From

State Archives ofAssyria Bulletin

Volume XI (1997)

THE CULT OF AN.SAR/A협UR IN BABYLONIA

AFTER THE FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIREl

Paul-Alain Beaulieu- Harvard

At the colloquium celebrating the 10th anniversary of the State Archives of

Assyria Project some lectures were devoted to the subject of Assyrian and Babylonian
religion during the time of the Assyrian empire. In an essay entitled “ The Cult of
A협ur in Babylonia" Grant Frame has investigated the difficult question of the
reception of A염ur among the Babylonian subjects of the Neo-Assyrian kings.2 His
investigation has led him to conclude that the Assyrians did not try to impose the cult
of A협ur upon their southern neighbors, and that the Babylonians for their part show-
ed little, if no interest at all, in welcoming the imperial cult of their overlords into
their old and venerable cult centers.

1. Neo-Assyrian Uruk
This conclusion was nonetheless not put forward by Frame without some re-
servations. He pointed out that there is at least one troubling case which might
indicate that there were some Babylonians after all who, yielding to the unspoken
pressure created by the presence of a foreign power on their soil, did acknowledge the
supreme god of Assyria. This troubling case is that of an official of Uruk named
A협ur-bel-u~ur (dAN.sAR-EN-URI), who occupied the office of qepu of the Eanna

1) This article was written at the instigation of Simo Parpola during a brief but stimulating exchange we
had in Cambridge on the occasion of his visit there in September 1997. The subject will also be treated
briefly in my forthcoming monograph on the pantheon ofUruk during the Neo-Babylonian period. I wish
to thank my colleague Peter Machinist who read a draft of the article and commented on several points.
2) G. Frame, “ The God A협:ur in Babylonia; ’ in Assyria 1995. Proceedings ofthe I 0th Anniversaη Sym-
posiwn ofthe Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7-11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, pp. 55-
64.
56 THE CULT OF AN. 없RIA협UR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

temple at some point between the years 665 and 648 B.C.3 Although we have a
substantial number of theophoric names fonned with A협ur appearing in Babylonian
documents dated after the fall of the Assyrian empire, it is probable that these are
names of Assyrians who either had fled their country after the imperial collapse of
612-610, or had been taken captive to Babylonia by the victorious annies of Nabo-
polassaζ or else had immigrated to Babylonia during the following decades.4 Such
circumstances, however, cannot explain the case here under consideration. We are
therefore left, as pointed out by Frame, with two alternatives. Either A협ur-bel-u~ur
was an Assyrian posted there to ensure surveillance of this important Babylonian
sanctuary, or he belonged to one of the patrician families whose members staff농d the
upper administration of Eanna. The second possibility seems more likely, but this
cannot be decided for certain until we find a text disclosing the patronymic of A협ur­
bel-u윈1r. Either alternative, however, raises interesting questions. The fonner presents
us with a possible case of direct Assyrian intervention in the internal affairs of a
Babylonian temple, with eventual repercussions on the cult, and the latter with the
possibility that one of the patrician families of Uruk actively promoted the cult of
A협ur. One may raise the objection, of course, that personal names are not absolute
indicators of religious devotion. Yet the adoption of Assur as the divine element in the
name of a prominent Babylonian could not, in that period, have been done without at
least an awareness of its political and religious implications. More likely it was done
with the intention to overtly proclaim devotion to A엽ur.

2. Neo-Babylonian Uruk
Were this an isolated example, one might want to refrain from further speculat-
ion. However, if we consider the evidence stemming from the Emma temple archive
at Uruk, dating mostly to the period which followed the collapse of the Assyrian
empire, the case of A염ur-bel-u~ur acquires considerable significance. The reason for
this is that several documents from that archive mention the temple of the god

3) Ibid.,pp. 58-59. This official is also discussed in G. Frame, Babylonia 689-627 B. C. A Political Hist01y’
Leiden 1992, pp. 50 and 281. He appears in a single document which also mentions Nabu-u5abSi, who
was governor ofUruk between 665 and 648. Therefore he must have been in charge somewhere during
that period. The document is published by J.-M. Durand, Documents cun 학formes de la !Ve Section de
l'Ecole pratique dα Hautes Etudes I, Geneve - Paris 1982, no. 469, line 10’. 1AN.SAR-EN-URI Lψ.q[-i-pi
sa E.AN.NA. Frame presumes that the appellative AN. 삶R in the name 1AN.SAR-EN-URI refers to the god
A옳ur. As discussed below, this is certainly the correct interpretation.
4) A similar hypothesis is advanced by R. Zadok, “ Assyrians in Chaldean and Achaemenian Babylonia,”
Assur4/3 (1984), p. 2: “ It should not be forgotten that the Assyrians worshipped Babylonian deities (as
early as the fourteenth century), but the Babylonians did not worship Assyrian deities. Therefore, if a
name from Babylonia contains an Assyrian theophoric element its bearer should be regarded as an Assyr-
ian.” Additional material is published by Zadok in “ More Assyrians in Babylonian Sources,” N.A.B.U.
1998/55.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 57

AN.SAR. Seven of these texts were published in 1971 by Freydank in ;his ψat­
babylonische Wirtsch iftstexte aus Uruk (henceforth SWU). Freydank readi-lyjnter-
preted AN.SAR as a spelling for the god A협ur, but without any further comments One
additional text naming AN.SAR is unpublished (YBC 9932), and two more have long
been known in autographed copies (YOS 7, 78 and UCP 912, 57).
The first four texts quoted here are, according to Freydank ’ s classification,
accounts of allotments of barley to the brewers and bakers for the offerings to various
deities ofUruk:
1. S찌TU 26, Rev. 23': [xx] sa
ITI NE iηQ E AN.SAR i-qar-ru-b[u] IdUTU-DU-IBILA, “ [xx]
for the month Abu is offered in the temple of A협ur (by) Samas-mukin-apli. ”
2. SWU 46, Rev. 9’: [E d]LUGAL-IR9-RA u E AN.SAR 삶 LUGAL IdUTU-DU-A U I「£-[xx],
“ [xx for the temple of] Lugalin-a and the temple of Assur, (offering days) of the king,
(offered by) Samas-mukin-apli and rx,[xx]. ”
3. SWU 65, Rev. 4 ’: E AN.SARE [xχx], “ [for] the temple of A협ur (and) the temple of
[xxx]. ”
4. SWU 72, Rev. 12’: [xx] rsa E da,-nu E dEN.LfL E AN.SARE dza-ba4- 「ba4£[.χχ'X ], “ [xx]
for the temple of Anu, the temple of Enlil, the temple of A협ur, the temple ofZababa,
[xxx]. ”
The fifth text is an allotment of barley to the bakers, possibly to make takkasu, a
word of uncertain meaning denoting probably some kind of cake or confection offer-
ed to the deities.
5. SWU 88, Rev. 8’: [xx] rE, dLUGAL-IR9-RA EAN.SAR EIG. 뀐AL.AN.KI, “ [xx for] the temple
of LugaliITa, the temple of A염ur, the Eiggalanki. ”
The sixth and seventh texts are delivεries of unknown commodities:
6. SWU 104, Rev. 5 ’: [E dEN.Lf]L? EAN.SAR E dLUGAL-IR9-RA, “ [for the temple ofEnli]l?,
the temple of A않ur, the temple of Lugalirra. ”
7. SWU 105, Rev. 4 ’: rx E, AN.SAR sa LUGAL 1ba-zu-zu, “ (for) the temple of A협ur,
(offering days) of the king, (offered by) Bazuzu. ”
The eighth text, YBC 9932, 6 is a list of deities, each preceded either by the
numeral 1 or the fraction 112. It is in all probability an offering list, but the nature of
the offering cannot be detennined. The temple of the god A염ur appears on line 7: 1/2
EAN.SAR.

