985b
W. G. Lambert, « The pantheon of Mari », Mari 4, p. 525-540.

Lambert 1992
W. G. Lambert, « The relationship of Sumerian and Babylonian myth as seen in accounts of creation », in D. Charpin and F. Joannès (ed.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien (CRRAI 38), Paris, p. 129-135.

Lambert 2002
W. G. Lambert, « The name of Nuska », RA 96, p. 57-60.

Lambert 2013
W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (MesCiv. 16), Winona Lake.

Lauinger 2012
J. Lauinger, « Appendix C: The Old Babylonian tablets from Adab in the collection of the Oriental Institute Museum », in K. L. Wilson (ed.), Bismaya: Recovering the Lost City of Adab (OIP 138), p. 147-154.

Lecompte 2013
C. Lecompte, « Temps, mémoire et évolution des cultures aux époques archaïques : écriture du passé et listes lexicales », in L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà and J. Sanmartín (ed.), Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26-30 July 2010 (CRRAI 56), Winona Lake, p. 143-158.

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

Lion 2011
B. Lion, « Literacy and gender », in Radner and Robson 2011, p. 90-112.

Lisman 2013
J. J. W. Lisman, Cosmogony, Theogony and Anthropogeny in Sumerian Texts (AOAT 409), Münster.

Litke 1998
R. L. Litke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: da-nu-um and AN: anu šá amēli (TBC 3), New Haven.

Livingstone 1986
A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Oxford.

Löhnert 2008
A. Löhnert, « Scribes and singers of emesal lamentations in ancient Mesopotamia in the second millennium BCE », in E. Cingano and L. Milano (ed.), Papers on Ancient Literatures: Greece, Rome and the Near East. Proceedings of the “Advanced Seminar in the Humanities”, Venice International University 2004-2005 (Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente - Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), Padova, p. 421-447.

Löhnert 2010
A. Löhnert, « Reconsidering the consecration of priests in ancient Mesopotamia », in Baker et al. 2010, p. 183-191.

Löhnert 2011
A. Löhnert, « Motive und Funktionen der Göttinnenklagen im frühen Mesopotamien », in M. Jaques (ed.), Form und Funktion der Klage in den Kulturen der Antike (OBO 251), Fribourg-Göttingen, p. 39-62.

Malayeri 2014
M. Malayeri, Schülertexte aus Susa, PhD, Tübingen.

Mander 1986
P. Mander, Il pantheon di Abu-Abū-Ṣālabīkh (IUO 26), Napoli.

Marchesi 2006
G. Marchesi, Lumma in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia (HANES 10), Padua.

Margueron 2015
J.-C. Margueron (dir.), « Mari : rapport préliminaire sur la 33e campagne (1997) ; Mari : rapport préliminaire sur la 34e campagne (1998) ; Mari : rapport préliminaire sur la 35e campagne (2000) », in J.-C. Margueron et al. (ed.), Akh Purattim 3, Lyon, p. 9-111.

Michalowski 1989
P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (MesCiv. 1), Winona Lake.

Michalowski 1993
P. Michalowski, « The torch and the censer », in M. Cohen et al. (ed.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda, p. 151-163.

Michalowski 2002
P. Michalowski, « ‘Round about Nidaba’: On the early goddesses of Sumer », in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (ed.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, p. 413-422.

Mittermayer 2006
C. Mittermayer, Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-literarischen Texte, unter Mitarbeit von P. Attinger (OBO sonderband), Fribourg and Göttingen.

Mittermayer 2012
C. Mittermayer, « Die Uruk I-Dynastie—ein Konstrukt der Isin-Zeit? », in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East (CRRAI 54), Winona Lake, p. 313-326.

Molina 2000
M. Molina, « Lexical and other school tablets in the Montserrat Museum », in S. Graziani, M. C. Casaburi and G. Lacerenza (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, Istituto Universitario Orientale (Studi Asiatici, Serie Minor LXI), Napoli, vol. II, p. 751-764.

Nougayrol 1968
J. Nougayrol, « Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit », Ugaritica V, p. 1-446.

Oelsner 1989
J. Oelsner, « 33. Zu einer Schülertafel aus Mari », NABU 1989/2, p. 22-23.

Oelsner 2015
J. Oelsner, « Bemerkungen zum Edubba’a in Uruk », in N. V. Koslova, E. Vizirova and G. Zolyomi (ed.), Studies in Sumerian Language and Literature Festschrift Joachim Krecher (Babel und Bibel 8), Winona Lake, p. 423-436.

Owen 2013
D. I. Owen, Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. Volume I: Commentary and Indexes (Nisaba 15), Bethesda.

Pedersén 2005
O. Pedersén, Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899-1917 (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 25), Berlin.

Peterson 2008
J. Peterson, « 37. Neo-Babylonian exemplars of the Weidner godlist in the University Museum, Philadelphia », NABU 2008/2, p. 46-48.

Peterson 2009a
J. Peterson, Godlists from Old Babylonian Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia (AOAT 362), Münster.

Peterson 2009b
J. Peterson, « Two new Sumerian texts involving the netherworld and funerary offerings », ZA 99, p. 233-246.

Peterson 2014
J. Peterson, « New Sumerian literary texts involving the gods Numušda and Gibil », Studia Mesopotamica 1, p. 291-317.

Peterson 2016
J. Peterson, « UET 6/1, 74, the hymnic introduction of a Sumerian letter-prayer to Ninšubur », ZA 106, p. 33-41.

Pomponio 1978
F. Pomponio, Nabû. Il culto e la figura di un dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro (Studi Semitici 51), Roma.

Porter 2009
B. Porter, « Blessings from a crown, offering to a drum: Were there non-anthropomorphic deities in ancient Mesopotamia? », in B. Porter (ed.), What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2), Winona Lake, p. 153-194.

Postgate 2010
J. N. Postgate, « Dismembering Enki and Ninhursaga », in Baker et al. 2010, p. 237-243.

Pryke 2016
L. Pryke, « Religion and humanity in Mesopotamian myth and epic », in The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, Oxford (online, DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.247).

Radner and Robson 2011
K. Radner and E. Robson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford-New York.

Rendu-Loisel 2016
A.-C. Rendu-Loisel, Les chants du monde. Le paysage sonore de l’ancienne Mésopotamie, Toulouse.

Richter 2004
T. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit (AOAT 257), 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1999), Münster.

Robson 2007
E. Robson, « Gendered literacy and numeracy in the Sumerian literary corpus », in J. Ebeling and G. Cunningham (ed.), Analysing Literary Sumerian: Corpus-Based Approaches, London-Oakville, p. 215-249.

Rodin 2014
T. Rodin, The World of the Sumerian Mother Goddess: An Interpretation of Her Myths (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Historia Religionum 35), Upsala.

Römer 1993
W. H. P. Römer, « Mythen und Epen in sumerischer Sprache. A. Mythen », TUAT 3/3, p. 351-506.

Rubio 2009
G. Rubio, « Scribal secrets and antiquarian nostalgia: Writing and scholarship in ancient Mesopotamia », in D. Barreyra and G. Del Olmo Lete (ed.), Reconstructing a Distant Past. Ancient Near Eastern Essays in Tribute to Jorge R. Silva Castillo, Barcelona, p. 153-180.

Rubio 2010
G. Rubio, « Reading Sumerian names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba », JCS 62, p. 29-43.

Rubio 2011
G. Rubio, « Gods and scholars: Mapping the pantheon in early Mesopotamia », in B. Pongratz-Leisten (ed.), Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, Winona Lake, p. 91-116.

Rumor 2017
M. Rumor, « There’s no fool like an old fool: The Mesopotamian Aluzinnu and its relationship to the Greek alazôn », Kaskal 14, p. 186-210.

