The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Samet Eisenbrauns POB 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590 www.eisenbrauns.com The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Nili Samet The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur General Editor Jerrold S. Cooper, Johns Hopkins University Editorial Board Walter Farber, University of Chicago Piotr Michalowski, University of Michigan Simo Parpola, University of Helsinki Karen Radner, University College, London Jack Sasson, Vanderbilt University Piotr Steinkeller, Harvard University Marten Stol, Free University of Amsterdam Irene Winter, Harvard University 1. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, by Piotr Michalowski 2. Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale, by Walter Farber 3. Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the Archive of Mannum-mešu-liṣṣur, by Elizabeth C. Stone and David I. Owen 4. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, by Piotr Steinkeller and J. N. Postgate 5. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, by A. R. George 6. Textes culinaires Mésopotamiens / Mesopotamian Culinary Texts, by Jean Bottéro 7. Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts, by Joan Goodnick Westenholz 8. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, by Wayne Horowitz 9. The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Reliefs, by John M. Russell 10. Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death, by Shlomo Izre’el 11. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive, by Daniel E. Fleming 12. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, by Wolfgang Heimpel 13. Babylonian Oracle Questions, by W. G. Lambert 14. Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia , by Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti 15. The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom, by Piotr Michalowski 16. Babylonian Creation Myths, by W. G. Lambert 17. Lamaštu: An Edition of the Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related Texts from the Second and First Millennia b.c., by Walter Farber 18. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, by Nili Samet 19. The babilili-Ritual from Hattusa (CTH 718), by Gary M. Beckman The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Nili Samet Winona Lake, Indiana E isenbrauns 2014 © Copyright 2014 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lamentation over the destruction of Ur (2014) The lamentation over the destruction of Ur / Nili Samet [editor, translator and commentary].    pages cm Text in transcribed Sumerian with English translation and commentary. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-292-1 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Sumerian language—Texts. 2. Elegiac poetry, Sumerian. I. Samet, Nili, translator, editor. II. Lamentation over the destruction of Ur. English III. Lamentation over the destruction of Ur. Sumerian. IV. Title. PJ4065.L3 2014 899′.95—dc23 2014000697 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™ to Jacob Klein with gratitude Contents Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 1. 3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Sumerian Laments over Cities and Temples . . . . . . 1 1.2. Sumerian City Laments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1. Dating and Historical Background . . . . . . . 5 1.2.2. The Cultic Setting of the City Laments . . . . 9 1.2.3. The City Laments as a Genre . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur . . . . 13 1.3.1. Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3.2. Structure, Style, and Meaning . . . . . . . . . 14 Revised Edition of the Ur Lament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.1. Previous Editions and Translations . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2. The Present Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.3. List of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.3.1. Indexes of Previous Works . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.4. Descriptions of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.1. Manuscripts from Nippur . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.2. Manuscripts from Ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.4.3. Manuscripts from Kiš . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.4.4. A Manuscript from Sippar . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.4.5. Manuscripts of Unknown Provenance . . . 51 Transliteration and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4. Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5. Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Index of Words, Particles, and Idioms Discussed . . . . . 244 Index of Divine Names in the Ur Lament . . . . . . . . 246 Index of Geographical and Topographical Names . . . . 246 Index of Sumerian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 vii Preface The aim of this book is to present a revised edition of the Sumerian Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, along with a new introduction to the literary genre of Sumerian City Laments in general and to the Ur Lament in particular. The book has its origins in a dissertation written under the supervision of Jacob Klein and Shmuel Vargon at Bar-Ilan University during the years 2005–2008. The edition included in the dissertation was based mainly on photographs of the relevant duplicates. Since then, I have had the opportunity to collate the vast majority of duplicates from their sources, thereby identifying new joins and numerous improved readings. In addition, I composed a new introduction and updated the commentary. This work was conducted while I was at the University Museum in Philadelphia as a post-doctoral fellow during the years 2009–2011. This book would not have been possible without the support and help of many persons and institutions. First and foremost, I am extremely indebted to my mentor and supervisor, Jacob Klein. I cannot thank him enough for his thorough and instructive guidance and for the many long hours he dedicated to my work. It is with deep gratitude and respect that this book is dedicated to him. I am thankful to my teachers and friends in the Kramer Institute for Assyriology, especially to Kathleen Abraham, formerly head of the institute, and to Yitzchak Sefati, who kindly transliterated for me many tablets and fragments. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the Department of Bible at Bar-Ilan University, Shmuel Vargon, Ed Greenstein, and Elie Assis, for their intensive support and useful advice; and to my colleagues from the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations at the Hebrew University, Wayne Horowitz and Uri Gabbay, who shared with me their experience and knowledge. It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to friends and colleges in the Babylonian Section of the University Museum in Philadelphia: Erle Leichty, Steve Tinney, Grant Frame, Ilona Zsolnay, Philip Jones, and Jamie Novotny. I thank them for their friendship and encouragement. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Herman Vanstiphout for generously providing me with his manuscript of the LU score; to William Hallo, who allowed me to use his unpublished copies of two LU tablets from Yale; to Jeremiah Peterson, formerly of the University Museum, who provided me with dozens of photographs of tablets and informed me of joins identified by him; and to Selim Adali from Bilkent University, who kindly photographed the Istanbul tablets for me. Special thanks go also to Jerry Cooper, the editor of this series, and to Piotr Michalowski, who read drafts of this book thoroughly and suggested many valuable corrections and improvements. I wish to offer here my gratitude to the President’s Fund for Excellent Ph.D. Students for a generous dissertation fellowship in the years 2006–2009, which also provided me an additional postix x Preface doctoral grant in 2010; to the Samuel Noah Kramer Institute of Assyriology, the Beit-Shalom foundation, and the Jewish Memorial Foundation for their special grants in the years 2007, 2011, and 2012, respectively; and to the Israel Science Foundation for the Bikura Post Doctoral Scholarship in the years 2010–2011. In addition, I would like to thank scholars who have kindly given me access to tablets in their collections and provided me with photographs of tablets: Béatrice André-Salvini, Musée du Louvre, Paris Jean-Luc Chappaz, Musées d’art et d’histoire, Geneva Jon Taylor, The British Museum, London John D. M. Green, Jacob L. Dahl, and Stephanie Dalley, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 1 Benjamin R. Foster and Ulla Kasten, Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven Nathan Wasserman, Aaron Shaffer’s Photograph Collection, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Manfred Krebernik, Institut für Kulturen und Sprachen des Vorderen Orients, Jena Jonathan Tenney, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago Joachim Marzahn, Museum of the Ancient Near East, Berlin Last, but not least, I would like to thank my beloved family. Shlomi, Golan, Eyal, Ofir, and Roni: thank you for your endless love and support. 1. Photographs of tablets and fragments in the Ashmolean Museum are reproduced courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Abbreviations For bibliographical abbreviations in general, see PSD (= Å.W. Sjöberg, ed., The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. A/3 [Philadelphia: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1998] ix–xlii), HKL (= R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschrift­literatur, vols. 1–2 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967–75]), and CAD (= A. L. Oppenheim et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago [21 vols. (A–Z); Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011]). Note the the following special abbreviations: CA CLAM ETCSL LE LN LSUr LU LW Curse of Agade (see Cooper 1983) The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (see Cohen 1988) Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk) Eridu lament (see Green 1978) Nippur lament (see Tinney 1986) Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (see Michalowski 1989) Ur lament Uruk lament (see Green 1984) All other Sumerian literary works are referred to according to their titles and line numbers in ETCSL. Former editions and translations of the Ur lament are referred to by the author’s name alone, as follows: Falkenstein Jacobsen Klein Kramer Römer Shifra-Klein A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, eds., Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete ([Stuttgart: Artemis, 1953] 192–213) T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation ([New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987] 447–74). J. Klein, “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World ([3 vols.; ed. W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003] 535–39) S. N. Kramer, Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (Assyriological Studies 12; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940) W. H. P. Römer, Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 309; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004) S. Shifra and J. Klein, In Those Distant Days: Anthology of Mesopotamian Literature ([Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996] 425–43 [Hebrew]) xi Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1. Sumerian Laments over Cities and Temples The lament is a well-known genre in world literature. Laments of various types are part of the cultural legacy and literary corpus of many societies, from ancient to modern times. Sumerian literature is no exception. Many literary works are focused on lamentations or use a lament-like style. 1 However, the lamentation literature in Mesopotamia includes a significant body of laments belonging to a unique and almost unparalleled genre, the genre of lamentations over the destruction of cities and temples. This genre has no known ancient parallel outside the ancient Near East; more specifically, it is almost exclusively attested in Sumerian and biblical literature. 2 The rareness of the genre of laments over cities and temples in world literature could be explained by the historical circumstances that gave rise to these laments. They emerged out of the destruction of old, defeated political regimes, which were often replaced by rival regimes. Normally, one would not expect poetry bewailing the old world to thrive under the rule of the new authority; it was only under special circumstances that these texts could be composed and could survive for many generations as part of a literary canon. The uniqueness of the biblical case seems obvious: the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of its inhabitants were not followed by the extinction of the Israelite culture and religion. As we shall see below, the Sumerian laments involved exceptional circumstances of their own. In some cases, unique historical-political conditions enabled their composition after the fall of the kingdom to which they were dedicated; in other cases, the laments were apolitical in nature, serving merely as cultic texts that were not ascribed to any specific time or place. The corpus of Sumerian lamentations over cities and temples consists of two subgroups, one that is referred to by scholars as City Laments, and the other often labeled Cultic Laments. 3 Each of the City Laments bewails the destruction of an important city in Sumer, often alluding to specific geographical and historical details such as names of shrines and other buildings of the city, the name 1. A few examples are Man and His God; The Death of Gilgameš; elegies such as the Elegy on the Death of Nannaya; and the Dumuzi literature. For general surveys of Sumerian lamentation literature of different types, see Krecher 1980; Edzard 2004: 515–20. 2. On this genre in the Bible, see recently Dobbs-Allsopp 1993, with additional bibliography. 3. For general introductions to the Cultic Laments, compare Cohen 1988: 11–44; Black 1991; and Gabbay 2007: 2–178, with additional bibliography. On the City Laments, see below. 1 2 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur of the king, and the identity of the enemy. These laments, at least on the surface, describe a specific historical event and therefore are occasionally referred to as historical laments. The Cultic Laments, on the other hand, bewail the destruction in general terms, using formulaic phrases of nonhistorical nature. In addition, the Cultic Laments were labeled by the ancient scribes with generic subscripts, such as balaĝ, er2-šem3-ma, and so on, while the ancient classification of the City Laments, if it existed, is unknown. The Cultic Laments have a repetitive character, using long stereotypical litanies; these litanies typically include lists of ruined cities and shrines and names or epithets of deities who abandoned them, appearing in a fixed order. The City Laments, on the other hand, are characterized by literary diversity and richness. The two groups also differ with regard to dialect: the Cultic Laments are written in the Emesal dialect, probably as a result of their belonging to the repertoire of the lamentation priest, gala, who was associated with this dialect. In the case of the City Laments, the parts written in Emesal are usually parts that quote the direct speech of a lamenting goddess; the rest of each lament generally uses the main dialect. 