Amar Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia

The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia by Amar
Annus
Review by: (Robert D. Biggs
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 67, No. 3 (July 2008), pp. 193-194
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/591749 .
Accessed: 08/09/2012 06:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
July 2008 Book Reviews 193

Chadwick makes it clear that this volume is not writing style is clear and readable, and some
a comprehensive survey. In fact, the book does sections are very interesting, especially the early
not fit the traditional qualifications of a textbook chapters, which introduce the disciplines of his-
precisely because it lacks this comprehensive tory and archaeology. Thus it is unfortunate that
nature. Moreover, as Chadwick states, the work is the book is deficient in so many important areas.
limited to Egypt and Mesopotamia, not the Near
East in general. Hence many topics (for example, Mark W. Chavalas
Syro-Palestine) are given sparse representation.
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
The coverage of Egypt and Mesopotamia is
also problematic at many points. For example,
in the section on Mesopotamia Chadwick spends
a great deal of time describing the reign of Nabo- The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal
nidus (giving much attention to Belshazzar) but Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia. By Amar
virtually ignores the Uruk and Isin-Larsa periods, Annus. State Archives of Assyria Studies,
and he places the Kassites in a chapter subtitled vol. 14. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text
“Babylonia and the Kassites (2000–1600 BC).” Corpus Project, 2002. Pp. xvi + 242 + 13 figs.
Mesopotamian mythology and religion is rep- $57.50 (paperback).
resented solely by the Gilgamesh Epic. The The introduction provides a brief history of
section on Egypt is fraught with more omis- the reading of the name of Ninurta and under-
sions. Chadwick spends more effort in discuss- standing his principal characteristics. Ninurta was
ing odd theories about the origin and purpose of often considered to be identical to other gods,
the Old Kingdom pyramids than he does the first both native Mesopotamian and foreign, and this
two Egyptian dynasties, which are glossed over was an essential part of his cult.
in one page. Moreover, there is an entire chapter Ninurta is best known as the city god of Nippur
on the Amarna period, and he even cites Freud’s (as opposed to Enlil, who was the national Su-
Moses and Monotheism concerning the possi- merian god par excellence). His temple in Nippur
bility of monotheism in Egypt during this age. was Esumesa, one of the most famous temples of
The order of topics is often difficult to follow. Sumer. Many years ago I proposed, on the basis
For example, we learn about Egyptian astronomy, of the name occurring in a Middle Babylonian
astrology, and medicine before the civilization letter beside Ekur and the Inanna temple, É-bára-
of Egypt has even been introduced. dúr-gar-ra, that it was located close to them. I
Equally as serious as Chadwick’s choice of am inclined to believe now that Westenholz is
topics is his perpetuation of many outdated probably correct in locating it on the west mound
theories concerning the two civilizations. A few of Nippur (see references on p. 11), although I
examples will suffice. He mistakenly says that the still see debris from his temple being used as fill
scribes of Ebla wrote in Sumerian but had some in the Parthian Inanna Temple as a problem, for it
of their tablets written in Eblaite. The Meso- would surely be costly in time and manpower to
potamians had a pessimistic eschatology, while move earth over such a distance.1
Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria is entitled “King On p. 13 the author proposes that the Barton
of Mari.” Chadwick is even less at home in the Cylinder (republished in a modern edition by
section on Egypt. For example, instead of con- B. Alster and Aage Westenholz in Acta Sumero-
fusing the Narmer/Menes issue of Predynastic logica 16 [1994]: 15– 46) is likely an early ex-
Egypt as he did in the first edition, he categori- ample of a myth extolling Ninurta’s deeds and
cally omits any discussion of Menes. further suggests that it was probably intended for
Though I cannot recommend this work as a exhibition in Ninurta’s temple Esumesa.
beginning textbook for the ancient Near East, the
book has many positive features. There are nearly
one thousand useful citations as well as over 600 1 See, for example, M. Sigrist, Les sattukku dans
entries in the bibliography. There are also over l’Esumesa durant la période d ’Isin et Larsa, Biblio-
200 illustrations, including over one dozen mag- theca Mesopotamica 11 (Malibu, California, 1984),
nificent color plates. Furthermore, Chadwick’s pp. 4–6.
194 Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 67 No. 3

