on the euphrates

8/3/2019 On the Euphrates

1/39

On the Euphrates 7

0On the Euphrates*0

by Christopher Woods Chicago

In seeking to recover the semantic relationships that led the Euphrates and Sippar1 toshare the writing ud.kib.nun, this paper begins with an analysis of the earliest writings forriver and city. It is found that the essential elements of this Diri compound, kib.nun, firstdesignated the divine Euphrates; only as a secondary development did the city borrowthe spelling from the river. Further, it is suggested that the writing ud.kib.nun belongs tothe ud.gal.nun orthographic tradition. As for the city taking its spelling from the river,the explanation lies, on one hand, in the functional overlap of the Sun- and River-godsand, on the other, in the unique topography of the Sippar region. The aspect of divine

judge defines both the Sun-god, the patron deity of Sippar, and the River-god, the divineEuphrates being a particular manifestation of d d /dNaru indeed, the textual and artisticrecords together describe a mythological and cosmographical conception that links thesetwo deities. The Sippar region, it is argued, was an early cult center of the River-god and

was regarded as a numen locion account of the unique geomorphological conditions spe-cific to the area.

It is a curious fact of Mesopotamian toponymy that the Euphrates,B u r a n u n a /Purattum, the great artery of Mesopotamia, and Sippar, therenowned ancient cult center of the Sun-god, Samas, share a commonlogographic writing, ud.kib.nun, regarded by the native lexical tradition

0 I am grateful to the editors of ZA, Walther Sallaberger and Ursula Seidl, for their manycorrections and suggestions from which this manuscript has greatly benefited. I alsoowe a debt of gratitude to Piotr Steinkeller, who read through several versions of this

paper, making numerous suggestions and offering keen insights. Further, I would liketo thank Robert Biggs, Miguel Civil, Robert Englund, Gene Gragg, Jennie Myers,Dennis Pardee, Seth Richardson, Martha Roth, and Gil Stein for their invaluable com-

ments and assistance. Portions of this study were presented at the 214th

meeting of theAmerican Oriental Society (San Diego, CA March 13 th, 2004).The abbreviations used are those of E. Reiner/M. T. Roth, The Assyrian Dictionary ofthe Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. R (Chicago 1999) ixxxvii,and/or . W. Sjberg, The Sumerian Dictionary of the University of Pennsylvania Mu-seum, vol. A/3 (Philadelphia 1998) ixxlii, with the following additions:ASJ = Acta Sumerologica.OBO = Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis.QdS = Quaderni di Semitistica.

1 Throughout this paper I maintain the traditional pronunciation /sippar/, although,at least for the OB period, sources indicate a pronunciation /sip(p)ir/ (see RGTC3 s.v.).

*

Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 95, S. 745 Walter de Gruyter 2005ISSN 0084-5299


2/39

8 Christopher Woods

as a Diri compound.2 It is a peculiarity of Sumerian writing that has largelyescaped scholarly musings as to why this is so.3 Yet this orthographic

identity must, no doubt, have had a meaningful semantic basis for those

who laid the foundations of the writing system, although we have barelyscratched the surface in terms of understanding the relationship betweengraph and meaning that must underpin such writings. Thus, at the root ofour problem is the broader question of sign choice in Diri compounds,specifically, the rationale for grouping together certain graphs, the pho-netic values of which have no obvious relationship to that of the compos-ite. By the Old Babylonian period, when a systematized collection ofthese compounds was first integrated into the scribal repertoire, many

were already very ancient writings and were most likely regarded as com-pletely arbitrary spellings, the association of ideas that engendered eachduring the infancy of the writing system having long been forgotten. Inthis way the plight of the modern scholar is not so different from that ofthe Old Babylonian compilers of Proto-Diri. The problem at hand, in ourcase, is to recover the semantic associations that led to the Euphrates andSippar sharing the spelling ud.kib.nun and to the choice of these par-ticular signs to express these two toponyms.

Sippar, of course, lay on a major branch of the Euphrates, but thisclaim could be made for any number of Mesopotamian cities whose or-thographies have no relationship to the great river. Arguably, one might

expect this shared orthography to be based on a particular relationshipbetween Samas, the patron deity of Sippar, and the Euphrates. Indeed, anEblaite incantation that invokes Samas also mentions the waters of theEuphrates,4 while a late text unequivocally attributes the Euphrates to theSun-god: Idiglat sa ina maar Enlil izziz(z)u Puratti sa ina maar Samasizziz(z)uthe Tigris which served Enlil the Euphrates which servedSamas.5 However, this is the extent of the explicit association in the tex-tual record, and in a much earlier Sn-iddinam inscription it is the Tigris,

2 The following entries occur in Diri (cited according to the unpublished ms. of M. Civil;now MSL 15 [2004]), Zimbir: Diri I 142; Diri Nippur 328; Diri Ugarit I 121; Buranuna:Diri III 180, 197; Diri Nippur 347; Diri Sippar vi 5. As will be made clear below, thereading of the river is /b ur an un a/ , not / b ur an u n/ .

3 The only discussion of this orthographic phenomenon that I am aware of is the briefcomment of R. McC. Adams, Heartland of Cities (Chicago 1981) 3, who is followed byF. Carrou, tudes de Gographie et de Topographie sumeriennes II. la Recherchede lEuphrate au IIIe Millnaire, ASJ 13 (1991) 120121.

4 a b-la-na-timdg waters of the sweet Euphrates (ARET 5, 3 rev. iv 14).5 RA 60 (1966) 73: 7, 10.


3/39

On the Euphrates 9

in fact, that is conceded to Utu: d - I d i g na d h - g l - l a dU t u - k e4the Tigris, the river of Utus abundance.6

As to the question of orthographic primacy, here too the answer is

more complicated than the evidence at first glance suggests. The Eu-phrates has been described as the river Sippar by Adams, Carrou, Ed-zard, and Nissen, among others.7 Behind this moniker is an understand-ing of Sippar as primary from the perspective of writing, the city lendingits spelling to the river. Certainly, there are valid parallels in terms of thenames of various third-millennium and OB waterways to justify thisassumption. Writings of the type d - Ad ab , (d) d - A k sa kki, d - B dki, d -G r - su k i , G / d - Eb - l aki, d- - s i - i nki, d d -K i ski, d- La ga ski, d - N i n aki ( - s ) - d u ( - a ) , d - r i mki - m a ,8 in which the names ofcanals and rivers derive from the settlements on their courses, would ap-

pear to serve as corroborating evidence. And confirmation would seemto come in the form of the common writing with the determinative ki ,i .e., d-ud.kib.nunki, occurring as early as the Gudea corpus.9 Alreadyat the end of the Early Dynastic period, as given by a Lugalzagesi inscrip-tion from Nippur,10 the writing for the city, ud.kib.nunki, must refer tothe Euphrates based on context. Earlier at Abu Salabi the Euphratesis written both ud.kib.nun and ud.kib.nunki as witnessed by variantsto a Ninbilulu Z - m hymn,11 although elsewhere in this corpusud.kib.nun, alone, stands for the Euphrates.12 By the Ur III period, the

Euphrates was regularly construed with the ki determinative, i.e., d-ud.kib.nunki, leaving little doubt that at the close of the third millen-nium, and perhaps earlier, scribes understood the Euphrates in thesecases to be the Sippar River at least in terms of orthography. Later evi-dence is explicit on this point. The OB writings d -ud.kib.nunki-ri-tumand d-Si-ip-pi-ri-tum, i. e., the river Sippiritum, demonstrate conclusively

6

D. Frayne, RIME 4, 160: 3940. It is perhaps the Larsa-centric perspective of this text,which opens with a mention of the building of the Ebabbar, that influenced the choiceof this epithet.

7 Adams, Heartland of Cities 3. 159; R. McC. Adams/H. J. Nissen, The Uruk Country-side (Chicago 1971) 4445; F. Carrou, ASJ 13 (1991) 120121; D. O. Edzard, Iturungal,RlA 5 (19761980) 223.

8 RGTC 13, s. vv.9 Cyl. B x 20. xvii 10.

10 BE 1/2 87 iii 2f. (= Steible ABW, Luzag. 1 ii 7).11 OIP 99, p. 48: 61. 62. Only source E adds ki; in the other three witnesses (four for l. 62)

Buranuna is written ud.kib.nun.12 E.g. OIP 99, 388 ii 4. 393 ii 4.


4/39

10 Christopher Woods

that in the second millennium the city could lend its name to the river atleast in the vicinity of Sippar.13 This understanding is also reflected in the

vast majority of the lexical attestations which include the ki determi-

native in the writing of the river.14

Yet as compelling as this argument may be, a review of all the evi-dence paints a very different picture namely, that in originthe river rep-resents the primary or unmarked writing and that it is the river which lentits spelling to the city. Indeed, contrary to the common assumption, Sip-

par is the Euphrates city from the perspective of orthography. In fact,this is what one would expect based on the cross-cultural observationthat settlements tend to derive their names from topographical featuresrather than vice-versa.

First, whereas the logographic writing for Sippar is stable in all peri-ods,15 representing a fixed and, I shall argue, borrowed compound, the

writing for the Euphrates shows considerable variation in third- and sec-ond-millennium texts, given that often the ud and occasionally the nun

graphs could be omitted freely in the writing of the river. This demon-strates that these graphs are complements in the writing of Buranuna andthat the essential element of the compound is kib .16 In second-millen-nium texts the writing kib.nun(.na ) occurs sporadically in the south,17

but with greater frequency in the north, e.g., at Sippar,18 Emar,19 and par-ticularly at Mari,20 prompting Charpin to state, On sait qu Mari au

IIe millnaire, le nom de lEuphrate est gnralement crit kib.nun.na(et non ud.kib.nun.na).21 In the Meturan exemplars of the Death of

13 See R. Harris, Ancient Sippar (Leiden 1975) 380381.14 E.g., d -ud.kib.nunki = B uranuna , Purattum(Diri III 180; Diri Sippar vi 5; Diri III

197; but note the earlier OB d -ud.kib.nun.na = Purattum[Diri Nippur 347], the sig-nificance of this plene spelling is discussed below); additionally, canonical Hh. XXII(and associated recensions and lists), as well as the OB forerunners, write Buranuna

with the KI determinative.15

The one exception that I am aware of, and probably a scribal mistake, occurs in thespelling of the deity dL uga l -Z i mb i r ki, written without nun, i.e., ud.kibki.e, in Or.SP 47/49 (1939) 369; see below for the interpretation of this deity as Lugal-Zimbir,rather than Lugal-Buranuna.

16 For the use of this sign to write Buranuna, see C. Woods, The Paleography and Valuesof the Sign kib , in: Fs. R. Biggs (forthcoming).