4 Last, while the City Laments ceased to be copied and transmitted by the scribes after the sixteenth century b.c.e., and perhaps even earlier, 5 the Cultic Laments continued to be copied and were used in the cult until the Seleucid era. All the aforementioned differences between City Laments and Cultic Laments can be explained by the apparently different cultic background of the two groups. While the Cultic Laments played an important role in Mesopotamian cultic practice, the City Laments, as far as we know, were not included in the regular cultic text inventory. Consequently, they did not enjoy the longevity that characterized the Cultic Laments, the common cultic use of which as a fixed part of religious practice assured their continuous transmission. 6 The different natures of the two groups, one more historically specific and the other lacking historicity, as well as the use of standard Sumerian versus the use of the Emesal dialect, typical of the gala priest, are also reflective of the different functions of these two groups of laments. The same is true of the repetitive, rhythmic nature of the Cultic Lament, which makes them suitable for recitation, in contrast to the free, rich style of the City Laments. Formerly, the common opinion regarding the relation between these two types of laments was that the City Laments preceded the Cultic Laments, having emerged as a consequence of a major historical disaster. The Cultic Laments, according to this hypothesis, developed from the City Laments by generalizing the specific historical details of the latter, adapting them to different places and circumstances. 7 Recent research, however, has revealed that Cultic Laments were regularly performed as early as the third millennium b.c.e., before the fall of the Ur III Empire, which is the main subject of the City Laments. This indicates that the relation between the two lament types was the 4. See Green 1975: 288–89. In the case of LU, the first two kirugus are exceptional. See §1.3.2.1. See also the comments on ll. 253, 255. Note also that the Ur manuscripts of LU are much less consistent in their use of Emesal. 5. All manuscripts of the five currently known City Laments date to the Old Babylonian period. In cases in which the manuscripts were examined more closely, they usually turn out to be dated to the twentieth through eighteenth centuries b.c.e. Exceptions include LU manuscripts from Kiš, dating from the reign of Rim-Sin II of Larsa in the mideighteenth century; and the LU manuscript from Sippar, dating from the days of Ammiṣaduqa (ca. 1646–1626). 6. The question of the disappearance of the City Laments from the literary tradition is connected to the general problem of the ceased transmission of most of the Sumerian literature by the end of the OB period. On this issue, see, e.g., Landsberger 1960; Hallo 1976. 7. See, e.g.: Cohen 1988: 33–39; Vanstiphout 1986: 7–9; Dobbs-Allsopp 1993: 11–15; 2000: 627–28. Introduction 3 opposite: the City Laments probably represent a literary development of the earlier Cultic Laments, by adapting them to a specific historical circumstances. 8 1.2. Sumerian City Laments The City Laments describe the destruction of central cities of Sumer during the fall of the third dynasty of Ur in 2004 b.c.e. 9 Each of these laments, which are characterized by literary diversity and moving descriptions, is dedicated to the devastation of an important city of the kingdom. The City Laments share many features, including content, idioms, literary structure, literary motifs, and ideas. City Laments are divided into kirugus (= ‘songs/stanzas’), each accompanied by a ĝišgiĝal (= ‘antiphon’). 10 The main theme of the laments is the destruction of the city to which the lament is devoted, but the laments also refer to the destruction of other cities. The destruction is presented as terrible and utter, affecting the city’s inhabitants, buildings, infrastructures, and agricultural life. The city loses its wealth, honor, and fertility. All social institutions collapse: priests abandon their offices; shepherds burn their pens; men neglect their wives and sons. Vivid descriptions are devoted to horrifying sights of bloodbath, piles of corpses, cut-down limbs, and dead, helpless victims abandoned by their loved ones. 11 The climax of the process of devastation is the destruction of the temple with its accessories, the cessation of the cultic practice, and the exile of the temple’s divine inhabitants. On the theological level, the City Laments describe the devastation as the decision of the great gods, executed by two primary agents of destruction: the storm in the cosmic realm and the enemy in the human realm. 12 As a consequence of the great gods’ sentence, which is presented as irrevocable, the patron deities are forced to abandon the city prior to the destruction. 13 This abandonment is often accompanied by the lamenting of the city’s patron god and/or goddess about the bitter fate of his or her city and shrine. The physical destruction is conceptualized in the City Laments as an expression of the destruction of the mythological infrastructure of the city’s existence. Thus, what are actually being destroyed are the city’s ‘plans’ (ĝišhur), ‘rituals’ (ĝarza), and ‘rational judgment’ (umuš, ĝalga, or dim). Above all, 8. See Black 1991: 30–31; Cooper 2006: 39–47; Gabbay 2007: 20–21. Note that, in addition to the Cultic Laments, other Sumerian literary works were considered forerunners of the City Laments. The most prominent “prior text” in this regard is the Curse of Akkad (= CA), which was probably composed during the Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 b.c.). See Cooper, CA 8; Michalowski, LSUr 8–10; Tinney, LN 35–36. 9. See below, §1.2.1. 10. Compare with comments on lines 36 and 39. 11. For the motif of abandoning wives and children in the City Laments, compare the comment on l. 235 below, and see the discussion of the sixth kirugu of LU (§1.3.2.5.). 12. For the expression of this concept in LU, see the literary analysis of kirugus 5 (§1.3.2.4.) and 9–10 (§1.3.2.8.) below. 13. In some rare cases, however, the patron gods are described as voluntarily choosing to abandon their cities; but even in these cases, the responsibility for the action of destruction is cast on the great gods. See LE seg. C ll. 9–25 (note that, contrary to Green’s translation, this passage most likely describes the rejection of cities by their patron gods rather than their destruction by them; for the understanding of zag–tag in this passage as ‘push away’, see Karahashi 2000: 175–76). The case of LU ll. 374–77 might be viewed as another example; but compare our literary discussion of the eighth kirugu, below, §1.3.2.7. For a possible realistic background of the theme of the abandoning patron gods, see Edzard 1957: 56–57. 4 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur the city loses its me, the divine essence that is the basis of its cultural, social, and religious institutions and enables its existence. 14 An additional important feature is an optimistic epilogue, referring to the restoration of the temple and the return of the deity to his holy abode. In most of the City Laments, the epilogue also includes a description of a ritual performed in the restored shrine, involving the recitation of a prayer and an offering of a lament. This ritual, which might shed light on the cultic setting of the City Laments, will be discussed below. To date, five City Laments are known: The Lament over Ur (LU), The Lament over Sumer and Ur (LSUr), The Lament over Uruk (LW), The Lament over Eridu (LE), and The Lament over Nippur (LN). 15 At least three of these laments—LU, LSUr, and LN—are mentioned by their incipit lines in the so-called literary catalogs from the Old Babylonian period. Significantly, they have been grouped together by the ancient scribe who composed these lists. 16 The other two laments, LW and LE, seem to be mentioned in these catalogs as well, in the proximity of the other three; however, since their beginnings are lost, they cannot be identified with certainty according to their incipit lines. 17 The Lament over Sumer and Ur has been reconstructed almost entirely. 18 It contains 5 kirugus, and the major portion of it deals with the dreadful destruction caused by a storm in the major cities of Sumer, with a detailed description of the devastation wrought in each city. The description of the demolition of Ur, the capital, is the most detailed, presented as the climax of the tragedy. The last kirugu contains an incantation-like plea for the restoration of the cities of Sumer. On the theological level, LSUr pays considerable attention to the decision by the great gods to destroy Ur, to the subsequent mass abandonment by patron gods, and to their return to the devastated cities after the favorable pronouncements of the great gods at the end of the lament. In addition, this is the only lament in which explicit justification for the destruction is suggested: the appointed duration of Ur’s reign, determined in advance by the great gods, had expired. 19 14. See comments on ll. 69–70, 231–32, and 342–43 below. 15. A fragmentary composition known as The Ekimar Lament (SLTN 103) might be added to this group, though the character of this text cannot be determined for certain on the basis of current evidence. See: Edzard 1957: 51; Michalowski, LSUr, p. 5. For another possible attestation of the existence of a sixth, currently unknown, City Lament, refer to the discussion about City Laments in ancient catalogs below. 16. See discussion below, §1.2.3. 17. See the following catalogs (all cited from ETCSL): The OB catalog from Nibru (N2) mentions LU, LN, and LSUr (ll. 32–34), followed by three incipits of apparent City Laments: uru me zi-da ‘the city of truthful rites’; u4 ḫuš ki-en-gi-ra ‘the raging storm . . . (in) Sumer’; u4 ḫuš an-ur2-ra ‘the raging storm . . . at the horizon’ (ll. 35–37). Judging from their content and from their location in the catalog, these incipits seem to refer to LW, LE, and perhaps also to a sixth, currently unknown City Lament. The OB catalog in the Louvre mentions three City Laments: LU, LN (ll. 26–28), and the apparent lament beginning with uru me zi-da ‘the city of truthful rites’ (l. 28). The OB catalog from Urim (U2) mentions LU, LSUr, and the apparent lament beginning with u4 ḫuš ki-en-gi-ra ‘the raging storm . . . (in) Sumer’ (ll. 44– 46). For a broader discussion, see Tinney, LN, pp. 22–23; and see below, §1.2.3. For further information about these two catalogs in general, see Delnero 2010a. 18. Michalowski 1989. Note that several additional manuscripts of the text were discovered since Michalowski’s edition. See the full list of manuscripts in ETCSL’s edition of the text. 19. See below, §1.3.2.3. Introduction 5 The Lament over Uruk originally contained 12 kirugus, only 6 of which are preserved. 20 In addition to the well-known motifs of divine abandonment, destructive storms, and human enemies, this lament also refers to agents of destruction in mythological terms: they are depicted as terrifying monsters created by the great gods in order to destroy the human race, including the people of Uruk. LW also describes in detail the fall of the king and the desolation of Uruk in particular and Sumer in general. The last kirugu describes King Išme-Dagan’s presentation of the lament to Inana, the goddess of Uruk, as part of a sacrificial ritual. The Eridu lament is only partly preserved. 21 A unique feature of this lament is that it traces in detail the progress of the destructive force that attacked Eridu, from the gate to the innermost chamber of the temple. In addition, the lament describes at length the grieving and lamenting of the divine couple of Eridu, Enki and Damgalnuna, and refers to the divine abandonment of other cities as well. The final kirugu celebrates the return of Enki to the restored temple. The Nippur lament is somewhat exceptional, since only the first half is dedicated to the destruction, using typical descriptions of devastation; while its second, longer part contains an extensive description of the return of the god to its temple, restored by King Išme Dagan. This second part is written in the style of a royal hymn. The lament was edited by S. Tinney. 22 The content of the Ur lament will be discussed in detail below. 1.2.1. Dating and Historical Background Any discussion of the historical aspects of the City Laments should address two different issues: the problem of their historical background—that is, when the events described in them occurred; and the question of the date of their authorship—that is, when, for what purpose, and by whom were they composed? While these two issues are somewhat related to each other, it is methodologically necessary to distinguish between them and to discuss each separately. Shortly after the Lament over Ur was first introduced to the scholarly community by Kramer, 23 Jacobsen identified the terrible destruction portrayed in it with the fall of the famous kingdom of the Third Dynasty of Ur in 2004 b.c.e. 24 His hypothesis was confirmed when the very similar Lament over Sumer and Ur was deciphered, with two references to Ibbi-Sin, the last king of the Ur III kingdom, as the defeated king of the destroyed city. 25 These explicit references in LSUr, together with the mention of enemies who destroyed Ur—Elam and Šimaški—both in LU and LSUr, 26 clearly point to the traumatic event of the destruction of the Ur III kingdom as the background of LU and LSUr. The 20. See Green 1984. For additional manuscripts of the text that were discovered after Green’s edition, see the full list of manuscripts in ETCSL. 21. See Green 1978. For an up-to-date list of manuscripts of the text, see the ETCSL’s list of manuscripts; and see now the new fragment published by Peterson (2009). The preserved parts of this highly damaged fragment clearly point to an LE manuscript; the possible reference to hur-saĝ-kalam-ma in the fragment, even if we assume that this is indeed the correct reading of the signs (see ibid.), should not cast doubt on the identification of this fragment as a manuscript of the Eridu lament. 22. See Tinney 1995. 23. Kramer 1940. 24. Jacobsen 1941. 25. LSUr 35; 105. 26. LU 244; LSUr 33 passim. 6 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur other three laments—over Uruk, Eridu, and Nippur—do not include such explicit data about the historical events described in them. Regarding the question of the date of authorship, however, the situation is somewhat the opposite: while LU, LSUr, and LE do not reveal any details about the time of their composition, 27 LN and LW make a specific reference to King Išme-Dagan (1953–1935 b.c.e.), the fourth and most important king of the Isin Dynasty, who ruled Sumer some 60 years after the destruction. In these two laments, Išme-Dagan figures as the performer of the lament, who presents it to the god as part of a sacrificial ritual. 28 In LN, he is further presented as Enlil’s chosen savior of Nippur. This partial evidence cannot fully solve any of the problems at stake: neither the historical background of LE, LW, and LN nor the date of authorship for LU and LSUr can be determined for certain. However, a tentative historical framework for the chronology of the City Laments can be suggested on the basis of available data. The laments for Ur and for Sumer and Ur appear to be relatively early. The many affinities and parallels in both structure and phraseology between these two laments, which cannot be found in the other three, seem to speak for the proximity of the dates of their composition. 