Balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second and First Millennium B.C.

33 Pages·1975·60.897 MB·English

by  Mark E. Cohen

Sources and monographs
SourceS from the ancient near eaSt
volume 1, fascicle 2
balag-compositions:
sumerian lamentation liturgies
of the second and first millennium b.c.
by
mark e. cohen
undena publications
malibu 1974
© 1975 by Undena Publications, P. O. Box 97, Malibu, California 90265
All rights reserved. No part oi this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copy, recording,
or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing irom
the publisher.
ISBN: 0-89003-003-0
ABBREVIATIONS
A JSL (cid:9) American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
ANET(cid:9) J.B. Pritchard (Ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, third edition, Princeton 1969
CAD (cid:9) The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago, 1956-
CT (cid:9) Cuneiform Texts from the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 1896 -
Kultlyrik (cid:9) J. Krecher, Sumerische Kultlyrik, Wiesbaden 1966
OrNS (cid:9) Orientalia, Nova Series
4R2 (cid:9) H.C. Rawlinson, A Selection from the Miscellaneous Insc riptions of Assyria,
second edition, London 1891
RA (cid:9) Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale
SANE(cid:9) Sources from the Ancient Near East, Malibu 1974-
SLTN (cid:9) S.N' Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts from Nippur, New Haven 1944
SRT(cid:9) E. Chiera, Sumerian Religious Texts, Upland 1924
STT (cid:9) O.R. Gurney - J.J. Finkelstein - P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets, Vols. l-11,
London 1957-1964
TCL (cid:9) Textes cunéiformes (Musée du Louvre)
TMI-l NF(cid:9) S.N. Kramer and 1. Bernhardt, Sumerische literarische Texte aus Nippur,
Berlin 1961
VAS (cid:9) Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Leipzig 1907
VNER(cid:9) Yale Near Eastern Researches, New Haven 1967-
Zweite Zwischenzeit (cid:9) D.O. Edzard, Die "Zweite Zwischenzeit" Babyloniens, Wiesbaden 1957
[SANE l, 27]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS (cid:9) 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cid:9) 4
A. INTRODUCTION (cid:9) 5
1. The balag-lamentations (cid:9) 5
2. The structure of the balag-lamentations (cid:9) 8
3. The development of the balag-lamentations (cid:9) 9
a. Structure (cid:9) 9
b. Content (cid:9) 10
c. Opportunity (cid:9) 11
d. Ritual use (cid:9) 11
e. Conclusion (cid:9) 11
4. Ritual use of the balag-lamentations (cid:9) 13
(cid:9)
B. TEXTS IN TRANSLATION 16
(cid:9)
1. The Steer in His Fold (am-e amass-a-na to Enlil) 16
Z. His Word (is) a Wail, a Wail (e-ne-èm-ma-ni i-lu i-lu to Enlil) (cid:9) 20
3. Elevated Wa/rio/ of the Land (gu4-ud-nim-kur-ra to Ninurta) (cid:9) 22
4. Flood which Drowns the Harvest (agalgal burux su -su to Nergal) (cid:9) 26
- -
S. The Honored One who Wanders About (e-lum di-da- r a to Enlil): first kirugu only (cid:9) 29
(cid:9)
C. EXCURSUS 31
1.The balag instrument (cid:9) 31
-
2. On the use of Emegir and Emesal dialects (cid:9) 32
D. GLOSSARY (cid:9) 33
[SANE l, 28]
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The balag-lamentations
"Nothing was settled for all time, nothing could be taken for granted; hence the anxiety and
the insecurity of the mortals, who must forever be intent on propitiating the gods in order to
obtain a favorable decision. The view that nothing was permanent and that the gods were
unpredictable brought with it a fitful and dramatic conception of the universe, one that called
for constant watchfulness and elaborate ritual." 1
Performing these communal rituals were the kalû-priests, whose extensive corpus of liturgies was an integral
part of the propitiatory rites. Within this corpus the lengthiest texts were the ba/ag-compositions, the genre
deriving its name from the balag-instrument which accompanied the recitation of these Sumerian works. 2
These compositions, mournful in tone, bewailing the destruction that had beset the entire land, were
designated by some First Millennium B. C. scribes by the Sumerian logogram ér, most probably for
Akkadian taqribtu, 'lamentation.'3 Since these lamentations were extremely long, some works consisting
of over five hundred lines, the scribe copied the text onto a very large elay tablet, the size increasing the
tablet's susceptibility to breakage and damage through the centuries.4 In other instances the scribe wrote
the text onto a series of smaller tablets, creating the modern problem of archaeology failing to unearth
all the individual tablets constituting one complete composition.5 As a result we today possess no
complete redaction of any ba/ag-lamentation.