H. Freydank, Spiitbabylonische Wirtschaflstexte aus Uruk, Berlin 1971, p. 147 s. v. bit <lAs.fur.
5)
This text will be published and fully discussed in my study of the pantheon ofUruk during the Neo-
6)
Babylonian period.
58 THE CULT OF AN.SARIASS UR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

The last two texts are YOS 7, 78, 7 and UCP 9/2, 57. The latter will be discussed
further below. The former is a record of a criminal invεstigation which alludes to stor-
ing wool in the temple of Assur:
7. a-mur SIG. 단A is-si-ni ina E AN.SAR fok-na-a:>, “ Now, this wool is stored in the temple
of A엽ur.’’
The tenn E AN.SAR is ambiguous. It may refer either to a wholly separate temple,
or simply to a chapel in a larger sanctuary, in this case presumably the Eanna temple.
There is no evidence indicating which one is the correct interpretation.
Two questions must be raised: the date of these texts, and the writing AN.SAR.
First the date. As can be seen from SWU 46 and 105, the king held some of the offer-
ing days before A영ur.7 Those offerings were perfonned by the local prebendaries Ba-
zuzu and Samas-mukin-apli. The latter is undoubtedly identical with Samas-mukin-
apli, the overseer of the brewers of Eanna, a function he inherited from his father Ma-
danu-alJhe-iddin. Since Samas-mukin-apli was in office during the reigns of Cyrus
and Cambyses, we must date SWU 46 and 105 to that period.8 YOS 7, 78 is dated to
the seventh year of Cyrus. In addition Freydank has detennined, on the basis of in-
temal evidence, that SWU 1-23 (Group 1) must date by and large to the reign of
Nabonidus, SWU 26-63 (Group 2) to the period from Nabonidus to Cambyses, and
SWU 64-96 (Group 3) again to the reign ofNabonidus. SWU 97-119 cannot really be
dated as a group.9 Therefore the mentions of the temple of A협ur occur mostly in
texts which are dated or datable after the middle of the sixth century, three generat-
ions after the fall of Nineveh. An earlier date for YBC 9332, SWU 104 and 105
cannot be excluded, since these texts contain no internal chronological evidence.
The second question concerns the spelling AN.SAR. There is a priori no reason to
believe that AN.SAR necessarily denotes the god As하Ir. AN.SAR of Urnk could simply
be the god Ansar who appears as an ancestor of Anu in the god list An = Anum and as
leader of the primeval gods in Enuma Elis. Yet one argument against identifying
AN. 싫R of Uruk solely as the primeval god Ansar is that the latter seems to have been
largely an abstract notion, a god with little or no distinctive personality and with no
identifiable cult center. Another possibility is that AN.SAR of Uruk was viewed as both
A엽ur and Anfar, reflecting the theology promoted by the Sargonid kings of Assyria,
under whom Ansar became officially identified with A협ur. That AN.SAR of Uruk was
identified with the god A협ur, without precluding a secondary identification with An-

7) This does not necessarily imply a stronger royal interest in the cult of this deity than in any of the other
deities ofUruk. Offerings days of the king are indeed mentioned in connection with several other gods.
See the list in Freydank, SWU, 40-47.
8) H.M. Kiimmel, Familie, Bα·z!f und Amt im spiitbabylonischen U1’ uk (ADOG 20), Berlin 1979, p. 151.
The genealogical tree of the family is outlined on page 133.
9) Freydank, SWU, 13-16.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 59

Sar, cannot in fact be doubted in consideration of the evidence from UCP 9/2, 57.
This text was copied by Lutz and included in a volume of Neo-Babylonian docum-
ents from Uruk. It was collated by Dr. Laurie Pearce.10
Transliteration
1. [xxx]."MEir [ca. 21 signs broken]
2. LUGAL AN rNA, AB sa [ca. 15 signs broken]
3. 1ap-Zα-a A-su sa 1[xxxxxxxx] ina IGI dna-[na-a xxx]
4. IrMU,-ia A-뼈 삶 [pa-η i-AN]. sAR-lu-「mur, IdAMAR.UD-MU-[xx]
5. L디. rBAPPIRh.[MES sa E AN]. SAR 1SES-lu-「mur, A-SU sa 1ina-qi-bi-[xxx]
6. A-뼈 삶 1AN. 없R-NUMUN-DU [1xx]-뼈-rma A*-삐* 삶* I* AD-[xxx]
7. 1re-man-ηi-AN.SAR A-su sa 1man-nu-a-ki-i-E-AN.SAR 1MU-[xxx]
8. 11GI-AN.SAR-lα-mur 1ri-bi-AN.S써‘ an-nu-tu Lψ. GfR.. LA. [MES xx]
9. 1AN.SAR-da-a-nu U ] .UGULA sa AN.SAR 1AN.SAR-IBILA-MU [xxx]
10. 1mu-fol-lim-AN.SAR an-nu-tu <L다.GAL>. 「Dlf.MES sa E <AN>.sAR [xxx]
11. L다.DUG'.QA1.BUR 1ba-lα-tu u 1mar-duk DUMU.MES 삶 1na-[xxx]
12. IAN.SAR-TIN-it u Ina-din DUMU.M[ES]* sa IdNA-NUMUN*-e-du-DV [x.xx]
13. IAN.SAR-eri4-ba A-빠 엄 IdAMAR.UD-KAL Iid-di-ia A-SLt sa IIGI-[xxx]
14.A-뼈 sa Idgu-la-MU-DV Qη-nu-tu Lψ.GAL-DU.MES 삶 AN.S[AR sa ina qaq-qa-ri 삶
AN.SAR]
15. as-ba Ipa-ηi-dEN-la-mur A-SLl sa Igu까-ia IdEN-「x'-[xxx]
16. LlJ.SA-bi-URU. rKI*,.MES U ]. DAM. GAR. MES sa [xxx]
17. [ca. 11 signs] rα [ca. 15 sigηs broken]
Translation
1. [---…]
2. the king, xxx [ ...... ]
3. Apia, son of[ ...... ]
4. Sumiya, son of[ ... ] before Na[naya? ... ]
5. the brewer[s of the temple of As]sur; Ahu-1디mur, son ofina-qibi-[xxx],
6. son of A협ur-zer-ibni; [ ... ]-suma, son of Abu-[ ... ];
7. Remanni-A협ur, son ofMannu-aki-bit-A염ur, Iddin-[ ... ];
8. Pani-A염ur-lamur; Ribi-A협ur; these are the butchers [ ... ];
9. A협ur-dayyanu, the overseer of A협ur; A협ur-apla-iddin [ ... ];
10. Musallim-A협ur; these are the rab-banf of the temple of A협ur [ ... ];
11. the potter; Balap1 and Marduk, sons of Na[ ... ];
12. A염ur-uballit and Nadin, sons ofNabu-zer-edu-ibni [ ... ];

IO) Originally published in H.F. Lutz, Neo-Babylonian Documents끼wn Erech, Part I and II (University
of Calψrnia Publications in Semitic Philology 9), 1927. The tablet is now housed in the Lowie Museum
and bears the new museum number UCLM 9/2532. The former number is UCBC 406.
60 THE CULT OF AN.SAR!ASS UR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

13. A협ur-eriba, son ofMarduk-mudammiq; Iddiya, son of Pani-[ ... ];

14. son of Gula-sum-ibni; these are the rab-banf of As[surwho, on the estates of A앓ur,]
15. live; Pani-Bel-lamur, son of Guriya; Bel-[ ... ];
16. the natives of the city Assur; the merchants of[ ... ];
17. [ca. 20 signs broken]