29 That this date is probably earlier than the composition of the other laments is indicated by several of their shared characteristics. First, LU and LSUr allude to specific historical details, such as the names of the destroying foes, Elam and Šimaški; 30 the defeated king of Ur, Ibbi-Sin; and the city where he was led into captivity, Anšan. 31 These references may reflect a fresher memory of the actual events. Second, LU and LSUr are focused on destruction rather than restoration. In LU, kirugus 1–8 deal with the destruction, kirugus 9–10 contain a plea for the departure of the storm, and only the 11th, the last kirugu refers to the restoration of the destroyed city. In LSUr, kirugus 1–3 and most of kirugu 4 are dedicated to the theme of destruction; the restoration is treated at the end of kirugu 4 and in kirugu 5. This structure of LU and LSUr is in accordance with the common literary pattern of Cultic Laments, which typically include a “heart pacification unit,” with an appeal for the divine return at the very end. 32 Another characteristic that could be considered as establishing the relative historicity of LU and LSUr is the central role played by the capital Ur in these laments, which, from a historical point of view is more natural than focusing on other cities, as in the three other laments. Who, then, was responsible for the composition of these two laments, and for what purposes were they written? 27. But note that, in the case of LE, this absence might just as easily be a result of its current fragmentary state of preservation. 28. See LW seg. H 9–27; LN 276, 308–14. For more details about this ritual, see below, §1.2.2. 29. For these parallels, see the numerous references in the commentary below. 30. LU 244; LSUr 33 passim. For the Elamite involvement in the fall of the Ur III kingdom, see Edzard 1957: 48–49. Two additional enemies mentioned in LSUr are Gutium (LSUr 230, 489) and Tidnum (LSUr 256, 488). Unlike the mention of Elam and Šimaški, the reference to Gutium is ahistorical in nature and should be understood as a literary motif (contra Hallo 1971: 715; see further discussion of the Gutium below). Regarding Tidnum, there is no historical evidence for the involvement of this Amorite tribe in the destruction of the Ur III kingdom. It should be noted, however, that Tidnum is mentioned in Ur III texts as a threat against which a wall was built. See Buccelati 1966: 243–44; Wossnik 2009: 132. 31. LSUr ll. 36, 490, 491. For evidence supporting this tradition regarding Ibbi-Sin’s exile, see Michalowski, LSUr p. 34; and p. 74 comment on l. 35. 32. See Gabbay 2007: 15–18. Introduction 7 As mentioned above, 33 the genre of City Laments suffers from an inherent problem: if the political regime it mourns has already perished, who would be interested in composing laments over its destruction and in ensuring the transmission of these laments? An interesting answer to this question was suggested by Michalowski, who studied the historiography and legitimation of the Isin Dynasty, the successor to the Ur III kingdom. 34 Michalowski pointed to the appropriation of the Ur III legacy by the Isin Dynasty, which based its legitimation on its claim to continuity with its predecessor state. The composition of laments dedicated to the destruction of this old kingdom, including an appeal for its restoration, may be part of the royal enterprise aimed at presenting Isin as the legitimate successor of the old and glorious kingdom. In view of the above considerations, one may assume that LU and LSUr were composed during the time of one of the first kings of the Isin Dynasty, perhaps in the days of its founder, Išbi-Erra (2017–1985), 35 not many years after the destruction itself. One should keep in mind, however, that the possible motive of royal legitimation lurking in the background of LU and LSUr is implicit. The Isin king who was seemingly responsible for the composition of these laments did not take full political and propagandistic advantage of them, and the framework of the lament as a literary-religious, not political genre is strictly adhered to, in keeping with the old tradition of Cultic Laments. The implicit motives become explicit in LW and LN. We have seen that these two laments were composed at least 50 years after the destruction, under the aegis of King Išme-Dagan. The remoteness in time between the event and its reflection in the laments naturally weakens their historicity. Indeed, LW and LN lack the specific historical details that appear in LU and LSUr. The names of the enemies who destroyed Sumer in LW and LN are ahistorical in nature, and they function as a literary cliché. They include the legendary and archaic Gutium, Tidnum, and Subir, 36 none of whom was a historical foe of the Ur III kingdom. Additionally, while LU and LSUr pay more attention to the destruction, LN is interested mainly in the theme of restoration, which occupies half of the lament. As to LW, the second half (except for the last(?) kirugu, which describes the restoration) is missing. It is therefore impossible to determine the original ratio between the portion that dealt with the destruction and the portion that described the restoration in this lament. It is noteworthy, however, that even in its current fragmentary condition, the preserved part of the restoration ceremony in LW is longer and more detailed than the parallel sections in the other laments, with the exception of LN. 33. See §1.1 above. 34. Michalowski, LSUr 5–7; see further idem 1983. 35. See Michalowski, LSUr 6–7. Other scholars suggested a broader range of possibilities. Jacobsen concluded that “it must have been written no more than seventy or eighty years after the destruction” (Jacobsen 1942: 221). 36. Gutium: LW seg. E 54, 63. The literary tradition of using the Gutians as a symbol for frightening, barbarian outlaw mountaineers began in the Ur III period and continued into the first millennium. See Hallo 1971; Cooper, CA pp. 30–33. In the present context, the portrayal of Gutium in the Curse of Agade, a predecessor of the City Laments, is of special interest. See CA 154–57, where the Gutium, destroyers of Sargonic Akkad, are described as “not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the Land, Gutium, people who know no inhibitions, with human instinct, canine intelligence, and monkey’s features.” Tidnbum: LN 231. On the Tidnum, see above. Subir: LW seg. E ll. 65, 97, 111; seg. F 5. 8 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Not only do LW and LN pay a great deal of attention to the restorations, they also stress the central role of Išme-Dagan in this process. This tendency is especially prominent in LN. As shown by Tinney, the Nippur lament is, above all, a sociopolitical work intended to portray Išme-Dagan as Enlil’s chosen savior of Nippur. 37 It is thus not surprising that the second half of LN is, in fact, not a lament but a royal hymn praising Išme-Dagan. Therefore, it is probably not a coincidence that no historical destruction of Uruk or Nippur from the days of Išme-Dagan is known to us. The few scholarly attempts to correlate LN and LW with real historical events are not only doubtful but, more importantly, unnecessary: 38 the gap of at least 50 years between the composition of the laments and the event that they vaguely commemorate—most likely the destruction of Ur in 2004 b.c.e.—is in accordance with the superficiality of their historical dimension. It seems preferable to posit that they were building on the already-known model of LU and LSUr, adapting the classic City Lament style into a political framework of royal legitimation. The above discussion does not include the Lament over Eridu. Its current fragmentary state of preservation makes it difficult to suggest anything about its date of composition. As preserved, LE has seven incomplete kirugus and a few fragmentary lines from the beginning of the eighth kirugu. Kirugus 1–6 describe the destruction, and kirugu 7 refers to restoration. In its current condition, our overall impression is that LE is more similar to LU and LSUr than to LN and LW: it does not mention Išme-Dagan, and it primarily elaborates on the theme of destruction, with limited attention devoted to restoration. 39 However, the complete lament might have included all these components in the missing kirugu(s) at the end. As to the enemies appearing in LE, the preserved parts of the lament mention both the apparently anachronistic Subir and the historical Šimaški and Elam, 40 but these references still do not provide a firm enough basis for dating. The dating of LE must therefore await future discovery of additional manuscripts. 41 Discussing the historical aspects of the City Laments should not mislead us into considering them historical documents. One should keep in mind that all City Laments, notwithstanding the fact that the degree of their historicity may vary, are basically literary compositions and should be treated as such. Questions regarding literary, cultic, and ideological aspects of the laments seem to be more relevant to this genre than historical questions. 42 37. See Tinney, LN 26–46; 54–62; 83–84. 38. Several suggestions for later historical events that might have provided the background for LW and LN have been proposed. Edzard (1957: 90–93) first ascribed the destruction to Ilušuma from Aššur, who claimed to establish an andurārum in several cities, including Nippur. This theory was shown to be problematic from several aspects (see, e.g., van Dijk 1965; and note especially the detailed discussion of the term andurārum and its meaning in Ilušuma’s inscriptions in Larsen 1976: 63–80). Edzard later abandoned this hypothesis, proposing instead that the attack on Nippur came from Larsa (Edzard 1980b), but he did not suggest supportive evidence. Scholarly attempts to point to archaeological evidence for the destruction of Nippur in the relevant period were questioned as well. See discussion in Tinney, LN p. 7; and see further Green 1975: 317–19. 39. An additional similarity in LE, LU, and LSUr is the description of the ritual at the end of these laments. See below, §1.2.2. 40. LE seg. A 21, 87. 41. For an attempt to date LE despite its incomplete state of preservation, see Green 1975: 319. 42. Tinney has forcibly made this point regarding LN specifically; see LN pp.7–8. Introduction 9 Thus, for instance, scholars have debated the implications of the inclusion of Isin among the destroyed cities in LU based on identifying the event commemorated by the lament. 43 Whereas Falkenstein argued that the reference to Isin excludes the event of the fall of the Ur III kingdom, 44 Green attempted to show that Isin also “felt the duress of the Amorite unrest” involved in the 2004 b.c.e. destruction of Ur. 45 It seems preferable, however, to posit that the inclusion of Isin had more to do with the ideological tendencies of the scribes who apparently composed LU in the court of a king from the Isin Dynasty than with historical reality. This approach may find support in the concluding lines of the eighth kirugu of LU. In most manuscripts, this kirugu concludes with an appeal for the restoration of three major cities: Ur, Nippur, and Isin. 46 The raising of Isin to the status of one of the three major cities of Sumer, alongside Ur and Nippur, is undoubtedly ideological in nature. This example demonstrates the inherent problem in attempting to use specific details from the poetic descriptions of the laments as a basis for reconstructing history. 47 Any historical conclusions drawn from the laments must be accepted with the utmost reservation. 48 As for the transmission of the City Laments, all manuscripts of the five currently known City Laments date to the Old Babylonian period. Colophons appearing on LU manuscripts from Kiš point to the reign of Rim-Sin II of Larsa in the mid-eighteenth century. A colophon on the LU Sippar manuscript indicates that it should be dated to the days of Ammiṣaduqa (ca. 1646–1626). LU Nippurite manuscripts seem to be earlier. 49 In the case of the Sumer and Ur lament, Michalowski’s impression is that the majority of the tablets were written during the reigns of Rim-Sin and Samsu-Iluna—that is, no later than the mid-eighteenth century. 50 A thorough paleographic study of the manuscripts of the five city laments, which might shed new light on questions of dating and transmission, is still to be conducted. 1.2.2. The Cultic Setting of the City Laments As far as the Cultic Laments are concerned, their cultic setting is indicated, explicitly or implicitly, in various sources. The identity of the performers, the types of musical accompaniment, the places and the different occasions in which the Cultic Laments were performed, and many other fea- 43. See LU 9–10, 59–60. Isin is also included in the list of cities abandoned by their patron deities in LSUr 136–37. 44. See Falkenstein 1949. 45. See Green 1975: 320. 46. See ll. 383, 383a and 384a in the score, with comment. The latter lines do not appear in the composite text since they are omitted in P, which serves as a basis for the reconstructed text. However, the majority of Nippur manuscripts represent a tradition of including Nippur and Isin alongside Ur in the appeal for restoration (note that the same is not true for the addition of Babylon, and perhaps also Uruk, to the list, which is an esoteric tradition reflected only in one Kiš text [= K3]; see ll. 384b and 384c). 47. For other scholarly treatments of the laments as historical sources, see Edzard 1957: 50–58. See further Green’s methodological discussion of this issue (Green 1975: 320–25), and note the innovative hypothesis suggested by Vanstiphout (1974 and 1980), who concluded from the descriptions of death in the laments that they were based on a fatal plague (on Vanstiphout’s assumption, see further the comment on ll. 259–60 below). 48. For a possible exception, see discussion of the function of the Lagaš area in the first kirugu (§1.3.2.1.). 49. This appreciation is based on paleographic criteria. However, the paleographic differences between the tablets from Nippur and the peripheral tablets may also derive from their geographical distribution. 50. LSUr p. 16. 10 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur tures can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty. 51 For the City Laments, however, we have no such evidence. 52 As mentioned above, this difference between the two types of laments results from the fact that the City Laments were probably not used in the cult on a regular basis. However, a possible hint about the use of the City Laments in the cult is found in the laments themselves. All City Laments except for the Lament over Sumer and Ur conclude with the description of a ritual, during which a “humble man” performs a lament (er2) and recites a prayer (siskur, a-ra-zu) to the city god in order to “pacify his [the god’s] heart” (that is, to “soothe the god’s anger”) and thereby enable the restoration of the city and temple. In light of the centrality of the lament to this ceremony, Green suggested that the lament referred to in these epilogues is the very city lament to which each belongs. Thus, the ritual appearing at the end of the City Laments furnishes the cultic setting for these very laments. 