Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T04:13:27.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trees, snakes and gods in ancient Syria and Anatolia1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

W. G. Lambert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For too long study of ancient Near Eastern representational art and study of possibly related texts have been entirely separate disciplines, the one a branch of archaeology, the other of philology. This accounts for the very scanty results obtained and their frequently questionable character. In the case of Classical Greece and Rome art historians ordinarily command Greek and Latin so as to use written sources at first hand, but Near Eastern archaeologists have commonly been illiterate in their fields of study, while philologists often have limited knowledge of art and use that very amateurishly. Thus it is an occasion for rejoicing that a serious attempt has just been made on some very difficult material from Syria and Anatolia, and that one major break-through has resulted which opens up prospects of fuller understanding of certain aspects of ancient art. The author, E. Williams-Forte, is primarily an art historian with a speciality in ancient Near Eastern seals, and she has taken an interest in Ugaritic to be able to exploit that material. Her Columbia Ph.D. thesis: Mythic cycles: the iconography of the gods of water and weather in Syria and Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1600 B.C.) has not been published, but a lengthy article derived from parts of it has recently appeared. This starts from the tree and snake in the garden of Eden and investigates their possible Canaanite background. The original observation of major importance is that the storm god of Syria and Anatolia of the first half of the second millennium B.C., Anatolian Tarhunna, Syrian Hadad or Baal, Mesopotamian Adad, occasionally holds up a plant, branch or tree as a symbol.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , October 1985 , pp. 435 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 E., Williams-Forte, ‘The snake and the tree in the iconography and texts of Syria during the Bronz Age’, in Gorelick, L. and E., Williams-Forte (ed.), Ancient seals and the Bible (see the review below, p.612)Google Scholar

3 See Williams-Forte's figs. 4–11 and 13–15, to which add: N., Özgüç, The anatolian Group of cylinder seal impressions from Kultepe (cited henceforth ‘Özgüç’), no.7Google Scholar and , C. F.-A. Schaeffer-Forrer, Corpus des cylindres-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d'enkomi-Alasia, I, 62,Google Scholar Chypre A9. Note also the tree abutting Baal's shoulder in Parker, B., Iraq, II, 1949, pl.ii, no. 8Google Scholar. Though we often call this symbol a tree, we do not thereby commit ourselves to its being a tree rather than a branch or plant.

4 For the Mitanni type see e.g. Buchanan, Briggs, Catalogue of ancient Near Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum, IGoogle Scholar, Cylinder seals, nos.926–33. On the Laum, see the fundamental article of Wiggermann, F. A. M., ‘Exit Talim!’ (JEOL, 27, 1983, 90–105Google Scholar). Already in the Akkad period these minor gods hold up symbols while kneeling, see e.g. Eisen, G. A., OIP, 47, no. 35Google Scholar. See further the writer, –The pair La=amu in cosmology’, Or., 54, 1985, 189 ff.Google Scholar

5 Single seated figure: e.g.C.F.-A. Schaeffer-Forrer, op.cit., 139, R.S.24.155; two standing figures: e.g.op.cit., 123, R.S.21.16.

6 See Özgüç passim.

7 See Vanel, A., L'Iconographic du dieu de l'orage, ch.v.Google Scholar

8 The Baal myth passage from Ras Shamra (KTU, 1.5 v 18 ff.), in which Baal impregnates a cow 88 times, has been alleged as evidence of his fertility, but when only a single offspring resulted it would be more logical to argue the opposite: that Baal is shown to be singularly lacking in fertility! On a more serious level the passage is irrelevant, and a further evidence of the confusion brought about by the misuse of the term ‘fertility’.

9 Adad is ‘the bull of the skies’ (šu-ur ša-a-i: CT, 15 4 3) and his voice is thunder, see rigim Adad in the Akkadian lexica.