Sallaberger 1993
W. Sallaberger, Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit, Teil 1 (UAVA 7/1), Berlin-New York.

Sallaberger 2012
W. Sallaberger, « Bierbrauen in Versen: Eine neue Edition und Interpretation der Ninkasi-Hymne », in C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin (ed.), mu-ni u4 ul-li2-a-aš ĝa2-ĝa2-de3. Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger (OBO 256), Fribourg-Göttingen, p. 291-328.

Saporetti 2010
C. Saporetti, « Qualche nota dai testi di Ešnunna », in M. G. Biga and M. Liverani (ed.), ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S. J. da amici e allievi (Vicino Oriente – Quaderno 5), Roma, p. 353-367.

Sassmannshausen and Neumann 2014
L. Sassmannshausen and G. Neumann (ed.), He Has Opened Nisaba’s House of Learning. Studies in Honor of Åke Waldemar Sjöberg on the Occasion of His 89th Birthday on August 1st 2013 (CunMon 46), Leiden-Boston.

Scheil 1895
V. Scheil, « Fragments de syllabaires assyriens », ZA 10, p. 193-221.

Scheil 1902
V. Scheil, Une saison de fouille à Sippar (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 1/I), Le Caire.

Scheucher 2012
T. Scheucher, The Transmissional and Functional Context of the Lexical Lists from Ḫattuša and from the Contemporaneous Traditions in Late Bronze Age Syria, PhD, Leiden.

Schrakamp 2015a
I. Schrakamp, « The value sigx of SAR in third millennium sources », AoF 42, p. 196-198.

Schrakamp 2015b
I. Schrakamp, « Urukagina und die Geschichte von Lagaš am Ende der präsargonischen Zeit », in R. Dittmann, G. J. Selz and E. Rehm (ed.), It’s a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s) (AVO 15), Münster, p. 303-386.

Schwemer 2001
D. Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Materialen und Studien nach den Schriftlichen Quellen, Wiesbaden.

Schwemer 2007
D. Schwemer, « The storm gods of the ancient Near East: Summary, synthesis, recent studies. Part 1 », JANER 7, p. 121-165.

Scribner 1985
S. Scribner, « Vygotsky’s uses of history », in J. V. Wertsch, Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, Cambridge, p. 119-145.

Selz 1995
G. J. Selz, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Staates von Lagaš (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13), Philadelphia.

Selz 1997
G. J. Selz, « The holy drum, the spear, and the harp: Towards an understanding of the problems of deification in third millennium Mesopotamia », in Finkel and Geller 1997, p. 167-209.

Selz 2002
G. J. Selz, « ‘Babilismus’ und die Gottheit dNindagar », in O. Loretz (ed.), Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich (AOAT 281), Münster, p. 647-684.

Selz 2011
G. J. Selz, « Remarks on the empirical foundation and scholastic traditions of early Mesopotamian acquisition of knowledge », WOO 6, p. 49-70.

Selz 2012
G. J. Selz, « Götter der Gesellschaft – Gesellschaft der Götter: Zur Dialektik von Abbildung und Ordnung », in H. Neuman and S. Paulus (ed.), Wissenskultur im Alten Orient: Weltanschauung, Wissenschaften, Techniken, Technologien, 4. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 20.-22. Februar 2002 (CDOG 4), Münster, p. 61-85.

Selz 2013
G. J. Selz, « Texts, textual bilingualism, and the evolution of Mesopotamian hermeneutics », in M. Bauks, W. Horowitz and A. Lange (ed.), Between Text and Text – The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times, Göttingen-Bristol, p. 47-65.

Selz 2014
G. J. Selz, « Dumuzi(d)s Wiederkehr? », in Sassmannshausen and Neumann 2014, p. 201-215.

Selz 2018
G. J. Selz, « A Mesopotamian path to abstraction? On Sumerian « ontologies » – Introduction », in R. Rollinger (ed.), Conceptualizing Past, Present and Future, Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium of the Melammu Project Held in Helsinki / Tartu, May 18-24, 2015 (Melammu Symposia 9), Münster, p. 409-433.

Shehata 2017
D. Shehata, « Eine mannshohe Leier im altbabylonischen Ištar-Ritual aus Mari (FM 3, no. 2) », AoF 44, p. 68-81.

Shehata et al. 2010
D. Shehata, F. Weiershäuser and K. V. Zand (ed.), Von Göttern und Menschen: Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg (CunMon 41), Leiden-Boston.

Shibata 2009
D. Shibata, « An Old Babylonian manuscript of the Weidner god-list from Tell Taban », Iraq 71, p. 43-52.

Sigrist and Ozaki 2019
M. Sigrist and T. Ozaki, Tablets from the Irisaĝrig Archive. Part one (CUSAS 40), University Park.

Simons 2017a
F. Simons, « A new join to the Hurro-Akkadian version of the Weidner god list from Emar (Msk 74.108a + Msk 74.158k) », AoF 44, p. 82-100.

Simons 2017b
F. Simons, « 6. Alammuš redux », NABU 2017/1, p. 8-13.

Simons 2018
F. Simons, « The goddess Kusu », RA 112, p. 123-148.

Steinert 2010
U. Steinert, « Der Schlaf im Licht der altmesopotamischen Überlieferung », in Shehata et al. 2010, p. 237-285.

Steinkeller 1999
P. Steinkeller, « On rulers. Priests and sacred marriage: Tracing the evolution of early Sumerian kingship », in K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996, Heidelberg, p. 103-137.

Steinkeller 2013
P. Steinkeller, « 66. The ‘sailing’ of Ištaran and Damu », NABU 2013/4, p. 110.

Steinkeller 2019
P. Steinkeller, « Texts, art and archaeology: An archaic plaque from Mari and the Sumerian birth-goddess Ninhursag », in G. Chambon, M. Guichard and A.-I. Langlois (ed.), De l’argile au numérique : mélanges assyriologiques en l’honneur de Dominique Charpin (PIPOAC 3), Leuven, p. 977-1011.

Steinkeller 2022
P. Steinkeller, « Two Sargonic seals from Urusagrig and the question of Urusagrig’s location », ZA 112, p. 1-10.

Stol 2016
M. Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East, Boston-Berlin.

Stol and Wiggermann 2000
M. Stol and F. Wiggermann, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting (CunMon 14), Groningen.

Such-Gutiérrez 2003
M. Such-Gutiérrez, Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend (MSV 9), Roma.

Such-Gutiérrez 2005/2006
M. Such-Gutiérrez, « Untersuchungen zum Pantheon von Adab im 3. Jt. », AfO 51, p. 1-44.

Such-Gutiérrez 2015
M. Such-Gutiérrez, « The texts from the 3rd millennium BC at the Oriental Museum, University of Durham (England) », CDLJ 2015/3, p. 1-49.

Tanret 2002
M. Tanret, Per aspera ad astra. L’apprentissage du cunéiforme à Sippar-Amnanum pendant la période paléo-babylonienne tardive (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III, Texts I/2), Ghent.

Taylor 2008
J. Taylor, « Lexicographical study of the already-ancient in Antiquity », in R. D. Biggs, J. Myers and M. T. Roth (ed.), Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago July 18-22, 2005 (SAOC 62), Chicago, p. 203-210.

Tugendhaft 2016
A. Tugendhaft, « Gods on clay: Ancient Near Eastern scholarly practices and the history of religions », in A. Grafton and G. W. Most (ed.), Canonical Texts and Scholarly Practices: A Global Comparative Approach, Cambridge, p. 164-182.

Vanstiphout 1995
H. L. J. Vanstiphout, « On the Old Babylonian Eduba curriculum », in J. W. Drijvers and A. A. MacDonald (ed.), Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in the Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 61), Leiden, p. 3-16.

