Venerating Gilgameš in Larsa: New Evidence (pre-print, Fs. NN).

Venerating Gilgameš in Larsa: New Evidence Nathan Wasserman, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem To NN Introduction Two inscribed clay cones are the focus of this short paper, presented in friendship and appreciation to […]. The cones, 10 cm in diameter, were dedicated to King Abī-sarē of Larsa (1897–1887 BCE), Wasserman/Bloch 2023, 156. and commissioned by a man named Bingattum for the king’s life. An interesting detail in these otherwise banal inscriptions is the mention of a temple (é) for Gilgameš, previously unknown. This, along with some sporadic prosopographical evidence, sheds more light on the cult of Gilgameš in southern Mesopotamia during the Isin-Larsa period. Though published, these two cones have received little attention. Cone 1 (fig. 1) was presented online in the catalogue of the London-based Timeline Auctions in the log of December 4th 2014, later catalogued by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) as P481943. As the edition below shows, the transliteration and translation of Cone 1 in CDLI followed a wrong alignment of the three pieces, thus missing two lines. Cone 2 (IM 212944; fig. 2a–b) was studied by Alwash and Abed (2020). None of these publications noticed the relation between the two inscriptions, which are almost identical. Edition Cone 1 Cone 2 Translation 1 [dB]ÌL.GA.MES 1 [d]BÌL.⸢GA⸣.[MES] To Gilgameš, his king – for the life of Abī-sarē, mighty man, the son of Gungunum, king of Sumer and Akkad (Cone 2 only), chief of the Amorites, king of Ur (Cone 1 only) – Bingattum your servant, the son of Ilī-mara(ḫ), built his temple. 2 ⸢lugal-a-ni⸣ 2 lugal-a-ni 3 nam-[ti] 3 nam-ti 4 a-[bí-sa-re-e] 4 a-bí-sa-re-e 5 ⸢nita⸣-kala-[ga] 5 nita-kala-ga 6 [dumu gu]-un-gu-nu-um 6 dumu gu-un-gu-nu-um 7 lugal ki-gi-ensic ki-urí-ke4 7 [ra]-⸢bí⸣-an amurrim(MAR.TU) 8 ra-bí-an amurrim(MAR.TU) 8 [lugal] ⸢urí⸣ki-ma 9 ⸢bi⸣-in-ga-tum 9 bi-in-ga-tum 10 arad-zu 10 arad-zu 11 dumu ì-lí-ma-ra-aḫ 11 dumu ì-lí-ma-ra-a 12 é-a-ni 12 ⸢é⸣-a-ni 13 mu-na-dù 13 [mu]-na-dù Discussion Royal titulary: The two cones are identical, except for one title of Abī-sarē. Cone 2 bestows on him the hegemonic title “king of Sumer and Akkad” (which may hint that the king claimed Nippur to be under his control). Cone 1 replaces it with another title, “king of Ur,” a prestigious title nonetheless. It is noteworthy that these cones are the first known public inscriptions explicitly mentioning Abī-sarē as Gungunum’s son. rabiān Amurrim: In both cones, Abī-sarē is designated as rabiān Amurrim, “chief of the Amorites.” The status of this title, used in other inscriptions of Abī-sarē, rose during the king’s time. The same title was used also in Ešnunna, in roughly the same period. A recently published cylinder seal from the 2001–2002 Iraqi excavations in Tell Asmar read la-šu-qa-at / DUMU NE-iš-pi-el / ra-bi-<an> dmar-tu. Al-Luhaibi 2023, 32, 38. The PN NE-iš-pi-el is tentatively understood as “Nešpa is god,” taking NE-iš-pi as a sandhi form of the DN Nešpa. This god held a prominent role in the local pantheon of Simurrum (not far from Ešnunna), for which see Shaffer/Wasserman 2003, 12. In earlier periods, shortly after the fall of Ur III, rabiānum referred to an Amorite leader without implying the highest authority, as evidenced by the Zagros Haladiny Inscription, in which Iddin-Sîn of Simurrum boasts of driving away five Amorite chieftains (rabiānū): mma-di/ki-a-[x] mša-wa/wi/pi-a-[x] mma-gi-ba-⸢ni(?)⸣ ma-ḫa-⸢tum⸣ ma-wi-la-núm ra-bí-a-nu a-mu-ri-im i-ne-er-šu-nu-ti ù a-mu-ra-am i-na kúl-le-⸢e(?)