Averbeck 2010 Temple Building in Third Millennium. Mesopotamia

Temple Building among the Sumerians
and Akkadians (Third Millennium)
Richard E. Averbeck, Deerfield
It is an honor to contribute this chapter in a volume dedicated to Richard S. Ellis,

whose work on foundation deposits remains essential to the topic of temple building
in all eras of ancient Mesopotamian history. The third millennium BC, of course, is
foundational as far as textual sources are concerned. Unfortunately, forty years ago
when he wrote his volume on foundation deposits, Ellis could include only four
pages (out of twenty-eight) of third millennium texts in the appendices of texts and
translations at the end of his book.1 As one would expect, three of those pages were
devoted to selected passages from the Gudea Cylinders. This is in spite of the fact
that, as Ellis saw it, “The usefulness of the text is considerably lessened by the facts
that it is still very imperfectly understood, and that it is concerned with the religious
significance of what was done rather than with its physical details.”2
Although there continue to be difficulties in the translation and interpretation of
Sumerian poetic language, and the Gudea Cylinders in particular, significant pro-
gress has been made since Ellis’s work appeared.3 Moreover, to understand how the
ancient Mesopotamians conceived of temple construction religiously and how they
manifested and managed their religious viewpoint and concerns through ritual pro-
cedures are as essential as the “physical details.” The Gudea Cylinders offer much
here. It should be noted, however, that many of the physical (and ritual) details of
1
R. S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (=Foundation Deposits; YNER 2;
New Haven and London 1968) pp. 169–172.
2
Ellis, Foundation Deposits p. 6.
3
See especially T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once … Sumerian Poetry in Translation
(=Harps; New Haven 1987) pp. 386–444; R. E. Averbeck, A Preliminary Study of Ritual and
Structure in the Cylinders of Gudea, 2 vols. (=Ritual and Structure; Ph.D. diss. Dropsie Col-
lege 1987); R. E. Averbeck, “Ritual Formula, Textual Frame, and Thematic Echo in the Cyl-
inders of Gudea,” in G. D. Young, M. W. Chavalas, and R. E. Averbeck (eds.), Crossing
Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birth-
day (=Crossing Boundaries; Bethesda 1997) pp. 39–93; R. E. Averbeck, “The Cylinders of
Gudea,” in W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (eds.), The Context of Scripture 2:
Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (=COS 2; Leiden, Boston, Köln 2000) pp.
417–433; V. (A.) Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the
Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (=Exalted House; JSOTSup
115; Sheffield 1992) pp. 33–57, 143–144, 205–223, and 271–279; RIME 3/1 pp. 68–106; C.
E. Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in
Text and Image (=Temple Building; CM 17; Groningen 2000); and G. Zolyomi, “The Build-
ing of Ningirsu’s Temple,” in The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (=ETCSL;
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/) no. c.2.1.7.
4 Richard E. Averbeck
temple building are actually presented in less poetic form in the dedicatory royal
inscriptions inscribed on the Gudea Statues. Gudea Statue B, in fact, is the longest of
these texts and it recounts the construction of the same temple as the Cylinders.4 The
other Gudea Statues along with the Statue of Ur-Baba (Gudea’s father-in-law and
the previous ruler of Lagash) also provide helpful supplemental information. We
will orient our discussion around the parallel accounts given on Gudea Cylinders A
and B and Statue B.
The dates of Gudea’s reign in Lagash have been a matter of dispute in their rela-
tion to Ur-Namma, the founder of the Ur III Dynasty. It now seems that they may
have overlapped, although, if they did, Gudea most likely began his reign before Ur-
Namma came to the throne.5 According to Middle Chronology, Ur-Namma estab-
lished the Ur III Dynasty ca. 2112 BC and ruled for about 18 years (ca. 2112–
2095).6 Lower Chronology, however, seems to be gaining ground among scholars
these days, which would push the dates of Ur-Namma down to around the middle of
the last century of the third millennium (perhaps ca. 2050 BC for the beginning of
his reign). In any case, the Gudea Cylinders date to late in the third millennium.
Gudea’s fourth year name makes reference to the making of bricks for this fa-
mous construction of Ningirsu’s temple.7 By Gudea’s time, therefore, third millen-
nium temple building traditions had accumulated and there is no good reason to
deny that many of the traditions most likely extended back into the fourth millen-
nium and even earlier; we will discuss this earlier archaeological background in the
next section below. It is hard to imagine a better resource than these Gudea texts for
temple building in the third millennium BC. This chapter, therefore, depends on
these Lagash texts for the arrangement and main substance of the discussion, al-
though other texts are taken into consideration within that framework.
4
Ellis did not reference Gudea Statue B in his book. The usefulness of this particular account
seems to have escaped the notice of others as well.
5
See the groundbreaking prospographic work of P. Steinkeller, “The Date of Gudea and his
Dynasty,” JCS 40 (1988) pp. 47–53 and the summary of the evidence and debate in Suter,
Temple Building pp. 15–17. Compare the objections in F. Carroué, “La situation chro-
nologique de Lagaå II: Un élément du dossier,” ASJ 16 (1994) pp. 47–75, who argues that
Gudea’s reign in Lagash must have preceded that of Ur-Namma in Ur. See also the remarks in
Jacobsen, Harps p. 386; J. Klein, “From Gudea to Åulgi: Continuity and Change in Sumerian
Literary Tradition,” in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-
A: Studies in Honor of Åke Sjöberg (=Studies Sjöberg; OPSNKF 11; Philadelphia 1989) p.
289 n. 3; and RIME 3/1 p. 3. See also the summary of the ongoing debate over the dating of
Gudea’s reign and the reading of “Ur-Namma” rather than Ur-Nammu in E. Flückiger-
Hawker, Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition (=Urnamma of Ur; Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 166; Fribourg and Göttingen 1999) pp. 1–9.
6
For example, see D. Charpin, “The History of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Overview,” in J.
M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 2 (=CANE 2; New York 1995) p.
808.
7
RIME 3/1 pp. 27–28. On the overall discussion of Mesopotamian chronology, see F. H.
Cryer, “Chronology: Issues and Problems,” in CANE 2 pp. 656–659. I thank my colleague K.
Lawson Younger for giving me access to his unpublished paper on “Chronology of the An-
cient Near East” (2007), in which he brings the discussion up to date and presents the calcula-
tions in some detail.
Temple Building among the Sumerians and Akkadians (Third Millennium) 5
The royal hymn Ur-Namma B, for example, recounts Ur-Namma’s restoration

and dedication of Enlil’s temple Ekur in Nippur.8 Other Sumerian textual sources
include Presargonic royal inscriptions9 and Ur III royal inscriptions.10 Understanda-
bly, there are not many temple building texts from the third (as compared to the sec-
ond) millennium in the Akkadian language, but a few appear in Sargonic royal in-
scriptions, myths, or legends.11 Although many of the inscriptions only recount that
this or that ruler (re)built a particular temple for a particular deity, there are in-
stances where important details or patterns appear.
We will begin our survey of the evidence with the contributions from prehistoric
(fifth and fourth millennium) and third millennium archaeology of Mesopotamian
temples and temple building (that is, detectable patterns of temple architecture and
construction procedures over time, foundation deposits, etc.). Images on stelae,
monuments, plaques, seals, and other surfaces are also of importance, some of which
include limited texts as well.12 We will begin, therefore, with a brief review of the
archaeology and the pictorial images related to temple building and move from there
to the main textual sources from the third millennium.13 The limitations of this chap-
ter, of course, will not allow for detailed treatment of every aspect of third millen-
nium temple building in all these sources, textual and non-textual. The intent is to
provide an overview and yet say more on some of the more important, difficult, or
debated issues.
8
For helpful editions and commentary, see J. Klein, “Building and Dedication Hymns in
Sumerian Literature,” ASJ 11 (1989) pp. 44–56; and Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur pp.
183–203.
9
See the translations and notes throughout J. S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal In-
scriptions, I: Presargonic Inscriptions (=SARI 1; New Haven 1986). For text editions and
commentary, see RIME 1; and H. Steible, Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, 2
vols. (=ASBW; FAOS 5/1–2; Stuttgart 1982). Temple building inscriptions appear from the
earliest of these inscriptions to the latest, from Me-salim of Kish (ca. 2550 BC; RIME 1 pp.
69–71 E1.8.1.1–3; and Cooper, SARI 1 p. 19) to URU-KA-gina of Lagash (ca. 2350 BC;
RIME 1 pp. 245–287 E1.9.9.1–14; and Cooper, SARI 1 p. 77).
10
See throughout RIME 3/2.
11
See RIME 2 pp. 114, 187, 190, 234, 236–237, 267, 275, and 301, especially pp. 140, 192–
193, 264–265, and 268. There is also the reference to Narâm-Sïn’s failed ambition to rebuild
the Ekur temple of Enlil in Nippur in the late Ur III Sumerian composition known as the
Curse of Agade; see J. S. Cooper, The Curse of Agade (=Curse; Baltimore and London 1983)
p. 55 lines 94–99. See also certain parallels in the Standard Babylonian edition of the Cuthean
Legend of Narâm-Sïn in J. G. Westenholz, Legends of the Kings of Akkade (=Legends; MC
7; Winona Lake 1997) p. 295 and pp. 317–323 lines 72–127. The Akkadian composition Erra
and Narâm-Sïn lines 26–72 also contributes to the discussion; see Westenholz, Legends pp.
189–201.
12
See in particular Suter, Temple Building.
13
I thank McGuire Gibson and Clemens Reichel of the Oriental Institute, University of Chi-
cago, and Richard Zettler of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, for their
generosity in discussing the archaeology of third millennium (and earlier) temples with me
and pointing me to important resources. Of course, the very brief discussion offered here does
not do justice to their expertise on the subject.
From the Prehistoric to the Historical Archaeology of Temple Building