Vanstiphout 2009
H. L. J. Vanstiphout, « Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus, or how and why did the Sumerians create their gods », in Porter 2009, p. 15-40.

Veldhuis 2000
N. Veldhuis, « Kassite exercises: Literary and lexical extracts », JCS 52, p. 67-94.

Veldhuis 2002
N. Veldhuis, « Studies in Sumerian vocabulary: dnin-ka6; immal/šilam; and še21.d », JCS 54, p. 67-77.

Veldhuis 2003
N. Veldhuis, « On the curriculum of the Neo-Babylonian school », JAOS 123/3, p. 627-633.

Veldhuis 2004
N. Veldhuis, Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds, with a Catalogue of Sumerian Bird Names (CunMon 22), Leiden-Boston.

Veldhuis 2010
N. Veldhuis, « Guardians of tradition: Early Dynastic lexical texts in Old Babylonian copies », in Baker et al. 2010, p. 379-400.

Veldhuis 2014
N. Veldhuis, History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition (GMTR 6), Münster.

Veldhuis 2016
N. Veldhuis, « Old Babylonian school curricula », in Yamada and Shibata 2016, p. 1-12.

Viano 2019
M. Viano, « On the location of Irisaĝrig once again », JCS 71, p. 35-52.

Wagensonner 2008
W. Wagensonner, « Nin-Isina(k)s journey to Nippur: A bilingual divine journey revisited », WZKM 98, p. 277-294.

Walker and Dick 2001
C. Walker and M. Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual (SAALT 1), Helsinki.

Weeden 2009
M. Weeden, « The Akkadian words for ‘grain’ and the god Ḫaya », WO 39, p. 77-107.

Weidner 1924/1925
E. F. Weidner, « Altbabylonische Götterliste », AfK 2, p. 1-18 and 71-82.

Weiershäuser 2008
F. Weiershäuser, Königliche Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur (Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 1), Göttingen.

Weiershäuser 2010
F. Weiershäuser, « Weiser Išum, der du den Göttern vorangehst », in Shehata et al. 2010, p. 351-376.

Westenholz 1977

A. Westenholz, « Old Akkadian school texts. Some goals of Sargonic scribal education », AfO 25, p. 95-110.

Westenholz 1998
J. G. Westenholz, « Goddesses of the Ancient Near East 3000-1000 BC », in L. Goodison and C. Morris (ed.), Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence, London, p. 63-82.

Wiggermann 1992
F. A. M. Wiggermann, « Mythological foundations of nature », in D. J. W. Meijer (ed.), Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, Amsterdam-Oxford-New York-Tokyo, p. 279-306.

Wiggermann 1997
F. A. M. Wiggermann, « Transtigridian snake gods », in Finkel and Geller 1997, p. 33-55.

Wiggermann 2010
F. A. M. Wiggermann, « The image of Dumuzi: A diachronic analysis », in J. Stackert, B. Porter and D. P. Wright (ed.), Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, Bethesda, p. 327-350.

Wiggermann 2011
F. A. M. Wiggermann, « Agriculture as civilization: Sages, farmers, barbarians », in Radner and Robson 2011, p. 663-689.

Wilcke 1987
C. Wilcke, « Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagne (1983 und 1984) », in B. Hrouda (ed.), Isin - Išān Baḥrīyāt III. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1983-1984 (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlungen NF 94), München, p. 83-120.

Wilcke 2007
C. Wilcke, « Vom altorientalischen Blick zurück auf die Anfänge », in E. Angehrn (ed.), Anfang und Ursprung (Colloquium Rauricum 10), Berlin-New York, p. 3-59.

Wilcke 2018
C. Wilcke (ed.), Keilschrifttexte aus Isin - Išan Bahriyat: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unter der Schirmherrschaft der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Philosophisch-historische Klasse Abhandlungen NF 143), München.

Winitzer 2011
A. Winitzer, « Writing and Mesopotamian divination – The case of alternative interpretation », JCS 63, p. 77-94.

Woods 2012
C. Woods, « Sons of the sun: The mythological foundations of the first dynasty of Uruk », JANER 12, p. 78-96.

Yamada 2016
S. Yamada, « Old Babylonian school exercises from Tell Taban », in Yamada and Shibata 2016, p. 45-68.

Yamada and Shibata 2016
S. Yamada and D. Shibata (ed.), Cultures and Societies in the Middle Euphrates and Habur Areas in the Second Millennium BC. I: Scribal Education and Scribal Traditions (Studia Chaburensia 5), Wiesbaden.

Zgoll 2014
A. Zgoll, « Dreams as gods and gods in dreams. Dream-realities in ancient Mesopotamia from the 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C. », in Sassmannshausen and Neumann 2014, p. 299-315.

Ziegler 2007
N. Ziegler, Les musiciens et la musique d’après les archives de Mari (FM 9, Mémoires de NABU 10), Paris.

Haut de page


1 Margueron 2015, p. 44-47, p. 65-68, p. 98-102.

2 See the last synthesis on OB education in Veldhuis 2016.

3 The concept of ‘cultural development’ is borrowed from the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, see Scribner 1985, p. 124-125; the distinction of internal and external pluralism of the Sumerian pantheon from Dijk 1963, p. 2. Jan van Dijk’s ‘reflet fidèle’ is conceptualized by Selz 2012, p. 63 in ‘Abbild’. But cf. Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 307 §14, for whom the Mesopotamian pantheon offers rather more of an ‘Idealbild menschlicher Gesellschaften’. On the creation of the divine world as a representation or as a model of the natural world in the ‘ideology’ of the Edubba, see Vanstiphout 2009, p. 18, 36-39.

4 According to Lecompte 2013, p. 152-153, the conception of their incipit goes back to the ED I-II period and according to Veldhuis 2014, p. 61, to the ED III period.

5 See, with supplementary bibliography: Dijk 1963, p. 7-8; Krebernik 1986, p. 164-165; Wiggermann 1992, p. 280; Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 305 §13; Schwemer 2001, p. 11; Edzard 2004, p. 582; Richter 2004, p. 11-12 and n. 43; Rubio 2011, p. 99; Espak 2011, p. 47-48; Selz 2012, p. 64 n. 6; Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, p. 5 (hereafter OBO 259); Lecompte 2013, p. 152-153, 156-157; Lisman 2013, p. 85 and n. 325; Johandi 2019, p. 16-17.

6 See the definition of the pantheon in Mesopotamia in Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 294-295 §1, and, on the more precise term ‘Lokal-Pantheon’, see Richter 2004, p. 2 n. 6, and Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 300-301 §7, particularly in contrast to the term ‘Götterwelt’ used by Selz 1995.

7 See Peterson 2009a, p. 5-8, or Lisman 2013, p. 85, for the details of these different principles of association, both with examples. Vanstiphout 1995, p. 14, offers a perfect summary: ‘the god lists (showing the structure of the divine world in tabulated form)’.

8 Richter 2004, p. 12. The at least partial reliance of some sections of the large Ur III offering lists, such as TCL 5 6053 [P131767] or MVN 10 144 [P115914], on theological organization is more apparent than during the preceding periods (see below, table 5). These sections may reflect a ‘scholarly’ tradition of god-lists that have not (yet) reached us. Only two Ur III and three Old Akkadian documents seem to have been identified as ‘school/scholar’ god-lists: 6N-T930 from Nippur (Rubio 2011, p. 97 n. 22)—the largest one; the bun MVN 13 624 [P117397] (transcription DCCLT); MAD 1 189 from Ešnunna, badly preserved [P212457], where Nisaba (i 3) nearly begins the enumeration (followed perhaps by Nanibgal and Ḫaja); AOAT 3 no. 75 from Tell Brak, a ‘fragment of what may have been a large list of gods’, where only determinatives are preserved on seven lines (see Westenholz 1977, p. 101, 105); and CUSAS 12 8.6.3 [P251509] that has been assigned an OA date by CDLI. VAT 8084, dated to the Ur III period by Weidner 1924/1925, p. 6 and 82 n. 1, seems to belong to the OB (Litke 1998, p. 64 n. 362) or even early OB (Krebernik RlA 12, p. 452: ‘frühaltbab.(?)’) period.