53 If this assumption is correct, we can reconstruct the ceremony during which the city laments were recited on the basis of their own content. Moreover, a close examination of the evidence supplied by the concluding passages of the various laments may enable us to trace the development of this ritual, which is depicted somewhat differently in each of the laments. Below is an attempt to sketch this development. The Lament over Ur dedicates its 11th kirugu to the description of the ritual in question. The ritual consists of a recitation of the lament by the “humble man,” 54 who is also designated a “man of prayer.” 55 His acts are followed or accompanied by a gesture of homage (kiri3 šu–tag) performed by the “black headed people.” Then the “man,” intermediated by his personal god, utters a supplication (a-ra-zu) to the god, who in turn forgives the sins of the “man” and the people and looks favorably on them. Two references to the theme of restoration seem to imply that the entire ceremony takes place in the restored temple. Some of the main characteristics of this ritual are similar to those known to us from self-evident details in the Cultic Laments about their performance. The reference to the lament by the term er2, the use of the phrase a-ra-zu–e ‘to utter a supplication’, the mention of the ‘pacification of the god’s heart’ (ša3–huĝ), the presentation of the god with a gift (kadra), and the reference to the performer as a lu2 siskur2-ra ‘man of prayer’ are all known to us from the self-descriptions of performances appearing in Cultic Laments and related Emesal prayers. 56 The latter parallel is of particular importance, since it may also shed light on the identity of the “man of prayer” who performs the lament. The 51. See Gabbay 2007: 45–153. 52. Note that the cultic setting of the Ur lament suggested by Jacobsen (1941; 1987: 447–48) is based on an erroneous identification of this lament as a balaĝ; see below, §1.3. 53. See Green 1975: 311ff.; Green 1978: 156–57; Tinney, LN 23–24. Consider, however, the cautious remark by Tinney (ibid.), who mentions the possibility that these laments and prayers may have been Balaĝs. 54. See comment on l. 419 below. 55. For the translation ‘man of prayer’, see comment on l. 426. A full comparative study of this term is still to be conducted. 56. See Gabbay 2007: 138–40. Interestingly, while the self-evident aspects of the performance of the City Laments are similar to the self-evident data regarding performances that appear in Cultic Laments, one does not find such striking parallels in the later descriptions of the performance of Cultic Laments as occurring in various first-millennium sources (see Gabbay 2007: 45–153). This fact may indicate that the references to performances in the Cultic Laments themselves reflect a more original cultic practice, which may have been somewhat different from the cultic conventions reflected in first-millennium texts. Introduction 11 evidence supplied by both Cultic Laments and Old Babylonian administrative texts suggests that he was a lamentation priest. 57 A similar picture emerges from the preserved parts of the Lament over Eridu. The seventh kirugu of this lament concludes with a reference to a “humble man” who sings a lament before the god, thus soothing his heart, and then recites a prayer, thus making the god look favorably on him. Here too, the context may imply that the ritual is performed in the restored temple, since the preceding passage includes a plea for restoration and divine return. Nevertheless, the missing last kirugu(s) of this lament may have included additional details, and therefore no decisive conclusion as to the nature of the ritual can be suggested as yet. The laments over Uruk and Nippur, on the other hand, portray a fairly different picture of the ritual under discussion. First, in these two laments, King Išme-Dagan is the main protagonist of the entire ritual. He performs the ceremony himself, making luxuriant offerings and setting a festive banquet. As opposed to LU, where the reverential gesture kiri3 šu-tag/ĝal2 is made by the “people,” in LN and LW, it is performed by Išme-Dagan himself. In LN, he also takes the office of the “humble man,” who recites the lament and prayer. 58 In addition, the ceremony in LW and LN is much richer than in LU, involving not only the recitation of the lament and prayer but also offerings, feast, and music (the latter only in LW). The general impression is that, while LU and perhaps also LE portray a cultic ritual, most likely performed by a lamentation priest, LW and LN place this ritual in the framework of a royal festival focused on the king. Accordingly, the high point of the ceremony as depicted in LW and LN is not only the restoration of the city but, more importantly, the blessing of the king with eternal dominion, success, and abundance. The Lament over Sumer and Ur is, as mentioned above, an exception: it concludes with a plea for restoration that does not involve any ritual. 59 These different descriptions of the cultic setting in the various City Laments fit well into their chronological framework, as suggested above. We have proposed that LU and LSUr are relatively early, presenting a more traditional pattern of the genre, whereas the later LW and LN demonstrate a strong, explicit political agenda on behalf of Išme-Dagan and his region. Accordingly, the early (perhaps earliest) LSUr seems to follow the more traditional manner of concluding laments—that is, a “heart pacification unit” with a plea for restoration, without reference to a specific cultic setting. 60 LU and seemingly also LE describe a modest cultic ritual preformed by a lamentation priest, consisting of the recitation of the lament accompanied by additional prayer(s). In the later LW and LN, the ritual is expanded and modified to become an extravagant royal feast. 57. See Gabbay 2007: 140; Michalowski 2006: 57 n. 17. Note that not all scholars agree with the identification of the performer of the lament as a lamentation priest. Green and Tinney suggested that the “man” is the king, on the basis of the descriptions of the ritual in LN (see below; see Green 1975: 311–12; Green 1978: 156–57; and Tinney, LN 23–24). 58. This may also be the case in LW, but there the identification between the “humble man” and the king is not explicit; the “man” can still be understood as a figure other than the king. 59. We interpret LSUr 475–77a as describing Enlil’s promise for the future as part of his blessing for Nanna (contra Michalowski, who understood this passage as describing events taking place in the present). While these lines do not use verbs with the modal prefix ḫe2- (as opposed to the previous series of verbs), their consistent imperfective form seems to point, in this case, to the future tense. This interpretation is in keeping with the following kirugu in LSUr (ll. 483–519), in which the storm did not leave the city yet. See also the ĝišgiĝal in ll. 479–81. For the possible cultic background of LSUr, see further Michalowski, LSUr p. 108. 60. See Gabbay 2007: 15–18. 12 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur What exactly was celebrated during these ceremonies? The common reference to the theme of restoration may indicate that the ceremony took place on the occasion of the restoration of the temple or during the reinstallation of the god’s statue in his shrine, at least in the case of the seemingly earlier LSUr and LU. 61 The recitation of a lament over the ruined temple during the celebration of its restoration may seem paradoxical on the surface. An interesting explanation for this paradox was suggested by Gabbay. In his extensive discussion of the numerous occasions in which Cultic Laments were recited, he defines a large group of “rites of passage or initiation” that are liminal in nature, thus being potentially disastrous. 62 The performance of a lament during these dangerous times is aimed at calming the furious gods and thus preventing a potential disaster. A classic example of this sort of liminal occasion is the restoration of a temple or statue, which requires the performance of a lament to ensure the safety of the process. 63 Due to the noncultic nature of the City Laments in general and the lack of explicit data regarding their cultic use, we may posit that the ceremony under discussion was not held on a regular basis; it seems to have been a unique occasion, during which the relevant City Lament was recited. Following the laments’ use in these rituals, however, their role probably changed, and they became pure literary works that owed their preservation from this point on to the Sumerian scribal schools rather than to cultic practice. 64 1.2.3. The City Laments as a Genre Thus far, we have intuitively referred to the City Laments as a genre, due to the many features that they share. These common characteristics seem to justify the classification of the City Laments as a “critical genre”—that is, a genre recognized and defined by modern scholars; but do they also indicate that the City Laments form an “ethnic genre”? That is, were they classified as a special form by the ancients? 65 Unfortunately, unlike many of the Cultic Laments, the City Laments do not bear subscripts indicating their ancient classification. 66 Green, who attempted to trace a Sumerian term for the lamentation genre, concluded that “it remains possible that there was no specific term for the genre of lamentations over destroyed cities.” 67 Scholars therefore had to look for indirect evidence of this possible ethnic genre. 61. Green 1975: 311–12. 62. Gabbay 2007: 148–51. 63. Gabbay 2007: 149–50. Note however that “rites of passage or initiation” include other liminal events as well, such as rituals for manufacturing or repairing a statue, processions and apotropaic rites. See Gabbay 2007: 104 n. 385. 64. For a similar hypothesis regarding the cultic function of some Sumerian royal hymns, see Klein 1981: 25, with additional bibliography. 65. The terms critical genre and ethnic genre were coined by genre theorists and introduced into the discussion of the City Laments genre by Tinney (LN 11, 25). 66. Note, however, that the usefulness of subscripts for modern scholars interested in generic classification has been questioned. See, e.g., Vanstiphout 1986: 4. 67. Green 1975: 283. It is noteworthy, however, that in the apparent descriptions of performances appearing in the epilogues of the laments the text recited before the god is referred to as er2. Although this term usually serves as a general designation for different types of laments, it is not impossible that it was also used as a specific generic term classifying the City Laments; but this is uncertain. Introduction 13 A model for understanding the City Laments as a genre was proposed by Vanstiphout, 68 who analyzed the City Laments in light of evolutionary genre theory. According to Vanstiphout, the Lament over Sumer and Ur represents the primary phase of the genre’s life, in which the main features of the genre assemble until a formal type emerges. The formal type itself is represented by the Ur lament, which in turn gives rise to the Uruk and Eridu laments, representing the classic phase with their fully developed format. The Nippur lament is evidence of the third stage, which is characterized by a new use of the formal feature of the type—in this case, the hymnic style of its second half. The final death of the City Laments genre at the end of the third stage gives rise to the Cultic Laments. 69 While some details in Vanstiphout’s model fit the historical considerations discussed above, his theory that the City Laments preceded the Cultic Laments is no longer accepted, and many scholars find the reliance on an evolutionary genre theory methodologically insufficient. 70 The best starting point for any discussion of the City Laments as an ethnic genre is the explicit data provided by the texts. This sort of approach is suggested by Tinney, who discusses this issue at length. 71 Tinney points out the advantages of understanding the City Laments as a critical genre, whereby their common features are emphasized and their intertextuality is exposed. As to the question whether the City Laments constituted an ethnic genre, he points cautiously to two features that may indicate that they were originally classified as belonging to a distinctive group. The first feature is the apparently similar, or even identical cultic setting of most City Laments, as reflected in their concluding kirugus. 72 A second feature that might serve as an indication for a generic relation among the City Laments is their listing together in Old Babylonian catalogs. As mentioned above, 73 three catalogs from the Old Babylonian period group the City Laments together. In a recent article, 74 Delnero has shown that these so-called literary catalogs were actually inventory lists indicating the contents of archival storage containers. The grouping of literary works with similar content in these lists is explained by him as “an effective mnemonic device for remembering groups of entries, facilitating tablet retrieval.” 75 Be that as it may, these documents clearly refer to City Laments as belonging to the same thematic group. Although this is not a generic classification in the modern meaning of the term, the act of arranging the City Laments together in archival lists reflects the ancient perception that they had enough in common to be stored together. 1.3. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The Ur lament is considered a classical exemplar of the City Laments. As elucidated by Vanstiphout, 76 the themes and ideas typical of the City Laments, such as divine abandonment, the 68. See Vanstiphout 1986. 69. Vanstiphout 1986: 7–9. 70. See Tinney, LN 25; Cooper 2006: 41. For a recent examination of the City Lament genre in light of an alternative genre theory, see Dobbs-Allsopp 2000. 71. See Tinney, LN 11–25. 72. See above, §1.2.2. 73. See §1.2. 74. Delnero 2010a. 75. Delnero 2010a: 49. 76. See Vanstiphout 1986. 14 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur lament of the city goddess, the destructive storm, and the plea for restoration appear in LU in their full, shaped form. In addition, LU is the only lament that can be fully reconstructed, on the basis of no less than 92 manuscripts. 77 These features of the lament enable us to reconstruct the sequence of events and themes in the 11 kirugus of the lament to a considerable degree of certainty. 1.3.1. Content The lament begins with a long litany depicting the abandonment of cities and shrines, metaphorically presented as “cattle pens” and “sheepfolds,” by their patron deities (kirugu 1). This is followed by a second litany describing the bitter wails that the abandonment caused in the capital, Ur, and in the other abandoned cities (kirugu 2). At this stage, Ningal, the patron goddess of Ur, appears on the stage and utters a lament before her husband, Nanna, the patron god of Ur. In her lament, occupying two kirugus, she describes the destructive “storm-day” on which her city was attacked and her futile efforts to rescue it. Ningal’s lament reaches its touching climax in a vivid scene in which she depicts her twofold appearance in the frightful assembly of the great gods, pleading to save her city, and the twofold rejection of her plea (kirugus 3–4). Having lost any chance for changing its bitter fate, Ur is now violently attacked by the powerful storm and is utterly destroyed (kirugu 5). When the storm is over, the dreadful sight of an utterly devastated city submerged in a terrible bloodbath is exposed (kirugu 6). Ningal, who flew from her city during the destruction, is now lamenting again before Nanna, this time standing outside the city. In her lament, she bewails her city, which ceased to exist, her desolated house, and herself, who had been exiled and humiliated (kirugu 7). At this point, the mood begins to change, becoming relaxed, although the general framework is still that of a lament: Ningal is beseeched to return to her devastated city (kirugu 8); a wish is expressed that the storm be removed forever (kirugus 9–10); and Nanna is asked to accept the lament’s wish willingly in his restored city (kirugu 11). As we have seen from the above summary of content, each of the 11 kirugus of the lament is to some extent a closed literary unit within itself, dealing with a particular theme. Therefore, we will examine below the literary aspects of each of the kirugus in detail and point out its place and function in the overall design of the composition. 