A New Join To The Hurro Akkadian Version

Altorientalische Forschungen 2017; 44(1): 82–100
Frank Simons
A New Join to the Hurro-Akkadian Version of

the Weidner God List from Emar (Msk 74.108a
+ Msk 74.158k)
DOI 10.1515/aofo-2017-0009
Abstract: The present article offers an edition, copy and photographs of a newly identified join to the Hurro-
Akkadian bilingual tablet of the so-called Weidner god list from Emar. The new fragment adds substantially to
our knowledge of the Hurrian translation of the list and fills in some small gaps in the Akkadian portion. It
also offers valuable evidence concerning the identities of three relatively little known deities: Ištarān, who is
equated in the text with Kumarbi, Erragal who is equated with Tarḫunta, and INANNA -g a l g a - s ù , a wife of the
god Amurru.
Keywords: The Weidner God List, Hurro-Akkadian, DN INANNA -g a l g a - s ù , DN Ištarān, DN Erragal
A long felt gap has been filled by the recent publication of M. Salvini’s Les textes hourrites de Meskéné/Emar,1
in which the Hurro-Akkadian bilingual manuscript of the Weidner god list, or An following its incipit, is fully
published for the first time.
Msk 74.108a+ originally contained the entire Weidner god list across four paired columns of text, the first
of each pair (‘a’) in Akkadian and the second (‘b’) in Hurrian. The majority of this is very fragmentary, though
much of the Akkadian can be restored from the monolingual2 Akkadian list from Emar3 and the dozens of
variant manuscripts that have survived from other sites and periods.4 The largest lacuna in Salvini’s edition of
the manuscript is the absence, bar the small scrap Msk 74.180b, of columns iib and iiib – the Hurrian
counterparts to the middle of the list. Msk 74.158k preserves several lines of these columns, as well as a sizable
chunk of columns iia and iiia.
The Weidner god list was one of several texts which, from Middle Babylonian times onward, formed the
elementary scribal curriculum.5 Two exemplars of the list were found in the so-called ‘Diviner’s Archive’ in
Emar – one Akkadian with sporadic glosses and the other bilingual. This archive contained ‘over 1,703
cuneiform tablets and fragments’6 the archaeological context of which is secure, though the range of texts is
unexpectedly wide.7 Alongside administrative, divinatory, ritual and literary texts, a very large proportion of
the texts in the collection are related to scribal education. There are many copies of various lexical lists which
formed part of the standard Mesopotamian curriculum8 and it is in this group that the Weidner list belongs.9
1 Salvini (2015).
2 This is technically a misnomer as the other Weidner manuscript from Emar contains several Hurrian glosses, but as there is no
simpler way to differentiate between the two manuscripts, short of monotonously listing tablet numbers at each mention, it is
adopted here. Relatively speaking, Msk 74165i+ is far less bilingual than Msk 74.108a+.
3 Arnaud (1987: 34–36).
4 See addendum below.
5 Veldhuis (2014: 200).
6 Rutz (2013: 35).
7 Fleming (2000: 13).
8 Civil (1989: 8–25); Rutz (2013: 489–523).
9 Fleming (2000: 14).
Frank Simons, Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham,
West Midlands, B15 2TT, UK, E-Mail: fjs708@bham.ac.uk
Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Download Date | 7/22/17 8:40 AM
Frank Simons – A New Join to the Hurro-Akkadian Version of the Weidner God List from Emar 83
The Hurro-Akkadian bilingual text treated in this article is one of a number of multilingual curricular texts
in the diviner’s archive, and in contemporaneous archives from Ugarit and Hattuša.10 The majority of such
multilingual texts employ sporadic glosses squeezed into the same line as the entry to be translated, as in the
other copy of the Weidner list.11 In Ugarit and Hattuša the translations are occasionally given in a separate
column, but in Emar the present text is the only known example of such a practice. The rationale behind
multilingual curricular tablets is clear. Students learning to write cuneiform in the western periphery were
native speakers of neither Sumerian nor Akkadian. As such, it was helpful to adapt the standard curricular
texts for their use in the same way as Sumerian lexical lists were adapted when they acquired Akkadian
translations during the Old Babylonian period.12 In Ugarit lexical texts were translated into both Hurrian and
Ugaritic, in Hattuša into Hurrian and Hittite, while in Emar they were translated only into Hurrian – no text in
the local dialect is known to exist.
In the case of the Weidner god list, translation into Hurrian was more theological than linguistic. While
some god names were simply written phonetically in the Hurrian column,13 the majority were given Hurrian
equivalents. The rationale behind the equivalences is usually very clear – Šimigi for Utu,14 for example, simply
gives the Sumero-Akkadian sun god the name of his Hurrian counterpart. Occasionally the gaps in our
knowledge obscure the basis of the match – Ayakun for both Ninsun and Alammuš,15 assuming the restora-
tions in the Ugarit trilingual manuscript are correct, is hard to explain. A final point that must be noted is that
the disparity in size between the Mesopotamian pantheon and the pantheons of the western periphery
necessitated the repetition of Hurrian and Ugaritic deities.16
The publication of the Hurro-Akkadian bilingual manuscript has been piecemeal. Some lines were cited
by Arnaud in the commentary to his edition of a monolingual exemplar of the Weidner list from Ugarit
(RS. 1979–24 + RS. 1980–388) though without reference to the fact that they were bilingual.17 In his later
edition of the monolingual version of the text from Emar,18 since re-edited by Gantzert,19 Arnaud mentions
‘Fragments avec correspondances hourrites, non repris ici.’ In a brief article from 1989, Laroche20 quotes and
discusses excerpts from the text. He also communicated two lines dealing with the god il-amurrim to Richter,
who used them as the basis of an even briefer article.21 Most recently, Rutz22 published two fragments of the
text which he identified among Arnaud’s copies – Msk 7489o and Msk 74.158k. Msk 7489o is included in
Salvini’s edition without reference to Rutz’s work which was presumably published after Salvini’s went to
press.23 Msk 74.158k is not included in Salvini’s edition.
Msk 74.158k, was first edited by Arnaud as a manuscript of Ḫḫ24 before its true identity was realised by
Rutz. It can now be identified as a direct join to the largest fragment published by Salvini, Msk 74.108a+, and a
possible join to the smaller fragment 74.180b. This adds slightly to our knowledge of the text as a whole, and
particularly to the Hurrian version, known otherwise only from RS. 20.123+, a trilingual Akkadian-Hurrian-
Ugaritic text, appended to a quadrilingual manuscript of Sa Voc.25 The trilingual text preserves, with sizable
lacunae, the first 51 lines of the list. The Emar manuscript published by Salvini preserves substantially more of
10 Veldhuis (2014: 271–280).

11 Cohen (2010: 813). See note 2 above.
12 Van Soldt (1995: 171).
13 E.g. Ṣilluš-ṭab and Irhan (below, iib 7′ and 11′).
14 Salvini (2015 : 51 l. 6′).
15 Nougayrol (1968: 247 l. iva2 and 249 l. ivb 15).
16 Nougayrol (1968: 247 n. 3).
17 Arnaud (1982: 203–208) and see below obv. 15′.
18 Arnaud (1987: 34–36, No. 539).
19 Gantzert (2011: i 30–32; ii 47–49; iii 34–38).
20 Laroche (1989: 8–12).
21 Richter (1998: 135–137).
22 Rutz (2013: 167–172).
23 Salvini labels the tablet Msk 74.89c, but as Rutz discusses (2013: 168), this is incorrect.
24 Arnaud (1987: 145).
25 Nougayrol (1968: 246–249).