The temple in Babylonia was essentially a house, Sumerian e (written é) and Ak-
kadian b!tu.14 The terminology used was the same down through the millennia and
the basic functions of the temple as a household, or “temple estate,” so to speak,
remained the same as well. The basic tripartite plan for both domestic homes and
temples (a long inside room entered through the long side and rows of outer rooms
on either side) continued in use from at least the Ubaid Period (ca. fifth millennium)
through the Uruk Period (ca. fourth millennium) and even in the third millennium,
in the Early Dynastic/Presargonic Period (ca. 2900–2350 BC).15
The earliest houses and temples were discovered, in fact, at Eridu, which is espe-
cially important to us here. Later temple building traditions attach great importance
to Enki, the chief god of Eridu, as the one in charge of major elements of temple
construction and dedication;16 this is clear in the Gudea Cylinders and other texts,
and these will be discussed in more detail below. During the latter part of the Early
Dynastic Period, however, the courtyard temple came into prominence (a central
open courtyard with rooms on all sides). Some temples had multiple courtyards.
During the Early Dynastic Period, we have the “oval temple” style, so named by the
large curving oval wall that surrounded the temple precinct as a whole. However, we
know very little about the arrangement of actual temple buildings within these larger
temple precincts. The “platform temple” is known from the Ubaid Period down
through Mesopotamian history. It was built upon an elevated area and approached
by steps. Finally, the ziqqurrat is a specific kind of platform temple built in stages
approached by sets of stairs leading from one stage to the next. The temple shrine
was apparently located atop the final stage, although none of these have been found
in excavations.
Sociologically, the temple as a household in ancient Sumer was able to organize
life and society in a way that would have made sense to people in all levels of soci-
ety.17 Everyone fits into some kind of household, whether urban or not, whether elite
14
E. Sollberger, “The Temple in Babylonia,” in Le Temple et le Culte (PIHANS 37; Leiden
1975) pp. 31–34; and M. Roaf, “Palaces and Temples in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in CANE 1
p. 425.
15
For example, see Roaf, CANE 1 p. 428; J. -C. Margueron, “Temples: Mesopotamian Tem-
ples,” in E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 5
(=Oxford Encyclopedia; New York and Oxford 1997) pp. 165–167; and Y. Okada, “An Ar-
chitectural Innovation of the Temple Style: Sumerian to Babylonian,” in K. Watanabe (ed.),
Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East (Heidelberg 1999) pp. 47–60. See also G. Em-
berling, “Political Control in an Early State: The Eye Temple and the Uruk Expansion in
Northern Mesopotamia,” in L. Al-Gailani Werr, J. Curtis, H. Martin, A. McMahon, J. Oates,
and J. Reade (eds.), Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopota-
mia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday (=Pots and Plans;
London 2002) pp. 84–86; and D. G. Youkhanna, and H. A. Wahed, “Temple ‘H’ at Umm al
Aqarib,” in Pots and Plans pp. 381–385. For the possibility that this architectural style goes
back to the even earlier (sixth millennium) Samarra Period, see J. -D. Forest, “Aux origines
de l’architecture obeidienne: les plans de type samarra,” Akkadica 34 (1983) pp. 1–47.
16
For example, see M. Roaf, “Ubaid Houses and Temples,” Sumer 43 (1984) pp. 80–90;
Roaf, CANE 1 pp. 423–431; and Margueron, Oxford Encyclopedia 5 p. 166.
17
Margueron, Oxford Encyclopedia 5 p. 165 emphasizes the importance of the analogical
connection between regular houses for human occupation and the house (temple) of the deity.
or common, or anything in between. The temple, therefore, was able to unify society
functionally. Households, whether human or divine, worked for the common good
under some kind of head of the household.
Analogically, the temple was a household of a divine couple and family with a
divine staff.18 For the textual tradition in this regard see, for example, the induction
of the divine household staff in Gudea Cyl. B vi 11–xii 25. The gods even took their
respective parts in the building of the temple on the divine level (for example, see
Gudea Cyl. A xx 15–20). The temple was a central place of worship and service to
the god(s) around which the village, town, city-state, or regional polity oriented and
organized themselves. It also provided an orientation to the larger realities that sur-
rounded them in nature. Thus, the temple as the house(hold) of a deity integrated
the various elements of their world into a single understandable whole.
This integrative role of the temple included a “curatorial” function in the sense
that it preserved and perpetuated their accumulated religious traditions. Temple
building texts in particular were natural conservators of temple and temple building
traditions. There were at least three general levels of such temple (building) tradi-
tions. First, the various temples preserved their own peculiar local religious tradi-
tions, some of which never saw the light of day in official inscriptions or literary
compositions, but are reflected in cultic inventories and administrative texts.19 Sec-
ond, each temple household estate would conserve its own traditions regarding the
major god and/or goddess of the particular temple.20 In the Gudea Cylinders, for
example, this is the Eninnu (“House Fifty”), which was the temple of the patron
deity of the Lagash city-state, Ningirsu, and his consort Baba (Ba-Ú, taking Ú =
ba6).
The third level of curation was that of the larger Sumerian religious tradition that
crossed over the boundaries between city-states. Sometime during the early part of
the third millennium there was a shift of power and influence from the southern al-
luvium to the northern alluvium. Kish became recognized as the political center and
For more on the (prehistoric) archaeology, sociology, and integrative curatorial role of tem-
ples in ancient Mesopotamia discussed only briefly here, see R. E. Averbeck, “The Third
Millennium Temple: War and Peace in History and Religion,” in H. Neumann (ed.), Krieg
und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien (AOAT; Münster forthcoming). See also there a review of
the current state of prehistoric Mesopotamian archaeology in which it is generally argued
these days that the Uruk Period stretches across most of the fourth millennium and involves
an empire-like expansion far beyond the boundaries of southern Mesopotamia.
18
See the discussion, for example, in T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of
Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven and London 1976) pp. 81–84. For the overall theoreti-
cal background, see R. E. Averbeck, “Daily Life and Culture in ‘Enki and the World Order’
and Other Sumerian Literary Compositions,” in R. E. Averbeck, M. W. Chavalas, and D. B.
Weisberg (eds.), Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East (Bethesda 2003) pp. 24–30; and
R. E. Averbeck, “Myth, Ritual, and Order in ‘Enki and the World Order’,” JAOS 123 (2003)
pp. 759 and 767–771.
19
This is what Gebhard Selz calls the “older traditions of independent local panthea”; see G.
Selz, “Studies in Early Syncretism: The Development of the Pantheon in Lagaå, Examples for
Inner-Sumerian Syncretism,” ASJ 12 (1990) p. 121. This article summarizes the results of his
dissertation published as G. Selz, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen
Sdadtstaates Lagaå (Philadelphia 1995).
20
Selz has traced these developments for the Lagash city-state; see Selz, ASJ 12 pp. 118–126
and the map on p. 127.
Nippur the religious center of Sumer. Enlil, the patron deity at Nippur, therefore,
rose to prominence in the Sumerian pantheon. The temple household estate analogy
continued as the core of the religious tradition and the city-state ruler was the politi-
cal, economic, administrative, and military head of the temple estate. The Nippur
tradition, however, brought it all together under the umbrella of Enlil, the chief god
of the Sumerian pantheon in the third millennium. The extant third millennium
sources for the religion (archaeological, pictorial, and written) reflect this priority of
Nippur and Enlil.
The pinnacle of the ruler’s involvement in temple religion was, of course, the
actual building, restoring, or rebuilding of temples. Obviously, there could be no
temple cult without a temple. The building of a temple was the most important ritual
of them all and, in fact, was marked and managed as a multifaceted ritual procedure
in which the ruler’s importance was well-displayed. The structure of the account
given in the Gudea Cylinders displays the ritual nature of the entire temple construc-
tion and dedication procedure from beginning to end.
Pictorial Images
Gudea Cyl. A xxii 24–xxiv 7 recounts the setting up of the stone stelae that Claudia
Suter has treated.21 From these stelae fragments, she has reconstructed scenes pictur-
ing people on parade bearing their standards, transportation of construction materi-
als, the actual construction itself, temple equipment, percussion instruments and
musical performances, libation scenes, presentation scenes, and divine combat
scenes. She also compares these fragments with other pictorial evidence as a way of
determining the repertoire of scenes that could conceivably be reconstructed from
the Gudea stelae fragments. The Ur-Namma Stela picturing that ruler’s construction
of a temple is especially important,22 but other images from seals, door plaques, ste-
lae, etc. contribute to the discussion.
Suter’s collection of pictorial evidence is impressive. Although she admits that
her “reconstruction must remain conjectural” because of the poor state of preserva-
tion of many of the fragments,23 much of her restoration is quite convincing and use-
ful for comparison with the literary accounts of temple building, especially the
Gudea Cylinders and Statues. Specific connections between the stelae images and
these literary accounts will be cited in the treatment of the latter below. Suter ob-
serves that the Gudea Cylinders present the ruler, Gudea himself, as the primary
agent of the action along with many of the gods, while the stelae present him as an
initiator and overseer of the action that was carried out by the human laborers that
populate the scenes or a limited number of deities. She suggests, therefore, that the
21
Suter, Temple Building, pp. 177–207; for a translation of these lines, see pp. 395–396. She
describes the extant fragments of these stelae and her reconstruction of the scenes on pp. 225–
268.
22
Suter, Temple Building pp. 217–220, with the pictures and the proposed reconstructions of
various scholars illustrated on pp. 244–350. Now, see also J. F. Canby, The “Urnammu” Stela
(University Museum Monographs 110; Philadelphia 2001). As it turns out, Suter is not
pleased with Canby’s work; see C. E. Suter, “Review of The ‘Urnammu’ Stela, by Jeanny
Vorys Canby,” AJA 109 (2004) pp. 301–303.
23
Suter, Temple Building p. 209.
pictorial images present the project in a more realistic manner.24 Another reason the
Gudea Cylinders focus special attention on the ruler and so many of the gods is that
the composition focuses on ritual performances for which the participation of the
ruler was of central importance and the cooperation of the pantheon was the major
subject of concern (see more on this below).
Foundation Deposits
The standard work on foundation deposits is still Ellis’ book, although other impor-
tant work has been done since then. The evidence from the prehistoric and proto-
literate periods is scant. The bones of feline predators covered over with bitumen
were buried in a space reserved for them at the eastern corner of the White Temple
in Uruk, and there may be parallel glyptic evidence as well as later textual evidence
for this as a foundation deposit.25 The nature of leopards and lions and their associa-
tion with doors and gates could suggest not only the groaning of temple doors as
they swing in their pivots, but also some kind of apotropaic protective function.26
There are those who assume that the main purpose of “peg deposits” was
apotropaic magic,27 but there are good reasons to doubt this, especially the fact that
the inscriptions on them seem more dedicatory or commemorative than magical. Of
course, this does not eliminate the possibility that they may have served an
apotropaic function in some place(s) or at some stage(s) in their development.28 The
kings of Agade do not seem to have made such peg deposits, although a very limited
number of them do appear in a few peripheral locations during the Old Akkadian
Period.29 Peg deposits became the most prevalent kind of foundation deposit begin-
ning in the Presargonic/Early Dynastic II Period and with inscriptions in Early Dy-
nastic III down through the Ur III Period.30
One foundation deposit made up of a copper or bronze figurine of a kneeling god
holding a peg that protruded below it along with a stone tablet were found in a clay
jar below the surviving corner of Ur-Baba’s Eninnu (the father-in-law and predeces-
sor of Gudea).31 The inscription on the peg figurine recounts his construction of the
Eninnu and the tablet records the building of other buildings as well.32 A copper or
bronze peg in a foundation deposit usually included along with it a plano-convex
stone tablet. Both the peg and the stone tablet were regularly placed and sealed in-
side a foundation box made of baked bricks: the peg stood up and the tablet laid flat.
24
Suter, Temple Building p. 282.
25
Ellis, Foundation Deposits pp. 42–44.
26
E. A. Braun-Holzinger, “Apotropaic Figures at Mesopotamian Temples in the Third and
Second Millennia,” in T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic: Tex-
tual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (=Mesopotamian Magic; Groningen 1999) pp.
152–158; and F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts (CM
1; Groningen 1992) pp. 145–162, 169–174, and 185–186.
27
Braun-Holzinger, Mesopotamian Magic p. 152.
28
Consider, for example, the bronze peg with a lion on top from Urkesh during the Old Ak-
kadian Period; see Ellis, Foundation Deposits p. 57.
29
Ellis, Foundation Deposits pp. 57 and 155–156.
30
31
See Ellis, Foundation Deposits figs. 14–20.
32
Gudea deposited three different kinds of copper figurines: (1) pegs with kneeling
god figurines like the those of Ur-Baba (described above), (2) pegs with bovines
lying down, and (3) canephorous figurines (a man carrying a work basket on his
head), pegged and pegless.33 The canephoric image of a ruler is first seen on the Ur-
Nanåe door plaque from the mid-third millennium.34
The pegged form of the canephorous figurine foundation deposits seems to com-
bine the basic image with the function of pegs in the actual building of temples. It is
especially significant that, when found in situ, these foundation deposits are charac-
teristically placed at wall junctures and doorways.35 As Zettler puts it, “baked brick
boxes were located at points important in terms of the engineered layout and con-
struction of temples, and meaningful in terms of the functioning of temples.”36 The
connections will be discussed in the coordination of these archaeological remains
with the temple building procedures described in the textual sources treated in the
remainder of this chapter.37
Temple Building Accounts: Construction, Dedication, and Ritual Patterns