1.3.2. Structure, Style, and Meaning 1.3.2.1. Kirugu 1 The first kirugu contains a litany describing the abandonment of various cities and shrines in Sumer by their patron deities. These cities and shrines are metaphorically referred to by the Sumerian terms tur3 ‘cattle-pen’ and amaš ‘sheepfold’, both serving as common metaphors for temples in lamentation literature. 78 The refrain of the litany, muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e, proclaims that 77. The number of manuscripts available for the reconstruction of the other City Laments is considerably less. According to ETCSL, for LN we have 67 manuscripts; for LSUr—59 manuscripts; for LW—23 manuscripts; and for LE—only 11 manuscripts. 78. See, for example, the temple names e2 tur3-amaš-a and e2 tur3-kalam-ma (George 1993: 151). For these two terms in parallelism in lamentation context, see, for example: e2 tur3 amaš-gin7 lu-lu-a-ĝu10 / [e-z]e2-gin7 amaš-gin7 lu-lua-ĝu10 (= bītu ša kīma tarbaṣu u supūru duššû/ [kī]ma ṣēni ina supūru duššu) ‘My house which had been abundant like the cattle-pen and the sheepfold, my house which had been abundant like the sheep, like the sheepfold’ (CLAM 708:64–65). Introduction 15 the cities and sanctuaries were abandoned ‘to the wind (= lil2)’. 79 This wind is probably identical with the destroying storm (u4, im), functioning as one of the central agents of destruction in Sumerian lamentation literature in general, and in LU in particular. 80 The litany consists of a series of couplets, each dedicated to a different deity and his abandoned shrine or city. The couplets usually follow the same structure: First Line: Divine Epithet + Refrain (“his sheepfold [was delivered] to the wind”). Second Line: Divine Name + Temple/City Name 81 + Refrain (“his sheepfold [was delivered] to the   wind”). 82 The order of gods, cities, and shrines is as follows: 83 1−2: 3−4: 5−6: 7−8: 9−10: 11−12: 13−14: 15−16: 17−18: (19: Enlil – his temple (Nippur) 84 Enlil – Nippur Ninlil – Kiur (Nippur) Ninmah – Keš Ninisina – Egalmah (Isin) Inanna – Uruk Nanna – Ekišnuĝal, Ur Ningal – Agrunkug, Ur Enki – Eridu Ninašte – Larak) 85 See further ibid. 74:1; 52:55–56. In most connections, there is ambiguity about the meaning of the two terms: they could be interpreted both symbolically as metaphors for the temple and realistically as actual cattle pens and sheepfolds. 79. For other possible interpretations of the refrain, see the comment on l. 1. 80. See especially kirugus 5 and 9–10; and see the comment on l. 1. On the role of the storm here as well as in the other lamentations, see the literary discussion of kirugu 5 (1.3.2.4.). 81. The alternation between names of cities and those of shrines does not show a fixed pattern. 82. Exceptions appear in the following cases: 1. When a couplet is dedicated to a god or goddess who has family relations with the deity of the former couplet, the epithet in the first line is always a designation of this relation, followed by the name of the deity (see ll. 5−6, 15−16, 24−25) 2. In the first couplet dedicated to Ur (13−14), the principal name of the god and the name of the city appear already in the first line (13), while the second line mentions the other name of the god and the name of the temple. This could be due to the double name of this god (Nana-Suen), or due to the significance of Ur in the lament. Alternatively, one may translate in l. 13 “Nanna of Ur has abandoned it” (see similar structure in l. 28); in such case the line is in keeping with the standard structure. 3. The couplet dedicated to Umma (20−21) refers to both of its deities—Šara, and his wife Usahara, indicating their shrines respectively. Hence, the poet had to omit their epithets (this couplet deviates from the pattern in the second part of the kirugu, which otherwise mentions only female goddesses). 4. The couplet dedicated to Baba (22−23) is probably also exceptional, but since l. 23 begins with an ambiguous term (see commentary), it is impossible to identify the structure of this couplet with certainty. 83. When the name of the city is not mentioned in the lament, it is given here in parentheses. 84. Enlil is not mentioned in the first couplet explicitly; rather, he is referred to by the metaphor am ‘wild bull’. Since this metaphor is not unique to Enlil and is otherwise applied to various deities, one could alternatively regard am in the first couplet as a general title referring to all the deities who had to abandon their temple, anticipating the repetitive formula of the kirugu: DN TN muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e (for the use of am as a metaphor for various deities in the Sumerian literature, see, e.g., Enki and the World Order 2; Ninurta’s Exploits 36 et passim; Pabilsag’s Journey to Nippur 1 et passim; and see l. 17 in the current kirugu). 85. This line was probably not included in the original litany, because it appears in only one manuscript. See discussion below. 16 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 20−21: 22−23: 24−25: 26−27: 28−29: 30−31: 32−33: 34−35: Šara – Emah, Usahara – Umma Baba – Urukug (Ĝirsu) Ababa – Maguena Lamma – Etarsirsir (Ĝirsu) 86 Ĝatumdug – Lagaš Nanše – Sirara, Nina Dumuziabzu – Kinirsha Ninmarki 87 – Guaba It should be noted that, basically, we are dealing here with a list of goddesses abandoning their cities. Only to the two major cities of the Ur III state, Nippur and Ur, does the poet dedicate an expanded, six- or four-line unit, mentioning the patron god along with his spouse. 88 Line 19, dedicated to Larak, is probably a secondary addition: it appears in one manuscript only, and contrary to the general structure, it consists of a single-line unit instead of a couplet. The addition possibly has to do with a Larsa-oriented ideology. 89 The list clearly falls into two parts. Lines 3−18 mention six central cities of Sumer: Nippur, Keš, Isin, Uruk, Ur, and Eridu. Lines 20–35 enumerate towns and cities from the region of Ĝirsu-Lagaš (along with Umma). This division was noticed by the scribe who inserted Larak in l. 19; he identified this point as a seam between two sections of the litany, suitable for his insertion. The sequence of the cities is governed by two rules: first, Nippur is placed at the head of the litany, due to its religious supremacy. Second, the first list (of central Sumerian cities) and the second list (of cities in the Ĝirsu-Lagaš province) are both probably arranged in geographical order from north to south. 90 The use of these criteria may be understood as following the tradition of Cultic Laments, the litanies of which sometimes reflect similar tendencies. 91 But while this analogy to Cultic Laments explains the broader literary context of this arrangement, its relation to the immediate context— namely, its function in the opening kirugu of a lamentation dedicated to the destruction of Ur—is difficult to understand. The litany of the first kirugu gives almost no hint about the central role played by Ur in the lament as a whole. Ur does not open the list of ruined cities, nor does it follow Nippur, the first city in the list. Rather, it appears at the end of the first part of the list, in accordance with its place in the geographical order. The only feature that still indicates the special significance of Ur is the fact that it is allotted an extended four-line unit. To this peculiarity of the first kirugu, one may add other features that set it apart from the rest of the lament. The formulaic style of the litany, with its fixed formula and refrain, is different from the free literary style characterizing the other kirugus. 86. The identity of this deity is uncertain. See the comment on these lines. 87. For the name of the deity, see the comment on ll. 34–35. 88. Another exception is the couplet dedicated to Eridu (ll. 17−18), where the god Enki is mentioned alone, with the goddess omitted. But note that in the duplicate from Sippar (S) Damgalnuna does appear along with Enki. 89. See the description of manuscript P (§2.4.4. below). 90. Our explanation of the sequence as based on geographical criteria is suggested here with reservation, since the locations of Keš and some smaller towns in the area of Lagaš are uncertain (for Keš, see Edzard 1980c). Wilcke (1972: 43) suggested alternatively that the cities are arranged here according to their importance. 91. The most striking example of the use of these sequence criteria in Cultic Laments is the very common series consisting of Nippur, Sippar, Babylon, and Borsippa (see, e.g., CLAM 70; 138–39; 167; 181; 268 et passim). This series begins with Nippur, followed by three cities arranged in geographical order from north to south. Introduction 17 Moreover, unlike the rest of the lament, which is generally written in the main dialect (excluding parts that quote a lamenting goddess), the first kirugu consistently uses the Emesal dialect. 92 All the above traits of the first kirugu recall the Cultic Laments. It is difficult to determine whether the first kirugu was originally part of a Cultic Lament that was secondarily attached to the Ur lament, 93 or an integral part of the Ur lament that was composed in the style of the Cultic Laments. The latter possibility may find support in the fact that here the litany shares some characteristics with the next kirugu as well as with the list of deities who are abandoning their cities in the second kirugu LSUr. 94 1.3.2.2. Kirugu 2 After the description of the abandonment of the cities and temples by their deities in the first kirugu, the second kirugu depicts the bitter lament that erupted over the abandoned cities and temples. This kirugu, like the first one, shares some similarities with the Cultic Lament tradition: it is written in the Emesal dialect, it is designed as a formulaic litany that includes a list of ruined cities and shrines, and it uses a refrain. However, the formula and the refrain are not absolutely fixed but have four variants: 95 1. 2. 3. 4. O [city/city-name/temple-name] the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! Your wailing is bitter, O city, the wailing raised by you! His destroyed [city/city-name]—its wailing is bitter! Your wailing is bitter! Your lady/Nanna, the mourner, how long will she/he be grieving? The structure of the kirugu could be sketched as follows: 1. ll. 40−47: A direct address to Ur containing the statement that a bitter wailing is intoned over it and asking rhetorically how long its mourning goddess and god will grieve over it. 96 2. ll. 48−62: A litany describing the wailing intoned over various cities and temples of Sumer. 97 92. See comment on l. 39. Note that the latter two elements are also characteristic of the second kirugu; see analysis of this kirugu below. 93. So Vanstiphout 1974: 366 n. 19. Note that, at any rate, the time of the composition of the first kirugu could not have been much later than the date of the other kirugus: the omission of Larsa from the litany indicates that it predates Larsa’s golden age (Edzard 1957: 57). 94. Similar to the litany here, the list of abandoning deities in LSUr dedicates special attention to cities in the Ĝirsu-Lagaš area, including the mention of canals leading from this area toward Ur. The same is true for the litany of the second kirugu of LU, in which Lagaš gains attention similar to that given to Ur and Nippur. The reason for the centrality of the Ĝirsu-Lagaš area in both laments can only be speculated. It is unlikely that this focus on Lagaš had to do with any theological or ideological tendencies of the author. To the contrary, the importance of this province significantly declined during the years that followed the fall of the Ur III kingdom (Sallaberger 1999: 174–77). The possibility should therefore not be excluded that the stress on the devastation of the Ĝirsu-Lagaš province reflects a memory of the historical destruction, which might have been especially prominent in this area and that the enumeration of cities along the major canals leading from Lagaš to Ur in LSUr follows the Elamite progress from Lagaš toward Ur (see Wilcke 1969c; 1972: 43; Michalowski, LSUr pp. 13–14). Perhaps the severe damage to this area was due to the location of the Ĝirsu-Lagaš province on the eastern frontier, or it may have been due to the grave economic and ecological problems it suffered prior to the destruction (Sallaberger 1999), which weakened its ability to resist the invasion. 95. See comment on l. 40. 96. This introductory paragraph uses all four variations of the refrain. 97. This litany uses the first variation of the refrain: “[city name/temple name]—the wailing is bitter, your wailing is set up!.” 18 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 3. ll. 63−72: A direct address to Ur describing Ur’s loss of its possessions, both on the realistic level—the loss of the land (kalam)—and on the mythological level—the loss of its rites and essence of existence (ĝarza, me). 98 The first and last sections, which address Ur and describe its wailing and grieving, form a frame for the kirugu. This frame indicates that, unlike the first kirugu, this kirugu focuses on Ur as its central subject. The middle, main section contains a litany bewailing the ruined cities and temples of Sumer. The sequence of the cities and temples in most manuscripts is as follows: Ur (with Ekišnuĝal and Agrunkug), Nippur (with Kiur, Ekur, Ĝaĝišsua, and Ubšukkina), Ĝirsu-Lagaš (with Urukug, Etarsirsir, and Maguena), 99 Isin (with Egalmah), Uruk, and Eridu. 100 The placement of Ur as the first item in the list is again intended to reveal that Ur is the central theme of the lament. The rest of the cities are probably arranged in order of importance. 101 The connection between the litany of ruined cities in the middle section and the first and last sections is clarified in the third section. Lines 66−68 read: “O city, though yet your walls rise high, your land has perished from you! O my city, like (from) an innocent ewe your lamb has been cut off from you! O Ur, like (from) an innocent goat your kid has perished from you!” In these lines, Ur, the capital city that lost its land—namely, the cities and temples mentioned in ll. 48–62—is likened to a ewe that has lost her lamb, or a goat that has lost her kid. The middle part of the kirugu is therefore but an elaboration on the theme of the losses of Ur, mother and possessor of all other cities; the litany referring to other Sumerian cities is used here to emphasize the central role of Ur as their capital city. Thus, while the Cultic Lament–like style and poetic devices of this kirugu are similar to those used in the former kirugu, its concentration on Ur is in keeping with the tone of the lament as a whole. In this sense, the second kirugu seems to serve as a sort of bridge between the first kirugu, with its broad, all-Sumerian focus, and the other kirugus, which concentrate properly on Ur. 1.3.2.3. Kirugus 3–4 The third and fourth kirugus form a single unit devoted to the lament of Ningal uttered before the god, probably Nanna. 