10 Porada, E., Corpus of ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American collections: the collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library (henceforth: CANES), no.1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Danthine, H., Le Palmier-Daltier el les arbres sacrés dans l'iconographie de l'Asie occidentale ancienne (1937) contains a lot of material and a summary of opinions, but mixes up too many entirely diverse things to have any serious value as original interpretationGoogle Scholar. The more recent work of Kepinski, C., l'Arbre stylisé en Asie occidentale an 2˚ mill'naire avant J.-C. (1982) is restricted to one millennium, but the concentration on form and exclusion of function and meaning again results in unrelated items being thrown togetherGoogle Scholar. The Middle Assyrian tree with the bent trunk, however stylized in depiction, is usually meant as a real tree in a landscape. The common Mitanni stylized tree is a symbol not meant as a real tree in a landscape. The purpose of this book would have been clearer had the title read: Les Arbres stylis's⃜ York, H., ‘Heiliger Baum’ in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, IV, 269–82Google Scholar, offers a useful survey of the material with bibliography, but does not take up seriously problems of significance.

12 e.g. Porada, E., AASOR, 24, nos. 98–9Google Scholar; Weber, O., Allorientalische Siegelbilder, 473.Google Scholar

13 See pro tem. the author, Syria 58, 1981, 1751.

14 Amiet, P., Glyptique susienne, nos. 2121–4.Google Scholar

15 cf. bēl nag-bi ùzu-un-ni ‘lord of abyss and rain’ (BBSt, no. 6 ii 41). Deighton, H. J., The ‘Weather-God’ in Hittite Anatolia (BAR International Series, 143)Google Scholar, develops the thesis that the anatolian storm god controlled springs and fountains and was not in reality a storm god. Some evidence in favour of this view is presented, but since in the Hittite-Hattian myth ‘The Moon that fell from Heaven’ dU is concerned with thunder, rain and wind, a balanced view must accept both aspects. The term ‘weather-god’ should certainly be abandoned as mistransalation by assonance of the German Wettergott. Sunshine is as much weather as rain!.

16 For Old Babylonian examples see Sommerfeld, W., Der Aufstieg Marduks, 72 f.Google Scholar; for later examples see the writer, BSOAS, XLVII, 1, 1984, 3.Google Scholar

17 See W. Sommerfeld, op. cit., and the review article cited in the lastfootnote.

18 BiOr, 7, 1950, 42 ff.Google Scholar

19 Stearns, J.B., AFO, Beiheft 15, pls. 8591Google Scholar. See also J., Meuszyński, Die Rekonstruction der Reliefdarstellungen, pls. 117.Google Scholar

20 The kneeling genies in contrast cosset the trees with their bare hands. Since this action does not appear elsewhere, e.g. in glyptic, it may be a secondary, local variation.

21 One may ask whether the Mitanni seal rolled on a fourteenth-century Middle Assyrian tablet from Assur (O.Weber, Allorientalische Siegelbilder, no.470 = Moortgat, A., ZA, 47, 1942, 85, Abb. 76Google Scholar) does not anticipate the first millennium pollination. A typical ‘elaborate style’ stylized tree has two bunches of dates added, and to its right stands a figure with a kind of bucket in one hand and a piece of vegetation in the other. This latter appears elsewhere without any associated date palm (e.g. Buchanan, Briggs, Early Near Eastern seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, no. 1276Google Scholar), but nevertheless, it can be argued that in the Mitanni seal pollination is meant, and the dates were added to make clear that the tree was understood as a date palm.

22 KAR, 298 rev. 9–10 =84 Gurney, O. R., AAA, 22, 1935, 70–71.Google Scholar

23 e.g. CANES, 770; Iraq, 41, pl. ix 78; O. White Muscarella (ed.), Ladders to Heaven, no. 104; U. Moortgat-Correns, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3. Folge, 6 22 no. 38; PBS, XIV, no. 598; L. Delaporte, Musée du Louvre, Catalogue des cylindres, II, A 723; M. de Clercq and J. Menant, Collection de Clercq, Catalogue méthodique el raisonné, I, 341–3, 346: all most likely Babylonian rather than Assyrian.