Commentmγ
10: The copy suggests the reading rLU.x-nl.f .MES. This could be restored LU.GAL-DU.MES
or L다.DUMU-DU.MES. Dr. Pearce ’ s collation, however, confinns that there is nothing
between tu and 「DU,. Therefore the text must be emended to <LU.DUMU> or <Lψ.GAL>.
10: E <AN>.sAR [xx] could also be read E. 값R. [없], the name of the temple of A않urin
the city Assur.
14-15: Ll] .GAL-DU.MES sa AN.s[AR sa l’ na qaq-qα-ri sa AN.SAR] I as-ba. As in line 10,
this can also be read u ] .DUMU'-nu.MES. The broken passage is tentatively restored on
the basis of NBC 4193 (unpublished), which enumerates various households with the
fonnula PN1 apil§u §a PN2 ina qaqqαri §a Nanαya asib, “ PN1, son of PN2, lives on the
estates of Nanaya,” and ends with the following summary: (27) rPAP, 26 E.MES sa
dna-na-asa 「LU.DUMU,-DU.MES inα lib-bi ras-ba,' “ Total: 26 houses ofNanaya in which
the mar-banf live. ” I intend to discuss this evidence in an article devotεd to the status
of the mar-banf class at Uruk.
According to Zadok, who commented extensively on this text, 11 an Uruk prove-
nience is not entirely assured, even if the possible mention of the goddess Nanaya on
line 4, as well as that of the charge of rab-banf, more commonly attested at Uruk, on
line 14, point in that direction. UCP 9/2, 57 is nonetheless clearly Neo-Babylonian,
and its style is entirely consonant with other texts from the Eanna archive. Moreover,
the mentions of AN. SAR and of the E AN. sAR allow us to relate this text to the several
others which are definitely from Uruk and mention the same deity and temple. Since
no other Babylonian site has produced texts alluding to a cult of AN.SAR, we can
ascribe it without much hesitation to the Eanna archive.
The translation proposed here seems disjointed because of the poor state of pre-
servation of our text. In spite of this it still yields crucial infonnation. Its most notable
characteristic is of course the predominance of theophoric names with AN.SAR, sug-
gesting a tightly knit group of people devoted to the cult of that deity. The most sur-
prising feature, however, is that two of these names, as noted by Zadok, are not
Babylonian, but definitely Assyrian: Pani-A협ur-lamur (8. 1rGI-AN.SAR-lα-mur) and
PanI-Bel-lamur (15. pa-따_dEN-la-mu~~ Babylonian equivalent himur. This shows

11) Zadok, “ Assyrians,” cit., pp. 3-4.

1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 61

not only that there was a cult of AN.SAR at Uruk, with cultic personnel bearing appro-
priate theophoric names, but also that some officiants of that cult were either born in
Assyria or of Assyrian descent. This is also indicated by the mention of “ natives of
Assur” at the end of the document (16. u〕.SA-bi-URU. 「KI*,.MES). Therefore it cannot
be doubted that the god AN.SAR of Urnk was in fact A협ur, at least seen from the per-
spective of those transplanted Assyrians.
Zadok expressed some reservations as to the identification of this god as A협ur,
pointing out that in Babylonian documents of the sixth centurγ the divine name I엽ar
(= Issar), an Assyrian fonn of the name !Star, is sometimes spelled dsar by apheresis,
rather than dis-sar. He argues that the sequence AN.SAR could, if read dsar, refer to IS-
tar, the main goddess of Uruk. If this were the case, however, we should expect to
find in texts from Urnk the same spelling inconsistencies attested at other sites, where
the divine name I협ar occurs under the forms sm’, dsar, 1‘s-s.αr, is-sar, dis-§,αr, and
diS-sar, the spellings without initial /iS/ bεing quite rare.12 Such inconsistency is not
the case at Uruk since our deity is attested many times and always under the same
fonn. There is an additional argument against the interpretation of AN.SAR as dsar.
The offering lists published by Freydank always list the offerings for the main god-
desses residing in Emma, such as !Star and Nanaya, in initial position, followed by all
the minor sanctuaries of Uruk such as the E dα-nu, the E dEN. LIL and the E AN. sAR. It
seems therefore unlikely that the E AN.SAR is the temple of !Star, and therefore that
AN.SAR is !Star.
Having determined that the god A협ur was worshipped in Urnk and that he was
served by a group of cultic officiants of Assyrian origin, we may now turn to the
following questions. When and why was this cult introducεd to Uruk, what was the
justification for it, and what were the consequences of its introduction? As adum-
brated above, all dated and datable texts mentioning A협ur come from the middle of
the sixth century. However, since we have a certain number of texts from the Eanna
archive dated to the previous century, it is not impossible that some undatable texts
mentioning A협ur are contemporaneous with the period of Assyrian domination.
Therefore the chronological question cannot be solved on the basis of the date of the
texts alone and the following two possibilities must be considered: either the cult of
A협ur was introduced to Uruk when Babylonia was under Assyrian control, or it was
brought there by Assyrian refugees or immigrants during the time of the Neo-Ba-
bylonian dynasty. The fact that a q깐nt of Eanna in the middle of the seventh centmy
bore the name Assur-bel-u윈ir suggests that A협ur was already worshipped there at
that time. This gives support to the fonner possibility. We also know that there was a
very active and powerful pro-Assyrian party at Uruk, and that they helped Sin-sar-

12) See the examples cited in R. Borger, Assyrisclz-babylonische Zeichenliste (AOAT 33), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1978, p. 111 no. 212.
62 THE CULT OF AN.SARIAS SUR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

iskun regain control of the city from the third to the sixth years ofNabopolassar.13 In
addition, a number of texts have survived which allude to various favors granted to
the city by the Sargonid kings. Both Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal returned to Uruk
the statues of various local deities which had been previously carried off, 14 and dur-
ing their reigns several grants of land and livestock enriched the domains of the Ean-
na temple and other Uruk sanctuaries.15 Therefore it is probable that a segment of the
Uruk patrician elite, having struck a political deal with the Assyrians, resolved to
strengthen this alliance by welcoming the cult of Assur to Uruk. This seems more
likely than to assume that the Assyrians imposed the cult of Assur on the Urukaeans,
as they are not known to have done so elsewherε.16 Another possibility is that the cult
was brought by Assyrian immigrants after the fall of the Assyrian empire. This is
cεrtainly worthy of consideration, but the evidence that the political circumstances of
the seventh century lie behind the introduction of Asfor seems by far weightier.
Introducing the cult of Assur into a leading Babylonian city at that time must
have been a highly charged political issue. Therefore some theological justification
must have been advanced to legitimize it. Since !Star was the patron deity of Uruk, a
pairing of A협ur and !Star might have been in order. This would have seemed quite
natural, at least to the Assyrians, since A협ur was often paired with !Star in his native