17 Lament for Sumer and Ur 25, 38 (texts DDa and DD from Ur).18 CT 4, 17c: 6 (cf . 1. 7 where the same PN is written with ud) and perhaps JCS 11 (1957)

29 no. 17 rev. 4.19 Aula Or Supp. 1 (1991) 50 no. 19: 4.

20 ARM 1, 62: 17; ARM 2, 131: 11. 37; ARM 10, 155: 16; see ARM 15, p. 85.21 D. Charpin, Tablettes prsargoniques de Mari, MARI 5 (1987) 72.


5/39

On the Euphrates 11

Gilgamesh, kib.nun.na is written for Buranuna without exception.22 Butrather than representing a corrupt, relatively late peripheral spelling, it isclear that this writing has deep roots in the third millennium. The writing

d -nun.kibki

at Umma23

shows that the ud element was omissible in theUr III period; and earlier at the end of the Pre-Sargonic period there isthe Nippur personal name Ur - s a g -a.kib.nun(ki),24 a writing for the Eu-

phrates that also occurs on the Barton cylinder.25 At Ebla we encounterthe spelling kib.nun.a for the Euphrates, a spelling, as we shall see, that

has antecedents at Fara and Mari.26 Finally, in another Ur III text fromUmma Buranuna is written simply as kib ,27 substantiating the claim that

both the ud and the nun graphs are dispensable complements in thewriting of the river.

Curiously, there are no certain attestations of the Euphrates or anyother watercourse in the Uruk texts.28 Perhaps this is simply a matter ofisolating the graphs that conceal them a task complicated by the factthat the determinative d first appears in the Early Dynastic period. Butreferences to the Euphrates are surprisingly rare in all periods, even inthe vast corpus of Ur III administrative texts. The reason for this lies,at least in part, in the fact that Buranuna/Purattum refers to the Eu-

phrates river system in toto; not specifying any particular branch, the des-

22 A. Cavigneaux/F. N. H. Al-Rawi, Gilgames et la mort. Textes de Tell Haddad VI.

Cuneiform Monographs 19 (Groningen 2000) ll. M 241. M 242. M 247. M 249.23 MVN 16, 789: 9.24 Westenholz OSP 1, 31 i 3 and TuM 5, 55 i 4 [= Westenholz Jena 56]). As in other

third-millennium contexts, the graph a is presumably for i d5; note the GN( d - ) a - s u h u r (ki) (Steible ABW, Ean. 2 vi 19; ITT 6431: 6), written I d5 (a ) -a - suhurin Steible ABW, Urn. 26 iii 7 (see RGTC 1, 208); also i d5 (a)- d un canal digger, su -ku6 - i d5 (a)-d un - a fisher of the excavated canal (see G. J. Selz, FAOS 15/2, p. 236,

with references).25 Barton MBI 1 xiii 3. xvii 2 (according to the numbering of B. Alster/A. Westenholz,

The Barton Cylinder, ASJ 16 [1994] 1546).26 ARET 13, 15 iv 9. v 17 (reference courtesy of P. Steinkeller).27

g d -B u r anuna x (kib)-t a (Sigrist Princeton 347: 7).28 As pointed out by R. Englund (personal communication). It is doubtful that the graphkib occurs in the Uruk period contra M. W. Green/H. J. Nissen, ZATU 230 no. 290;thus the Euphrates must be sought under a different graphic composition than that oflater periods (see Woods, Fs. R. Biggs [forthcoming]). The identification ofidigna inthe Uruk texts (ZATU 261) is similarly uncertain; further, the reading of the sign inquestion is complicated by the likelihood that in at least some cases it appears to des-ignate a (water?-)bird, as the original pictograph suggests, e.g., idigna:ku6:a (MS

2862); cf. idignamusen (Deimel SF 58 x 20 [bird list]). R. Englund, however, under-stands the Tigris to be attested in the Uruk IV text W 9579, see Texts from the LateUruk Period, in: P. Attinger/M. Wfler (eds.), Mesopotamien: Spturuk-Zeit undFrhdynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1 (Freiburg 1998) 75 n. 148.


6/39


ignation is largely limited to poetic uses. In administrative contexts es- pecially, expediency required reference to the local name of the river,e. g., d -A dab .

Carrou has recently given evidence for the writing of the Euphratesin the third millennium, beginning with the Abu-Salabi and Pre-Sar-gonic Nippur attestations. Overlooked in his study, but certainly to be in-cluded here, is the divine name dKi b - nu n , well-attested at Fara and theearliest identifiable writing for Buranuna. The designation refers to thedivine Euphrates, a manifestation of the numinous quality of the river.The deity occurs most frequently in the personal name dkib.nun(.a)-ur-sag, a forerunner of the Pre-Sargonic PN Ur-sag- a.kib.nun(ki). Thename appears no fewer than fourteen times in Fara administrative texts.In one case nun is omitted, i.e., U r - s a g - dkib a writing that finds itscounterpart in the Ur III spelling Buranuna x (kib ) (Sigrist Princeton347: 7) discussed above and, possibly, in a Sargonic sealing which mayread d -ud.kib.29 At first glance one might suspect that dkib.nun(.a) is a

writing for Utu, given the Fara PN U t u - u r - s a g , but the co-occurrenceof both PNs in at least eight administrative texts (in adjacent entries inone text)30 makes it most unlikely that these are variant orthographies ofthe same name. Decisive evidence that dkib.nun denotes the divine Eu-

phrates comes from the Fara lexical text Deimel SF 72, which includesan enumeration of waterways. Included in this list are the consecutive en-

tries [idig]na.min and dkib.nun.min (iv 1314), which, incidentally,gives the regular ordering of this pairing, the Tigris followed by the Eu-phrates, commonly encountered in later texts.31 The god also appears in

29 See Pomponio Prosopografia 137 (nun omitted in Deimel WF 48 ii 7). Note the FaraPN Ur-h u r - s a g without divine determinative but nevertheless reflecting the numin-ous character of the mountain ranges (Pomponio Prosopografia 252). As for the Sar-

gonic seal, D. O. Edzard reads d - ud.kib? (AfO 22 [196869] 15 no. 16: 9; see L. deClercq/J. Menant, Collection de Clercq. Catalogue mthodique et raisonn 1 no. 44;RGTC 1, 209) the sign is admittedly difficult.

30

Deimel WF 9. 12. 13. 15. 53. 76. 78; Jestin Suruppak 100.31 For this text, see M. Krebernik, Die Texte aus Fara und Tell Abu Salabikh, in: P. At-tinger/M. Wfler (eds.), Mesopotamien: Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit.OBO 160/1 (Freiburg 1998) 316 and n. 761. Several other known waterways are rec-ognizable in this list, suggesting, again, that this text is primarily a list of rivers andcanals, e.g., dm[us]!ir-hadin !.balag.nar.min (Deimel reads bu and gestin for mus anddin respectively see Krebernik Beschwrungen 298); G i b i l . min (c f . d-Gibi l[RGTC 1, 215]); ren.en.nun.min (cf. Enerennun [RGTC 1, 212]; this canal is locatedin the vicinity of Ur as recently demonstrated by P. Steinkeller, New Light on the Hy-drology and Topography of Southern Babylonia, ZA 91 [2001] 44 n. 92). Krebernikunderstands min as an orthographic variant ofa in this text, but, as will be discussed

below, there is reason to believe that, in fact, the graph represents the dual in this text.


7/39

On the Euphrates 13

an ud.gal.nun hymn to Nisaba, Deimel SF 56 vi 18, in connection withthe Abzu a fitting context for a riverain deity. Remarkably, the writingfor the deified Euphrates is distinguished from the writing of Sippar at

Fara, the latter occurring as ud.kib.nunki

;32

in the somewhat later AbuSalabi corpus, however, no such distinction is maintained and the writ-ings of both the city and the river include the ud graph.

Outside of Fara, the deified Euphrates occurs, also without the udelement, at Pre-Sargonic Mari, where the god receives emmer offeringsalong with several other deities: 0.0.1 se - z z gi-ti-um dkib.nun.a/dkib.nun.a 10 silaof emmer for the of the (two) Euphrates-gods.33

Of particular interest here is the fact that the deified Euphrates is con-ceived as a dyad. The phenomenon, however, is not without parallel inthe third millennium. At Ebla the deified Bali construed in the dual,dBa-li-a(-a), 2-dBa-li-a(-a) was a full-fledged, if minor, deity of thelocal cult, as witnessed by offerings recorded in administrative texts, inone case specifying the cultic personnel for this god, as well as by the in-

vocation ofdBa-li-a-ain several Eblaite incantations.34 The deified Bali,again conceived as a dyad, dBa4-li-a, also makes an appearance in theAbu Salabi god list,35 while an Old Babylonian itinerary indicates that aconception of this River-god as a dual prevailed at least through the first

32 Jestin Suruppak 881 vi 12. Pomponio Prosopografia 111 s.v. gar.ab.si reads kib

(as opposed to Jestins lam) after inspection of the photograph.33 MARI 5 (1987) 72 no. 7 ii 36.34 See F. Pomponio/P. Xella, Les dieux dEbla. AOAT 245 (Mnster 1997) 7879 for ref-

erences and previous literature; also Krebernik Beschwrungen 130. 133134. 316;W. G. Lambert, The God Assur, Iraq 45 (1983) 84; P. Xella, Le grand froid Ledieu Bardu madu Ebla, UF 18 (1986) 440. Note that the appearance of the deifiedEuphrates in Ebla administrative texts is debated and doubtful. G. Pettinato connectedBaradu madule grand froid (dBa-ra-du ma-du / ma-ad), a minor deity who receivesofferings at Ebla, with the deified Euphrates. Pomponio and Xella, however, have beenadamant in their objections (see Pomponio/Xella, AOAT 245, 8082, with previousliterature, and Xella, UF 18 [1986] 440 n. 12) on the grounds that 1) maduis an adjec-

tive not expected with rivers; 2) the Euphrates is rarely deified although they do nottake into account the Fara and Mari evidence discussed here; 3) dmus is associated with the Euphrates, but never with Baradu madu; 4) the Euphrates is written withits proper name, without divine determinative and without assimilation of the /n/,in ARET 5, 3 iv 1f., i.e. b-la-na-tim. Rather, Xella connects Baradu madu to theBiblical Barad (*BRD), a personification of hail (Xella, UF 18 [1986] 437444; seealso P. Xella, Barad, in: K. van der Toorn et al. [eds.], Dictionary of Deities andDemons in the Bible [Leiden 19992] 160161). Note that Pettinatos interpretation isdefended by P. Mander (MROA 2/1, 4041) as an epithet or folk-etymology for theEuphrates.