24 Lambert, W. G., Iraq, 41, 1979, 35–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Though the winged solar disc in Near Eastern art is of Egyptian origin, its placing above a stylized tree is not, so the origin of the combined motif has to be sought in Asia. We suggest that the origin is to be found in standards on poles. The so-called gate-post is often held as a symbol in Akkadian glyptic: a pole with extras at the top (e.g. Boehmer, R. M., Die Enlwicklung, Abb. 499–502, 518, 520, 522–524, etc.Google Scholar). Rarely in Akkadian and Ur III glyptic other symbols appear on top of poles (op. cit., Abb. 158; Briggs Buchanan, op. cit., 601–2), but in Old Babylonian seals the symbol on a pole (‘standard’) is much more common (CANES, 296, 297, 325, 351, 354, 358, 366, 384, 388, 414, 435, 451, 458, etc.). Of these Old Babylonian standards, that with a lionhead either side of a central macehead (op. cit., 351, etc.) often rests on a pole whose representation is decorated with diagonal hatching. In Syria the urge for greater decorative effect resulted in fancier poles to support symbols, among which the winged solar disc appears (e.g. op. cit., 955, 957). At times these Syrian supports could best be termed columns, and some are so fancy as to suggest trees (e.g. O. White Muscarella (ed.), op. cit., no. 214; Briggs Buchanan, op. cit., no. 1271; Delaporte, L., Catalogue des cylindres⃛de la Bibliotheque Nationale (henceforth: BN), nos. 466–7)Google Scholar, and in other eases can only be described as stylized trees (e.g., loc. cit., 435). Thus when one finds a more or less naturalistic palm tree under a winged solar disc (Muscarella, op. cit., 215), the pattern is derived from a symbol on a pole, but the motif has been expanded into a real tree with superimposed disc. Note that a presumably Old Babylonian terracotta (Barrelet, M.-T., Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mesopolamie antique, I, no. 815Google Scholar) shows a solar disc (without wings) mounted on the trunk of a palm tree.

26 Note from Nuzi: Porada, E., AASOR, 24, no. 92Google Scholar; from Assur: Beran, T., ZA, 52, 1957, 144, Abb. 3 and 189, Abb. 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BN, 468. There is no certainty in this last example that the figures either side of the tree and winged disc are worshipping them. By the direction of their faces they seem to be showing respect to each other.

27 In groups of symbols in Late Assyrian royal sculptures it certainly represents Šamaš, from Ashurnasirpal II see e.g. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, XIV, pl. 197Google Scholar, but when in the same king's reliefs the winged disc with bust appears (never in a group of symbols), e.g., op. cit., pis. 198 and 203a, it is hard to see it as other than a symbol of Aššur. In the last case it is placed above the head of the advancing king, and the bust, like the king, is shooting an arrow. Though the king's inscriptions refer to his conquering ‘with the help of Samas and Adad’ (e.g. AKA, 179 18), other passages name Assur alone: ‘with the help of Aššur, his lord’ (e.g. op. cit., 177 4).

28 e.g. Enūma Eliš, I 102. Also two late compilations explain Šamaš as a name of Marduk: ‘šamaš is Marduk of justice’ (CT, 2450, BM 47406 obv.9) and ‘šamaš is Marduk of the law suit’ (AfO, 19 115. C 5, comm.).

29 While every one is agreed that these are Babylonian, there appears to be no direct evidence supporting this conclusion, and it appears that none of this type have been excavated at Babylon Ur or Uruk.

30 The earlier tamītu texts, addressed to Šsmaš and Adad, are represented in late Assyrian times by similar texts addressed to Šamaš alone. They are published by J. A. Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott, and E. G. Klauber, Politisch-Religiōse Texte cms der Sargonidenzeit. A new edition is in preparation by I. Starr.

31 These are mostly in the early Neo-Assyrian drilled style: CANES, 691, 693–5; BN, 354, 355, 357; etc.

32 Only BN, 383; de Clercq, I, 343 and 346; and U., Moortgat-Correns, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, Folge, 6 22, no. 38, have been noted.Google Scholar

33 Sidney Smith thought he had found written allusions, but this is not so. See paley, S.M., King of the world, 23–24.Google Scholar

34 The closest parallel is the ‘plant’ (šammu) which Gilgameš plucked from deep in the Apsû according to the Babylonian Gilgameš Epic, XI, 266 ff. Eating this plant provided rejuvenation, as shown when, in the story, the snake swallowed it and sloughed its skin. However, the differences are considerable. It grew deep under water (Honor Frost identifies it as black coral), not in a garden on land; it was a plant, not a tree; one ate the plant and not its fruit; and the eating provided a single rejuvenation, not immortality. Since this plant grew under water it is most unlikely that it served as the symbol of the storm god, whose outpourings nourished the vegetation on earth. The Akkadian phrase šammu balāi does not mean ‘plant of life’, which can then be stretched to ‘ ‘tree of life’, but ‘curative drug’.