Over the last twenty years, several studies have increased our understanding of the
overall structure of ancient Near Eastern temple building accounts. Victor Huro-
witz, for example, compared the biblical accounts of the construction and dedication
of the tabernacle and temple with those in Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic
texts. One of the main compositions on which he based this comparison was the
Gudea Cylinders. According to Hurowitz, the general pattern falls into five main
stages: (1) the decision to build, with an expression of divine sanction (Cyl. A i–
xii); (2) preparations for the building, including materials, workers, and laying
foundations (Cyl. A xiii–xx); (3) the description of the construction process, the
buildings, and their furnishings (Cyl. A xxi–xxx); (4) dedication prayers and fes-
tivities (Cyl. B i–xviii); and (5) divine promises and blessings for the ruler (Cyl. B
xix–xxiv).38
Jacob Klein reached similar conclusions, but with some important variations, in
his proposed identification and analysis of a subgenre of Sumerian royal hymns that
he calls “building and dedication hymns.” This subgenre includes the Gudea Cylin-
ders and three other extant compositions.39 Like Hurowitz, the structure has five
33
34
See Suter, Temple Building pp. 61, 219, 222–224, and especially p. 253 fig. 37; and R. L.
Zettler, “From Beneath the Temple: Inscribed Objects from Ur,” Expedition 28/3 (1986) p.
34.
35
For example, see Ellis, Foundation Deposits p. 63; and Zettler, Expedition 28/3 pp. 30, 33,
and 35. Clay cylinders were also found buried beneath a floor in the temple of the goddess
Nimintabba at Ur during the Ur III Period; see Zettler, Expedition 28/3 pp. 29–32 and 37–38.
36
Zettler, Expedition 28/3 p. 33.
37
Other dedicatory temple building inscriptions appear also on clay bricks, cones, nails as
well as stone objects of various kinds. For example, see Cooper, SARI 1 pp. 52–53; and
RIME 3/1 pp. 107–171.
38
Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 25–26, 32–67, and 129–337.
39
Klein, ASJ 11 pp. 27–28 and 35–36. He sees his analysis as a “slightly modified summary”
of the more detailed structural analysis of A. Falkenstein, Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaå
main elements, but they differ significantly: (1) the commissioning of the building
enterprise (Cyl. A i 1–xii 20); (2) preparations and the building of the temple by
Gudea (Cyl. A xii 21–xxix 12); (3) the praise of the Eninnu (Cyl. A xxix 13–xxx
12); (4) the dedication of the Eninnu (Cyl. B i 1–xx 12); and (5) the blessing of the
Eninnu and Gudea (Cyl. B xx 13–xxiv 8).
Claudia Suter, in her cross disciplinary analysis of the Gudea Cylinders and Stat-
ues along with the Gudea stelae fragments and other pictorial evidence of temple
building scenes (and other images), offers a more nuanced structural analysis of the
Gudea Cylinders as a literary text:40
Part I: The Construction, Cyl. A: (1) The Project, Cyl. A i 1–21; (2) Verification
of the Revelation, Cyl. A i 22–vii 8; (3) Verification of the Commission, Cyl.
A vii 9–xii 19; (4) Construction Preparations, Cyl. A xii 20–xx 12; (5) Con-
struction, Cyl. A xx 13–xxx 5; and (Subscript, Cyl. A xxx 6–16).
Part II: The Inauguration, Cyl. B: (6) Inauguration Preparations, Cyl. B i 1–19;
(7) Induction of Ningirsu and Baba, Cyl. B i 20–vi 3; (8) Induction of
Ningirsu’s Divine Staff, Cyl. B vi 4–xiii 10; (9) Inauguration Presents, Cyl. B
xiii 11–xvi 2; (10) Inauguration Banquet, Cyl. B xvi 3–xxiv 8; and (Subscript,
Cyl. B xxiv 9–17).
Suter does a good job of following movements within this poetic narrative as a liter-
ary masterpiece, something along the line of Falkenstein’s earlier structural out-
line.41 Both Falkenstein and Suter develop additional subdivisions under most of the
main headings.
All these outlines are valid from their particular perspective and have value for
understanding the Gudea Cylinders. My own analysis has led me to see this compo-
sition from a procedural point of view. The temple construction and dedication
processes recounted here are guided along and carried forward by rituals and other
pious activities. The highest level structural break, of course, is between Cylinder A
(the construction of the Eninnu) and Cylinder B (the dedication of the Eninnu).
Both Cylinders begin with a prologue (Cyl. A i 1–11 and Cyl. B i 1–11) and end
with an epilogue (Cyl. A xxx 6–14 and Cyl. B xxiv 9–15), followed immediately by
a colophon (Cyl. A xxx 15–16 and Cyl. B xxiv 16–17). This distinction between
construction and dedication corresponds to the two scenes on the Presargonic Ur-
Nanåe door plaque: (1) construction on the top (and left), with the ruler carrying the
work basket on his head; and (2) dedication on the bottom (and right), picturing the
ruler at a celebration banquet.42
(=Inschriften; AnOr 30; Rome 1966) pp. 180–181. See the more detailed evaluation and re-
sponse to Falkenstein, Hurowitz, and Klein, Crossing Boundaries pp. 59–65.
40
Suter, Temple Building pp. 79–82.
41
Falkenstein, Inschriften pp. 180–181: Zylinder A: I. Einleitung I 1–9; II. Auftrag zum Bau
des Eninnu I 10–VII 8; III. Vorbereitung vor dem Baubeginn VII 9–XII 20; IV. Vorbereitung
des Baus XII 21–XVII 1?; V. Bau des Eninnu XVII 2?–XXIX 12; and VI. Pries des Eninnu
XXIX 13–XXX 14. Zylinder B: I. Preis des Eninnu I 1–11; II. Vorbereitung der Inthronisa-
tion Ningirsus und Babas im neuen Eninnu I 12–IV 24; III. Einzug Ningirsus und Babas V 1–
VI 10; IV. Ausstattung des Eninnu VI 11–XVII 16; V. Feiern bei der Einweihung des neuen
Eninnu XVII 17–XXIV 8; and VI. Schlusspreis des neuen Eninnu XXIV 9–15.
42
See Suter, Temple Building pp. 61, 219, 222–224, and especially p. 253 fig. 37. For the
labels on the plaque, see Steible, ASBW 1 pp. 82–84 Urnanåe 20; Cooper, SARI 1 pp. 22–23
The main body of the composition subdivides naturally into seven units based on
the five-fold recurrence of a relatively frozen procedural formula.43 The first appear-
ance is in Gudea Cyl. A vii 9–10: sipa-zi gù-dé-a gal mu-zu gal ì-œa-túm-mu, “the
devoted shepherd Gudea had come to know what was important, (so) he proceeded
to do what was important.” The grammar of the formula suggests a shift from the
previous action sequence (ñamøu-verb) to a new one (marÿ-verb) on the part of
Gudea, thus making the transition from one main unit to the next through the entire
composition.44 This yields the following comprehensive seven-part literary structure
for the main body of the Gudea Cylinders:
Cylinder A:
(1) Initial dream and its interpretation (Cyl. A i 12–vii 8; formula vii 9–10).
(2) Incubation of a second dream (Cyl. A vii 11–xii 19; reduced formula xii 20).
(3) Construction of the new Eninnu (Cyl. A xii 21–xxv 21; formula xxv 22–23).
(4) Furnishing, decorating, supplying, and praising the temple complex (Cyl. A
xxv 24–xxx 5).
Cylinder B:
(5) Preparations for the induction of Ningirsu and his consort, Baba, into the
new Eninnu (Cyl. B i 12–ii 6; formula ii 7–8).
(6) Induction of Ningirsu and Baba into the new Eninnu (Cyl. B ii 7–xiii 10; ex-
panded formula xiii 11–13).
La 1.2; and RIME 1 pp. 83–84 E1.9.1.2. Suter misunderstood my view when she wrote that I
viewed Cylinders A and B as “two separable compositions” (p. 76 n. 35). Anyone who works
on this text knows that they go together. What I wrote is that “in a sense, they were conceived
of as separate compositions” because of the parallel hymns and colophons at the end of each;
see Averbeck, Ritual and Structure p. 262. To this I might add the importance of the pro-
logues at the beginning of each (Cyl. A i 1–11 and B i 1–11). Cylinder A is about the con-
struction of the temple and Cylinder B the consecration and habitation of it.
43
Although Suter objects to this understanding of the structure in her dissertation and then
later in her book (Suter, Temple Building p. 78 and n. 53), she recognizes the significance of
the recurrence of this and the other formula to be treated below (Suter, Temple Building pp.
129–130 nn. 286–287). For a detailed response to her objections, see Averbeck, Crossing
Boundaries pp. 64–65 n. 71. The analysis of the formula itself and its use in other texts is also
discussed there (pp. 64–71). See also the brief summary in Averbeck, COS 2 pp. 421–422 n.
18. The fact of the matter is that Suter herself recognizes that at least some of the occurrences
of the formula appear at important seams in the text (for example, see p. 86 on Cyl. A vii 9–
10 and xii 20, and p. 99 on Cyl. B xiii 11–13). In my opinion, this is simply too conspicuous
to be ignored and I argue in favor of using this formula as a more emic basis for determining
the literary structure of the text as well as the stages in the actual construction and dedication
of the temple as presented in it. The text shapes itself by this means and we should take that
seriously. The occurrences of this procedural formula lead from one unit of activity to the
next, sometimes ritual activity and sometimes regular building activities of other kinds. The
overall effect is that that the whole process is carried along by the ongoing focus on the will
and participation of the gods, especially Ningirsu. This text presents the temple construction
and dedication process managed as a whole with pious propriety, which in the end makes the
whole and every element of it a religious procedure above all.
44
See the explanation of the grammar and lexicography in Averbeck, Crossing Boundaries p.
67 n. 73, now with D. O. Edzard, Sumerian Grammar (HdO 71; Leiden and Boston 2003) pp.
123–127. For the steps in the sequence, see Averbeck, COS 2 pp. 421–422 n. 18, and the
literature cited there.
(7) Housewarming celebration of the induction of Ningirsu and Baba into the
new Eninnu (Cyl. B xiii 14–xxiv 8).
In fact, a second formula breaks the complicated third section of Cylinder A (that is,
the actual construction of the new Eninnu) down into five or perhaps six subunits
(the uncertainty here is the result of a break in the text, see below). This formula
appears first in Gudea Cyl. A xiv 5–6: sipa-zi gù-dé-a ñúl-la-gim im-ma-na-ni-íb-
œar, “for the devoted shepherd, Gudea, it was cause for rejoicing.” The following
units of action result from the occurrences of this formula within the third main sec-
tion of the composition:
(a) Preparation for making the decreed brick (xii 21–xiv 4; formula xiv 5–6).
[?Gathering raw materials and laborers (xiv 7–xvii 2; formula perhaps in the
break, xvii 3–4)?.] 45
(b) Surveying and demarcating the future sacred precinct (xvii 5–27; reduced
formula xvii 28).
(c) Making and presenting the decreed brick (xvii 29–xx 3; reduced formula xx
4).
(d) Divinatory confirmation of the architectural plan of the temple (xx 5–11; re-
duced formula xx 12).46
(e) Building the new Eninnu (xx 13–xxv 21).
Both formulas reflect the overall procedural nature of the composition itself as
well as the building and dedication activities recounted in it. The text takes us step
by step through the process from beginning to end. The whole procedure is saturated
with and, to a substantial degree, guided by the various individual ritual practices,
some of which recur repeatedly at key points along the way (for example, prayers,
the offerings that accompany them, dream incubations, extispicies, etc.). These rit-
ual practices combined with the actual work of preparing the construction area, col-
lecting the raw materials, procuring the labor force, constructing the edifice itself,
furnishing it properly, and setting up the household functions of the temple lead to
the induction of the divine couple into their new home and the celebrations that go
with it.
As noted previously, Gudea Statue B recounts the same construction of the E-
ninnu without all the rituals and hymnic elaborations. The ritual procedures incorpo-
rated into the statue inscription establish the regular cult of the statue itself, begin-
ning with the introduction (Stat. B i 1–20). This unit is all about the statue, not the
temple per se. Similarly, the latter part of the inscription records ritual pronounce-
ments of the name of the statue and its functions (Stat. B vii 47–59) and, finally,
various protective curses against anyone who would efface the statue or alter its in-
scription (Stat. B vii 60–xix 30).47 The account of the temple construction is framed
by these concerns for the statue itself. Moreover, there is no account of the dedica-
tion of the temple given in Gudea Statue B (contrast Gudea Cylinder B). Perhaps
this is because of the focus on the dedication of the statue itself.
45
The text is broken at xvii 1–4, right at the point where a second shift seems to occur in the
poetic narrative. The formula may occur again, therefore, in xvii 3–4.
46
Averbeck, irossing Boundaries pp. 71–76 offers a more detailed explanation; compare also
Averbeck, COS 2 p. 425 n. 35.
47
See the discussion of this curse passage in Klein, Studies Sjöberg pp. 296–299.
For purposes of clarity, therefore, in the treatment of the textual materials about
temple building it is important to make certain distinctions in this chapter. First, we
need to distinguish between the two main parts of temple building: (1) construction
of the temple and (2) dedication/occupation of the temple. Second, depending on
the nature of the text, there are two major elements in the accounts: (1) the actual
construction and dedication work and (2) the rituals associated with the work.
Third, it is important to take the genre of the text into consideration. On the one
hand, a temple building “hymn” will have hymnic praises inserted along the way
(for example, the Gudea Cylinders) and these will serve an important function in
reading the text as well. A dedicatory “inscription,” on the other hand, may well
include cultic prescriptions and curse formulas for the provision and protection of
the inscribed object (for example, Gudea Statue B).
Commission and Guidance for Building the Temple