Annus has a good discussion of the evidence ventures a bit far afield in the latter part of this
for the ritual of determination of royal fate at chapter.
Nippur and of Ninurta’s role in the ritual. He The epilogue discusses the continuity of Meso-
also devotes several pages to Ninurta’s various potamian traditions in late antiquity. Appendixes
journeys and the reasons for them and connects provide a new edition of a syncretic hymn to
the journeys to Eridu and Nippur specifically Ninurta (KAR 102) and a list of Neo-Assyrian
with the ceremony of determining the royal fate personal names with Ninurta (Inurta in Neo-
and the enthronement of the Sumerian king in Assyrian).
Nippur. The bibliography is particularly valuable for
In the second millennium the old Nippur triad including a number of Russian studies probably
of Enlil, Ninlil, and Ninurta is gradually replaced unfamiliar to most Assyriologists. It is so exten-
by the Babylonian triad Marduk, Zarpanitu, and sive that it can almost serve as a basic bibliog-
Nabû. raphy of Mesopotamian religion.
Chap. 2 is entitled “Ninurta in the Royal Although the author has gone off on several
Rituals and Ideology.” It deals at length with tangents where some readers may not be inclined
such topics as Ninurta’s akitu at Nippur in the to follow him, the core of the volume presents a
Ur III period, the gusisu festival, and its survival detailed analysis of one of the major ancient
under a modified guise in later Babylonian and Mesopotamian deities and is an important con-
Assyrian rituals. It is suggested that the second tribution to the study of ancient Mesopotamian
element in the gusisu festival (plowing and religion.
dropping the seed) corresponds metaphorically
to sexual intercourse between god and goddess Robert D. Biggs
in the same month (Iyyar).
The University of Chicago
The cultic topography of Nippur has strongly
influenced the topography of both Babylon and
Assur and helps to account for the Assyrian syn-
cretism of Enlil of Nippur and the gods of Assur. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Compar-
The section on “cosmic battle” in Assyrian ative Study of the Syllabic Texts. By Rebecca
royal inscriptions cites numerous passages in Hasselbach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Ver-
royal inscriptions, especially of Sennacherib, with lag, 2005. Pp. xiii + 292. E 78.
phraseology, especially from Enuma elis and This volume constitutes the first in-depth gram-
Lugale. The author states categorically (p. 100) matical study of Old Akkadian since the pio-
that the Assyrian king was considered to be iden- neering grammar of I. J. Gelb in 1961. It must
tical with Ninurta. be stressed that Hasselbach’s definition of Old
Chap. 3 is devoted to Ninurta in mythology, a Akkadian differs from that of Gelb. For her, it
very large topic indeed. The author provides some comprises Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic but not
evidence here to support his assertion that the Ur III Akkadian. This study is limited to texts
winged bulls familiar from Assyrian palaces were datable to Sargon and his successors in the Akka-
thought to inhabit the sea (p. 117). In connection dian period. The corpus is further restricted by
with Ninurta and the Mountain, one can add the including only syllabically written texts and ex-
recent paper of Fumi Karahashi, “Fighting the cluding personal names. The result is a more
Mountain: Some Observations on the Sumerian focused study. Hasselbach carefully distinguishes
Myths of Inanna and Ninurta,” JNES 63 (2004): between original inscriptions and Old Babylonian
111–18. copies of original inscriptions (non-Sargonic fea-
Several pages are devoted to Ninurta as a tures in these texts are listed on p. 12, n. 62).
healing deity, his connection with the Tablet of She is further careful to distinguish between
Destinies, his relationship with agriculture (his genres, with royal inscriptions, literary texts,
symbol was a plow), and Ninurta as a tree (here letters, and administrative documents kept apart
he largely follows Simo Parpola’s interpretation for the analysis, with regional differences also
of the Mesopotamian sacred tree). The author focused on. This has the result of forming a more