9 The term microstructure is here taken in its primary sense as a constituent and structured part of a broader composition, while the term macrostructure is used to define the organization of these different microstructures in the composition. On the structuralist approaches of modern lexicography, in which microstructure refers to the horizontal organization of the list, see Scheucher 2012, p. 39ff., with previous bibliography.

10 Lambert 1985a. See also Oelsner 1989, p. 22-23 for the identification of the tablet as a type II (the explanation of the main types of school tablets (I, II, III, IV) is often echoed elsewhere, see i.a. Veldhuis 2014, p. 203-205; tablets and fragments of type II and buns (IV) are the most frequent school tablets, I and III are more seldom). Fritz 2003, p. 65, analyses the Dumuzi section; Lisman 2013, p. 95-96, discusses the beginning of the list; Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, p. 45 n. 144, mention the group of DNs beginning with dnin-; and Simons 2018, p. 124 and 128, examines the place of Kusu in this list.

11 See annex A for TH 80.112, with corrections and parallels explained here throughout. An underlined divine name in the text or in the tables refers to the list of commented DNs in annex D; the place where it is underlined refers to a commentary on the respective passage, including bibliography and references to other god-lists. References to the related chapters or footnotes are also found in annex A. A full edition of all the tablets and fragments will be published along with the other school texts from ‘Chantier K’ (BAH, forthcoming). The tablets used in this paper are: 1. TH99-T578, a large fragment of a type I?-tablet with two preserved columns (col. i: beginning of the list; col. ii: ‘Isin pantheon’); 2. TH00-T179a, a small fragment with the end of the list of ‘ancestors’; 3. TH00-T127a, a large fragment of a type II-tablet with part of the mother-goddesses section on the obverse; 4. TH99-T94, a large fragment of a type I-tablet containing a part of the dnin- section; 5. TH00-T87a+, a bun with a variant of the Nisaba section; and 6. TH99-T556, a bun with the end of the dnin- section. On the Mari tablets with the so-called ‘Panthéon d’Ur III’, which are not studied in this paper, see Durand 2008, p. 196ff., with previous bibliography.

12 As it has been called by Lambert RlA 3, p. 473 §1.

13 Peterson 2009a.

14 Peterson 2009a, p. 7.

15 Lambert RlA 3, p. 474 §3. On this familial ordering, see also i.a. Fritz 2003, p. 61; Edzard 2004, p. 583; Peterson 2009a, p. 6; Ceccarelli 2009, p. 42; Veldhuis 2014, p. 199; Johandi 2019, p. 111.

16 Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, p. 80.

17 Richter 2004, p. 17.

18 Peterson 2009a, p. 79ff., and Johandi 2019, p. 114-115. Note that HS 1804 contains a small section of the NGL and will be published by M. Krebernik. TIM 10 122 (2N-T118), a lentil tablet beginning with An followed by two deified royal names, could also be added.

19 Lambert RlA 3, p. 475 §5; Edzard 2004, p. 583; Veldhuis 2014, p. 201.

20 Genouillac 1930, see also Genouillac 1923 and 1928.

21 Veldhuis 2014, p. 201 and 237, with reference to Litke 1998, p. 3.

22 Peterson 2009a, p. 79.

23 Richter 2004, p. 13-16, esp. p. 14, followed by Lisman 2013, p. 96: 3.2.7, and Johandi 2019, p. 108.

24 On the lexical lists as Kunstwerk, see Edzard 2007, p. 17ff.

25 Ceccarelli 2020, p. 29-40 (quote p. 30).

26 Simons 2017a, p. 97-98, esp. p. 82ff. See also Richter 2004, p. 18-20; Tanret 2002, p. 123 no. 65; Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 305 §13; Gantzert 2008, vol. 2, p. 47, and vol. 3, p. 34ff. and 163-164; Shibata 2009, p. 35; Veldhuis 2014, p. 256-257 (Veldhuis 2000, p. 79-80); Guichard 2016; Tugendhaft 2016, p. 166-167 and p. 173-180; Yamada 2016, p. 61-62; Johandi 2019, p. 115-117. The WeL is cited according to the lines of the composite edition from the OB and MB sources proposed in the DCCLT by J. Peterson and N. Veldhuis.

27 Gantzert 2008, vol. 3, p. 164.

28 Veldhuis 2014, p. 201. Note that VS 24 20 is probably not from Babylon, see the arguments in Veldhuis 2014, p. 201 n. 426.

29 Nougayrol 1968.

30 Cavigneaux 1981.

31 On the OB dating of VAT 6563 see Pomponio RlA 9, p. 21 §4 (Pomponio 1978, p. 20 n. 31 apud Richter 2004, p. 19 n. 78), followed by Veldhuis 2014, p. 201 with nuances, contra Weidner 1924/1925 and Lambert RlA 3, p. 474 §2.

32 Veldhuis 2003, p. 628.

33 Veldhuis 2014, p. 200.

34 Gesche 2001, p. 75, e.g. BM 62741 in Wiggermann 2010, p. 329, 346, n. 70.

35 Lambert RlA 3, p. 474 §2; Gesche 2001, p. 75; Lisman 2013, p. 93 or OBO 259, p. 79 and 99.

36 Wilcke 1987, p. 93ff., and Wilcke 2018, nos. 146-147.

37 Lisman 2013, p. 93, and Richter 2004, p. 221 (quoted). See also his discussion of different sections of the list in Richter 2004, p. 221-222, 230 and 237-238.

38 Wilcke 2018, no. 138.

39 Krebernik 1992, p. 110

40 Wilcke 2018, nos. 148-152, 139, 144-145.

41 Richter 2004, p. 317-318, suggests that AUWE 23 58 is a fragment of a god-list belonging to the tradition of the WeL, without being an exact parallel. However, Cavigneaux 1996, p. 32, left the interpretation of this document as either a god-list or an offering-list open, since the tablet ends with a total on the reverse.

42 The god-list from Šaduppûm will be published by L. Hussein and M. Krebernik.

43 Oelsner 2015, p. 430 n. 41, citing Horst Klengel.

44 Oelsner 2015, p. 430.

45 See Veldhuis 2010, p. 397 and Veldhuis 2014, p. 91-92.

46 Mander 1986, p. 108 and n. 33, with edition of the fragment.

47 Friberg 2000.

48 Gadd and Kramer 1966, p. 8.

49 Richter 2004, p. 21 n. 92.

50 As emphasized by Wiggermann 1997, p. 34.

51 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 612 §2, with comments on lines 14-19.