84 Altorientalische Forschungen 2017; 44(1)
the text, though the An list was not thoroughly standardised and manuscripts from different times and places
show a large degree of variation.
The following edition of the two columns affected by the join is based on photographs of Msk 74.158k
kindly supplied by Salvini himself and published here with his generous permission, on Arnaud’s copy of the
fragment,26 and on the copies and photographs of Msk 74.108a+ published by Salvini.27 The copies of the join
were made by Elyze Zomer from the photographs published here and in Salvini’s edition. Each line is equated
to the line numbering of Cavigneaux’s partitur edition of the Neo-Babylonian exemplars of the text from
Babylon (Bab.),28 Nougayrol’s partitur edition of the monolingual manuscripts from Ugarit (Ug.),29 Arnaud’s
edition of the monolingual Emar text, (Em.)30 and Weidner’s composite text (An).31
Tab. 1: Msk 74.108a + Msk 74.158k +? Msk 74.180b
Obv.
ia iib Bab. Ug. Em. An
1′ ˹d˺ ˹ṣar˺-˹pa˺-˹ni˺-[tum : ...] 66 62 32′ III.2
d
2′ N[À (Na[bû) : ...] 68 – 33′ III.3a
d
3′ na-bi-u[m : ...] 67 63 34′ III.3
d
4′ taš-me-tum : [...] 69 64 35′ III.4
d d˺
5′ ma-mé-e : [...] – 65 36′ III.5
d d
6′ a-ra-aḫ-tum : a-r˼[a?-aḫ?-tum?] 70 66 37′ III.6
d d
7′ MI-uš-˻DÙG˼ (Ṣilluš-ṭab) : ṣí-[il?-lu?-uš?-ṭa?-ab?] 71 67 38′ III.7
d d ? ? ? ?
8′ ˻K[A]-˻DI-[D]I (Iš[ta]rān) : ku -ma-[ar -bi /wi ] 72 68 39′ III.8
d˼
9′ [DI.K]U5 ([Ištar]ān) : ŠU-x[...] 75 69 40′ III.9a
d
10′ [ K]U5 ([Qu]dma) : ŠU-[...] 76 70 41′ III.9b
11′ [d] MUŠ (Irḫan) : d
i[a-ar?-ḫa?-an?] 77 71 42′ III.10
12′ [di-šar-ma]-ti!-su : d
[...] 78 71a 43′ III.11
d d˼
13′ [ i-šar-k]i-di-su : [...] 79 72 44′ III.12
14′ [di-šar]-ne-ri-su [: ...] 80 73 45′ III.13
15′ [di-ša]r-[a]-ri-su [: ...] 81 74 46′ III.14
d ?
16′ [ i-ša]r-[p]àd-d[a : ...] 82 75 47′ III.14a
17′ [dnè-e]ri11-gal [: ...] 83 76 broken III.15
d ?
18′ [ è]r-ra˼ [: ...] 84 78 broken III.16
19′ [d]èr-ra˼-[gal? : d
ta?-a]r?-˹ḫu-un˺-[ta?] 85 77? broken III.17
d d ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
20′ ma-[mi : aš -te -ta -a]r -ḫu-un-[ta -wi ] 88 79 48′ III.18
d d
21′ ma-[ma : ma?-ma?]-˹a-an 87 80 49′ III.19
d ...
22′ ma-[lik : ]x-ḫu-ka4?-x[ 89 81 50′ III.20
d d
23′ u[r-ma-šum : ur?-]mi-šu-u[n] 90 82 51′ III.21
d ? d ?
24′ l[a-az : la -a]z-zi – 83 52′ III.22
d
25′ [šu?-bu?-la? : ...-ḫ]é? 91 84 53′ III.23
d ? ?
26′ [i -šum : ...] 92 85 54′ III.24
d
27′ [nin?-mug? : ...] 93 broken 55′ III.25
d
28′ [nin?-maš? : ...] 94 broken 56′ III.26
d
29′ [ḪAR? : ...] 95 broken 57′ III.27
26 Arnaud (1985: 394).

27 Salvini (2015: 255).
28 Cavigneaux (1981: 79–99).
29 Nougayrol (1968: 210–224).
30 Arnaud (1987: 34–36).
31 Weidner (1924–1925: 51–18 and 71–82).

Rev.
iiia iiib Bab. Ug. Em. An
d˺ ? ? ?
1′ [tu -ba -ka : ...] 132 123 77′ IV.29
d
2′ [nagar? : ...] 133f. 124f. 78′ IV.30f.
d
3′ l[ugal?-šùd?-du? : ...] 136 125 79′ V.1
d ? ? ?
4′ n[in -TAG -TÚG (Uttu) : ...] 137 126 80′ V.2
d
5′ ni[n-giš?-zi?-da? : ...] 138 127 81′ V.3
d
6′ nin-[nisig? : ...] 140 128a 82′ V.4a
d
7′ nin-[ìmma? : ...] 139 128 83′ V.4
d
8′ kal-[kal : ...] 141 129 84′ V.5
d
9′ šul-[gi : ...] 142 130 85′ V.6
d
10′ šul-p[a-è-a : ...] 143 131 86′ V.7
d
11′ ab-[ú : ...] 144 132 87′ V.8
d
12′ gu-[la : ...] 145 133 88′ V.9
d
13′ gu-l[a-zi-da : ...] 146 134 89′ V.10?
d
14′ SU-KUR-[RU] (Sud) : [...] 147 135 90′ V.11?
d.kur
15′ kúru[n-n]a[m] : [...] 148 136 91 V.12?
d
16′ nin-n[i]˹gar!˺(Ù].˹UD˺.˹GÍD˺) : d
[...] 149? 137? 92′? broken
d d
17′ da-gan : x[...] 150 138 93′ broken
d d
18′ da-mu : x[...] 151 139 95′ broken
d d
19′ nin-šen-šen-na : x[...] 152 140 96′ broken
d ki ki ?
20′ INANNA-unug : arde ú-rak[ en=i ] 155 141 broken broken
d
21′ INANNA-kiški : arde ki-iš[ki en=i?] 157 142 broken broken
d ki ki! ?
22′ INANNA-ZA.M[Ú]Š.UNUG (Zab[a]lam) : arde ŠU [ en=i ] 156 143 broken broken
d
23′ INANNA-gal[ga! (ARḪ[UŠ).]˻s˼[ù] ˻: arde ŠUk[i en=i?] 159? 149/147 broken broken
d ki ?ki? ?
24′ INANNA-tin-[tir : ard]e bá-b[i-li en=i ] 161 146/149 broken broken
d
25′ INANNA-a-g[a-dèki : ard]e? [... ki? en=i?] 162 144/146 broken broken
d ? ki ?
26′ INANNA-ul-[maš : arde ... en=i ] - - broken broken
d
27′ INANNA-UD.KI[B.NUNki (Zim[bir) : arde ...ki en=i?] - 147/- broken broken
d
28′ INANNA-KI.S[U.LU.ŠÙ.NÍGki (ug[nim) : arde? ...ki? en=i?] 155? 150/141? broken broken
? ? ki ki ?
29′ ˻d˼
˻INANNA˼-[U]˻D˼ -[UNU]˻G˼ (Larsa) : arde ... en=i ] - 145?/150? broken broken
30′ [...]x[... : ...] ? ? ? ?
Obv. 7′ This goddess is one of the hairdressers of Ṣarpanitum according to An=Anum II 250,32 where the
correct reading of her name is spelt out fully. Miuššar is, according to Krebernik, a false reading.33 The
restoration in iib assumes the name was spelt syllabically for the Hurrian audience.
Obv. 8′ The text is slightly damaged in column a, and the signs are not what would be expected. The most
likely reading is KA . DI . DI , which is a simple dittographic error. We should understand KA . DI = Ištarān.
The restoration in column b is somewhat more tentative. The KU sign is not clear in the photograph due to
shadow. Arnaud’s copy reads KU and this is the basis of the reading and of Zomer’s copy below. It should be
noted, however, that Arnaud’s copy has one too many horizontal wedges in the following sign, turning a clear
MA into ŠU. It is possible that the line is to be read NIGIN-TAB-MA, but if so the TAB is very small. Another
possibility is NIGIN-I[A], but there is a large gap between the first two horizontals and the next three. This is
32 Lambert (Unpublished: ii, 250) = Litke (1998: 98, l. 260).

33 Krebernik (2009–2011: 498).

not impossible, however, as MA is written three times with an absurdly large gap between the horizontals and
the vertical further down the same column (iiia 19–21).
KU-MA is preferable to the other readings as it offers a plausible restoration. While Kumarbi’s name is
most commonly spelt Ku-mar-bi in Hittite texts,34 a Hurrian text from Mari has dku-ma-ar-wi-ni-da-al,35 and
two texts from Nuzi listing oil rations for various gods have dku-mu-ur-wa.36
From a syncretistic point of view, Kumarbi offers a good parallel for the relatively little known god Ištarān.
Both were netherworld gods.37 Both were known, to at least some extent, as ‘Father of the Gods’ and ‘King of
the Gods.’ Kumarbi is given the former epithet in the Song of Ulikummi,38 while his kingship is the subject of
the Hurrian myth preserved in the Hittite Kumarbi cycle.39
Ištarān is not explicitly referred to with either title, but this is almost certainly due to the paucity of
sources dealing with him. Both titles are used to describe dMUŠ . The former is preserved in a prayer to Nisaba,
known in copies from Nimrud and Nineveh, which contains the line dMUŠ a-bu ilānimeš ‘MUŠ , father of the
gods.’40 The latter is seen in a Kassite period personal name MUŠ -šar-ilāni ‘MUŠ , king of the gods.’41 dMUŠ most
commonly denotes Irḫan, Ištarān’s messenger42 but a Late Babylonian commentary on Šumma Ālu from
Nineveh has the equation ‘dMUŠ = Ištarān.’43 MUŠ is Sumerian for snake, and both Irḫan and Ištarān are snake
gods.44 However, while Irḫan is otherwise known only as a relatively minor god, Ištarān is commonly named
AN . GAL ‘Great Anu/God.’ Although we have too few sources to understand his character more clearly, this
implies that he was, as Lambert says, ‘on a very high level in the pantheon.’45 It seems likely, therefore, that
MUŠ in these contexts was understood at least at some point to mean Ištarān.
In a ritual connected with the Ekur temple in Nippur, Ištarān is said to have died and he is equated with
the dying god Dumuzi, an equation which recurs elsewhere.46 While Kumarbi is not known to have died, he is
overthrown as king of the gods in the Kumarbi cycle. This is a common theme in myths detailing the deaths of
gods,47 and it is possible that Ištaran’s death was related to such a myth.
The fact that Kumarbi is equated with Enlil in the Ugarit trilingual version of the Weidner list,48 and with
Dagan in other texts from Ugarit49 need not concern us. As noted above, the Hurrian and Ugaritic pantheons
were not as extensive as the Sumero-Akkadian one, and duplication was therefore necessary in finding
matches.50 This is clear within the Ugarit trilingual list in which the Hurrian god Šimigi is equated with both
Utu and Lugalbanda.51
Obv. 9′–10′ Weidner’s three column manuscript of the god list52 gives Madānu as the equivalent for
both dDI . KU 5 and dKU 5, but this is Late Assyrian from Aššur and therefore not an absolute authority. The
34 Güterbock (1980–1983: 324–325).

