The Creatures of Ninurta

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIII, 1998

THE CREATURES OF NINURTA

BY John HANSMAN

Many Sumerian and Akkadian gods of ancient Mesopotamia were associated with attributes symbolizing aspects of their divine power. In this paper for the festschrift of David Stronach — a friend and colleague of more than 35 years — we shall consider the emblems of the Sumerian god Ninurta, whom the Akkadians absorbed, and suggest to identify a further device associated with this deity. Ninurta, who was synchronized with and later assimilated the god Nin- girsu, was worshipped by the Sumerians partly as a rain deity. His attribute for this reponsibility became the great storm bird, the Imdugud, a word meaning “heavy rain”1. Jacobsen has suggested that the subduing of the Imdugud (Akkadian, Anzu) by Ninurta, and the association of thunder and lightning with war-like sounds, probably helped in developing Ninurta's connection of being the great warrior god of the Sumerians2. Moreover, as the bringer of rain in his nature aspect, Ninurta was also responsible for arranging the fertility of the land. This is deduced from various Sumerian texts which call Ninurta “trustworthy farmer”, “Lord of vegetation”, and the “ploughman” of temple lands belonging to the god Enlil3. With respect to the last of the above referenced associations, we may consider an Akkadian cylinder seal of the later third millennium B.C. in the collection of the Staatlichen Museum, Berlin. This seal shows a seated deity holding a plough, being approached by a second divine being who leads a companion carrying a goat (fig. 1). Behind the seated figure there is an ibex. A series of rounded forms supporting the plants which rise from these features, are recognized devices in ancient Mesopotamian glyptic art

1 T. Jacobsen, The Treasure of Darkness, New Haven, 1976, 128; S.N. Kramer, The Sumerians, Chicago, 1963, 205. 2 Jacobsen, op. cit., 129. 3 For reference see in sequence (i) Kramer, op. cit., 108; (ii) British Museum Cunei- form Texts XXV, 13.1.27; (iii) T. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, 384, n. 71, and Jacobsen, op. cit., 83. 12 J. HANSMAN

Fig. 1. Scale 1:1 symbolizing mountains bearing vegetation. Frankfort has suggested that the divinity with plough represents in one figure, aspects of the two fertility gods, Dumuzi and Ninurta4. It should be noted, however, that the plough is used to prepare fields for sowing and also for the cultivation of crops. As we have seen, it is Ninurta whom the Sumerians associate with ploughing, farming and vegeation. On the other hand, and notwithstanding that, in glyptic art, line-like devices radiating from the shoulders of a god suggested to be Dumuzi, have on occasion been identified as crops5, this latter deity was essentially a shepherd god of sheep and goats who created the seed of cattle and who was also Lord of the cattle stalls6. Hence, the primary generative concerns of Dumuzi was animal husbandry. Ninurta, in his fertility aspect, is involved more directly with agriculture including the preparation of fields for crops. Jacobsen viewed these associations as indicating that among his other functions, Ninurta was also the god of ploughs and ploughing7. According to the available evidence, then, it is reasonable to suggest that the divine being represented with ploughs in hand on the seal of fig. 1, is Ninurta. We might note, in this respect, however, that the other figure

4 H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, London, 1939, 114-15. 5 Ibid., loc. cit. 6 S. Langdon, Tammuz and Ishtar, Oxford, 1914, 35. 7 T. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 32. THE CREATURES OF NINURTA 13 on this seal, wearing a horned hat of divinity, leads a supplicant holding a goat, an attribute of Dumuzi. It would, thus, seem beyond cavil that this second deity is Dumuzi. In his role as Lord of Vegetation, Ninurta holding a plough is probably to be associated with his further title of “Trustworthy Farmer”, the god of cultivated plants. Moreover, a passage from a Sumerian hymn to Ninurta relates that he “scattered his seed far and wide, and the plants with one accord named him their king”8. One may perhaps understand from this text that Ninurta was considered a deity of both wild and cultivated plants. We turn now to examine a cylinder seal of the late third millennium B.C. from Tel Asmar, illustrated in fig. 2. This shows a bearded figure at far left who directs a plough drawn by a horned serpent9. The serpent is an emblem of the Sumerian god Ningiszida recognized, in part, as a guardian deity10. On the iconographic evidence it would seem possible to identify the figure at the plough as Ningiszida. However, we have earlier considered that Ninurta is probably to be associated as god of ploughs. In respect of this we note that a second bearded figure standing to the right of our first subject also holds the plough, but only by one arm. The other arm ends in a scorpion. According to a Kassite astrological text, the scorpion is a symbol of Ishara, goddess of oaths and contracts11. Yet, as the figure of present discussion is a bearded male, he cannot be Ishara. Who, then, is it? An Akka- dian incantation text may help provide a rational answer. This begins: “My hand is the divine Anzu, the scorpion”12. Unfortunately, the text, perhaps the invocation of an associated priest, does not name the deity who is indicated. However, Anzu is the Akkadian gloss for Sumerian Imdugud, the storm bird companion and attribute, as noted earlier above, of Ninurta in his reponsibility as war god13. In view of this connection, it is reasonable to identify Ninurta as the deity implied by the above passage. We may also

