Nabû, the Avenger. The Second Section of the Balaĝ Prayer Ukkin-ta eš-bar til-la

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2022; 112(1) 61–75 Abhandlung Daniel Schwemer* Nabû, the Avenger The Second Section of the Balaĝ Prayer U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a https://doi.org/10.1515/za-2021-2003 Abstract: B 158 is a Seleucid-period manuscript of the bilingual Balaĝ prayer U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a . The tablet, which was found at Babylon in 1902 and is edited here for the first time, contains major portions of text that have hitherto been unknown. The prayer is suffused with first-millennium Nabû theology and contains a unique literary request for revenge against the enemy in the mountain lands. The findspot of B 158 may shed light on the provenance of the Late Babylonian kalûtu library of the Nanna-utu family. B 158 is the best-preserved first-millennium literary text among the Babylon tablets and fragments in the collections of the Arkeoloji Müzeleri in Istanbul.1 The tablet was found in February 1902 by the German excavators of Babylon among the remains of an archive and library in a private residence west of the Išḫara temple in the Šuanna quarter of the ancient city.2 The excavation photographs (PhB 1228, 1229, figs. 1–2) show the tablet, which was assigned the excavation number Bab 15608, in almost intact condition. During its transport to Istanbul in 1915, the tablet, like many others, suffered water damage.3 Today much of its reverse is unreadable, and the bottom of the tablet is entirely lost (figs. 3–4). Consequently, the hand-copy presented here (figs. 5–6) is based on the study 1 I would like to thank U. Gabbay for reading and commenting on a first draft of this article. I also owe A. Heinrich a debt of gratitude for kindly giving me access to his photos of BM 78878. I am grateful to the colleagues and research students with whom I could read and discuss B 158 in the Würzburg Cuneiforum. Thanks are also due to the Turkish authorities for permission to conduct research in the cuneiform collection of the Archaeological Museums in Istanbul; to the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin, and the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft for giving access to the excavation photographs and granting permission for their reproduction here. Abbreviations follow RlA. This article was produced within the framework of the project ‘Cuneiform Documents in the Babylon Collection of the Istanbul Archaeological Museumsʼ funded by the DFG (project no. 438042051). 2 The tablet assemblage from this findspot (Amran 35x; later 35af) was reconstructed and catalogued by Pedersén (2005, 279–283) as archive and library N19. 3 See Pedersén 2008, 83. *Corresponding author: Daniel Schwemer, Universität Würzburg, Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Altorientalistik, Würzburg, Deutschland; Email: [email protected] of the original, but had to rely in many places on the excavation photographs. F. H. Weissbach studied B 158 still on site and noted it among the tablets that deserved prompt publication. However, no further study or classification of the tablet was undertaken until O. Pedersén identified the tablet as “Hymnus, sumerisch, Kolophon; Datierung: nBab” in his critical catalogue of the cuneiform finds of the German excavations in Babylon.4 The bilingual text on B 158 indeed represents a Sumerian hymn and can be identified more precisely as a portion of the Balaĝ prayer U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a , the only text of this genre addressed to Nabû.5 The beginning of this portion of U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a has long been known from BM 78878 (1888-5-12, 64), a Late Babylonian tablet of uncertain provenance that duplicates B 158 o. 1–30.6 The central and final parts of the prayer beyond the initial temple litany are attested only on B 158 and edited here for the first time. 4 Pedersén 2005, 282, N19: 42 (with reproduction of the excavation photograph of the obverse ibid., 280, fig. 116). For Weissbach’s notes, see Pedersén 2005, 5 and 279. 5 For the text, see the comprehensive edition by Cohen (CLAM, 479– 99). 6 The tablet was acquired by the British Museum from Joseph M. Shemtob in 1888; see Walker 1988, xvii–xviii. It was first edited by Langdon (1936) and then formed part of Cohen’s edition (CLAM, 479–99; relevant lines: 481–82: b+13–41). The tablet was written by Marduk-šumu-ušabši, son of Ea-ibni, of the Miṣirāya family (Gabbay 2014, 274; as pointed out to me by S. Mirelman, the reference to Nabû in the colophon may suggest that the tablet was written in Borsippa). The lines corresponding to B 158 o. 28–30 are very fragmentary on BM 78878. 62 Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger The catchline in B 158 r. 20 reads: a u₅ - a š à - b a - n i a - m a - r u n a - n a m k u r a l - g u l - g u l - e | ša têrētūšu šaqâ qerebšu abūbumma šadî uʾabbat. This corresponds to the fragmentary incipit of VAT 397 (SBH 12, CLAM: ms. M), a Late Babylonian tablet from Babylon whose colophon is lost.7 The same part of the prayer is attested in K 3238 (BL 158) + K 19695, where the colophon designates the text as the third nisḫu-section (šalšu nisḫu) of U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a (r. 6′). Consequently, the prayer preserved on B 158 and BM 78878 may be identified as the second nisḫu-section of U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a . Whether this also corresponds to the second kirugu-section of the prayer remains unclear for the time being.8 The catchline on B 158 is followed by a short colophon with an intercession for the scribe: ana ṭu-ub ziḫi “For the good fortune of the copyist(?)” (r. 30).9 This type of colophon in the very same spelling is otherwise attested in two tablets of Bēlšunu, son of Bēl-nu,10 who is known as the writer of three Late Babylonian Balaĝ tablets from Babylon, one of them dated to 156 bc (156 S.E., reign of Demetrius I).11 The provenance, genre, format, and script of B 158 confirm that the tablet