Gudea Stat. B ii 1–iii 11 introduces Gudea as the temple builder chosen by Ningirsu
(and supported by other important deities) to construct his new Eninnu; the same
theme occurs for Ur-Namma’s commission from Enlil in Ur-Namma B lines 9–13,
where it is especially associated with the ruler’s preparation of the brick-mold.48
Gudea Stat. B iii 12 then picks up the report at the point of the actual construction of
the new Eninnu, which corresponds to the third main section of Cylinder A (xii 20–
xxv 19; see later in this chapter). The account of the initial dream and its interpreta-
tion (Cyl. A i 12–vii 8; see the procedural formula in vii 9–10) and the incubation of
a second dream (Cyl. A vii 9–xii 19; see the formula as it appears in xii 20), the
main substance of the first two major sections of the Gudea Cylinders, are not in-
cluded in Gudea Statue B. We will treat the procedures in these two units of Cylin-
der A together in this discussion.
According to Gudea Stat. B iii 6–14, Gudea built the new Eninnu in response to
being selected by Ningirsu to be the ruler of Lagash:
6) u4 dnin-œír-su-ke4 When Ningirsu
7) iri-ni-åè igi-zi im-åi-bar-ra looked at his city with favor,
8) gù-dé-a he called Gudea
9) sipa-zi-åè kalam-ma (as) the true shepherd in the land (and),
ba-ni-pà-da-a
10) åà-lú-ÅÁR¯U-gunÿ-ta from the midst of 216,000 people,
11) åu-ni ba-ta-an-dab5-ba-a he grasped his hand,
12) iri mu-kù izi im-ma-ta-lá (then) he (Gudea) did purify
the city, cleansed it with fire,
13) GIÅ.ù-åub mu-œar prepared the brick-mold,
14) sig4 máå-e bí-pà (and) selected the brick by extispicy.
48
Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur p. 189 lines 9–12. The Sumerian epic Enmerkar and the
Lord of Aratta derives from Enmerkar’s pious intent to build temples and the divine commis-
sion for him to do so; see Jacobsen, Harps pp. 275–319, which is based on the full edition by
S. Cohen, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (=Enmerkar; Ph.D. diss. University of Pennsylva-
nia 1973).
Gudea was the son-in-law, not the son, of the previous ruler Ur-Baba,49 but there
seems to be no question regarding his legitimacy as the successor to the throne. His
extensive temple building follows in the footsteps of his father-in-law (see the Ur-
Baba Statue),50 but Gudea goes far beyond him and virtually all other ancient Meso-
potamian rulers in temple building piety and literary accounts of it in his cylinders,
statues, and other media.
It is important to note that there is no actual building work done in the first two
sections of Gudea Cylinder A. The emphasis is on ritual procedures. The goal was to
discern the will of Ningirsu regarding the nature of the temple and the details of the
building plan and to gain and respond to the support of other deities for an effica-
cious building and dedication of the new temple.
Provision of Fertility and Abundance

Ningirsu’s favor toward Lagash mentioned in Gudea Stat. B iii 6–7 (cited above) is
echoed and expanded in Gudea Cyl. A i 1–3 (note especially line 3):
1) u4 a[n-k]i-a nam tar-[re-d]a On a day when destiny was being
decreed in heaven and earth,
2) laga[å.KI]-«e» me-gal-la [saœ] Lagash lifted (its) head toward
an-åè mi-ni-íb-íl heaven in great stature,
3) en-líl-e en-dnin-œír-sú-åè
d
(and) Enlil looked at the lord
igi-zi mu-åi-bar Ningirsu with favor.
The passage goes on to describe this favor in terms of the overflowing of the Tigris
river that brought fertilizing waters to the fields of the Lagash city-state (Cyl. A i 5–
9):
5) åà gú-bé nam-gi4 Surely the heart did overflow,
6) åà-den-líl-lá gú-bé nam-gi4 surely the heart of Enlil did overflow,
7) åà gú-bé nam-gi4 surely the heart did overflow,
8) a-œi6-uru16 nam-mul ní-íl-íl surely the flood water did shine
brightly, rising awesomely,
9) åà-den-líl-lá-ke4 ÍD.idigna-àm surely the heart of Enlil, being the
a-du10-ga nam-túm Tigris river, did bring sweet water.
Temple building was a very costly proposition to begin with, so the fertility and
abundance that resulted from this overflow was essential for the successful comple-
tion of such projects; see the same provision of prosperity in relation to Ur-
Namma’s reconstruction of Enlil’s Ekur in Nippur.51
It is significant that this abundance was provided from the overflow of Enlil’s
heart toward his son Ningirsu and the city-state Lagash, of which the latter was the
patron deity. Enlil appears twenty-six times in the Gudea Cylinders; three in the
prologue (cited above). Enlil takes an active role again only near the end of Cylin-
der B: he participates in the divine dedication banquet (xix 16–21) and decrees a
49
RIME 3/1 p. 15.
50
RIME 3/1 pp. 18–19 E3/1.1.6.4; for a translation of the building ritual passage, see p. 146
of this volume.
51
Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur p. 190 lines 14–16.
great destiny for Lagash because of the greatness of Ningirsu and the Eninnu (xxiv
11). All other references to Enlil are in descriptive statements, epithets of Ningirsu
(for example, he is the son of Enlil), etc. Enlil’s active involvement in the process of
building the temple, in effect, surrounds the building of the Eninnu with Enlil’s ap-
proval both textually and conceptually. This is a manifestation of the third level cu-
ratorial effect of temple (building) traditions summarized in the archaeological sec-
tion of this chapter (see above). The building of the temple for the patron deity of
Lagash required the approval and support of the patron deity of all Sumer.
The emphasis on fertility and prosperity surfaces not only at the beginning of the
composition, but at important points along the way. For example, the end of the
third main section Gudea Cylinder A echoes the prologue cited above (xxv 20–
21):52
20) mu-dù åu im-ta-œar-ra-ta He (Gudea) had built (the temple); after
he had finished it
21) åà-dinœir-re-ne gú-bé the heart of the gods did overflow.
gi4-a-àm
See also the promise of prosperity and abundance in Ningirsu’s answer to Gudea in
his first incubated dream (Cyl. A xi 1–17).
The Wise and Pious Ruler

A divine commission was, of course, necessary for the ruler to legitimately take on
the building of a temple. According to Gudea Stat. B iii 10–11, Ningirsu “grasped
him (Gudea) by the hand” (åu-ni ba-ta-an-dab5-ba-a) from amid the human multi-
tude; see also the similar theme in Ur-Namma B.53 The emphasis on the piety and
wisdom of the ruler appears immediately after the prologue in Gudea Cylinder A (i
12–14; compare similarly Cyl. B i 12–14):
12) énsi lú-œèåtu-daœal-kam The ruler, being a man of wide wisdom,
œèåtu ì-œá-œá was paying close attention,
13) níœ-gal-gal-la åu mi-ni-mú-mú lauding (Ningirsu) with all great things,
14) gu4-du7 [m]áå-du7-re6 si properly arranging perfect ox and perfect
im-sá-sá-e he-goat (for sacrifice).
The need for a divine call or at least divine permission to build a temple is well-
established. According to the Curse of Agade, for example, Narâm-Sïn requested
permission to build a temple for Inanna in Agade, but it was denied to him through
repeated divination.54
Discovering the Divine Intent

Aside from the original commission to build the temple, which was delivered to
Gudea through a symbolic dream, the subsequent message dreams and other types of
52
See the further elaboration of this theme in Averbeck, Crossing Boundaries p. 79.
53
54
Regarding lines 55–65, 83–87, and 94–101, see Cooper, Curse pp. 54–55, 239–240, and
244.
divinatory occasions recorded in Gudea Cyl. A i–xx provided badly needed informa-
tion for the ruler as he piously sought to fulfill the commission. This need for further
information can be understood best by focusing on the usage of two sets of two
Sumerian terms and the relationships between them. They are:
inim “word, command, commission; matter” (Akk. aw/m"tu general range of
meanings “word, utterance; story, interpretation, thought, plan; content;
command, order, decision; legal case; matter, affair, thing”) and
åà “heart, mind; intention, meaning” (Akk. libbu “heart, abdomen; inside [of
building, person, etc.]; mind, thought, intention, desire”)
and their relationship to:
œiå-ñur “design, plan, sketch” (Akk. uæurtu “drawing, sketch, plan”; and giåñuru
“plan, model, archetype” [a relatively late Sumerian loanword in Akkadian])
and
(œ)iskim “sign, signal” (Akk. ittu “mark, sign, feature, characteristic, diagram;
omen, sign, signal, inside information, password; notice, acknowledgement,
written proof”; tukultu “trust, confidence; sign of confidence; help, support,
assistance”; and giskimmu “sign, omen” [Sumerian loanword in Akkadian]).
These words and their patterns of usage clarify the content of the dreams and their
interplay with the other ritual procedures and the stages of the temple building proc-
ess. Basically, inim “command” and åà “meaning, intention, or desire” relate to
Gudea’s need for revelation and the œiå-ñur “plan, design” is that which he needed
to have revealed. The term (œ)iskim “sign, signal” has more to do with the regula-
tion of the actual temple building process, especially oracular experiences and other
divinatory procedures.
The original call and commission came to Gudea through a relatively enigmatic
symbolic dream (Cyl. A i 17–21):
17) lugal-ni-ir u4-dè maå-œi6-ka On that day, in a night vision of his lord,
18) gù-dé-a en-dnin-œír-sú-ra igi Gudea saw the lord Ningirsu.
mu-ni-du8-àm
19) é-a-ni dù-ba!? mu-na-du11 He commanded him to build his temple.
20) é-ninnu me-bé gal-gal-la-àm The Eninnu, its stature being the
greatest,
21) igi mu-na-ni-œar he displayed to him.
It was clear to Gudea that Ningirsu had commissioned him to build the temple, but
the command (inim; for example, in line 25 below) came to him in a symbolic
dream vision. He needed divine help to understand the “meaning” or “intention” (åà;
for example, in line 28 below) of the dream. So he decided to go to Nanåe, the di-
vine interpreter of dreams, saying to himself (Cyl. A i 25–28):
25) inim-ba ña-mu-da-gub May she stand by me in this command!
26) sipa-me nam-nun-né saœ (Since) I am the shepherd, she has entrusted
ma-ab-sì-sì me with the office of authority.
27) nì maå-œi6-ke4 That which the night vision brought
ma-ab-túm-a-œá to me,
28) åà-bi nu-zu I do not know its meaning.
Gudea, therefore, traveled down the river by boat to her temple in NINA/Sirara
to pursue her interpretation of the dream.55 We cannot treat the many details of her
dream interpretation here,56 but in the end she advised Gudea to fashion a finely
adorned war chariot and to offer it as gift to Ningirsu with great pomp and circum-
stance (Cyl. A vi 14–vii 2).57 This would induce Ningirsu to reveal the “plan” (œiå-
ñur) of the temple to Gudea: œiå-ñur-é-a-na ma-ra-pà-pà-dè, “he will reveal the plan
of his temple to you” (Cyl. A vii 6). This brings us to the end of the first main sec-
tion of Cylinder A.
The second main section begins with Gudea’s immediate compliance with
Nanåe’s advice and ends with the incubation of a second dream in order to receive
further understanding from Ningirsu himself. At the end of this dream, we read
(Cyl. A xii 10–19):
10) u4-bi-a á-zu izi bí-tag “In that day, when I have touched your
arm with fire,
11) œiskim-œu10 ña-mu-ù-zu you will surely know my signal.”
12) gù-dé-a ì-zi ù-sa-ga-àm Gudea awoke, having been asleep.
13) ì-ña-luñ ma-mu-dam He trembled, having had a dream.
14) inim-du11-ga- To the command of Ningirsu
d
nin-œír-su-ka-åè
15) saœ sig ba-åi-œar he bowed the head.
16) máå-bábbar-ra åu mu-gíd-dè He reached into the white he-goat.
17) máå-a åu ì-gíd máå-a-ni ì-sa6 He performed an extispicy; his extispicy
was favorable.
18) gù-dé-a åà-dnin-œír-su-ka The heart of Ningirsu,
19) u4-dam mu-na-è being (clear as) daylight, went forth
for Gudea.
This passage assures Gudea that he would receive more “signals” (œiskim) at a later
time, when the need became apparent; that is, when Ningirsu had “touched his arm
with fire.” The interpretation of the latter expression is unsure.58 I have understood it
to be a metaphorical reference to Gudea’s sleepless energetic obsession for building
the temple described in Nanåe’s interpretation of the first dream (Cyl. A vi 9–13)
and experienced by the ruler in Gudea Cyl. A xvii 5–xx 4 (see especially xvii 7–9
55
On the way, he stopped at Gatumdug’s temple in Lagash (Tell al-Ñibâ) to supplicate her
through offerings, prayers, and praises for a successful trip and he spent the night there (Cyl.
A ii 4–iv 2). See the helpful map in Selz, ASJ 12 p. 127.
56
For a brief translation and explanation of the details, see Averbeck, COS 2 pp. 420–421.
57
For the building of a chariot for Ningirsu in the context of temple building, see also an
inscription of En-metena (Cooper, SARI 1 pp. 58–59 La 5.4; and RIME 1 pp. 202–204
E1.9.5.4). The presentation of a sacred chariot to Ninñursag is mentioned in an inscription of
A-Ane-pada of Ur (Cooper, SARI 1 pp. 99–100 Ur 6.4; but the translation of “chariot” is less
certain according to the edition in RIME 1 p. 397 E1.13.6.4:7–9).
58
Landsberger suggested that Gudea would literally have had a burning sensation in his arm;
see B. Landsberger, “Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen
(part 3),” WO 3 (1964–66) p. 72. Jacobsen translated “the fire will touch your borders” (á =
“arm” or “border”). This would correspond to the future purification of the foundation plot by
fire, so the actual construction could begin once the fire reached the borders of the foundation
plot; see Jacobsen, Harps p. 403 n. 56 and Gudea Cyl. A xiii 12–13 sic.
and xix 21–27). It seems that Gudea received clarity about what he needed to know
when he needed to know it, as he walked step by step through the process. The
“plan” or “design” (œiå-ñur) of the temple, for example, was not revealed until the
third section of Cylinder A, after he had already begun the preparations for building
the temple. Then (Cyl. A xvii 15–17):
15) dnisaba-ke4 é-œéåtu-ke4 The house of wisdom Nisaba
16) œál mu-na-tag4 opened for him.
17) é-a den-ki-ke4 œiå-ñur-bé si Enki prepared the plan of the temple
mu-na-sá for him.
The fact of the matter, therefore, is that the full “intention” or “meaning” (åà) of
Ningirsu’s command (inim) did not become clear to Gudea until after the making
and placing of the propitious first brick recounted in the third main section of Cylin-
der A, just before the actual construction of the temple began (Cyl. A xix 28–xx 3;
see more on this third section below):
xix 28) åà-lugal-na u4-dam mu-è The intention of his lord had come forth
like daylight.
xx 1) gù-dé-a-ar inim- The command of Ningirsu was displayed
d
nin-œír-su-ka ùri-àm for Gudea like a banner.
mu-dù
2) åà-gù-di-é-dù-da-ka-na With (regard to) his (Ningirsu’s) intention
that summoned (me) to build
the temple,
3) inim-œar-sa6-ga-a lú ma-a-œar 59 a man delivered a propitious oracle
to me.
The final œiskim “signals” consisted of the various oracles and divinations de-
scribed in Cyl. A xx 2–11, that confirmed the revealed plan of the temple through a
vision of it in another incubated dream before the full-fledged construction work
began (Cyl. A xx 9–11):
9) é-lugal-na-ka dù-bi The building of the temple of his lord,
10) é-ninnu an-ki-ta bad-bi the separation of the Eninnu from
heaven and earth,
11) [i]gi-a mu-na-a-œál was displayed there for him before
his eyes.
The discerning of Ningirsu’s specific will regarding his temple, therefore, takes up a
large part of Gudea Cylinder A; the whole of the first two main sections and deep
into the third section. This was no small matter and should be taken seriously in our
understanding of temple building early in ancient Mesopotamian history.
59
Åke Sjöberg once suggested the insertion of <im-> as a prefix on the verb in order to avoid
a dative first person “to me,” which he considered awkward in this context (personal commu-
nication). In that case, the rendering would be simply, “a man delivered a propitious oracle”
(see Averbeck, COS 2 p. 428). Edzard, however, translates it as a dative first person, “a pro-
pitious ominous remark for me.”
Preparation of the Site and Temple Construction