35 OIP 99, 83 x 10 (A. Alberti, A Reconstruction of the Abu Salabikh God-List, SEL 2[1985] 14: 345).


8/39


half of the second millennium.36 Similarly, if the Taban contains a dualsuffix, i. e., Tab-an, then this river too was regarded as a dyad. Addition-ally, a dual form may lurk behind the OA personal name Su-a-bu-raand

the toponym a-bu-raki37

reminiscent of later Assyrian tradition thatbears witness to the deified male-female pair abur and aburtu.38 Alsoto be noted here is the Sun-god tablet of Nab-apla-iddina, whose relief

with its penchant for archaic iconography and its depiction of a two- headed snake arising from the Aps with the caption mus.igi.min represents, quite possibly, an image that hearkens back to an old notionof the Aratum-Euphrates as a dyad.39 And perhaps of relevance are themythical twin rivers of Eridu mentioned in connection with Samas andDumuzi in the Kiskan legend.40 Finally, it is plausibly in this light that

we are to understand the min graph that follows each of the waterways inthe Fara lexical list Deimel SF 72 discussed above.41

Remarkably, it is possible to isolate this conception of rivers as twindivinities in a seal motif that, like the textual references, is mainly attestedoutside of southern Babylonia, particularly at Mari.42 The first of theseseals (fig. 1), from OB Mari, depicts an enthroned Enki holding an over-flowing vase in the company of four water genies and his adjunct, theLamu. The scene is played out on a two-headed water goddess. Giventhat this seal hails from Mari, there can be no doubt that the river in

36 W. W. Hallo, The Road to Emar, JCS 18 (1964) 59: 33. 7778.37 RGTC 2, 72; RGTC 4, 44, 144.38 Frankena Takultu 124: 88.39 See C. Woods, The Sun-God Tablet of Nab-apla-iddina Revisited, JCS 56 (forth-

coming); cf. U. Seidl, Das Ringen um das richtige Bild des Samas von Sippar, ZA 91(2001) 126 for a dissenting opinion.

40 - kug - ga - a - n i - t a gist i r g i s su l - e sa g4 - b i l nu -mu-un -da - ku4 - ku4 - d :ina biti elli sa kima qisti sillasu tarsu ana libbisu mamma la irrubu / sa g4 dUt u[d] Ama-usumga l - a n -na - k e4 : ina qerebisu SamasDumuzi/ d a l - b a - an - n a d k a

2 - a- ta : ina birit p narati kilallanIn the holy temple, where its shadow spreads like

(that of) a forest and within which no one may enter, inside are S

amas and Dumuzi,between the mouths of the two rivers. (CT 16, 4647: 193198; after M. W. Green,Eridu in Sumerian Literature [Ph. D. diss. University of Chicago 1975] 188); see alsoM. J. Geller, Iraq 42 (1990) 2351.

41 This text may also include entities that, while not waterways, were likewise consideredas inherently dual in character. Intriguingly, a sakkanakkum-period offering text fromTuttul (Tell Bi>a) lists two sheep for the temple of the River(-god), but only one for thetemples of Dagan and Annunitum, suggesting, perhaps, in light of the above evidence,that the River-god is here conceived as a dual (note, however, that the form is singular, INa-


9/39

On the Euphrates 15

question is the Euphrates. Contemporaneous motifs from Susa (fig. 2)and Syro-Anatolia (figs. 3 and 4) similarly depict a dyad river deity, but

androgynous in nature, portrayed in the first as a female and in the othersapparently as male; in a seal of uncertain provenance, but similar date,the River-god is likely again male and the central deity in question is

probably the Sun-god supported by two human-faced bulls (fig. 5).43 Acurious seal from Alishar Hyk (fig. 6), of early OB, if not earlier date,displays strong Mesopotamian influences, being reminiscent of Sargonic

43 See D. Collon, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum 3 (Lon-don 1986) 154: 378.

Fig. 1

(Amiet, Syria 37 [1960] 215 fig. 1)

Fig. 2

(Amiet, Syria 37 [1960] 216 fig. 2a)

Fig. 4 (P. Beck, A Note on a Syrian Cylinder Seal,Tell Aviv 4 [1977] pl. 19 no. 3)

Fig. 3 (Amiet, Syria 37 [1960]217 fig. 3a)


10/39


seals in style and execution.44 Again the river terminates in two male protomes, here bearing a boat with an enthroned deity with bull ears,suggesting Nergal or a god connected with his circle. But the completionof the bovine imagery with the addition of two bison-men, deified andithyphallic, and a divine human-faced bison serving as a footrest, speaks

directly to the iconography of the Sun-god. What may be depicted here,

44 See H. H. von der Osten, The Alishar Hyk Seasons of 193032, 2. OIP 29 (Chicago1937) 205. 207 fig. 246: d 2199. The date is discussed by B. Buchanan, On the SealImpressions on Some Old Babylonian Tablets, JCS 11 (1957) 50. As pointed out to me

by U. Seidl, the photograph provided by H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals (London 1939)pl. xxiv band Amiets line drawing (Syria 37 [1960] 217 fig. 3b) are mirror images ofthe OIP 29 representation. J. Larson of the Oriental Institute has inspected the originalnegatives and informs me that the photograph in the original publication, OIP 29, iscorrect. The Frankfort image (and from there Amiets drawing) is, quite possibly, theresult of printing the negative upside down.

Fig. 5 (Amiet, Syria 37 [1960] 216 fig. 2b)

Fig. 6 (modified from von der Osten,OIP 29, 207 fig. 246: d 2199)


11/39

On the Euphrates 17

in light of this iconographic fusion, is a local rendition of Samas in hisnight or nether world aspect.45

While the exact date of this last seal is open to debate, the motif of thedual river god has clear third-millennium origins as shown by the re-markable limestone mold fragment recently published by D. P. Hansen(fig. 7) and attributed to Naram-Sn. The king is depicted with Istar atopa stepped temple; beneath, the temple is bordered by a female river god-dess bearing offerings. While only the right half of the image is extant,

clearly the watery body of the goddess terminated in two identicalprotomes in the manner of the second-millennium images. 46 But the most

45 See already F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mischwesen. A, RlA 8 (1994) 235, who proposes thatthe principal deity in this seal is a local form of Samas ; cf. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals 168.

46 D. P. Hansen, Through the Love of Ishtar, in: L. al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds.), Of Potsand Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria pres-ented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday (London 2002) 102. I would liketo thank P. Steinkeller for discussing with me the images in this paragraph and theirrelevance for the arguments made here.

Fig. 7 (Hansen, in: D. Oates Festschrift 93 fig. 3)


12/39


explicit visual evidence for the twin Euphrates gods comes from a unique(Pre-)Sargonic Mari seal (fig. 8).47 The image centers upon a mountaindeity bearing a scepter; from the base of his mountain throne two juxta-

posed bird heads emerge, each expelling a river from its mouth. Thesetwo rivers morph into twin goddesses adorned with vegetation, clearlyembodiments of the divine Euphrates and the bounty that it makes pos-sible. A fourth god completes the scene: striking a pose with one leg

raised upon the flow of the river and bearing what may be punting pole,this god may be a more anthropomorphic form of the Boat-god who sooften carries Samas in third-millennium glyptic (figs. 9 and 10).48 Simi-larly, a pair of water goddesses make their appearance in the so-calledInvestiture Fresco of Zimri-Lim (fig. 11), which was boldly displayedin the kings Mari palace. In the top register Zimri-Lim, in a gesture ofadoration, stands before Istar in her martial aspect. Below, in the second

47 See Amiet, Syria 37 (1960) 219220 fig. 5.48 Note, however, that the Boat-god often manipulates a two-pronged punting pole (in

addition to figs. 9 and 10, see P. Amiet, La Glyptique msopotamienne archaque [Paris1980] nos. 14381444. 1446). This seal motif is discussed by Frankfort, Cylinder Seals6770. 108110. The suggestion that this theme in all cases involves the Moon-godtraveling the night sky rather than the Sun-god (D. Collon, Mondgott, RlA 8 [1995]372; eadem, Moon, Boats and Battle, in: I. J. Finkel/M. J. Geller [eds.], SumerianGods and their Representations [Groningen 1997] 1112) does not adequately takeinto account the likely connection between the seal motif and the Samas literary textARET 5, 6; OIP 99, 326+342 described below, or the apparent inclusion in one seal ofthe sassaru(m)-saw (Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik fig. 466).

Fig. 8 (A. Parrot, Sumer [London, 1960] fig. 228)


13/39

On the Euphrates 19

register, each goddess bears an overflowing vase and, as in fig. 8, eachwears a garment of parallel lines that reinforces the water imagery; fishswim up and down the streams and a sprig of vegetation, again symbolicof fertility, emerges from each vessel. Given that this is Mari, a location

below the rain-fall line, where notions of water must necessarily evokeimages of the Euphrates, these goddesses, appearing again as a dyad,

would seem to be manifestations of the Euphrates, as in the glyptic. Theprominence and, just as significantly, the placement of these River-god-desses in the bottom register of an image that conveys a message of noless import than the kings legitimacy, his divinely sanctioned right torule, speaks to the well-founded belief in the water as the basis of every-thing it is an old visual motif in Mesopotamia, appearing already on theUruk Vase.

As is clear from the glyptic evidence, the sex of the River-deity in thismotif varies, being portrayed alternatively bearded and with long flowinglocks, thereby recalling the fact that in textual sources dd, although

Fig. 9 (Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik fig. 477; afterAmiet, La Glyptique msopotamienne archaque no. 1505)

Fig. 10 (Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik fig. 478)


14/39


usually masculine, can also be construed as feminine.49 A case in pointis the Incantation to the River, the numerous exemplars of which dis-

play both masculine and feminine agreement in free variation with thisgod.50 The sex of the River-god is further clouded by evidence that at

least in some casesd

d is to be read asd

Naruwhich, naturally, displaysfeminine agreement in Akkadian and Semitic in general.51 While the an-

49 E.g., T. Jacobsen, The Harab Myth. SANE 2/3 (Malibu 1984) 6: 21. 30; Or. NS 39(1970) 135: 21; see also the discussion in CAD IJ sub id.