During the reign of the neo-Assyrian monarch Asshurbanipal (668-631 B. C.), when his famous "library"
of Sumerian and Akkadian literary compositions was being accumulated, one scribe was commissioned to
compile a catalogue of the incipits to all the texts then available to him in the liturgy of the kali-priest.
Fortunately this catalogue has survived the centuries, today providing us with the incipits to forty-nine
balaglamentations.6 Asshurbanipal's "library" also yielded actual texts and fragments to many of these
-
laments, which, when added to texts uncovered in sites throughout southern Mesopotamia, afford us in
part redactions of thirty-seven of the forty-nine balag's identified in the neo-Assyrian catalogue. In
addition there is preserved a neo Babylonian catalogue of ba/ag-lamentations which duplicates six incipits
-
found in the neo-Assyrian catalogue, while listing eleven new balag's of which, to date, only one has
1E. A. Speiser, `Ancient Mesopotamia,' R. C. Dentan (ed.), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, New Haven 1967,
pp. 43-44.
2For a discussion about the ba/ag-instrument see H. Hartmann, Die Musik der sumerischen Kultur, Frankfort am Main i960,
pp. 52 ff. with previous literature; CAD B pp. 38 ff. sub balaggu. see also below, Excursus 1.
3The designation of the balag-lamentations by the logogram b is peculiar to the First Millennium B. C. ritual texts.
Th. Jacobsen, AJSL 1941 pp. 222-223 suggests that ér might refer to the first part of the total balag-composition, the
eršemma being the second part.
4To date the longest preserved balag-lamentation is urii ¢m-i-ra-bi, which despite the fact that many kirugu.s are stilI missing,
has 438 preserved llnes.
51n the Otd Babylonian period both methods of copying were employed, whereas in the First Millennium B. C. the laments
were always copied onto a series of smaller tablets.
64R2 53.
[SANE 1, 29]
(cid:9) (cid:9) [SANE 1/2
M. E. Cohen
6
Old Babylonian redactions of balag-laments listed in neither
been identified.7 Lastly there are five extant
First Millennium B. C. catalogue.8
The earliest extant copies of the Sumerian balag-lamentations date to the Old Babylonian period, the
beginning of the Second Millennium B. C., a time when Sumerian was no longer a spoken language. 9 The
latest redactions of the laments date to the Seleucid period. Thus the lamentation liturgy appears to have
been a central component in Mesopotamian ritual for a period extending for almost two millennia. Tradition
maintained Sumerian as a language of religion, the efficacy of the text being enhanced as time progressed by
the very antiquity and primacy of the Sumerian language itself, a development to some degree paralleling the
use of Latin in the Roman Catholic Church.
