Alberto R.W. Green - The Storm-God in The Ancient Near East
Alberto R.W. Green - The Storm-God in The Ancient Near East
Alberto R.W. Green - The Storm-God in The Ancient Near East
Volume 8
edited by
William Henry Propp
by
Alberto R. W. Green
EISENBRAUNS
Winona Lake, Indiana
2003
Published for Biblical and Judaic Studies
The University of California, San Diego
by
Eisenbrauns
Winona Lake, Indiana
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.†‰
Dedicated to
vii
viii Contents
Indexes
Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Index of Personal Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Index of Divine Names and Epithets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Index of Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Index of Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Acknowledgments
I became intrigued with the subject of the Storm-god as a concept some
years ago in a discussion that centered on the motif of the deity of the storm,
and seminal ideas of political domination around the ancient Near East. As
my interest into the subject deepened and I began to actively pursue an inves-
tigation on the topic, I frequently shared my findings with George E. Men-
denhall other colleagues. They all emphasized the need for a comprehensive
study in this area which would fill a significant void in studies on the ancient
Near East. In addition, they frequently passed on new material, helpful sug-
gestions, and new avenues of research regarding the motif.
In my investigation I was strongly supported by a substantial fellowship
from the National Endowment for the Humanities which enabled me to take
a full year off from my responsibilities at Rutgers University, to focus com-
pletely on my research. The Research Council of the University also gener-
ously assisted me with travel grants, and in addition, the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences was very helpful in making the necessary arrangements for me to
continue my work during my year as Resident Director of the Study Abroad
Program in Mexico. I wish to thank the National Endowment for the Hu-
manities and Rutgers University for their important support in making in
this project possible.
As my research progressed, it soon became apparent that while the term
“storm-god” was indeed widely used in the plethora of literature dealing with
the society, culture, religion, and mythology of the ancient Near East, only a
few works dealt particularly with this motif, and that the treatment in each
case was not comprehensive enough. Studies which deal exclusively with the
motif of the Storm-god are by H. Schlobies, Der Wettergott in Mesopotamien
(1924); O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kassios (1932); A. Vanel, L’ iconogra-
phie du Dieu de l’orage (1964); and H. Deighton, The “Weather-God” in Hit-
tite Anatolia (1982); along with the unpublished Ph.D. Dissertations by
H. Haddad, Baal-Hadad: A Study of the Syrian Storm-God (1960); and
W. Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad: Texts and Studies (1976). It became
evident, therefore, that no single work really explored in a truly comprehen-
sive manner all of the dimensions and implications of this subject. In addi-
tion, though numerous articles have treated the motif of the “storm-god” in
the different areas around the ancient Near East, the thematic approach in
most cases is almost always regional.
ix
x Acknowledgments
Reference Works
AAAS Annales archéologiques arabes et syriennes
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AB Anchor Bible Commentary series
ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.). Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992
AcOr Acta Orientalia
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AG K. Tallqvist. Akkadische Götterepitheta. Helsinki
AHw W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1959–81
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 2d ed. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Antiq Or G. Contenau. Musée du Louvre: Antiquités Orientales. Paris
ARAB D. Luckenbill (ed.). Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1926–27
xi
xii Abbreviations
Ugaritica
C. F. A. Schaeffer, J. Nougayrol, et al. (eds.). Ugaritica. Mission de
Ras Shamra. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale / Geuthner, 1939–
UL C. H. Gordon. Ugaritic Literature. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1949
UM C. H. Gordon. Ugaritic Manual. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1955
UT C. H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1965
UVB Vörlaufige Berichte über die vorder Deutschen
Forschungegemeneinshaft in Uruk-Warka . . .
VA Vorderasiatische Abteilung
VARS Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel
VAT Vorderasiatische Abteilung Thontafelsammlung
VB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WdM H. W. Haussig (ed.). Wörterbuch der Mythologie. Stuttgart
WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen
Orientgesellschaft
WO Welt des Orients
YOS Yale Oriental Series
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins
Chronological Chart
All dates are b.c.e.
xvii
xviii Chronological Chart
1. E.g., E. W. Haussig (ed.), Wörterbuch der Mythologie, 1/1: Die alten Kulturvölker—
Götter und Mythen in vorderen Orient (Stuttgart: Klett, 1965).
2. H. Schlobies, Der Wettergott in Mesopotamien (MAOG 1/3; Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1925).
3. A. Vanel, L’iconographie du Dieu de l’orage (CahRB 3; Paris: Gabalda, 1964).
1
2 Introduction
presence and the role of this deity on the development of cultural patterns,
the movement of peoples, or the rise and fall of political structures over this
vast region? What is the connection between the public and the domestic
forms of this deity? What factors were responsible for the changing percep-
tion of the Storm-god from region to region and culture to culture, and what
format was used by the ancients to underscore their changing perception of
this god? These are but a few of the questions that will permeate this investi-
gation and for which answers will be sought by exploring the parameters of
iconography, mythology, history, religion, and politics.
In each section the accumulated material on the Storm-god will be pre-
sented both chronologically and regionally within the framework of the
cultural or political development of larger groups and sequentially in the
organization of the different sections, moving from east to west. In each
case, wherever possible the approach will be first to work through represen-
tative examples of the various forms of the pictographic and/or iconographic
evidence and then to evaluate the place and role of the mythical, religious,
historical, and/or political evidence. In the concluding analyses, I seek to de-
termine whether a correlation exists between the types of evidence and, if so,
to interpret the combined evidence in terms of the function of the particular
divinity within the evolving sociocultural or political process of a given
group or culture in the designated geographical region.
Although the book is divided into four specific sections, each is organized
in such a way that a coherent picture of both its cultural context and its deity
emerges at the end. The first section focuses on Mesopotamia, beginning
with the impact of the environmental realities of the Sumero-Babylonian mi-
lieu and the emerging iconographic evidence of nameless divinities identified
as Storm-gods. This is followed by an analysis of the meaning of the symbolic
semidivine representatives who are closely associated with these divinities and
appear in the form of lions, bulls, human-headed birds of prey, dragons, and
goddesses. The written mythical, religious, and historical sources, begin with
the relevant evidence from the Sumerian sources, focusing on Enlil, the ear-
liest Storm-god referred to by name in the Protoliterate Period of southern
Mesopotamia. Subsequently, drawing upon the characteristics of Enlil as the
archetype of the ancient Near Eastern Storm-god, the investigation explores
the mythical activities of Ningirsu/Ninurta and Iskur as Enlil-type Storm-
gods in this region. The investigation then moves northward to focus on the
Storm-gods Ilumer, Dagan, and Adad in the Middle Euphrates region.
The analysis demonstrates that each symbolic representation of a semi-
divine attendant of the divinity characterizes the society’s increasing aware-
ness of the extension of the deity’s specific functions. Analyzed regionally,
culturally, and/or politically, the analysis determines that each of these char-
acteristics was conceived as the primary function of the divinity. On the basis
Introduction 5
and the many varying considerations that must be applied to the methodol-
ogy, I will be the first to admit that what follows must of necessity be both a
partial and a subjective treatment of this most difficult but also very impor-
tant and intriguing subject.
Chapter 1
Mesopotamia:
The Land between Two Rivers
Climate and Ecology
The region that the Greeks called Mesopotamia ‘between the rivers’ lies
between the Tigris River in the east and the Euphrates in the west. 1 These
two rivers, which are fed by winter rains in the hills, constitute the most sa-
lient topographical features of Mesopotamia. From their most northern
reaches the Tigris and the Euphrates flow southeastward, initially through
rolling and hilly country, down toward the Persian Gulf. In spite of evident
similarities, there are also striking differences between the rivers.
The Tigris, along with its important tributaries, which emerge from the
eastern mountains, has through its history undergone many changes in its
course that effectively prevented the development of any permanent settle-
ment on its banks. 2 In its southward flow toward the Persian Gulf it links up
with the Euphrates in the Shatt-al-ºArab waterway.
The Euphrates is a much slower stream. It flows southwestward for some
distance before making a wide bend back toward the east. Its two prominent
tributaries, the Balikh and the Khabur on the left bank, come to within
twenty miles of the Tigris farther south. The channel from this point south-
8
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 9
ward sharply marks off the fertile land from the arid territory that extends be-
yond its western bank. The river continues its flow through the rich alluvial
plains down to the marshy regions in the southeast. It carries much less water
than the Tigris but, because its current is much slower, it permits navigation
much farther upstream. 3
The characteristics of both rivers are rather similar. In their extreme
northern highland sources, the arrival of melting winter snow and spring
rains greatly increases the water flow and causes a dramatic rising of the water
level, which was eagerly anticipated by the early farmers. 4 The increased vol-
ume of water initially causes flooding in plains in the late spring, but at the
end of the season the water level subsides, reaching its lowest level around the
late summer into the fall. 5 This cyclical flow, on which ancient people de-
pended for their very survival, deeply influenced the religious concepts of the
inhabitants in Mesopotamia.
In the cultural evolution of any region, certain inherent geographical,
ecological, and climatological factors contribute significantly to the concep-
tion of deity. Very little research has been carried out on the ecological micro-
structures of the ancient Near East as a whole; hence, unfortunately, not
enough evidence is available for certain parts of the region. What holds true
for one part cannot be accepted for the whole area.
Available evidence has shown that throughout the ancient Near East dur-
ing the Paleolithic Period cultural development took place more or less uni-
formly. 6 In the region of Mesopotamia, however, 7 there are indications that
important environmental changes took place toward the end of the Paleo-
lithic Period and during the Neolithic Period. Just sufficient material exists to
permit us to examine the impact of these climatic and ecological changes on
certain aspects of cultural phenomena, including religion. 8
In the Protoliterate Period, southern Mesopotamia remained essentially
isolated from the development that was taking place in the late Paleolithic
Period. The other three contiguous geographical regions—the narrow valleys
of the Zagros Mountains, the small alluvial plains nestled between the moun-
tains, and the alluvial plain of the Karum and Kerkha Rivers, with Susa at its
center—were not really completely separated from the great alluvial plain of
southern Mesopotamia. Each of these four regions constituted a distinct eco-
logical unit, even though they all shared more or less large-scale features in
common.