8 S. Geller in Altorientalische Texte ünd Untersuchungen I (ed. B. Meissner), Leiden, 1916, 278. 9 H. Frankfort, Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region, Chicago, 1955, Pl. 62 (654). 10 H. Frankfort, “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Seals”, Iraq I, 1934, 10-12. 11 For references to Ishara as Scorpion see Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, s.v. zuqa- qipu, 2. 12 V. Scheil, “Passim”, Revue d'Assyrologie 22, 1925, 154. 13 For occurances of IMDUGUD to read Anzu see B. landsberger, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 57, 1961, 5 sq. See also Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, s.v. anzu. 14 J. HANSMAN

Fig. 2. Scale 1:1 understand that if the metamorphic representation of one hand of our subject in the text, is the Anzu (Imdugud) bird identified with Ninurta, the scorpion forming the other hand of the same figure should be similarly connected, and by extension, also the scorpion hand of the relevant deity depicted on the seal in fig. 2. Further evidence for an identification of this figure as Ninurta may be deduced from additional iconography of the seal. We have earlier noted that the plough seems to be drawn by a horned serpent. Although attached to the plough, on first notice this creature appears to be otherwise suspended in air. However, a closer examination reveals that a harness extends downward from the serpent's body to the lion posed immediately below. It is the lion, therefore, that pulls the plough, with the serpent serving as the plough beam. With respect to the lion, a passage from a near contemporary Sumerian inscription of Gudea of Lagash, in which Ninurta/Ningirsu is described as having lions at his side14. Frankfort, of course, has commented that the lion is connected with too many gods to serve, by itself, as an unquestioned attribute15. In the present context, however, since we do have a traditional identification of the lion with Ninurta, but not with the Sumerian god Ningiszida, whose emblem is the horned serpent, we may deduce that the

14 F. Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Königsinschriften, Leipzig, 1907, 94. 15 H. Frankfort, “Early Dynastic Sculptured Maceheads”, Analecta Orientalia, 12, 1935, 114. THE CREATURES OF NINURTA 15

Fig. 3. Scale 1:1 deity at left, who appears to be directing the serpent, is Ningiszida and the god adjoining the lion, is most probably to be identified as Ninurta. We might also note, with reference to a leonine connection, that the Imdugud bird which Ninurta assimilates, is often represented as part lion and part bird. Still other evidence may derive from the representation of the seedling plant that appears to be sprouting directly above the elbow of the deity depicted at right. A compelling interpretation of this emblem with Ninurta in his role as Lord of Vegetation seems plausible. Thus, the plough, now identified with Ninurta as trustworthy farmer, is pulled by the lion of Ninurta, to prepare the land symbolically for the sprouting plant, also depicted, and for which Ninurta is also responsible in his fertility aspect. We return now to the scorpion. Additional pointers associating this creature with Ninurta may be indicated on a cylinder seal of the early second millennium illustrated in fig. 3. At right in that seal a deity is seated before two approaching figures. Directly behind the seated figure is an undoubted representation of the Imdugud/Anzu bird with lion's head, the usual composite representation of this companion of Ninurta16. That association also points up the connection of Ninurta with lions as depicted on the seal in fig. 2. Moreover, poised immediately below the Imdugud bird is the image of a scorpion. Utilizing the deductions based on textual and iconographic evidence, considered above, we may now suggest that both