As previously stated the balag-instrument, which accompanied the recitation of lamentations, ultimately lent
its name to this genre of literature. However, the fact that the vast majority of Old Babylonian laments,
inciuding those to which colophons had been appended, did not designate the laments as being balag's
suggests that the appellative balag was not immediately applied to this new genre. On the othe1 hand there
are five Old Babylonian tablets which do label the laments as being balag's, indicating that in the Old
Babylonian period some sites throughout southern Mesopotamia had adopted the term balag for this
collection of laments. 10 I must stress that although the Old Babylonian lamentations are not labelled as
being balag's, they are indeed older redactions of the very same compositions designated as balag's in the
colophons to First Millennium B. C. laments. These Old Bahylonian texts are not precursors to the balag nor
a type of proto-balag, but rather they are the full fledged balag-lamentation itself. These texts can be
-
identified as redactions of balag-lamentations on several bases. Foremost, there exist First Millennium B. C.
duplicates to many of the Old Babylonian texts, these First Millennium B. C. duplicates being designated as
balag's in their colophons. Secondly, the structure and form of the Old Babylonian works are identical to
that of the five Old Babylonian compositions that are labelled as balag's, as well as being similar to the First
Millennium B. C. redactions. And thirdly, the content of the Old Babylonian compostions clearly indicates
these works to be laments. These Old Babylonian redactions were entirely in Emesal, a dialect of Sumerian
peculiar to the kalt priests. However, during the Middle Babylonian period an Akkadian interlinear
-
translation of the Sumerian text w,..; composed. Perhaps it was feared that the kalû-priests, who spoke 'a
Semitic language, might forget the meaning of the Sumerian they were chanting. Or it is possible that the
Akkadian version was merely a scholastic exercise designed to display seribal expertise in the Sumerian
language. Since we possess Old Babylonian redactions of only eighteen of the sixty-one balag-laments
listed in the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian catalogues, it is conceivable that some lamentations were
. composed after the 0ld Babylonian period, during the Middle Babylonian period, which is known to have
been a time of great literary activity. The political upheavel of the Old Babylonian Empire by a Hittite
razzia and the subsequent Kassite domination lent urgency to the preservation of cuneiform literature, this
conceru probably providing the impetus for the composing of new texts.
The six incipits occurring in both First Millennium B. C. catalogues are am-e b,ra-an-na-ra, ug-dam ki am-ûs, dUtu-gin7
è-ta, é tùr-gins nigin-na-àm, hul?-gâl-la muun-au, and abzu pe-el-16-dm. The fourth tablet of lugal-e dim-me-er-an-ki(cid:127)a,
-
' listed in the H. Clark cylinder, occurs as MLC 1877 (BRM IV no.8).
8CT 42 no. 15; TCL 15 no. 8; CT 36 pl. 35-38; MAH 16066; VAS 2 no. 26 (though some portions duplicate the baIag
eden-na û-sag-gd-ke4 listed in 4R2 53 i 44, VAS 2 no. 26 appears to be a different composition); I have not included
RA 17 50, since the first kirugu of this text is not preserved. i cannot tell if this text is listed in 4R2 53. The genre
of RA 15 128 is unclear. The Old Babylonian catalogue VAS 10 216 also lists several balag's (see Kultlyrik p. 33).
9See J. Cooper, "Sumerian and Akkadian in sumer and Akkad," Or NS 42 (Gelb Volume) pp. 239-246 with previous
literature.
i0
For Old Babylonian texts with the subscript balag see J. Krecher, Kultlyrik p. 30 n. 60 to which add a fifth reference,
YBC 9862 (courtesy W.W. Hatlo): ki-§a-bi balag-dInanna-kam. Note that the balag to Dumuzi CT 42 no. 15, which
below 1 suggest is one of the earlier laments, having been composed during the Larsa period, contains the subscript balag
in the colophon. This would then indicate that the term balag was applied to the genre of laments as early as the
Nineteenth Century B. C. in some sites based upon the scribal school's tradition.
[SANE 1, 30
1974] (cid:9) Balag-Compositions (cid:9) 7
Each balag-lamentation is addressed to one particular deity, there being at least one balag for most major
deities in the Sumerian-Akkadian pantheon. Asshurbanipal's neo-Assyrian cataiogue of balag-lamentations is
arranged in a most definite order, starting with laments to male deities and thereafter those to goddesses.