was part of the large corpus of Late Babylonian Emesal prayers associated with the Nanna-utu family, which was published in SBH and CTMMA 2.12 Also the tablets of Bēlšunu belonged to this corpus, even though Bēlšunu’s own family is unknown. A reference to a Vorlage from the house of probably the same Bēlšunu in the colophon of SBH 74 + CTMMA 2, 15 may suggest that his tablets entered the larger collection secondarily. In any case, it seems very likely that the catchline of B 158 refers not only textually to the incipit of VAT 397 (SBH 12), but that the two tablets belong also physically to the same set of tablets. The findspot of the SBH and CTMMA 2 texts within Babylon is unknown.13 The tablets were purchased by the Vorderasiatisches Museum and the Metropolitan Museum in 1886 and probably dug up by the local population in the 7 The reading and reconstruction of the line in CLAM, 482: c+43 and c+44 need to be corrected accordingly; see, infra, note on r. 29. 8 The beginning of U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a is very fragmentary. The text of the first kirugu is preserved only on the small fragment BM 128083 (CLAM, 830), which cannot be connected to the following text (see CLAM, 481: 1–5, a+6–12). 9 The exact interpretation of the colophon is uncertain; see note on r. 30. 10 SBH 24 r. 28; SBH 26 l. e. 1; see Hunger 1968, 64 nos. 174 and 176. 11 In addition to SBH 24 and 26, see also SBH I; cf. Gabbay 2014, 247. 12 For the corpus of Late Babylonian Emesal prayers from Babylon, i. e., the kalûtu library of the Nanna-utu family, see Maul 2005, 11–16; Gabbay 2014, 244–55. 13 See Gabbay 2014, 246 with fn. 183. years after H. Rassam’s excavation in Babylon (1879–82). For the time being, it is impossible to determine the exact relationship between the kalûtu library of the Nanna-utu family and the partially excavated private house in Amran 35x where B 158 was found. In addition to B 158, Pedersén catalogues five tablets with Sumerian hymns among the library tablets found in this house, unfortunately all of them unpublished and currently not located.14 He notes with regard to the N19 library: “Höchst interessant wäre es zu erfahren, ob zwischen den hier verzeichneten Tontafeln und den vor den deutschen Grabungen gefundenen großen Mengen von Tontafeln Zusammenhänge bestehen” (Pedersén 2005, 281). B 158 and related tablets from the Nanna-utu family library indeed suggest such connections. At present, however, it remains unclear whether the library of N19 should actually be identified with the kalûtu library of the Nanna-utu family or rather represents the house of Bēlšunu, son of Bēl-nu, or indeed of another Seleucid-period scholar like Bēlšunu. Nothing is known as yet about the ritual contexts in which U k k i n - t a e š - b a r t i l - l a and its Eršema prayer U r - s a ĝ a - m á - r u₁₀ ḫ u - l u ḫ - ḫ a were used.15 The overarching topic of the composition is Nabû’s role as the foremost son of Marduk who, in the garb of Ninurta, vanquishes the foreign enemies and thus ensures the safety and prosperity of his city and temple.16 This is, of course, a well-known element of first-millennium Nabû theology, which applies the mythological pattern of the father-son relationship between Enlil and Ninurta to Marduk and Nabû. Thus the traditional motifs of Ninurta theology are not only employed for Marduk, but also for his son Nabû, a development that produced a certain similarity between the devotional texts addressed to these two gods.17 The present text is clearly divided into seven parts: 14 Pedersén 2005, 282, nos. 22 (Bab 15566), 27 (Bab 15588a), 28 (Bab 15588b), 30 (Bab 15589b), 32 (Bab 15591). The Babylon fragments in Istanbul contain only a few further Late Babylonian bilingual texts: B 156A (+) 157 (excavation number and findspot unknown; Balaĝ prayer M u - t i n n u - n u z d í m - m a) ; B 156B (excavation number and findspot unknown; unidentifiable Balaĝ prayer); cf. also B 149 (Bab 35428; Pedersén 2005, N13 no. 197; Saĝ-gig I = Muššuʾu I); B 154 (excavation number and findspot unknown; Saĝ-ba I). 15 One very fragmentary ritual text mentions the Eršema; see Gabbay 2015, 145. 16 The rubric of the text names the Ezida in Borsippa (CLAM, 492: f+298). This does not preclude the transfer of the composition into other theological contexts. Thus BM 113940 from Ur shows that the composition could also be used for Sîn’s Eĝišnugal in Ur (see Gabbay 2014, 221). 17 See Maul 1991, 326; Annus 2002, 55–61. 125–26. 135–37; Gabbay 2014, 38. Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger (1) Opening address The opening address to Nabû (obv. 1–5) invokes the god with his standard names and titles. The passage probably begins with a tercet (obv. 1–2)18 that is addressed to Muzebasa’a, showing the delay of the personal name to the second poetic line that is so often found in Sumerian literary texts (Wilcke 1976, 214). The three lines introduce the two refrains of the composition (A: m è b a - a n - g i u₄ è n - š è š i b a - a n - g i ; B: t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n) in the structure A–B–A, presenting B in a combination with the first half of A: ú r u - z u m è b a - a n - g i t a - š è ì - g u b bé-en. As noted by Cohen (CLAM, 498), the juxtaposition of g i (g i₄) “to surround” (lamû) and š i — g i “to be quiet, abate” (šuḫarruru) in the very first line (and, subsequently, in refrain A) is intentional. Now that the full text of the prayer is known, the purpose of this prominent deployment of homonyms becomes apparent. The Sumerian verbal base g i announces the main theme of the prayer, namely the revenge (Sum. š u — g i) that Nabû is asked to take on his enemy. By focussing on the verbal base g i , the opening passage refers to the second half of the prayer, which begins in r. 6 with a plea for revenge (š u - ĝ a r g i - a | gimilla tēr) and ends in r. 24–25 with a final paraenesis in the same vein (š u … ù - b í - g i | gimilla tēr). The initial tercet is followed by a couplet invoking Nabû with his names Šitadukišara and Nabû (dag); the invocation of Šitadukišara is accompanied