16 Ilse Fuhr-Jaeppelt, Materialien Zur Ikonographic Ded Lowenadlers Anzug-Imdugug, Munich, 1972. 16 J. HANSMAN

B C F E D E A

Fig. 4. Scale 1.25:1 the Imdugud bird and scorpion depicted on the seal are to be identified with Ninurta, presumably the deity seated to the left of these attributes. Of particular interest with respect to this general iconographical theme, is a cylinder seal of the late third millennium B.C. illustrated in fig. 417. At right (A) a bird flies toward the deity poised behind the plough that is pulled by a lion. Above the bird there appears a row of short, free-falling vertical lines joined at their upper limit by a single horizontal line. This arrangement may be understood as a stylized representation of rain issuing from a cloud being fetched by the bird. A reasoned interpretation of these symbols, considered in the context of the ploughing activity, would be that the bird is the Imdugud, the storm bird of Ninurta, bringing rain to the land for that deity in his responsibility as nature god arranging the fertility of the earth. Hovering immediately to the right of the figure at the plough, identified as Ninurta (C), is a scorpion (B). In the present context, if we view the scorpion as an attribute of Ninurta, does this interpretation sup- port a further identification of this creature as an agent of that deity in his responsiblity as fertility god? Considered in relation to the other pointers on the seal, we conclude that this would seem an entirely legitimate deduc- tion. Before treating that postulation further, we shall examine the second deity with horned hat depicted on the seal of fig. 4 (D), who is positioned to the right of the god at the plough.

17 R.M. Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyplik während der Akkad-Zeit, Berlin, 1965, Tafel LX, 715a. THE CREATURES OF NINURTA 17

In the left hand, this second figure holds a rein that appears to be connected to the harness of the ploughing lion. A series of ray-like devices emanate upward from the deity's shoulders (E). Above the rein there hovers a water buffalo or perhaps a ram with curving horns. The presence of this animal represented in close association with the corresponding divine figure, suggests that the deity in question may be Dumuzi, Sumerian god of cattle, sheep and other domestic animals. The interpretation of Sumerian glyptic iconography, however, is often more complex than an initial impres- sion may suggest. In considering these associate forms further, it may be recalled that we have earlier identified the two divine figures directing the plough on the cylinder seal illustrated in fig. 2, as Ninurta and Ningiszida. Is it possible to consider that, in parallel to this seal, the deity who shares the ploughing operation on the seal of fig. 4, is also Ningiszida? If this were so, what of Ningiszida's principal attribute, the serpent? We have already noted the radiating, ray-like lines rising upward from the shoulders of the relevant god on the fig. 4 seal. We have also earlier noted Frankfort's suggestion that the god represented with line-like devices radiating from the shoulders of certain figures in Mesopotamian glyptic art, is Dumuzi, and that the lines might be crops. What of the rays or lines emitting from the deity under present discussion? As the principal divine responsibility of Dumuzi is patron of domestic animals, it would seem problematical to identify these emissions as crops or other vegetation. Moreover, the ray-like lines show no leaves, or side sprouts as are often depicted on other early Mesopotamian seals to represent plants. The only distinguishing feature of the lines of current interest is that all appear to terminate in oblong knobs at their upper extremities. Might there be an alternative interpretation of these curious features? Could the radiating lines, in fact, represent the serpent attributes of Ningiszida, with the termi- nal knobs identifies as the serpent heads? If we pursue this postulation, one might ask why should serpents be represented as radiating from shoulders of Ningiszida? For a possible answer, we turn to an inscription of the Sumerian ruler Gudea of Lagash, that describes Ningiszida “rising like the sun from the fruitful earth”18, a role in which he may be viewed as a conveyor of fertility. Moreover,

18 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., 94. 18 J. HANSMAN

Ningiszida is identified as the god on a seal of Gudea, shown with snakes rising from each shoulders19. Given these particular contextual associations, we may, with reason, now further interpret the suggested serpent attributes on the seal of present interest, in the parallel aspects of life-giving or life- protecting entities, represented in the form of sun-like rays rising with Ningiszida “like the sun from the fruitful earth”. If an association with Ningiszida of the relevant figure is valid, what are we to make of the domestic animal in the upper register of the seal immediately to the right of that figure? In approaching this question, it may prove helpful to note that to the left of our postulated Ningiszida, and also in the upper register there is a representation of a person who appears to form a composite human figure with prominent breasts and beard. One of the suggested serpents or sun rays emanating from the shoulder of the relevant deity, bends at its upper extremity toward the arm of the figure, as if in acknowledgement. In parallel to this localized composition, we may also note that the faintly discernable rays emanating from the opposite shoulder of the deity identified as Ningiszida, radiate in the general direc- tion of the animal in the upper register of the seal, who appears to display a horned device fixed to its back. Since horns or horned hats are con- ventual attributes of early Mesopotamian gods, and insofar as Dumuzi was principally a shepherd god of domestic animals, it is reasonable to postu- late that this animal symbolizes that divinity identified by the horned device. Accordingly, the emanating serpents or rays might be viewed as propitious devices intended to impart benefit to the relevant human and animal adjuncts, possibly in fulfillment of Ningiszida's responsibility as a guardian deity. In general, Ningiszida is recognized as an underworld god and a warden of the gate of heaven20. But does he also have specific fertility connections? To consider this point we turn to a Sumerian vase dedicated to Ningis- zida. Two entwined serpents represented on this vessel, are considered by Frankfort to be attributes of Ningiszida21. Certain serpents do mate by entwining and their use as an emblem of Ningiszida would further empha- sise that divinity's association with fruitful increase. A related connection,