The most important differences between southern Mesopotamia and the
other three regions involve the prevailing temperatures and the amount of
annual precipitation. 9 The late Paleolithic reduction in precipitation affected
the entire drainage area of the rivers, and thus the climatic fluctuation was
not just a localized affair. While these climatic changes also affected the
mountainous regions and the plains that lie among them, there was still suf-
ficient precipitation for plant cultivation.
Evidence of the great climatic changes has been partly obtained from test-
ing the proportions of organic material from the floor of the Persian Gulf. 10
Since the rivers carried less water, they also laid down less sedimentary mate-
rial. In the fourth millennium b.c.e., there was a noticeable change in cli-
mate with slightly cooler and drier average conditions. It has been noted that
the sea level in the Gulf was almost three meters higher then than it is today.
Because the Persian Gulf was much higher before the climate changed,
large areas in the extreme south were completely submerged. The rivers car-
ried so much water that in the critical seasons large sections of the rest of the
alluvial plains were flooded, and large areas of the country were unavailable for
cultivation for a long period of time. In the drier areas, however, there was suf-
ficient water on hand in a profusion of small, even minute creeks and water-
ways, so that water was available wherever artificial irrigation was necessary.
As a result of this drop in sea level, after a prolonged period of only scat-
tered individual settlements, the area suddenly became densely populated. 11
Regions that had earlier been unsuitable for settlement and had at first sup-
ported only a few island sites, from the moment the waters began to recede,
became open to much more extensive inhabitation.
In northern Mesopotamia rain-agriculture was the source of subsistence
and survival. In the south, however, irrigation-agriculture was practiced on
the alluvial soil along the banks of both the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers.
The ecological and topographical differences between the hilly north and the
flat riverine south were responsible for the development of different patterns
of thought. This is particularly evident with regard to the perception of the
supernatural. The northerners, who were dependent on the whims of the
weather, resorted to cultic rituals, appealing for the correct amount of mois-
ture from the skies in order to maintain a precarious existence. The people of
the south, however, depended primarily on the whim of the rivers to provide
them with the precious, life-preserving fluid that they distributed by means
of canals and ditches to irrigate the parched fields.
Settlements in the south suffered perennially from the destructive flood-
ing of the rivers in the late spring when the crops were maturing. This caused
havoc to the food supply. Even before the emergence of the first civilization,
this cyclical process would have had a devastating effect on the earliest in-
habitants of the region. The first civilization, the Sumerians, developed an ir-
rigation system made up of canals, dikes, and walling to protect the fields
from disaster during the late flooding season. There was, in addition, the
constant building of earthworks for adequate distribution of the precious
water. The earliest Sumerians were therefore almost totally dependent on the
activity of the rivers for their daily survival. In this section of Mesopotamia,
where the rivers come closest together before diverging, the rains fall very
rarely. Whenever the rains do appear, they are fearfully presaged by sudden
fierce lightning and thunderstorms. In spite of these apparent ecological
drawbacks, once farmers had learned how to exploit the potential fertility of
the land, the population could expand, laying the foundation for the com-
plex economic structure of future civilizations.
In southern Mesopotamia, from around Baghdad to the Persian Gulf, the
sun beat down mercilessly throughout the day, not infrequently unleashing
violent winds that would cover the countryside with brown dust. After the
climatic changes, the natural state of the southernmost areas was a wild waste
of dried mud flats, stagnant pools, and reed swamps. Not only did the late
flooding of the Euphrates require extensive preparation to safeguard crops,
but it also increased the tendency toward salinization of the soil, due to the
rapidity of evaporation in the increasing heat. This process in turn required
the progressive relocation of agricultural territories and introduced a host of
other problems. 12
The late spring, with its devastating, irregular floods, was in striking con-
trast to the summer months, when the fierce storm-winds whipped sand
across the plain. Southern Mesopotamia’s sole resources were, as a conse-
quence, its unceasing supply of water and fertile soil that was renewed annu-
ally by the rich sediments of the floods. It was among the early cultures
residing within this ecologically unpromising region that the first textual and
13. C. R. Curtiss, The Lion, the Eagle, the Man and the Bull in Mesopotamian Glyptic
(2 vols.; Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1974) 633–34.
14 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
14. The first systematic study of seals was made by H. Frankfort in 1934, “God and
Myth on Sargonid Seals,” Iraq 1 (1934) 2–29. He subsequently developed a method and
correctly classified his material in his book Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art
and Religion of the Ancient Near East (hencforth CS; London: Macmillan, 1939), especially
pp. 36–46. See now, M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (eds.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient
Near East (henceforth Seals; Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6; Malibu: Undena, 1977).
15. This is the essence of the study by A. Moortgat, Tammuz: Der Unsterblichkeits-
glaube in der altorientalischen Bildkunst (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1949).
influence on the life of the seal owner. 16 Another view is that seals should be
interpreted as representations of concepts and myths, not of texts. It suggests
that the various scenes on a given design should be grouped according to
mythological themes, which should in turn be classified according to an or-
der based on the annual cycle of nature. 17 Each of these positions has merit.
They represent different approaches to a very difficult subject.
I will show below that for millennia the mythic role of the Storm-god was
paramount among the cultures of the ancient Near East. This divinity was
conceived of as the principal deity of both fecundating rainfall and stormy
violence. He was simultaneously the principal god of the herdsman, the be-
neficent deity who sends the gentle fertilizing rains for the farmer, and the
Warrior-god par excellence whose thunderous roar and flashes of lightning
were portents of violence and destruction. These multiple attributes of the
Storm-god evoked both fear and reverence. It is therefore inconceivable that
Mesopotamians would not express their reverence for and/or fear of this im-
portant deity, upon whom their very existence depended, in artifacts as per-
sonal and as important as seals.
Given the preceding, it is reasonable to anticipate pictorial representa-
tions of the Storm-god and/or his attendants not only on glyptic but also
other iconographic settings, whether or not there exist textual references to
the motif. 18
The Storm-God and the Lion up to the End of the Ur III Period
The symbol of the lion figures in art throughout the course of Mesopo-
tamian history. Lions appear on cylinder seals from the Uruk IV Period
(ca. 3500–3100 b.c.e.) and are constantly represented during Jemdet Nasr
(ca. 3100–2900 b.c.e.), particularly in hunt scenes along with men armed
with bows and arrows. 19 In various settings during the Early Dynastic Period
16. E. Porada (ed.), Ancient Art in Seals (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980)
9–10; idem, “Understanding Ancient Near Eastern Art: A Personal Account,” in CANE,
4.2697–2714.
17. P. Amiet, “The Mythological Repertory in Cylinder Seals in the Agade Period
(c. 2335–2155 b.c.),” in Ancient Art in Seals (ed. E. Porada; Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1980) 35–53; idem, “Le glyptique et son message,” in L’art d’Agade au Musée du
Louvre (Paris: Éditions du Musées nationaux, 1976) 44–66.
18. For a general discussion of representations of Mesopotamian divinities, see the es-
say by A. Green, “Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography,” in CANE, 3.1842–55.
19. Note the important recent study by Curtiss, The Lion, the Man and the Bull in
Mesopotamian Glyptic. For the earliest works on the subject, see, e.g., L. Legrain, Ur Exca-
vations III: Archaic Seal Impressions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936) 26, pl. 11,
nos. 215, 217; and E. Heinrich, Vorläufiger Bericht über die . . . Uruk-Warka . . . Unternom-
menen Ausgrabungen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1935) 1.11–13, Taf. 13a–b; idem, Abhandlungen
der Preussischen Akademie, Phil.-hist. Klasse (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932) 30–40.
16 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
20. As, e.g., in B. Buchanan, Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean
Museum (henceforth CANES; Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 1.24–28, nos. 101, 111, 115,
125, 129, 131; E. D. Van Buren, Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia (henceforth Fauna; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1939) 3–8; idem, Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art
(henceforth SG; An Or 23; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1945) 39–41; Frankfort,
CS, 44–49; E. Porada, ed., Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the North American Col-
lection (henceforth Corpus; New York: Pantheon, 1948) especially pp. 9–11, nos. 51–62.
21. Frankfort, CS, pl. 20a, and VAT 8716; also E. Heinrich, Fara: Ergebnisse in der
Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Fara und Abu Hatah, 1902–1903 (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1931) pl. 58h; E. D. Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Or
15 (1946) 1–45, esp. p. 9.
22. Porada, Corpus, 12–14, especially nos. 63–96.
23. Van Buren, Fauna, 4, such as the mace-head of Mesilim, king of Kish.
24. Note especially H. Frankfort, “Early Dynastic Sculptured Mace-Heads,” AnOr 12
(1935) 105–21, figs. 9–15; and Van Buren, Fauna, 4.
25. C. L. Woolley, Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1934) pl. 125b.
26. Van Buren, Fauna, 5; E. de Sarzec and L. Heuzey, Découvertes en Chaldée (Paris:
Leroux, 1884–1906) pl. 43.
27. See especially Buchanan, CANES, 53–61, nos. 261–319. Practically all of these
depict bull-men and lions; also in Porada, in Corpus, 20–23, the majority of them listed un-
der nos. 131–71.
28. A. Moortgat, and U. Moortgat-Correns, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel (henceforth
a winged lion walks sedately with lowered head, at times bearing a divinity
on its back. This lion is later transformed into the winged leonine monster,
probably referred to in Akkadian texts as the labbu or lion-demon. 29
This glyptic survey has revealed the immense appreciation ancient Meso-
potamians had for the lion, probably due in part to its inherent qualities of
power and strength as a fearless aggressor and as a trusted protector. It is es-
sentially among nonglyptic iconography, however, that the symbol of the
lion emerges, particularly associated with Ningirsu, the Storm-god of Lagash
during the Gutian Interlude. Gudea, king of Lagash, dedicated a white lime-
stone statue of a lion to guard the entrance of the sanctuary of the goddess
Gatumdug (probably Ningirsu’s spouse). 30 He also offered to Ningirsu a
stone basin decorated at one end with a lion’s head in high relief, 31 and
placed a guardian lion beside the god’s throne. 32 In the city of Lagash, lion-
standards are represented on fragments of stelae behind the seated god or be-
side him in his grasp. 33 Identical standards crowned with the figures of lions
were later reproduced during Ur III (ca. 2100–1950 b.c.e.).