35 Thureau-Dangin (1939: 17, l. 4). This is published in RA, but is referenced incorrectly in Güterbock (1980–1983: 325) as Syria 36
(1939).
36 Pfeiffer/Speiser (1936: 35, nr. 47: 1; 36, nr. 48: 1). Copies of both tablets in Pfeiffer/Lacheman (1942: Pls. VII-VIII).
37 Hoffner (1998: 41). Wiggermann (1997: 42–44). Also, note the monolingual Emar copy of the Weidner list in which Ištarān is
equated with the netherworld god Nergal (dU-gur?! Arnaud 1987: 34 l. 39′; dU-LoUH? Gantzert 2011: 48, l. 74).
38 Güterbock (1951: 147, l. 4).
39 Hoffner (1998: 40–80).
40 Lambert (1999–2000: 153, l. 18).
41 CBS 3781. Clay (1912: 135) (as Ṣir-šar-ilāni).
42 See commentary to obv. 9′–10′.
43 Jiménez (2016: l. 38).
44 Wiggermann (1997: 42–44).
45 Lambert (1976–1980: 211).
46 Livingstone (1986: 136–137).
47 For example in Enūma Eliš (Lambert 2013: 45–135).
48 Nougayrol (1968: 246, l. 35′′): [den-lil : k]u-[m]ur-wi : ilumlum
49 Feliu (2003: 299–300).
50 Nougayrol (1968: 247 n. 3).
51 Nougayrol (1968: 248, l. 18 and 249, l. 14).
52 Weidner (1924–1925: 16, ll. 9a–9c).

equivalents in column iib do not help in identifying the intended deities, but the original compiler’s intention
can be fairly easily deduced.
d
DI . KU 5 is known to refer to three different gods – Ištarān (An=Anum V 288),53 Madānu (An=Anum II 254),54
and one of the Eight Judges of Šamaš, dd i . k u 5 (An=Anum III 174)55. The last of these is simply the Sumerian
word d i . k u 5 (Akk. dayyānu ‘Judge’) deified. The identification with Madānu, the guzalu ‘throne-bearer’ of
Marduk, is also made in two Late Babylonian commentary texts – CCP 7.2.u10356 and CCP 7.1.6.A.b57 –, the latter
of which is chiefly devoted to justifying the equation. In the present context, however, dDI . KU 5 is likely Ištarān
because line 11′ has his messenger, Irḫan, and several Neo-Babylonian manuscripts have dAN . GAL , a common
name of Ištarān, in between our lines 8′ and 9′.58 It should, however, be noted that the same manuscripts also
insert dKUR . GAL after dAN . GAL , a name associated with Enlil (An=Anum I 154)59 or Šakkan (An=Anu ša amēli
101)60 and not with Ištarān. It seems likely that dKUR . GAL is included simply because of graphic similarity to
d
AN . GAL , and as a form of wordplay – ‘Great Heaven’ juxtaposed with ‘Great Earth’ – but this is not certain.
d
KU 5 is known as a logographic writing of Išum (An=Anum VI 17).61 In the current context, for the reasons
just discussed, it is far more likely to refer to Qudma, the vizier of Ištarān.62
ŠU ‘same’ in column b, while generally well attested in lexical lists, is only preserved in this list in
these lines and in rev. 22′–23′. We can offer no convincing restoration for the slight traces following ŠU in
obv. 9′.
Obv. 11′ The restoration suggested by Yoram Cohen in iib agrees with the standard spelling of this god’s
name.63 The possibility raised above (obv. 8′) that dMUŠ in some contexts should be understood as Ištarān is
probably not relevant to this instance. This section of the list (at least obv. 8′–25′) deals with underworld gods,
of whom Irḫan is one.
Obv. 15′ This name is usually written di-šar-a-li-su, but the monolingual Emar manuscript has the same
spelling as our text, as does a tablet belonging to the most commonly attested tradition at Ugarit.64
The manuscripts from Ugarit bear two distinct textual traditions. One manuscript, exemplar A,65 is
written in archaising script66 and is according to van Soldt ‘probably a Mesopotamian original of the Weidner
god list.’67 This text is generally far closer to the Old Babylonian manuscripts than to the other Ugarit
tablets.68 It omits several gods present in the other Ugarit manuscripts but missing from the Old Babylonian
tradition – Idlurugu,69 Magalla,70 and Nin-Eanna71 to give just a few examples. In addition, it omits super-
53 Litke (1998: 195).

54 Litke (1998: 97).
55 Litke (1998: 135).
56 Gabbay et al. (2015: l. 26).
57 Jiménez/Finkel (2016: ll. 1–9).
58 Cavigneaux (1981: 86, ll. 73–74); van der Meer (1938: 58, ll. 8–9); Weidner (1924–1925: 16, ll. 9a–9c). Some manuscripts in each
edition omit the extra lines.
59 Litke (1998: 38).
60 Litke (1998: 236).
61 Litke (1998: 201).
62 Krebernik (2006–2008: 190).
63 Lambert (2013: 238–239).
64 RS 24.309, see Nougayrol (1968: 216).
65 R.S. 20.121 +R.S. 20.121A. Nougayrol (1968: 210–230 & Pl. 119).
66 Shibata (2009: 40).
67 Van Soldt (1995: 175, n. 30).
68 See most simply Veldhuis (DCCLT). Weidner (1924–1925: 4) exemplar F is also substantially complete, but only easily readable
in copy as the edition is subsumed into Weidner’s composite text.
69 Nougayrol (1968: 214, l. 58a).
70 Nougayrol (1968: 218, l. 113a).
71 Nougayrol (1968: 218, l. 140a).

fluous signs present in the other Ugarit manuscripts, which give, for example, Dam-gal-nun-an-na for Dam-
gal-nun-na.72
All other exemplars at Ugarit,73 while not identical, seem to belong to the same tradition, which is also
closer to that of the Neo-Babylonian tablets from Babylon.74 Two fragments from this tradition probably
belong to the same tablet. L contains the beginning and end of the list in four columns, preserving roughly
a quarter of the entire composition. M is a small fragment containing ll. 45–56, identical to Nougayrol’s
exemplar F except for a transposition error in line 55 – ddam-nun-gal-an˼-[na] for ddam-gal-nun-an-na. The
rulings in L and M are identical and do not match those in the other Ugarit tablets. The dimensions given
for each piece do not preclude an indirect join. If this is correct, M is the lower left corner of the obverse,
while L contains the top of the obverse and the bottom of the reverse.
The Emar lists strike a middle path between the two Ugarit traditions. The unusual spellings in Ugarit B–
M are not found in Emar, but several of the gods omitted from Ugarit A are included in the Emar lists. Thus, it
is not possible to rely too heavily on either list for restorations to our text.
Obv. 17′ff. Salvini’s estimation of the number of lines in the damaged section of Msk 74.108a+ was slightly
inaccurate. The new join shows the damaged section to contain one more line than Salvini assumed, and so
line numbers from this point on have been altered accordingly.
Obv. 19′–25′ iib These lines are preserved on Msk 74.180b, which may or may not belong here. If it is correctly
placed it is possible that this small fragment is a direct join to Msk 74.158k, but without a photograph or access
to the original tablet it is impossible to tell. It is certain that there is a break in the text in any case. The
restorations here follow Salvini’s text75 except for lines 20′–21′.
Obv 20′ iib The restoration of Tarḫun(ta) was suggested by Enrique Jiménez. While the equation of the Hittite-
Luwian storm god with a Sumero-Akkadian netherworld god seems unlikely, the signs fit the name and we
can offer no better suggestion. The situation becomes a little clearer on investigation of Erragal.
Tarḫun(ta) was a storm god and a bull god, syncretised with, and used as a subordinate name for, the
Hurrian storm god Teššub by the middle of the fifteenth century.76 Erragal shares none of these character-
istics as far as we are aware, but is usually a form of the god Erra. Erra was syncretised with the
underworld god Nergal from a very early period and was therefore responsible for war, plague and the
underworld.77 Lambert describes him as ‘everywhere a god of destruction,’78 which gives a possible
explanation for the equation. Storm gods are regularly responsible for widespread destruction – too heavy
a storm wipes out crops and destroys property – and Tarḫun(ta) could reasonably be understood as
embodying this aspect of the storm here. Roberts,79 however, has argued persuasively that the character-
istics most strongly associated with Erra are war and famine, and that the Semitic root of his name ḫrr ‘to
scorch’ demonstrates an association with destructive fire.80 This, plainly, is not a likely match for the
destructive power of rain.
72 Nougayrol (1968: 214, l. 55).