13) The evidence is discussed in P.-A. Beaulieu, “ The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land,” BaM28
(1997), pp. 367-394.
14) J.A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire (OPBF 7), Philadelphia 1984, p. 70 for Sennacherib and Esarhad-
don. For Assurbanipal see Streck, Asb., p. 220, lines 29-35. These questions are also discussed by G. Fra-
me, Babylonia 689-627 B.C.,passim.
15) Donation ofland to !Star and Nanaya by Sin-sar-u윈ir, the governor of Ur, for the life of Samas-sum-
ukin: TCL 12, 13, and duplicate HE 144, with recent edition by G. Frame, Rulers ofBabylonia. From the
Second Dynasty of!sin to the End ofAssyrian Domination (1157-612 B.C.) (RIMB 2), Toronto 1995, pp.
258-259, no. B.6.33.2001. Return of land to the people ofUruk and the god Ninurta ofUruk by Assur-
banipal: AnOr 9, 2, 31-33, 60-63; PTS 2076, 60'-61 ’ (unpublished). Dedication of temple slaves to !Star
and Nanaya by a Sargonid ruler: BIN 2, 132. Dedication oflivestock to !Star and Nanaya by the grandson
of Sargon, presumably Esarhaddon: recent edition and discussion by Frame, Rulers ofBabylonia, pp. 192-
193, 110. B.6.31.1001.
16) This is the classic view expressed by M. Cogan, 1mperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel
in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (Society 。if Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19), 、vfis­
soula 1974, which he reiter따ed in “ Judah under Assyrian Hegemony: A Reexamination ofimperialism
and Religion, ” JBL 112 (1993), pp. 403-414. A similar view is shared by J.W. McKay, Religion in Judah
under the Assyrians, 732-609 BC (Studies in Biblical Theola앓 26), Londc。n 1973. A proponent of the
opposite view is H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (Forschungen zur Religion
und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament 129), Gottingen 1982. A recent reassessment of the question
is S. v. Holloway, The Case for Assyrian Religious I깨luence in Israel and Judah: 1nference and Evidence
(Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Chicago 1992), whose approach is more balanced and takes into account
the considerable difficulties posed by the narrative sources, Biblical and Assyrian, but who also finds little
evidence for the official imposition of Assyrian cults in Israel and Judah.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 63

land. However, there is no evidence that AN.SAR/A협ur of Uruk and IStar-of-Uruk

were cultically paired. It seems in fact more likely that AN. 밟RIA협ur came to U ruk
with his own consort. Several texts from the Emma archive mention a town and canal
both named A협uritu.17 This is a feminine gentilic which means “ the Assyrian wo-
man. ” It is also a common designation of the “ Assyrian Istar” (Istar-A협uritu), wor-
shiped in the city of A협ur as one of the two consorts of A협ur. A염ur’ s other consort
was Mullissu (dNIN.LfL), reflecting the old syncretism between Enlil and A협ur. There-
fore it is possible that the consort of AN. 싫RIA협ur of Uruk was !Star-A협uritu, and
that there was no official cultic association between AN. 값.RIA협ur of Uruk and !Star-
of-Uruk.18
There was, however, another theological justification to exploit, namely the
identification of A협ur and AN.SAR with Anu, the old patron god of Uruk. Anu ’ s po-
sition in the local pantheon had slipped considerably by the first half of the first mil-
lennium. Neverthεless he was still acknowledged in the local onomastics and in the
salutation fonnulas of letters.19 A temple of Anu is mentioned six times in the offer-
ing lists published by Freydank (SWU).20 Its precise location in Uruk is unknown.
However, the mention of a district (e때eti) of the temple of Anu in BIN 1, 127 (2. KI-ti
3. E dα-nit .M q깅-reb UNUG.KI) suggests that this sanctuary was not a chapel in Eanna,
but an independent building. One the whole these references are few, and indicate
that Anu was only one god among many others worshiped in Uruk, and not a partic-
ularly focal one. In spite of this Anu was historically linked with Uruk in Mesopo-
tamian religious literature, and the city was recognized as his most venerable cult
center. Therefore it is possible, if not likely, that the introduction of A협ur into Uruk
was legitimized by means of its identification with Anu. Thus, seen from the per-

17) The references are collected in R. Zadok, Geographical Names According to New- and Late Baby-
Ionian Texts (RGTC 8), Wiesbaden 1985, pp. 35-36 and 365.
18) It must also be noted that one Nea-Babylonian text from Uruk dated to the reign ofNabonidus mentions
the goddess Serna (dEDIN), who was the old consort of A협ur before being replaced with Mullissu and
!Star: YOS 19, 71, 2-4: PN 힘 mub-bi su-ut-rt( sa dEI] IN; 10: dEl] IN; 19: si-i-lju 삶 dEDIN. This goddess may
have come to Uruk with AN.SAR/A앓ur in the 7th centmy. On Serna see B. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel,
Band I (Studia Pohl, Series Maior), Roma 1981, pp. 63-65.
19) Anu is invoked in the following letters: BIN I, 63, 3; 64, 5; GCCI 2, 400, 2; TCL 9, 95, 3, 5; YBC
11346,3; 11396,2,5(bothunpublished);YOS3, 1,6-7;39,3; 119,3-4; 150,3; 159,3; 178,3; 199,4-5.
He also occurs in curse formulas and oaths: AnOr 8, 14, 16-17; 18, 7; YOS 7, 17, 16.
2이 Deliveries of barley for the brewers are mentioned in SWU 26, Rev.18'. [xx] 3 BM‘J sa Eda-nu EdEN. L[fL
xχ] and in SWU 43, Rev. 6’: [sci1] T da-nu E dEN.Lf[L]. Deliveries of barley to the bakers appear in SWU
64, Rev.13 ’: 5 GUR sa Eda-nu E dEN.[LfL]; swu 72, Rev.12 ’. [xxx] rsa E da ,?_nu E dEN.LfL E AN. 값R E
dza-ba4-ba4 rx,[xxx]; and SWU 75, Rev. 3’: [xxx] 2 BAN? 10 GUI냥d Eda-nu E‘1EN. Lf[ Lxxx]. The consistent
sequencing of Anu and Enlil in these texts is also found in the kudurru of Ibni-IStar, in which this pre-
bendmy ofEanna receives the privileges of the offerings of bread and beer before the two gods: RA 16
(1919), p. 125, Col. I, 23: 1 SILA NINDA. 딘A 1 SILA KAS.SAG (24) !GI da-m't u dEN.LfL.
64 THE CULT OF AN.SARIASS UR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

spective of the Urukeans, AN‘삶RfA협ur of Uruk may have been just a manifestation
ofAnu.
Other evidence makes this connection likely. The name of A엽ur is always writ-
ten AN. 싫R in Neo-Babylonian documents from Uruk. In the Neo-Assyrian period the
spelling AN.SAR for the god of Assyria occurs for the first time in the inscriptions of
Sargon II, and assumes a systematic character under the reign of his son and suc-
cessoζ Sennacherib.21 That the equation was already known in the Middle Assyrian
period has recently been confirmed by the publication of an inscribed bead of
Tukulti-Ninurta I in which the name A협ur is spεlled AN. SAR. 22 The consensus at the
present time is that the equation AN. SAR = A않ur, already facilitated by the assonance
of the two names, was instituted in order to prove the anteriority of A협ur over Mar-
duk, AN.SAR being one of the primeval deities appearing as ancestors of Anu, Ea and
Marduk in the opening section of Enuma Elis.23 This was not the first attempt to
identify A협ur with an old supreme deity. Since the reign of Samsi-Adad I the god
Enlil had been equated with A협ur.24 Later the temple of A염ur was even renamed
Esarra, the name of the sanctuary of Enlil at Nippur, and Assur assumed the title of
“ Assyrian Enlil” (Enlil-A염uri'i). One of the results of the equation of A협ur with AN.
sAR, if not possibly its chief purpose, was to make A협ur identical with Anu. The
equation Anu = AN.SAR is already attested in the Middle Babylonian and Middle
Assyrian periods. AN.SAR and his wife dKr.sAR are equated with Anu and Antu in the
opening section of An = Anum, where they appear in the list of ancestors of Anu:
Tablet I, 8. an.밟r = MIN (da-nu-um u an-tum) 9. dki. 삶r = MIN (da-nu-um u an-tum). A
much stronger statement appears in the Neo-Assyrian text CT 24, 49, K. 4349E,

