Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:35:09.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Sumerian Šu-íl-la from Nimrud with a Prayer for Sin-Šar-Iškun1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Jerrold S. Cooper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Sumerian šu-il-la is an Emesal composition which,like the balag and ér-šèm-ma, was utilized in public worship. Forty-seven šu-íl-la incipits are listed in the kalûtu catalogue IVR 53 + RA 18 (1921), 158f., but the broken state of the catalogue and the poor state of preservation of the majority of Emesal texts makes it impossible to identify most of the catalogue entries. Only three surviving texts can be identified with certainty—by their colophon or presence in the catalogue or both—as Sumerian šu-íl-la's:

A. Sjöberg Mondgott 166ff. Sin; incipit IVR 53 iii 48

F. H. Weissbach Misc. pl. 13F. and duplicates Marduk; incipit IVR 53 iii 54 (edited below).

RAcc. 70f. and 108ff. An; the beginning is broken, so that it cannot be ascertained whether this is the šu - í l - la to An whose incipit is listed in IVR 53 iii 44

The last two contain subscripts specifying the cult occasions upon which they were to be recited. Four additional fragments can probably be classified as šu-íl-la's because of their extensive parallels to the Sin and Marduk šu-íl-la's (see below).

Unlike the balag and ér-šèm-ma, the šu-íl-la was never organized into long liturgical compositions, but the individual šu-íl-la's collected in Ashurbanipal's library were arranged within the library in a fixed order, corresponding to the order in which they were listed in the catalogue IVR 53. This can be shown by the fact that the catch line of the Sin šu-íl-la (as preserved in IVR 9) is identical to the incipit which follows the incipit of that Sin šu-íl-l a in the kalûtu catalogue.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Spring 1970 , pp. 51 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Professor D. J. Wiseman for his kind permission to utilize his unpublished copy of ND. 4324. Abbreviations in this article follow CAD vol. 1/2 viiiff. Krecher SKly = J. Krecher, Sumerische Kultlyrik; AOAT = Alter Orient und Altes Testament.

References

2 Cf. the discussions of Langdon, S. H., OECT 6 viiif.Google Scholar; Landsberger, B., MAOG 4 (1928/1929), 305f.Google Scholar; Kunstmann, W. G., LSS NF 2 (1952), 43ff.Google Scholar; Falkenstein, A., MDOG 85 (1953), 7f.Google Scholar, RLA 3 160Google Scholar; Krecher, SKly 25Google Scholar. The Akkadian šu-íl-la is an altogether different type of composition, for which see Kunstmann, , LSS NF 2 (1932)Google Scholar. Mr. Christopher Walker of the British Museum has brought to my attention the use of the subscript šu-íl-lá dingir-ra ka-duḫ-ù-da after Sumerian and bilingual mīs pî/pīt pî incantations. This occurs in STT 200:82, Sm 290 ‘obv.’ 4′ (J. Laessøe Bīt Rimki pl. III no. X), and K 2946 and duplicates lines i 25′ and ii 13′. None of the so designated incantations is in Emesal—although all known Sumerian šu-íl-la's are in that dialect—and all but one of the incantations are quite typical of mīs pî/pīt pî texts.

3 See Krecher SKly for an excellent introduction to the balag and ér-šèm-ma compositions.

4 Cf. Krecher, SKly 18Google Scholar.

5 K. 3018 + 82–3–23, 11 and KAR 106 + 337b (both discussed in detail below), and BA 10/1 no. 21. Falkenstein's objection to classifying BA 10/1 no. 21 as a šu-íl-la (MDOG 85 (1953), 7Google Scholar) ‘da dieser Text zum Teil nicht im Hauptdialekt abgefasst ist’ is puzzling, since all Sumerian šu-íl-la's are in Emesal rather than the main dialect. Landsberger, B., MAOG 4 (1928/1929), 306Google Scholar, classifies BMS 35 as a Sumerian šu-íl-la, but a careful examination of the fragment leads to a rejection of this classification.

6 For these compositions, see Krecher, SKly 19ffGoogle Scholar. A scientific catalogue of the late liturgical compositions is unfortunately lacking in the Assyriological literature.

7 Krecher, SKly 23Google Scholar similarly shows that the liturgical compositions were also arranged in a successive order corresponding to the order in which the kalûtu catalogue lists them.

8 As do Falkenstein, A., MDOG 85 (1953), 7f.Google Scholar, and Krecher, SKly 25Google Scholar.

9 For references, see Krecher, SKly 25 n. 38Google Scholar.

10 However, the text edited below is probably of a more recent date (see discussion below).

11 MAOG 4 (1928/1929), 306Google Scholar.

12 See R. Borger HKL s.v. F.H. Weissbach Misc. pl. 13f. for previous bibliography.

13 E is too fragmentary to determine whether it is definitely part of the Marduk šu-íl-la, or part of the similar prayer to Aššur discussed below, though it is not written in the same hand as the latter.