52 On line 22, see now Krebernik RlA 15, p. 395 §2.3.5.

53 Rumor 2017, p. 199 n. 65.

54 Transcription DCCLT.

55 Lauinger 2012, p. 150.

56 Simons 2017a, p. 97.

57 The use of typologies for deities, like ‘mother-goddess’, ‘birth goddess’, ‘healing goddess’, etc., is a problem in its own right. The categories are delimited according to characteristics often too reductive to reflect the exact nature of each Mesopotamian divinities, who, moreover, do not have only one identity (Veldhuis 2004, p. 71): ‘Deities with the same name and function turn out to be different; conversely deities with different names and function appear to be one and the same. This fluidity is due to the multifaceted essential nature of divinity.’ (OBO 259, p. 30; on this fluidity of the divine world see also Hundley 2013). However, the convenience of these typologies, especially when analyzing the organization of the god-lists, make their use unavoidable. The term ‘mother-goddess’ (‘Muttergöttin’) usually refers to the divinities discussed in Krebernik RlA 8, p. 502ff.; see also Rodin 2014, p. 34ff., but I also take into account both the fluidity of these figures (OBO 259, p. 29ff.) and the remarks of Black 2005, p. 39-41, on the heterogeneity of worship and beliefs, as well as the ‘dominant’ aspect of conception. I shall reserve the use of the term ‘birth goddess’ to very low-ranking goddesses whose role may be to conceive or attend childbirth, but whose worship cannot be compared to that of the principal (mother-)goddesses (for another use of ‘birth goddess’, see OBO 259, p. 42 n. 133).

58 Cf. Ismaʻel 2007, p. 8.

59 Thanks to one of the reviewers for the reference.

60 Scheil 1902, p. 40, already published in Scheil 1895, p. 214 Sch. 6.

61 Tanret 2002, p. 123 no. 65.

62 The first column of TIM 9 86 is analysed in Johandi 2019, p. 118.

63 Malayeri 2014, p. 174-193.

64 Molina 2000, p. 757 no. 2.

65 Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 295 §1.

66 Also called ‘primeval deities’ (Peterson 2009a, p. 83, and OBO 259, p. 17) or ‘deified phenomena’; see the definition in Lisman 2013, p. 175 (see also 113 and 103 n. 432). On their identification and their history, see Lambert 2013, p. 405-413, and Lisman 2013, p. 118-120, 166-168 and 174-175, to which one can add the remarks in Krebernik 1986, p. 164-165 n. 7, and Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1995, p. 205. On their role outside the lists, see Lisman 2013, p. 85-86.

67 The arguments have been summarized by George 2016a. A detailed summary of past studies on the subject can be found in Lisman 2013, p. 9-22.

68 See most recently George 2016a, p. 9, and Gadotti and Kleinerman 2017.

70 The beginning of the ŠGL is largely lost, but the Enki section was followed by the Sîn section, as in the MGL.

71 Espak 2011, p. 51.

72 This inconsistency was already pointed out by Lambert 2013, p. 420.

73 See already Lambert RlA 3, p. 473 §1: ‘Theological ordering [of the god lists] rests on the conception of a pantheon organized like a tribe. The older members normally have precedence, coming first in the lists […]’. During later periods, cosmogonic considerations are playing a role in the organization of An=Anum, see Lambert 2013, p. 420ff.

74 In this sense and on the origin of Enlil, see Lisman 2013, p. 112.

75 On the importance of origins reflected in the creation of longer and longer genealogies, see Lisman 2013, p. 112. Note, however, that since the oldest copy of the SKL dates back to the Ur III period, the process is older, as is the existence of ancestral pairs. On the other hand, in J. Lisman’s sense, the establishment of lists of eponymous names or names of years in the 2nd millennium also participates in this desire to keep a trace of origins (on the conception of history that emerges from these lists, see Rubio 2009, p. 155ff., and Adams 2009 §2.2, both with bibliography; cf. especially the studies by C. Wilcke [with Mittermayer 2012] and J.-J. Glassner cited there).

76 On the notion of antiquarianism in Mesopotamia, see Beaulieu 2013.

77 Regarding the NGL, see Peterson 2009a, p. 6 and 48 (8-16), with bibliography. See also a comparison of these sections in Richter 1999 (1st ed. of Richter 2004), p. 120, and OBO 259, p. 87.

78 Cf. inter alia Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 490ff.; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 284ff.; Richter 2004, p. 299ff.; Durand 2008, p. 247-248; Peterson 2009a, p. 58; Peterson 2016; Weiershäuser 2010, p. 358-359; OBO 259, p. 93 and 101 n. 420; Cavigneaux and Wiggermann 2014; Gabbay 2014, esp. p. 75-76; Streck RlA 14, p. 163 A §1; Johandi 2019, p. 102-106; Ceccarelli 2020, p. 39.

79 Although the Akkadian texts are clearly referring to Ninšubur/Ilabrat as a male god from a grammatical point of view (Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 491 §2), the alternation Ilabra/Ilabrat points out that, at least in a (north‑)western context and during the OB period, Ilabrat was regarded as a female deity (see Durand 2008, p. 248, where he compares this alternation with two other female divine names Kubaba/Kubabat and Ḫeba/Ḫebat underlining that this double way (a / at) to define the feminine was the rule for the feminine personal names (PNs) during the Amorite period).

80 On CBS 15119+, see Cavigneaux and Wiggermann 2014, p. 27 with previous bibliography.

81 Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 495 §3.

82 Peterson 2009a, p. 58: 112-113.

83 Richter 2004, p. 112.

84 Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 496-497 §4.

85 L. 74-75 in Alberti 1985, p. 8, and Mander 1986, p. 25.

86 OBO 259, p. 59. In Mari and the western periphery, since the Amorrite period, Ninḫursaĝa in PNs refers to Šala(š), the spouse of Dagan, whose son is Addu (Durand 2008, p. 204 and 209 n. 14).

87 OBO 259, p. 84.

88 Lambert 1985a, p. 186. See inter alia Krebernik RlA 10, p. 167 §7; Peterson 2009a, p. 49: 34-36; Gabbay 2014, p. 51 n. 209. This syncretism could also explain the juxtaposition of the Ninurta section (43-47) following a section containing the healing goddesses (32-42) in the OB god-list published by Ceccarelli 2020.

89 On the cult of the healing divinities at Isin, see Richter 2004, p. 183ff.

90 See Charpin and Durand 1985, p. 319-321, who show that the fragment had wrongly been joined to the ‘Stèle de la Victoire de Zimri-Lim’.

91 Richter 2004, p. 214-225, studies these sections extensively, as well as their relationship to the IGL and AA. They will again be discussed in the next section on DNs starting with dnin-.

92 The relationship between these two deities is complex, see the nuances in Fritz 2003, p. 17ff.; Katz 2003, p. 5; and recently Delnero 2020, p. 65-75.

93 On this byname, see Richter 2004, p. 223-224, and Krebernik RlA 10, p. 162 §2.3.

94 One can notice that the omitted section of the healing goddesses and apparently the misplacement of part of the Utu section stand exactly in the middle of the list that the pupil of TH 80.112 had to reproduce. We may thus be in presence of one of the earliest examples of the well-known ‘serial position effect’, which is ‘[i]n serial learning, a tendency for the items near the beginning and end of the series to be recalled best, and those in the middle worst […]’ (Colman 2015, p. 1933).

95 The divinities are written with ŠE; on this association see Peterson 2009a, p. 59: 122 with bibliography.

96 As suggested by Lambert 1985a, p. 187: 48-50.

97 Lambert 1985a, p. 187: 48-50.

98 On the juxtaposition of the sections on Adad and Nisaba, see note 180.

99 On the reasons for the proximity of Šamaš and Adad in the lists, see Schwemer 2007, p. 145 (Schwemer RlA 15, p. 74): 1. both are associated with the field of divination, cf. Schwemer 2007, p. 149-150; 2. during the OB period, both are also found in legal oaths (as at Sippar); see Schwemer 2007, p. 140. Others OB god-lists which associate Šamaš and Adad are TIM 9 86 o. i and UET 6/2 412 (in the latter Šamaš follows Adad).