21) This question has been discussed notably by H. Tadmor, B. Landsberger and S. Parpola, “ The Sin of
Sargon and Sennacherib ’ s Last Will,” SAAB 3 (1989), pp. 29-30.
22) See K. Deller, “ Assyrische Ki:inigsinschriften auf «Perlen», ” N.A.B.U. 1987/101, refelTing to a bead
originally published by H. Gaiter, “ On Beads and Curses,” ARRIM 5 (1987), 19, no. 7, line 6. Gaiter ten-
tatively assigned the bead to Tukulti-Ninmia II, but Deller argues, on a stylistic basis, for Tukulti-Ninurta
I. Therefore the writing AN. 없R is now attested as early as the 13th century. There is also a dubious mention
noted by S. Parpola, “ The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism And Greek
Philosophy,” INES 52 (1993), pp. 189-190, note 106, referring to M.-J. Seux, Epithetes royales sumerien-
nes et akkadiennes, Paris 1967, p. 311 s. v. Kurigalzu 11, who mentions the writing AN.SAR for A협urina
Kassite royal inscription originally published by S. Langdon, “ Selection of Inscrψtions Excavated at
Kish,” AJSL 40 (1924), p. 228. The inscrψtion is in Sumerian and is dedicated to Zababa. The third line
begins with the sequence AN SAR, then there is some kind of incision or scratch which is copied like a
small X by Langdon, and then there is a clear dUTU. See however, J.A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies
for Kassite Hist01y ’ I, Chicago 1976, p. 225, no. Q.2.70, note 40, who collates the text as follows: (1)
dza-ba4-ba4 (2) ku-ri-gaf-zu lugal sar Ju mu-sar rx'[.xxx] (3) diskur! (=IM) rlutu mu-ni 딴-ur.
23) Most recent discussion of this question by E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-lnschriften (AtD Bei-
heft 26), Hom 1997, pp. 282-288.
24) The assimilation of A협ur to Enlil is discussed by A.R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (OLA
40), Leuven 1992, pp. 460 and 465ff.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 65

which is a fragment of a god list, perhaps originally belonging to one of the “ addit-
ional tablets" of An = Anum or to a related text. Here the divine name AN.SAR is sim-
ply provided with a gloss recommending a reading <la-nu, and further equates the
deity with Enlil:
7. and.a-nu_삶r : den-lil
8. den-lil-ban-da : den-lil
9. d'e-a: den-ki
Thus, by the time of the Sargonid kings of Assyria, AN.SAR/A협ur was thought to
be identical with both Anu and Enlil, and therefore to be a supreme god wielding eq-
ual authority. This syncretism is beautifully illustrated on the relief of Sennacherib at
Bavian, where three homed tiaras symbolizing specific gods are juxtaposed. In si-
milar scenes only two tiaras normally appeaζ those of Anu and Enlil. Therefore the
third tiara, as is generally believed, must reprεsent the god A협ur, the “ Assyrian En-
lil,” the mirror image of Anu.25
The systematic use of the spelling AN.SAR in texts from Uruk strongly suggests
that the introduction of A협ur to that area does not antedate the 7th century. Therefore
the version of A협ur worshiped in Uruk was that of Sargonid theologians: a supreme,
sublime and most high god, identified with Anu, Enlil, and the primeval conceptual
deity AN.SAR.

3. Late Babylonian Uruk

The god A협ur did not come to Uruk alone. The evidence from UCP 9/2, 57 indi-
cates that a group of Assyrians was transplanted there in order to organize that cult
and ensure its continuance. Among these Assyrians there were certainly priests, scrib-
es and scholars versed in the mundane as well as the more esoteric aspects of the cult
of A협ur. They came with an intellectual tradition that was partly new to the Uruk-
aeans, and they almost certainly brought with them a library. No doubt they con-
sidered their god, A협ur, to be a supremely important and powerful deity, probably
the most important god of the pantheon. They also knew that their god was assim-
ilated to Anu, and this was probably the leading justification for welcoming them to
Uruk. Therefore a new quεstion must be addressed. Did these transplanted Assyrians
leave any additional trace of their passage there?
The answer to the question must begin with a remarkable find of the Gennan ar-
chaeological expedition to Uruk that was published some years ago by E. von Weiher
in his φatbabylonische Texte aus Ur때 Teil II (Berlin 1983). The tablet in question,

25) That section of the Bavian relief is reproduced and discussed in J. Black - A. Green, Gods, Demons
and Symbols ofAncient Mesopotamia, Austin, Texas, 1992, p. 17, illustration no. 10, and see discussions
011 p. 102 s. v. “ horned cap. ”
66 THE CULT OF AN.SARIASSUR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

SpTU II 46, is not remarkable because of its content. It is simply a hepatoscopic text
from the canonical series. What makes this find unusual is that the tablet is entirely
written in the Neo-Assyrian script and bears an official colophon of the library of As-
surbanipal. It was discovered in the library of the scholar IqiSa, who lived in Uruk
during the late Achaemenid or early Seleucid period, more than three centuries after
the collapse of the Assyrian empire. W. Far‘ber has suggested that the tablet had been
in the possession of the family since the time of Assurbanipal, and possibly that one
of their ancestors had lived at the comi of Assurbanipal. 26 I would even further spe-
culate that one the forebears of IqiSa belonged to the group of Assyrian priests and
scholars who were connected with the introduction of AN. 싫R/A협ur to Uruk in these-
venth century. The possibility that Iqifa ’ s ancestor brought with him tablets from the
library of Assurbanipal suggests that the introduction of AN. 삶RIA협ur to Uruk had
been a highly p이itical affair, conducted under the aegis of Assurbanipal himself.27
Other texts from the same library bear unmistakable signs of Assyrian influence.
SpTU II 31, for instance, is a fragmentary text bearing, on the obverse, a prayer ment-
ioning king Assurbanipal, and on the reverse a portion of a royal inscription, pre-
sumably of that same king, although the fonnulaic content of the preserved portions
makes a precise identification difficult. Another text, SpTU IV 121, is a literary
composition which bears close affinities to the Na'.)id-Sigu epic, known so far from
one short excerpt found at Sultantepe.28 SpTU IV 121 is undoubtedly of Assyrian
origin since the divine name AN.SAR appears in the narrative ( Obv., col. II, 12. AN.SAR
EN il-sa-a-til). In addition there are canonical series and scholarly texts which show
up in the libraries of Uruk and are otherwise known exclusively from Neo-Assyrian
copies. The most conspicuous example is the series n따irti baruti.29 Such cases, how-
ever, could be due to accidental discoveries and selective publications. 30 Still there is