19 J. Black and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, Lon- don, 1992. s.v. snakes; see also ill. 115, 139. 20 On Ningiszida see E.D. Van Buren, “The God Ningizzida”, Iraq, I, 1934, 66-7. 21 Frankfort, Iraq, I, 1934, op. cit., 10. THE CREATURES OF NINURTA 19

Fig. 5. Scale 1.25:1 that of protector of fertility, is implied by Ningiszida's function as guardian of the marriage bed22. We return now to the question of the scorpion as an attribute of Ninurta, noting it has been suggested earlier that this may have obtained in the connection of that deity's role as a fertility god. This association could be implied by the iconography of the seal in fig. 2 where one hand of the deity identified as Ninurta is attached to the plough, while the other ends in a scorpion. Further pointers may be elucidated by the subjects depicted on a cylinder seal of the Third Early Dynastic period from Tell Asmar. This shows what appear to be a male and female figure coupling on a couch (fig. 5). Frankfort23 identified this scene with an account preserved in a text of Gudea, relating that at Lagash, the union of the goddess Bau and the god Ningirsu/Ninurta at the New Year Festival brought about the welfare of the city24. Frankfort had also noted that a scorpion which lurks under the couch, may represent Ishara, goddess of oaths and contracts. The association of Ishara with a scorpion derives largely from a Kassite omen text of the later second millennium B.C. The seal under present discussion, however, dates from the third millennium when Ishara's associated animal was the basmu snake25. It would therefore seem conjunc- tional to suggest that the scorpion under the bed symbolizes Ishara. What then of the theory of Frankfort that the figures of human form on the seal represent the coupling of Ninurta and Bau to obtain the prosperity