A survey of relevant available iconographic evidence has shown that,
since its earliest appearance during the Uruk Period (ca. 3500–3100 b.c.e.),
the symbol of the lion continued to develop from its primal function as the
most powerful and fearless of beasts among struggling animals, to either a
lethal adversary or a courageous guardian of human or mythological beings,
finally becoming the principal attendant and associate of Ningirsu the Storm-
god of Lagash from Early Dynastic I through the Ur III Period (ca. 2900–
1950 b.c.e.).
VARS; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1940) 25, 104, pl. 33, no. 240; O. Weber, Altorientalische Siegel-
bilder (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920) fig. 298; L. Legrain, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux de la
collection Louis Cugnin (Paris: Leroux, 1911) pl. 1,4.
29. B. Landsberger, Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1934) 76; and
Van Buren’s discussion of pl. 14 of the HAR.RA = hubullu series rendering the Akkadian
equivalents of the Sumerian ur, ug (‘lion’) as lab-bu and ni-e-su in “The Dragon in An-
cient Mesopotamia,” 23–24.
30. See, e.g., T. Jacobsen (ed. and trans.), “Gudea Cylinder A,” The Harps That Once
. . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) 409, lines
11–14; T. Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978) 104–
10.
31. De Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, 231–32, pl. 24, 2–3; 229–30, pl. 25bis, 1a–b;
and Van Buren, Fauna, 5–6.
32. L. Delaporte, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux (Musée du Louvre), vol. 1 (hence-
forth CCO 1; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1920) 14, T. 116, pl. 10, fig. 79.
33. Van Buren in Fauna, 5, 6, citing L. Heuzey, in Nouvelles fouilles de Tello (ed.
L. Heuzey and G. Cros; Paris: Leroux, 1910) 120, figs. 6a, b, pl. IX, 6; G. Contenau,
Umma sous la dynastie d’Ur (Paris: Champion, 1916) xxvi, 55 fig. 15, nos. 5, 70, 83.
18 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
The Storm-God and the Bull during the Old Babylonian Period
From archaic times on the bull (both the bos primigenuis and the bos in-
dicus [humped bull]) occupied a prominent place in the life and culture of
the inhabitants of Mesopotamia and was represented throughout the whole
course of Mesopotamian art. 34 There are numerous indications of the cultic
importance of the bull: bull icons, bull-shaped shrines, and the use of bulls’
horns to decorate shrines. 35 Anthropological studies long ago demonstrated
the many superstitions and beliefs involving the bull and its particular asso-
ciation with the grain at harvest time. 36 During this early period there are
representations that show the bull with ears of grain, conceivably being pro-
jected as a god of fertility. 37
On cylinder seals from Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900–2750 b.c.e.), the bull,
like the lion, is included in many of the animal scenes. However, it is not un-
til Early Dynastic II (ca. 2750–2600 b.c.e.) that the bovine appears most fre-
quently in contest scenes being assaulted by lions. 38 On a vase from Khafajah
also dated to this period, the nude figure of a woman bearing sprigs of vege-
tation in each hand, identified as the goddess of rain, 39 is shown standing on
the backs of two bulls. In Early Dynastic III (ca. 2600–2370 b.c.e.) the bull
symbols continue in the form of bearded human-headed bulls. 40
Glyptic of the Akkadian Period (ca. 2360–2100 b.c.e.) continues to por-
tray representations of the traditional Early Dynastic themes. The familiar
scene of bulls in cultic settings supporting shrines is well represented on many
Mesopotamian seals from the Akkadian through Ur III Periods (ca. 2360–
1950 b.c.e.). 41 Some of the more interesting seals portray the bull with a
winged gate on its back kneeling before the seated figure of a goddess. 42
34. Van Buren, Fauna, 69–77; Curtiss, The Lion, the Man and the Bull in Mesopota-
mian Glyptic.
35. A. R. Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Missoula,
Mont.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1975) 38–40.
36. J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough (New York: Mentor, 1951) 531–32.
37. H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1955) 15–17, 21, and pl. 53. See also Delaporte, CCO, no. A-
26; and Frankfort, CS, 23, 24.
38. Note exemplary seals in Porada, in Corpus, 9–11 and nos. 50–66; Buchanan,
CANES, 28–33, nos. 135–37, 141, 150, 151, 153, 155, 158; Frankfort, CS, 44–50, 58–61.
39. E. D. Van Buren, “The Rain-Goddess as Represented in Early Mesopotamia,”
SBO 3 (1959) 343–44, pl. 24, l.
40. See Porada, in Corpus, 11–17, nos. 66, 72–76, 78–85, 87, etc.; Buchanan, CANES,
37–41, nos. 185, 190–96, 199–200, 207, 209, 211; and Frankfort, CS, 50–62.
41. See E. Heinrich, Kleinfunde aus den archäischen Tempelschichte in Uruk (Leipzig:
Harrassowitz, 1936) pl. 3; Frankfort, CS, pl. 3e.
42. Buchanan, CANES, 63–64, nos. 337–41, 72, nos. 397–400; and especially the
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 19
examples in Porada, in Corpus, 28–29, nos. 222–33. Note also Frankfort’s interpretation in
CS, 128–29, pls. 22g, i.
43. M. E. L. Mallowan and J. C. Rose, “Excavations at Arpachiyah,” Iraq 1–2 (1933–
35) 80, 88, 96, 154–58, fig. 48; nos. 1–5, 55–56, 68; no. 2, 74; nos. 1–16, pl. 6a, no. 895;
and Van Buren, Fauna, 69.
44. Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, Vorläufige Berichte über die von dem Deut-
schen Forschungsgemeinschaft Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, vol. 5 (Berlin: Mann, 1978)
pls. 24a, d; 25b, c, f; BM no. 113875; E. D. Van Buren, “The Entwined Serpents,” AfO 10
(1957) 239, fig. 4; idem, Fauna, 69.
45. Ibid., 69–72.
46. De Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, pl. 5 bis, fig. 3; G. Contenau, Antiquités ori-
entales I: Sumer, Babylonie, Elam (Paris: Musées du Louvre, 1926) pl. 9; Van Buren,
Fauna, 71.
47. H. de Genouillac, Fouilles de Telloh (Paris: Geuthner, 1934–36) 1.77, fig. p. 76.
48. H. R. Hall, Ur Excavations I (London: Oxford University Press, 1927) 30, pl. 7,
figs. 2–4; Woolley, Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery, 212–15, pl. 143e; H. Frankfort,
Oriental Institute Communications no. 20, 28–29, figs. 23–24.
49. De Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, 245, pl. 28, figs. 5–6; L. Heuzy, Catalogue des
antiquités chaldéenes, sculpture et gravure à la pointe (Paris: Librairies-imprimeries réunies,
1902) 309–13, nos. 159–60, 62; Contenau, Musée de Louvre; Antiquités Orientales, 1.17,
pl. 27.
50. Specifically, the Storm-god Adad. So A. Deimel, Panthéon Babylonicum (Rome:
Sumptibus Pontificii biblici, 1914) 43–47; also H. Schlobies, Der Wettergott in Mesopota-
mien (MAOG 1/3; Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1925) 3, 8; H. Demirciöglu, Der Gott auf dem Stier:
Geschichte eines religiösen Bildtypus (Berlin: Junker & Dunnhaupt, 1939) 8.
51. At Tell Al ªUbaid and Ur he was Nannar; at Tell Halaf he could have been Teshup.
A document dated to the time of Rim-Sin of Larsa, much later, invokes the king in his role
as consort of the goddess and is addressed to “my king the bull with many-colored eyes,
20 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
Unlike the bos primigenuis the humped bull was depicted more often in
association with human or divine figures. This holds true from the clay figu-
rines of Tell Halaf and Al ªUbaid 52 to the stone figurines in the Jemdet Nasr
and Early Dynastic Periods. 53 There are numerous seals with humped bulls
during the Akkadian Period. 54 Of particular interest is one that depicts a
kneeling bull in front of a deity associated with another god brandishing a
whip while standing on a dragon. Standing beside the second deity is a nude
goddess, who holds small lightning symbols. 55 Another register portrays a
huge bull kneeling in front of a god with a horned crown, long beard and
girdle. Over this bull is suspended a woman in a pleated gown, her out-
stretched arms replete with rivulets of rain falling around her. 56 In addition
to the scene of bulls on a fragmentary relief from the time of Gudea, 57 there
is a whole series of reliefs on which a god is represented holding forked light-
ning and standing on the back of a humped bull. 58
Seals from the time of Sin-iddinam of Larsa during the Isin-Larsa Period
are rather revealing. They show a worshiper being introduced to a divinity at-
tired in a short tunic with a double sash around the waist, seated on a bull, or
the deity clad in a long garment with one leg protruding standing on the
bull. 59 This motif has been noted throughout this period and up to the time
of Mari. 60
The principal character in these scenes is the deity, 61 who may or may
not carry a battle-mace or other weapon in his right hand but almost always
who wears a lapis lazuli beard.” See E. D. Van Buren, AfO 13 (1939) 41; M. F. von Oppen-
heim, Tell Halaf (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1943) 1.205, 210; A. Falkenstein, “Ein sumerischer
Gottesbrief,” ZA 44 (1938) 1–25; here p. 3.
52. Mallowan and Rose, “Excavations at Tell Arpachiyah,” 80, 88, fig. 48, no. 13;
Vorderasiatisches Museum, Vorderasiatische Abteilung (Berlin: Staatliche Museum, 1954)
10087; UVB III, 26–27 31, pl. 21b, etc.; Van Buren, Fauna, 74.
53. Iraq Museum, room 2, case A; Van Buren, Fauna, 75–76.
54. Frankfort, OIC no. 17, p. 22, fig. 18; R. F. Starr, Nuzi II (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1937–39) pl. 65D, E.
55. See, e.g., A. Abou Assaf, “Der Wettergott auf dem Drachen in der Akkad-Periode,”
AAAS 16 (1966) 78.
56. Ibid., 80.
57. De Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, pl. 25, fig. 4.
58. Frankfort, CS, pl. 27j; E. D. Van Buren, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930) 137, no. 664, fig. 181; Iraq Museum, 21348,
9467, etc.
59. E. Porada, “Critical Review of the Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North
American Collections,” JCS 4 (1950) 155–62, especially pp. 161–62; and p. 160, fig. 14.
60. A. Vanel, L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage (henceforth L’iconographie; Paris: Ga-
balda, 1964) 77–78.