73 B-K = Nougayrol (1968: 210–230 & Pls. 120–129). L = R.S. 79–24 + R.S. 80–388 Arnaud (1982: 203–208). M = R.S. 92–3179
André-Salvini (2004: 154). L and M are letters given by the current author, continuing Nougayrol’s numeration. Four unpublished
tablets (R.S. 25.438C, R.S. 34.178, R.S. 20.181.13 and R.S. 20.197F) listed by van Soldt (1995: 197) presumably also belong to this
textual tradition.
74 Cavigneaux (1981: 79–99).
75 Salvini (2015: 52, ll.18–24).
76 Schwemer (2008: 22).
77 Lambert (1973: 356).
78 Lambert (1973: 356).
79 Roberts (1971: 11–16 and 1972: 21–30).
80 Notwithstanding Lambert’s apparent scepticism (Lambert 1973: 356) and Westenholz’s scathing critique of Roberts’ work in
general (Westenholz 1975: 288–293).

It is likely that Erragal, in origin, was a separate figure from Erra.81 He is relatively rarely attested. In
An=Anum I 31682 Erragal is given as the husband of Ninnisig and equated with Nergal. Ninnisig and Nergal,
written dU . GUR , also appear together in two mythological explanatory texts in which we should understand
Erragal for Nergal.83 In one of these, the two are paired with the u r u d u - n í g - k a l a - g a , probably a type of
gong which made the sound of thunder and was borne by the storm god Adad.84
Elsewhere, Errakal is specifically associated with the destruction caused by the flood in Atraḫasīs and
Gilgameš, where he is said to ‘tear up the mooring poles.’85 This is echoed in Erra and Išum, in which Erra is
said to smash rudders and tear down masts and rigging.86 In this poem Erra also threatens ‘Him whom the
prince has not struck down, Adad (the Mesopotamian storm god) will wash away,’87 though as this is part of a
list of ways in which Erra will destroy the world, it is perhaps not very significant.
The distinction between Erra, Erragal and Errakal is difficult to define, presumably due to their early
syncretism, but it is clear that Erragal, and possibly Errakal, were in some way connected with storms and
the destruction they wrought. As such, a pairing with Tarḫunta presumably implies that the Hittite storm
god was responsible for watery destruction within the Hurrian pantheon. Perhaps as this was a subordinate
feature of storms, which were more important as a source of fresh water, it was given to the subordinate
storm god.
A final point that must be noted is that in the Ugarit trilingual tablet, Teššub is equated to the goddess IM -
zu-an-na (Ninzuanna).88 As Nougayrol notes, this is almost certainly due to a misunderstanding concerning
the first syllable of dIM -zu-an-na, as dIM is a common logogram for the Mesopotamian storm god Adad.89
Obv. 21′ iib This restoration assumes a pairing of Erra with his wife Mami mirrored in the Hurrian column –
Tarḫun(ta) and Mrs. Tarḫun(ta). This practice is followed in the Hurrian column of the Ugaritic trilingual
manuscript,90 and is possible here, though little more than a guess. It should be noted, however, that in order
to accept this reading, we must assume a confused understanding on the part of the Hurrian scribe concerning
the distinction between Erra and Erragal. As discussed, Erragal apparently had stormy features, Erra certainly
did not, and Mami is the wife only of the latter.
Obv. 20′–29′, rev. 1′–7′ The restorations in column a are very tentatively offered. They are based on the
monolingual Emar exemplar. Rev. 2′–7′ are broken in Arnaud’s edition, but are preserved in a fragment edited
by Rutz which joins the main tablet.91 The line numbering and spelling of the monolingual Emar manuscript,
apart from an unexpected gap between Dagan and Damu (monolingual line 94′),92 do not appear to diverge
from the bilingual version. This is striking compared to the exemplars from elsewhere, all of which differ from
each other in many small respects and sometimes quite substantially. Obv. 24′ is restored as [la-az] in
preference to la-a-az recorded in Ugarit on precisely this basis.93
81 Wiggermann (1998–2000: 217–218). The syncretism of distinct figures within the Weidner list due to phonetic or graphic
similarities can also be seen in the case of dDI . KU 5 and dKU 5 (see commentary to obv. 9′–10′), who are both equated with Madānu
in the Late Assyrian multi-column tablet. While this is perfectly reasonable (if incorrect) for dDI . KU 5, it is otherwise unattested for
d
KU 5, which was originally a logogram for Qudma.
82 Lambert (unpublished: I 316) = Litke (1998: 332).
83 Livingstone (1986: 179, l. 44 and 191, l. 13).
84 This is to be discussed in a forthcoming article by Henry Stadhouders and the current writer, provisionally entitled ‘The
Charred Drumstick and the Thunder Cymbal’. The details are too extensive to be treated here.
85 Lambert/Millard (1969: 87, III vii 51 and 125, U rev. 15); George (2003: 708–709, XI 102). One manuscript of the Gilgameš tablet
has [dèr?-ra?]-gal.
86 Cagni (1977: 56, ll. 118–120).
87 Cagni (1977: 54, ll. 81).
88 Nougayrol (1968: 249, l. 50′).
89 Nougayrol (1968: 249, n. 2).
90 Nougayrol (1968: 246, ll. 34′′ and 36′′).
91 Rutz (2013: 169). d[Utt]u? ([TAG.TÚ]G).
92 Arnaud (1987: 35). Arnaud notes the possibility that this is a mistake covered by an erasure.
93 Nougayrol (1968: 216, l. 85).

Rev. 1′ The monolingual list has dtu-tu-ba-[...], but this is presumably a dittographic error, following dtu-tu in
the preceding line. It is nonetheless possible that Tutuba[ki?] was intended, in which case the restoration here
should be altered. In any case, the restoration is extremely tentative.
Rev. 4′ Most exemplars of the Weidner list do not include a NIN at the start of this name. The Emar
monolingual duplicate is silent – just the end of the line survives.94 A single unprovenienced Old Babylonian
manuscript does include the NIN,95 and as this fits the traces more closely we have followed it here.
Rev. 6′–7′ Ninnisig96 and Ninimma are recorded in this order only in the monolingual Emar manuscript. In
addition to Bab. Ug. and An, a small fragment from Uruk97 also records the order Ninim[ma], Nin[nisig]. As
discussed above, the Emar manuscripts seem to follow one another closely and so the restorations here follow
the less well-attested tradition.
Rev. 15′ dKAŠ - TIN -nam = dkurun-nam is the more usual writing of this name,98 but is attested within the
Weidner god list only in a Neo-Babylonian school exercise tablet BM 50676.99 That KURUN is the reading of
KAŠ - TIN in the name is certain from the writings in the Old and Middle Babylonian texts. The Tall Taban
manuscript and the unprovenienced VS 24, 20 have dkúrun-na,100 while Ugarit A and F, and the Emar
monolingual have d.kurkúrun-nam.101 KÚRUN is TIN, and a difference of spelling between two types of KURUN
is far more likely than the omission of the syllable KAŠ.
Kurunnam is the name of a minor deity worshipped in the temple of Gula at Nippur, mentioned in the
Nippur compendium,102 on a Kudurru stone from the reign of Marduk-apla-idinna I,103 and elsewhere,104
always in the circle of Gula.
Rev. 16′ This line is damaged in the majority of manuscripts, though several texts preserve traces of some
spelling of Ninnigarra.105 In An=Anum V 135 this name is equated with the healing goddess Ninkarrak, a form
of Gula.106 Elsewhere, they are separate figures, but always associated with one another.107
There are a number of problems with this line:
The traces following the NIN are unclear. We have opted to read Ù, an error for the U of NIGAR, though
P[À], as an error for PA4 is conceivable. Our preference for Ù stems from the fact that PA4 is not required in the
94 Rutz (2013: 169, l. 3′).