102 98. This paragraph uses variation 4 of the refrain, functioning here as the inclusio of this section. On the loss of the me and ĝarza, see comment on ll. 69–70. 99. Note that in this group of temples the name of the city itself is absent. 100. This sequence appears in manuscripts P, L, U2, and G1 and probably also in N11, N16, N18, and N19. Note that there are slight differences among manuscripts in this group: U2 omits ll. 54 and 56, i.e., Ĝaĝišsua and Urukug; and G1 omits l. 52, i.e., Nippur (although it still includes all the temples and sanctuaries of Nippur). These omissions seem insignificant in the context of the overall structure of the list. However, two radically different city sequences appear in two other manuscripts: N17 has a sequence beginning with Nippur (with Kiur, Ekur, Ĝaĝišsua, and Ubšukkina), Isin (with Egalmah), and Uruk; unfortunately, the rest of the litany in this manuscript is broken. N1 begins with Nippur (with Ekur, Kiur, Ĝaĝišsua, and Ubšukkina), followed by Ur (with Ekišnuĝal only), and then a mixture of temple and city names with no apparent logical sequence: Maguena, Uruk, Urukug, Eridu, Isin, Etarsirsir, and Agrunkug. This latter sequence was probably also followed by N20, in which, however, only the last four lines were preserved. These two different sequences put Nippur at the head of the list, thus presenting a different agenda concerning the importance of Ur in this kirugu. 101. On the extra significance ascribed to Lagaš here and in the first kirugu, see the analysis of the first kirugu above. 102. The identification of the addressee of the lament as Nanna is based on the following considerations: (1) Nanna is mentioned at the beginning of the kirugu (“together with Nanna . . . Ur burns in wailing,” l. 78). The following sentences, describing Ningal’s approaching “to him” are likely referring back to Nanna. (2) The great gods are referred to Introduction 19 The lament is preceded by a short exposition furnished by the poet and written in the main dialect (ll. 77–87). This exposition contains (1) a three-line opening, in which the poet introduces the two mourning protagonists, Ningal and Nanna, with whom Ur “burns in wailing” (ll. 77–79); and (2) a description of the setting and performance of the lament: Ningal approaches Nanna while weeping and laments before him, accompanying herself with the Balaĝ and Alĝar instruments. 103 Her tone is soft, and she is lamenting all alone with no company except for her addressee, Nanna. The lament itself, which occupies the rest of kirugu 3 and kirugu 4 (ll. 88–169), is stylistically and thematically distinct from the exposition. It is uttered in the first person by Ningal (while the exposition refers to her in the third person); it is written in the Emesal dialect (while the exposition is written in the main dialect); 104 and it has several peculiar poetic devices, the most outstanding of which is a unique sort of repetition. While in the exposition we find the common type of poetic repetition, in which an entire line or sentence is repeated with a slight change of one or two components (e.g., ll. 82–83: “For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps/ For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps”), the lament of Ningal is characterized by a unique kind of repetition—a rhythmic, twofold appearance of phrases inside the sentences, emulating highly emotional weeping. Note the following examples: The storm that came to be, the storm that came to be—its sorrow hangs heavy on me. (ll. 90–91) In my bedchamber at night, in my bedchamber at night, there is no silence for me. (l. 100) And before time, the quiet of my bedchamber, the quiet of my bedchamber, was also not allowed to    me. (l. 101) Despair, wails and bitterness, wails and bitterness, have been brought into it. (ll. 120–21) As a tent, a dismantled harvest shed, as a dismantled harvest shed, it has been exposed to rain. (ll. 128–29). An additional noteworthy poetic device used in Ningal’s lament is alliteration. See ma-al-ma-al-la . . . ma-la2-la2 (ll. 88, 91) and buru14-bu-ra (ll. 128, 129). Ningal’s lament consists of four main parts: 1. ll. 88–101: the destructive “storm-day” and the sorrow, distress, and sleeplessness that it caused Ningal. 2. ll. 102–12: Ningal’s vain efforts to save Ur portrayed in three brief pictures. 3. ll. 113–33: the decision of the great gods to change the destiny of Ningal and Ur, prior to the disaster, focusing on the contrast between the former magnificent state of the temple and its present poor state. in Ningal’s lament in third-person plural (e.g., “they granted to me” in l. 127; “they had commanded the utter destruction of Ur,” in l. 140; etc.), not in second person. 103. The Alĝar was probably an accessory of the Balaĝ. On the identification of these musical instruments, see comment on l. 87. 104. The only exception is l. 138, at the beginning of the fourth kirugu, which uses the main dialect and refers to Ningal in the third person: nin-da uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-la-ba ‘when in the presence of the lady her city had been destroyed’. Klein, in his note to this line, explains this puzzling exception as a “case of enallage: i.e. Ningal refers to herself exceptionally in the third person, as from a distance.” Alternatively, the exception could be ascribed to a copier who did not recognize the unity of kirugus 3 and 4 and tried to create an artificial opening for Ningal’s lament in the fourth kirugu, perhaps by changing an original first-person Emesal version into a third-person main dialect version. 20 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 4. ll. 137–69 (= kirugu 4): Ningal’s two petitions to the great gods to revoke their decision of destruction and the failure of these attempts. The subject of the first part of Ningal’s lament (ll. 88–101) is the destructive u4(-d), which is a common lamentation motif. 105 For the Sumerians, this term could have meant ‘day’ or ‘storm’, depending on context. However, as we show in the commentary below, 106 in lamentation literature these two meanings function as two aspects of the same entity. That is, the ‘day’ on which Ur’s fate changed and the ‘storm’ that destroyed it are mythologically identical. Therefore, I am here rendering this key word ‘storm-day’. The storm-day appears suddenly; it causes great sorrow; it is violent and awesome; and it changes the former “good days” of Ur—that is, its formerly favorable destiny (l. 95). 107 The storm-day is paired here with the (storm)-night, both violent and irresistible forces that changed Ur’s fate (ll. 92–94 and 96–98). The second part of the lament (ll. 102–12) contains three images depicting Ningal’s vain attempts to rescue her city from destruction. These attempts are merely theoretical, described by modal verbs that stress their foretold futility (“even if I fluttered my wings”; “even if I could fly to my city”; etc.). The first two images use similes from the animal kingdom: first Ningal is likened to a cow searching for her lost calf (ll. 102–4), and then she is likened to a bird flying to her city (105–9). The third image depicts Ningal as screaming and crying to the storm to leave her city (ll. 110–12). The grammatical and literary structure of all three images is the same: (1) the image opens with a subordinate, causal clause that ends with ke4-eš (= ‘because’), referring to the distress of the city as the motive for Ningal’s action (ll. 102, 105, 110); (2) then Ningal’s rescue efforts are told, using verbal forms with the modal prefix ḫe2 (ll. 103, 106, 108 111); (3) the effort ends in total failure (ll. 104, 108–9, 112). This second part of the lament is naturally connected to the first part: the foretold inability of Ningal to save the city, regardless of the enormous efforts she will have made, expresses the decisiveness and finality of the decision to bring the storm-day upon Ur. The third part of the lament (ll. 113–33) develops the topic of the untimely, absolute change to Ur’s fate, concentrating chiefly on the destiny of the temple, Ekišnuĝal, and Ningal’s sanctuary, Agrunkug. This part refers, for the first time, to the great gods who made the decision to destroy the temple. However, Ningal does not yet refer to them explicitly but only hints at them by means of plural verbs: 109 “they did not grant a reign of distant days” (l. 114); “wrath and terror they multiplied” (l. 117); “wails and bitterness they brought into it” (l. 121); “its perishing . . . they granted to me” (l. 127). The decision of the great gods to change the destiny of the shrine is described by means of a series of contrasts between the happy past and the miserable present: soothed spirits and festivals versus wrath and terror (ll. 116–17); a good faithful house versus a neglected place, on which no eye looks, filled with despair, wailing, and bitterness (ll. 118–21); a strong house built by the king versus a ruined house likened to a broken fence (122–23); 110 a faithful house of royalty versus a house of tears (ll. 124–26); building versus perishing (l. 126); and so on. The contrasts are intended to emphasize 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. See above, 1.2; and see also Green 1975: 301–4. See comment to ll. 88–91. See further l. 175. In the second image, this part is extended by an additional sentence containing a modal verb (l. 107). For an alternative interpretation of these verbal forms, see comment on ll. 114–15. See comment on l. 122. Introduction 21 not only the extent and intensity of the destruction but also its suddenness and unexpectedness— “the day that came to be” changed Ur’s fate all at once. The same idea is expressed by the similes appearing in the last lines of this part (ll. 128–33), likening Ur to “a tent, a dismantled harvest shed,” and “a shepherd’s sheepfold”; these similes as well as the garden fence simile in l. 123 express the unbearable easiness of the destruction of the strong, magnificent temple by the sudden storm. The stressing of the sudden, irresistible destruction has a theological dimension. The implicit mention of the great gods in ll. 114, 117, and 127 is aimed at providing an explanation for the destruction. The most significant part of this explanation seems to be expressed in l. 114: “They did not grant (to me) a long-lasting reign.” This line reflects the common Sumerian belief that the end of a reign comes when its appointed duration expires. The existence of this appointed time of duration is a cosmic law that cannot be changed or resisted. This concept is fully presented in the fourth kirugu of LSUr, in Enlil’s speech: 111 The judgment uttered by the assembly cannot be turned back, the word spoken by An and Enlil knows no overturning. Ur was indeed given kingship; but it was not given an eternal reign. . . . who has ever seen a reign of kingship that would take precedence (for ever)? The reign of its kingship has been long indeed, but had to exhaust itself. (LSUr 364–69) Although not fully developed, a similar notion seems to be expressed here in Ningal’s complaint: bala-ba u4 sud-ra2 na-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 ‘they did not grant (to me) a reign of distant days’. Note that the term u4 sud-ra2 is the opposite of u4 tur, which appears three times in Ningal’s lament as part of the phrase u4 tur-bi-še3 ‘before time’ (ll. 95, 101, 118). 112 The above contrasting phrases express the same idea: the days appointed to Ur were too short (tur); the great gods did not assign it long (sud) days. 113 The fourth and last part of Ningal’s lament appears in kirugu 4 (= ll. 137–69). Here, Ningal elaborates on the theme of the involvement of the great gods in the destruction, this time referring to them explicitly. The kirugu consists of two parallel scenes in which Ningal appeals to the great gods in an attempt to save her city, but her appeal is rejected: ll. 137–51, 152–67. In both scenes, the great gods decree the destruction of the city and the death of its people, and Ningal tries to change their decree by crying and supplication; and in both scenes, An and Enlil refuse to change their decision. The second scene is intensified by a number of thematic and stylistic means: it opens with a powerful notation describing the place, “when in the assembly, solemn place” (l. 152), which is aimed at dramatizing the scene; It depicts impressive physical gestures performed by Ningal: “I bent my thighs, I stretched out my arms” (l. 154); and its description of the final verdict of the gods is more detailed and developed than in the first scene (ll. 160–69). 114 111. As shown by Michalowski (1983), this view is also the high point of the Sumerian King List. 112. See comment on l. 95. 113. It is noteworthy that Ningal’s argument here is not entirely identical with Enlil’s explanation of the destruction in LSUr: while in LSUr Enlil asserts that Ur had gained long kingship, here Ningal claims that the kingship was taken from her too early. This difference is probably due to the different rhetorical purposes of the two speakers: Enlil’s speech in LSUr is aimed at justifying the destruction and persuading Nanna to leave Ur; Ningal’s lament is aimed at fighting for her city. 114. See ll. 150–51, which conclude the first scene. Note that in the Ur manuscripts this difference is less significant, due to the addition of ll. 151a–c, which parallel ll. 162–64 (see score, and comment on ll. 162–64). 22 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur It is noteworthy that the decision of the great gods to devastate Ur and the appearance of the storm-day are not described as cause and effect but as two simultaneous events; the verdict of the great gods and the implementation of this verdict occur simultaneously (ll. 137–42). 115 The irreversible nature of the great gods’ decision finds expression in the magical power ascribed to their words. The phraseology used to describe the divine verdict has to do with words and speaking: the great gods commanded (e) and ordered (a2–aĝ2) the destruction (ll. 140–42, 162–63); their verdict is designated a ‘word’ (e-ne-eĝ2), or ‘whatever comes from his (= Enlil’s) mouth’ (ka-ta e3-ani); and this ‘word’ cannot be changed (ll. 150, 153, 160, 168, 169). Ningal concludes her lament with a two-line statement of resignation and despair (ll. 171–72) in which she acknowledges that her attempts to save the city were bound to be futile: “An—his word is never to be changed, Enlil—whatever comes from his mouth is never to be altered.” In sum, the main theme of Ningal’s lament is the irreversible day that changed the fate of the city, shrine, and goddess. This day, appointed by the unchangeable word of the great gods, also appeared as a destructive storm that abruptly and dramatically destroyed the city and shrine. Since the appearance of this storm-day was unavoidable, the lament is less concerned with the fact that it came and more interested in expressing amazement at the suddenness and prematurity of its appearance. 