61. Ibid., 172–73, figs. 10 and 12; pp. 36–37 n. 4; and pp. 174–75, fig. 14; E. Porada,
The Collection of the Pierpont-Morgan Library (New York: Pantheon, 1948) 507, 508, 511,
carries a double or triple thunderbolt or whip in his left hand. 62 He may hold
the reins of the bull in either hand and is almost always mounted on this ani-
mal, 63 which, though usually standing, is occasionally portrayed in a kneel-
ing posture. 64 In numerous settings, this god is accompanied by a suppliant
goddess. 65 Occasionally, however, the god is shown standing on the ground
with a foot resting on a small bull. 66
The motif of the bull as a constant attendant of this important deity will
be an intrinsic part of the scene in the succeeding Old Babylonian Period
(fig. 1a, b, c, on p. 22). There are occasions where this divinity may hold in
his hand the two- or three-pronged thunderbolt symbol while standing on a
dragon 67 instead of a humped bull. 68
and 368; H. von der Osten, Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Collection of Mr. Edward New-
ell (henceforth Newell; OIP 22; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934) 249; idem,
Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Collection of Mrs. Baldwin Brett (henceforth Brett; OIP 37;
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936) 71; E. D. Van Buren, The Cylinder Seals of the
Pontifical Biblical Institute (AnOr 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1940) 49; De-
laporte, CCO II, pl. 116, 9b (A556); pl. 117, 7 (A568); idem, RA 25 (1928) 175 n. 2; idem,
Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de
la Bibliothèque Nationale (henceforth CCOA; Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1910) 247–50;
C. H. Gordon, “Western Asiatic Seals in the Walters Gallery,” Iraq 6 (1939) pl. iv, 23.
62. Porada, Collection Pierpont-Morgan, 368, 507; Delaporte, CCO II, pp. 248, 250;
J. Ward, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia (henceforth SC; Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Insti-
tute, 1910) 456 and 177 n. 475; and Vanel, L’iconographie, 173–74, fig. 13.
63. See Delaporte, CCO II, A556; idem, CCOA, 247; and Porada, Pierpont-Morgan,
511. For an in-depth discussion of the seals on which this deity is depicted, note especially
Vanel, L’iconographie, 31–41.
64. Porada, Pierpont-Morgan, 368; Ward, SC, 475; Legrain, Catalogue des cylindres ori-
entaux de la collection Louis Gugnin, 46.
65. The goddess is clad in a “kaunakes” and wears a multihorned tiara, usually with
her hand extended in the direction of the god. See Porada, Pierpont-Morgan, 510; De-
laporte, CCOA, pl. xvii, 250. For the goddess along with another worshiper, Porada, Pier-
pont-Morgan, 511. For additional discussion on the goddess, see Van Buren, “The Rain
Goddess as Represented in Early Mesopotamia.”
66. Gordon, “Western Asiatic Seals,” pl. 4, 24; L. Delaporte, Catalogue du Musée Gui-
met: Cylindres orientaux (Paris: Musée Guimet, 1909) pl. 6, 83; L. C. de Clerc, Catalogue
methodique et raisonnée, I et II: Cylindres orientaux (Paris: Leroux, 1888–90) 1.153 and 175;
Delaporte, CCO II, pl. 83 n. 25 (A457); O. E. Ravn, A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Seals
and Seal Impressions in the Danish National Museum (Copenhagen: Danish National Mu-
seum, 1960) 59, no. 57; Ward, SC, nos. 457, 460, 463 and 467; and many others. See also
Vanel, L’iconographie, 35–36 and p. 35 n. l.
67. See D. W. Myhrman, Babylonian Hymns and Prayers (PBS 1; Philadelphia: Mu-
seum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1911–) pl. 25, no. 445; Delaporte, CCO II
pl. 112,10b (A485); von der Osten, Newell, no. 220; and Van Buren, SG, 70–71.
68. Delaporte, CCO I D, 115, pl. 53,11 (A.556); pl. 116,9b (A.890–91); pl. 95,17–
18; H. M. Carnegie, Catalogue of the Collection of Antique Gems, by James, Ninth Earl of
22 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
a c
b
Fig. 1. (a) The Storm-god with conical headgear, attired in a long tunic, standing on
a bull. The deity carries a two-pronged symbol in his left hand (Vanel, L’Iconographie,
p. 33, fig. 10). (b) Storm-god in short tunic, standing on a bull. He carries a two-
pronged lightning symbol in his left hand and a weapon in his upraised right hand
(Vanel, L’Iconographie, p. 34, fig. 11). (c) Storm-god in long tunic with one foot rest-
ing on a kneeling bull. He holds a two-pronged lightning symbol and reins of the bull
in his left hand and a weapon in his upraised right hand (Vanel, L’Iconographie, p. 34,
fig. 12).
Southesk (2 vols.; London: Quaritch, 1918) vol. 2, pl. V. Q b 19; Ward, SC, figs. 456, 458–
59, 475, 479; Porada, Pierpont-Morgan, pl. 14, no. 99; G. Furlani, “Quattro Sigilli Babilo-
nesi e Assiri,” Rendiconti della Real Accademia dei Lincei 6/4 (1929) 130–31, nos. 2, 3; Le-
grain, PBS, 14, nos. 457, 459; von der Osten, Newell, nos. 71, 249; Gordon, “Western
Asiatic Seals,” 13, pl. 4, no. 23; VA, 4208; Moortgat and Correns, VARS, pl. 45, no. 352;
VA 3301, 3266, 659, pl. 50, nos. 399, 400, 402; Boston Museum no. 27.648; Frankfort, CS,
pl. 27j; Van Buren, The Cylinder Seals of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, 23–24 and pl. 5,
no. 49; SG, 71; D. G. Hogarth, Hittite Seals with Particular Reference to the Ashmolean Col-
lection (Oxford: Clarendon, 1920) pl. 6, no. 80.
69. See ANET, 84–85; T. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on
Mesopotamian History and Culture (ed. W. Moran; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1970) 27 and 322 n. 5; S. H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology (Boston: The Archaeological In-
stitute of America, 1931) 119; P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Strassburg: Trüb-
ner, 1890) 62–63; idem, Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen (Berlin: Reuther &
Reichard, 1900) 452; H. S. Haddad, Baal-Hadad: A Study of the Syrian Storm-God (Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960) 61.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 23
a
b
Fig. 2. (a) The Bull bearing on its back
two-pronged lightning symbol (Vanel,
L’Iconographie, p. 40, fig. 19). (b) Kneeling
bull carrying a three-pronged lightning
symbol in its back Vanel, L’Iconographie,
p. 40, fig. 20).
The pictorial motif of the hero fighting or slaying the bull on Mesopotamian
seals could very well be an expression of the bull’s malevolent attribute. 70
From Gudea’s inscriptions, as we have seen, it is apparent that the lion
emerged as a principal attendant of the Storm-god Ningirsu of Lagash during
the post-Akkadian Period. But there are also the numerous iconographic rep-
resentations of the bull, evolving from the earliest domesticated representa-
tions of the bovine alongside a nude hero being protected from lions to the
recumbent animal either kneeling as an attendant before an important deity
or being represented as a mount on whose back the deity stands (during the
Akkadian Period). From the Isin-Larsa era (ca. 1950–1850 b.c.e.) and a
number of Old Babylonian settings, the deity and the bull are regularly ac-
companied by the nude Rain-goddess, who may either be holding a rope fas-
tened at the other end to a ring in the animal’s nostrils or riding on its back.
As was the case with the lion, there are certain characteristic iconographic
and literary representations that identify the deity who accompanies the bull.
Among the Old Babylonian inscriptional materials that depict the bull are a
number of seals on which the owner described himself as “servant of the god
Adad.” A clay relief from Nippur dated to the same period portrays a divinity
holding the double thunderbolt symbol with the bull beside him. 71 The rea-
sonable conclusion, then, is that at least in southern Mesopotamia during the
Old Babylonian Period (ca. 1850–1500 b.c.e.), the Storm-god Adad was the
important deity closely associated with the bull.
On the strength of the foregoing discussion, we see that the bull as an at-
tendant of the god Adad and at times of a goddess was performing a different
function from that performed by the lion as an attendant of the Storm-god
Ningirsu during the same time frame. The fearless lion was a symbol of
power, authority, and strength, while the bull evidently was primarily a rep-
resentation of the process of fertility.
The Storm-God and the Lion-Headed Eagle during the Ur III Period
The lion-headed eagle was essentially a Sumerian icon. It dates back to
predynastic times but reemerges primarily during the latter part of the Early
Dynastic Period. One of the earliest and finest-preserved specimens of the
lion-headed eagle is a cylinder seal from the Uruk IV Period, where the bird
with outspread wings hovers over recumbent cattle. 75 Other seals display the
lion-headed eagle perched on the head of a sheep or in company with serpent-
necked panthers. 76 During Early Dynastic II and through the Akkadian
Periods, a number of seals represent the lion-headed eagle as their central
72. See Vanel, L’iconographie, figs. 19, 20 and p. 40 nn. 2, 3; Frankfort, CS, pl. 29f;
von der Osten, Newell, 70, 184; G.-A. Eisen, Ancient Oriental Cylinder and Other Seals with
a Description of the Collection of Mrs. William H. Moore (OIP 47; Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1940) 63; J. Menant, Collection de Clerq: Catalogue méthodique et raisonné—
Antiquités assyriennes cylindres orientaux (Paris: Leroux, 1899) vol. 1, pl. xviii, 173; Van Bu-
ren, The Cylinder Seals, pl. v, 48; Porada, Pierpont-Morgan, 503, 505, 506; Delaporte,
CCO II, pl. 79, 28 (A345); pl. 81,9 (A382); and pl. 83, 28 (A 458). In addition, see E. D.
Van Buren, Catalogue of the Ugo Sissa Collection (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1959)
pl. xvii, 252; Moortgat, VARS, 430; Ward, SC, 468.
73. See J.-R. Kupper, L’iconographie du dieu Amurru dans la glyptique de la I re dynastie
babylonienne (Brussels: Académie royale de Belgique, 1961) 14.
74. Note, e.g., the scenes in Porada, Pierpont-Morgan, 506; Delaporte, CCOA, 255;
CCO II, A345; and Ward, SC, 468.