⸣-šu iṭ-ru-{UD}-us-sú “He killed M., Š., Magibāni, Aḫātum, Awīlānum, the Amorite chieftains, and drove away all the Amorites.” (Kozad 2012, 257). Bingattum: The gentleman who built the temple for Gilgameš—probably no more than a chapel— and dedicated it for the life of Abī-sarē bears the name bi-in-ga-tum. This uncommon name is known as a patronymic in four receipts, mentioning the sons of bi-in-ga-tum as involved in different barley transactions. The four documents were unearthed in the Shara temple in Umma and date to the fifth year of Sumu-el, the son and successor of Abī-sarē (1886–1858 BCE). Given the rarity of the name, it is likely that bi-in-ga-tum, whose sons are recorded in these archival documents, is the same bi-in-ga-tum who was active a generation earlier and is mentioned in our cones. The editors of the texts from the Shara Temple, hesitate whether Bingattum is a PN. It is not found in the list of PNs, and a question mark is added to this name in the indices (Al-Mutawalli/Ismael/Sallaberger 2019, 19–21). These reservations are unwarranted. The name bi-in-ga-tum is Amorite, as evidenced by the use of bīnum meaning “son.” It is to be analyzed, I suggest, as Bīn-Gattum. The second component, gattum, is a known appellation for the Euphrates in 1st millennium literary texts (AHw 284; Blaschke 2018, 148–150), and so Bīn-Gattum would mean “the son of the Euphrates.” This poetic name for the Euphrates appears now to have been in use as early as the early OB period, possibly by Amorite speakers. Other personal names based on a similar semantic pattern are known. From Kiš: bi-na-ra-tum, standing for Bīn-nārātum “son of the (two) rivers”. YOS 13, 312 = ARCHIBAB T18583. From Mari: bi-na-r[i-im] and bi-in-na-a-r[i-im], M.7417 (unpubl.) and ARM 7, 185 ii 10'. both standing for Bīn-nārim “son of the river”. From Umma, also from the archive of the Shara temple: Šu-Idigna, “He of the Tigris.” Al-Mutawalli/Ismael/Sallaberger, 2019, no. 9 = ARCHIBAB T25674 and passim. The fact that gattum is a geographical name, a proper noun, explains why it was not declined in the genitive (similarly to nārātum in Bīn-nārātum). ì-lí-ma-ra-aḫ: The name of Bīn-Gattum’s father comes in two slightly different versions: ì-lí-ma-ra-aḫ (Cone 1) and ì-lí-ma-ra-a (Cone 2). This name is to be interpreted as Ilī-ma-(E)raḫ “My god is indeed the moon.” OBTR 195 = Langlois 2017 vol. 2, 183 records the distribution of five pairs of shoes to the Lullû people of the Zagros, mentioning a leather-worker named ì-lí-ma-ra-ḫe-e. This name, however, is probably of a different derivation. I thank Jean-Marie Durand who shared with me his sharp insights about the two PNs. The temple of Gilgameš: The spelling dGIŠ.BIL.GA.MES is widely attested, see George 2003, 76. To the best of my knowledge, no explicit mention of a temple for Gilgameš has been attested so far, although his divine status is clear from mythological texts, god-lists, dedicatory inscriptions, and personal names (George 2003, 119–135; George/Krebernik 2023, 226). In the early 2nd millennium, Gilgameš was mainly worshiped in southern Mesopotamia, which is not surprising given his Urukean origin. Larsa’s political dominance over Uruk was achieved gradually. At the time of Sîn-iddinam (1841–1835), a pact was concluded between Larsa, Ešnunna, and Uruk against Babylon. Larsa was the major force in this alliance, but Uruk was still an independent kingdom at that time. A generation later, the Kudur-Mabuk dynasty was already able to interfere in Uruk’s affairs, as indicated by the fact that a temple for Nergal was built in Uruk by Kudur-Mabuk. This process of subjugation culminated in the 20th year of Rīm-Sîn I (1795 BCE), when the king of Larsa annexed Uruk to its kingdom, and Uruk ceased to be an independent polity. Wasserman/Bloch 2023, 161, 171, 174. A hundred years earlier, when Abī-sarē ruled Larsa, Uruk was a still sovereign kingdom on Larsa’s northwestern border. The temple of Gilgameš was therefore likely to be built within the borders of the kingdom of Larsa. However, administrative records locate the family of a Bīn-Gattum – very likely the same person who built the temple for Gilgameš – in Umma, and this city was under the control of Larsa during the reign of Sumu-el, as proven by the date formulae in the Shara temple. It seems likely that Larsa controlled Umma also at the time of Abī-sarē, and hence it is possible that the chapel for Gilgameš was erected in Umma or its vicinity. Be that as it may, a lentil-shaped school text in the collection of the Israel Museum (IMJ 87.160.648, Fig. 3) demonstrates the position of deified Gilgameš in the Uruk pantheon, preceding Mes-sanga-unug, a deity closely connected to this city (Krebernik 1993, 94–95): First published by Aaron Shaffer in