by refrain A, that of dag by refrain B. The opening address is then concluded by a single poetic line that praises Nabû with his epithet “heir of Esaĝil” and, once more, employs refrain A, giving the whole opening address the structure A–B–A / A–B / A. (2) Lament: litany A The first litany with the refrain m è b a - a n - g i u₄ è n - š è š i b a - a n - g i (refrain A) comprises o. 6–28. The naming of individual cities and temples is drawn to a close with a 18 Unusually, o. 2 has the Sumerian refrain B in the second half of the Akkadian line (see note on o. 2). If one considers this to be a mistake (rather than, as argued here, an indication for a repetition of the line, first with refrain A and then with refrain B), the prayer begins with a simple couplet. The opening address would then have the overall structure A–B / A–B / A (not A–B–A / A–B / A). For the litanies in Emesal prayers, see now Gabbay 2020 (for alternating refrains ibid., 54–6). 63 summarizing couplet that laments the destruction of all the lands and all the buildings of Nabû (o. 27–28). (3) Lament: litany B The second litany (o. 29–39) employs refrain B (t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n) , which is combined in the introductory line of this passage with phrases that take up elements of refrain A: m è b a - d a - a n - g i m è b a - a n - ⸢d a - š u b?⸣ - e t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n (o. 29). The thematic focus of the second litany, which is richly populated with stock phraseology (see note on o. 31–39), are the terrible effects of war on the land and its people. (4) Lament: explication The description of the enemy’s attack continues in o. 40–r. 5. The first line of this part compares an unnamed subject to a rising, all-destructive flood. The ambiguity is probably intentional, as it allows the comparison to be associated with battle (š e n - š e n - n a | qablu), the subject of the preceding litany, and also with the enemy himself (m u - l u - e | nakru) who is mentioned for the first time in the following couplet (o. 41–42). The remaining lines of this part, not all of which can be fully deciphered at present, frame the violence inflicted by the enemy on the land’s population in poetic images: The young women are caught and taken away like birds, the young men slaughtered like cattle, the children speared like little fish, and the elderly trampled to death and flattened like mud. (5) Plea Lines r. 6–8 mark the major turning point of the composition and introduce the plea for revenge against the enemy. A single poetic line with two colons is reserved for the basic request, which is phrased in the Sumerian imperative: z i - b a - a n - d a k u r è - b a - t a š u - ĝ a r g i - a | tibi ina šadî ṣīma gimilla tēr (r. 6). This request is repeated four times in two couplets, using the same names and epithets of Nabû as the opening address at the beginning of the prayer. Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger 64 (6) Plea: explication The plea for revenge is spelled out in more detail in r. 9–25, where the Sumerian text employs verbal forms in the prospective, moving linguistically from the direct imperative in r. 6–8 to a more indirect and polite form of request. While some of the motifs are attested elsewhere in Emesal prayers (see note on r. 23–26), much of this passage is without direct parallels. Nabû is asked to destroy the enemy’s city (r. 9), kill his livestock (r. 10–11), loot the buldings and pack up all valuables as booty (r. 12–16), ruin grain stores(?), fortifications, and other infrastructure (r. 17–19), execute the enemy and his family (r. 20), make natural resources scarce (r. 21–22), and turn the enemy’s settlements into ruins haunted by the ghosts of their people (r. 23). The passage ends with a final request for revenge (r. 24–25; for the use of š u — g i, see supra, comments on the first part of the prayer). (7) Conclusion The prayer concludes with formulaic wishes for all lands to witness and praise Nabû’s heroic, warlike deeds. Transliteration o. 1 [u r - s a] ĝ ⸢ú r u - z u m è b a - a n - g i⸣ [u₄ è n - š è š i b a - a n - g i] qar-ra-du ⸢uru-ka ta-ḫa⸣-z[i il-ta-mi a-di ki-ma-aʾ u₄-mi šu-ḫar-ru-ur] 2 u r - s a ĝ ⸢d⸣ m u - ⸢z é - e b - b a - s a₄⸣ - a ú r u - z u ⸢m è b a⸣ - a [n - g i t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n] qar-ra-du dna-〈bi〉-um uru-ka ta-ḫa-zi ⸢u₄ è n⸣ - š [è š i] ⸢b a⸣ - a [n - g i] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 dš i t a₅ - d ù - k i - š á r - r a 30 ú r u - z u m è b a - a n - g i u₄ è n - š è š i ⸢b a⸣ - a n - [g i] ⸢d+ag d u m u - n u n⸣ - n a ⸢ú r u⸣ - z u ⸢m è b a⸣ - a n - g i t a - š è ì - ⸢g u b⸣ - b é - [e n] ⸢i b i l a é - s a ĝ⸣ - í l - l a ú r u - z u m è b a - a n - g i u₄ è n - š è š i ⸢b a - a n - g i⸣ ú r u - z u ⸢n i b r uk i⸣ mè ba-an-gi ⸢š e - e b⸣ é - k u r - r a mè ⸢k i - ù r⸣ é - ⸢n a m⸣ - t i - l a mè z i m b i r ⸢k i⸣ é - b a b b a r ⸢m è⸣ ú r u - ⸢z u⸣ t i n - t i rk i ⸢m è⸣ š e - e b é - ⸢s a ĝ⸣ - í l - l a mè ú r u - z u bàd.si.ab.bak i ⸢m è⸣ še-eb é-zi-da ⸢m è⸣ é-maḫ-ti-la ⸢m è⸣ é - t e - ⸢m e - a n⸣ - k i mè é - ⸢d à r a - a n - n a⸣ mè é-nam-bi-zi-da mè é - u r₄ - m e - i m i n - a n - k i mè é - š ì r - s a ĝ- ú s - s a mè š e - e b k i ški - a - ⸢t a⸣ mè è š é - ⸢d u b - b a⸣ mè é - ⸢m e - t e⸣ - u [r - s a] ĝ mè k i š e - e b g ú - d u₈ - ⸢a⸣ [ ] mè è š é - m e s - [l] a m ⸢m è⸣ š e - e b d i l - b a tk i m [è] è š é -i-bí-da-nu-um mè kur-kur niĝin-na-zu mè ⸢nap⸣-ḫar ma-⸢ta-ti-ka⸣ d a - ⸢g a n k i - m a r - r a⸣ - z u mè kul-la-ti ⸢šik-na⸣-[ti-k]a m è b a - d a - a n - g i m è b a - a n - ⸢d a - š u b?⸣ - e t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n ta-ḫa-⸢zi el⸣-ta-⸢mi ta⸣-ḫa-z[i na?]-⸢di?⸣ mi-nam ta-⸢az-za-az⸣-z[i?] š e n - š e n - n a ⸢b a⸣ - a n - ⸢ú s⸣ ⸢t a⸣ ⸢qab⸣-la ⸢um⸣-[mu-u]s-⸢su⸣ min Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 r. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 é ⸢g u l - g u l - l a - k e₄⸣ b a - a n - ⸢ú s⸣ ⸢t a⸣ ⸢mu⸣-ab-bit ⸢é⸣ min ú r u g u l - g u l - l a - k e₄ b a - a n - ⸢ú s⸣ ⸢t a⸣ ⸢mu⸣-ab-bit uru min ù ĝ- ⸢ĝ á⸣ ḫ u l - ḫ u l - ⸢a⸣ - k e₄ b a - ⸢a n⸣ - ú s ⸢t a⸣ mu-⸢šal⸣-pit ⸢ni⸣-ši min m u - u n - g u r₁₁ i r - r a - k e₄ b a - a n - ú s ⸢t a⸣ šá-⸢lil ma⸣-ak-ku-ri min g i l - s a í l - í l - k e₄ b a - a n - ú s ta za-⸢bil šu-kut⸣-ti min ⸢á ĝ k a r - k a r⸣ - r a - k e₄ b a - a n - ú s ta ma-⸢še-eʾ⸣ bu-še-e min ⸢ù ĝ ḫ u b - ḫ u b⸣ - b a - ⸢k e₄ b a⸣ - a n - ú s ta ka-mi-ir ni-ši min ⸢k a - n a ĝ t i l - t i l - l a⸣ - k e₄ b a - a n - ú s ta ga-mi-ir ma-⸢a⸣-tú min x x x x x (x) - ⸢k e₄ b a⸣ - a n - ú s ta ⸢pa?-ʾi?-iṣ?⸣ pa-ṭi ka-a-a-⸢ni?⸣ min a - ĝ i₆ - [a - g i n₇ m u - u n] - ⸢d u₇ - d u₇⸣ a - ĝ i₆ - a - ⸢g i n₇⸣ ì - z i - z i ⸢ki⸣-ma ⸢a⸣-gi-i i-⸢sa-ri⸣ ki-ma a-gi-i ú-še-⸢el⸣ : i-te-eb-[bi] ú r u - z u [m] u - ⸢l u⸣ - e ĝ e št u k u l - e b a - a n - ⸢ú s!? - e⸣ ana uru-⸢ka⸣ na-⸢ak⸣-ri ⸢kak-ku um⸣-mu-us-su ⸢é⸣ - z u m u - ⸢l u⸣ - e ⸢ĝ e št u k u l⸣ (x) -x- z u b u r u₅ - ⸢g i n₇ ⸣ { x } ⸢ì⸣ - u r₄ - ⸢u r₄⸣ - r e x x x x-[k]a ⸢ki⸣-ma er-⸢bé⸣-e ⸢i-šú-šú⸣ [x] x x x x- z a x-⸢e?⸣-x ⸢šá?⸣ x [x x] x x x [x x x] k i - ⸢s i k i l - z u a m a₅⸣ - n a ⸢s i m⸣ 〈mušen〉 - ⸢g i n₇ b a⸣ - a n - [u r₄ - u r₄(?)] ⸢ar-da⸣-ti-ka ina maš-ta-ki-ši-na ⸢ki-ma si-nun⸣-t[i i-šú-šú(?)] ĝ u r u š - z u ⸢k i⸣ m è - ⸢k a⸣ g u₄ - ⸢g i n₇⸣ b a - a n - [g a z?] eṭ-lu-⸢ti-ka⸣ a-⸢šar⸣ ta-ḫa-zi ⸢ki-ma⸣ a[l-pi ú-pal-liq(?)] ⸢d i₄ - d i₄⸣ - l á - ⸢z a⸣ s i l a - z a k u₆ - ⸢g i n₇ b a - a n⸣ - [s] u [d? - s u d?] ⸢ṣe-eḫ-re-ti-ka⸣ ina ⸢su⸣-q[í] ⸢ki-ma nu-ú⸣-[ni is-ḫu-ul(?)] ⸢a b - b a u m - m a - z u i m⸣ - g i n₇ b a - a n - ⸢g u l - g u l⸣ - e t a - ⸢š è ì⸣ - g [u b - b é - e n] ⸢ši-bu-tum ši-ba⸣-tum ki-⸢ma ṭi-iṭ-ṭi⸣ ú-⸢ab⸣-bit mi-⸢nam ta⸣-[az-za-az] ⸢z i⸣ - b a - ⸢a n⸣ - d a ⸢k u r è⸣ - b a - t a ⸢ti-bi ina kuri ṣi-ma⸣ š u - ĝ a r { b a } ⸢g i - a⸣ gi-m[il-la te-er] u r - s a ĝ ⸢d⸣ m u - z é - e b - b a - s a₄ - a z i : dš i t a₅ - d ù - ⸢k i⸣ - š á r - r a z [i] d+ag ⸢d u m u⸣ - n u n - n a z i : ⸢i b i l a⸣ é - s a ĝ- ⸢í l - l a⸣ [z i] é - a - ⸢n i ù - b í⸣ - g u l é-su a-bu-ut ú r u - a - ⸢n i ù⸣ - b í uru-šú ⸢ú⸣-[su-uḫ] ⸢t ù r - a - n i⸣ ù - ⸢b í⸣ - g u l ⸢tar⸣-ba-as-su a-bu-ut ⸢a m a š⸣ - a - ⸢n i⸣ ù - b í su-pu-ur-šú ú-⸢su⸣-u[ḫ] ⸢g u₄ - b i⸣ 〈ù〉 - b í - ⸢g a z⸣ al-pi-⸢šú⸣ pu-ul-liq ⸢e - z é⸣ - a - n i ù - b í - s à g- s à g [im]-⸢mé-er⸣-šú du-uk [m] u - ⸢u n - g u r₁₁ g i l - s a - a⸣ - b i ĝeššid- d ù - ⸢a⸣ - a š ù - [b] í - ⸢m a r - m a r⸣ ma-ak-kur-šu šu-⸢kut⸣-ta-⸢šu⸣ ana giš⸢šid⸣.dùe ṣ[e-en]-ma á ĝ- ĝ á ⸢k a l - l a - b i⸣ g ú - u n - n a - a š ù - ⸢b í⸣ - g i mim-me-e-šu áq-⸢ru⸣-tu ana ⸢bi-la⸣-a-tú ⸢ruk-ki-sa⸣-am-ma á ĝ- ĝ á l ⸢á ĝ⸣ - t u k u - b i s ì r - ⸢d a ù - b í - m a r⸣ - m a r ⸢bu-šá⸣-šú maš-⸢ra⸣-šú ana se-er-⸢id?-dum šu-ni-il₅⸣-ma k ù - b a b b a r k ù - s i₂₂ - ⸢b i kàs⸣-pi ḫu-ra-⸢as-su s a ĝ- k é š⸣ ù - [b] í - ⸢šid?⸣ x x [x] x-⸢ta⸣-aq ⸢na₄g u g⸣ z a - g ì n - b i ⸢sa-an-ta⸣ uq-⸢na-šu⸣ x x x (x) ⸢ù⸣ - [b] í -x x x x (x) x ⸢š e? m a? - d a?⸣ - b i [x] x x x x [x m]a?-⸢ti⸣-šú ù - ⸢b í - s à g- s à g⸣ (x) x x x x b à d - b i ⸢ù - b í⸣ - g u l ⸢du-ur-šú a-bu-ut⸣ á - ⸢b à d⸣ - b i ⸢ù - b í ta-bi-in⸣-šú šul-pit-m[a] ⸢á - m a r b á r a - k i - d ú r - ĝ á - b i⸣ šik-⸢na-at né-me-di⸣-šú ⸢d a? - b i? - š è? ù⸣ - [b í] -x x x x-sa?-m[a?] ⸢s a ĝ⸣ - b i ⸢ù - b í⸣ - ḫ a - l a m re-es-su ḫu-⸢ul⸣-liq ⸢é⸣ - b i ⸢ù - b í⸣ - ḫ [a - l a] m ⸢bi⸣-is-su ⸢ḫu-ul-liq⸣-ma m u š e n a n - [n] a k u₆ ⸢e n g u r⸣ - r a ⸢ù ĝ⸣ - b a m u - e - ⸢k u₅⸣ iṣ-⸢ṣur⸣ ane nu-ú-nu ap-si-i [i-n]a ni-⸢ši⸣-šú pu-ru-us-ma m á š - a n š e n í ĝ- ⸢ú r⸣ - l i m m u - b i ⸢ù - b í⸣ - ú š bu-⸢ul d⸣šákkan šá er-bi še-pa-šú šu-⸢mi-it-ma⸣ é - b i ú r u - ⸢b i d u₆⸣ - d u₆ - a š ⸢ù ĝ- b i l í l⸣ - [l á - a š ù - b] í - ⸢a m⸣ - m a r é-su u uru-šú ana ti-li ⸢ni-ši-šú ana⸣ za-⸢qí-qí⸣ [te]r š u ú r u - z u ù - ⸢b í⸣ - g i ⸢k a⸣ - n a ĝ- ĝ á ⸢u₆ ì - e⸣ - a gi-mil-lu uru-ka te-er-ma ma-⸢a⸣-tú ⸢li-mur⸣ 65 Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger 66 25 26 27 28 29 30 š u é - z u ù - ⸢b í⸣ - g i ⸢k a - n a ĝ⸣ - ĝ [á] li-ib-ri n a - á ĝ- ⸢m a ḫ⸣ [á] r - r e - z a ⸢k u r - k u r - r a⸣ 〈d è〉 - ⸢e n - z u⸣ - z u na-ar-b[i] ⸢ta⸣-na-at-⸢ti⸣-ka ⸢ma-ta⸣-t[a l]il-ma-du n a - á ĝ- d ì m - m e - e r i r₉ - r a - z a m e - t é [š] ⸢i m⸣ - e n - i - i i-lu-ut-ka ga-⸢ši⸣-ir-tum mit-ḫa-riš lit-ta-ʾi-i-du n a - á ĝ- u r - s a ĝ ⸢m a ḫ - a - z a⸣ á r - r e!(ne) - ⸢z u⸣ a k- a k- d è ⸢qar-ra⸣-du-ut-ka ṣir-tum ta-na-da-a-tú lit-ta-i-du a ⸢u₅ - a š à - b a⸣ - n i a - m a - r u n a - n a m k u r a l - g u l - g u l - ⸢e⸣ šá t[e-r]e-⸢tu⸣-šú šá-qa-a qé-reb-šú a-bu-bu-um-ma kuri ú-ab-bat ana ⸢ṭu⸣-ub ziḫi Translation o. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 O hero, war has engulfed your city – [how long before it will abate]? O hero Muzebasa’a, war has en[gulfed] your city – [why do you stand still]? (O hero Muzebasa’a, war has engulfed your city) – how [long before it will] ab[ate]? O Šitadukišara, war has engulfed your city – how long before it will ab[ate]? O Nabû, princely son, war has engulfed your city – why do you stand still? O heir of Esaĝil, war has engulfed your city – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed your city Nippur – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed the brickwork of Ekur – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Ki’ur (and) Enamtila – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Sippar (and) Ebabbar – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed your city Babylon – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed the brickwork of Esaĝil – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed your city Borsippa – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed the brickwork of Ezida – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Emaḫtila – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Etemenanki – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Edara’ana – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Enambizida – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed E’urme’iminanki – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Eširsaĝusa – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed the brickwork of Kiš – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Eduba – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Emete’ursaĝ – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed the brickwork of Kutha – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed Emeslam – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed the brickwork of Dilbat – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed E’ibbi’anum – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed all your lands – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed every foundation of yours – how long before it will abate? War has engulfed (it), war was hurled (against it) – why do you stand still? Battle is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that destroys the house is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that destroys the city is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that annihilates the people is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that loots the property is oppressing it – why do you stand still? Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger r. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 (Battle) that carries off the treasure is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that robs the possessions is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that heaps up the people’s (corpses) is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that ruins the land is oppressing it – why do you stand still? (Battle) that constantly crushes the border district is oppressing it – why do you stand still? It/he is whirling around like a flood wave, is rising like a flood wave. The enemy is oppressing your city with (his) weapon, the enemy (is oppressing) your temple with (his) weapon. He caught your … like locusts, he … in/of your … . He [caught] your young women in their chamber like swallows, he [slaughtered] your young men on the battlefield like cattle. He [speared] your children in the street like fish, he levelled your old men and women like mud. Why do you st[and still]? Rise, depart to the mountain(s), and take revenge! O hero Muzebasa’a, rise, depart to the mountain(s), and take revenge! O Šitadukišara, ri[se, depart to the mountain(s), and take revenge]! O Nabû, princely son, rise, depart to the mountain(s), and take revenge! O heir of Esaĝil, [rise, depart to the mountain(s), and take revenge]! Destroy his house, raze his city, destroy his cattle pen, raze his sheepfold, slaughter his cattle, kill his sheep! Load his possessions, his treasure, on cart(s), pack up all his valuables as tribute, place his property, his wealth, on carrying poles! … his silver (and) gold, … his carnelian (and) lapis lazuli! Wreck the crop of his land, destroy his city wall, tear down his shelter, … his built-up cult platforms! Annihilate him himself, annihilate his family household! Make the birds of the sky and the fish of the water scarce for his people, make the four-legged wild beasts perish! Turn his house and city into a ruin mound, his people into ghosts! Take revenge for your city so that the land may see it, take revenge for your house, so that the land may watch it! May all the lands learn of the greatness of your glory, may they, all together, forever praise your mighty divinity, may they forever praise your supreme valor (and your) glorious deeds! The one whose commands are exalted (and) whose temperament is a flood will destroy the mountain (lands). For the good fortune of the copyist. 67 68 Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger Notes o. 1 = CLAM, 481: b+13. The restorations are based on BM 78878 o. 1, where we read: [ … uru]-ka ⸢ta⸣-ḫ[a-z]u il-ta-mi a-di ki-ma-⸢aʾ* u₄*⸣-mi šu*-ḫ[ar*-ru-ur] (photo coll.; differently Maul 1988, 261, according to collation by R. Borger). For š i — g i = šuḫarruru, see Cohen (1981, 187), and CAD Š III 203b, lexical section. The Akk. expression adi kimā ūmi, which includes the Aramaic loanword kimā “how much” (Gzella 2015, 123), provides clear evidence, if needed, for the first millennium date of the text in its present bilingual form. The traditional Akk. translation of u₄ è n - š è would have been adi kī maṣi ūmī (see Shibata, forthcoming, 165: a+14: u₄ e n - n a - a š | adi kī maṣi ūmī; cf. also the vocabulary Reisner 1894, 162 r. iii 10). 2 = CLAM, 481: b+14. The restoration at the end of the Sum. version follows BM 78878 o. 2: … b a - a n - g i i * ⸢t a * š è * ì *⸣ - g [u b * - b é - e n] (photo coll.; I owe the correct reading with subscript i to U. Gabbay); cf. also o. 4, 29–39, r. 5. In the second half of the Akk. line one would expect i/eltami mīna tazzâz (corresponding to b a - a n - g i t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n) . However, the extant traces cannot be reconciled with such a reading, and, to my eyes, the extant traces in BM 78878 o. 2 confirm the restoration of the Sum. refrain: dna-bi-um [qar-rad(?) ur]u-ka ta-ḫa-zu ⸢u₄*⸣ è [n * - š è š i b a - a n - g i] (photo coll.). Probably the first colon of the line (i. e., u r - s a ĝ dm u - z é - e b - b a s a₄ - a ú r u - z u m è b a - a n - g i) was to be recited twice, first followed by t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n (refrain B), then by u₄ è n - š è š i b a - a n - g i (refrain A). Alternatively, one has to assume that both manuscripts shared the same mistake and put refrain A where there should have been Akk. i/eltami mīna tazzâz. The origin of this shared error would have been a scribal mistake that occurred somewhere along the line of transmission when a copyist’s eye erred to the second half of o. 3 while copying o. 2. 3 = CLAM, 481: b+15. 4 = CLAM, 481: b+16. BM 78878 o. 4: … b a - a n - g i i * ⸢t a *⸣ - [š è ì - g u] b - b [é - e n] (photo coll.; I owe the correct reading with subscript i to U. Gabbay). 