35 Eisen, G. A., OIP, 47, no. 158Google ScholarE., Williams-Forte, The metropolitan Museum of Ari, Ancient Near Eastern SEals: A selection of stamp and cylinder seals from the collection of Mrs. William H. Moore, no.34; also MMA, 68.57.1 (unpublished, see the note on the last cited reference at the end under ‘NO.34’, and p.2857 of Williams-Forte's article in Ancient seals and the Bible), and Collection de Clercq, I, 295.Google Scholar

36 Williams-Forte, op. eit., p. 40, figs. 8–10. However, the drawing of the Louvre seal in fig. 9 somewhat distorts. On the photograph of the impression in Delaporte's Louvre Catalogue, II, A 918, the trunk of the tree is not in line with the snake's open mouth, and it does not continue below the hand that holds it, while something projects from the snake's open mouth, apparently a forked tongue. The drawing of fig. 8 also indicates the tree's continuing through the holding hand into the snake's open mouth, but although the alignment is correct in this case, there is in fact a rough break in the surface of the stone between the hand and the snake's head (confirmed by autopsy with powerful lenses), so the point of contact (if any) is lost. The third seal presented as showing this feature, fig. 10, is only known from the drawing offered. It appears to show quite clearly the snake being speared, though the angle of the tree and that of the object spearing the snake below the hand is not quite the same.

37 Williams-Forte, op. cit., p.42, fig. 15 and often reproduced.

38 Özgüç, nos. 11–13, etc.

39 See n. 3.

40 Williams-Forte, op. cit., 25 ff. However, there is a third, similar Anatolian Group impression of Baal holding the limp snake where the end might touch the mountain: zgüç, no. 70 = T. and N.zgüç, Kultepe Kazisi Raporu, 1949, pl. 64, no. 718. Also an actual seal of this type not noticed is CANES, 894, where the lower part of the snake, correctly identified as such by E. Porada, is not visible due to damage. No. 42 in the Seyrig Collection, a seal published for the first time by Williams-Forte, op. cit., pl. 1, fig. 2 and on the cover, is described by her as ‘Syrian’, but though it obviously draws on Syrian motifs and shows Baal with one foot on a live snake, it is equally obviously not of Syrian workmanship. The details of execution are not typically Syrian, and, in contrast to Syrian workmanship, t h e engraver had no idea how to fill t he space. Note how the tree, whirling weapon and bird overlap while there is abundant empty space elsewhere. Also, if the combined lunar crescent and disc are really meant to be Baal's headgear, as they appear to be, this is totally inconceivable in the world of Syro-Mesopotamian religion. The combined crescent and disc were an accepted grouping of the symbols of the sun god and moon god, but no one figure, human or divine, could properly carry both on his head. However, technically, the engraving is well done and one is forced to t he conclusion t h a t either this is an ancient seal cut in an area where Syrian art was known but not understood, or it is a modern forgery.

41 Also on Hittite seals: AnSt, 25, 144–5, figs. 1–4; Schaeffer, C. F.–A., Ugaritica, III, pp. 24f., figs. 32–3; pp. 48 f., figs. 66–7; p. 50, figs. 68–9.Google Scholar

42 Teissier, B., Ancient Near Eastern cylinder seals from the Marcopoli Collection, 242Google Scholar; cf. T. J. Meek, BASOR, 90 25, no. 2. An address in Hurrian (found at Boghaz–koy) to Teshub of Aleppo (KUB 47 78, see Thiel, H.–J. and Wegner, I., Studi Micenei ed Egeo–anatolici 24, 1984, 187–213)Google Scholar connects him in i 3 with Namni and Hazzi: nam–ni–ra–am ha–zi–ra–am ‘You with Namni, you with Hazzi’. This address was presumably recited during rites somewhere, but not necessarily in Aleppo. But one would expect the priests of Teshub in Aleppo to be familiar with its content, in which case the Hurrian tradition of the two mountains of Baal would have co-existed in Syria with the Semitic tradition of one mountain at this time. The god in question under his Semitic name is probably known from the Ebla archive as: dá-da (lu) ha-lam kl (G. Pettinato, OA 18, 1979, 209, etc.) ‘Adda of (the place) Halam’. There seems to be no reason why Halam at Ebla should not be Aleppo.