75. Von der Osten, Newell, pl. 40, no. 681; and Van Buren, Fauna, 83.
76. Porada, in Corpus, 4, no. 4; also Frankfort, CS, 17, 27.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 25
Fig. 3. Imdugud, the lion-headed eagle from Lagash (Lloyd, Art of the Ancient Near
East, pp. 82–83, fig. 45).
figure, 77 grasping animals in its talons and in contest scenes between lions
and bull-men. A small fragment of a standard behind the figure of a divinity
on the Stele of Vultures erected by Mesilim portrays a lion-headed eagle de-
ployed frontally with outstretched wings, 78 and later, during the Gutian In-
terlude, Gudea of Lagash informs us that the lion-headed eagle is the divine
bird Imdugud (see fig. 3).
Im-dugud (‘Mighty or Powerful Wind or Storm’) 79 is the name of the god
Zu, the bird of prey who stole the tablets of destiny from Enlil. 80 Imdugud
is therefore the heavy storm clouds in metaphor as the huge wings of an
enormous bird spread across the sky, moving with the speed of an eagle. The
symbolic roar emitting from its leonine head may have metaphorically corre-
sponded to the terrifying roar of the storm.
77. Porada, in Corpus, 13, no. 73; 15, nos. 97–102, 109, 111–14; 23, no. 167. See
also Frankfort, CS, 58, pls. 12b, 13a, 14c, 13b; 70, pl. 20b.
78. De Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, pl. 48, fragment B; and Van Buren, SG, 30.
79. R. Labat provides the translation ‘Whirlwind of Wind’. See Manuel d’épigraphie
akkadienne (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963) 185; T. Jacobsen, “Heavy Rains,” Toward
the Image of Tammuz, 4, 17, 32; idem, Treasures of Darkness, 128–29. It could also mean
either ‘slingstone’ of ‘ball of clay’—probably an etymological association with hailstones.
See CAD A 348. Im-dugud is represented on a plaque for the first time since the days of
Entemena. Note also C.-F. Jean, La religion sumérienne (Paris: Geuthner, 1931) 72–73.
The Im-dugud bird also appears on a bas relief of a bull from the Early Dynastic Period
found at Ubaid, and prior to Ur III it is found on the rump of each of two bisons. Hall and
Woolley, Al-Ubaid, Ur Excavations I, 22–29 and plates 5–6.
80. E. Dhorme, Les religions de babylonie et d’assyrie (Paris: Presses universitaires de
France, 1945) 23, 28, 46, 314 and Labat, Manuel d’épigraphie, 185 n. 207.
26 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
It was not until the post-Akkadian Period that the lion-headed eagle was
clearly portrayed accompanying a deity—that is, Ningirsu. Gudea’s stele
shows Ningirsu holding a lion-headed eagle in one hand, while the eagle
grasps the backs of two lions with his talons. His statement identifying the
lion-headed eagle as the attendant of the Storm-god also clarifies an earlier
Sargonic seal that features a collapsing victim grasped by one of the claws of
the lion-headed eagle, 81 while the deity holds the tail and one wing of the
bird. A scene on another seal from this period shows the attacking god and
his lion-headed eagle over a kneeling victim. 82
The symbol of a lion-headed eagle with outstretched wings crowning a
standard from the stelae of Gudea also appears on a number of seal impres-
sions from the time of Shulgi and his son Bur-Sin. Here, however, the lion-
headed eagle hovers in the air. Imdugud also appears on seal impressions of
the scribe of Urlama, a governor of Lagash who was a contemporary with
Shulgi. 83
The lion-headed eagle as a consistent associate of a god of Lagash suggests
that its religious significance was initially primarily confined to this locality
and to the god of this city. 84 Up to the Ur III Period, whenever Imdugud ap-
peared with a deity, it was with the god Ningirsu. Since Ningirsu already per-
sonified all the prerogatives of the storm, 85 we may preliminarily conclude
81. Van Buren, SG, 30 on Fragment D of the “Stele of Vultures”; T. Jacobsen, The
Harps That Once, Gudea, Cylinder A, pp. 379–90 and p. 399, lines 10–20, etc.
82. See Frankfort, CS, pls. 23a, 23b.
83. Heuzey and Cros, Nouvelles fouilles de Tello, IV FT., p, 290, fig. 6c; Delaporte,
CCO II, 116, pl. 10, figs. 7, 9.
84. There is an Early Babylonian seal on which the symbol appears in the rear of the
scene. See Van Buren, SG, 31; Heuzey and Cros, Nouvelles fouilles de Tello, 290, figs. 6c, d,
e; pls. X, 2; XI, 1.
85. A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden (eds.), Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und
Gebete (Bibliothek der Alten Welt; Zurich: Artemis, 1953) 147, col X, line 2; p. 160, col.
XXIII, line 14.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 27
Fig. 5. (a) Storm-god with horned helmet carrying a two-pronged lightning symbol
in each hand, standing on a fire-spitting, leonine, winged dragon with lowered head
(Vanel, L’Iconographie, pp. 44, 55, fig. 22). (b) Storm-god with horned helmet and
triple-pronged forked lightning symbol in his left hand and a weapon his upraised
right hand. He stands on a leonine, winged dragon with lowered head (Vanel, L’Ico-
nographie, p. 55, fig. 23).
that they both were fulfilling the same function. Is the lion-headed eagle Im-
dugud merely an attendant or is it an emblem of this deity? 86
Jacobsen has proposed that here we are dealing with a portrayal of the god
Ningirsu in his earlier, nonhuman form. 87 This emblem typifying the war-
like characteristics of Ningirsu continued as a constant attendant of the deity
throughout this period. On Gudea’s stelas, priests with shaven heads carry
standards surmounted by a big bird with a fierce eagle’s beak. 88
Its wings rise above the head of the god like a strange headdress. Imdu-
gud is at once the attendant of the god Ningirsu, his mythic symbol, and a
profile of the terrifying thundercloud warrior.
The Storm-God and the Dragon during the Old Babylonian Period
In contrast to the specific references associating the various storm-gods
with the lion, the bull, or the eagle, there are only indirect textual references
86. The deity and the bird are viewed as identical in Frankfort, “Early Dynastic Sculp-
tured Maceheads,” 118; and T. Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 128–29.
87. Representations on seals late in the Early Dynastic Period show the lion-headed
god growing a human lower body or the god entirely in human shape, relegating his bird
shape to serve as an emblem at the base of the statue. Furthermore, on a mace-head dedi-
cated to Ningirsu, the donor is in a posture of adoration before the lion-headed eagle, and
in his dream Gudea sees Ningirsu with the wings of Imdugud and the lower parts of his
body ending in a flood. See T. Jacobsen and S. N. Kramer, “The Myth of Inanna and Bi-
lulu,” JNES 12 (1953) 167 n. 27; and especially Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 128–29.
88. As, e.g., in Ward, SC, fig. 1305a.
28 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
a
b
linking the Storm-god with the dragon. At Warka of the Uruk IV Period, a
seal impression of two leonine-headed dragons with entwined necks 89 and
subsequent icons suggest that the dragon was an independent entity from
earliest times. 90 In later examples, however, it is evident that the concept of
the dragon had become iconographically fixed by the Early Dynastic Period.
Glyptic from the later phases of this era usually shows a god holding the
triple-forked lightning in each hand and sitting or standing on the back of a
dragon (see fig. 5a, b). Occasionally the dragon is a lizard-like creature with
four legs, a flattened triangular head, round lidless eyes, and a scaly serpen-
tine body. 91
Two types of dragons are usually represented with deities, the leonine or
the ophidian, and they are always subservient to the god. Often the dragons
serve as the seat or platform for the deity, as his steed, harnessed to his chariot
or plough, or as the faithful attendant accompanying the god in contest (see
fig. 4). They are never portrayed engaging in hostile action toward the divin-
ity. Numerous iconographic scenes depict a deity with a whip associated with
weather phenomena standing on the back of the mythic monster, particu-
larly during the Sargonic Period.
The divinity of the dragon is suggested by the pointed horns on its head,
a forked tongue, leonine forelegs, hindlegs garnished with plumage like that
96. Frankfort, CS, pl. 27i; Weber, Altorientalische Siegelbilder, no. 29 (BM 89 807);
and Vanel, L’iconographie, 23, fig. 21.
97. As illustrated on the seal in the Louvre showing the lion-headed eagle hovering
above the entwined necks of two lion-headed dragons. Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient
Mesopotamia,” 4; idem, “Entwined Serpents,” 7, pl. 2, no. 14.
98. Heuzey, “Dragons sacrés de Babylone et leur prototype chaldéen,” 95–96; Van
Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 4–6.
99. V. Scheil, “La charrue, symbole de Ningirsu,” RA 34 (1937) 42; Van Buren, “The
Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 14; Vanel, L’iconographie, 22.
100. H. Radau, Nin-Ib, the Determiner of Fates (The Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania D/5; Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, 1908) 28–29;
M. Witzel, Der Drachenkämpfer Ninib (Keilinschriftliche Studien 2; Fulda: Fuldaer Aktien-
druckerei, 1920) part 2, p. 5; Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 15.
101. The “Lord of the good tree” represents the divine power in the tree to draw nour-
ishment from the ground through its roots. His basic form was a tree-trunk. Jacobsen, The
Treasures of Darkness, 7, 156; idem, The Harps That Once, 394 n. 27.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 31
bolic representation of the performance of the fertility rite. 102 It may thus be
reasonably presumed that the dragon symbolized fertility.
This is reinforced through many expressions applied to the usumgal and
also Gudea’s statement that the dragon was the foundation deposit buried
beneath the threshold to protect the temple. 103 The inaugural ceremonies
performed in the temple consisted of a solemn celebration of the sacred mar-
riage, the supreme fertility rite; hence, the figure of the dragon would have
been an especially appropriate foundation deposit. 104
From the Ur III Period there are seals portraying the Storm-god seated on
a bull with the leonine dragon walking below with lowered head 105 and the
deity grasping the hand of a worshiper while setting one foot upon a crouch-
ing creature. 106 Others seals for the first time display the leonine dragon on
raised hindlegs with the body and forepaws of a lion, while the wings, feather-
tail, and hindlegs are of a bird of prey. This symbol apparently projects a
harsher, more foreboding nature for the dragon than in earlier depictions. 107
Toward the latter part of this period, the winged leonine dragon reemerges.