50 E. g., STC 1, 128.51 J. J. M. Roberts assumed that d, as a loanword in Akkadian, replaced the Semitic

name for this god, presumably, Narum (The Earliest Semitic Pantheon [Baltimore1972] 46). But syllabic evidence shows the existence of a dNaru(m) in northern Meso-

potamia, e.g., OB Mari: ka-dNa-r[u?] (ARM 7, p. 346 ad Naru, with additional PNswithout the divine determinative), Na-ri-im (ARM 7, 163: 5, Bottros assumption

Fig. 11 (J. Oates, Babylon, rev. ed. [London 1986] 62 fig. 42)


15/39

On the Euphrates 21

drogyny of the River-god may in some cases be attributed to a confusionor syncretism between Semitic and Sumerian river gods, such intentional

pairs as Assyrian abur-aburtum suggest an explanation beyond a

mere blurring of genders. This supposition is strengthend by an intri-guing parallel from Egypt. Here the deified Nile, Hap or Hapy (H


16/39


the personal name dud.nun.kib- t i - a .54 An echo of the divine river sur-vives into Old Babylonian times as witnessed by the PNs Mar-PurattimSon-of-the-Euphrates, and Purattum-ummi The-Euphrates-is-my-

Mother,55

to which we may add Marat-Aratim, Mar-Aratim, Ummi-Aratim, and Ipiq-Aratim.56 And, in what may represent the latest refer-ence to the Euphrates, a Kassite letter from Nippur invokes the gods ofthe Euphrates, a statement which, incidentally, may suggest that as lateas the middle of the second millenium the Euphrates was conceived as adual or plural divinity.57 At this point the evidence for the Euphrates-godin cuneiform sources comes to an end. Not until Classical times would acult devoted to a deified Euphrates again flourish in Mesopotamia.58

The deification of rivers in Mesopotamia is subject not only to signifi-cant temporal parameters, as our evidence for the divine Euphrates sug-

gests, but tends to be bounded geographically as well. It is primarily anearly phenomenon and one with an unmistakably northern flavor. For in-stance, the deified Tigris occurs in the great OB god list as a member ofEnkis court,59 a reflex of which may be discerned in OB personal names,e.g., Idiqlat-ummi, Mar-Idiqlat, Ummi-Idiqlat. But as a theophoric el-ement the river was particularly popular in Assyria during the secondmillennium, e.g., Urad-Idiqlat, Idiqlat-eris, Idiqlat-remani, Kidin-Idiqlat,Siqe-idiqlat, Silli-Idiqlat, Sep-Idiqlat, Tasme-Idiqlat.60 And it is of temporalsignificance that the deified Bali is attested at Ebla and in the Abu Sa-

labi god list, as well as in Old Akkadian personal names, but as a god

54 MVN 16, 908: 8. It is doubtful, however, that the god dL uga l -ud.kib.nunki, whoreceives offerings among other gods at the Umma s- s festival, is to be taken asdLugal-Buranuna. Rather, the name, which occurs without the d determinative,is probably dL uga l - S i ppa r ki the Divine King of Sippar, analogous to dL uga l -G - d u8a ki, dL uga l -Ma rad -da ki, and dL uga l - urukrki also known from Ur IIIsources that is, Samas of Sippar who is venerated at Umma. See Sallaberger Ka-lender 1, 248 (for attestations of this divinity in Ur III sources, see ibid. 2, Tables 90and 99a; also J. A. Peat, An Offering-List from the Third Dynasty of Ur, RA 69 [1975]

1922; N. Schneider, Die Gtternamen von Ur III. AnOr 19 [Rome 1939] nos. 286.287).55 RGTC 3, 305.56 RGTC 3, 274.57 dingir.mes sa dPu-rat-t[i] nap-sa-ti-ka li-is-su-ruMay the gods of the Euphrates pro-

tect your life (BE 17/1, 87: 56; H. Waschow, MAOG 10/1 [1936] 15); cited in E. Ebe-ling, Flugottheiten, RlA 3 (19571971) 93.

58 F. Cumont, tudes syriennes (Paris 1917) 247256.59 RA 20 (1923) 100 ii 34.60 PNs from B. Alster, Tigris, in: K. van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and

Demons in the Bible (Leiden 19992 ) 870; C. Saporetti, Onomastica medio-assira 1.Studia Pohl 6 (Rome 1970) 310311.


17/39

On the Euphrates 23

the river barely survives into the post-OB periods as shown by the deitysposition at the very end of An = Anum.61 Similarly, the abur occursregularly with the divine determinative in Ur III texts from Puzris-

Dagan62

but most often without it in the second millennium.63

And theappearance of the Taban as a theophoric element in personal names fromPre-Sargonic Dilbat (Ur - dD ab4 - an ), as well as from Sargonic Esnuna(ka-Ta-ba-an, {Ki}?-nam-Ta-ba-an) speaks to the deification of this Tigristributary over an area stretching from western Akkad through the Diyalaregion in the third millennium.64 Further, the Diyala occurs in theSargonic personal names -me-Dur-l and Su-Dur-l/al,65 appearingonce in the OB period written dDu r - l .66 Finally, the Pre-Sargonicand Sargonic periods bear witness to a number of deified lesser branchesand canals, e.g., d d - A k sa kki, d d - A m - s i -har, Ka- d d - n s i ,d d - K i ski, d d - M - g u r8 ,67 but already by the Ur III period many ofthese were stripped of their divine status, e.g., d - n s i , d - M - gu r 8( - r a ) .68

The promotion of rivers to gods is but one facet of the broader phe-nomenon of the numen loci that encompasses the deification of moun-tains and cities; it is the more tangible counterpart to the deification of

heavenly bodies and natural phenomena, familiar aspects of Mesopota-mian religious thought.69 As the geographical and temporal distribution

61 Lambert, Iraq 45 (1983) 85.62 RGTC 2, 266.63 RGTC 3, 277; RGTC 4, 144.64 Dilbat PN: OIP 104, p. 111 iii 5; Esnuna PNs: MAD 1, 163 viii 40 and 72 rev. 5 re-

spectively. Ebla PNs attest the deification of a GN Ta-ba-an/nu(e.g., Is-m-Ta-ba-an,en-ga-Ta-ba-an, Kn-Ta-ba-an, Ti-Ta-ba-nu, k-Ta-ba-an (cf. ka-Ta-ba-an at Esnuna),

but in light of the distances involved, it is uncertain, as pointed out by M. Krebernik(Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte [Berlin 1988] 79 reference courtesy of W. Sal-laberger), that this designation refers to the Tigris tributary, as assumed by Lambert(MARI 6 [1990] 642).

65

RGTC 1, 210.66 RGTC 3, 279.67 RGTC 1, s. vv.68 RGTC 2, s. vv.69 See already Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon 58. On the deification of rivers,

mountains, and cities, see also J. Bottro, Les divinits smitiques anciennes en M-sopotamie, in: S. Moscati (ed.), Le antiche divinit semitiche. Studi Semitici 1 (Rome1958) 43; Lambert, Iraq 45 (1983) 8286; Lambert , MARI 6 (1990) 641643; F. Stolz,River, in: K. van der Toorn et al. (eds.) , Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible(Leiden 19992) 707709; P. Michalowski, The mountain and the stars, in: P. Marrassini(ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils andColleagues (Wiesbaden 2003) 407410.


18/39


of our evidence suggests, the raising of topographical features of the Me-sopotamian landscape to divine status may belong to the earliest discern-able strata of the Semitic religious conception.70 In essence, topographi-

cal features that were considered to be of inherent significance, inspiringawe and reverence, were held to be imbued with a numinous quality andso were incorporated into the pantheon, if only in name. But the fact thatthe Euphrates and the Bali both received offerings shows that at certainnorthern locations, such as Mari and Ebla, rivers could assume a person-ified form, as the evidence from the glyptic confirms, and thus stand on

par with other gods.

The Spelling UD.KIB.NUN

The variations in the early writings of Buranuna demonstrate that thenun element, which may be omitted, was a phonetic complement and thatthe writing (d)kib.nun is to be interpreted as (d )Buranunax(kib)nun. AtFara the combination of the signs kib and nun was not infrequently ren-dered as a ligature, i.e., dkib+nun,71 a syllabically-glossed spelling thatfinds its parallel in writings of the type ses+na for Na nn ax (ses)na. In thisconnection, note that the spelling ending with na, i.e., ud.kib.nun.na,in the vast majority of cases, writes Buranuna and only exceptionally Sip-

par a distinction that is maintained in Diri Nippur, i. e., ud.kib.nun.ki= S-[ip-pa/i]-ra(328) and d.ud.kib.nun.na = Pu-ra-at-tum! (347) thusconfirming the phonetic character of this part of the logogram.72

The optional ud element, however, is a more complicated matter.Poebel, who sought phonetic solutions to so many problems of Sumerian

70 Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon 58. Although the dynamic landscape of UpperMesopotamia no doubt influenced the more common occurrence of numen loci inthe north, the deification of mountains being an obvious case, the phenomenon likely

had a cultural component as well. This is borne out by the rivers, upon which noregion depended more than the south, yet the deification and veneration of individualrivers, as we have seen, plays a lesser role in the Sumerian religious conception.

71 E.g., Deimel WF 29 rev. iii 4. 76 rev. i 10.72 See the comments of . W. Sjberg/E. Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian

Temple Hymns. TCS 3 (Locust Valley 1969) 141, who also note that the writingud.kib.nun.naki for Sippar, rather than Buranuna, is rare. OB exceptions appearin the writing of the GNs Sippar-bd(ud.kib.nun.na.bd) and Sippar-edin.na(ud.kib.nun.na.edin.na) (RGTC 3, 209). Incidentally, the plene spelling, i.e.,ud.kib.nun.na, shows that the name of the Euphrates is Bu r anu na and notBuranun; an etymology based on an understanding of the toponym as a genitivalconstruction, B u r anu na ( k ) , is suggested below.


19/39

On the Euphrates 25

logography, interpreted the compound as a phonetic writing, d . B r - l(or l)-nunu, which later changed to Buranunu.73 Lambert, on theother hand, interpreted kib as the basic logogram and both ud and

n u n ( . n a ) as phonetic complements, i. e.,bar

6kibnun.na

.74

The prima facieobjection to understanding ud as a phonetic indicator is that a value/bur/ is not attested for the sign and a reading with the first syllable vo-calized as /bar/ is known only from an OB Eme-sal text and is likely theresult of a late vowel shift.75 But this obstacle is certainly not insurmount-able, for the vocalic quality of CVC signs is not rigid in any period ofcuneiform, particularly in the earliest periods when the writing system

was ill-equipped to handle syllabic writings and phonetic approximationsoften sufficed, e.g., mus3+erin for susin, where erin is a phonetic com-

plement, known from later periods to have the value se s4 , but not theexpected su sx .76 More problematic, however, is the fact that the scribalconvention handled the ud and nun elements differently. Whereas theud graph is frequently omitted in the writing, attestations without nunare extremely rare, suggesting that the two belong to separate graphicclasses.

The solution to the problem of the ud element may ultimately rest inthe fact that as the earliest evidence of the writing of the river from

73 A. Poebel, Miscellaneous Studies. AS 14 (Chicago 1947) 1112; also idem, SumerischeUntersuchungen II, ZA 37 (1927) 271.