26) W. Farber, “ Neues aus Umk: zur «Bibliothek des IqI합I»,” WO 18 (1987), p. 35.
27) In addition to the texts discussed here there is one more text which contains the name of Assurbanipal
in its colophon. It is an esoteric text published by H. Hunger, “ Kryptographische astrologische Omina,”
in Lisan mitburti. Festschr따 W.F. vαI Soden (AOAT 1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, pp. 133-145. As noted
by Hunger, however, the particular sequence of planets found in the text appears only after ca. 400 BC.
Therefore the attribution to Assurbanipal ’s library must be spurious, or the text truly originated from that
libra1y but was subsequently edited to take recent scientific developments into account.
28) As noted by von Weiher, Na0id-Sihu himself appears in SpTU IV 121, col. IV, line 4. Recent edition
of the Na0id-Sihu epic, originally published as STT 366, in A. Livingstone, Court Poet1y and Literaiy
Miscellanea (SAA 3), Helsinki 1989, no. 50, with references to previous editions and discussions.
29) This series, whose existence was revealed by R. Borger, “ ni!firti baruti, Geheimlehre der Haruspizin,”
Bi Or 14 (1957), pp. 190-195, was known exclusively from exemplars belonging to the libraries ofNineveh
until a new manuscript turned up at Uruk ( SpTU IV, 157).
30) See for instance W. Farber, “ Hit rimki - ein assyrisches Ritual?,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten.
CRRAI 39, Heidelberg 1992 (HSAO 6), Heidelberg 1997, pp. 41-46, who notes that the series b"it rimki,
previously thought to be an exclusively Assyrian ritual, can now be shown to have been tradited in Ba-
bylonia as well.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 67
enough evidence to conclude that the libraries amassed by the scribes of Uruk in the
Achaemenid and Seleucid periods bear some relation to the Assyrian scholastic
tradition.
The late Babylonian scribes and scholars of Uruk acknowledged Assyrian in-
fluence by tracing back their intellectual pedigree to Assyria as well as to Babylonia.
This is demonstrated by the list of antediluvian apkallus and postdiluvian ummanus
discovered in the remains of the R협 temple some forty years ago and published by J.
van D낀k and W.R. Mayer. Each apkαflu is associated with a legendary antediluvian
king, and each ummanu with a historical ruler.31 The text is arranged chronologically’
starting with Oannes-Adapa as the first apkallu, and Sin-leqi-unninni as the first post-
diluvian ummanu. The latter is anachronically paired with a king of the early third
millennium who is possibly Gilgames. Then the list of ummanus moves to Kabti-ilI-
Marduk, the author of !§um and Errα, who is paired with king lbbi-Sin or Ur, also
anachronically. He is followed by the pair Enlil-bani/ISbi-Erra, after whom the scho-
lars Sugula (or Gimi"l-Gula) and Taqis-Gula are associated with king Abi-esub of the
First Dynasty of Babylon. The next ummanus in line are the Middle Babylonian scho-
lars Esagil-kin-apli and Esagil-kin-ubba, who are associated with Adad-apla-iddina
and Nebuchadnezzar I, two rulers of the Second Dynasty of Isin.32 Then the list mo-
ves to first millenium Assyria, ending with the famous Agiqar, who is also listed un-
der his Babylonian name Aba-Enlil-dari and is paired with king Esargaddon. This
text, authored by Anu-belSunu, a well-known member of the Sin-leqi-unninni family,
is an ambitious piece of self-aggrandizement for his clan since it projects their ance-
stor back in time by about fifteen centuries, making him the first postdiluvian sage
and the personal biographer, as it wεre, of Gilgames. It is also a significant witness to
the official view held by the Uruk priestly elite on their intellectual inheritance. The
switch to Assyria after the Second Dynasty of Isin, and the absence of any first mil-
lennium Babylonian scholar in the list, very probably represent their general view of
the history of textual transmission in that period. The flow of intellectual life had
moved no1ih during the period of the Assyrian empire, and moved south again, but
mainly to Uruk, after the fall of Nineveh.

31) The autograph copy of the text was published by J. van Dijk - W.R. Mayer, Texte azα dem Res-Hei-
ligtum in 아uk-Warka (Baghdader Mitteilungen Beiheft 2), Berlin 1980, text 89. The text was previously
discussed by van Dijk in UVB 18 (1962), pp. 44-51, and by W.W. Hallo, “ On the Antiquity of Sumerian
Literature,“ JAOS 83 (1963), pp. 174-176. The pairing of kings with ummdnus is also found in other sour-
ces, notably king lists. This is discussed by S.J. Lieberman, “ Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts:
Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipals Personal Tablet Collection,” in T. Abusch - J. Huehnergard
- P. Stei따celler (eds.), Lingering over Words, Studies Moran, (Harvard Semitic Studies 37), Atlanta 1990,
p. 313.
32) On these scholars see LL. Finkel, “ Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kin-apli, and the Series SA.GIG,” inA
Scient띠c Humanist, Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (OPSNKF 9), Philadelphia 1988, pp. 143-159.
68 THE CULT OF AN.SAR/AS SUR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

Where should we seek the explanation for this continued survival of Assyrian
traditions at Urnk well into the Seleucid period? Evidently these traditions had come
to Urnk centuries earlier, very probably at the time of Assurbanipal, when the local
elites welcomed the Assyrian national god and its priesthood to their city in order to
strengthen their alliance with Assyria and demonstrate their support for the Sargonid
dynasty. There are good reasons to believe that the Urnkeans did not feel the intro-
duction of A협ur to be a manifestation of Assyrian religious imperialism. The assim-
ilation of A협ur to Anu, the old god of Urnk, and the theological refonns of Senna-
cherib, who promoted the identification of A염ur with AN.SAR, had already transfonn-
ed the Assyrian national god into a universal deity, not one bound to a specific time
and locale. A염ur had achieved his metamorphosis from numen loci of the city Assur
to supreme god of a world empire.33 For the priestly elite of Uruk, however, AN. 삶Rf
A협ur was simply a new fonn of the local god Anu, but a form infinitely more
powerful, and whose transcendental power found its earthly expression in the rise of
Assyrian world hegemony. Therefore we must ask another question. Since there is
evidence for the survival of the Assyrian textual tradition at Urnk until the Hellenistic
period, one may wonder if this was not also accompanied by religious influence,
particularly on the cult of Anu.
This is a very important question, because in the latter part of the fifth century,
when Babylonia had long become a province of the Achaemenid empire, the religion
of Uruk underwent dramatic changes. Anu very suddenly came back to power, the
pantheon was complεtεly reshaped, bearing little relationship to what it had been
previously, and eventually an enonnous, entirely new temple complex was built in
grandiose style to house Anu, his wife Antu, and their divine retinue: the R많 temple
(E.SAG). The result of this religious reform was to restore Anu to his position of active
supreme god. It also made him more like AN. sAR/A협ur, whether this was incidental
or intentional. Previously the role of active supreme god in Babylonia had been ful-
filled by Enlil and later Marduk, while at Urnk Anu had been overshadowed by !Star.
It is therefore not surprising that religious compositions praising Enlil and Marduk
were recycled at that time by thε scribes of Urnk and their contents reassigned to
Anu. The influence of Nippur theology, for instance, is evident in SpTU III, 72, a
compendium listing quotations from magical and exorcistic literature in which Anu
and Enlil are equated or perfonn comparable roles, or pairs of citations from different
compositions where Anu and Enlil occur in similar contexts.34 The goal of this text

33) The stages of this metamorphosis have been recently discussed by W. Mayer, “ Der Gott Assur und
die Erben Assyr떠1S,” in Religion und Gesellschajt. Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen
des Antiken Vorderen Orients, Miinster 1997, pp. 15-23.
34) See the discussion of the texts by W. Farber, “ Lamastu, Enlil, Anu-ik원ir: Streiflichter aus Uruks Ge-
lehrtenstuben,” ZA 79 (1989), pp. 232-236.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 69
was no doubt to prove that Anu possessed a power equal to Enlil. In addition A. Bon-
hagen has recently argued that a bilingual Stiilla prayer which was recited before Anu
of Uruk on the 10th day of Nisanu, during his Aki tu festival, may originally have
been intended for Marduk or Enlil.35 At that time Anu also usurped the epithet Lugal-
dimmer-ankia, previously applied to Marduk.36 In addition four balags dedicated to
Anu and recited on the 10th and 11th days during his Aki tu festival of the month Tas-
ritu arε known from earlier copies as balags of Enlil and Marduk.37 These examples
point to the εxistence of a theological agenda, deliberately intended to model the cult of
Anu on those of deities which had previously actively held sway over the pantheon.
Given that the cults of Marduk and Enlil had an impact on the refonned theology
of Anu, is it possible, then, that his cult was also partly modelled on that of AN. 삶RI
A않ur of Uruk? The evidence is unfortunately ambiguous, mainly because in the
course of centuries Assyrian theologians had also assigned to A않ur a number of epi-
thets, attributes, literary compositions and cultic features borrowed from Enlil and
Marduk in their effort to elevate their national god. In other tenns, the sources for the
exaltations of A협ur in Assyria, and of Anu in late Babylonian Umk, were often iden-
tical, but may well have been boITowed independently. There is no compelling need
to assume that any particular feature assigned to Anu of Uruk in the fifth century or
later in order to promote his status as supreme god was directly borrowed from
AN. 값R/A협ur of Uruk. Such features could as easily have been b01Towed from the
cults of Enlil and Marduk, which were well known to the priests and scholars of
Uruk. One case in point is the fact that the ziggurat of Anu in the R형 temple during
the Seleucid period was called·E. 삶R. RA. As is well known, this was the name of the
temple of A협ur in Assur. Therefore this could indicate an influx of the cult of AN.SARI
A협ur on the new cult of Anu.38 However, E.sAR.RA was also the name of a chapel in
Ekur, the temple of Enlil at Nippuζ and the name of the Enlil ’ s residence as a cosmic
abode, and it was in fact borrowed in Middle Assyrian times for the temple of the god
A협ur to stress the latter ’ s identification with Enlil.39 Therefore the ziggurat of Anu