In contrast to the Akkadian Period, where it usually accompanied the Storm-
god and a nude goddess, this winged leonine dragon is now found frequently
in a crouching posture with the deity either standing with one or both feet on
its back 108 or seated with the dragon as his footstool. 109
102. See de Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, 234–36, pl. 44; Deimel, Panthéon, 185,
no. 2246; Delaporte, CCO I, T. 108, pl. 10, figs. 8, 10; E. Meyer, Sumerier und Semiten
(Berlin: Verlag der konigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1906) 43, 49–50, Taf. 7; Van Bu-
ren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 14–15.
103. See Gudea Cylinder A, XXVI: 1–2, in which Gudea states that he caused “a good
dragon to dwell.” Note Jacobsen, “The Gudea Cylinder” A, pp. 421–22, lines 20–25; Van
Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 18.
104. On the sacred marriage, note especially S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969) 49–84; Jacobsen, The Harps That Once,
387; and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess: Women, Culture and the Trans-
formation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992) 58–59, 236–37.
105. H. de Genouillac, Inventaire de tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Imperial
Ottoman (Paris: Geuthner, 1909) vol. 2, pl. 4 no. 10018; vol. 3, pl. 4 no. 4790; Van Buren,
“The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 21.
106. V. Scheill, “Liste de dieux,” RA 23 (1926) fig. p. 35; Van Buren, “The Dragon in
Ancient Mesopotamia,” 22–23.
107. L. Legrain, The Culture of the Babylonians from Their Seals in the Collection of the
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1925) pls. 14 no. 227; 17 no. 271; 18 no. 277; Delaporte, CCO I, T. 51, T. 73–74, pl. 8,
figs. 10, 12a, 12b, 13; Ward, SC, figs. 187b, 563; and Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient
Mesopotamia,” 22.
108. Delaporte, CCO II, A, 408, pl. 82, fig. 5; W. H. Ward, Cylinders and Other An-
cient Oriental Seals in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan (New Haven: Yale University Press,
32 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
115. Frankfort, CS, pl. 20a; and Iraq 1 (1934) pl. 3h; Van Buren, “The Dragon in An-
cient Mesopotamia,” 9, 10.
116. G. Furlani, Rendiconti della Real Accademia dei Lincei 6/8, pp. 20–21; and Frank-
fort, CS, 127. Note also BM no. 123279 and VA 3303.
117. Frankfort, CS, 124; and Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 14.
118. Frankfort, CS, 163, pl. 27i; von der Osten, Newell, 220; Weber, Altorientalische
Siegelbilder, fig. 299; and BM 89807. Also Van Buren, “The Dragon,” 27.
119. Von der Osten, Newell, no. 220; Legrain, PBS 4, pl. 25, no. 445; Ward, SC, figs.
132, 464, 478, 843.
34 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
never completely lost. They were transformed and kept alive through each
succeeding period.
120. For a good discussion of the name and personality of Enlil, see Jacobsen, The
Harps That Once, xv, 101–11; note particularly p. 107; idem, Treasures of Darkness, 98–
104. See also H. Frankfort et al. (eds.), The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1977) 137; S. N. Kramer, “Review of H. Frankfort’s Intellec-
tual Adventure of Ancient Man,” JCS 2 (1948) 54.
121. S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963) 144–
46; and particularly T. Jacobsen, “Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article,” in Toward the
Image of Tammuz (ed. W. Moran; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970) 129–31; see
also idem, “Myth and Reality,” in The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (ed. H. Frank-
fort et al.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977) 141–44; idem, The Harps That
Once, 101–11.
122. S. Langdon, “Jemdet Nasr” Oxford Cuneiform Texts (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1923) 317.
123. Jean, La religion sumérienne, 37; Dhorme, Les religions, 26.
124. A. Poebel, Historical Texts (Publications of the Babylonian Section 4; Philadel-
phia: University Museum, 1914) 151–56; G. A. Barton, Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 35
tween Lagash and Umma, Ennatum’s successor, Entemena, added new epi-
thets for Enlil: “King of all Foreign Countries” and “Father of the Gods.” 125
It was consequently within Enlil’s divine prerogative as “God of Heaven and
Earth” to confer on the kings in the territories of Umma and Lagash com-
plete authority over all mankind 126 (map 3).
In their historical inscriptions, these early rulers attempted to demon-
strate the close relationship between themselves and the great Enlil. In the
broadest sense, the titles conferred upon the deity identify some of the earli-
est and most important characteristics of the Storm-god. 127 He is the domi-
nant stormy element constantly involved with humanity, the regulator and
shaper of the destinies of the inhabitants of Sumer. In view of his unparal-
leled dominance, throughout Sumerian history numerous myths, hymns,
and prayers were dedicated to “Lord Storm.”
Implicit in some of the early mythic descriptions of Enlil’s functional
characteristics is the Sumerian concept of the storm and its effect upon the
ebb and flow of human affairs. Titles such as “Lord of the Air, the Wind, the
Storm” 128 or “The Great Mountain,” and “Mountain of Wind” 129 vividly
Akkad (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929) 66, 152–55. He is also given this title on
three occasions by Lugalzagesi at the end of the Early Dynastic Period. See also, Dhorme,
Les religions, 26; Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 31–32; Kramer, The Sumerians,
appendix C: Votive Inscriptions, nos. 2, 3, and 14; and W. W. Hallo and W. K. Simpson,
The Ancient Near East: A History (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1971) 43–44.
125. Barton, Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad, 6–8. Note especially cone A,
col. I, line 29, pp. 38–39; cone B, col. I, line 29, pp. 60–61, where Enlil is mentioned; and
Jean, La religion sumérienne, 37, where Lugalzagesi gives Enlil the epithet “King of all For-
eign Countries.” In addition, both cones call Enlil “king of the lands.” See also Kramer, The
Sumerians, appendix C: Votive Inscriptions, no. 11, excerpt from the inscription on the
“Stele of Vultures,” b; Jacobsen, “Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article,” 112–14.
126. F. Thureau-Dangin, Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad (Paris: Leroux, 1905) 222;
Jean, La religion sumérienne, 36–37.
127. Aside from the familiar political titles of Enlil, early Mesopotamian literature is
replete with a host of other appellatives for the great Sumerian Storm-god. Among these
are, for example, “Bull of Heaven,” “King of the Raging Storms,” “Bond of the Heaven and
Earth,” “God of the Throne,” “Lord of Splendor,” “The Senior Lord,” “Lord, Heart of the
Land,” “God of the Northwind,” “The Great Mountain,” “King of the Shining Habita-
tion,” “King of the Mulberry Trees,” “Lord of the Horn,” “God of Dream,” “God of the
Mountain Wind,” and many others. See CT 24: 5, 38, 39–41, and pp. 295–96; and
Dhorme, Les religions, 25, 48.
128. See Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 85, 102–3; Jean, La religion suméri-
enne, 36.
129. Enlil is here called Im-hur-sag ‘the mountain from which the wind blows’, or
‘Mountain of Wind’. A. Falkenstein, ZA 45 (1939) 34; E. Ebeling et al. (eds.), Reallexicon
der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie (henceforth RlA; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1928–) 2.110.
36 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
expresses the ancients’ perception of Enlil’s nature and character. These con-
ceptions of the Storm-god appear in literary sources reaching back as early as
about 2360 b.c.e., the end of Early Dynastic III and the beginning of the
Akkadian Period. 130
The Sumerian Storm-god operated in a cosmos controlled and adminis-
tered by a pantheon of other deities in accordance with duly prescribed laws,
much like human society. 131 His most prominent colleagues were An, the
Sky-god and head of the pantheon; Enki, the god of wisdom; Inanna, the
goddess of war, sex, and fertility; Utu, the sun-god of justice and equality;
Ninhursag, the Mother-goddess; Ereshkigal, queen of the Netherworld; Ner-
gal, king of the Netherworld; and so on.
As were all of the other important deities, the powerful Enlil was per-
ceived anthropomorphically. He was the supreme force in the universe. He
130. Note J. N. Postgate, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and
Akkad,” in CANE, 1.398–400.
131. T. Jacobsen, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia,” ZA 48 (1957) 91–
140, repr. in Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and
Culture (ed. W. Moran; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970) 132–56; Kramer, The
Sumerians, 112–19.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 37
132. On the important dual aspect of Enlil’s personality and its impact on the earliest
Sumerian compositions, see Kramer, ibid., 118–21, particularly the hymn venerating the
great Enlil and his temple, the Ekur of Nippur; Jacobsen, The Harps That Once, 101–11.
133. CT 15, 10.18–20; Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 99.
134. A good example is found in T. Jacobsen, “The Creation of the Hoe,” Textes re-
ligieux sumériens du Louvre 72 (Paris: Leroux, 1930) xv–xvi; Kramer, “The Myth of the
Creation of the Pick-Axe,” 31–32, 111–14. See also Kramer, The Sumerians, 172–79;
T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Planting of Man: A Study in Biblical Imagery,” in Love and Death
in the Ancient Near East (ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good; Guilford, Conn.: Four Quar-
ters, 1987) 130–31.
135. G. A. Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1918) no. 4. iv. 23–30; S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts from Nippur (AASOR
23; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944) no. 19 rev. In addition, see idem, Sumerian
38 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
The words of yet another Early Dynastic “Hymn to Enlil” make it very clear
that the fields will not yield abundantly without his personal decision.
Without Enlil . . . . . . . .
...............
In the sky the rain-laden clouds
Could not open their mouths,
In the fields the tilth could not sprout
The mottled barley,
In the desert its green spots could not
Let grass and herbs grow long,
In the orchards the broad trees of the mountains
Could not bear fruit. 136
The Storm-god is an important player in the fertility process. The hand of
Enlil is manifest in the flourishing vegetation that springs to life after the
floodwaters are channeled through the dikes and canals. Hence, Enlil’s func-
tion clearly constitutes the ancients’ mythopoeic interpretation of rain.
It has been reasonably proposed that Enlil’s role as a fertility deity is em-
phasized in the Myth of Enlil and Ninlil from the later Early Dynastic III or
the Early Sargonic Period. Here Enlil takes Ninlil by force, impregnates her,
and as a result is banished to the Netherworld. On the way to the Nether-
world with Enlil, following the birth of the moon-god Nanna, Ninlil is once
again impregnated by Enlil in the guise of several men, and she engenders
three more deities, all chthonic in nature. Jacobsen has indicated that Enlil’s
importance to the fertility process must be mythopoeically understood: Nin-
lil, the grain, is impregnated by Enlil, the wind actively bringing pollination
and rain.