43 In t he Ugaritic Baal texts a battle takes place between Baal and Mot on this mountain, butit is clearly Baal/s home, not Mot/s; see Clifford, R. J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, 59–60.Google Scholar

44 Mot is addressing Baal in the first excerpt quoted, mentioning the latter's victories. In the second excerpt Anat is addressing Baal, and from the context it is clear that she is not claiming for herself victories that were in fact Baal's, but is meaning that she assisted Baal in his achieving of them.

45 45 Psalm 74: 14 has a plural ‘heads of Leviathan’ in the Masoretic text, which would exclude the Anatolian and Syrian depictions as showing this creature. However, the plural depends entirely on a mater, the plural depends entirely on a mater Uctionis, and there is a little LXX evidence for the singular ‘head’. The Leviathans of Job 40: 25 and Psalm 104: 26 are generally agreed to be real animals, to be distinguished from the one named in Isaiah 27 and Psalm 74.

46 In Sumerian and Akkadian the god whose name is written with the sign MUš(‘snake’), to be read either Nirah or Irhan, is the cosmic river, and little narrative myth about him can be found. For the reading of the name see McEwan, G. J. P., Or. 52, 1983, 215–29, and Krebernik, M., Die Beschworungen aus Fara und Ebla, 298–300Google Scholar. The former assumes, doubtfully in the view of the present writer, that the sign-group DIN.BALAG.DAR, etc., joins with MUŠ as one logogram for Irhan. More likely the signs add up to a second element of the name. McEwan prefers Nirah as the normal form because (i) this was asserted by Landsberger, (ii) because it is proved for Old Assyrian personal names, and (iii) because an exercise tablet from Ur quoting Surpu writes Ani-ra-hu for dMUၭ of other copies. But the Old Assyrian writing system is so distinctive that one should not extrapolate from it for the Babylonian literary tradition, and an exercise tablet is never the safest authority for anything. The present writer suspects that the ormal Babylonian literary reading is Irhan, because of the bulk of the evidence in favour of it, not all of which is quoted by McEwan, who, having asserted on his first page that dMtr5 = Nirah, assumes that this is true everywhere throughout the rest of the article. Since nirahu is a common noun in Akkadian for ‘small snake’, it could have been used as an epithet of the snake-god.

47 See Ozgiic 17, 19, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 39, 64, 65, 70, 71; Hrozny, B., 1CK, i, pi. lxv 35a C; Matouš, L. and Rajmova, M.Matousova, Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln mit Siegeln (henceforth ‘KKS’) p. 181 105Google Scholar; CCT, vi, pi. 49 14; Muscarella, O.White, op. cit., no. 128; Speleers, L., Catalogue des intailles ⃛ des Muse'es Royaux d' Art et d'Histoire, Supplement, 153.Google Scholar

48 Speleers, L., op. cit., loc. cit.; Hrozny, B., ICK, I, pi. lxv 35a C; O. White Muscarella, op. cit., no. 128Google Scholar

49 e.g. CANES, 855–62.

50 Ozgiic, 70, 71 and CANES, 894 are the three, and Özgu9, 71, has the nearly vertical lines above.

51 There are several distinct kinds of tree held by Baal, and one (T. and N. Özguc, Kidtepe Kazisi Raporu, 1949, pi. 62, nos. 691–2), consisting of a central pole with a narrow oblong or wavey band at the t op and upturning protrusions just beneath, seems to be the same as a sort of standard in Mitanni seals (C. F. A. Schaeffer-Forrer, Corpus, I, p. 100, 8.448 and p. 135, 23.479; E. Porada, AASOR, 24, no. 98), and what appears to be the t op of this ‘standard’ can appear as vertical lines descending from a top line on a short support (Schaeffer-Forrer, op. cit., p. 89, 6.389; Porada, op. cit., nos. 95 and 547; D. Collon, The Alalakh cylinder seals, no. 8 5; Iraq, 11, pi. xviii 123; ZA, 52 187, Abb. 77). In Mitanni seals both this and t he common stylized tree can occur on one and the same seal (of the preceding list: Porada, 95; ZA, 52 187; cf. Collon, no. 75). This need not necessarily imply two different gods: in northern Mesopotamia and Syria local variants of the same god could receive offerings si ltaneously from the same person. The relevance of this material here is that the band of parallel lines above Baal in his' arbor' resemble one side of the top of this symbol in Ozguc, 39, 65 and 71, but in view of the difference in time it would be unwise to affirm a connexion without further evidence. Another type of tree has three to five pairs of branches (Williams-Forte's figs. 8–10 and 13; also Schaeffer-Forrer, Corpus, i, 62 A9), and this tree is held by a seated god on an Akkadian seal (BN, 79), where a reared-up goat rests its front paws on the seated god's knees, cf. Briggs Buchanan, Early Near Eastern seals, 473. I t is not clear whether the goat is meant to be eating the foliage or serves only as further identification for the god. There seems to be no way of determining whether this god is Adad. The Yale seal shows him holding what Buchanan interprets as ‘three ears of grain’ but they could euqally be three twigs.