Merhav 1981, 50 (no. 26). Thanks are due to L. A. Peri, Curator of Western Asiatic Antiquities in the Israel Museum, for helping me to get the photo of the tablet. lú-dbìl-ga-mes Lu-Gilgameš (G. devotee), lú-dmes-sanga-unugki Lu-Messangaunug (M. devotee) – diĝir-unugki Gods of Uruk. More people are known to bear names that witness their devotion to divinized Gilgameš. An individual named Gilgameš-gāmil “Gilgameš shows favor” is listed in an administrative record from Larsa (purchase of grain; Samsu-iluna 2). Riftin 1937, pl. 27 = ARCHIBAB T6404. A certain Ur-Gilgameš is recorded to sell a field in an undated text from Tutub. Harris 1955, 101 (no. 97) = ARCHIBAB T10758. This prosopographical evidence, though scattered, indicates that in the 2nd millennium, Gilgameš was primarily venerated in southern Mesopotamia (with exceptions noted in personal names collected by George 2003, 78: one from Assyria, another from Elam). Completing the above picture is a letter-prayer of a dying person, which clearly demonstrates the popularity of the cult of Gilgameš cult in Larsa in the mid-19th century BCE (Guichard 2020). The person, Nūr-Kūbi, writes to his ancestors, asking them to find out the reason for his grave illness. After inserting a short healing formula in Sumerian, he beseeches them to intercede on his behalf with Šamaš and Gilgameš in their heavenly and chthonic hypostases (… Šamaš elīam Šamaš šaplīam Gilgameš elīam Gilgameš šaplīam). This letter of Nūr-Kūbi was presumably presented to the Ebabbar, the main temple of Šamaš in Larsa. However, theoretically it could also have been placed in the chapel of Gilgameš, whose building is mentioned in the two cones studied above.  Photos and Copies Fig. 1a–b: Cone 1 (CDLI P481943) Fig. 2a–b: Cone 2 (Alwash/Abed 2020, 672) Fig. 3: IMJ 87.160.648 (CDLI P430054 Bibliography Al-Luhaibi, A. A. 2023. New Cylinder Seals from Tell Asmar (The Ancient City of Eshnunna) from the Iraqi Excavations 2001–2002, Iraq 85: 29–48. Al-Mutawalli, N. A., Ismael, K. S. and Sallaberger, W. 2019. Bullae from the Shara Temple. Cuneiform Texts from the Iraqi Excavations at Umma (Jokha) 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Alwash, H. H. and Abed, B. 2020. The King Abi-sare, His Rule and Descent. Journal of Studies in History and Archeology 73: 671–676 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347960007_The_king_Abi-sare_his_rule_and_descent) Blaschke, T. 2018. Euphrat und Tigris im Alten Orient. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. George, A. R. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. George, A. R. and Kerbernik, M. 2023. An = Anum and Related Lists: God Lists of Ancient Mesopotamia, I, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Guichard, M. 2020. Ecrire à ses morts: une lettre-supplique akkadienne datant de l’époque d’Isin-Larsa (env. 2000–1800 avant n. è.). Journal Asiatique 308: 151–165. Harris, R. 1955. The Archive of the Sin Temple in Khafajah (Tutub): Conclusion. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 9: 91–120. Kozad, M. A. 2012. The Beginnings of Ancient Kurdistan (c. 2500-1500 BC): a Historical and Cultural Synthesis. PhD Thesis, University of Leiden. Krebernik, M. 1993. Mes-sanga-unug. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8/1–2: 94–95. Langlois, A.-I. 2017. Les archives de la princesse Iltani découvertes à tell al-rimah (XVIIIe siècle av. J.-C.) et l'histoire du royaume de Karana/Qaṭṭara. ARCHIBAB 2. Paris: SEPOA. Merhav, R. 1981. A Glimpse into the Past: The Joseph Ternbach Collection: Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Riftin, A. I. 1937. Staro-vavilonskie iuridicheskie i administrativnye dokumenty v sobraniiakh SSSR (Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents in the Collections of the USSR). Moscow: Akademiia Nauk. Shaffer, A. and Wasserman, N. 2003. Iddi(n)-Sîn, King of Simurrum: New Rock-Relief Inscription and Reverential Seal, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 93: 1–52. Wasserman, N. and Bloch, Y. 2023. The Amorites: A Political History of Mesopotamia in the Early Second Millennium BCE. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 133. Leiden: Brill. 8