First among the balag's to the gods are compositions to Enki and Enlil, two "father gods" who were the
heads of their respective pantheons. It is interesting to note that the scribe gave priority to the three
lamentations to Enki over the twelve to Enlil, perhaps reflecting a belief in the great antiquity of the
11
tradition surrounding Enki over that of Enlil and the pantheon of Nippur. Two of the lamentations
listed in the midst of the compositions to Enlil are ascrihed to the goddesses Nintinugga and Gula,
surprising since one would expect these two works to he cited in the second half of the catalogue, among
the lamentations to the goddesses. However, these balag's of Nintinugga and Gula are actually balag's to
Enlil, for in these two works Enlil is the recipient of the praise and it is he whom the two goddesses blame
for the destruction of their cities and temples. Note this excerpt from the lament to Gula entitled uruhulake:
He (Enlil) devastates and overthrows the land (cid:9)
He causes the land in its entirety to tremble (cid:9)
He has heaped the land into piles (cid:9)
He has strewn the hostile lands into piles (cid:9)
He causes the sweet waters and the bitter waters to rage (cid:9)
Heart, return! Return! Heart, be calm! Be calm!
Heart of great An, return! Return!
Heart of Mulli1,12return! Return!
Also within the grouping of Enlil balag's are one work each to Asshur and Marduk, each placed here since
they each share the same incipit as a balag to En11 13 After the Enki and Enlil balag's are cited one
lamentation to Luial, at least one to Asarluhi, at least two to Utu, one to Ishkur, three to Ninurta, one to
Nabû, at least two to Nergal and at least one to Nanna. Among the balag laments to the goddesses several
-
can be identified as being to Inanna or Ninisina. ln addition to the texts listed in the First Millennium B. C.
catalogues there are preserved five Old Babylonian redactions of balag's, three to Dumuzi, one to Inanna and
one to Ninmah. 14
The text of the lamentations consists of three basic elements, praise, narrative and importunity. The majority
of the content is devoted to praising the deity, such praise displaying to the god the sincere devotion of his
supplicants, the laudatory verses assuring the deity that man understands his subservient and helpless position,
recognizing the overlordship of the god. A second aspect of the praise might well be the cajoling of the
god, by which he might grant the desparate plea of a beleaguered nation. The narrative in the laments
describes the decimation of the land, the eruption of natural forces, foreign invasions, all unleashed by the
god in his unbending wrath. Described are the reactions of the goddesses, bewailing the fate of their land,
their temples and their people. Several compositions detail unsuccessful attempts by various deities to
intercede with Enlil on the people's behalf. The importunities are an attempt to halt the ruination of the
country, the nation pleading that the heart and mind of the god be assuaged, that his favor and loving care
return to his people. So too scores of other gods are invoked that they might also urge an end to a
devastation that has not spared their temples and cities.
11For the possible conflict between the traditions surrounding Enki and Enlil see s. N. Kramer, "Enki and His Inferiority
Complex," Or NS 39 pp. 103 ff.
12Mullil is the Sumerian Emesal dialect rendering of the name Enlil.
13Enlil and Marduk both share the incipit a-ab-ba-hu-luh-ha. since only the balag to Enlil is preserved (see R. Kutscher,
A abbaluuhha: The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament, Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University 1970), it cannot be
- - - - -
determined whether these are two entirely different compositions or merely the same text with a change in the names of the
gods and temples. However, the zi-bu-(i)-um compositions of Enlil and Asshur are preserved and in this instance the works are
totaliy dissimilar.
14
see ftn. 8 above.