1.3.2.4. Kirugu 5 After describing the irrevocable decree of the assembly to devastate Ur in the preceding kirugus, the fifth kirugu is devoted to the destruction itself, focusing on the main agent of destruction: the storm. Using the main dialect, 116 the kirugu describes the arrival of the raging storm, its baneful effects, and the abnormal climatic phenomena that it generated. The kirugu begins with the image of Enlil’s summoning of the u4 and other related devastating forces. As in the preceding kirugus, the u4 is concurrently a destructive day that is contrasted with the former good days (ll. 174–75) and a destructive storm that annihilates the land (see, e.g., l. 178). 117 After removing the good days from the land, Enlil calls the evil day that also appears as an enormous storm. The storm is qualified by various epithets, such as u4 gal ‘great storm’ (l. 182), u4 mir-mir ‘raging storm’ (l. 188), u4 gig ‘bitter storm’ (l. 197); and it is accompanied by various assisting forces. Two minor deities are associated with the emergence of the storm: Kingaluda, “the keeper of the storm” (l. 177), and Gibil, the fire god (l. 180). 118 The appearance of Gibil hints at the key role played by the fire in the anomalous climatic phenomena that unfold during the storm and are subsequently depicted. Following the description of Enlil’s summoning of the storm and other agents of destruction (ll. 173–81), the other, greater part of the kirugu is dedicated to portraying the evil storm that hit the land. In the beginning, a natural, violent storm appears that howls and roars (ll. 182–83) and is compared with an unrestrained torrent (l. 184). But as the narrative continues, the storm assumes the form of a dreadful, supernatural phenomenon that disrupts the laws of nature. The storm is accompanied by a blazing fire and a fiery glow (ll. 187–88). This glow, however, is not associated with light; on the contrary, the day’s bright sunlight is replaced by a dimmed, star-like light (ll. 190–92). 115. 116. 117. 118. For an alternative view, see comment to l. 137. But see the exceptional form na-aĝ2 in some of the manuscripts in l. 197. See discussion of kirugus 3–4 (1.3.2.3.), and see comment on ll. 174–75. For Kingaluda, see comment to l. 177; for Gibil, see Frankena 1971. 23 Introduction Table 1. Idioms Typical of Lamentation and Devastation Texts LU The Idiom Parallels mur–ša4 ‘to roar’ a maḫ e3-a-gin7 ‘as an overflowing flood’  a saĝ gaz–ak ‘to smash heads’ UR–gu7 ‘to consume indiscriminately’ b ki-en-gi4 ĝiš-bur2-ra-a i3-bal-e ‘Sumer writhes as in snare’ šu–ur4 ‘to sweep’ 183 184 185 185; 196 195 LSUr 108 LW seg. E 65; 97; LSUr 405 LSUr 94; 406 LW seg. A 25; LSUr 2, 113; LE seg. B 9 LW seg. E 55 198 u4 kalam til-til-e uru2-a me bi2-ib2-ĝar ‘The land-annihilating storm silenced the city’ 200 LSUr 107; LE seg. A 19; flood story seg. D 2 passim3 LSUr 59 a. For this simile, see the discussion below. b. Cf. also l. 243 below. For the exact meaning of this phrase, which is especially characteristic of the City Lament phraseology, cf. comment to l. 185. c. Cf. further comment to l. 198. The nature of the night is changed as well: instead of its typical coolness, a scorching south wind sets in, carrying silt from burning potsherds and scorching dust (ll. 192–93). Subsequently, the brutal effects of the dreadful storm on the people, the city, and the land are sketched: it dashes the heads of the people against the walls (l. 196), rips their flesh (l. 202), destroys and silences the city (198–99), causes the earth to quake (l. 198), and so on. The description of the raging storm and its destructive results is especially intense. This is indicated by a high concentration of idioms typical of lamentation literature and literary texts that describe devastation. See the examples in table 1 above. The eight concluding lines devoted to the storm (ll. 197–204) depict its devastating effect on the land, the city, and the people and form an interesting structural unit, the main indicator of which is the keyword u4, which appears at the beginning of each line. This unit is introduced by a long sentence referring to the mercilessness of the storm (197: “The bitter storm by tears cannot be influenced—the people moan”); it continues with five short sentences that have a similar structure, each specifying one of its devastating acts (ll. 198–202); and concludes with a long sentence, spread over two lines, that breaks the rhythm and thus constitutes the climax (ll. 203–4): The storm ordered by Enlil in hate, the storm gnawing away the land, covered Ur like a garment, was spread over it like a linen cloth. This long climactic sentence forms an inclusio with the first sentence of the kirugu (173: “Enlil called the storm-day—the people moan”) by repeating the motif of Enlil’s summoning of the storm. The integrity of this kirugu, which is wholly devoted to the theme of the devastating storm, seems to be broken by l. 185, which deviates from the main theme by referring to the weapon of the human enemy: “the weapons in the city smash heads, consuming indiscriminately.” That this line is an integral and original part of the kirugu is evident from the fact that it is not omitted in any of 24 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur the manuscripts. Its integrity may also be deduced by its close parallelism with l. 196: “in the land it (= the storm) dashes heads against the walls, consuming indiscriminately.” This parallelism between the human enemy in l. 185 and the storm in l. 196 hints at an association, perhaps even an identity between these two agents of destruction. The idea is that the devastation of Ur occurs in two spheres concurrently: in the mythological-cosmic sphere, a violent enormous storm attacks the city; and in the human sphere, the murderous enemy kills the people. 119 The same idea seems to be reflected in the simile chosen to describe the storm’s assault in l. 184: a maḫ e3-a-gin7 ‘like a mighty torrent’. This simile usually describes an attack or a victory in battle. 120 In the City Laments, it serves as a metaphor for the invasion of the enemy into Sumer. 121 Accordingly, the use of this simile here in connection with the storm points to an association between the storm and the human enemy. Another recurring element that imparts uniformity to our kirugu is the refrain: uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ‘the people moan’. The refrain appears randomly in almost half the lines of the kirugu, including the first line and the ĝišgiĝal. 122 1.3.2.5. Kirugu 6 The former kirugu described the devastating attack of the raging storm on Ur and its population. Kirugu 6 depicts the aftermath, the dead silence after the storm: it freezes the moment in its picture of the devastatation and bloodbath. The catastrophe is revealed gradually with the description progressing from outside the city toward its interior. 123 At first, we are faced with the numerous dead people littering the outskirts of the city (l. 211); next, the breaches in the city’s walls are revealed, and then the corpses piled at its gates (ll. 212–13). As we enter the city, the extent of the catastrophe begins to emerge: in the boulevards, streets, and squares, corpses and severed heads are heaped up (ll. 214–16); blood fills the ditches and corpses rot in the sun (ll. 217–18); bleeding bodies and limbs of slaughtered people are scattered about (ll. 219–24). After the description of the slaughtered people, victims of other agents of destruction—the storm, the famine, and the fire—are portrayed: weak and strong, old men and women, babies abandoned by their mothers and nurses (ll. 226–30). The abandonment of helpless persons and separation of children from their parents or wives from their husbands are taken as signs of the loss of the land’s “good sense” and “counsel”—that is, the breakdown of the most basic social systems (ll. 231–35). Another major theme developed in these lines is that there is no recourse: anyone trying to escape a weapon was paralyzed by the storm (ll. 225–26); the people outside the houses were slaughtered or perished in famine, while the old ones inside the houses were consumed by fire (ll. 227–28). A similar idea appears in LSUr 399–401: “Inside Ur there is death, outside it there is death. Inside it we are to be finished off by famine. Outside it we are to be finished off by Elamite weapons.” 124 119. On the identity between flood and weapons in Mesopotamian literature, see Westenholz 1996: 196–200. 120. See, e.g., Ninurta’s return to Nibru 119; Inana and Ebih 178; Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 469. 121. See LW 65, 97; LSUr 405, with Michalowski’s comment (LSUr p. 100). 122. See ll. 173–76,178–79, 181–82, 186–87, 193–95, 197, 206. Note that this same refrain recurs even more randomly in the next kirugu in almost one-fourth of its lines (see ll. 209–10, 212, 225–26, 231–34, 245–46). 123. For a similar picture of progress from the city gate into the innermost sanctum, see kirugus 2–4 of LE. 124. For biblical parallels of this idea, see, for example, Deut 32:25 and Amos 5:19. Introduction 25 After this elaborate portrayal of calamity throughout the city, the narrative arrives at the center of the city, the temple and palace complexes. The description begins with the flight of the frightened goddess Ningal (ll. 237–38), the destruction of whose house will be depicted at the end of this section (ll. 242–45). Then the defilement and burning of the storehouses in the temple complex are described (ll. 239–41), followed by the destruction of the Ekišnuĝal by the enemies at the climax of this dreadful account. 125 The kirugu concludes with the cry of Ningal to Nanna as she bewails the city and temple’s devastation (ll. 247–50). In keeping with the general principle regarding the use of Emesal in LU, here also the majority of the kirugu is written in the main dialect, while the cry of the goddess in ll. 247–50 appears in the Emesal dialect. 126 1.3.2.6. Kirugu 7 The seventh kirugu contains three laments by Ningal, who stands outside the city after escaping during the catastrophe. 127 Each lament is preceded by an introductory passage, as follows: First lament    ll. 254–56:    ll. 257–98: Introduction Lament Second lament    ll. 299–301:    ll. 302–10 : Introduction Lament Third lament    ll. 311–14:    ll. 315–27: Introduction Lament The introductory sections are written in the main dialect, while the laments of the goddess are written in Emesal. All three introductory passages refer to Ningal in the third person, describing her location and mourning gestures while she utters the laments. In the first introduction (ll. 254–56), she is described as standing outside her city, wailing bitterly; in the second introduction (ll. 299–301), she is plucking out her hair, beating her chest, and her eyes are welling with tears; in the third introduction (ll. 311–14), she approaches Nanna, 128 weeping bitterly. The three laments, which share similar content, are of different lengths. In the first lament, which is the longest (ll. 257–98), Ningal tells of An and Enlil’s decision to curse the city (ll. 257–58); then she briefly describes the destruction of Ur and its population by using merisms: from the people coming from the north to the people coming from the south—everyone was burned (ll. 259–60); from 125. Line 246, which concludes this section, is a more-general statement, summing up the destruction of the entire city (“the city they [= the enemies] made into ruins—the people moan”). The reference to the city was probably required by the ubiquitous parallelism between e2 // uru in the laments. 126. The reason for the use of Emesal dialect in l. 252 is not clear. 127. See ll. 237–38, and see discussion below. 128. The identity of the addressee as Nanna is explicitly stated in l. 293: “Nanna, the shrine Ur has been destroyed, its people smitten.” 26 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur the outer city to the inner city—everything was destroyed (ll. 261–64). In the main part of the lament, Ningal bewails the destruction from a subjective point of view: she speaks about the destroyed city as her own lost property (“my city . . . my houses . . . my oxen . . . my sheep . . . my fields . . . my irrigated orchards”), and its people as her own children (“my daughters . . . my young men”). First she describes the cutting off of all animal and plant life in the city: there are no more sheep in the folds, water in the rivers, grain in the fields, or plants on the plains; all the relevant functionaries— shepherds, tax-collectors, and farmers—have gone away (ll. 265–74). Next, she complains about the plunder of her treasures by enemies, who are scornfully referred to as “they who know not precious metals/gems” (ll. 275–82). 129 Finally, she depicts the exiled and lost people of Ur (ll. 283–85). All these losses lead to the sad conclusion that the city has ceased to exist. Ningal, who has lost her house, is no longer its lady. A foreign city and house are now founded on its ruins (ll. 286–96). The lament concludes with an additional reference to the exiled people of Ur (ll. 297–98). 130 The exclamation “Alas, my city! Alas, my house!” recurs as a refrain throughout this lament. 131 The second, much shorter lament (ll. 302–10) continues the same viewpoint by elaborating on the theme of the exiled goddess. Ningal again mentions her lost house and people, comparing them to an uprooted cattle pen and scattered cows, respectively, and describes herself as an exiled woman, ousted from her own residence, forced to live as a slave in the millhouse and in “debtor’s prison.” 132 The third (and also relatively short) lament (ll. 315–27) is devoted mainly to the devastated Ekišnuĝal, which is the most severe loss to the goddess. Ningal bewails its destruction and declares that she will lie down in its debris “alongside you”—that is, alongside the defeated Nanna—never to rise again (ll. 315–20). Next, while continuing to lament the temple’s destruction, Ningal offers an interesting explanation for it: the city’s building was “false”; it was “built but not well established.” After a rhetorical question (“What for? ”—l. 325), the more common reason for the destruction, which we know from the third and fourth kirugus, is recalled: “It could not escape the force of the storm ordered by Enlil in hate” (l. 326). A comparison of kirugus 3–4 with kirugu 7 reveals common structural and thematic features: both units include a lament by Ningal uttered to Nanna that bewails the destruction of the city. Furthermore, the introductory section preceding the lament in kirugus 3–4 contains a passage that is almost identical to the third introductory section of kirugu 7: Unto him, for the sake of her city she approached, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps. In that place, for the sake of her city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps. 129. For this peculiar ethnic stereotype, pointing out the barbarian nature of the enemies, see comment on ll. 280– 81. In l. 282, the plundered possessions are referred to using the simile of flying birds. See comment on this line. 130. Note that, according to one manuscript (P), the last couplet of the lament refers to the destroyed city, in keeping with the general theme of the concluding passage of this lament. See comment on ll. 297–98. 131. See ll. 261–62, 263–64, 282, 298; see also l. 283. Note that this refrain is also echoed in l. 300 and in the ĝišgiĝal of this kirugu (l. 329). 