As noted above, the third main section of Gudea Cylinder A (xii 21–xxv 21) is
about the preparations for and the actual construction of the new Eninnu. Gudea
Statue B moves directly from the selection of Gudea as the ruler of Lagash (see
above) into this part of the account recorded in the Cylinders. Statue B concentrates
especially on the gathering of raw materials from far and wide and using them to
fashion parts of the Eninnu (Stat. B v 21–vi 76). Before that, however, there is a
brief summary of other preliminaries: (1) purifying the city by fire (Stat. B iii 12;
compare Cyl. A xiii 12–13);60 (2) making and placing the decreed brick (Stat. B iii
13–14; compare Cyl. A xiii 16–22 and xvii 29–xix 27); (3) maintaining bodily ritual
purity in the city (Stat. B iii 15–iv 6; compare Cyl. A xiii 14–15);61 (4) building the
temple on ritually purified ground (Stat. B iv 7–9; compare Cyl. A xiii 24–27); (5)
establishing kindness in the society and in the administration of the work force (Stat.
B iv 7–19; compare Cyl. A xii 26–xiii 9); and (6) eliminating burial laments, court
cases, and debt collections during this time (Stat. B v 1–11; compare Cyl. A xiii 10–
11).
These combined preliminary activities suggest that, from Gudea’s point of view,
society needed to devote their entire attention to the building of the new Eninnu
without distraction. Nothing impure, contentious, or grievous should interfere. This
amounts to a kind of social unity and liminality for the whole city during the time of
the special preparations for building the temple.
Preparations for Making the Decreed Brick

The main focus of attention during this time of social liminality was the making of
the “decreed brick,”62 one of the most important ritual procedures in the building of
the temple. Two subunits within this section describe the preparations for making
the decreed brick (Cyl. A xiii 16–23) and later the actual fabrication of it (Cyl. A
xvii 29–xx 4), both of which make up one of the distinct subunits within the section
(see the structural formula in Cyl. A xiv 5–6 and xvii 28 respectively). This was
anticipated in the description of the original dream commissioning Gudea to build
the temple (Cyl. A i 15–16):
15) sig4-nam-tar-ra saœ mu-åi-íb-íl The decreed brick lifted its head
toward him,
16) é-kù dù-dè gú-bi mu-åi-íb-zi stretched out its neck toward him to
build the holy temple.
60
The Ur-Baba Statue (cols. ii–iii) and certain Statues of Gudea (especially in C, E, and F,
cols. ii or iii in each text) refer to cleansing the foundation hole and/or dirt by burning it with
fire and, sometimes, anointing it with fine scented oils; see RIME 3/1 pp. 18–19 E3/1.1.6.5,
pp. 39–40 E3/1.1.7.StC, and pp. 46–48 E3/1.1.7.StF. See also the fragmentary stela inscrip-
tion in RIME 3/1 p. 171 E3/1.1.7.85.
61
For the terminology here, see Averbeck, Ritual and Structure p. 637 n. 253 and p. 717 nn.
23–25.
62
For the translation “auspicious brick” and a relatively extensive discussion of its meaning,
see D. O. Edzard, “Deep-Rooted Skyscrapers and Bricks: Ancient Mesopotamian Architec-
ture and its Imagery,” in M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough (eds.), Figurative
Language in the Ancient Near East (=Figurative Language; London 1987) pp. 17–20.
The same expression occurs in the description and interpretation of the dream in
reference to the brick-mold (GIÅ.ù-åub) in which the decreed brick was to take
shape (Cyl. A v 5 and vi 7).
First, according to Gudea Cyl. A xiii 16–23, the preparations involved perform-
ing an extispicy for the approval of the brick at the shed where the brick-molds were
stored (Cyl. A xiii 16–18):
16) pisaœ-ù-åub-ba-åè máå He made a he-goat lie down at the brick-
ba-åi-ná mold shed(?),63
17) sig4 máå-e bí-pà invoked an extispicy for the brick, (and)
18) ka-al-bi-åè igi-zi ba-åi-bar looked approvingly at the clay pit(?).64
Second, the “standard” (åu-nir) of Ningirsu in the form of the anzÿ-bird was some-
how displayed there (Cyl. A xiii 22–23).65 We will return to the actual fabrication of
the decreed brick below (see Cyl. A xvii 29–xx 3).
Levying Laborers
In the meantime, the next subsection within the third main section of Gudea Cylin-
der A describes the levy imposed throughout the land for laborers to take up the
work of building the temple (Cyl. A xiv 7–28; zi-ga = “levy”). Suter has translated
this passage and discussed the related stelae fragments picturing standards carried by
the different groups of levied workers.66 The levy comes from the regions of
“Ningirsu’s Gu-edenna” (the plain that served as the main bread basket of Lagash)
and “Nanåe’s Gu-giåbarra” (the more settled population areas along the river; Cyl. A
xiv 7–13), along with three “clan areas” (im-ru-a) belonging to Ningirsu, Nanåe,
and Inanna respectively (Cyl. A xiv 14–27).
The latter clan areas were most likely inhabited by people who lived and oper-
ated primarily on the basis of a familial clan system. Yes, there was the main arable
land area owned and operated by the temple estate of Ningirsu (Cyl. A xiv 8–10)
and there was an urban build up along the shores of the river running through the
Lagash city-state area (Cyl. A xiv 11–13). But it seems that there were extended
family and clan areas outside of these more regulated population and production
areas within the Lagash city-state (Cyl. A xiv 14–27).
Gathering the Construction Materials from Far and Wide

The section in Gudea Stat. B v 21–vi 76 that recounts the locations far and wide,
from which Gudea gathered and brought the needed materials for building the tem-
63
pisaœ (ŒÁ) = “box” or “house,” so it could refer to either the frame of the brick-mold or
the shed in which the brick-molds were stored. This is a long and complicated discussion. I
have chosen to render it as “shed” for the time being.
64
ka-al is taken here as “clay pit,” but it could perhaps refer to some kind of “hoe” (see PSD
A/3 p. 143). Again, we cannot debate the point here. For this and the previous note, see the
remarks in Averbeck, COS 2 pp. 424–425 n. 32 where the opposite views are taken.
65
These lines are also difficult. For limited references and discussion, see Averbeck, COS 2
p. 425 n. 33. For a more comprehensive treatment of standards, now see K. Szarzy!ska, “Ar-
chaic Sumerian Standards,” JCS 48 (1996) pp. 1–15.
66
Suter, Temple Building pp. 177–179 and 394.
ple, corresponds to essentially the same places mentioned in the parallel passage in
Cyl. A xv 6–xvi 32. The two lists, however, are arranged differently. In Statue B, the
locations are arranged in geographical order running from the northwest (the
Amanus mountains in northern Lebanon) to the southeast (Anåan and Elam), while,
in Cylinder A, they are arranged in a manner that keeps the different kinds of build-
ing materials together (wood, stone, bitumen, and metals, in that order). This may
be due to that fact that Cylinder A is concerned with all the details of the construc-
tion process, while Statue B is concerned with commemoration of the event in a
more general way. Gudea Stat. D iv 7–14 also recounts the collection of timbers for
the building of the Eninnu. Long before this, Ur-Nanåe of Lagash (ca. 2480 BC)
also commemorates the bringing of timber from far and wide in ships of Dilmun.67
Gudea Stat. B vi 64–69 even records Gudea’s victory over Anåan and Elam and the
donation of the booty to Ningirsu in his Eninnu; this is the only record of a military
campaign in the corpus of Gudea texts.68
Suter pays special attention to the transport of various kinds of timber, large
stones, clay, bitumen, and gypsum. She translates this particular part of the passage
(Cyl. A xv 19–xvi 12) because there are stelae fragments on which the transport of
timbers and large stones are depicted.69 The conflict between Enmerkar and the Lord
of Aratta is specifically about the fine building materials that Enmerkar demanded in
order to build temples in Uruk and Eridu.70
Marking off the Sacred Precinct

After a few lines of very badly broken text (Cyl. A xvii 1–4), we find Gudea too
energized to sleep, being occupied day and night with preparations for building the
temple (Cyl. A xvii 5–9). Nisaba and Enki provided the design of the temple pre-
cinct (Cyl. A xvii 15–17, cited and discussed above), so Gudea proceeded to meas-
ure and mark it out with stakes and measuring ropes (Cyl. A xvii 25–27).71 Suter has
made special note of stela fragments that have the ruler carrying a spooled up line in
one hand and a peg or stake in the other hand.72 We will return to the use of pegs in
temple building below.
Making and Placing the Decreed Brick

Almost thirty years ago Richard Ellis collected and analyzed much of the most im-
portant textual and non-textual evidence for temple bricks, especially the ruler’s
67
Cooper, SARI 1 p. 23 La 1.2 and p. 29 La 1.20; and RIME 1 p. 84 E1.9.1.2:4–9 (in front of
skirt of the king, reading from right to left) and p. 107 E1.9.1.20 iv 1–3. See similarly an in-
scription of En-anatum I in Cooper, SARI p. 49 La 4.3; and RIME 1 pp. 173–174 E1.9.4.3 ii
2–3.
68
RIME 3/1 p. 35.
69
Suter, Temple Building pp. 180–181 and 394–395.
70
See Jacobsen, Harps pp. 275–319, which is based on the full edition in Cohen, Enmerkar.
71
See Averbeck, COS 2 p. 426 nn. 43–44; and Averbeck, Ritual and Structure p. 650 nn.
300–301. Suter (Temple Building p. 91) agrees with this interpretation of this difficult pas-
sage.
72
C. Suter, “Gudeas vermeintliche Segnungen des Eninnu,” ZA 87 (1997) pp. 8–9 (Abb. 3–
4).
involvement in the early stages of making and laying such bricks.73 It is significant
that, although much has been made of the so-called “first brick” in the building of
Mesopotamian temples, Ellis could point to only three textual sources which refer
explicitly to the “first brick”—in one case possibly meaning simply a “former brick”
according to Ellis.74 The earliest and most extensive instance is that of Gudea Cyl. A
xvii 28–xx 4, which does not, in fact, refer to a “first brick” but rather a “decreed
brick,” “brick of destiny,” or “auspicious brick” (Sum. sig 4-nam-tar-ra). The term
“first brick” (Akk. libittu mañr!tu) occurs for the first time about 1,500 years later in
a Neo-Assyrian building inscription of Esarhaddon.
The earlier preparations for making the decreed (first) brick have been treated
above (see Cyl. A xiii 16–23). After measuring and marking out the sacred precinct
comes the actual fabrication of the decreed brick (Cyl. A xvii 29–xx 4). This was a
very involved ritual procedure filled with awe, inspiration, and energy. We cannot
treat every detail here. It concludes with Gudea receiving oracular revelation of the
detailed plan of the temple (Cyl. A xx 5–11), which has been treated above. But
herein lies the importance of the decreed brick as it is represented in Cylinder A.
The ceremonious ritual associated with its fabrication and presentation before the
gods was the key to discerning Ningirsu’s will regarding the detailed plan of the
temple. This was a special brick, the proper fabrication of which had deeply signifi-
cant impact on the suitability of the temple as a whole.
Gudea prayed at the old Eninnu the evening before (Cyl. A xvii 29–xviii 2). He
arose bright and early the next day, bathed, got dressed, and presented offerings to
Ningirsu (Cyl. A xviii 3–7). He took up the holy work basket upon his head and,
amid the sound of musical instruments, proceeded to mix the clay for the decreed
brick with honey, butter, oils, and resins (Cyl. A xviii 8–22). He poured the clay
into the brick-mold, sprinkled it with oils and perfumes, and allowed it to dry (Cyl.
A xviii 23–xix 2). Later in the day, he shook the brick free from the brick-mold,
anointed it again, paraded it around among the people, and then finally placed it in
the proper location (Cyl. A xix 3–19). Thus, Gudea was so energized that he could
not rest, but worked day and night to build the temple (Cyl. A xix 20–27).75
Building the Temple