[ SANE 1, 31
8 (cid:9) M. E. Cohen (cid:9) [SANE 1/2
2. The structure of the balag lamentations
-
The balag-lamentation is composed of a series of units called kirugu's. In regard to content each kirugu is
an independent literary entity of varying length, unrelated to the preceding and subsequent kirugu's. On the
Old Babylonian tablets, with the exception of a find of texts provenience unknown, each kirugu is
separated from the other by the words "lst (2nd, 3rd, etc.) kirugu. "15 The total number of kirugu's in
each composition varies, some lamentations containing over thirty such units. 16 ln the collection of balag-
tablets of unknown provenience the kirugu's are separated only by a heavy line drawn horizontally between
the units, the actual term kirugu rarely appearing.l(cid:9) This latter procedure was also observed in all the
First Millennium B. C. copies of balag-lamentations. In some compositions using the horizontal line
procedure there also occurs the gisgigal, a one line unit situated between some kirugu's of the balag, this
18
unit likewise being set off from the kirugu's by a heavy line drawu horizontally above and below it.
19
There are eight Old Babylonian redactions of balag-lamentations in which the coneluding kirugu is preserved.
kirugu of importunity in which the priest pleads that the heart The two Enlil compositions conelude with a
and liver, the seats of emotion of the god, be pacified, that Enlil relent of his anger. 20 The other six
balag's have no such formulaic conclusion. This difference is logical, for in the balag's to Enlil, Enlil is
viewed as the immediate and direct cause of the devastation, his anger bringing forth the ruination of the
land, thus an entreaty directed to assuage Enlil's wrath. However, the entire background to the lnanna-
Dumuzi lamentations, for example, is quite different. The country's plight is not the direct result of any
god's anger, but rather a result of Dumuzi's disappearance from the land. Thus a plea such as in the Enlil
lamentations would be pointless. ln the balag laments directed to Enlil, after the plea to his emotions,
-
there ensues a request that the host of deities, each individually invoked, also importune the god to halt his
destruction. After this final kirugu occurs a formulaic expression, "This supplication . . . return
21
the 'x temple' to place." Then occurs the term kisubim, which can be translated "lt is its kisû."
-
However, in the First Millennium B. C. 1edactions there is a change in the conelusion of the
balag-lamentation, for now, although the aforementioned two line formula still occurs, after these
two lines an ersemma has been appended to each balag. ln the Old Babylonian period the
ersemma had been a genre entirely separate from the balag. It was a compact, one unit hymn to a god,
not necessarily mournful in tone, also in the liturgy of the kalû-priest. Although we have no indication as
to the ritual use of the ersemma in the Old Babylonian period, it is qûite possible that the ersemma was,
15This collection of tablets whose provenience is unknown is published in VAs 2 and 10. J. Krecher, Kultlyrik p. 15,
suggests the tablets come from northern Babylonia, perhaps sippar.
16
The balag to lnanna urû-hul-a-ke4 consists of thirty-one kirugu.s in one redaction and thirty-two in another; whereas the
belag to dMah, partially preserved in RA 17 50, consisted of just ten kirugu's.
t 7ln this collection a few texts do label kirugu's, i.e. VAS 2 no. 64, VAS 10 nos. 123, 124.
18
Exemplars of this gilgigaI in the Old Babylonian period occur in VAS 2 25 ii 41 (see J. Krecher, Kultlyrik p. 145 for
additional occurences of this line) and VAS 2 25 v 43, VAS 10 102 obv. ii 13 (see J. Krecher, Kultlyrik pp. 192-193
for additional occurrences of this line).
19Enlil: u4-dam ki am-us, e-lum gu4-san; Utu(?): MAH 16066 (unpublished, quoted J. Krecher, Kultlyrik p. 15 et
passim); Mah: RA 17 50; Inanna-Dumuzi: CT 36 pl. 35-38, CT 42 no. 15, ura-dm i-ra-bi, ura-huI a-ke4.