35)The suilla is preserved on the tablet AO 6461, originally published by F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels ac-
cadiens, Paris 1921, pp. 70-71 and 108-111. New edition and discussion by A. Bonhagen, Die swnerischen
Suilas. Untersuchungen zuAusdruck, Jnhalt und Kultzusammenhang eines Gebetstyps (M.A. Dissertation,
Univ. Heidelberg, August 1997), pp. 17-33, especially 32-33 where the author discusses how epithets and
religious compositions previously related to Enlil and Marduk were borrowed for the cult of Anu in Se-
leucid Uruk.
36) Ibid., p. 33, note 38.
37) Ibid., p. 43, “ Zur Adaptation eines Gebetes fiir eine andere Gottheit.' ’ For the ritual mentioning them
see Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, p. 98.
38) As we have seen above, the temple of A협ur in Uruk was known simply as E AN.SAR, although there
is a possibility that the ceremonial name E.SAR.RA was also used for it (UCP 9/2, 57, 10: E.SAR.[RA]).
39) All the evidence is summarized by A. George, I1 ouse Most H1힘1. The Temples ojAncient Mesopot,αmia
(Mesopotamian Civilizations 5), Winona Lake, Indiana, 1993, p. 145, nos. 1034-1036.
70 THE CULT OF AN. 없RJA협UR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

may have been named :E.sAR.RA mainly to stress the syncretism between Anu and En-
lil, not necessarily the one between Anu and AN.SAR/A협ur. Another example of ambi-
guous evidence is the fact that a chapel in the Efarra of Assur was called ESAG, a
name identical with that of the temple of Anu in late Babylonian times. Yεt the latter
could also have borrowed its name from the E.SAG, the temple of Lugalbanda in Uruk,
which also had a counterpart in Babylon.40
There is, however, a more suggestive theological link between the cults of
AN. 싫RfAssur and Anu at Uruk. This is the god list An = An um, of which a few manu-
scripts have turned up in the late Babylonian libraries of Uruk.41 In two previous
studies I pointed out the importance of this list in the local theological speculations.42
The hierarchical order of the “ great gods” in the refonned pantheon of Uruk, as re-
flected in the sales of temple offices, almost exactly replicates that of An = Anum.
The first section of Tablet I of An = Anum, devoted to Anu and his wife Antu, was
especially popular among scribes. It provided material for a theological treatise on the
names of Antu, and also for playful orthographies of the names of scribes in colo-
phons, in which Anu is replaced by one or the other of his putative divine ancestors.
The scribe Anu-ik~ur relished such arcane combinations. In the colophon of SpTU I,
56, Rev.13 ’, he appears under the fanciful name 1AN.[SAR].GAL-ik-su-iir, while in the
colophon of SpTU II, 8, Rev. IV, 31 he claims the epithet pa-li-ib AN.SAR.GAL ii
dKI.SAR.GAL, obviously an esoteric spelling for the common expression pα-lib d60 u
an-tu4, ” worshiper of Anu and Antu. ” In SpTU I, 126, Rev. 7 ’, the same expression is
rendered by MUD dDU.Rf it dDA. [Rf], and in Sp TU III, 98, Obv. 17, Anu-ik원Ir appears
under the name IdEN-URU.UL.LA-KA.KESDA. All these names occur in An = Anum
Tablet I as ancestors of Anu and Antu, with whom they are equated: I, 6: an. 삶r.gal =
MIN (da-nu-um u an-tum); 7: dki.닮r.gal =MIN, 12: ddu-ri =MIN; 13: dda-ri =MIN; 22:
den.uru.ul.la =MIN; and 23: dnin.uru.ul.la =MIN. Of even greater significance for the
present discussion is that in another colophon of Anu-ik센r, SpTU III, 90, the names
of Anu and Antu are replaced by AN.SAR and KL 없R: Rev. 54: 「MUD AN,.SAR u dKLSAR
NU TUM, “ May the one who reveres Anu and Antu not cany off (this ta blεt). ” As seen
above, AN. sAR and KL sAR also appear in the list of ancestors of Anu in An = Aman I,
8-9. In the Exalt,αtion of !stαr, which is also probably, like An = Anum, a work of
Middle Babylonian schools, the goddess Antu is equally translated dki. 삶r in one pas-
sage of the Sumerian version.43 Thus far this text is known only from late manu-
scripts, including at least onε from Uruk. Therefore the equations AN.SAR = Anu,

4이 On these sanctuaries see George, House Most High, p. 138, nos. 952-54.
41) Four manuscripts have turned up so far: SpTU I, 126 and SpTU III, 107, which are joins from a copy
of Tablet III, SpTU IV, 182, a copy of Tablet V, and SpTU IV, 183, a copy of Tablet VI.
42) P.-A. Beaulieu, “ Antiquarian Theology in Seleucid Uruk,” AcSum 14 (1992), pp. 47-75, and “ Theo-
logical and Philological Speculations on the Names of the Goddess Antu,” OrNS 64 (1995), pp. 187-213.
43) See “ Theological and Philosophical Speculations,” 204.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 71

KI.SAR= Antu, and their corollary A협ur = Anu, was not only explicitly recognized in
late Babylonian Uruk, they had also become a subject of predilection for theological
speculations.
The substitution of divine names in the colophons of Anu-ik~ur was intended to
be more than simple hyperbole. Anu became idεntical with all the primeval gods, his
ancestors. As expressed by W.G. Lambe1i, Anu became himself by developing
through a series of stages represented by his ancestor ’ s names.44 More than a
rudimentary act of syncretism, the equation of Anu with AN‘값R was meant to convey
the absolute identity of the two gods. In other tenns, Anu is AN.SAR, and AN.SAR is
Anu. Therefore A협ur is Anu. This, as seen above, was already fully expressed in the
fragment K. 4349E from the library of Assurbanipal: 7: and.a-nu_삶r : den-lil. The
scribes of Uruk inherited those traditions and fostered them.
More evidence for this has recently surfaced. As pointed out by Lambert, sup-
plementary material to the god list An = Anum circulated in antiquity. This material
included shorter god lists, groups of names and even lists of synonyms. All this
material was included under the general heading of An = Aman in Assurbanipal ’ s
library.45 One of these supplementary tablets was known as DUB.9.KAM AN= Amun
and had the incipit jαrpiitu = danu. This was not a god list, but a synonym list, includ-
ed for some obscure reason in the series An= Amun. Recently E. Reiner identified a
quotation from this tablet in SpTU III, 99, a late Babylonian commentary to .Summa
iilu found in the Uruk libraries.46 Remarkably, however, the commentary does not
refer to the tablet by its incipit fopiitu = danu, or its serial number DUB.9.KAM AN=
Anwn, nor even by the incipit of the whole series (An = Amun), but by the name
AN.SAR= Amt (SpTU III, 99, 43: sa-nis rα-ba-mu: tα-ba-ba ina AN. SAR : d60 <E-u>,
“ second interpretation: rabcunu <means> tabiibu in the series AN. SAR = Anu”). This is
puzzling, however, since that particular tablet was not a god list, but a synonym list.
This led E. Reiner to raise the possibility that this incipit might refer to the entire se-
ries and reflect an Assyrian recension of the god list in which An was replaced by
AN‘ SAR.47 This would provide a striking parallel to Sennacherib ’ s attempt to impose a
new version of Enuma Elis in which Marduk was replaced by AN. 싫R/A협ur. Another
possibility is that a smaller list AN.SAR= Amt, of Assyrian fabrication, existed in anti-