As noted above, this third main section, to which the actual construction of the E-
ninnu belongs (Cyl. A xii 20–xxv 19), breaks down into five (or perhaps six) sub-
units. These units give an account of the work in preparing the site, gathering raw
materials and laborers, surveying and laying out the sacred area, fabricating and
presenting the first brick, oracular confirmation of the architectural plan, and finally
the actual construction of the temple in Gudea Cyl. A xx 13–xxv 19. The latter sub-
unit begins with an account of the participation of some of the major deities in the
construction work (Cyl. A xx 15–20), surrounded by the participation of Gudea and
73
74
Ellis, Foundation Deposits pp. 26–29. A/the libittu mañr!tu is discussed on pp. 119–120,
150, and 227–228 of this volume.
75
See the translation and notes in Averbeck, COS 2 pp. 426–427.
special priests, who make sure all the properties of the temple (Sum. me) are per-
fected (Cyl. A xx 13–14 and 21–22).76
The first line of the unit reads: gu mu-ba-ra me åu im-du7-du7, “he (Gudea)
stretched the line; he perfected the mes (of the temple)” (Cyl. A xx 13). The intro-
duction of deities into the account begins with Enki’s participation in placing and
driving in the foundation pegs: é-a den-ki-ke4 temen mu-si-ge, “Enki drove in the
foundation pegs of the temple” (Cyl. A xx 15).77 Cylinder A xx 16–20 describe the
participation of three goddesses: Nanåe takes care of the divination procedures, Ga-
tumdug gives birth to the bricks, and Baba sprinkles cedar oil and perfume all
around. Cylinder A xx 24–26 shift back again from the divine level to Gudea’s per-
sonal participation in the building of the temple:
24) gù-dé-a lú-é-dù-a-ke4 Gudea, the temple builder,
25) é-a dusu-bi men-kù saœ-œá put the work basket of the temple on
mu-ni-œál (his) head (like) a holy crown.78
26) uå mu-œar á-œar ki im-mi-tag He prepared the foundation; worked the
ground with a spade(?).79
Line 25, of course, recalls the numerous canephorous foundation figurines so
aptly treated by Ellis and others, many of them from Gudea himself, as well as other
rulers of the Ur III Period (see the discussion of foundation deposits above). Zettler
has provided a helpful summary of the archaeological information and offers an
interesting interpretation of the peg figurines as representing surveying pegs used by
the ruler to mark the boundaries of the temple as part of the ritualized royal founding
76
See the discussion and literature cited in Suter, Temple Building p. 92 n. 105.
77
For a brief summary of the archaeology of foundation deposits, see the discussion earlier in
this chapter. The term temen with the verb si(g) here has been rendered, for example, “filling
in the foundation terrace” or “filling in the foundation boxes”; see Jacobsen, Harps p. 413 and
RIME 3/1 p. 82 respectively. Sally Dunham has argued convincingly, however, that the verb
si(g) in this context refers to driving in foundation pegs to demarcate the sacred area; see S.
Dunham, “Sumerian Words for Foundation: Part I: Temen,” RA 80 (1986) pp. 40–55. See the
same expression for this element of Ur-Namma’s rebuilding of Enlil’s Ekur in Nippur
(Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur p. 190 lines 17–18).
78
The ruler bearing the work basket on his head is pictured, for example, on the Ur-Nanåe
door plaque. See Suter, Temple Building pp. 61, 219, 222–224, and especially p. 253 fig. 37.
The label on the plaque has Åulutul, the personal god of Ur-Nanåe, carrying the work basket,
not the ruler himself; see Steible, ASBW 1 pp. 82–84 Urnanåe 20; Cooper, SARI 1 pp. 22–23
La 1.2; and RIME 1 pp. 83–84 E1.9.1.2. Gudea Cyl. A xxx 1–5 shows that Gudea’s personal
god, Ningiåzida, participated with Gudea in building the Eninnu.
79
Lines 24–25 and the first half of line 26 present no difficulties. There is, however, a prob-
lem with the clause á-g"ar ki im-mi-tag. Following Thureau-Dangin’s proposal over a century
ago, most scholars read á-œar = é-œar8 (ingar, igar = Akk. igâru “wall”), as a reference to
laying the walls on the foundation; see F. Thureau-Dangin, “Le Cylindre A de GU-DE-A,”
ZA 18 (1904) p. 126 n. 4 and, for example, Jacobsen, Harps p. 413, and RIME 3/1 p. 82
E3/1.1.7.CylA. This is doubtful, however, since there is an á-g"ar agricultural instrument men-
tioned in Presargonic economic texts; see PSD 1/2 p. 60, and the literature cited there.
Thureau-Dangin did not have this information when he made the above mentioned proposal.
It seems most likely that this should be taken as an instrument for making the foundation just
referred to, some kind of hoe or spade.
of the temple.80 This is important for the interpretation of Gudea Cyl. A xx 27–xxi
12.
The main problem in this section is one compound verbal expression that occurs
seven times: DI—SUM. There have been two major readings and interpretations of
the seven-fold repeated compound verb clause: (1) silim—sum “he blessed” or
“greeted” the house seven times, suggesting a ritual procedure of some sort;81 or (2)
sá—sì “he marked a square,” recounting the construction of the seven steps of a
ziqqurrat, each with a descriptive name following immediately.82 Recently, Suter
has revived and argued well for the latter interpretation and renders the expression
this way in its first occurrence: sá mu-sì sig4-ga gu bí-dúb, “He marked a square, the
chalk line was snapped on the bricks” (Cyl. A xx 27).83 This continues sequentially
to the seventh square. Among other things, Suter points out that “blessings” do not
seem to fit here since the actual construction work has already begun and should
continue with these lines. She draws upon the use of sá in texts where fields are be-
ing marked out in square measures. This is certainly an attractive proposal.
Some scholars, however, have hesitated to accept this understanding of the pas-
sage. There is no regular term for ziqqurrat here and the general consensus among
Mesopotamian archaeologists seems to be that the earliest known ziqqurrats were
built by Ur-Namma.84 The various terms related to the temple terrace (not staged),
the ziqqurrat, and the temple shrine atop these base structures have been discussed
recently by Waetzoldt, but he reached no firm conclusion regarding the first appear-
ance of the actual ziqqurrat.85 The real problem is that Suter’s view calls for a seven-
stage ziqqurrat. This seems anachronistic. There is no third millennium (or earlier)
archaeological or textual evidence for the later well-known (second and first millen-
80
Zettler, Expedition 28/3 pp. 35–36.
81
The “blessing” or “greeting” view has been maintained by some writers since Thureau-
Dangin (ZA 18 p. 126 n. 5) proposed it. Jacobsen (Harps p. 413), for example, rendered the
expression “(he) gave it a blessing,” and Edzard (RIME 3/1 p. 82) translated it similarly: “he
greeted the house.” See also the analysis in favor of this view in S. Dunham, “Bricks for the
Temples of Åara and Ninurra,” RA 76 (1982) p. 39 n. 28, and the literature cited there; Aver-
beck, Ritual and Structure pp. 659–670; and Averbeck, COS 2 p. 428.
82
Previous scholars who argued less persuasively for this view include, for example, M. Wit-
zel and M. Lambert and R. -J. Tournay; see the review in Suter, ZA 87 pp. 1–2.
83
See the translation in Suter, Temple Building p. 395; and the full discussion in Suter, ZA 87
pp. 1–10.
84
For example, see Roaf, CANE 1 pp. 428–431, with the discussion and literature cited in
Averbeck, Ritual and Structure pp. 318–320. See also B. Hrouda, “‘High’ Terraces and Zik-
kurrat: Connections and Differences,” in M. Mori, H. Ogawa, and M. Yoshikawa (eds.), Near
Eastern Studies Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Sev-
enty-Fifth Birthday (Wiesbaden 1991) pp. 85–111.
85
H. Waetzoldt, “Tempelterrassen und Ziqqurrate nach der sumerischen Überlieferung,” in Y.
Sefati, P. Artzi, C. Cohen, B. L. Eichler, and V. A. Hurowitz (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe
Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda
2005) pp. 322–342. According to Waetzoldt: (1) gi-gun4-na/gi-gù-na refers to the temple
terrace with the shrine standing on top of it in the Presargonic Period, but the terrace became a
stepped ziqqurrat in the times of Gudea and the Ur III Period; (2) (é-)u6-nir refers to either a
temple terrace with the temple shrine on top or an actual ziqqurrat; and (3) ñur-saœ-galam-ma
(“the step/skillfully built mountain range”) generally refers to a ziqqurrat, not just a temple
terrace. See also the discussion in Edzard, Figurative Language pp. 13–24.
nium) seven stage ziqqurrats.86 Even Ur-Namma’s massive ziqqurrat had only three
stages.87
It may be better to understand sá—sì on the horizontal rather than the vertical
plane, especially since that is the way sá is used in the field plans. In that case, one
could translate: “he marked out (the line for) an (outside) wall.” Sumerian sá can
refer to either a “square” or a “side of a square.”88 If so, these lines are not about a
staged tower rising higher and higher, but rather the measuring and marking out
(sá—sì) of the plan (œiå-ñur; Cyl. A v 4, vi 5, vii 6, xvii 17, and xix 20) of the ac-
tual temple building that was the residence of Ningirsu and Baba (for example, the
gi-gunu4; Cyl. A xxiv 20 and Stat. B v 18) built on top of the temple terrace plat-
form (ki-sá).
The terrace platform is referred to in Gudea Stat. B vi 51–56, near the end of the
account about the collection of raw materials (see the discussion above): 51) ma-ad-
ga.KI 52) ñur-saœ-i7-lú-ru-da-ta 53) ésir-gú-ÅÁR¯KAS (REC 214) 54) im-ta-e11 55) ki-
sá-é-ninnu-ka 56) mu-ni-dù, “from Madga, the mountain range of the river Luruda,
crude bitumen unlimited he brought; the tower platform of the Eninnu he built (with
it).” Soon after this, Statue B recounts the transport of “stones” (NA4.na-lu-a) for
“the foundation of the Eninnu” (úr-é-ninnu-ka; compare uå in Cyl. A xx 26, cited
above). No regular term for “ziqqurrat” appears in Gudea Statue B either.89
This proposal, of course, remains conjectural90 and this is not the place for a full
discussion supporting it. If this interpretation is correct, however, the seven-fold
marking out of the walls (sá—sì) by snapping the chalk line on the bricks (sig4-ga
gu bí-dúb; mentioned only once, in Cyl. A xx 27, which is cited above) might corre-
spond to the design of the temple on the lap of Gudea Statue B.91 Scholars have long
puzzled over the design. Does it represent the city wall of Girsu, the wall of the holy
precinct, or the wall of the Eninnu temple building itself?92 According to the tenta-
tive proposal here, the design on Gudea’s lap could perhaps be that of the Eninnu
86
For schemata of the seven stage ziqqurrat laid out on cuneiform tablets from the Old Baby-
lonian Period and later, see L. Jakob-Rost, “Zur Zikkurat von Babylon,” FuB 24 (1984) pp.
59–62; J. Oelsner, “Ein Zikkurat-Grundriss aus Nippur,” FuB 24 (1984) pp. 63–65; and J.
Oelsner, “Ein Zikkurat-Grundriss aus Nippur – Addendum,” FuB 27 (1989) p. 51. Suter (ZA
87 p. 6) suggests that the date of the Nippur text should be moved back to the Ur III Period.
The problem is that the signs visible on the tablet are clearly later than the third millennium
form. She also argues vigorously for the existence of archaeological and textual evidence for
ziqqurrats in the Early Dynastic Period, but admits that the evidence is sparse (ZA 87 pp. 9–
10).
87
See the reconstruction, for example, in S. Lloyd, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia (Lon-
don 1978) p. 152 and in many other places.
88
Sá = mitñartu (CAD 10/2 [M] p. 135). Compare P. A. Deimel, Åumerische Lexikon 1/2
(Rome 1928) p. 887; and R. Borger, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305; Münster
2004) p. 410 no. 736.
89
Suter (ZA 87 pp. 6–7) herself has pointed to the close connection between ki-sá “temple
terrace” and sá in the verbal expression sá—sì.
90
Suter (ZA 87 p. 9) admits the same for her proposal. I intend to present a more detailed
explanation and additional support for this proposal on another occasion in the near future.
91
F. Johansen, Statues of Gudea Ancient and Modern (=Statues; Mesopotamia 6; Copenha-
gen 1978) pl. 22.
92
See the summary of the scholarly discussion and new proposals in W. Heimpel, “The Gates
of the Eninnu,” JCS 48 (1996) pp. 17–29.
temple building itself, its gi-gunu4 (Cyl. A xxiv 20 and Stat. B v 18–20) standing on
top of the temple terrace.93
The remainder of this subsection (Cyl. A xxi 13–xxv 21) recounts, among other
things, the construction and installation of the wooden gates and doors of the temple,
the setting of the wood beams, the building up of the mud brick walls, the planting
of trees on the temple terrace(s), and the installation of specific rooms in the temple.
Similar subjects are covered in Ur-Namma B for the reconstruction of Enlil’s Ekur
temple in Nippur.94 Gudea Cyl. A xxii 24–xxiv 7 recounts the setting up of the stone
stelae that were the focus of Suter’s work.95 From these stelae fragments, she has
reconstructed scenes of people on parade bearing their standards, shipment of mate-
rials, actual construction scenes, temple equipment, percussion instruments and mu-
sical performances, libation scenes, presentation scenes, and divine combat scenes.
As noted previously, the final lines of this third main section echo the theme of
abundance and fertility flowing from the heart of the gods that introduces this first
Cylinder (compare Cyl. A xxv 20–21 with Cyl. A i 5–9 cited above).
Furnishing and Decorating the Temple Complex