95 Langdon (1928: 31 iii 8′) = W-B. 9.
96 This name has been read Ninmú (Cavigneaux 1981: 192, l. 140; Rutz 2013: 169, l. 5′), Nin.ezen.n[a?] (Nougayrol 1968: 218, l.
128a), and Ninšar (Lambert, unpublished: I, 8–9). Nin-nisig, which is read by Cavigneaux and Krebernik (1998–2000b: 484–486),
is confirmed by the Sumerian hymn known as Nuska B (CBS 8548: rev. 6): ˹dNIN˺-NISIG-RA gišBANŠUR SI12-GA-ME-EN ‘For
Lady-Greenery, (Nuska) makes the table green.’ The meaning of this line is not entirely clear, but the wordplay is unmistakeable
and does not work if we read the name differently – NISIG ‘greenery’ is juxtaposed with SI12 ‘green.’ The text was edited most
recently by Sjöberg (1977: 27–29) and by the compilers of ETCSL (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/c4292.htm), but both
misread the line in question. The correct reading of the line was shared with me by Hannelore Agnethler, who is preparing a new
edition of the text.
97 Von Weiher (1993: 116, l. 7–8).
98 See Borger (1970: 25) and references there.
99 Gesche (2000: 337, l. 2′). See also rev. 16′ commentary.
100 Shibata (2009: 36 iii 3′) and Veldhuis (DCCLT: rev. i 9). Shibata is partially restored from Veldhuis.
101 Nougayrol (1968: 218, l. 136) and Arnaud (1987: 35, l. 91).
102 George (1992: 159 v 14).
103 Paulus (2014: 434 v 28), who following Borger (1970: 25), writes dkaš-tin-nam.
104 E.g. Nougayrol (1947: 35, l. 5).
105 Veldhuis (DCCLT: VS 24, 20 rev. i. 10); Nougayrol (1968: 218: 137); Arnaud (1982: 204, l. 141); Shibata (2009: 36, l. iii 4′). All but
VS 24, 20 are restored from traces.
106 Litke (1998: 181).
107 E.g. Böck (2014: 31). See also Cavigneaux/Krebernik (1998–2000a: 477).

line. Ninpanigarra is the wife of Panigarra in An=Anum II 61,108 and is almost certainly a different goddess
from Ninnigarra. Panigarra is a warrior god equated with Ninurta109 and could therefore reasonably be married
to a healing goddess, but the only explicit reference to Ninpanigarra in this context is found in the Late
Assyrian Sultantepe god list, in which she follows Ninkarrak.110 All other surviving manuscripts of the Weidner
list, with the exception of a single Neo-Babylonian school text, have Ninnigarra rather than Ninpanigarra. In
the school exercise text BM 50676 we read [d]nin-pa4! ud tab [d]nin-pa4-nigargar-r[a].111 The first of these appears
to be an attempt to write the second, abandoned mid-sign when the scribe realised he had written an extra
oblique stroke in the PA4 instead of the Winkelhaken required for NIGAR. This is one of two probable errors in
the 6-line extract preserved on the exercise text, along with [d]˹da?˺-da for dda-mu,112 and the tablet should not
therefore be relied upon for an accurate reading.
The reading NIGAR for NI9/NÌGIN is attested from the Fara period onward.113 Two Ugarit tablets and the
unprovenienced Old Babylonian tablet VS 24, 20+ all include a phonetic complement and are not to be read
d
nin-ni9-gar-ra but dnin-nigargar-ra. However, Ù . UD . GÍD rather than U . UD . KID for NIGAR is doubly incorrect,
and presumably the result of scribal error. The monolingual Emar tablet reads dnin-UD ˼-K [ ID ,114 while the
Ugarit tablet F has dnin-U - UD - RU - KID -gar-ra and dpa4-U - UD - RU - KID -gar-ra115 indicating that the sign was not
well understood in western peripheral copies.
Rev. 20′–29′ iiib It has been assumed here that each line followed the pattern ‘Goddess of X city’, the Hurrian
arde ‘City’116 written with the Sumerogram URU , and en=i ‘Goddess’117 perhaps written AN . This is of course a
questionable reconstruction as the final word does not survive in any instance. However, a simple list of cities
headed URU /arde would not in any real sense convey the meaning of the Akkadian column’s list of city
goddesses.
The Inanna-of-Xki section survives to some extent in several Weidner manuscripts, but, as is perhaps clear
from the line numbers in the Bab. and Ug. columns above, there is substantial variation between manuscripts
in this part of the text. The table below details the variant lists. Two Old Babylonian manuscripts preserve
parts of the list – the unprovenienced VS 24, 20 (VS)118 and T07-1 from Tall Taban (Tab.)119 – both are
unfortunately broken. Two different orders are attested in Middle Babylonian monolingual texts from Ugarit120
(Ug. A121 and UG. E/F/L122). Several Neo-Babylonian exercise texts from Babylon (Bab.)123 record what appears
to be a different list, though only one tablet preserves more than traces, and the badly broken OECT 4, 141 from
Kiš124 seems to follow the order of the Babylon tablets.
Outside the Weidner list, An=Anum IV 117ff.125 contains a much expanded version of the same list, and four
Old Babylonian god lists – the Nippur god list (NGL),126 a non-standard god list also from Nippur (N. 1012+),127
108 Lambert (unpublished: II, l. 61) = Litke (1998: 74, l. 63).

109 Krebernik (2003–2005: 236).
110 Gurney/Hulin (1964: pl. 256, 377, ll. 4′–5′).
111 Gesche (2000: 337, ii 3′–4′).
112 Gesche (2000: 337, ii 6′).
113 Krebernik (1986: 199); Krebernik (2003–2005: 325). The reading is not included in Borger (2010).
114 Gantzert (2011: 49, iii 15′′′).
115 Nougayrol (1968: Pl. 124, ll. 100 and 135).
116 Richter (2012: 49).
117 Richter (2012: 86).
118 Veldhuis (DCCLT: rev. i 14–16).
119 Shibata (2009: 36 iii 9′–12′).
120 See above obv. 15′.
121 Nougayrol (1968: 218–220, ll. 141–151).
122 E and F = Nougayrol (1968: 218–220, ll. 142–151). L = Arnaud (1982: 204–205, ll. 142–151).
123 Cavigneaux (1981: 92–93, l. 155–163).
124 Van der Meer (1938: pl. 32). Transliterated in Cavigneaux (1981: 93, l. 159–163).
125 Litke (1998: 156–158).
126 Peterson (2009: 25–27, ll. 54–62).
127 Peterson (2009: 86, ll. 1–4).

the Genouillac god list (Gen.),128 and the unprovenienced god list TIM 9, 86 (TIM)129 – all contain comparable
sections.130
The Inanna-of-Xki section in An=Anum does not seem to be closely related to the list as it is preserved in
Weidner, and is in any case badly broken, and so it is omitted here. A single Late Babylonian school exercise
text, BM 66591, is said by Gesche to contain the relevant lines,131 but it is not copied or edited, no photographs
are available, and time constraints have made it impossible to examine it for this article. On the basis of the
evidence presented in the Neo-Babylonian school texts that are available (Bab. and Kiš) it is unlikely that this
text deviates substantially from the Babylonian exemplars, though it is of course possible.
In the following table, words without hyphens are preceded by Inanna- in the texts. Damage is not
generally noted except where the reading is uncertain and spelling has been normalised. For the Weidner
tablets, the line immediately preceding all exemplars contains the name Nin-šen-šen-na.
Tab. 2: Inanna-of-X.
Em. Bi. Tab. VS Ug. A Ug. E/F/L Bab. Kiš TIM NGL N. 1012+ Gen.
?
Nin-é-an-na Nin-[ugnim ] An-nu-ni-tum
Nin-ugnim-gar-ra Nin-[é-an-na] Á-nu-na
Uruk Uruk?132 Uruk Uruk Uruk Uruk Uruk AN.ZA.GAR ...? Kiš
? ?
Kiš Ilip Kiš Kiš Kiš Zabalam Zabalam Martu ... ugnim
ki
Zabalam Kiš x] Zabalam Zabalam Kiš ... Ilip x.x.x Nineveh
ki
galga.sù Zabalam ... Agade Ilip UG ... Kiš Zabalam Nin-é-an-na
?
Tintir Agade Larsa Agade galga.sù ...].sù Uruk X
Agade ... Tintir galga.sù NIGINki ...]ki Zabalam Nin-šen-šen-na
Ulmaš? Zimbir Tintir Tintir ...t]irki Eanna
ki
Zimbir Ilip Nineveh Agade ...]dè Ešagrig
giš ? ki?
ugnim galga.sù Larsa [erin ] ...]
?
Larsa Ugnim kin.kin
X kin.kin
As can be seen, the only completely consistent element is that the list of Inannas opens with Uruk, though
Nin-ugnim ‘Lady of the troops’ and Nin-é-an-na ‘Lady of the Eanna’ precede the Inanna names proper in two
copies. The inclusion of related but non-Inanna-X names before the main list is also seen in the Canonical
Temple List133 and in a Middle Babylonian list of temples found in the Schøyen collection.134 Unfortunately
neither of these offer any reasonable restorations for line 26′.
Kiš and Zabalam are regularly included early, but the remainder of the list is not consistent across the
surviving exemplars. It is noteworthy, however, that there is a relatively small pool of types of Inanna, and
so it has been possible to make plausible restorations for most of the Akkadian column of the current
tablet.
128 TCL 15, 10. Genouillac (1923: 102, v 14–19). This is generally understood to be the forerunner of An=Anum.
129 Van Dijk (1976: Pl. 69).
130 Peterson (2009: 50–51).
131 Gesche (2000: 512).
132 See below, rev. 20′.
133 George (1993: 16, ll. 313ff.).
134 Van Soldt (2015: 528–529).