44) W.G. Lambert, “ The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated
Polytheism,” in H. Goedicke - J.J.M. Roberts (eds.), Unity and Diversity. Essays in the Histo1y, Literatwζ
and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore 1975, p. 197.
45) W.G. Lambert, “ Gi:itterlisten,” in RLA 3 (1957-71), p. 476b.
46) E. Reiner, “ The Synonym List Ansar = Anu,” N.A.B.U. 1996/125.
47) This calls to mind the passage of the Verse Account ofNabonidus in which the heretic king is mocked
for his reinterpretation of the incψit of the series Enuma Amt Enlil as Uskar Amt Enlil. This has recently
been discussed by P. Machinist - H. Tadmor, “ Heavenly Wisdom,” in 7까c Tablet and the Scroll. Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of W.W. Hallo, Bethesda, Maryland, 1993, pp. 146-151.
72 THE CULT OF AN.SARIAS SUR IN BABYLONIA [SAAB XI

quity, but that it contained material which has survived in hopelessly fragmentary
fashion. The series AN.SAR= Anu is in fact mentioned in a late Assyrian literary cata-
logue published by Lambert more than two decades ago.48 This provides an addit-
ional clue to the survival of specifically Assyrian religious and scholastic traditions in
the cultural capital of southern Babylonia well into the Seleucid period, especially of
traditions equating Anu with AN. 싫RIA협ur. Whether these traditions played a role in
the rise of Anu after the 5th century is a matter which will remain open to speculation
until more decisive evidence is uncovered. 49 There is as yet εnough evidence,
however, to entertain this as a possibility.

4. Conclusions
It may be useful to reiterate the main finds of this investigation:
1. There is evidence that a god named AN.SAR was worshiped at Uruk in the sixth
century BC. The fact that an official of Uruk in the seventh century bore the name
AN.SAR-bel-u~ur suggests that AN.SAR was already worshiped there at the time of As-
surbanipal. This god received offerings and resided in his own temple, the E AN. SAR.
2. The fact that the name of this god is consistently spelled AN.SAR suggests that
it was introduced to Uruk under the Sargonid kings of Assyria, most likely Assurba-
nipal, as this spelling reflects the official theology of the Assyrian empire at that time.
One of the central tenets of this theology was the identification of the primeval god
Ansarwith A협ur, the supreme god of Assyria.
3. That the god AN.SAR of Uruk was identified with the Assyrian god A협ur is
proven by the fact that some of the cultic officiants serving this god bore Assyrian na-
mes and were identified as “ natives of Assur. ” Also, it seems unlikely that there ever
existed a cult of the primeval god An8ar separate from A협ur, as there probably never
were cults of the other conceptual primeval deities such as En-uru-ulla and Nin-uru-
ulla, Duri and Dari, or Ansargal and Kisargal. Even if Ansar, independently of his
identification with Assur, was worshiped at Uruk before the advent of the Sargonid
dynasty in Assyria, it is obvious that during the seventh century this god was iden-
tified locally with A협ur for political reasons and that Assyrian priests moved to Uruk
to reorganize his cult.

48)W.G. Lambert, “ A Late Assyrian Catalogue ofLitermy and Scholarly Texts,” in Kramer Anniversmy
Volume, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976, p. 314, K. 14067 +Rm 150, line 4. AN.SAR da-[nu-um], followed by AN
da-[nu-um] on line 5.
49) One may even entertain the possibility that the new form of Anu which arose in Uruk in the fifth cent-
ury absorbed the local incarnation of A꿇ur. The latter is no longer mentioned after the second year of
Darius I (520 BC), but this may be due only to the fact that the Emma archive, our main source, almost
entirely stops at that point. Ho‘wever, a substantial number of texts from the Seleucid period at Uruk have
survived which mention numerous deities worshipped in the R장, the Irigal, and other temples, but no-
where is a mention of AN.SAR ofUruk to be found. Therefore it is possible that the god was absorbed by
Anu, or conflated with him.
1997] PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU 73

4. It seems likely that the old identification of Anu with the primeval deity Ansar,
well documented in god lists, provided the justification for the introduction of
AN. 싫RIA염ur to Umk. This points to a theological agenda identifying Anu of Umk
with A염ur, which was itself a 1‘ eflection of the ?olitical alliance between the civic
leaders ofUmk and the Assyrian imperial author εS.
5. The survival of specific Assyrian scholarly traditions at Umk until the Se-
leucid period bespeaks the lasting influence of the fonner empire upon the local
elites. This influence is also perceptible in the religious sphere. If we must choose one
particular point in time when Assyrian scholarship and theology were transplanted to
Umk, then we must obviously point to the years when a group of Assyrian priests
moved there to organize the cult of AN. 삶RIA염ur.
Is it possible that the cult of AN. 값RIA협ur migrated from Assyria to other Baby-
lonian cities, either at the time of the Neo-Assyrian empire or after its downfall, just
as it did to Uruk? Few late Babylonian sites have yielded the amount of textual
evidence that would allow us to answer this question with any degree of confidence.
At any rate, well documented sites such as Sippar and Babylon have produced so far
no evidence for the presence of a cult of A협ur. Also, it is generally agreed that the
occasional appearance of theophoric names with A협ur in late Babylonian documents
is no evidence for a cultic presence of the deity. These were Assyrians refugees and
immigrants who, to be sure, kept alive the memory of the god of Assyria, but on a
private basis. Frame ’ s conclusion that the cult of A염ur never took hold in Babylonia,
both because of the unwillingness of Assyrian authorities to impose it and of the lack
of interest on the part of the Babylonians, seems cogent.
Urnk, then, was the exception. This can be explained by its longstanding alliance
with Assyria, and also by its exceptional religious configuration. The introduction of
AN.SAR would have then been viewed differently from the two sides. For the Assyr-
ians who established residence in Uruk, as well as for the imperial authorities, AN.SAR
was the imperial god of Assyria, recently transformed into a universal, all-powerful
god. The Urukaeans, on the other hand, could view the introduction of AN.SAR not as
the imposition of a foreign, imperial cult, but just as a manifestation of the old supre-
me deity Anu, whose position had been usurped locally by Istar. The introduction of
the Assyrian god may have induced them to reconsider the position of Anu altogether
and paved the way for the refonn of the fifth century. 50

”
5 The question of the relationship between A협ur and Ahura-Mazda, which has been recently raised by
Mayer, “ Der Gott Assur,” cit. (fn. 33, above), pp. 19-23, bears an evident relation to that of the rise of
Anu in the 5th century. I intend to investigate this matter in a future study.