Jacobsen has proposed that this action of the Storm-god, which engen-
ders the three chthonic deities Meslamtaea, Ninazu, and Ennugi, could very
well be seen in relation to the cult of the dying and reviving gods of fertility.
Enlil, the fertile wind, after pollinating the grain, dies with the passing of
spring, as the grain goes under the ground. 137 Another hymn states that Enlil
Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium b.c.
(Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1944) 43–47; Jacobsen, Treasures of Dark-
ness, 98–99; idem, “Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article,” 109–11; idem, The Harps
That Once, 145–51, 179–80.
136. A. Falkenstein, “Hymn to Enlil,” Sumerische Götterlieder (Abhandlungen der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1; Heidelberg: Winter,
1959–60) 16, lines 9, 119–20; Kramer, “Hymn to Enlil,” The Sumerians, 121; and particu-
larly Jacobsen, The Harps That Once, 108, 120–22.
137. See idem, Treasures of Darkness, 103–4; idem, The Harps That Once, 167–70.
Note also Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions, no. 4; E. Chiera, Sumerian Epics
and Myths (OIP 15; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934) nos. 76 and 77; Kramer,
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 39
“sets up his dais on the mountain mist, he rotates it in the heaven like a rain-
bow, he makes it roam about like a floating cloud.” 138 In this context, the
great Storm-god Enlil upon whom the fertility of the land depends, is myth-
ically conceived as riding in the clouds and winds.
The Mesopotamian is always aware, however, that an inimical side that is
deeply dreaded balances this beneficent side of Enlil’s character. In yet an-
other hymn from this period, this hostile side of his personality is perceived
as the destructive force of the wind when the storm lashes out violently over
the lands:
The mighty one, Enlil,
Whose utterance cannot be changed,
He is the storm, destroying the cattle pen,
Uprooting the sheepfold.
My roots are torn up! My forests denuded! 139
The deity’s rage is so terrifying that it makes him unreachable and immune to
appeals. In the words of a poem, Enlil allows his people to perish mercilessly
in the raging storm:
O father Enlil, whose eyes are glaring (wildly),
How long till they will be at peace again?
O thou who covered up thy head with a cloth—how long?
O thou who laid thy head upon thy knees—how long?
O mighty one who with thy fingers sealed thine ears—how long?
O father Enlil, even now they perish! 140
It has been argued that the view of Enlil as a hostile and destructive deity is a
misconception 141 attributable to the unusually large proportion of lamenta-
tion-type texts that emphasize the Storm-god’s unhappy duty of carrying out
Sumerian Literary Texts, no. 19; idem, The Sumerians, 145–47. For the other myth of Enlil
and Ninlil, see M. Civil and E. Reiner, “Another Volume of The Sultantepe Tablets,” JNES
26 (1967) 200–205.
138. See Falkenstein, “Hymn to Enlil,” 16, particularly lines 96–98; T. Jacobsen (ed.
and trans.), “Hymn to Enlil,” The Harps That Once . . . (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1987) 107, lines 95–100.
139. G. A. Reisner, Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit
(Berlin: W. Spemann, 1896) no. 4, lines 100–105; and Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness,
101.
140. Reisner, Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen, 30–31, lines 48–55; and Jacobsen, The
Treasures of Darkness, 102.
141. On this issue, see D. O. Edzard, “Enlil,” in Wörterbuch der Mythologie, vol. 1: Die
Mythologie der alten Kulturvölker, Vorderer Orient (ed. H. W. Haussig; Stuttgart: Ernst
Klett, 1965) 136, with reference to CT 15, 15–16, where he has argued that the Sumerian
Storm-god is exclusively a destructive power.
40 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
the destruction and misfortune decreed by the assembly of the gods. 142 Nu-
merous texts make it quite clear that the Sumerians glorified Enlil as a
friendly and fatherly god who watched over the safety and well-being of the
inhabitants of Sumer. The earliest inscriptional evidence, though honorific in
nature, is reflective of this position. 143 In his role as “Father of the gods” and
“King of heaven and earth,” Enlil was the most important Sumerian deity
from earliest times. 144 Within his mythic persona, however, were also em-
bodied the powers of authority and legitimate force that were fundamental
constituents of the state. Thus it seems reasonable to expect that the activities
of Enlil included the soothing effects of the benign zephyr or the terror of the
destructive storm—the two-sided characteristics of the wind.
It is no wonder that the ancients could never be fully at ease with or
fathom the intricacies of Enlil’s mind. Mythopoeically, Enlil, who normally
upheld and guaranteed order in the cosmos, would suddenly and unpredict-
ably burst forth in the violent storm, crushing and scattering all in his path.
This unpredictability of Enlil finds expression in another Early Dynastic
hymn:
What has he planned . . . ?
What is in my father’s heart . . . ?
What is in Enlil’s lofty mind . . . ?
142. So Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 165–66; and also Kramer, The Sume-
rians, especially his discussion on pp. 119–21.
143. Among the kings of the Early Dynastic Period, Eannatum, Enshakushanna, En-
temena, and others saw themselves as chosen to kingship by the kindness and benevolence
of the great god, the “God of heaven and earth,” “King of all the lands,” and “Father of the
gods.” In return, Eannatum built a temple for Enlil, and he and other kings continually
made offerings and gifts. See A. T. Clay, “Entemena,” in Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscrip-
tions (ed. G. A. Barton; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1918) 1.5–7; Thureau-Dangin,
Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Accad, 220, 222, 223, 231; Jean, La religion sumérienne, 27, 37, 38;
and H. de Genouillac, Textes économiques d’Oumma de l’époque d’Our (Paris: Geuthner,
1922) 5672, I, 14; CT 32, pl. 10, col. III, 22; Kramer, The Sumerians, appendix C, Votive
Inscription, no. 14; E. Sollberger and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales Sumeriennes et
Akkadiennes (Litteratures anciennes du Proche-Orient 3; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 2.66–67.
144. This, of course, may be contrary to the view that Anu was actually head of the
Sumerian pantheon until replaced by Enlil sometime before 2500 b.c.e. Cf. Frankfort, The
Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, 143–44. It is questionable methodology to use later
myths and epics as evidence for religious ideas in very early periods in Mesopotamian reli-
gious history. The artifactual and literary evidence of the Proto- and Early Dynastic Periods
does not necessarily reflect the religious or even assumed political themes of the mytholo-
gies and epics written after the middle of the third millennium b.c.e. See, e.g., B. Goff,
Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963) 213–14,
263–64; and W. G. Lambert, “Myth and Mythmaking in Sumer and Akkad,” in CANE,
3.1825–35.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 41
145. Ebeling, KAR, 34.375 ii. 1–8; see also Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 101–2.
146. A. Deimel, Sumerisches Lexikon (4 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1925–50) 399: 6, 10, 13, 15, 16.
147. Idem, Schultexte aus Fara, in Umschrift herausgegeben und bearbeitet (WVDOG
42; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923) no. 1 (VAT 12760), no. 7 (VAT 12761); and subsequently,
the discussions of the Fara god lists by J. van Dijk, “Le motif cosmique dans la pensée
42 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
the Storm-god, dim, spread with the diffusion of cuneiform and Akkadian all
over the ancient Near East. Storm-gods from different regions came to be
identified with each other by this common Sumerian designation. A late syn-
cretistic attempt to systematize the study of these gods by indicating the dif-
ferent names of the Storm-gods corresponding to dim has been preserved in a
cuneiform list from the library of Ashurbanipal. The An-Anum groupings
constitute an excellent source for comparative studies on the subject. 148
The Fara Texts, which immediately preceded the time of Urnanshe (ca.
2400 b.c.e.) in Early Dynastic III, do not presuppose the existence of an or-
ganized pantheon. 149 Indeed, the ten different texts give only lists of gods’
names, organized in a similar fashion to the lexical lists found earlier in the
Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods; however, none of these lists is arranged ac-
cording to any genealogical pattern, nor do they suggest the existence of any
mythologies associated with these deities. The name of the god Ningirsu,
“Lord of Girsu’, 150 first appears in Eannatum’s Inscription during the Early
Dynastic III Period. 151 However, it is not until the end of the Gutian Inter-
lude that Gudea of Lagash states that Ningirsu is the eldest son of Enlil. 152
Neither Gudea nor any ruler from the earlier periods placed any other god in
sumérienne,” AcOr 28 (1964) 3–4; and by W. G. Lambert, RlA 2.473–74. See also
R. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abu Íalabikh (OIP 99; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1974)
nos. 23 ii 8; 21 ii 9; and 51 i 1.
148. For a reconstruction and discussion of the series see H. Zimmern, Berichte über
die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Phi-
lologisch-Historische Klasse; Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1910) 83–125; and subse-
quently, R. Litke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: dA-nu-um and
AN: Anu sa ameli (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1958); W. G. Lambert, “Götter-
embleme s. Göttersymbole,” RlA 3.469–70; idem, “Götterlisten,” RlA 3.473–79.
149. A. Deimel, Die Inschriften von Fara (3 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922–24) 1, 2, 3,
5, 40, 43, 45; Lambert, “Götterlisten,” 473–74.
150. See, e.g., K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta (hereafter AG; StudOr 7; Hel-
sinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1938) 104; Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 32–
33. It is still not clear whether Girsu denoted a city-state containing many cities or a sub-
division of the city of Lagash. What is clear, however, is that Ningirsu was the chief deity
of Lagash. Both Eannatum and Uruinimgina refer to the limits of their territories as the
“limits of Ningirsu,” L. Heuzey and F. Thureau-Dangin, Reconstruction matérielle de la Stele
des Vautours (Paris: Leroux, 1909) XX, 17–18; rev. I, 17ff.; IX, 22; and E. Sollberger, Corpus
des inscriptions “royales” présargoniques de Lagash (Geneva: Droz, 1956) 9–10; W. Nagel,
Der mesopotamische Streitwagen und seine Entwicklung im ostmediterranen Bereich (Berlin:
Hessling, 1966).