The fourth main section of Gudea Cylinder A (xxv 24–xxx 5) focuses on furnishing
the temple complex that had been constructed in the previous section and concludes
with a paean of praise for the temple (Cyl. A xxix 14–xxx 5) and is followed by the
epilogue and colophon (Cyl. A xxx 6–16). There are two main units within this sec-
tion. The first recounts the furnishing and decorating of the inside of the main tem-
ple building itself (Cyl. A xxv 24–xxvii 13). It begins with the installation of the
war trophies of Ningirsu (Cyl. A xxv 24–xxvi 19), who was famous for his warlike
character and victories over powerful enemies and for whom this temple was being
built in the first place.96 Following this there are references to doors and door fix-
tures of various kinds and all sorts of decorations,97 all described in poetic form, and
a praise of the Enninu as a source of abundance. The second unit of this main sec-
tion describes the outside of the temple and its outbuildings, once again with poetic
imagery (Cyl. A xxvii 14–xxix 13).98 Between these two units stands a summary
93
For En-metena inscriptions regarding the gi-gunu4 of temples, see Cooper SARI 1 pp. 60–
63 La 5.8–12 and La 5.16–17; and RIME 1 pp. 210–222 E1.9.5.8 iii 3–iv 1, E1.9.5.9:9–10,
E1.9.5.10:4–5, E1.9.5.11 iii 1–3, E1.9.5.12 v 2–5, E1.9.5.16:27–30, and E1.9.5.17 iii 1–3.
94
Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur pp. 191–192 lines 19–30.
95
Suter, Temple Building pp. 177–207 and pp. 395–396 for a translation of these lines. Gudea
Statues A, C, D, E, G, H, I, K, M, and Q also include a record of the fashioning of the Statue
itself, and sometimes the source of the stone; see RIME 3/1 pp. 29–59.
96
See the explanation in J. S. Cooper, The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (=Return; AnOr 52;
Rome 1978) pp. 141–154. See also Heimpel, JCS 48 pp. 17–29. He suggests that these tro-
phies were placed at the six gates that appear on the tablet sitting on Gudea’s lap in Gudea
Statue B (Johansen, Statues pl. 22), but the correspondence seems problematic.
97
For decorating of temples with fine metals see, for example, the inscriptions of En-anatum I
and En-metena (Cooper SARI 1 pp. 49–51, 53, 60, 64–65 La 4.8–9, La 4.17, La 5.6, and La
5.19; and RIME 1 pp. 179–181, 189, 207-208, and 223–224 E1.9.4.8 iii 8–9, E1.9.4.9 iv 5–6,
E1.9.4.17 ii 1–2, E1.9.5.6 ii 3–4, and E1.9.5.19 ii 7–8).
98
See varying accounts of the subjects and the arrangement of this section in Jacobsen, Harps
pp. 420–424; and in Suter, Temple Building pp. 94–95.
praise song for the Eninnu (Cyl. A xxvii 5–13), which seems to serve as a transition
from one to the other.
The Favor of the Gods in Dedicating the Temple

Recall that the Presargonic Ur-Nanåe door plaque includes two scenes.99 The top
scene has the ruler carrying the work basket and the bottom scene has the ruler sit-
ting at the head of the dedication banquet. This corresponds to Gudea Cylinders A
and B respectively. The divine banquet at the end of Cylinder B suggests that the
Ur-Nanåe banquet was probably conceived of as taking place not only on the human
level, but also on the divine level. Gudea Statue B deals mostly with the construc-
tion of the temple, focusing especially on the gathering of raw materials, but the
successful completion of the temple and the seven day dedication period appears in
the instructions given to the statue itself at the time of its dedication. Gudea in-
structed it to speak to Ningirsu, conveying the content of Gudea Cyl. B xvii 17–xviii
11 (compare Stat. B vii 21–48), which reports the proper completion of the temple
and the seven day dedication period.
Gudea Cylinder B opens with a prologue (Cyl. B i 1–11, see the discussion of
the structure above) that leads directly into pious activities on the part of Gudea (in-
creased offerings and a prayer), which were meant to obtain the aid of the Anûna-
gods of Lagash for the induction of Ningirsu and his divine consort, Baba, into their
new Eninnu (Cyl. B i 12–ii 6). The major procedural formula then occurs (Cyl. B ii
7–8), leading to the second major section of Cylinder B where Ningirsu and Baba
do indeed take up occupation in the new temple (Cyl. B ii 9–xiii 10). The next oc-
currence of the procedural formula (in expanded form, Cyl. B xiii 11–13) leads to
the third section, which celebrates the occupation of the Eninnu by the divine couple
with the presentation of housewarming gifts from the ruler (Cyl. B xiii 14–xvii 14)
and a divine banquet (Cyl. B xvii 15–xxiv 8).
It is important to note that the actual work of building the Eninnu was accom-
plished in the last two sections of Cylinder A. There is, in fact, nothing in Cylinder
B that is not ritual by nature, since the goal was to induct Ningirsu and Baba into the
Eninnu. This involved religious ritual procedures at every turn and throughout, as
we shall see. Although there was, of course, regular work to be done in building,
decorating, and furnishing a temple, one could actually consider the whole building
and dedication project to be one huge overall ritual procedure. I have argued here
that this is essentially how the Gudea Cylinders present it.
The first concern in the dedicating of the temple according to Gudea Cylinder B
was to gain the approval and cooperation of the gods. The prologue lauds the great-
ness of the Eninnu, which resembles the great anzÿ-bird perched with talons spread
over the mountains. The people stood in admiration of it, as did the Anûna-gods.
The ruler being wise and pious, therefore, offered “prayers” (sískur; perhaps prayers
with offerings) and “petitions” (rá-zu = a-ra-zu) to the Anûna-gods (Cyl. B i 12–
15). This is a common pair occurring together in the Cylinders in the prayers to
Ningirsu for help in the interpretation of the original dream (Cyl. A ii 21–22) and to
Gatumdug for her support (Cyl. A iv 1–2).
99
See the information in n. 78.
Earlier in Gudea Cylinder A, the Anûna-gods stood together with Gudea in

prayer and petition for the building of the temple (Cyl. A xiv 1–4). Here in Gudea
Cylinder B, the ruler uses them along with increases in the regular daily offerings to
the gods of Lagash (Cyl. B i 12–19; for example, the prayers along with more bread,
sheep, and drink in lines 16–19) to obtain their cooperation in prayer for the induc-
tion of Ningirsu into the temple (Cyl. B ii 5–6):
5) sipa-me é mu-dù lugal-œu10 I, the shepherd, have built the temple. I
é-a-na mi-ni-ku4-ku4 would bring my lord into his temple.
6) <d>a-nun-na bar-œu10-a åùd O Anûna-gods, may you pray at
ñé-mi-sa4-za my side!
The procedural formula occurs in the next two lines, forming a transition to the next
section. The same terms are used again in the immediately following lines for the
prayers to Ningirsu and Baba along with increased offerings at the beginning of the
next major section (Cyl. B ii 13), requesting their occupation of the new Eninnu
(Cyl. B iii 2–4) and later for the regular prayers offered in the new Eninnu (Cyl. B
viii 12).
Occupation of the Temple

The next major section begins, therefore, with Gudea’s prayers to Ningirsu and Baba
at the old (Eninnu) temple (Cyl. B ii 11; é-ul é-libir ki-tuå-na, “the former temple,
the old temple, the place of habitation”), the purpose of which was to invite and
convince Ningirsu and Baba to take up occupation in the new Eninnu (Cyl. B ii 16–
iii 1). In leading up to the petition, the ruler reports the completion of the temple in
terms that echo mutatis mutandis the first petition section of the initial prayer to
Ningirsu in Gudea Cyl. A ii 13–14:
13) ur-saœ m[a]-a-du11 åu-zi O warrior, you have commanded me,
ga-mu-«ra»-ab-œar (so) let me execute it well for you.
14) dnin-œír-su é-zu ga-mu-ra-dù O Ningirsu, let me build your temple
for you.
In Cyl. B ii 19b–21, Gudea reports his successful construction of the temple:
19b) ur-saœ ma-a-du11 O warrior, you commanded me,
20) åu-zi ma-ra-a-œar (so) I have executed it well for you.
21) dnin-œír-su é-zu mu-ra-dù O Ningirsu, I have built your temple
for you.
Mes for the Eninnu

In the next line of the Cylinder A passage cited above, Gudea adds a remark about
the me of the temple: me åu ga-mu-ra-ab-du7, “Let me perfect its me for you” (Cyl.
A ii 15). This line is not echoed in the Cylinder B prayer to Ningirsu (cited above).
Instead, the echo comes later in Cyl. B xvii 13–14, where the writer first reiterates in
line 13 that, gù-dé-a é-ninnu mu-dù, “Gudea had built the Eninnu,” and then writes
in the following line (14): me-be åu bí-du7, “he had perfected its me.”100 In the
meantime, between Cyl. B cols. ii and xvii, the focus is largely upon what one might
call the “me-ing” of the temple.101 This includes the installation of certain minor
deities who bring their mes with them as they take up their positions and occupa-
tions as the divine staff of the Eninnu (Cyl. B vi 11–xii 25),102 as well as the ruler’s
presentation of three special household gifts, which also appear to constitute part of
the so-called “me-ing” of the temple (Cyl. B xiii 14–xvii 17; a war chariot, utensils
for eating, and a bed).
With regard to the latter, at the point where the text shifts from Gudea’s presen-
tation of the gifts to the divine acceptance of them in Cyl. B xvi 3, we once again
read of the me of the temple: [é]-e me-gal-la [sa]œ mi-ni-íb-íl, “The temple lifted the
head in great me.” Since this passage about the three gifts ends with a general state-
ment about the perfecting of the temple’s me, it is apparent that at least one of the
major purposes of the previous part of Cylinder B was the “me-ing” of the new E-
ninnu; that is, the functional activation of the new abode of Ningirsu and Baba. Al-
though it had been well-built, without the mes the temple would not have been func-
tional as a divine habitation and administrative management center of the city-state
(see more on this below).103
The Journey to Eridu