20Atthough the belag u4-dam ki am-as does conclude with this heart-pacification kirugu, in the beIag e-lum gu4-san the heart-
pacification kirugu is the next to last. Interestingly, the final kirugu of e-lum gu4-san was reworked into the ersemma
umun-mu za-e (STT 155), perhaps indicating that later scribes assumed the next to last kirugu to be the conclusion, since
it was a heart-pacification kirugu, thus interpreting what in reality was the concluding kirugu as being an eriemma
(actually eriemma's were appended to belag's only in the Middle Babylonian period onward). This suggests that the
priests expected the final kirugu of an Enlil balag to be the heart-pacification kirugu.
The standard litany of gods occurring in the heart-pacification kirugu may also occur in other kirugu.s of the Old
Babylonian balag's. Cf. CT 42 no. 3 iii, iv, v (en-zu sâ-mar-mar to Lulal) wherein this list of gods occurs, yet there is
no mention of pacifying the heart of Mullil.
21For the term ki-sa-bi-im see the Glossary.
[SANE l, 32]
1974] (cid:9) Balag-Compositions (cid:9) 9
22
on occasion, recited in the same ritual ceremonies as the balag. During the Middle Babylonian period
the two genres had apparently been so closely identified with each other, presumably on the basis of ritual
funetion, that each balag was assigned one ersemma as its new conclusion.23 The ersemma was then
reworked, adopting a second concluding unit which contained the plea to the heart of the god and the
concommitant list of deities, although this list was drastically reduced in size from the final kirugu of the
Old Babylonian lamentation.24 This new unit of the ersemma was therefore intentionally patterned after
the concluding kirugu of the Old Babylonian balag's to Enlil. Even some lnanna-Dumuzi balag-lamentations,
which had never possessed an entreaty to the heart of the god, were also assigned eršemma's containing
such a plea.
3. The development of the ba/ag lamentation
-
The appearance of an extensive corpus of balag-lamentations, at least twenty-two, in the Old Babylonian
period raises a question concerning its development. Was the creation of the balag-lamentation the genesis
of an entirely new genre or was it an adaptation of older compositions? In seeking an answer to this
problem the relationship of the balag-lament to the three city-laments obviously should be examined. The
earliest lamentations in the extant corpus of Sumerian literature are the "Lamentation over the Destruction
of Ur,"25 the "Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, "26 and the "Nippur Lament."27 The
former two texts deal with the devastation of Ur (c. 2000 B. C.), which signaled the collapse of the Ur Hl
Empire. The "Nippur Lament" concerns Nippur, the cult center of a Sumerian amphictyony, which had
been destroyed by an Amorite invasion following the collapse of the Ur IH Empire. The destruction of
any Sumerian city, let alone such important centers as Ur and Nippur, represented not just a shift in
political and military might, but had grave religious consequences as well. The desire to restore the cities
and thus return to the harmony and balance of the pre-destruction era was ever-present among the people.
Scholars date the composing of these three lamentations no later than circa 1925 B. C., less than a century
after the events described. 28
If indeed there is a relationship between these three city-laments and the balag-laments four factors must be
considered, the structure and form of the works, the content, the ritual use, and the opportunity for a
relationship to develop'
a. Structure. The balag-lamentation may consist of two types of units, the kirugu and another one line
unit. Unfortunately the one line units are so far attested only on those tablets which employ the
horizontal line method of division, thus not labeling the literary components. However, there is an Old
Babylonian balag-lamentation to Dumuzi, unlisted in the neo-Assyrian catalogue of Asshurbanipal, which
clearly labels one entire section as a gisgigal. 29 Another Old Babylonian composition to Dumuzi, assuredly
22See J. Krechcr, Kultlyrik p. 34 for the possible relationship of the ersemma to the term ersemage appearing in the Mari-
- - -
ritual. However, I suggest reading this term as irsisi(?)mu(?), interpreting this as an incipit, for which see my
- - -
forthcoming monograph on the ersemma.
23
Some balag.s such as urtihulake4 of Gula and am e bâraannara have more than one ersemma associated with them.
- - - - - - -
24
Two ertemma.s preserved in First Millennium B. C. copies actually contain three units, the ersemma's being ù-li-Ii enzu
-
s' marmar and ansùuddg izigin7. This latter work contains the longest list of gods in an eršemma, twelve.