14 ND.4324 (now in Iraq Museum, IM.67546) is a broken tablet, 15 × 12 cms., found buried in debris which represented the contents of rooms NT.12-14, and may originally have been lodged in NT. 13 of Nabû temple. See Mallowan, M. E. L., Nimrud and its Remains, I, 271 ffGoogle Scholar and plan opp. p. 233 for location of rooms containing tablets. For literary texts from Nimrud see Wiseman, D. J., JNES 27 (1968), 248 ffGoogle Scholar.

15 I was able to make this join on a recent visit to Berlin, made possible by the generosity of the Johns Hopkins University. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Prof. Dr. G. R. Meyer of the Staatliche Museen and his staff for putting their facilities at my disposal.

16 Cf. Krecher, SKly 27Google Scholar. Marduk appears to be the only exception to this. Two šu-íl-la's to him (including the one edited below) are listed in the catalogue IVR 53.

17 Cf. Langdon, S. H.SBP xviiiGoogle Scholar.

18 See the notes of Langdon, loc. cit.

19 K 3018 was brought to my attention by W. G. Lambert. I was then able to join it to 82–3–23, 11, which was quoted in IVR add. p. 3 as a variant to IVR 18 no. 2. I would like to thank the Trustees of the British Museum, and Drs. R. D. Barnett and E. Sollberger of the British Museum for their permission to utilize K 3018 in this discussion.

20 Line 23, which elaborates on 1. 22, has been omitted. This accords well with similar enumerations of deities, e.g. S. H. Langdon BL no. 56 r. 29 and SBH I r. 44. Line 24 has also been omitted.

21 These lines are preserved in K.3018 + as follows:

29 mu-lu silig-ga é-TU-r[a] ḫé-[ ] be-lum šá-ga-pu-ru šá ina é-[ ] da-nu-ti-k [a ]

30 [še-er-m]a-al dìm-me-er-e-n [e ] [ ]× ×[ ] The writing é-ku4(TU)-ra for é-kur-ra is unusual.

22 But note that the Nineveh fragment more closely parallels the Marduk šu-íl-la than does the Assur fragment.

23 Other copies datable to the reign of Sin-šar-iškun are the school copy of an oath of allegiance published by Weidner, E. F., AfO 13 (1939–1941)Google Scholar, pl. XIV (13955z; cf. p. 215 n. 69), and LKA 41, an Akkadian šu-íl-la to Ninurta in which the name of Sin-šar-iškun has been inserted (line 16).

24 Cf. Römer, W. H.Königsbymnen 6Google Scholar.

25 Kunstmann, W. G., LSS NF 2 (1932), 21Google Scholar.

26 Gordon, E. I., BiOr 17 (1960), 136fGoogle Scholar. n. 101, and Falkenstein, A., BiOr 9 (1952), 91 n. 27Google Scholar.

27 Falkenstein, A., MDOG 85 (1953), 3Google Scholar, and cf. the author's forthcoming edition of Angim.

28 Falkenstein, A., MDOG 85 (1953), 3fGoogle Scholar. and BiOr 9 (1952), 91Google Scholar.

29 Falkenstein, A., ZA NF 21 (1962/1963), 49Google Scholar; Krecher, J., Studien Falkenstein 95ffGoogle Scholar. and ZA NF 24 (1967), 40ff.Google Scholar; Römer, W. H., Königshymnen 73 n. 410Google Scholar; Sjo̊berg, A., Mondgott, 172Google Scholar; Kramer, S. N., Eretz Israel 9 (1969), 91Google Scholar.

30 E.g. the many late incantations that are partially intelligible Sumerian and partially ‘abracadabra’. Note that even a text as linguistically corrupt as KAR 4 has recently been labelled as originally OB because of its theological content (Falkenstein, A., AS 16, 133 n. 72Google Scholar). It is impossible to determine whether the poor quality of the Sumerian is due to late composition or to poor transmission, but it should be noted that the Sumerian of most late texts whose OB origins can be proved or are generally accepted contains far fewer errors than KAR 4.

31 Note especially the numerous incorrect Sumerian forms.

32 Van Dijk, J. J., MIO 12 (1966/1967), 68 and 74Google Scholar.

33 Note, in this regard, the observation in note 16 above that Marduk is the only ‘newcomer’ among the old Sumerian deities listed in the šu-íl-la section of the catalogue IVR. 53 +.

34 ‘Ditto’ indicates the portion of the retrain which was not written down, but was to be repeated in oral recitation (cf. Krecher, SKly 42fGoogle Scholar). If necessary for reasons of English syntax, omitted portions arc restored in parentheses.