Gudea Cyl. B iii 5–10 refers to the elapsing of three days in the New Year before
Ningirsu arrived back in Lagash from a trip to Eridu:
5) mu œen-na-àm itu til-la-àm The (old) year passing away, the (last)
month ending,
6) mu-gibil an-na im-ma-gub a new year took its stand in heaven.
7) itu é-ba ba-a-ku4 The (first) month arrived in that temple.
8) itu-bi u4-eå5-àm im-ta-zal Three days elapsed in that month.
9) dnin-œír-sú eridu.KI-ta du-àm Ningirsu, coming from Eridu,
10) ì-ti-sa-sa im-è emitted brilliant moonlight.
These lines tell us that Ningirsu’s return from Eridu came on the eve of the fourth
day of the new year, the daily cycle running evening to evening (not morning to
morning).
While Ningirsu was in Eridu, Gudea was putting the final touches on the new
Eninnu and making ritual preparations for the coming day when Ningirsu and Baba
100
Note that Cyl. B xvii 12 also echoes Cyl. A i 4.
101
For the importance of the mes in Ur-Namma’s building of Enlil’s Ekur in Nippur, see
102
Gudea Cyl. B vi 8 leads into this section on the installation of the staff and their mes with
the following remark: me-gal-gal-la saœ mi-«ni»-íl-e, “He (Ningirsu) was lifting up (his) head
in great me.” This line and Cyl. B xvii 14 surround the section that deals with the “me-ing” of
the Eninnu.This whole discussion recalls Gudea Cyl. A i 2 where the narrator begins describ-
ing the day when destiny was determined in heaven and earth in a similar manner: laga[å.KI]-
«e» me-gal-la [saœ] an-åè mi-ni-íb-íl, “Lagash lifted the head toward heaven in great me.”
103
For a relatively extended treatment of the occurrences and secondary literature regarding
me in Sumerian and especially in the Gudea Cylinders, see Averbeck, COS 2 p. 418 n. 2, pp.
429–430 n. 61, and p. 430 n. 69.
would occupy their new home. They included purification procedures (Cyl. B iii
13–15), the dismissal of the human laborers (Cyl. B iii 16–17), and the preparation
of a fine meal for deities (Cyl. B iii 18–27), who were also involved in the purifica-
tion of the new temple (Cyl. B iv 1–16). The fact that the narrator mentions the re-
moval of workers in the midst of ritual procedures suggests that this act, in itself,
was an important part of the dedication process. Temple dedication texts from later
times suggest this as well, at least on the level of the divine temple builders.104 This
combination of purification procedures with a meal for the gods recurs after
Ningirsu and Baba enter the temple at early dawn on the fourth day (Cyl. B v 1–vi
10).
The text does not tell us precisely why Ningirsu traveled to Eridu. Of course,
Enki was the patron deity of Eridu and one of the chief deities most closely associ-
ated with temple building in Sumer. The Gudea Cylinders alone tell us that he de-
signed the temple (Cyl. A xvii 17), approved the decreed brick (Cyl. A xix 10–11),
and drove the foundation pegs into the ground (Cyl. A xx 15; compare Cyl. B xiii
3). Moreover, Eridu was the site of some of the oldest known temples in southern
Babylonia (see the archaeology discussion above) and the first temple hymn in the
Sumerian temple hymn collection is about Enki’s Abzu in Eridu.105
Furthermore, Ningirsu made this journey right after Gudea’s report that the tem-
ple was finished (Cyl. B ii 19–22), which suggests that perhaps Ningirsu traveled to
Eridu to make a similar report to Enki, on the divine level. Also, the major concern
of the next two and a half columns is purity and purification procedures (Cyl. B iii
11–v 24). Asari, who is often associated with Enki and Eridu in purification con-
texts, is mentioned.106 Nin-duba is called “the lofty purification priest of Eridu,” and
Enki issued oracles as the various deities went about their tasks of purification (Cyl.
B iv 1–5; compare v 22–24). Note also that Gudea Stat. B iv 7–9 says, “he (Gudea)
built the temple of Ningirsu in a pure place like Eridu.” Ningirsu may have traveled
to Eridu to report to Enki and enlist his support in the necessary purification proce-
dures.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the induction of the various attending
deities with their mes into the temple is an important part of the following context
(Cyl. B vi 11–xii 25). The repeated expression that concludes each of the fifteen
units in this section is: en dnin-œír-su-ra me-ni-da mu-na-da-dib-e, “(This particular
deity) was passing in review before the lord Ningirsu with his emblem (of office)”
(me-ni-da = “with his me”). The first of the deities, Ig-alim, for example, enters into
the temple as the high constable with all the necessary powers to fulfill his function
(Cyl. B vi 11–23). Since Enki was viewed as the deity in charge of the mes,
104
See Ellis, Foundation Deposits p. 19; and W. G. Lambert, “Proportional Guidelines in
Near Eastern [Appendix A],” JNES 46 (1987) p. 204.
105
Å. W. Sjöberg, and E. Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns
(=Temple Hymns; TCS 3; Locust Valley 1969) pp. 17–18. For an overview and general re-
marks on journeys to Eridu, see M. W. Green, Eridu in Sumerian Literature (Ph.D. diss. Uni-
versity of Chicago 1975) pp. 268–276.
106
See P. Michalowski, “The Torch and the Censer,” in M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B.
Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W.
Hallo (Bethesda 1993) pp. 152–156 on text A line 14.
Ningirsu might also have traveled to Eridu to obtain Enki’s support in the proper
“me-ing” of the temple.107
Inauguration of the Temple

The last occurrence of the procedural formula (in expanded form, Cyl. B xiii 11–13)
makes the transition from the introduction of the divine temple personnel with the
mes (discussed in the previous section) and the favor of the major gods of the Sume-
rian pantheon (Cyl. B xii 26–xiii 10) to the final major section of the account: the
inauguration of the temple. Here the people, the ruler, and the gods confirm and
celebrate the completion and occupation of the new Eninnu by the divine couple,
Ningirsu and Baba. There are two main units: the presentation of inaugural house-
warming gifts (Cyl. B xiii 14–xvii 14) and a divine banquet (Cyl. B xvii 15–xxiv
8). Gudea made provisions for both (see especially Cyl. B xiii 14–17, xiv 9–12, xvi
1–2, xvii 15–16, xviii 18–19, and xix 16–17). Corresponding scenes appear in the
stelae fragments.108
Presentation of Housewarming Gifts

The last major section of the Gudea Cylinders, therefore, opens with ruler’s presen-
tation of special gifts to Ningirsu and Baba (Cyl. B xiii 14–xvi 2), after which the
divine couple revels in all the features and provisions of their glorious new habita-
tion (Cyl. B xvi 3–xvii 11). The first and foremost of these gifts was a well-adorned
war chariot with all its associated weapons described in detail (Cyl. B xiii 18–xiv
12).109 The martial character of Ningirsu, therefore, comes to center stage not only in
the construction (see the fashioning and presenting of the chariot in Gudea Cyl. A
vii 11–29 for incubating a dream; discussed above), but also the dedication of the
temple.
The parallels between the weapons of Ningirsu and those of Ninurta are clearly
displayed in the composition known as the Return of Ninurta to Nippur.110 In the
temple hymns collection, the Eåumeåa temple of Ninurta in Nippur (lines 61–76)
and the Eninnu temple of Ningirsu in Lagash (lines 240–262) are both dominated by
martial imagery, since they were the main war gods of the pantheon.111 So in the
107
See Averbeck, COS 2 p. 430 n. 65 and p. 431 n. 69 for further discussion of the interpre-
tive issues here. Compare also the bringing of the mes from Eridu in Enmerkar and the Lord
of Aratta; see Jacobsen, Harps p. 283 and especially Cohen, Enmerkar pp. 67 and 114 lines
57–58. The composition called Nisaba and Enki seems to represent a similar focus on Eridu
in the building of temples; see W. W. Hallo, “The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry,” in A.
Finet (ed.), Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Bruxelles, 30 juin–4
juillet 1969 (Brussels 1970) pp. 125 and 129 lines 34–49.
108
See Suter, Temple Building pp. 185–197, 287–291, and 396–398 for her rendering of the
related passages.
109
For another reference to Ningirsu as a warrior and his war chariot, especially as it relates to
the donkey that pulls it, see Gudea Cyl. B ix 15–22.
110
For the parallels between the weapons of Ningirsu who is identified as Ninurta at Nippur,
see Cooper, Return pp. 159–160.
111
See Sjöberg, Temple Hymns pp. 31–32 for the lines regarding the Eninnu and Ningirsu.
Gudea Cylinders, the temple as a household comes to prominence and the warfare
features are embedded within it.
The gifts also included utensils and furniture for eating and sleeping, especially a
bed on which Ningirsu and Baba would recline together (for the latter, see Cyl. B
xiv 21–22 and xvii 1–3). Foodstuffs for the provision of the gods were also brought
(Cyl. B xvii 4–11), just as in Ur-Namma’s dedication of the Ekur for Enlil and Nin-
lil in Nippur.112 All of these were presented in a joyful celebration with a musical
parade (Cyl. B xv 19–xvi 2). The divine “bridal gifts” (nì-MÍ-ús-sá) mentioned in
Gudea Statues D, E, and G are probably to be included here, although they are not
mentioned in Gudea Cylinder B.113 They consist completely of foodstuffs.
The Divine Housewarming Banquet

The whole process ends with a seven day temple dedication festival, during which
time the whole region maintained purity and peace (Cyl. B xvii 20–xviii 11) while
the gods celebrated the fine banquet (Cyl. B xix 16–17). During the seven day tem-
ple dedication period and banquet of the gods, the ruler enforced social and ritual
regulations similar to those established for the initial stages of the building of the
Eninnu; compare Cyl. B xvii 18–xviii 11 with Cyl. A xii 25–xiii 15 (discussed
above).114 This seven day banquet itself apparently began with the meal provided for
the gods on the very day that Ningirsu and Baba arrived and entered into their new
abode (compare Cyl. B v 20–vi 2).
Temple building was closely associated with the responsibilities and blessings of
kingship. The latter part of the second cylinder is broken, but the last pronounce-
ment is reserved for special praise and promise to Gudea. Gudea Cyl. B xxiii 16–
xxiv 8 records a divine decree of prosperity and long life for Gudea for his care in
building the temple. For a similar but more expanded divine decree for Ur-Namma
at the dedication of the Ekur temple for Enlil in Nippur, see the final unit of Ur-
Namma B (lines 37–72).115
Conclusion
From the time of Gudea’s initial prayer to Ningirsu and Baba in Gudea Cyl. B ii 11–
iii 1 until the conclusion of the process at the end of the composition, possibly only
ten to twelve days elapsed. By way of contrast, the events of Gudea Cylinder A took
at least months. Cylinder B records a temple dedication ritual procedure, but from
the viewpoint of this composition, the whole procedure of construction as well as
dedication of the temple, from beginning to end, was one large unified ritual pro-
cess.
112
113
See RIME 3/1 pp. 41, 44–45, and 49; and see the full discussion with these and many other
texts in S. Greengus, “Bridewealth in Sumerian Sources,” HUCA 61 (1990) pp. 48–55.
114
See Averbeck, COS 2 p. 424 n. 31. For the overall problem of physical impurities in sa-
cred space, see D. M. Sharon, “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40–
48 and Gudea,” JANES 24 (1997) pp. 102–103.
115
Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur pp. 194–199.
This chapter on third millennium temple building is necessarily dominated by

the Gudea Cylinders and Statues (especially Statue B), since these compositions
provide us with the fullest extant account of temple building from ancient Mesopo-
tamia. Other textual, pictorial, and archaeological data have been incorporated into
the discussion as well, but nothing else is so complete. It is unlikely that every ele-
ment of what we find in the Gudea Cylinders was always practiced in the building of
temples in third millennium Mesopotamia, but the main substance and spirit of it
were certainly part of the work and the piety involved in such sacred construction
projects.

Averbeck 2010 Temple Building in Third Millennium. Mesopotamia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Averbeck 2010 Temple Building in Third Millennium. Mesopotamia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Temple Building among the Sumerians

and Akkadians (Third Millennium)

Richard E. Averbeck, Deerfield

It is an honor to contribute this chapter in a volume dedicated to Richard S. Ellis,

The royal hymn Ur-Namma B, for example, recounts Ur-Namma’s restoration

From the Prehistoric to the Historical Archaeology of Temple Building

Temple Building Accounts: Construction, Dedication, and Ritual Patterns

Commission and Guidance for Building the Temple

Provision of Fertility and Abundance

The Wise and Pious Ruler

Discovering the Divine Intent

Preparation of the Site and Temple Construction

Preparations for Making the Decreed Brick

Gathering the Construction Materials from Far and Wide

Marking off the Sacred Precinct

Making and Placing the Decreed Brick

Building the Temple

Furnishing and Decorating the Temple Complex

The Favor of the Gods in Dedicating the Temple

Earlier in Gudea Cylinder A, the Anûna-gods stood together with Gudea in

Occupation of the Temple

Mes for the Eninnu

The Journey to Eridu

Inauguration of the Temple

Presentation of Housewarming Gifts

The Divine Housewarming Banquet

This chapter on third millennium temple building is necessarily dominated by

You might also like