- - - - - -
25
s. N. Kramer, AS 12 and translation in ANET pp. 455 ff.
26
Translation in ANET pp. 611 ff.
27
Sections of the Nippur Lament are quoted by D. O. Edzard, Zweite Zwischenzeit pp. 86 ff.
28
Th. Jacobsen, AJsL 58 p. 22i suggests that the Lamentation of the Destruction of Ur was composed during the reign
of Lipit-Istar (1934-t924 B. C.); whereas D. O. Edzard, Zweite Zwischenzeit p. 57 states: "Die Entstehung der Ur-Klage
ist kaum später als eine Generation nach dem Ereignis anzusetzen."
29
CT 42 no. 15.
[SANE 1, 33]
10 (cid:9) M. E. Cohen (cid:9) [SANE l/2
30
also a balag despite the fact that the colophon is not preserved, also contains units designated as gigigal's.
The only other literary unit so far attested as alternating with the kirugu is the šabaatuk, this combination
occurring in a text of unknown genre.31 Therefore it is reasonably safe to conclude that the unit which
occasionally 1s interspersed between kirugu's of the balag is the gišgigal. If the balag-lamentations are indeed
modelled after older works, such compositions should also consist of kirugu's and gišgigal's. To my
knowledge there are only two types of texts meeting this requirement, the three aforementioned city-
laments, all consisting of kirugu's followed by a one to three line gisgigal, and a hymn to Inanna on behalf
32
of Ur Ninurta, king of Isin.
-
b. Content. The content of the hymn to Inanna on behalf or Ur-Ninurta, referred to above, is totally
dissimilar to the balag-laments, being concerned with the greatness of the king of lsin and his being
deserving of a good fate. It is obvious that the works most similar to the balag-lamentations should be the
three city-laments, both groups of texts being lamentations over the destruction of the country and its
buildings. There is one major difference between the three city-laments and the balag-laments. The former
works describe one particular historical event. The balag-lamentations, on the other hand, do not portray
any one specific historical occurence, but rathe1 describe the destruction of the land in general terms. Yet
despite this difference there is a great similarity in content and tone in general, for which in particular
compare the final half of the concluding kirugu of the "Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur" to the
concluding kirugu of the balag to Enlil, udam ki amus:
Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 430435:33
Soothe the heart of . . .
Upon that which the man of offerings has brought, gaze with steadfast eye!
O Nanna, thou whose penetrating gaze searches the bowels,
May every evil heart of its people be pure before thee!
May the heart of those who dwell in the land be good before thee!
0 Nanna, the city which has been returned to its place exalts thee.
udam ki amus:
May heaven and earth soothe you!
May both heaven and earth calm you!
(List of gods and goddesses follows)
May the gods of heaven and earth utter a prayer to you!
"You should not abandon your city!" may he utter to you!
May he utter a prayer to you!
(refrain continues with list of temples)
This supplication ... return the Esagil to place.
The fact that the Ur Lament and the balag-lamentations both conclude with importunities may, of course,
be coincidence. However, note that both conclusions contain two identical elements, both employing the
expression "to soothe (the heart)" and then concluding with the almost identical line, referring to the city
or temple returning to its place. This would seem to be more than coincidence. Moreover, Th. Jacobsen
discerned a great similarity between the total structure of the Ur Lament and the later lamentations.
30
TCL 15 no. 8.
3lCT 36 pl. 43. The šabaatuk, gišgigal and kirugu alI occur in the sirnamgala published in UET 6/1 96 and 97.
32CT 36 p1. 28-30, for translation see A. Falkenstein and W. vonSoden, Sumerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebete,
Zürich-Stuttgart 1953, pp. 105 ff. See ftn. 31 above.
33Translation according to s. N. Kramer, ANET p. 463.
[SANE 1, 34]