52 Ozgiic, N., apud Porada, E. (ed.), Ancient art in seals, p. 94, 111 24.Google Scholar

53 It is worth recalling that the Hebrew cult symbol Ashera was of wood, and was erected at altars. Some scholars have thought it was a tree or stump.

54 In CANES, 1094, an Old Syrian seal c. 2000 B.C., the bull, symbol of the storm god, stands on a podium behind which some kind of structure depicted in linear fashion rises and then bends over at right angles above the body of the bull. This might be related to the backdrop of Baal just discussed. Three Elamite seals from the first few centuries of the second millennium show a seated figure under a real tree or plant that rises behind the figure and bends over to form a sort of roof: P. Amiet, Glyptique susienne, 1899; J. G. Volk, Habib Anavian Collection, 125; London auction catalogue: Christie's, Fine antiquities, 12 Dec. 1984, p. 81, no. 318. While i t is not impossible t h a t t h e cultic structures of Glam and Anatolia had things in common, too little is understood of t h e Elamite depictions to make a serious comparison.

55 Passim on a bull; on a lion, e.g. Ûzgiic, 2 and 9; L. Speleers, op. cit., p. 152; on a winged lion, Ozgiic, 11–13. Of these last three t h e first has a vestigial wing, while the other two show a rearrangement of t h e Akkadian wings which serves as a kind of footstool. However, the drooping heads of all these lions confirm their descent from t h e Akkadian prototype.

56 Boehmer, R. M., Die Entwicklung, Abb. 362–374.Google Scholar

57 For Old Babylonian examples, see U. Seidl, Bagh. Mitt., iv, 178 ff.; for the Anatolian Style examples see Özguc, 14 (more fully in t h e drawing in CCT, vi, pi. 48 4) and 15.

58 See U.Seodl, loc. cit.

59 RLA, v, 179 ff

60 The Lahmu has been certainly identified by F. A. M. Wiggermann, JEOL, 27, 1983, 90 ff., and a forthcoming monograph by him will take up the gud.alim/kusarikku and related matters.

61 McCown, D.E. and Haines, R.C., Nippur, I[0IP 78], pl. 109 11.Google Scholar

62 See Behm-Blancke, M.R., Das Tierbild in der altmesopotamischen Rundplastik,51.Google Scholar

63 Buchanan, Briggs, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 436; Amiet, P., Glyptique susienne, no 1563; Propylaen kunstgeschichte, xiv, p.239, fig.44d.Google Scholar

64 e.g. Frankfort, H., Cylinder seals (henceforth ‘CS’), pi. xxvii k; CANES 366; PBS, xiv, 710.Google Scholar The last bears the inscription dzi-ku, a name of Marduk in Enuma Elis, VII 19 and elsewhere, but it is difficult to believe that this bull-man is so being identified as Marduk.

65 Lambert, W. G., Iraq, 41, 1979 35–6.Google Scholar

66 Frankena, R., Takultu, p. 92 75; Menzel, B., Assyrische Tempel, i, 67 and notes.Google Scholar

67 Ûzgu9, 19–20, 26, 28, 31, 64, 65, 70, 71; ICK, I, pi. lxv 35a C; KKS, p. 181 105; L.Speleers, op. cit., 153.

68 Haussig, H. W. (ed.), WoHerbuch der Mythologie, I. 255 f.Google Scholar

69 In ‘The Pantheon of Mari’ to appear in MAEl, iv.