5–26 = CLAM, 481–82: b+17–38. For the form k i ški a - t a in o. 20, see Cohen 1981, 195; Maul 1991, 321. The litany in o. 6–26 names cities, temples, and shrines of Nabû himself and of some of the warlike gods that were theologically associated with him (Enlil, Utu, Marduk, Zababa, Nergal, Uraš). With the growing preeminence of Nabû in late first-millennium Babylonian theology, elements of this litany were also incorporated into compositions that were not addressed to Nabû (see Gabbay 2013, 114–17). The following cities and sanctuaries are mentioned; with the exception of Nippur, all are located in northern Babylonia: Nippur; Ekur (Enlil’s temple in Nippur); Ki’ur and Enamtila (shrines of Ninlil and Enlil within Ekur); Sippar and Ebabbar (Utu-Šamaš); Babylon; Esaĝil (Marduk’s temple in Babylon); Borsippa; Ezida (Nabû’s temple in Borsippa); Emaḫtila (cella of Nabû within Ezida); Etemenanki (ziqqurrat of Marduk in Babylon); Edara’ana (cella of Zarpanītu in Esaĝil); Enambizida (an unidentified shrine of Nabû); E’urme’iminanki (ziqqurrat of Nabû in Borsippa); Eširsaĝusa (an unidentified shrine of Nabû; the exact reading of the ceremonial name is uncertain, cf. HMH 109, s. v. é.kešda.saĝ. ús.sa); Kiš; Eduba (Zababa’s temple in Kiš); Emete’ursaĝ (cella of Zababa within Eduba); Kutha; Emeslam (Nergal’s temple in Kutha); Dilbat; E’ibbi’anum (Uraš’s temple in Dilbat). 27 = CLAM, 482: b+39. BM 78878 o. 27 gives a complete Akk. translation: k u r - k u r ⸢n i ĝ i n - n a *⸣ - z a m è | nap-ḫar [ma-ta]-⸢a⸣-ti-ka ⸢ta-ha-zu il-ta-mi⸣ (photo coll.). 28 = CLAM, 482: b+40. BM 78878 o. 28 reads: d a - g a n k i - m [a r * - r] a * - ⸢z u * m è *⸣ | kul-la-at ⸢šik*-na⸣-[ti-ka … ] (photo coll.). Sum. k i - ĝ a r “foundation” is equated with Akk. šikittu “structure (of a building)” in Nabnītu XVI 199: k i - ĝ a r | ši-kit-tú [šá kul-la]-⸢ti⸣; cf. also ibid., 203: ĝ e š k i - ĝ a r | min šá é (MSL 16, 147–48). 29 = CLAM, 482: b+41. BM 78878 o. 29 is fragmentary: m è b a - a n - d a * - g i m è * [ … ] | ta-ḫa-⸢zu⸣ [i]l*-[ta-mi … ] (photo coll.). The reading of the verbal form b a - a n - ⸢d a - š u b?⸣ - e and of its Akk. translation is uncertain. Alternatively, one could perhaps read b a - a n - ⸢d a z a!?⸣ - e t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n , but then the verbal form b a - a n - ⸢d a⸣ would remain incomplete. Also the traces seem to agree better with ru than with za. At the end of the line, traces suggest the presence of one further sign after ta-az-za-az. Whereas -ma is epigraphically excluded, a reading ta-az-za-az-z[i?] seems admissible; for overhanging vowels in verbs mediae vocalis in the present manuscript, cf. i-sa-⸢ri⸣ in o. 40. 30 = CLAM, 482: b+42. BM 78878 o. 30: š e n * š [e n * - n a … ] (photo coll.). The restoration ⸢um⸣-[mu-u]s⸢su⸣ presumes that the signs in the break were densely written. The final t a of the Sum. version indicates the repetition of t a - š è ì - g u b - b é - e n ; this corresponds to min in the Akk. text, which indicates the repetition of mīna tazzâz. Sum. b a - a n - ú s corresponds to the stative D of emēdu (ummud “has been imposed”). The stative ummud is constructed here not with a prepositional phrase, but with the enclitic accusative pronoun -šu, which refers to Nabû’s city (“on it”). The subject of the sentence then is qab-la (for qablu), therefore: “Battle has been imposed on it”, or, more freely: “Battle is oppressing it”. The interpretation of qablu as the subject phrase is confirmed Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger by the structure of the following parallel lines, where the same slot is occupied by the ergative in the Sum. version. 31–39 These lines all follow the same structure in that the verbal form b a - a n - ú s takes as its subject a nominalized verbal phrase constructed as a headless genitive in the ergative: é g u l - g u l = a = a k = e “the one of the destroyed house”. If one disregards the genitive morpheme as a graphic phenomenon due to the use of - k e₄ as an ergative marker, one can simply translate “the one who destroys the house”. This would correspond with the Akk. translation, which renders the Sum. phrase as an Akk. transitive participle with a dependent object genitive: muʾabbit bīti “the one who destroys the house”. The Akk. participial phrase is followed by min, which here indicates the repetition of ummussu, corresponding to b a - a n - ú s , and of mīna tazzâz, corresponding to t a - (š è ì - g u b - b é - e n) . The motifs in lines 31–32, 34–38 have numerous parallels in other Balaĝ prayers, which, however, always refer to the suffering person and show a passive phrase in the description of the destruction. Cf., e. g., CTMMA 2, 8 r. 19′: é z i g u l - g u l - a - n a é r g i g m u - u n - š e₈ - š e₈ | ana bītīša kīni ša ubbutu marṣiš ibakki “she cries bitterly on account of her faithful house, which has been destroyed” (for a systematic collection of all parallel passages, see Maul 1991, 321–25). The composition of lines 31–39 here was probably based on these much more common text sections. This may provide an explanation for the expression of a transitive nominalized phrase (“the one who destroys the house”) by a headless genitive of the passive past participle, which, in turn, would make the assumption that - k e₄ here serves as writing for the ergative unnecessary. 39 This fragmentary line is absent in the parallel passages (see preceding note). I am unable to offer a plausible reading of the traces at the beginning of the Sum. version, and also the reading of the Akk. version remains tentative. The initial participial form could also be read ḫa-ap “who breaks”, perhaps even ḫa-mi-iṣ “who tears away”. Instead of pa-ṭi (or pa-ṭi-ka), also ḫaṭ-ṭi or ḫaṭ-ṭi-ka “(your) staff” are possible. Taking ka with the following, one could consider ka-a-a-⸢i⸣ “stick” instead of ka-a-a-⸢ni⸣. 40 For Sum. ì - z i - z i two Akk. translations are offered: ú-še-⸢el⸣ is a defective spelling of ušelle “is making rise”, but intransitive itebbi “is rising” is certainly the superior variant. 41–42 Due to the close parallelism between the two lines, the second line is presented in abbreviated fashion and no translation is provided for it. Akk. ummussu shows that the apparent Sum. verbal form b a - a n - ⸢n a? - e⸣ is probably a scribal mistake for b a - a n - ú s - e . 