74 W. G. Lambert, alam, Il-alam and Aleppo, MARI 6 (1990) 642 n. 4.75 a - g i 6 Ba-ra-na-k[a] (Poebel, ZA 37 [1927] 162 iv 4). As noted by Poebel, /a/ is

written for both /u/ and /i/ in this text (ibid. 270). The earliest syllabic writing for theriver may come from Ebla. Krebernik suggests that the occurrence of b u r- nu n in anEblaite incantation (Beschwrungen 180: xvi (d) 5. 182), mentioned in connection withEnki, may be a syllabic writing of Buranuna. Support for this interpretation may besought in the divine pair dEn -k i- bu r- nu n (ITT 7567) and dE n-k i - g - d - i d i gna(ITT 7310) (see Carrou, ASJ 13 [1991] 120; Schneider, AnOr 19, 21 nos. 110. 113),

both of whom receive offerings in Ur III texts. However, the former may be

related to the godd

B u r- n un - t a - s i / s - a who bears the epithets the one of wideunderstanding and native of Eridug (CT 16, 45: 125126; CT 17, 21: 112), and whois counted as one of the six sons of Enki in An = AnumII 288. Note in this connectionthe Fara PN B ur - nu n - s i (Pomponio Prosopografia 62). This god is probably not to

be connected with the Euphrates. Rather, this deity of Enkis court as his name sug-gests, the one who fills the princely bowl was probably responsible for filling theoverflowing vessel with which Enki is often depicted, a regular aspect of his ico-nography. Quite possibly, the two flowing streams that emanate from the bowl give

visual representation to the conception of rivers as duals, if not symbolic of the Tigrisand Euphrates themselves.

76 See P. Steinkeller, Review of M. W. Green/H. J. Nissen, Zeichenliste der ArchaischenTexte aus Uruk, BiOr 52 (1995) 695.


20/39


Fara, as well as that from Pre-Sargonic Mari, makes clear the Eu-phrates was considered a god and accordingly was written with the divinedeterminative, i.e., dkib.nun. In these cases ud is absent. Plausibly, the

prefixed ud graph was employed as a substitute for dingir that is,ud.kib.nun belongs to the ud.gal.nun (UGN) orthographic tradition,the allographic system of the Early Dynastic period.

If this hypothesis is correct, then the writing for Buranuna and Sipparin later periods would represent a relic UGN spelling. As to why this

particular spelling would have such perseverance when other UGN writ-ings became obsolete, the answer may lie in the relationship betweenSamas(ud) and Sippar (ud.kib.nunki), and in the distinct possibility thatin later periods the orthography was reinterpreted based on the assump-tion, reasonably placed, that the inclusion of the gods name was centralto the writing of his cult center, as parallels from the south certainly bearout, e.g., Nippur, Larsa, Ur, etc. In support of this proposal is the Sar-

gonic writing for Sippar, dud.kib.nunki, opposed to the contempor-aneous writing of the Euphrates, ud.kib.nund, the former suggesting anassociation between the Sun-god and his northern cult center.77 But, as

we have seen, an orthographic distinction between the river and the citywas not a Sargonic innovation. Already Fara administrative texts differ-entiated the writing of the Euphrates, dkibnun(.a) from the writing of Sip-

par, ud.kib.nunki.78 It was only with the Abu Salabi corpus that both

river and city were regularly written with ud. More than a simple ortho-graphic reform, this step gave primacy to the city and fostered an under-standing of the Euphrates as the river Sippar,79 so well attested in latersources. Yet a vestige of the original writing of the river, and thus of thedistinction between river and city, survived in the north, as witnessed bythe frequent attestations ofkib.nun(.na) for the Euphrates, while Sippar

was written ud.kib.nun. These orthographic developments may be sum-marized as follows:

77 See B. Kienast, FAOS 8, 9798. 116; RGTC 1, 144. Only at the close of the third mil-lennium, in the Ur III period, do we have the composite spelling dud.nun.kib for thedeified Euphrates, attested only once to my knowledge, in the PN B u ra nu na - t i - a(MVN 16, 908:8, cited above). This writing may reflect a relatively late ignorance ofthe UGN origins of the compound or represent a corrupt transmission of the aboveSargonic spellings.

78 The compound ud.kib.nun also occurs in the Fara UGN text Deimel SF 55 ix 1920as well as in the lexical list Deimel SF 7, which is organized by sign form (viii 2324,following Adab [viii 22]).

79 As already suggested by the variant spelling ud.kib.nunki for the Euphrates in an AbuSalabi Z -m hymn to Ninbilulu (OIP 99, p. 48: 61. 62, cited above).


21/39

On the Euphrates 27

Euphrates dkibnun(.a) d-kibnun(.na/a) d-ud.kib.nun(.na)(ki)

Sippar ud[=d]kib.nun(ki)

Regarding the proposal that ud.kib.nun is UGN in origin, it must bepointed out that the writing of divine names in what may be described asa mixed orthography part UGN, part regular orthography, insofar asUGN values differ from those of standard cuneiform is quite common.The Abu Salabi literary texts, for instance, are filled with writings of thetype ud.M a r - t u , ud.mimusen, ud.Nin -u r t a , ud.Z a - b a4 - b a4 , etc.,80

while duplicates freely mix orthographies in identical passages, particu-

larly with regard to the ud for an substitution, e.g., ud.gal.nun in OIP99, 167 rev. xvi 7, versus dingir.gal.nun in OIP 99, 129 x 4, and par-allel passages within the same text show a free variation of orthographies,e.g., dgal - k i dNi n - k i (OIP 99, 114 i 3) versus dgal.unug ud.Ni n - k i(11).81 As for a city deriving its spelling from the UGN tradition Micha-lowski has argued, quite convincingly, that the city written ub.pa+ru inthe Abu Salabi version of the City Names List82 and ub.pa.ru in theFara exemplar83 corresponds to Nu-me-gi4ki in the later OB version fromUr.84 Since ub for me and pa+ru for gi/gi4 are regular UGN substitu-tions, the city had an UGN spelling at Fara and Abu Salabi.85

As Krecher has shown, far from there being two distinct ortho-graphies, UGN and the standard orthography are essentially two adjoin-ing facets of the same writing system.86 Certain literary texts, for in-stance, while written in the regular orthography, employ signs more

80 W. G. Lambert , Review of R. D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abu Salabikh. OIP 99,BSOAS 39 (1976) 431.

81 J. Krecher, ud.gal.nun Versus Normal Sumerian: Two Literatures or One?, QdS 18

(1992) 296.82 OIP 99, 21 ii 5.83 Deimel SF 23 ii 4.84 UET 7, 80.85 P. Michalowski, On the Early Toponymy of Sumer: A Contribution to the Study of

Early Mesopotamian Writing, in: A. F. Rainey (ed.), kinattutu sa darti. Raphael Kut-scher Memorial Volume (Tel Aviv 1993) 124. See p. 124 n. 17 on the omission of initialnu-. The relevant entry in the Uruk version reads [ub.pa].ru. If this restoration andMichalowskis arguments hold true, then, significantly, UGN had its origins in theUruk, rather than the ED period (ibid. 124). Note that Sippar does not occur in theAbu Salabi, Fara, or Uruk versions of the City Names List.

86 Krecher, QdS 18 (1992) 285303.


22/39


typical of UGN writing, but with uncertain values.87 And, as we haveseen, scribes did not hesitate to mix orthographies in writing a single lexi-cal item. Further, UGN has cropped up unexpectedly beyond the con-

fines of religious and literary texts, being employed in several word lists.88

Temporally, it is of considerable significance that the one bi-orthographictext at our disposal (Westenholz Jena 173) is of Sargonic date, well afterthe floruit of UGN and thus refuting the assumption that UGN is a phe-nomenon confined to the Early Dynastic period. Certainly these are notisolated examples, and it would not be surprising eventually to findfurther Sargonic or even post-Sargonic UGN evidence, as well as valuesconsidered to be diagnostic of UGN in additional non-literary contexts.

It is, therefore, not unreasonable to suggest that the mixed writingud.kib.nun made its way into the standard orthographic tradition, if,indeed, we are justified in making this rigorous distinction. And it is quite

possible that the writings of other cities may originate in the UGN tradi-tion although this hypothesis is yet to be proven.89 Whereas many ofthe major cult centers of Sumer have transparent orthographic origins,i.e., divine symbol + unug/ab, having their roots in symbolic and se-miotic codes that pre-date the invention of writing, the logographic ori-

gins of others are far from obvious. Perhaps in some cases these early lo-gograms represent archaic UGN writings.90

The proposal that ud.kib.nun represents an UGN substitution for

dkib.nun requires further comment on the ud for an substitution, thehall-mark ofud.gal.nun orthography. As pointed out by Lambert, thisreplacement has yet to receive a satisfactory explanation,91 althoughmore recently Krecher has suggested that the substitution is phoneticallymotivated, observing that phonemic changes between words in standardorthography and their UGN counterparts include vowels changing to /u/and the omission of final consonants.92 The fact that ud can have the

value unx could be mustered in support of this suggestion.93 However, a

87 Krecher, QdS 18 (1992) 292.88 Krecher, QdS 18 (1992) 294 n. 30.89 Cf. Michalowski , Memorial Kutscher 123124.90 See already Michalowski , Memorial Kutscher 129.91 W. G. Lambert, Studies in ud.gal.nun, OA 20 (1981) 92.92 Krecher, QdS 18 (1992) 299.93 See M. E. Cohen, JCS 28 (1976) 84f ., with references. K. Oberhuber proposed a pho-

netic solution for the ud for an substitution based on ud = /tam/ and a Proto-Sumerian etymology of /*d/tem/g-r/ for d i g i r, ES d i me r (Linguistisch-philo-logische Prolegomena zur altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte [Innsbruck 1991]1418 reference courtesy of W. Sallaberger).


23/39

On the Euphrates 29

more compelling argument can be made for the ud for an substitutionbeing semantically based.94 Obviously, the fact that both signs representheavenly entities is the principal factor here, but the motivation may run

deeper still, drawing parallels between the respective astral deities.As discussed by Myers,95 Samas and his northern cult center Sippar celebrated for its great antiquity as u r u u l /alsiati(m) the eternal city

played a crucial role in the northern politico-religious reality. While theHammurapi stele provides the most striking evidence for the importanceof Samas-Sippar for the first dynasty of Babylon, the phenomenonclearly has a third-millennium basis. The earliest known Semitic literarytext, with ED manuscripts from Abu Salabi and Ebla (ARET 5, 6; OIP99, 326+342), is a mythic composition revolving around Samas and hiscult seat, Sippar. More than a mere literary presence at Ebla, offering ac-counts from the royal archives demonstrate the existence of an active cultto Samas in northern Syria. That the Pre-Sargonic kings of Mari paid

homage to Samas at his cult center is clearly shown by the discovery ofa votive statue at Sippar dedicated to Samas by Ikun-Samas, king ofMari.96 Then there is the evidence from the glyptic. The most commonmythological scene in Pre-Sargonic seals centers on the Sun-god, the well-known Sun-god in his boat motif.97 The geographical distribution ofthese seals is revealing as well, being restricted to northern Mesopota-mia, from Mari to the Diyala region. Taken as a whole, the evidence sug-

gests that Samas was of great importance in the north and was acknowl-edged as such in a wide swath that stretched along the Euphrates fromEbla, to Mari, down to Sippar and Akkad, and into the Diyala region.And it is not without interest that later sources promoting the culturaland religious importance of Sippar however suspect their claims tend

94 The possibility of a semantic basis for the ud for an substitution has already beennoted by Krebernik (OBO 160/1, 302).