100 Edition of UM 29-13-84 in Peterson 2009a, p. 99.

101 On this section of GeL (298ff.), see Richter 2004, p. 218-219 and Wiggermann RlA 9, p. 369 §2.

102 Lambert 1985a, p. 181-182, 189.

103 The decline or ‘marginalization’ of the goddesses with respect to the gods at the turn of the 3rd millennium has been widely commented on (see Stol 2016, p. 657-661; Rodin 2014, p. 58-77; OBO 259, p. 25-28). The main steps can be summarized as follows. Fundamental changes (mostly still undetermined) within Mesopotamian society in the second half of the 3rd millennium led to this marginalization (Frymer-Kensky 1992 and Steinkeller 1999 apud OBO 259, p. 25-26). The factors identified are, on the one hand, the abandonment of cities where goddesses exercised the role of tutelary divinities (second part of 3rd millennium and beginning of 2nd millennium, for the details see Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 306 §14 a, and OBO 259, p. 73-74) and, on the other hand, the development of patrilineal dynastic legitimation in the South (Selz 2012, p. 73) as well as migratory movements in the second part of the 3rd millennium (Westenholz 1998, p. 77-78, and Steinkeller 1999, p. 113-116, apud OBO 259, p. 26; on the influence of the Akkadian/Semitic pantheon on the Sumerian, see Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 304 §10). Without calling into question these different socio-political processes which may have led to this ‘marginalization’, Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013 also highlight the different theological-religious processes that bear witness to this ‘marginalization’, the beginnings of which they trace back to the Ur III period (OBO 259, p. 294), but which is only attested in the texts from the OB era onwards. This is reflected in the new role of mater dolorosa attributed to the goddesses (OBO 259, p. 72ff.), and especially through different syncretisms: the two main syncretisms tend to limit the field of action of many goddesses to that of healing (OBO 259, p. 82ff.) and/or to identify different deities with the figure of the mother-goddess (OBO 259, p. 86ff.). The transfer of skills of some goddesses to gods or the gender reassignment of some goddesses (also called the ‘fluidity’ of the ‘gender identity’) are other signs of this ‘marginalization’. On the different deities corresponding to the different cases, see the summary by Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 306 §14a-c, and more recently OBO 259, p. 17ff., Rodin 2014, p. 58-59; and Stol 2016, p. 658. Note finally that in the case of the goddess Nisaba, the transfer of skills to the god Nabû is not complete, since both can be attested in the same colophon, see Charpin 2008, p. 301, n. 630, and Charpin 2017a, ch. 4 §6.

104 Krebernik 1986, p. 163. In the same vein, see OBO 259, p. 45 and Lisman 2013, p. 88-89. Add also the comments in Lecompte 2013, p. 153 n. 54: ‘Bauer […] estimait que ce type de noms en NIN témoignait du passage dans la religion mésopotamienne de divinités abstraites à des divinités anthropomorphiques’.

105 See the argument in Krebernik 1986, p. 166; Lisman 2013, p. 89 and 92-93, especially n. 371 for G. J. Selz’s argument, who adds that the pantheons of Eridu and Ur are also present: ‘[…] this list seems to represent predominantly the cult of South Mesopotamia.’ (Lisman 2013, p. 93). On the importance of Inana at that time, see the bibliography in OBO 259, p. 27 n. 85.

106 Edition in Krebernik 1986, p. 170-171. The section is followed by dnin-ĝeš-zi-da whose relationship to the serpent should explain the association with the latter group, see Krebernik 1984, p. 296 (4).

107 On this reading of PEŠ2, see Krebernik 1984, p. 292, perhaps referring to uš-bar ‘weaver’.

108 Concerning the IGL, Nisaba and her circle are absent or not preserved; it is therefore likely that this group was found in the gap preceding the dnin- section accompanied by Pabilsaĝ(a) and Ninisina (also to be restituted in this gap, see Richter 2004, p. 221).

109 Mander 1986, p. 108-110: SF 23 = VAT 12573 [P010600] and SF 24 = VAT 12763 [P010602]. N. Veldhuis proposes also an edition of SF 23 on CDLI and a commentary to the list in Veldhuis 2014, p. 91-92.

110 Instead of dNIN-niĝarĝar as in the IGL (A ii+ 4). On the reading of U.UD.KID, see Mittermayer 2006, p. 201: 337, and Simons 2017a, p. 90-91. The full name was probably read egi/ereš-nimar, see Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 477. On this divinity, see also Richter 2004, p. 224 (inter alia), and Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 223-224.

111 Richter 2004, p. 224 n. 954.

112 Richter 2004, p. 222-223 inter alia; Ceccarelli 2009, p. 46 n. 93.

113 Mander 1986, p. 109.

114 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 477.

115 ‘Die Verbindung zwischen ni9-ĝar u. Inanna wirft die Frage auf, ob ni9-ĝar wie ib ursprünglich eine Cella oder einen besonderen Raum der Heiligtümer der Göttin Inanna bezeichnete. Zu ib s. G. J. Selz OPSNKF 13 (1995) S. 152 D32.’ (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 223 n. 975). Regarding the e2-niĝarĝar-ra of the Ur III Gula temple at Isin, see Weiershäuser 2008, p. 157-158; Böck 2014, p. 31-32.

116 Gula and Ninḫursaĝa were also responsible for cutting the umbilical cord (see respectively OBO 259, p. 65 and 140).

117 See also the translation of Civil 2011, p. 282: ‘to open the door for the fetus’.

118 Stol and Wiggermann 2000, p. 29, followed by Krebernik RlA 10, p. 326, or Weiershäuser 2008, p. 157-158.

119 See further M. Stol’s comments on the temple of the mother-goddess in the city of Keš: ‘Darkness characterizes this temple; its inner cella is named Nigin3.ĝar, i.e., the place where the foetus is’ (Stol and Wiggermann 2000, p. 76). On the city of Keš as cultural center of the mother-goddess and its decline during OB times to the benefit of Nippur and the goddess Ninlil, see OBO 259, p. 74ff.

120 Krebernik RlA 10, p. 325-326.

121 Ceccarelli 2016, p. 23.

122 Krebernik RlA 8, p. 515 §7.5; see also Böck 2014, p. 30-34, and Rodin 2014, p. 195-196, 270.

123 On the syncretism between Gula and Sud in the WeL, see Krebernik RlA 9, p. 455 §3.1.10, and OBO 259, p. 116 and n. 466.

124 Krebernik RlA 8, p. 515 §7.1 and comments in §7.6.

125 OBO 259, p. 44. For an opposite view on the nature of Inana, see the bibliography in OBO 259, p. 44 n. 140 and 140 n. 556.

126 Farber-Flügge 1973, p. 109: 47; Bottéro and Kramer 1993, p. 233: 47-52.

127 Cf. Mayer and Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 100 §8.3; on the translation gu2-ne ‘oven’, see Huber Vulliet 2010, p. 145 n. 128.

128 P. c. Fabienne Huber Vulliet.

129 On this myth, see lastly the edition in Ceccarelli 2016.

130 Lambert 2013, p. 214-215. On the seven sons of Enmešara who follow the ancestors of Enlil in AA, see Lambert 2013, p. 213-216, and Gabbay 2014, p. 128-139; the edition of TU 44 (AO 6479) in Linssen 2004, p. 252ff.; the edition of O 175 in Livingstone 1986, p. 187-204; additional bibliography in Litke 1998, p. 34-36, and Wiggermann RlA 12, p. 462 §3, ‘sometimes identified with the S.’ during the 1st millennium. Regarding this identification, one can ask if the seven dots or circles representing in the iconography the sebetti and, by extension, the Pleiades (Black and Green 1992, p. 162 for an illustration), did not originally represent heaps of flour, as is the case for the seven children in the lilissu ritual (for the identification of the dots in O 175 with heaps of flour, see Linssen 2004, p. 273, 11, and for the drawing of the ritual with the corresponding deities see Gabbay 2014, p. 133-135). Finally, Lambert 2013, p. 211, also mentions that the generic term appears in OECT 11 47 l. 23-26: a ritual from Babylon discovered at Kiš where they are eight.