69 43 The line belongs to the part of the tablet that is entirely lost today. Due to the curvature of the edges, the very beginning of the Sum. line and the first half of the Akk. translation are not well readable on the excavation photograph. We expect a term for a group of people. Udugḫul VII 73(–77) (Geller 2016, 266), which shows a similar sequence of people as o. 43–r. 4 in the present text, may suggest a reading [s] u₈? - ⸢b a?⸣ - z u “your shepherds”. In the second half of the line, the translation “like locusts” follows Akk. kīma erbê. Sum. b u r u₅ - g i n₇ could also mean “like sparrows”; if so, one should probably emend b u r u₅〈m u š e n〉 - g i n₇ (cf. r. 2). r. 1 The line belongs to the part of the tablet that is entirely lost today. Due to the tablet’s curvature, a decipherment of the line based on the excavation photograph will probably have to await the identification of a duplicate. For a possible parallel, cf. Udug-ḫul VII 74 (Geller 2016, 266), but I have been unable to reconcile the extant traces (as they appear in the photograph) with any restoration based on that passage. 2 For the tentative restoration, cf. Šu-ilīšu A 60 (ETCSL c.2.5.2.1; Sjöberg 1973, 5); Lipit-Eštar E 24 (ETCSL c.2.5.5.5; UET 6/1, 96 r. 9 // 97 r. 8) as well as here, o. 43. Cf. also Udug-ḫul VII 76 (Geller 2016, 266). 3 For the tentative restoration, cf. r. 11 as well as Schramm 2008, 148: 5. Cf. also Udug-ḫul VII 75 (Geller 2016, 266). 4 For the tentative restoration, cf. CTN 4, 107 r. 9–10 (ed. Knudsen 1959, 56); Udug-ḫul VI 15. 86 (ed. Geller 2016, 222. 235). Cf. also Udug-ḫul VII 77 (ibid., 266). 5 For the end of the line, cf. o. 2, 4, 29–39. 6 Instead of { b a } ⸢g i - a⸣ , one could also read ⸢g i!(b a) - b a!(g i) { x } , but an imperative form is certainly expected. A reading g i₄ - a seems irreconcilable with the traces as shown by the excavation photograph. 7–8 The final z i in these four poetic lines indicates the repetition of r. 6. 9–10 The fact that both lines clearly have Sum. ù - b í corresponding to Akk. usuḫ suggests that ù - b í is not a simple scribal mistake for expected ù - b í - z i or ù - b í - b u . Probably short ù - b í indicates the repetition of ù - b í - g u l in the first half of the line. For the translation of the same Sum. verb with two different Akk. verbs, cf. CTMMA 2, 8 r. 26′ (comm. U. Gabbay). Cf. here r. 18. 12 ĝeššid- d ù (- a) on its own seems to be attested here for the first time. Various types of ĝeššid- d ù are listed in Ḫḫ V 68–70 (MSL 6, 11) immediately preceding the section on carts: ĝeššid- d ù - b a r - r a , ĝeššid- d ù - ĝ a r - r a , ĝeššidd ù - a - š à - g a (cf. also OB Ḫḫ Nippur I 354–56, ed. Veldhuis 1997, 159. 235–36, with variant ĝeššid- d u₁₀). Civil (1968, 8, on ĝešdub) and Steinkeller (1990, 23) argued that 70 Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger ĝeššid/dub- d ù - … designates parts of a vehicle (Civil: “pole pin(?)”; cf. also e-PSD, s. v. dubd u). The present attestation shows that at least ĝeššid- d ù (- a) can refer to a whole vehicle, apparently a kind of cart that is used for transporting booty.19 The reading of Akk. giššid. dùe is unclear. The phonetic complement -e for the genitive suggests a vocalic stem-ending, which would be befitting for a loanword based on Sum. ĝeššid- d ù (- a). 13 The use of ág for phonetic áq should be added MesZL, no. 326. It is probably an adhoc usage inspired by and referring to á ĝ- ĝ á in the Sum. version. For g i | rakāsu, cf. Aa III/1 242 (MSL 14, 322) and CT 12, 29 BM 38266 o. i 12′. 14 The present attestation shows that s ì r - d a | serdû designates not only the pole of a sedan chair and the pole of a chariot, but also the carrying pole in general. The spelling se-er-id-dum is without parallel and irregular. Alternatively, one could perhaps read se-er-da!-tum, but the extant traces suggest id rather than da, and a fem. plural form of serdû is otherwise unattested. 15 The second half of the line remains unclear to me. The traces suggest the Sum. verbal base to be šid or dub. Preceding s a ĝ- k é š (if correctly read) is probably “strap”, which may be an indication that the line refers to packing up the enemy’s gold and silver. The Akk. imperative form that is expected at the end of the line apparently ends in … tak. Possibly the verb is ratāqu, attested only in Erimḫuš IV 9 (MSL 17, 57: d a - g u l - l a | ra-ta-qu), where the context suggests a meaning “to join together” (cf. CAD R 218a). 16 The second half of the line remains largely undeciphered. The expected Akk. imperative form at the end of the line seems to end in lal or bad. 17 I am unable to offer a convincing reading of the Akk. sections of this line, which are mostly destroyed on the tablet today. This, of course, sheds some doubt on the proposed reading of the Sum. version too, where one could, as pointed out to me by U. Gabbay, also read k u r m a - d a - b i at the beginning of the line. 18 The expected Sum. verbal form in the second half of the line is ù - b í - ḫ u l . The form ù - b í in the text is either a scribal mistake or, more probably, an abbreviated writing that indicates the repetition of synonymous ù - b í - g u l in the first half of the line (cf. note on r. 9–10). 19 á - m a r b á r a - k i - d ú r - ĝ á - b i | šiknat nēmedīšu, literally “the form/structure of his cult platform(s)”. For ĝešdub 19 It is of course possible, though not very likely, that ĝeššid- d ù (- a) is employed as a pars pro toto metonymy for “cart”, and the word itself therefore designates a part of a cart rather than the whole vehicle. b á r a - k i - d ú r - ĝ á - b i | né-me-di-šú, cf. Izi J iii 7: b á r a k i - d ú r - ĝ a r - r a | né-me-du (MSL 13, 213). Instead of á - m a r, one would rather expect k i - m a r - (r a) as the term corresponding to šiknat (cf. o. 28), whereas á - m a r (é - ĝ a r₈) is translated with Akk. lānu “form” and gattu “shape” in Emesal Voc. III 93–94 (MSL 4, 36). The exact meaning of d a - b i - š è “to his side” (if correctly read) within the present context remains unclear. 21 Instead of a prospective form, the Sum. text in this line has a 2nd sg. perfective verbal form (m u - e - k u₅) . The Akk. translation has a 2nd sg. imp. (purus), just as in the surrounding text where the form renders the Sum. prospective. 