95 J. Myers, The Sippar Pantheon: A Diachronic Study (Ph. D. diss. Harvard University

2002); eadem, The Importance of Sippar as a Religious and Cultural Center for theFirst Dynasty of Babylon (paper delivered at the 213th Meeting of the American Orien-tal Society, Nashville, TN 2003); see also W. W. Hallo, Antediluvian Cities, JCS 23(197071) 65.

96 J. S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions 1 (New Haven 1986) 8687(Ma 2.1); J. E. Reade, Early Dynastic Statues in the British Museum, NABU 2000/82;C. B. F. Walker/D. Collon, Hormuzd Rassams Excavations for the British Museum atSippar in 18811882, in: L. de Meyer (ed.), Tell ed-Der 3 (Leuven 1980) 96 no. 1; onthe reading of the RN, see M. Krebernik, ZA 81 (1981) 139 (cf. I. J. Gelb/B. Kienast,FAOS 7, p. 9 [MP 8]).

97 P. Steinkeller, Early Semitic Literature and Third-Millennium Seals with MythologicalMotifs, QdS 18 (1992) 256.


24/39


to do so by retrojecting the citys preeminence into the remote past aswitnessed by the Sumerian King List, where Sippar holds claim to beingone of the five antediluvian cities and the only one located in Akkad, by

Nab-apla-iddinas Sun-god tablet, where cultic claims find justificationin ancient precedent,98 and by Nebuchadnezzar Is self-legitimatizingclaim of descent from Enmedurana, the antediluvian king of Sippar.Collectively, this evidence has led Myers to draw an analogy betweenSippar-Samas in the north and Nippur-Enlil in the south that Sippar es-sentially served as a northern religious counterpart to Nippur, both being

prominent religious centers, hubs of scribal activity, and without signifi-cant political power throughout their respective histories.99

The ud for an substitution was a scribal jeu desprit that drew pri-marily upon the common astral qualities inherent to the common nounsa n sky, heaven and u d sun. But a number of nouns share this qualityand could conceivably substitute for an on this basis. What may be at

work here in favor ofud is the Sun-gods importance in the northern pantheon, a position which evoked similarities with An in the south,thus giving meaning to the primary ud for an replacement, namely, inthe writing of the divine determinative. A semantic basis to this substitu-tion, which relies in part upon the elevated status of the Sun-god inthe north may go some way to explaining its early use in the spelling ofthe Sun-gods northern cult center, particularly when the Euphrates was

written dkib.nun. And as we have seen, for many northern scribes, aslate as the Old Babylonian period, a spelling with ud was only appropri-ate for writing the city, kib.nun(.na) being the preferred spelling forthe river. But far from this being an isolated geographical link, there is yetother evidence for connecting the UGN orthography to northern Baby-lonia.

While the precise place of origin of UGN may never be known, it be-trays a number of Semitic or northern characteristics and it may not betoo bold to suggest that the cities of Kis and Sippar stand out as obvious

candidates for centers of influence. As is well known, Semites accountfor half of all literary activity at Abu Salabi and this city, lying north ofNippur, was also a major center for the production of UGN literature.Further, as Krecher has observed, certain signs that appear to be diag-nostic of UGN orthography are also found in Semitic personal names inPre-Sargonic texts notably from Kis and Sippar,100 e.g., Il-gu-rux(ku) for

98 Woods, JCS 56 (forthcoming).99 Myers, The Sippar Pantheon 4.

100 Krecher, QdS 18 (1992) 300.


25/39

On the Euphrates 31

Il-kurub(Kis, ED II),101 or appear later in the writing of Semitic personalnames in Sargonic texts from Nippur or further south, Umma, e.g.,ku for urx, rux (ku8-ku-ub-e-la-ak, /kurub-ilak/),102 sa for na5 (en-sa-il,

/enna-il/).103

The substitution su for ni, occurring in writing of the pos-sessive suffix -( a ) n i,104 is very likely semantically motivated, inspired bythe Semitic possessive -su, which is written with the su graph in Old Ak-kadian and Eblaite. The substitution kis for en is, no doubt, also basedon meaning in deference to a hegemonistic northern Kis state. Further,the content of the literature written in UGN orthography may hint atnorthern influences. As pointed out by Lambert,105 Enlil and Zababa fig-ure prominently in UGN hymns and myths. Possibly the former,106 butcertainly the latter, is a northern import, perhaps Semitic in origin. Za-

baba is, of course, closely linked to Kis with only a minor southern pres-ence. On the other hand, UGN texts regularly give supremacy within the

pantheon to Enlil a ud.gal.nun father Enlil placing him aboveEnki and Nanna, while seeming to relegate An to a lesser position, incontrast to the big Fara god-list which begins with An.107 One of the twoknown UGN texts from Nippur, an enumeration of gods, gives the se-quence ud, Nanna, Ningirsu, and Asgi where ud may represent Utu orAn.108

101 B. Buchanan, Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum 1(Oxford, 1966) no. 137. I thank G. Marchesi for this reference. As suspected by Kre-cher, ku may have the UGN value urx/rux in the PN i-ku.gu-il appearing at AbuSalabi (OIP 99, p. 34), Sippar(?) (DP 2 i 6), and Dilbat (CT 37, 7 f. iii 4), but theform is admittedly difficult (QdS 18 [1992] 300 n. 49); perhaps the name is to be un-derstood as I-guku-Ilfor Ikun-Ilas suggested by I. J. Gelb/P. Steinkeller/R. M. Whi-ting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104(Chicago 1991) 107 ad i 6.

102 Foster Umma 26: 10.103 Westenholz Jena 53 iii 2. These examples are taken from Krecher, QdS 18 (1992) 300,

who further notes (ibid.) that nm interchanges with nam in a Pre-Sargonic literary

text from Adab: nm/nam-ma-ni-ra (OIP 14, 53 vi 46); see also Krebernik,OBO 160/1, 299302, for a list of known UGN substitutions; Lambert, BSOAS 39(1976) 430431.

104 Westenholz Jena 173: 1.105 Lambert, OA 20 (1981) 9293.106 For a contrasting view, see now D. O. Edzard, Enlil , Vater der Gtter, in: P. Marras-

sini (ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupilsand Colleagues (Wiesbaden 2003) 173184.

107 Lambert, OA 20 (1981) 93, with references. Note, however, that the small god-list,SF 56, opens with Enlil followed by Enki (see M. Krebernik, ZA 76 [1986]161204).

108 W. G. Lambert, Studies in UD.GAL.NUN: Addendum, OA 20 (1981) 305.


26/39


The River-god, the Sun-god, and the Location of Sippar

Nothing discussed thus far explains the relationship between the

Euphrates and Sippar, or between the Euphrates and Samas, which mustunderlie the shared writing of Buranuna and Zimbir. The explanation,I suggest, is to be sought in the character of the River-god and thelocations of the River-god cult. dBuranuna, as we have seen, is an old godattested at Fara and Pre-Sargonic Mari. But the deified Euphrates ismerely one manifestation of dd, the primeval river lauded so often asbant kalama creatrix of everything. In the same way dBali anddIdiglat are manifestations of dd that embody the numinous powersinherent to these particular rivers. The divine river, ever cleansing in itsconstant flow, clearing the falsely accused, is first and foremost a godof justice diniteneseti tadinniatti(River,) it is you who judges the casesof mankind.109 As such, the River-god is best known in connection

with the river ordeal trial by river appearing under the namesdd-l-ru-g River-who-confronts-the-man110 and simply dd, ordNaru(m) in some Semitic contexts.

It is this common judicial aspect that links the Sun- and River-gods an association of sun, river, and justice made explicit in a hymn to Utu:dU t u z a - d a n u - d i - k u d n u - k u d - d a k a - a s n u - b a r - r a / dUt uz a - d a n u - dd- l-ru-g di-kud nu-kud Utu, i f you do not

come out, no judgment is given, no decision is decided / Utu, if you donot come out, the divine Ilurugu does not give judgment.111 And to this

we must add that in the Lugalbanda epic Utu is said to have a seven-mouthed subterranean river in whose waters the roots of Enkis eagle-tree rest.112 But the association runs deeper still, as witnessed by thecosmic and mythological notion that claims of the underworld pairLugalerra and Meslamtaea, mn-na-ne-ne lugal d-da-me-esd d -l - r u- g l z i d d a da g -g a [ - m ] They are the two lords of theriver, the River-god of the ordeal, which clears the true man.113 The

same Ibbi-Sn hymn locates the primeval river, d - ma h Great River,

109 STC 1, 128: 8.110 There is little to distinguish dd from dd-l-ru-g. In the later tradition of the

bilinguals the two are equated (KAV 218 ii 17. 20; 5R 13 ab), and in An = Anum,d d - l - r u - g is simply another name for dd (An = AnumII 276279).

111 B. Alster, Incantation to Utu, ASJ 13 (1991) 44.112 Ll. 3435.113 Or. NS 1920 (197071) 143: 23. Note that in Ur III offering texts dIlurugu is often

listed in conjunction with underworld gods (see T. Frymer-Kensky, The Judicial Or-deal in the Ancient Near East [Yale diss. 1977] 8693).