22 Van Buren, Iraq, I, 1934, op. cit., 66. 23 Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, 1939, op. cit., 75. 24 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., 124-6. 25 For a discussion of Ishara and her attributes see Black and Green, op. cit., s.v. Ishara. 20 J. HANSMAN of Lagash? If we accept this identification (or even if we do not), in the context of the sexual act taking place, we may consider the evidence pre- sented earlier above, that the scorpion would appear to identify as a fertility attribute of Ninurta. One may also note the figure with horned headdress standing to the left of the couch on the seal in fig. 5. A curious arched limb extends outward from this figure, terminating in what seems to be a pointed tip pressed against a foot of the lower person on the couch — presumably a female. What are we to make of this arched limb and its bizarre pointed extremity? It is apparent that the standing figure is a male god identified by his short kilt and horned headdress. Within the present context, therefore, the limb and its tip appear to be performing some divine function for which the relevant deity was apparently responsible. The limb, however, is angled upward at the presumed elbow, rather than downward as in a normal arm. This, then, is not a normal arm. It may therefore represent a composition with possible human and non-human components. If that were so, how might we interpret this curious member? To begin, it may prove helpful to examine another subject represented on this seal. We have earlier noted the scorpion positioned under the couch on which two figures lie. Neither of these latter individuals wears a horned headdress with which deities are frequently provided in ancient Mesopo- tamian glyptic art as exampled by the figure at left. We may therefore suggest, based on the available evidence, that the coupling figures are not represented as deities, and further that the scorpion is not intended as a totem of either. Might this creature then function as an emblem of the deity at left? If this were so, could the curiously-stylized limb of the deity be viewed, in part at least, as anatomically representative of our hypothet- ical scorpion attribute? A close, considered examination of the limb does indeed suggest, at least as one possibility, that the seemingly pointed ter- minus of the limb extended by the deity, and the anatomically incorrect representation of a forearm to which this end point is attached, might be interpreted as replicating the scorpion's sting and tail segment. Under this postulation, the back arm length of the deity's limb would, in fact, represent an anatomically correct forearm, while the further extension, positioned downward, could be interpreted as a scorpion tail and sting, thereby replacing the hand as a functioning unit. In this event, considered within the wider context of the seal, the limb extension might be viewed as rep- resenting Ninurta's scorpion attribute concerned with his responsibility as THE CREATURES OF NINURTA 21 god of procreation. By extension then, the pressing of the sting element against the foot of the presumed female partner on the couch, would symbolize the act of imparting the sting of fertility to that figure. We may recall, as a possible parallel interpretation to our present postulations, that the cylinder seal illustrated in fig. 2, also shows a deity whose arm terminates in a scorpion. From other, iconographical evidence, we have further identified the relevant deity in the fig. 2 seal, as Ninurta. That figure, however, appears to utilize the scorpion's claw to symbolize Ninurta's fertility responsibility. Why should this divine obligation be otherwise represented as emanating from the harmful sting of a scorpion? In response, we submit that if the scorpion is identified, in the present context, as a fertility attribute of Sumerian theology, it would seem imma- terial, whether by claw or sting, how the creative and benevolent aspects of this creature should be represented. Continuing with our present hypothesis, we have now to consider if the responsibilities of Ninurta extend to human as well as vegetable increase, for the undoubted subject of the seal represented in fig. 5 is human procreation. It is relevant for this point of enquiry to note that one of the titles of Ninurta/Ningirsu is “life giving semen, life giving seed”26. A reasonable interpretation of this textual evidence is that Ninurta was, in some mea- sure, lord of increase for humans and flora. Ningiszida, on the other hand, was protector of those processes. Finally, for this survey treating various iconographic associations of several early Mesopotamian deities, we note a cylinder seal of the Neo Assyrian Period (883-612 B.C.) illustrated in the drawing of fig. 6. On this seal, a god identified as Ninurta or Adad, pursues a leonine bird-monster, identified as either the Anzu or Asakku. Positioned immediately below the deity, and apparently accompanying him in pursuit of the monster, is a composite creature with bird head, lion body, and scorpion tail27. Within the context of the material considered in the present paper, this creature might reasonably be viewed as symbolizing the three proposed principal companion attributes of Ninurta; the assimilated Anzu bird, the lion, and the scorpion. If this were so, an association of Ninurta with the scorpion would be further confirmed. These postulations, with respect to

26 J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton, 1969, 576. 27 Black and Green, op. cit., 14, fig. 6 cut line. Picture credit, British Museum, drawing by Tesse Rickards. 22 J. HANSMAN

Fig. 6. the seal of present interest might, moreover, imply that the monster demon being pursued is more likely to be identified as the Asakku rather than the Anzu. To sum up: on the balance of evidence provided by the various pointers examined in the present paper, we now reiterate our understanding that the deity at left in the seal of fig. 5 is Ninurta, and further suggest that a portion of his extended arm is intended to represent a scorpion tail and sting. We also resubmit our earlier current finding that the scorpion, considered strictly within the parameters of the present study, and apart from any later association with the goddess Ishara, was viewed in ancient Meso- potamia as an attribute of Ninurta, representative of his responsibilities as a fertility deity. We might ask, however, that if the scorpion is, indeed, an emblem of Ninurta, why is this connection not referenced in the considerable corpus of Sumerian and Akkadian myths which are preserved in cuneiform texts excavated at various ancient Mesopotamian sites? Unfortunately, many of the myths which have survived in written form, were recovered in fragmentary versions often containing only part or parts of the story with which they are concerned. Moreover, as Black and Green point out: “the evident disparity between those literary versions of the myths which happen to survive and the graphic version of mythical themes THE CREATURES OF NINURTA 23 used … in Mesopotamian fine art”, suggest that many of these themes “refer to narratives of which no written version has as yet been recovered”28. A similar fate may have obscured Ninurta's suggested mythological connection with the scorpion. For our accessment of this particular association, however, sufficient glyptic pointers and other contemporary evidence has survived, to enable an objective interpretation of the available material to be adduced. Nothing, of course, is theoretically definitive until entertained by a con- sensus of scholarly opinion. There may well be other or varient interpreta- tions of the glyptic symbols considered in our examination of the evidence which is here submitted, with felicious greetings to David Stronach, as a contribution to the subject, deduced from the balance of that evidence.

28 Black and Green, op. cit., 14-5.