131 Cf. n. 117.

132 As emphasized by Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 482 §2, and by Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 281: 15.2.1 and 283: 15.3.

133 Ceccarelli 2016, p. 104.

134 On the possible reading dmu2-mu2-du8, see Ceccarelli 2016, p. 164.

135 On the different possible readings of this name, see Ceccarelli 2016, p. 164-165.

136 Lambert 1992, p. 130ff.; Lambert 2013, p. 336-337 and 506; Stol and Wiggermann 2000, p. 82; Rodin 2014, p. 258-259 (with n. 1359) and 267. BARA2 has now been assigned a reading šara instead of šar6 and parag instead of barag (Mittermayer 2006, p. 86: 217).

137 Benito 1969, p. 58: 34; Bottéro and Kramer 1993, p. 190: 34; Wilcke 2007, p. 31; ETCSL 1.1.2.

138 Jacobsen 1987, p. 156-157 n. 10; Römer 1993, p. 391: 34; Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 336 4; Lisman 2013, p. 306: even if the OB signs BARA2 and ŠARA2 can sometimes be confused (Mittermayer 2006, p. 86: 217, and p. 162: 409) the two signs are here exactly the same. Therefore, the proposal of Lisman 2013, p. 306: 34-35, to read ŠARA2 the first sign and BARA2 the second sign cannot be accepted even if he notes that the two signs are different in the copy of UMBS I/1 pl. 6 (ŠARA2 and BARA2). However, UMBS X/4 pl. CIII, Lambert 2013’s copy (pl. 57) as well as the photograph [P259234] do have twice BARA2. The horizontal lines of the first BARA2 are attached to the end of the NIN, which makes it possible to understand the error in UMBS I/1.

139 Among all additions and dittographies in the corpus studied by Delnero 2012a, p. 25-60, which includes 742 copies of the decade (Delnero 2012b, p. 198), none is directly comparable with the one attested in EnNin. Although OB Sumerian literature was usually not copied from a written Vorlage (207-208), we could suggest that this may have been the case here: this type of mechanical error can most often be correlated with a copy from a written original (190). Even then, the error is difficult to understand: if the number 7 was so meaningful, why did the scribe not erase one of the dnin-BARA2-signs? Since both DNs are on the same line, it would have been easy to erase the first one.

140 See Lambert 2013, p. 504; Krebernik RlA 12, p. 88; Ceccarelli 2016, p. 21ff.; and Archi 2018. Since SIG7.EN.SIG7.SAR2 is also ‘eine rebusartige Anspielung auf die Muttergöttin Nintur’ as shown by Ceccarelli 2016, p. 23, the number 7 could well be secondary.

141 Pryke 2016, p. 11.

142 In the same myth, Ninmaḫ forms seven creatures, then Enki an eighth one (on this second part of the myth, see recently Kağnici 2018). Furthermore, note that in the myth Enki and Ninḫursaĝa, Enki gives birth to eight divinities (Postgate 2010, p. 241ff.; Rodin 2014, p. 267). If we add Ninḫursaĝa, that makes nine. Finally, both traditions could also co-exist side by side: the birth brick has to be placed seven days before the delivery, but it remains in the house for nine days after (cf. Atraḫasīs I 286-289 in Katz 2015, p. 62-63).

143 See edition in Peterson 2009a, p. 93-94.

144 On this function, see Gabbay 2014, p. 103-114.

145 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 451.

146 Walker and Dick 2001, p. 23 n. 68-69.

147 See Löhnert 2010, p. 188.

148 See respectively source A: 126-127, and source C: 1 in Attinger 1984, p. 18.

149 Ambos 2004, p. 180ff., and Simons 2018, p. 133-134. Ninkur(a) is restored by Simons 2018, p. 131, in CBS 13858a l. 14 (Gattung II) due to the similarity of the context to that of Enūma Anu ibnû šamê.

150 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 473 §6.

151 Walker and Dick 2001, p. 60 n. 90, and Rendu-Loisel 2016, p. 209 n. 44.

152 Rodin 2014, p. 141.

153 Katz 2003, p. 374ff.

154 Katz 2003, p. 389 and 379 n. 46 for the argumentation.

155 On the role of mater dolorosa, attributed to many goddesses during the OB period, see note 103. More specifically, on the theme of the mourning (mother-)goddess and the young dying god in the OB liturgical texts see inter alia, with supplementary bibliography: Fritz 2003; Katz 2003; Black 2005; Wiggermann 2011, p. 676-678; Löhnert 2011, p. 49-51; OBO 259, p. 72 ff.; Gabbay 2014, p. 36-38.

156 Ternary schemes are found in every type of list, and some also reveal that the empirical, even casuistic, approach was taught to students well before the study of advanced lists or Sumerian literature. A future study will explore how these ternary schemes were an integral part of the way the thematic lists were conceived (on Mesopotamian casuistry see Winitzer 2011, p. 78-79; on the empirical approach, see the remarks in Selz 2013, p. 48.

157 Cf. Mander 1986, p. 8 and 106. The association of Gibil and Lisin without Ninsikila figures also in CUSAS 12 8.6.8 r. iii 6-7.

158 For the pantheon of Adab during the 3rd millennium, see Such-Gutiérrez 2005/2006. During the OB period, compare the following deities found in a lamentation from Kiš to the mother-goddess Aruru: Zazrum, [DN], Zurmu, Zarmu, Ašgi, Pa(p)niĝara, Lil, Barauleĝara, Lisin, Damkina, Ninbarsi (PRAK C 56 f. 5ʹ-9ʹ, cf. Black 2005, p. 51 : 5, Krebernik RlA 7, p. 20, RlA 10, p. 326, RlA 15, p. 221 and 348, and Delnero 2020, p. 442; with its parallel C 31+C 98+C 101+C 140 f. 2ʹ-5ʹ, these joins will be published in an upcoming paper together with C. Lecompte). For the relationship of Keš with the mother-goddess, see also note 119.

159 Katz 2003, p. 364-365.

160 See Cavigneaux 2018, p. 98, based on a proposal by Selz 1997, p. 190 n. 72.

161 Even if the presence of Ninirigala among these divinities probably finds its origin in the acrographic association of Gibil, her husband, with Lisin, one can ask if the reading urugal2 for UNUG (or irigal for AB×GAL), also a word for the underworld, is not playing a role in her classification as a mourning goddess.

162 For Šulpaʾe, see Krebernik RlA 8, p. 508 §4.2.5, and Delnero RlA 13, p. 284ff. (add Owen 2013, p. 77-78, and Sigrist and Ozaki 2019, p. 158); for Dumuzi, see inter alia, with previous bibliography, Wiggermann 2010 and Wiggermann 2011, Selz 2014, Gabbay 2014, p. 37-38, Charpin 2017a, ch. 6 §33-34 (for his cult at Mari, see Charpin 2012).

163 Wilcke 2018, p. 219.

164 Krebernik RlA 8, p. 365 §3.2.

165 See the comments in Richter 2004, p. 317-318.

166 One of the two sheperds of Enlil (AA I 350), see Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 327; Peterson 2009a, p. 95 3′; Wiggermann 2010, p. 330; and Simons 2018, p. 132. Since the spouse of dnin-amaš-ku3-ga is dnin-kiri3-amaš-a (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 354) and that this DN can be found with the spelling dnin-KA-amaš-a (Richter 2004, p. 69 5NT 91 f. 19, and Litke 1998, p. 63), the next line in the MGL (91) is perhaps to be read dnin-˹KA˺.

