We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal has long been known to Assyriologists from a Middle Babylonian tablet found among the diplomatic archives of Tell El Amarna. The tablet had apparently been imported into Egypt, perhaps from Syria, together with a similar one inscribed with the myth of Adapa, as a school-text for the training of scribes. It was only in 1951 that fragments of a late Assyrian version of the tale were unearthed at Sultantepe. In 1953, after the numerous fragments had been baked and joined, the text was identified by the present writer and a preliminary account of it was given by him in a lecture delivered early in 1955. The cuneiform text was published in 1957 and a full edition was promised for this journal. The present article is intended to fulfil that promise. The Sultantepe tablet remains the sole authority for the late Assyrian version of the tale, not a single fragment having come to light from any other source.
1 Translations may be found in Heidel, A., The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (2nd ed.) 129 ff.Google Scholar, and ANET. 103 ff.
2 Published in Proceedings of the British Academy XLI, 21 ffGoogle Scholar.
3 Gurney, and Finkelstein, , The Sultantepe Tablets I, No. 28Google Scholar.
4 Modern translations by A. Heidel, op. cit. 121 ff., and ANET. 106 ff. (with bibliography).
5 Possibly a scribal error, since there is no known example of ana santak. The tablet appears to have the sign ab, preceded by a sign ending with a “hook”; but analogies suggest that lines 2 and 4, as well as lines 1 and 3, should end in an identical way. See commentary.
6 This sign, on collation, appears to have two verticals.
7 This sign is not written in the peculiar manner which characterises the main tablet (e.g. iv, 56′).
8 cf. vi, 45′.
9 cf. v, 42′ and vi, 18′.
10 cf. Descent of Ishtar i, 27.
11 Probably nothing missing: cf. En. El. III, 70.
12 Text: DÙ-šú u[š!
13 Text: DÙ-šú KA-šú!
14 cf. iv, 24′.
15 cf. v, 42′.
16 Possibly a debased form of the name Nanshe.
17 That the speaker is Ea is indicated by ll. 21′ ff.
18 Traces like be (collated).
19 cf. iii, 26′.
20 Before ta, traces of a broken vertical only.
21 Reading suggested by W. G. Lambert; cf. CT. XV, 39, ii, 5Google Scholar (myth of Zû).
22 Or eṣ-ṣep-šú.
23 Possibly zi (i.e. napištiti?).
24 Possibly so, according to collation. At the beginning of the line there is a little more space than appears in the copy.
25 According to collation, not ta, possibly gur.
26 Perhaps as a signal, equivalent to winking.
27 i.e. you pretend not to notice.
28 Probably nothing missing.
29 cf. iv, 5′.
30 Possibly tur.
31 Perhaps e ta-á[š-ši ēn]ē II-ka, but this would not agree with the corresponding line iii, 62′.
32 cf. l. 19′.
33 cf. l. 17′ and Gilg. xii, 15 (ú-a-ad-[du-ka]).
34 Less probably ṣu-pur-šú “his claw (nail)”.
35 cf. “Descent of Ishtar”, obv. 29–30.
36 cf. v, 31′–33′.
37 cf. iv, 45′.
38 For the names of the seven porters of the Underworld see Tallqvist, K., Götterepitheta 136Google Scholar, s.v. nidugallu, and KAR. 230, 13. For restoration cf. i, 20′ ff.
39 Not iš-pur-an-ni (collated); cf. v, 17′ and 45′.
40 cf. v, 7.
41 cf. ii, 39 ff.
42 The whole of the right-hand fragment here has been copied one line too high.
43 If ṣu-bur-šú in l. 16 is correctly interpreted, the change of speaker (here clearly Namtar) is not indicated.
44 Apparently a scribal error for “my lady”.
45 Another name for Nergal.
46 Or: [at the] side of.
47 This is more likely to be a reply by Ereshkigal than part of the message from Anu, since Ea has instructed Nergal to avoid sitting on a throne.
48 cf. vi, 35. Alternatively aḫa-meš ki-lal-la-an.
49 cf. vi, 37.
50 Or perhaps 1.dib ( = askuppatu).
51 cf. i, 52′.
52 cf. v, 42′ ff.
53 The copy shows a head of a vertical which is in fact only a crack; hardly room for dumu.sal.
54 Or: [the pair] embraced [each other].
55 According to collation, the third sign is clearly so, and there seems to be no alternative to this reading.
56 cf. v, 40′.
57 cf. v, 38′ and 41′.
58 Probably ni or za rather than a (collated).
59 The fragment 51/134 + 161A has again been copied one line too high. The line numbering of the copy has been followed.
60 Lamaštu(dìm.me)?
61 Perhaps [sukkal] or [mār šip-ri].
62 cf. 48′ and v, 53′.
63 Or it-ta-tal-*kan-ni. Text: it-ta-RI-i-ni; emendation suggested by Lambert.
64 Text: la-e-li-a.
65 i.e. (presumably) Enmesharra, the Underworld deity.
66 Text: DUMU.SAL.MEŠ-ku.
67 Text: niš.
68 cf. vi, 6.
69 cf. line 6 above; this scribe does not leave a space before the last sign of a word at the end of a line.
70 Text: DÙ-šú ka.
71 cf.47′.
72 cf. iii, 25′–27′. Traces at end of l. 31 not as copied; head of vertical only visible.
73 cf. 49′.
74 cf. i, 52, iv, 24.
75 Error for is? Or read su-[ul-luḫ-šu]-ma (II. 1, stative)?
76 Text: su.
77 These signs were copied from an old photograph, as the tablet has broken away here.
78 Text: DÙ-šú ka.
79 cf. iv, 44 and 48.
80 Possibly so, according to collation.
81 Very doubtful.
82 Error for -šá.
83 On collation, the traces of the last sign appeared like šá.
84 cf. Gilg. VI, 156. Alternatively aḫa-meš ki-lal-la-an.
85 Text: V-šá. Emendation suggested by W. G. Lambert. See commentary.
86 Or: the pair embraced each other.
87 A similar use of this verb is found in the Counsels of Wisdom: ina puḫri e ta-'-ir ú-zu-uz-za “do not (rashly) go and stand in the assembly” (Lambert, op. cit., p. 100, l. 31), though here the infinitive is used instead of a second vetitive.
Please note an has been issued for this article.