27/39

On the Euphrates 33

already encountered in the Barton Cylinder,114 at the place of the sunsr i s i ng , d - zu d ka l ag -ga - m d nam- ta r - r a - m, d -mah k i -ud- igi nu-bar-re-dam Your river is a mighty river, the River

which determines fates, the Great River at the place where the sun rises,no one can look at it.115 And this cosmographic conception also at-tributes to the place of the suns ascent the pronouncing of judgments,e.g., d i ku d - ru k i u d He (Utu) pronounces judgments at the place

where the sun rises.116 This nexus between the cosmic river, the under-world, and the east is captured in fig. 6, where the central figure is pos-sibly Samas, in the predawn hours, accompanied by two bison-men anda human-faced bison. These creatures developed an association with theSun-god by virtue of the bisons home in the eastern hilly flanks117 andthe Zagros as symbolic of the cosmic location of the suns daily ascent.This is an awesome place at the edge of the world, where the Sun-godrises, where the world of the dead meets the world of the living, where

judgments are made, and where the primeval river runs.The River-god dd has a long history in Mesopotamia; already at

Fara and Abu Salabi the god occurs as a theophoric element in Semiticand Sumerian PNs.118 And, as with the deification of specific rivers, theappearance ofdd in personal names is predominately an early phenom-enon, being well-attested in the Pre-Sargonic and particularly the Sar-

gonic periods, but relatively rare after the third millennium. Of signifi-

cance for our argument is the telling geographical distribution of thesenames. Much of the earliest onomastic evidence for the River-god comesfrom Nippur, Mari, Sippar, and the Diyala, where the god is most often

written with the divine determinative.119 This situation is in contrast to

114 Barton Cylinder MBI 1 ii 13 (according to ASJ 16 [1994] 1546 numbering).115 Or. NS 1920 (197071) 142: 1920.116 TCS 3, 46: 489; for further references, see ibid. 8990 ad 192; T. Frymer-Kensky, The

Judicial Ordeal 611 n. 27.117 See F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. Cuneiform Monographs 1(Groningen 1992) 174.

118 Fara: d-hi - l i -s, dd-ir-nun (Pomponio Prosopografia 123); Abu Salabi: Ur-d d ( - d a ) , I-ti-dd (OIP 99, pp. 3435).

119 Pre-Sargonic PNs include the aforementioned I-d-dd (RA 31, 142; Parrot Docu-ments 3: 1. 16: 1 [Mari]), I-d-d (RSO 32 [1957] 89 viii x+18 [Sippar]), d d - d -d(PBS 13, 27 rev. i 5 [possibly early Sargonic]), and Su-d (Iraq 7 [1940] 66 F. 1159 rev.10 [Tell Brak]); from the Diyala, the following names occur during the Sargonic

period: I-ti-dd, P-su-dd, puzur4-dd (MAD 1, p. 230); from Pre-Sargonic andSargonic Nippur there is: d d - d -d d d - u r - s a g , d d - z a l a g - g a , d d - z i d ,d d -dugigi?, d d - k i - g a l , (Dumu- )L uga l - (d) d -mu , L uga l - d d - s i , N i n -


28/39


that encountered in the south, where the River, in names that suggest thedeity, often lacks the divine determinative.120 Certainly, it is not coinci-dental that Nippur,121 Mari, and Sippar, in addition to Hit, were also

closely associated with the river ordeal, although the only third-millen-nium evidence for this is from Nippur.122

But it is north of Nippur that veneration ofdd is most pronounced.At Mari, for instance, there is evidence for a bit Narim temple of theRiver(-god).123 As is well known, the River-god is well attested at OldBabylonian Mari in connection with the resolution of political mattersand adjudication of legal cases.124 But the dedication of a stone vessel todd and Istarat on behalf of Ikun-Samagan shows that already in the EarlyDynastic period the River-god was the focus of royal patronage.125 Tothis we must add the contemporaneous appearance of the River-god as a

d { d -mu }, U r - d d - da , U r - d d -m - gu r 8 (TuM 5, p. 27 and Westenholz OSP 1,p. 108; see now M. Such-Gutirrez, Beitrge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahr-tausend 1 [Rome 2003] 332).

120 Late ED and Sargonic evidence includes the Lagas names: { d } -ki-g (Donbaz/Foster Telloh 80 i 16) dd-la-ba(Limet Documents 31: 6, 9; also MAD 3, 160 s.v.LB


29/39

On the Euphrates 35

theophoric element in the aforementioned Mari PN I-d-dd. For the sak-kanakkum-period, devotion to dd is demonstrated by a votive inscrip-tion known from a NB copy of an original found, revealingly, at Sippar.126

The inscription opens with the claim that Itlal-Erra, king of Mari, the sonof Puzur-Estar, erected this statue before his lord dd, mas.tab.ba, andIstaran. Clearly, a common judicial aspect unites these gods, but dd is

given particular prominence not only by his appearing first among thistriad, but by the fact that he is singled out as his lord, implying that theRiver-god enjoyed particular royal devotion at Mari a supposition thatis further strengthened in light of Ikun-Samagans offering.127 It will ofcourse be recalled that it is at third-millennium Mari where we find acult to the Euphrates, as shown by the offerings made to dkib.nun.a/dkib.nun.a as well as the glyptic evidence that presents an unparalleledrendering of this twin Euphrates-goddess (fig. 8). Royal veneration ofdd, however, was not short-lived. Several centuries later, Zimri-Lim

would write a letter to dd addressing him once again as (ana) beliya, so-liciting his sign and protection.128 And it was this same Zimri-Lim who,in his Investiture Fresco, based his kingship, quite literally, on thefertile waters that derive from the Euphrates (fig. 11).

Upriver of Mari at Tuttul (Tell Bi>a), administrative texts of the sakka-nakkum-period specify the delivery of oxen and sheep offerings to the (I)Na-


30/39


associates d d with ittbitumen.132 Hence the likelihood that Hit is inorigin the River(-god) city. Parallels to cities taking their names fromthe rivers on which they lie may be sought in the GNs abura(tum) near

the source of the abur, and Baliu(m), perhaps identical to the OBtoponym Apqu sa Balia ,133 which, as the name itself bears witness, isat the headwaters of the (two) Bali rivers. To these we may add,of course, Sippar, although in this case the identity with the river is onlyorthographic.

Downriver of Hit we come finally to Sippar. It was here that the sak-kanakkum-period king of Mari, Itlal-Erra, deposited a statue before d,

his lord, mas.tab.ba, and Istaran. Similarly, Sulgi, claiming the particularpatronage of the River-god with the opening phrase anadd beliya alsoused by Itlal-Erra and Zimri-Lim left a foundation inscription dedi-cated to dd, written in Akkadian.134 This fragmentary inscription wasfound at Tell ed-Der, the Sippar which lay north of the river, and mostlikely detailed the building of a temple to dd in the immediate vicinity.The area maintained a special relationship with the river at least throughthe second millennium, for a site just upstream of Sippar, in a text to bedated not earlier than Nebuchadnezzar IIs reign, is specified as a lo-cation for the river ordeal.135

Clearly, in all these instances, from Tuttul to Sippar, dd refers to thedeified Euphrates. Based on the substantial evidence from Mari, Frymer-

Kensky has argued that the divine river was worshipped with specialdevotion along the stretch of the middle Euphrates between Mari andHit.136 But the evidence from beyond Mari shows that this special devo-tion to the River-god in the third millennium extended upriver to Tuttul,and perhaps to Ebla in the form of the deified Bali, but certainly and

132 PBS 10/4, 12 ii 18; this text and the relationship between d d , itt, and Hit is discus-sed by Frymer-Kensky, The Judicial Ordeal 179180.

133 RGTC 3, 20. For discussion of the location and meaning of this toponym, see A. Goet-

ze, An Old Babylonian Itinerary, JCS 7 (1953) 57. 61; Hallo, JCS 18 (1964) 7778.134 D. Frayne, RIME 3/2, 137 (Sulgi E3/2.1.2.29).135 CT 46, 45 edited by Lambert, Iraq 27 (1965) 111: ma-ar-s ib-bab-lu-nim-ma elis

Sippariki kisad dPuratti ma-ar d-a sr Ap-si-i -ma-


31/39

On the Euphrates 37

more importantly for our purposes, downriver past Hit and encompassingthe area of Sippar in northern Akkad.

In the wake of this evidence we are finally in a position to offer a hy-

pothesis concerning the relationship between Sippar and the Euphrates,namely, that the location of Sippar was early on a holy site associatedwith the river. The basis of this association is simple geography. Sippar boasted a relationship with the river that no other Mesopotamian citycould claim, for it is in the vicinity of Sippar that the Euphrates fans out,sending tendrils the Zubi, Irnina, Aratum, and Abgal137 down intothe lower alluvium. This topographical reality is reflected in the GN BiritNarim situated in the Sippar region138 and captured in a fragmentary OldBabylonian map that depicts the city wedged between the Euphrates andone of its lesser branches or canals, dtap-p-is-tum.139 As we have seen,

137 As reconstructed by Carrou, ASJ 13 (1991) 111156, particularly figs. 2 and 5; cf. theearlier reconstruction of T. Jacobsen, The waters of Ur, Iraq 22 (1960) 176178, fol-lowed by D. T. Potts, Mesopotamia Civilization: The Material Foundations (Ithaca1997) 26. Jacobsen included the Iturungal, with its branches d-Nina ki -du-a andNanna-g-gal; however, recently P. Steinkeller has persuasively argued that theIturungal branched off from the Tigris, only joining the Euphrates below Uruk (ZA 91[2001] 4149).

138 MHE 2/2, 2/4, 2/6 s.v.139 H. Gasche/L. de Meyer, bauches dune gographie historique de la rgion Abu

Habbah/Tell ed-Der, in: L. de Meyer (ed.), Tell ed-Der 3 (Leuven 1980) 6 fig. 3. Whileany suggested derivation of Buranuna is necessarily speculative, as with so manyMesopotamian toponyms, a possible etymology presents itself that, if correct, is re-

vealing in terms of the inherent geophysical characteristics of the Sippar region. Thefinal syllables suggest, plausibly, a Sumerian form ending in - n un - a ( k ) princely, ofthe prince (Enki-Ea). A convincing argument can be made by considering the firstelement as a loanword from a vocable related to Akkadian buru, burtu, meaning well,cistern, and in its broadest, and perhaps extended, sense water source, i.e., b u r a -n un - a ( k ) preeminent water source (for attestations of the root b


32/39


Sippars relationship with the river manifested itself in the worship of theEuphrates, evidence of which can be found in the Itlal-Erra and Sulgi in-scriptions, and in the very writing of Sippar with a graphic composition,

kib.nun, borrowed from the spelling of the Euphrates.140

Finally, thebond between the city and the river may find expression in what appears