Rev. 20′ Rutz reads URU GÁN/É SAL [...] in column iiib. The reading ú-rak = Uruk was suggested by Yoram
Cohen, who notes that CVC signs from the western periphery are empty regarding their vowel quality. It is
likely that a similar reading should also be understood in the Tall Taban tablet iii 8′ in place of Shibata’s
d
MÙŠ-˹É˺-[an-na] – perhaps dINANNA -ú-[ruk]. While a phonetic writing of Uruk is unexpected, as the table
above demonstrates, every copy of the Weidner list opens this section with Inanna of Uruk. The equivalent
section in An=Anum (IV 117ff.)135 also opens with Uruk, as does the unprovenienced Old Babylonian god list
TIM 9, 86. Although the name Nin-é-an-na does occur in several Middle Babylonian manuscripts from Ugarit,
and possibly in a Babylonian school text, as well as in the Genouillac god list, it is unlikely to have supplanted
Uruk altogether.
Rev. 23′ The slight damage in the Akkadian column for this line is of relatively little concern. INANNA -g a l g a -
s ù is certainly to be read, as can be understood from the table above. INANNA -g a l g a - s ù is, however, rather
unusual in this list as g a l g a - s ù is not a city or area of responsibility like ugnim, but an epithet ‘Inanna the
Queen.’136 Odder still, the Hurrian equivalent URU /arde ŠUki [DINGIR /en=i?] ‘[Goddess of?] ditto city’137 points to
an understanding of INANNA -g a l g a - s ù as a city goddess. While it is possible that the Emar scribe knew no
better or made a mistake, the tablet is generally free of the sort of glaring errors normally associated with the
work of a scribe who did not understand his material.
INANNA -g a l g a - s ù , though very rarely attested, is the consort of the god Amurru,138 the city god of
Ninab.139 The location of Ninab is still uncertain. An alternative spelling, according to Sjöberg, is Inab,140
which Edzard tentatively gives as a reading for the city Ilip.141 Reiner proved Ilip, also written k i . b a l . m a š .
d à , to be the correct reading of the city previously read ì-lul or ì-nari.142 Through this string of names, we come
to an interesting point. If we accept the, admittedly uncertain, chain that leads from Ninab to Ilip, we must
understand Amurru to be the city god of Ilip.
INANNA -ì-lipki, though absent from our manuscript and Cavigneaux’s Neo-Babylonian texts, is present in
each of the Middle and Old Babylonian versions in which this section is preserved.143 In the Ugarit texts,
INANNA -ì-lip and INANNA -g a l g a - s ù are either written consecutively or interrupted by only one entry. In the
Tall Taban text, INANNA -g a l g a - s ù is missing, though as the tablet is broken in the middle of the Inanna
section it may have been lost.
Because INANNA -g a l g a - s ù , ‘Inanna the Queen’144 is the name of Inanna as consort of Amurru, it must be
equivalent to INANNA -ì-lip, city goddess of Amurru’s city. The Ugarit versions of the list contain both names,
but duplication of this sort is common in god lists. The Ugarit versions are mirrored by the sequence in the Old
Babylonian Nippur god list ll. 56–57 ‘56 dInana Mar-tu 57 dInana Ì-lipki’145. Martu is the Sumerian equivalent of
Amurru, and, as the Nippur god list is arranged along broadly theological lines, the succession of names
therefore supports the identification suggested here.
The absence of INANNA -ì-lip in Cavigneaux’s Neo-Babylonian exemplars is perhaps to be explained by
the relatively large lacunae at this point. Only a single manuscript preserves more than fragments of the list,
135 Litke (1998: 156).

136 Following George (1993: 30, l. 342).
137 ŠU is technically distinct from ditto, which is written MIN. It functions as a horizontal ditto mark – what is written in the
neighbouring column, rather than the neighbouring row, is to be repeated.
138 Beaulieu (2003: 327–328).
139 Sjöberg/Bergmann (1969: 127).
140 Sjöberg (1973: 30).
141 Edzard (1976–1980: 52).
142 Reiner (1961: 123, n. 7 and 124).
143 Arnaud (1982: 204, l. 145) dinana.ì.nar-...; Nougayrol (1968: 218, A. l. 148) dinana.ì.narki, (F. l. 145) dinana.ì.nar.nagar?.raki;
Shibata (2009: 36, l. 9′) dInanna Ì-lipki.
144 Malkatu ‘Queen’ is the Akkadian translation given in An=Anum (Litke 1998: 157, IV 127) and Nabnitu (Finkel 1982: 84, l. 203),
and George understands the same meaning in the Canonical Temple List (George 1993: 16, l. 324 and 30, n. 324).
145 Peterson (2009: 14, ll. 56–57).

and even this is broken.146 Perhaps the same explanation accounts for the absence of the name from our list,
but it seems more likely that it was never present. It is, of course, possible that the reading in our text is the
result of omission on the part of the scribe, or at some stage earlier in the transmission of the text, but in
light of the Ugarit and Babylon manuscripts and especially of the Nippur god list, it seems more likely that
the two names were interchangeable and that the scribe understood ‘Inanna the Queen’ to stand for ‘Inanna
of the city of Ilip’.
Rev. 26′ The restoration of Inanna of (É).Ulmaš was suggested by Enrique Jiménez. While unattested in the
other versions of the list, it is nonetheless likely. (É) . u l . m a š was Inanna’s temple in Agade.147
In Ur III texts, there are rare references to a goddess dul-ma-ší-tum, possibly representing Inanna of
Agade.148 In these texts, Ulmašītum is never mentioned alone, but always follows dan-nu-ni-tum,149 possibly a
name of Inanna of Babylon.150 This pair also presumably occurs in the Old Babylonian Nippur god list ‘An-nu-
ni-tum dUl-maš-ir-tum.’151 An(n)ūnītum, who also occurs in the Genouillac list of Inannas, was a major deity in
Sippar until late in the first millennium, 152 and, at least in the Old Babylonian period, was associated with
martial prowess.153 It is perhaps noteworthy, then, that Inanna-Ulmaš immediately precedes Inanna of Sippar
and Inanna-of-the-troops in our list. It is possible, though this is mere speculation, that the Hurrian column
did not follow the pattern of earlier entries and instead had Ulmašītum and An(n)ūnītum as the equivalents
for lines 25′-28′.
Speculation aside, the fact that the entry follows Inanna-Agade, makes the restoration fairly safe.
Rev. 27′–28′ The restorations in these lines are uncertain, but are reasonable based on the surviving traces
and comparison with the other lists.
Rev. 29′ INANNA -ni-na-a (Nineveh) and INANNA - UD - UNUG (Larsa) are both possible from the traces that
remain, but given the space available on the tablet, the remains of the vertical are more likely to belong to UD
than NA. In any case the space between the remains of the UD/NA and the two verticals that remain of the
other sign is too great for the second sign to be A, so UNUG is more likely.
146 Cavigneaux (1981: 93: 79.B.1/135 vii′ 155–163).

147 George (1993: 155, no. 1168).
148 Lambert (1989: 324).
149 Cohen (1993: 137).
150 Lambert (1989: 324).
151 Peterson (2009: 52, ll. 71–72).
152 Lambert (1989: 324).
153 Lambert (1989: 324; 1973: 364).

Fig. 1a–b: Obverse. Copy: E. Zomer, except Msk 74.180b (Salvini 2015: 144). Photo: Msk 74.158k Obv.; kindly provided by M. Salvini;
digitally enhanced by M. Brouillard.

Fig. 2a–b: Reverse. Copy: E. Zomer. Photo: Msk 74.158k Rev.; kindly provided by M. Salvini; digitally enhanced by M. Brouillard.