23–26 These four lines also occur in the final part of the Marduk Šu’ila U r - s a ĝ ú r u u r₄ - u r₄ (ed. Shibata forthcoming, 164–65: a+7–10, with commentary 171–73). Line 25 shows instead of the expected Sum. verbal form u₆ d è - è - a (cf. Shibata forthcoming, 165: a+9) only the Akk. translation libri, which may suggest that the scribe intended to indicate a simple repetition of u₆ ì - e - a in the preceding line. 29 The reading and reconstruction of this line in CLAM, 482: c+43 (= SBH 12 o. 1) and c+44 (= K 3238 [BL 158] + K 19695 o. 1) need to be corrected. As already noted by Gabbay/Mirelman (2011, 284–85, fn. 23), the lines c+43 and c+44 of the edition in CLAM must be merged. Initial a is phonetic for á | têrtu (short for á - á ĝ) ; cf. á m a ḫ | ša têrētūšu ṣīrā in CLAM, 235: c+263 (5R 52, 1 o. i 15–16). For u₅ | šaqû, cf. CLAM, 507: a+117 (SBH 9 r. 10–11 // SBH 10 o. 68–69) and the following lines. 30 The translation of the colophon (cf. Hunger 1968, 64) is problematic. ziḫi may well stand for nasiḫ “it was copied” rather than nāsiḫi “of the copyist” (cf. na-as-ḫi for nasiḫ in Payne 2010, 292, r. 1). Also the interpretation of ana ṭu-ub is uncertain. It may be a writing for ana ṭubbi (see Gabbay 2014, 230, fn. 11) or even, as pointed out to me by S. Mirelman, an abbreviation for phrases like ana ṭūb libbīšu (cf. SBH 56 r. 94). Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger Fig. 2: B 158 r., excavation photograph (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum and Deutsche OrientGesellschaft, Foto: PhB 1229) 71 Fig. 1: B 158 o., excavation photograph (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum and Deutsche OrientGesellschaft, Foto: PhB 1228) 72 Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger Fig. 3: B 158 o., present state (photograph: Nils P. Heeßel) Fig. 4: B 158 r. and r. e., present state (photograph: Nils P. Heeßel) Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger Fig. 5: B 158 o. (hand-copy by the author) 73 74 Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger Fig. 6: B 158 r. (hand-copy by the author) Daniel Schwemer, Nabû, the Avenger References Annus, A. (2002): The god Ninurta in the mythology and royal ideology of ancient Mesopotamia. SAAS 4. Helsinki Civil, M. (1968): Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s chariot, JAOS 88, 3–14 Cohen, M. E. (1981): Sumerian hymnology. The Eršemma. Cincinatti — (1988): The canonical lamentations of ancient Mesopotamia. Potomac (CLAM) Gabbay, U. (2013): The performance of Emesal prayers within the regular temple cult: Content and ritual setting, in: K. Kaniuth [e. a.] (ed.), Tempel im Alten Orient: 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München. CDOG 7. Wiesbaden, 103–21 — (2014): Pacifying the hearts of the gods. Sumerian Emesal prayers of the first millennium BC. Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 1. Wiesbaden — (2015): The Eršema prayers of the first millennium BC. Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 2. Wiesbaden — (2020): Litanies in the Sumerian liturgy of ancient Mesopotamia. A typology of a 2,000-year-long transmission history, in: W. Sadowski/F. Marsciani (ed.), The litany in arts and culture. Turnhout, 47–69 Gabbay, U./S. Mirelman (2011): Two summary tablets of balaĝ compositions with performative indications from LateBabylonian Ur, ZA 101, 274–93 Geller, M. J. (2016): Healing magic and evil demons. BAM 8. Boston/ Berlin Gzella, H. (2015): A cultural history of Aramaic. From the beginnings to the advent of Islam. HdO 1/111. Leiden/Boston Hunger, H. (1968): Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone. AOAT 2. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn Knudsen, E. E. (1959): An incantation tablet from Nimrud, Iraq 21, 54–61, pls. 16–19 Langdon, S. (1936): The liturgical series, “From the Assembly Wisdom is Departed,” a Nabû liturgy, in: B. Schindler/ A. Marmorstein (ed.), Gaster anniversary volume. Occident and Orient. London, 335–48 Maul, S. M. (1988): ‘Herzberuhigungsklagen’. Die sumerischakkadischen Eršaḫunga-Gebete. Wiesbaden 75 — (1991): „Wenn der Held (zum Kampfe) auszieht.“ Ein NinurtaEršemma, Or. 60, 312–34 — (2005): Nos. 2–18: Bilingual (Sumero-Akkadian) hymns from the Seleucid-Arsacid period, in: I. Spar/W. G. Lambert (ed.), Literary and scholastic texts of the first millennium B.C. CTMMA 2. New York, 11–116, pls. 2–30 Payne, E. E. (2010): A new addition to the musical corpus, in: S. C. Melville/A. L. Slotsky (ed.), Opening the tablet box. Near Eastern studies in honor of Benjamin R. Foster. CHANE 42. Leiden/Boston, 291–300 Pedersén, O. (2005): Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917. Saarbrücken — (2008): Die Wiedergewinnung der zeitgenössischen schriftlichen Quellen – eine Übersicht des Bestandes, in: J. Marzahn/G. Schauerte (ed.), Babylon: Wahrheit. Eine Ausstellung des Vorderasiatischen Museums. München, 81–90 Reisner, G. A. (1894): The Berlin vocabulary V.A.Th. 244, ZA 9, 149–64 Schramm, W. (2008): Ein Compendium sumerisch-akkadischer Beschwörungen. Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 2. Göttingen Shibata, D. (forthcoming): Die Emesal-Šu’ila-Gebete aus dem babylonisch-assyrischen Kult. Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 3. Wiesbaden Sjöberg, Å. W. (1973): Miscellaneous Sumerian hymns, ZA 63, 1–55 Steinkeller, P. (1990): Threshing implements in ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform sources, Iraq 52, 19–23 Veldhuis, N. (1997): Elementary education at Nippur. The lists of trees and wooden objects. PhD thesis Groningen Walker, C. B. F. (1988): Introduction, in: E. Leichty [e. a.], Catalogue of the Babylonian tablets in the British Museum 8: Tablets from Sippar 3. London, xi–xxv Wilcke, C. (1976): Formale Gesichtspunkte in der sumerischen Literatur, in: S. J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological studies in honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on his seventieth birthday, June 7, 1974. AS 20. Chicago, 205–316