Akk. iku and ik; see Powell, ZA 62 [1972] 205206). Additional evidence for theloan into Sumerian presents itself if given the semantic and phonological similari-ties Sum. b r u can be convincingly derived from Akk. buru. Indeed, a relationship

between the two is made explicit by the equation bu-ru : u = bu-rum(A II/4: 93 [MSL14, p. 282]); cf . Powell, ZA 62 (1972) 210211 n. 128.Originally, Buranuna may have referred to the area around Sippar, a manifestation ofdd that was particular to the unique geomorphological conditions surrounding Sippar

with its radiating river branches the preeminent water source (cf. the toponymsabura and particularly Apqu sa Balia discussed above). Since the designation wasnon-specific to any one branch, the region easily lent its name to the stretches southand north of Sippar, becoming a poetic designation for the entire river system. In thisregard, it must be pointed out that a number of geographical names incorporate thelexeme bura many of which are located in the vicinity of Sippar, e.g., B uratum(= NA Burati [RGTC 3, 46]), Bura-imdidi (Harris, Ancient Sippar 372), the waterwayBuri (RGTC 3, 277), and in association with the last, the well-attested ugaru wateredfield Bura located between the Euphrates and the Irninna (RGTC 3, 46; for the lo-cation of this ugarum, see M. Tanret, Le namkarum. Une tude de cas dans les texteset sur la carte, in: H. Gasche/M. Tanret [eds.] , Changing Watercourses in Babylonia 1.MHEM 5/1 [Ghent 1998] 76). L. Dekiere has argued that the /a/ vowel is the adver-

bial -afound with measures that connotes a distributive sense (Quelques notes sur lesnoms dugaru, NAPR 10 [1996] 3; also M. A. Powell, The Adverbial Suffix -a and theMorphology of the Multiples of Ten in Akkadian, ZA 72 [1982] 89105). The rela-tionship between the area measure bur and the GN Bura is demonstrated by the writ-ing of the latter logographically as 1.0.0 i k u . t a ( . m ) (L. Dekiere, NAPR 10 [1996] 3).Of course, not to be overlooked in this discussion is the best known GN to claim a pos-sible derivation from the Semitic root BR, namely *Bi


33/39

On the Euphrates 39

to be a relatively high proportion of watercourse personal names at Sip-par, particularly those referring to the Euphrates and the Aratum, e.g.,Abdi-dd; dd-abi; dd-di.kud; dd-rabi; Ipiq-Idiglat; Ipqu-Aratum; Mar-

Aratum; Marat-Aratum; Mar-d

Purattim; Narum-ili; Ummi-Aratum;141

idSilakum-ummi.142

Indeed, it is difficult to envision a location more at the mercy of theriver. Traversed by a network of tributaries, shifting, branching, and re-

joining the off-shoots of a natural canal flowing towards the Tigris thelandscape is rutted by natural levees and basins. It is upon one such largelevee that the settlements of Sippar and Tell ed-Der were founded, this

high point providing the only protection from the devastating floods.Sand was heaped upon the levee so that the settlements were not sur-rounded by the city walls found elsewhere, but by dykes, which at Telled-Der reached more than 15 meters in height, perhaps the most tellingfact of the relationship between the site and the river.143

The Tigris may also lay some claim to the inherent numinosity of theregion. It has often been suggested that in prehistoric times, and perhapsas late as the proto-literate period, the Tigris and Euphrates joined in thearea of the nearby Aqar Quf depression, creating a single great river inthe vicinity of Sippar.144 Paepe has gone so far as to postulate that thislink between the two rivers existed as late as the end of the fourth mil-lennium: A link was thus existing at Sippar between the two rivers,

Euphrates and Tigris. It was probably that [sic] after pushing the Tigris toa more eastern position, but still at the time contact between the tworivers existed, that civilization entered this part of the flood plain.145 Ifthis is so, it is all the more transparent why early settlers would have re-

garded the area as invested with a riverain numinosity. However, even ifthe rivers separated long before the region was inhabited, it is neverthe-less a topographical fact that of the traditional major cult centers, onlySippar had the distinction of being situated near the point where the Ti-

gris and Euphrates make their closest approach, lying on the very canal

that joins the two.

141 From E. Woestenburg, OB Namenlijst (unpublished). MSS rev. ed. of previous workby G. Th. Ferwerda, Leiden.

142 BM 79951; I thank S. Richardson for this reference (see also RGTC 3, 307).143 R. Paepe, Geological Approach of the Tell ed-Der Area, in: L. de Meyer (ed.), Tell ed-

Der 1 (Leuven 1971) 2123.144 Paepe, Tell ed-Der 1, 927; see also Adams, Heartland of Cities 16; McG. Gibson,

The City and Area of Kish (Coconut Grove 1972) 22.145 Paepe, Tell ed-Der 1, 25.


34/39


Geography also explains the orthographic identification of the city Hitwith dd and this site as a riverain numen loci, for Hit marks the true be-ginning of the alluvium at this point the Euphrates emerges from its

deeply cut valley, thereby making gravity-flow irrigation, and thus lifeitself, possible in lower Mesopotamia. Wilkinson has pointed out that theregion between Sippar and roughly Hit (specifically Falluyah), is a geo-morphological unit, representing the boundaries of one of the principalnodes of avulsion in the alluvial lowlands, where the river decreasesin slope and has a tendency to rise above the plain and break its banks, cre-ating new channels.146 North of Hit the river is too deeply incised to permit

gravity-flow irrigation. Thus, the long 250 km stretch of the Euphratesupriver of Hit is devoid of major cities until one comes to Mari, which isstill well below the 250 mm isohyet, but where a number of topologicalfactors conspire, including the confluence with the abur and the particu-lar morphology of the valley and its terraces at this location, to allowsufficient irrigation to support large-scale settlement.147 Hence, the royaldevotion enjoyed by dd at Mari appears to be based, again, on the geo-

graphical reality. The same, of course, holds true for Tuttul, which wasuniquely situated at the confluence of the Bali and the Euphrates. At allthese sites Tuttul, Mari, Hit, and Sippar the particular veneration en-

joyed by the River-god is a function of geography. And, as the river is lit-erally identified with Hit, Tuttul, a toponym identifying not only Tell Bi>a

but also Hit, is perhaps to be understood as a reduplicated form etymo-logically connected to Akk. tultu, Sum. t l , as suggested by the OB mor-

phographemic spelling Tu-ul-tu-ulki, i.e., wells or perhaps better watersources, thus explaining the use of this place name for two locations, bothdefined by their geomorphological relationships to the river.148

146 T. J. Wilkinson (personal communication). On the geomorphology of this region, seeS. W. Cole/H. Gasche, Second- and First-Millennium BC Rivers in Northern Baby-lonia, in: H. Gasche/M. Tanret (eds.), Changing Watercourses in Babylonia 1.

MHEM 5/1 (Ghent 1998) 164; K. Verhoeven, Geomorphological Research in theMesopotamian Flood Plain, ibid. 159245.147 B. Geyer, Gomorphologie et occupation du sol de la moyenne valle de lEuphrate

dans la rgion de Mari, MARI 4 (1985) 2739; P. Sanlaville, Lespace gographique deMari, MARI 4 (1985) 1526; J.-C. Margueron, Mari, lEuphrate, et le Khabur au mi-lieu du IIIe millnaire, The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 21(1991) 79100. With some skepticism, Frymer-Kensky allows for a possible topogra-

phical explanation for the presence of the river cult at Mari (The Judicial Ordeal 180).148 [Tu]-ul-tu-ulki = su = uru Ii-t-it(MSL 11, 35: 23 [Hg.]). The various spellings of Tut-

tul are discussed by M. Krebernik, Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi>a/Tuttul II. WVDOG 100(Saarbrcken 2003) 34. In this connection note the above discussion of the topo-nyms abura and Apqu sa Balia and the suggested etymology for Buranuna (n. 139).


35/39

On the Euphrates 41

Numerous parallels to this phenomenon may be found in upper Me-sopotamia, where the phenomenon of the numen lociwas an integral as-

pect of early Semitic religious thought. An instructive case is provided

by the city of Assur. If Lamberts compelling hypothesis is correct, thenthe god Assur derives from the numinous quality attributed to the site ofAssur. In prehistoric periods, he suggests, the location a hill allowingcontrol over the surrounding plain was regarded as a holy spot, and theearly inhabitants exploited the holiness of their place by converting themountain into a city.149 A similar development might be posited forSippar. During the prehistoric periods the site of Sippar was regarded asa numen locion account of its unique topographical relationship with theEuphrates. The locale was of great strategic importance for controllingnot only traffic on several branches of the river radiating downstreamfrom Sippar, but also the east-west trade routes between the Euphratesand the Diyala valley. It thus served as a crucial entrept between thealluvium and upper Mesopotamia. The importance of Sippar for trade is

well documented for the Old Babylonian period150 and it is reasonable toassume that these same inherent characteristics of location that were soeffectively exploited in the early second millennium played an importantrole in the occupation of the site during the late Uruk period. Indeed,already in the aforementioned Abu Salabi literary composition, OIP 99,326+342, Samas of Sippar is associated with mercantile activity. Surface

surveys have allowed Adams and Gasche to date the onset of occupationat Sippar to at least the end of the Uruk period, c. 3300.151 Plausibly, it

was at this time, during the so-called Uruk expansion, that the cult of theSun-god was established at this strategic and holy site.

For Adams and Carrou, as we have noted, orthographically speakingSippar is primary and the river secondary, the latter borrowing its writingfrom the former. The significance of Sippar, the argument continues,lies in the fact that it is the first city encountered as the river debouchesonto the alluvial plain.152 But, in actuality, the deictic perspective must be

reversed. From the southern perspective Sippar marked the end of theeasily habitable world and early settlers, dependent as they were on irri-

149 Lambert, Iraq 45 (1983) 8586.150 W. F. Leemans, Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period (Leiden 1960) 85112.

Note that in the OB period silver is advanced a-nakaskal dburanuna for the Eu-phrates trade (VS 22, 35: 2. 39: 2. 40: 2. 44: 2. 49: 20); I thank P. Steinkeller for thesereferences.

151 R. McC. Adams, in: Gibson, The City and Area of Kish 192: 058; H. Gasche, Lesystme palo-fluviatile au sud-ouest de Baghdad, BSA 4 (1988) 42.

152 Adams, Heartland of Cities 3; Carrou, ASJ 13 (1991) 121.


36/39


gation, no doubt recognized the alluvium as a distinct geographical re-gion with specific boundaries.153 The establishment of a cult to the Sun-god in a location revered for its relationship to the River-god would have

been greatly facilitated by the common aspect of divine judge that definesboth deities the sun gods ability to expose all to the light of day and therivers cleansing power to clear the falsely accused. Further, Sippar, in thefar reaches of the alluvium, on the very horizon of urban Babylonia,

would have been a natural locale to establish a cult of the Sun-god,whose daily travels took him to the ends of the world, the god underwhose aegis the fate of travelers rested: sa ruqqat kimtasu nesalusu /[ina] surubatseri re


37/39

On the Euphrates 43

mitic literature points to this aspect as a defining characteristic alreadyfor the mid-third millennium.158 Certainly, the character of the Sun-godin Akkad was, on some level, a composite, representing an early syncret-

ization of Sumerian Utu with a Semitic Sun-god;159

but the judicial aspectof the latter appears to have been practically non-existent in the west,suggesting that the prominence of this characteristic of the SipparianSun-god was not merely the vestige of an early Semitic religious concep-tion.

The River-god, too, likely represents an early syncretism between Su-merian and Semitic gods. But