Addendum
There is no single critical edition of the Weidner god list, and the dozens of tablets on which it is preserved
have been published in many places. The most comprehensive list of tablets and publications is Shibata
(2009: 35 n.13–18), which is itself discussed in Yamada (2016: 61–62). Additional references are listed in Rutz
(2013: 167–168), though note that three tablets Rutz describes as unpublished have appeared: N 2229 is
published in Peterson (2008: 47) and N 4474 + N 7533 and N 3685 in Peterson (2009: 81–82). In addition,
Lambert (2003–2004: 396) is not an ‘unprovenienced first-millennium school exercise’ as Rutz states but an
edition of BM 134863 = EA 374, the Amarna fragment of the Weidner list. A reconstruction of the peripheral
and Aššur versions of the god list, which came to the writer’s attention too late to be used in this article, can be
found in Gantzert (2006).
Neither Shibata nor Rutz mention two small Late Babylonian fragments from Uruk published in von
Weiher (1993: 114 and 200, SpTU 4, 180 = W 22727d; 1993: 115–116 and 201, SpTU 4, 184 = W 23296/1). The
second of these bears a striking resemblance to the other, much larger, Late Babylonian exemplar of the text
from Uruk, SpTU 3, 108 = W 23295.154 The obverse of each has two columns separated by a double ruling, the
reverse has several more columns, possibly as many as 6, each also separated by a double ruling. The reverse
of SpTU 3, 108 is mostly blank apart from the rulings and the few remaining traces do not appear to belong to
the Weidner list, while the reverse of SpTU 4, 184 contains scribal exercises. In both cases, the text on the
reverse is divided within the columns by use of long vertical wedges. The two tablets certainly do not join.
Also absent from Shibata and Rutz, though mentioned by Bartelmus,155 are two Old Babylonian school
texts from Sippar-Yahrurum and Sippar-Amnānum respectively. The first of these, containing lines 194–
196,156 is quoted without a tablet number in Scheil (1898: 40). The second, IM 80054, containing lines 72–73,157
is published in Tanret (2002: 123 and Pls. 34 and XXXVIII).
Several texts have been published more recently than Shibata and Rutz. Two unprovenienced Old
Babylonian school texts: MAH 16002 in Cavigneaux (2012: 71) and HE 416 in Guichard (2016: 66–67) add to the
relatively small number of Old Babylonian exemplars, while two Middle Babylonian school texts from
Babylon: VAT 17176 and VAT 23928, both in Bartelmus (2016b: 253–355 and 379) add to the even smaller pool
of Middle Babylonian tablets not from the western periphery, though the first of these was originally
recognised as containing part of the Weidner list by van Dijk who published it in hand copy as VAS 24, 123
(1987: 15 and Pl. XL). A Neo-Babylonian school text from Sippar-Yahrurum, now in the Schøyen collection, MS
5007, is published in Civil (2010: 273–274). This text, containing the smallest of scraps of the Weidner list – a
broken dingir and possible traces of another sign – is one of a group of similar texts all bearing colophons
which were treated in George (2010: 274–279), all of which presumably contained short excerpts from the
Weidner list originally. Most of the Weidner excerpts on these tablets are either very short or lost. The longest
preserved excerpts are on EAH 197 and EAH 198+200, the latter of which is included by George as exemplar e,
though he does not mention the original publication of both tablets in Maynard (1919: 65–69).
Several unpublished texts should also be noted. The majority of these are to be found in the list of tablets
in Gesche (2000: 807), which both Shibata and Rutz mention. A further fragment catalogued as ‘Anum?’ by
Gesche158 but not included in her list is BM 53853 = 82-3-23, 4894. A similar group of texts, though spanning a
far greater period, is doubtless to be found among the tablets described in Pedersén (2005). Unfortunately, it
is not possible to identify Weidner manuscripts from the information presented by Pedersén without an
examination of the tablets, though the two Middle Babylonian texts mentioned above (Bartelmus 2016b: 253–
355 and 379) were first catalogued by Pedersén and more exemplars will certainly be found as the result of his
efforts.
154 Von Weiher (1988: 212 and Plate 108).

155 Bartelmus (2016a: 28, n. 9 and 40, n. 78).
156 According to the numeration of Ugarit A, Nougayrol (1968: 222).
157 According to the numeration of Ugarit A, Nougayrol (1968: 216).
158 Gesche (2000: 700).

Civil (2010: 284) lists 13 numbers from the Schøyen collection which contain god lists but does not edit
them or say which list is on each tablet. BM 76858 = AH 83-1-18, 2230, which is transliterated twice in Lambert’s
notebooks (10026 and 10197), appears to be a Late Babylonian school text, probably from Sippar, though there
is no way to be certain about the provenience of tablets in the AH 83-1-18 collection.159 It contains about 10
broken lines of the Weidner list. Two more Late Babylonian exemplars are mentioned in Leichty (1986): BM
53483 = 82-3-23, 4520 is probably from Sippar, BM 53612 = 82-3-23, 4650 is recorded as being from Dilbat,
though as with the AH 83-1-18 collection, the provenience of both of these is open to question.160
Also probably from Sippar is BM 62741 = AH 82-9-18, 2710, the only known commentary on the Weidner
list. CCP 6.7.A (http://ccp.yale.edu/P461274) has details and photographs, though no edition as yet, and a
transliteration is found in Lambert’s notebooks (10187). Contrary to the index to Lambert’s notebooks, BM
76257 is not a manuscript of the Weidner list, but joins BM 56607+, a bilingual proverb collection edited in
Lambert (1960: 270–271 and Pl. 70).
Ashm. 1924-1216+1836, 1924-1486, 1924-1923 and 1924-2095 are small fragments from Kiš not included in
van der Meer 1938, but listed by CDLI as parts of the Weidner list. In addition, a smallish fragment, Ashm.
1924-1480, has been joined to OECT IV 138 (Ashm. 1924-1396) since its publication.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Hannelore Agnethler, Yoram Cohen, Birgit Haskamp, Enrique
Jiménez, Kate Kelley, Alasdair Livingstone, Mikko Luuko, Henry Stadhouders, Laura Walters and Selena
Wisnom for their comments on this paper. I am deeply indebted to Elyze Zomer for making such elegant copies
and for her many productive suggestions. I am also indebted to Mirjo Salvini for providing photos and
permission to publish them. Any remaining mistakes are mine.
Bibliography
André-Salvini, B. (2004): Textes lexicographiques de Ras-Shamra-Ugarit (Campagnes 1986–1992), SMEA 46/2, 147–154.
Arnaud, D. (1982): Les textes cunéiforms suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979–1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Syria 59, 199–222.
Arnaud, D. (1985): Recherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI/1–2: Textes sumériens et accadiens, Paris.
Arnaud, D. (1987): Recherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI/4: Textes de la bibliothèque, transcriptions et traductions, Paris.
Bartelmus, A. (2016a): The Role of Babylon in Babylonian Scribal Education. In: S. Yamada/D. Shibata (ed.) Cultures and Societies
in the Middle Euphrates and Habur Areas in the Second Millennium BC. Vol. 1: Scribal Education and Scribal Tradtions
(StCh. 5/1), Wiesbaden, 25–43.
Bartelmus, A. (2016b): Fragmente einer großen Sprache (UAVA 12), Leiden.
Beaulieu, P.-A. (2003): The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period (CunMon. 23), Leiden.
Böck, B. (2014): The Healing Goddess Gula (CHANE 67), Leiden.
Borger, R. (1970): Vier Grenzsteinurkunden Merodachbaladans I. von Babylon, AfO 23, 1–26.
Borger, R. (2010): Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Second Edition (AOAT 305), Münster.
Cagni, L. (1977): The Poem of Erra (SANE 1/3), Malibu.
Cavigneaux, A. (1981): Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša harê, Baghdad.
Cavigneaux, A. (2012): Fragments lexicaux et littéraires du Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève. In: C. Mittermayer/S. Ecklin (ed.)
Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger (OBO 256), Fribourg, 65–89.
Cavigneaux A./M. Krebernik (1998–2000a): NIN-nigara, RlA 9, 477.
Cavigneaux A./M. Krebernik (1998–2000b): NinSAR, RlA 9, 484–486.
Civil, M. (1989): The Texts from Meskene-Emar, AulaOr. 7, 5–25.
Civil, M. (2010): The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 12), Bethesda.
Clay, A. (1912): Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period (YOSR 1), New Haven.
Cohen, M. E. (1993): The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda.

Cohen, Y. (2010): The “Second Glosses” in the Lexical Lists from Emar: West Semitic or Akkadian? In: L. Kogan (ed.) Language in
the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e RAI (Orientalia et Classica 30–31), Winona Lake, 813–839.
de Genouillac, H. (1923): Grande liste de noms divins sumériens, RA 20, 89–106.
Edzard, D. O. (1976–1980): Ilip, RlA 5, 52.
159 Reade (1986: xxxiv).