167 On the etymology see Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 313, and Peterson 2016, p. 38 12′ ‘the eptithet a-ra-zu-e ĝeš tuku, “attentive to arazu prayer”, […] [Perhaps ‘attentive to the (movement of the) lips; who can read on the lips’; A. Cavigneaux]’.

168 nin kur-ra ‘lady of the netherworld’ is found as an epithet of Nungal in an incantation (Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1995, p. 197; Peterson 2009b, p. 236; on Nungal, see Charpin 2017a, ch. 2 §29-39). On the many nuances covered by the term kur, see Bruschweiler 1987 and Artemov 2012, p. 3-12.

169 Edition of SF 5/6 in Krebernik 1986, p. 189-190. SF 5 = VAT 12626 [P010570]; SF 6 = VAT 12644 [P010572].

170 Kraus 1951, p. 64, taken up by Richter 2004, p. 112.

171 The arguments of Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 246-248, have been summarized by Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, p. 82 n. 340, who agree with his interpretation: ‘Such-Gutiérrez has provided a convincing argument to separate these goddesses on the basis of their geographical distribution and their listing in different sections of the god lists’. However, in point 3 of his reasoning, Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 247, underlines that ‘Gula 1 [gu2-la2] war nur auf die Region von Nippur beschränkt’, while he cites an Umma text which contains gu2-la2 (TCL 5 6053 r. ii 15). Moreover, C. Lecompte points out (p. c.) that gu2-la2 predominates during the ED period, including numerous attestations at Umma (just as in the archives of Fāra). Thus, it seems that gu2-la2 may very well be the same as gu-la during the ED period. The proximity of Saĝkud (a possible companion of Babu) and gu2-la2 in the Abū Ṣalābīḫ god-list supports F. Kraus’ argument as well. Peterson 2009a, p. 6 and p. 58: 109, treats the distinction between both divinities with caution.

172 Such-Gutiérrez 2003, p. 246.

173 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 451 §3.

174 Cavigneaux and Krebernik RlA 9, p. 451 §4.

175 Charpin 1990, p. 257 n. 8.

176 In discussing occasional deification, Hundley 2013, p. 8, underlines that ‘the label and the interpretation [of entities] depend on place and time’.

177 On the Nergal section in the IGL, see Richter 2004, p. 198-207, who extensively analyzes its relationship to similar sections in the other OB god-lists. As Peterson 2009a, p. 59: 124-143, notes, the insertion of the dlugal- section in the NGL after the Nisaba section is difficult to understand: ‘The placement of the initial dLugal- section has no obvious thematic basis at the beginning of the section’. However, based on the organization of the MGL, where the dnin- section is found between the Nisaba section and the dlugal DNs, it can be suggested that the scribes of the NGL simply kept the original order after removing the dnin- section from their list.

178 TH99-T94—a large fragment of type I? (12+ × 11+ × 3,3 cm), which contains at least 2 columns with full repetition of the dnin- section—and TH99-T105—a large fragment of type II (19,2 × 8,4+ × 3,0 cm), with a part of the dlugal- section on the obverse—belong to the same archeological group (lot KA6μ2). The analysis of the archeological context of ‘Chantier K’ will be published together with the edition of the tablets.

179 Regarding the so-called ‘structural inconsistencies’ in lexical lists, see Scheucher 2012, p. 43-44.

180 That the members of the Nisaba group are primarily regarded as grain deities is shown by their juxtaposition with the Adad section, which originates in their function as guardians of the harvest: ‘Nisaba und Adad gelten den Fluchformeln als Gottheiten, die das Gedeihen der Feldfrucht verhindern’ (Schwemer 2001, p. 72). One can add that, at Mari, Nisaba was mainly regarded as a grain deity (Durand 2008, p. 251). Such juxtaposition may also hint at the reasons why E/Indagara, the husband of Kusu, would be identified with Adad.

181 Vanstiphout 2009, p. 25. To a lesser extent, this principle in the form of a ‘bow’ is found in the organization of Proto-Ea as highlighted by Edzard 1982, p. 45-46: ‘Dieser erste Abschnitt [l. 1-80 of Proto-Ea] beschreibt sozusagen einen “Bogen”. Er beginnt mit einem einfachen Zeichen, schreitet zu komplizierten fort, um am Ende zu einer einfachen Form zurückkehren. Wir werden solchen “Bögen” noch öfter begegnen […]’.

182 Taylor 2008, Veldhuis 2010 and Veldhuis 2014, p. 60-102, p. 128-129, with an exhaustive synthesis of OB sources containing lists of the 3rd millennium. In Mari’s GPR, the Amorite duplicata of the ‘Panthéon d’Ur III’ (Lambert 1985b, p. 528-529 with remarks in Durand 2008, p. 198) certainly attests to this practice, while in ‘Chantier K’ the list contained in TH99-T515 (possibly TH99-T052) may also represent the copying or adaptation of an archaic list.

183 The obverses of CUSAS 12 8.6.8, 2.2.1 and 3.1.9 share exactly the same characteristics. Civil 2010, p. 108, suggests a Larsa origin for the tradition attested in CUSAS 12 3.2.1.

184 Regarding the case of the 3rd millennium god-lists, see Rubio 2011, p. 109.

185 Michalowski 2002; Stol 2016, p. 59.

186 See, among others, Bottéro 1974, p. 143, on divinatory practices or Gantzert 2011, p. 3 and p. 66-70, on the evolution of the traditional episteme in Mesopotamia.

187 This change also corresponds to the tendency of Mesopotamians to worship a deity as if it were the sole deity. On this monolatry/henotheism, see the synthesis in OBO 259, p. 34-36.

188 The distinction made by Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 307, between the panthea of the 3rd and 2nd millennia should also be mentioned: ‘Stark vereinfachend möchte man also das sum. P. als “Haushalt”, das P. im II. und I. Jt. als “Staatswesen” verstehen’.

189 ‘Von Soden (1985a, p. 9) placed the beginning of the syncretistic reductionism at the hands of the theologians in the latter part of the 2nd millennium. This dating was based on the innovation of the major bilingual god-lists.’ (OBO 259, p. 33).

190 When not otherwise mentioned, RlA 9 refers to entries by A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik.

191 Not to be confused with dnin-šar2 ‘Lady (of the) totality’ (MGL 8), see Enlil’s ‘ancestors’ (§18) and RlA 9, p. 486.

192 On the gender change of this divinity in the 1st millennium, see Sallaberger RlA 10, p. 306 §14, and Jursa 2001/2002, p. 84: ii 14′; while recalling the remark made by W. G. Lambert (2013, p. 214) on mār as a generic term that does not necessarily refer to the male sex.

193 On the different meanings of SAR and SIG7, see respectively Schrakamp 2015a and Ceccarelli 2016, p. 22 n. 144.

194 For the attestations of Ababa in the 3rd millennium, see Rubio 2010, p. 36. As suggested by R. L. Litke (1998, p. 57 n. 311), the line with the equation of Ninimma and Zababa in the WeL (KAV 64 l. 9) is to be emended to read da!-ba4-ba4.

195 The RlA (9, p. 481-482) highlights all these problems of both gender and identification for dnin-piriĝ(+) and dnin-BARA2.

196 There are unfortunately no new duplicates of this part of AA (p. c. M. Krebernik).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Grégoire Nicolet, « Old Babylonian god-lists in retrospect: A new edition of TH 80.112 »Syria, 99 | 2022, 9-78.

Référence électronique

Grégoire Nicolet, « Old Babylonian god-lists in retrospect: A new edition of TH 80.112 »Syria [En ligne], 99 | 2022, mis en ligne le 15 mai 2023, consulté le 04 décembre 2023. URL : ; DOI :

Haut de page


Grégoire Nicolet

Département des Antiquités orientales, musée du Louvre

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search