132. In this summary of the second lament, I am not including lines 302–3, which appear only in P. See comment on these lines. Introduction For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated house she approached him, their bitter wailing she sets before him. (Third kirugu, ll. 82–85) 27 For the sake of her devastated house she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. (Seventh kirugu, ll. 311–13) In addition, the introductory sections of both the third and seventh kirugus describe gestures of mourning performed by the goddess: playing the lyre and singing a dirge in the third kirugu (ll. 86– 87); wailing, plucking out hair and beating the chest in the seventh kirugu (ll. 255–56, 299–301). However, despite these general similarities, the contents of Ningal’s laments in these two units differ, bearing quite different messages: The lament of the goddess in kirugus 3–4 focuses on the destructive storm-day decreed for the city and elaborates on the motif of its irresistible and irreversible nature, in spite of intense efforts by Ningal. The lament of the seventh kirugu, on the other hand, seems to supply a post-facto view of the events, bewailing the abandoned and devastated city after the destruction. Thus, the relationship between kirugus 3–4 and kirugu 7 is similar to the relationship between kirugu 5 and kirugu 6: Kirugu 5 describes the appearance of the storm-day, while kirugu 6 describes the total destruction afterward. Similarly, the lament in kirugus 3–4 concentrates on the attempts of Ningal to rescue her city before and during the destruction, while the lament in kirugu 7 bewails the utterly devastated and abandoned city after the storm departed. This difference between the laments in kirugus 3–4 and 7 corresponds to the location of the goddess while uttering each of the laments. In kirugu 4, Ningal declares, “On that day I did not forsake my city, I did not neglect my land” (ll. 143–44), which may be a hint that she was present inside the city; kirugu 7, on the other hand, opens with the note “Mother Ningal kept away from her city like an enemy,” indicating that she has already abandoned it. The abandonment itself is mentioned between them, in the sixth kirugu: “Their lady, like a frightened bird, escaped her city. Ningal, like a frightened bird, escaped her city” (ll. 237–38). An additional remark regarding the theological role of Nanna in both kirugus 3–4 and 7 is required. The fact that Nanna is the addressee of the laments in these kirugus does not point to his being involved in the decision to devastate Ur; nor does it indicate that he is authorized to decide to restore it of his own accord. On the contrary, Nanna is portrayed in these kirugus as a victim of this decision, which was taken by the great gods, just as Ningal was a victim; they both lay together, defeated, in the debris of Ur. The uttering of the lament before him, with all the customary mourning gestures involved should therefore be understood as a mourning ritual during which the female lamenter is performing the lament on behalf of the mourner. 133 1.3.2.7. Kirugu 8 After the description of the devastated Ur and the resultant lament of Ningal, presented in the sixth and seventh kirugus, respectively, the eighth kirugu contains an appeal to Ningal, aimed at 133. Compare, for example, the appeal of the sufferer in Man and His God to his female relatives to lament for him to the personal god: “Let my mother who bore me not cease lamenting for me before you. Let my sister, truly a sweetvoiced balaĝ singer, narrate tearfully to you the deeds by which I was overpowered. Let my wife voice my suffering . . . . . . to you” (Man and His God 64–67). 28 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur convincing her to return to her city. The appeal to the goddess in second person supplies a new point of view, since until now she was either referred to in third person or as speaking, in first person. The appeal, written in the main dialect, consists of two main parts: the first, much longer part (ll. 331–68) refers to the present separation of Ningal from her devastated city and the subsequent losses she suffers, especially in the ritual realm. The second, shorter part (ll. 369–84) contains a plea to the goddess to return to her city. The first part begins with two rhetorical questions addressed to the goddess: “How did your heart turn over? ” and “You, how will you live? ” (ll. 331–32). My tentative translation of the first rhetorical question (see commentary, ad loc.) is based on the assumption that, according to the poet, Ningal’s “turning over her heart”—that is, changing her mind about the city—was one of the reasons for its devastation. 134 The second question seems to indicate that Ningal is the first to be hurt by her abandonment of the city, because she cannot live without it. These two rhetorical questions, typical of City Laments, represent a dialectical tactic aimed at convincing the goddess to return to her city. Green refers to this motif as “a combination of scolding and soothing tactics.” 135 On the one hand, the goddess is implicitly blamed for the destruction because of leaving. On the other hand, she is urged to return with the argument that she will not be able to survive outside her city. This dialectical pair of rhetorical questions recurs throughout the first part of the kirugu as a refrain, with the first question slightly varied: “You, how will you live? ” / “Now, how will you thrive? ” (ll. 331–38, 346–49). The main theme of the first part of the kirugu is the various losses suffered by Ningal as a consequence of the destruction. These losses are described in a series of verbal forms with the negative prefixes nu- and ba-ra-: Ningal is no longer the lady of the city and is no longer dwelling in her house (ll. 339–41); the regular lamentation ritual is no longer preformed for her in her shrine (ll. 342– 44); 136 the various priests (gudu, en, uzga, išib, lumaḫ, and aua) 137 no longer fulfill their duties on her behalf (ll. 347–56); the people of Ur no longer celebrate her feasts (ll. 357–58); her merry music has turned into wailing (ll. 359–60); 138 the cattle are no longer fertile (ll. 361–62); and various professionals, who were responsible for supplying the temple with food, their activity symbolizing prosperity (ghee-carriers, milk-carriers, fishermen, and fowlers), 139 no longer perform their duties (ll. 363–66). The first part of the kirugu ends with a couplet describing the weeds that sprout in the dry watercourses and desolate roads (ll. 367–68). The goal of this long list of discontinued rituals and institutions is to stress the heavy price of the abandonment of the city from Ningal’s point of view. Accordingly, the second part of the appeal (ll. 369–84) contains a direct request to Ningal to return to her city. The initial tone is beseeching and pathetic: Ur is compared to a lost child in the street weeping for her as for its mother (ll. 369– 70), and the temple is likened to a helpless man crying to her for help (ll. 371–72). Then the appeal for compassion changes to an accusation: Ningal is compared to an enemy (ll. 374–75) and blamed 134. For the question to what extent the poet holds Ningal responsible for the destruction, see discussion below. 135. See Green 1975: 396. 136. See comment to ll. 342–43. 137. For the latter obscure term, see comment to l. 355. 138. Note that in ll. 359–60 the verbs are (uniquely) not negative but indicative. 139. For the milk- and ghee-carriers as symbolizing prosperity and for their part as temple personnel, see comment to ll. 363–64. Introduction 29 for overthrowing her city, although she basically loves it and toils for it (ll. 376–77). Then the tone softens again, and Ningal is invited to return to her house, like an animal to its pen or a child to his nursery (ll. 378–80). 140 Thus, the dialectical “scolding and soothing” tactic is used in the second part of the kirugu as well. The plea is concluded with the wish for An and Enlil to change Ningal’s destiny, restore her city, and allow her to return to it (ll. 381–84). The plaintive accusation of Ningal in lines 374–77 may seem surprising in light of kirugus 3, 4, and 7 above, in which the great gods order the destruction, while Ningal is a victim of their sentence. Indeed, in keeping with the viewpoint of the former kirugus, lines 381–84 in our kirugu refer to An and Enlil as the only gods who can authorize Ningal to return to her city: “May An, king of the gods, say about you: ‘Enough!’ May Enlil, king of all the lands, decree your destiny (favorably)!” However, a closer look at the appeal reveals that Ningal is not an entirely passive, helpless character in this story: she was expected to do everything in her power to annul the great gods’ decision, but she did not live up to this expectation. This is indicated by lines 376–77, where we read: “Although you are a lady loving her city, you have rejected your city; although you are (a lady) toiling for her land, you have rejected your city.” Ningal is not accused here of voluntarily abandoning the city but of not “toiling” hard enough to prevent its destruction. Of course, in light of the former kirugus (especially kirugus 3–4), this accusation should be considered mere rhetoric. A second action that Ningal is expected to take is expressed in lines 383–84: “May he (= An) restore your city for you. Exercise its ladyship! May he (= Enlil) restore Ur for you. Exercise its ladyship!” Although An and Enlil are in charge of the decision to let Ningal return to her ladyship, Ningal is encouraged to exercise this right. 1.3.2.8. Kirugus 9–10 Kirugus 9 and 10 constitute a single unit. This follows from the syntactical structure of the segment consisting of ll. 389–407. This segment is a series of extraposed parts (ll. 389–406), all related to l. 407, which is the main independent clause containing the predicate. The unity of these kirugus is further stressed by the fact that l. 399 was understood as the ĝišgiĝal of the ninth kirugu only in manuscript P, while all other manuscripts apparently considered it to be the first line of the tenth kirugu. 141 The unit under discussion contains an incantation-like request for the disappearance of the storm. It begins with the cry “Woe, storm after storm destroyed the land together” (l. 388). This is followed, as mentioned above, by a long series of extraposed parts, consisting of the head noun u4 ‘storm” + adjective/relative clause qualifying it (ll. 389–406). The evil and roaring storm (ll. 389–90), which was ordered by Enlil in hate (l. 406) 142 and “has no shame” (i.e., compassion [l. 398]), is described, in these extraposed parts, as destroying the land (ll. 389–92), defiling the holy rituals (393–94), taking “all that is good” from Sumer (l. 395), subduing the people (l. 396), 143 and attacking mothers, fathers, wives, children, sisters, brothers, neighbors, and confidants indiscriminately (ll. 400–404). The incantation-like request about this storm is finally expressed in l. 407, which furnishes the predicate: 140. Interestingly, Ningal is likened here to a child, while in lines 369–70 she fulfills the role of a mother vis-à-vis Ur, which is likened to a child. 141. Thus, according to all manuscripts (except for P), Kirugu 9 does not have a ĝišgiĝal at all (see comment to l. 399, and see especially the reference to the separating line in N72, which clearly indicates that l. 398 belongs to the tenth kirugu). 142. See also l. 203 above. 143. For the metaphor “the storm-day which binds the arms of the black-headed,” see comment to l. 396. 30 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur “O father Nanna, may that storm-day never be set in your city again.” This very long sentence is followed by a series of incantations against the storm, expressing the wish that it will be destroyed (ll. 409–11) and fall into oblivion (ll. 412–14) forever (l. 416). 144 In our discussion of the fifth kirugu, we have drawn attention to occasional associations between the storm and the enemy by ascribing features typical of human enemies to the destructive storm. A similar concept can be detected here. In line 396, the storm is described as a power ‘that binds the arms of the black-headed’ (saĝ ĝi6-ga a2 bi2-ib-la2-a-ri). Elsewhere, the idiom a2–la2 ‘to bind the arms’ is usually applied to human beings who capture their enemies. 145 Similarly, in l. 398 the storm is accused of having ‘no shame’ (igi-ba teš2 nu-ĝal2-la-ri), an expression that usually characterizes brutal and barbaric people. 146 Another example appears in ll. 393–94, where the storm is described as laying defiled hands on the holy rituals. 1.3.2.9. Kirugu 11 The eleventh, and last kirugu of the lament contains an appeal to Nanna. The appeal concentrates on a ritual performed in the presence of the god, asking him to accept it willingly and to look favorably on his people, his land, and the performer of the ritual. The nature of the ritual described in this kirugu as well as the identity of the performer of the ritual were discussed in detail above. 147 As shown, the ritual was probably the occasion when the Ur lament was performed, and the performer of the ritual was most likely a lamentation priest. The kirugu begins with a “historical” remark regarding the antiquity of the ritual, during which “the humble men who lay hold of your feet have brought to you their lamentations over the silenced house” (ll. 418–20). Those priests of former generations, who regularly performed the same ritual from “distant days” (l. 418), served as a model for the current supplicant, who will be depicted subsequently. The appeal then refers to the “people” who perform a gesture of homage (kiri3 šu–tag), and “set up a wail” to the god, perhaps as part of the ritual (ll. 421–22). The wish that the city will “be resplendent before you,” never being destroyed again (ll. 423–24), hints that the ritual under discussion may be, as mentioned above, 148 a restoration ceremony. The subsequent lines are devoted to the priest presenting the lament, who is the main protagonist of the ritual. He is designated ‘the man’ (lu2-ulu3) or ‘man of prayer’ (lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4) and is described as standing in prayer, uttering supplication, and then bowing down. “The man” has a personal god mediating between him and Nanna by presenting his greeting gift (kadra) to the god (l. 425). 149 A wish is expressed that the god absolve the sin of “the man” (l. 428–29) so that his heart (i.e., anger) will be pacified toward him (l. 430) 150 and he will look at him favorably (l. 431) and consequently be gracious to the people of Sumer, consider144. Note that, in addition to the general incantation-like style of this passage, line 412 has a close parallel in an incantation (see commentary). For a broader discussion of this passage, see Samet 2010. 145. See comment to l. 396. 146. For examples, see comment to l. 398. 147. See §1.2.2. 148. See ibid. 149. According to two mss., the personal god may also be responsible for uttering the supplication; see comment on l. 430. 150. Lines 429–30 recall the first-millennium er2-ša3-huĝ-ĝa2 prayers, as well as the concluding “heart pacification” units of the late er2-šem3-ma prayers (see recently Klein 2006: 139; Gabbay 2007: 8 passim). Introduction 31 ing them pure and good (ll. 432–34). 151 The ritual is concluded with the priest’s bow (434), followed by the wish, “O Nanna, in your restored city may you be praised!” (l. 435). 151. These lines concerning the people are somewhat obscure. Others interpret them as a request from Nanna to absolve the sins of the people and purify their hearts.