160 Reade (1986: xxxii).

Feliu, L. (2003): The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (Trans.: W. G. E. Watson) (CHANE 19), Leiden.
Finkel, I. J. (1982): The Series sig7.alan= nabnītu (MSL 16), Rome.
Fleming, D. (2000): Time at Emar (MesCiv. 11), Winona Lake.
Gabbay, U. et al. (2015): BM 36595 on: http://ccp.yale.edu/P469985
Gantzert, M. (2006): Syrian Lexical Texts (3): The Peripheral Weidner God Lists, UF 38, 299–311.
Gantzert, M. (2011): The Emar Lexical Texts. Vol. 1–3, Maastricht.
George, A. (1992): Babylonian Topographical Texts (OLA 40), Leuven.
George, A. (1993): House Most High (MesCiv. 5), Winona Lake.
George, A. (2003): The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Vol. 1, Oxford.
George, A. (2010): The Colophon of MS 5007. In: M. Civil, The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 12), Bethesda,
274–279.
Gesche, P. (2000): Schulunterricht in Babylonien (AOAT 275), Münster.
Guichard, M. (2016): H.E.416: une copie scolaire de la “Weidner God-list”, NABU 2016/2, 66–67.
Gurney, O. R./P. Hulin (1964): The Sultantepe Tablets. Vol. 2, Ankara.
Güterbock, H. G. (1951): The Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text of the Hittite Version of a Hurrian Myth, JCS 5, 135–161.
Güterbock, H. G. (1980–1983): Kumarbi, RlA 5, 324–330.
Hoffner, H. A. (1998): Hittite Myths (Second Edition) (SBL WAW 2), Atlanta.
Jiménez, E. (2016): K.1 on: http://ccp.yale.edu/P237754.
Jiménez, E./I. L. Finkel (2016): BM 47458 on: http://ccp.yale.edu/P461230
Krebernik, M. (1986): Die Götterlisten aus Fāra, ZA 76, 161–204.
Krebernik, M. (2003–2005): Pa(p)-nigara, RlA 10, 325–327.
Krebernik, M. (2006–2008): Qudma, RLA 11, 190–191.
Krebernik, M. (2009–2011): Ṣilluš-ṭab, RlA 12, 498.
Lambert, W. G. (1960): Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford.
Lambert, W. G. (1973): Studies in Nergal, BiOr. 30, 354–363.
Lambert, W. G. (1976–1980) Ištarān, RlA 5, 211.
Lambert, W. G. (1989): A Babylonian Prayer to Anūna. In: H. Behrens et al. (ed.), DUMU-É-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honour of Åke
W. Sjöberg (OccPubl. S.N. Kramer Fund 11), Philadelphia, 321–336.
Lambert, W. G. (1999–2000): Literary Texts from Nimrud, AfO 46–47, 149–155.
Lambert, W. G. (2003–2004): Review of S. Izre’el, The Amarna Scholarly Tablets and Adapa and the South Wind, AfO 50,
394–396.
Lambert, W. G. (2013): Babylonian Creation Myths (MesCiv. 16), Winona Lake.
Lambert, W. G. (unpublished): An=Anum I, II, III and V.
Langdon, S. (1928): Sumerian and Semitic Religious and Historical Texts (OECT 1), Oxford.
Laroche, E. (1989): La version hourrite de la liste AN de Meskéné-Emar, CRAIBL 133, 8–12.
Leichty, E. (1986): Tablets from Sippar 1 (CBT 6), London.
Litke, R. (1998): A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, A n : dA-nu-um and A n : Anu ša amēli (TBC 3), New Haven.
Livingstone, A. (1986): Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Oxford.
Maynard, J. A. (1919): A Neo-Babylonian Grammatical School Text, JSOR 3, 65–69.
Nougayrol, J. (1947): Textes et documents figurés, RA 41, 23–53.
Nougayrol, J. (1968): Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques priviés d’Ugarit, Ugaritica 5, 1–446.
Paulus, S. (2014): Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit (AOAT 51),
Münster.
Pedersén, O. (2005): Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917 (ADOG 25),
Saarwellingen.
Peterson: J. (2008): Neo-Babylonian Exemplars of the Weidner Godlist from Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia,
NABU 2008/2, 46–48.
Peterson, J. (2009): Godlists from Old Babylonian Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia (AOAT 362), Münster.
Pfeiffer, R. H./E. R. Lacheman (1942): Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi. Part 1 (HSS 13), Cambridge Massachussetts.
Pfeiffer, R. H./E. A. Speiser (1936): One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts (1935–1936), AASOR 16, 1–168.
Reade, J. (1986): Introduction. In: E. Leichty, Tablets from Sippar 1 (CBT 6), London, xiii-xxxvi.
Reiner, E. (1961): The Year Dates of Sumu-Jamūtbāl, JCS 15, 121–124.
Richter, T. (1998): Die Lesung des Götternamens AN.AN.MAR.TU. In: D. I. Owen/G. Wilhelm (ed.), General Studies and Excavations
in Nuzi 10/2 (SCCNH 9), Bethesda, 135–137.
Richter, T. (2012): Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen, Wiesbaden.
Roberts, J. J. M. (1971): Erra: Scorched Earth, JCS 24, 11–16.
Roberts, J. J. M. (1973): The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, Baltimore.
Rutz, M. (2013): Bodies of Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia (AMD 9), Leiden
Salvini, M. (2015): Les textes hourrites de Meskéné/Emar. Vol. 1 (AnOr. 57/1), Rome.
Scheil, V. (1898): Une saison de fouilles à Sippar (Abou Habba) [Janvier-Avril 1894], Paris.

Schwemer, D. (2008): The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis and Recent Studies. Part 2, JANER 8/1, 1–44.
Shibata, D. (2009): An Old Babylonian Manuscript of the Weidner God-List from Tell Taban, Iraq 71, 33–42.
Sjöberg, Å. W./E. Bergmann (1969): The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (TCS 3), Locust Valley.
Sjöberg, Å. W. (1973): Miscellaneous Sumerian Hymns, ZA 63, 1–55.
Sjöberg, Å. W. (1977): Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts II, JCS 29, 1–45.
Tanret, M. (2002): Per aspera ad astra. L’apprentissage du cunéiforme à Sippar-Amnanum pendant la période paléobabylonienne
tardive (MHET 1/2), Ghent.
Thureau-Dangin, F. (1939): Tablettes hurrites provenant de Mâri, RA 36, 1–28.
van der Meer, P. E. (1938): Syllabaries A, B1 and B: With Miscellaneous Lexicographical Texts from the Herbert Weld Collection
(OECT 4), Oxford.
van Dijk, J. J. A. (1976) Texts in the Iraq Museum. Vol. 9 (TIM 9), Leiden.
van Dijk, J. J. A. (1987) Literarische Texte aus Babylon, VAS 24, Berlin.
van Soldt, W. (1995): Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts, ALASP 7, 171–212.
van Soldt, W. (2015): Middle Babylonian Texts in the Cornell University Collections. Vol. 1: The Later Kings (CUSAS 30), Bethesda.
Veldhuis, N. (DCCLT): VS 24, 020 + SE 55 on: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/corpus
Veldhuis, N. (2014): History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition (GMTR 6), Münster.
von Weiher, E. (1988): Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk III (SpTU 3), Berlin.
von Weiher, E. (1993): Uruk Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U 18, IV (SpTU 4), Mainz am Rhein.
Weidner, E. (1924–1925): Altbabylonische Götterlisten, AfO 2, 1–18 and 71–82.
Westenholz, A. (1975): Review of J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, JSS 34, 288–293.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1997): Transtigridian Snake Gods. In: I. L. Finkel/M. J. Geller (ed.), Sumerian Gods and their Representa-
tions (CunMon. 7), Groningen, 33–55.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1998–2000): Nergal, RlA 9, 215–226.
Yamada, S. (2016): Old Babylonian School Exercises from Tell Taban. In: S. Yamada/D. Shibata (ed.), Cultures and Societies in the
Middle Euphrates and Habur Areas in the Second Millennium BC. Vol. 1: Scribal Education and Scribal Tradtions (StCh. 5),
Wiesbaden, 45–68.


A New Join To The Hurro Akkadian Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A New Join To The Hurro Akkadian Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A New Join To The Hurro Akkadian Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Altorientalische Forschungen 2017; 44(1): 82–100

A New Join to the Hurro-Akkadian Version of

Keywords: The Weidner God List, Hurro-Akkadian, DN INANNA -g a l g a - s ù , DN Ištarān, DN Erragal

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

10 Veldhuis (2014: 271–280).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Tab. 1: Msk 74.108a + Msk 74.158k +? Msk 74.180b

26 Arnaud (1985: 394).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

32 Lambert (Unpublished: ii, 250) = Litke (1998: 98, l. 260).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

34 Güterbock (1980–1983: 324–325).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

53 Litke (1998: 195).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

72 Nougayrol (1968: 214, l. 55).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

94 Rutz (2013: 169, l. 3′).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

108 Lambert (unpublished: II, l. 61) = Litke (1998: 74, l. 63).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

135 Litke (1998: 156).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

146 Cavigneaux (1981: 93: 79.B.1/135 vii′ 155–163).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

154 Von Weiher (1988: 212 and Plate 108).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

159 Reade (1986: xxxiv).

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

Authenticated | fjs708@bham.ac.uk author's copy

You might also like