151. Kramer, The Sumerians, appendix C, Votive Inscriptions, nos. 8–22.
152. Falkenstein and von Soden (eds.), Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Ge-
bete, 147, cylinder A, col. X, line 13; Jacobsen, “The Gudea Cylinder,” in The Harps That
Once, 430–31.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 43
153. Beginning with Enkhegal, the rulers of Lagash consistently paid homage to the
warlike qualities of Ningirsu. For the earliest reference to Ningirsu from a mace-head of
Mesilim found in Telloh, see F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königs-
inschriften (VB 1/1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907) 160–61. See also Jacobsen, Toward the Image
of Tammuz, 32–33, 123–25, 384–85 n. 71; 377–78 nn. 38–41; 349 n. 68; idem, Treasures
of Darkness, 81–84; Kramer, The Sumerians, 137–40. The “Stele of Vultures” shows Nin-
girsu catching a multitude of warriors from Umma in his great net, smiting their protrud-
ing heads.
154. Tallqvist, AG, 104.
155. Barton, Royal Inscriptions, 42–46, 56–58.
156. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinchriften, 30–39. See
also Kramer, The Sumerians, appendix C, Votive Inscriptions, nos. 14–21.
157. See Goff, Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia, 224–25.
158. Falkenstein and von Soden, SAHG, 147, col. X, line 2; 160, col. XXIII, line 14.
159. See Tallqvist, AG, 421–22; Jean, La religion sumérienne, 36–39; E. Ebeling, RlA
2.110–11; and Dhorme, Les religions, 19, 49.
160. Ninurta is mentioned in the texts from Drehem in company with the goddess
Nin-en-lil(ki) and with Nukshi, god of fire. Dhorme, Les religions, 102. See also Jacobsen,
44 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
logically listed as the oldest son of Enlil. He was called “the God of War and
Hunt,” the “Champion (hero) of Enlil,” and “Champion (hero) of the
Gods.” 161 His home was the city of Nippur, where he appears to have been a
surrogate for Enlil. As were his father, Enlil, and his brother Ningirsu,
Ninurta was associated with the thunderstorm and fertilizing rains. While
primarily conceptualized as a Storm-god, like Ningirsu his foremost quality
is that of a fierce warrior; his heroic qualities and deeds are extolled particu-
larly in such late-third-millennium b.c.e. hymns as “The Feats and Exploits
of Ninurta.” 162
It is apparent from the texts that Ningirsu was simply given a Nippurian
name, Ninurta, when he became a god of this city. The texts relate Ninurta’s
triumphal return as a warrior to Ekur, the temple of Enlil in Nippur. 163 The
rich mythic-religious content of the Angim (hymns) may be accorded various
interpretations. 164 Emerging at the end of the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2100–
2000 b.c.e.), Ninurta’s warrior attributes are rather complex, possibly re-
flecting certain geopolitical realities. Ninurta may equally be a reflection of
the personified forces of nature and an embodiment of the thunderstorm. By
the Old Babylonian Period, Ningirsu and Ninurta have come to represent
one and the same divine force; they are completely merged and have the same
genealogy, personality, and character. 165
Mythopoeically, the ancient Mesopotamians conceived of the Storm-god
in human terms, imbued with human attributes, and employing on the cos-
mic plane all the requisite human prerogatives. Due in part to the horrifying
nature of the storm and its impact on society, however, Mesopotamians also
utilized nonhuman portrayals to describe this deity and to characterize his
Treasures of Darkness, 127–34; Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 32–33, 123–25,
384–85 notes; Kramer, The Sumerians, 151–53; N. Schneider, Die Götternamen von Ur III
(AnOr 19; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1939) 66; F. Thureau-Dangin, “Les dieux de
Sumer: Liste de dieux,” RA 32 (1935) 117–24, 156.
161. Idem, Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Accad, 47, 51, 53; and VB 31, IV, 24.
162. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 32–33; idem, The Treasures of Darkness,
128–34; Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 79–83. For the two versions of Ninurta’s victory
over the Anzu, see also B. J. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature
(Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1993) vol. 1, III. 22, pp. 461–86.
163. Note, for example, J. Cooper, The Return of Ninurta to Nippur: an-gim dim-ma
(AnOr 52; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978) 1–3.
164. See ibid., 2–8, for a brief synopsis of the different interpretations. See in addition,
J. J. van Dijk, The Ninurta Myth Lugal-e (Leiden: Brill, 1983) 1.1–37; Jacobsen, “The
Ninurta Myth Lugal-e,” The Harps That Once, 233–72.
165. The genealogies of both deities now derive from Enlil, and the two arms of Nin-
girsu, the sarur and the sar-gaz , correspond to the right and the left hand of Ninurta. See
Dhorme, Les religions, 102–9, 128–29; Tallqvist, AG, 421–22; Jacobsen, Toward the Image
of Tammuz, 32–33.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 45
171. This is according to a text from a later period. C. Bezold, “Description of the Im-
ages of Serpents,” Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection IV (London:
British Museum, 1888–89) no. 1775; and Landsberger, Fauna des alten Mesopotamien, 53.
See also Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 18–19; Jacobsen, Toward the
Image of Tammuz, 36.
172. Idem, “The Ninurta Myth,” 233ff., 237 n. 7; idem, “The Cylinders of Gudea,”
400–401, lines 20–25 n. 46; p. 407, lines 20–31, etc.; de Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes,
Gudea Cylinder A, XV: 23–27; Barton, The Royal Inscriptions, 205–6; A. L. Oppenheim,
“Gudea, Ensi of Lagash,” in ANET, 268–69; and Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient Me-
sopotamia,” 18–19.
173. Bezold, Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection IV, no. 1775:
13; and Landsberger, Fauna des alten Mesopotamien, 53. See also Van Buren, “The Dragon
in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 16.
174. See de Sarzec and Heuzey, Découvertes, “Cylinder,” A, XXVI:24–25, “Statue” B,
XVI:6; Oppenheim, “Gudea, Ensi of Lagash,” 368; Jacobsen, “The Gudea Cylinder,” A,
p. 401, lines 20–25. Fastenings on the door in the shape of a usum-gallu are described in
PBS 9, p. 20, 2; and “Cylinder” A, X:19. Note also Van Buren, “The Dragon in Ancient
Mesopotamia,” 17.
175. Radau, The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, series A: cu-
neiform texts XXIX, I, no. 4:3; Witzel, Keilschrift Studien, Heft 2, p. 94; and Van Buren,
“The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 17.
176. Vanel, L’iconographie, 22–23.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 47
182. As in the myth in E. Chiera, “King, Storm, the Glory of Which Is Noble,” in
Sumerian Religious Texts: Catalogue of the Babylonian Cuneiform Tablets in the Princeton
University Library (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1921) no. 18.
183. See, e.g., D. O. Edzard, “Mesopotamien: Die Mythologie der Sumer und
Akkader,” WdM 1.136; W. W. Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad: Texts and Studies (Ph.D.
Dissertation, Harvard University, 1976) 1–2. Iskur as the reading for dim was initially dem-
onstrated by B. Hrozny, ZA 20 (1907) 424–26; and by the syllabic Sumerian column of the
Sumero-Akkadian-Hittite trilingual hymn in KUB IV 6 (+), 11, edited by E. Laroche in
“Un hymne trilingue à Iskur-Adad,” RA 58 (1964) 69–78. However, even though dim may
be identified in these earlier sources, J. J. M. Roberts has plausibly shown that the source
material in which this ideogram is found is fraught with problems. First, the ideogram
appears almost exclusively among Semitic theophoric names scattered throughout Old
Akkadian and Sumerian documents. In addition, one cannot always be sure whether the
theophoric element in the personal name is, in fact, a proper divine name. If the theophoric
element is a proper divine name, then there is the additional problem of determining
whether the proper divine name is Sumerian, Semitic, or even something else. To this must
be added the problem of ascertaining the character of the deity. J. J. M. Roberts, The Ear-
liest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972) 1–5.
184. See, for example, a good assemblage of early material on dim during the Old
Babylonian Period in Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad: Texts and Studies.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 49
A fragmentary text that has been dated to near the end of the Early Dynastic
Period refers to Iskur as the son of Enlil who was appointed to be in charge
of “the silver lock of the heart of heaven.” 190 This deity therefore apparently
functioned as the lord of winds.
Iskur was also metaphorically identified as the protector of the flock, care-
fully tethering his cows in upland pastures. In one fragment he is actively
engaged as the herdsman’s god of thunderstorms and is called the whirlwind
and a bull. 191 Iskur’s important fecundating function is emphasized in
Temple Hymn no. 27 and other early literature. 192 He is described as a “dev-
astating flood,” “the south and seven raging winds,” and “the water warden
of heaven and earth who bestows life upon the numerous people.” Under the
general symbolism of a bull, Iskur keeps the moisture of the clouds together
so that it can provide rain for the the parched soil instead of evaporating into
the intense heat.
In his inscription from the Gutian Interlude, Gudea likens the deep, re-
verberant sound of the cedar door in the temple to Iskur bellowing from
heaven. 193 Among historical references to the role of Iskur in the events lead-
ing up to the Ur III period, the single most important statement is found in
an inscription by Utuhengal of Uruk. As he prepared to march northward to
engage the Gutians in battle, in a speech to the people of Uruk and Karkara
he stated that he had offered a prayer to Iskur, and in the middle of the night
Iskur caused a storm to blow that ravaged the country northward. These
early sources also seem to indicate that Iskur’s home, and the site of his
temple, was the city of Karkara, near Uruk. 194
Sumerian Temple Hymns, 36–37, and commentary by Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad,
55–58; Falkenstein, SAHG, 81ff.; Langdon, Semitic Mythology, 41; CT 15, 15; and S. N.
Kramer in ANET, 578.
190. Idem, Sumerian Mythology, 61; and the fragmentary myth, Istanbul Nippur
12501, edited and discussed in Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 31–52.
191. Published by S. N. Kramer, From the Tablets of Sumer (Indian Hills, Colo.: Fal-
con Wings, 1956) 160ff.; and A. Falkenstein, “Die Anunna in der sumerischen Überliefer-
ung” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965
(AS 16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965) 127–40. It has been dated to as early
as the latter part of Early Dynastic III but not later than 2400 b.c.e.
192. Sjöberg and Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns, 36–37. For
a reconstruction and translation with commentary see, in addition, Doyle, The Storm-God
Iskur-Adad, 53–58.
193. Gudea’s Cylinder A, lines 20–21 in A. Falkenstein, Grammatik der Sprache
Gudea von Lagash (AnOr 28; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949) 10ff.; de Sarzec and
Heuzey, “Gudea, Ensi of Lagash,” Découvertes en Chaldée, 268–69; Doyle, The Storm-God
Iskur-Adad, 6; Jacobsen, “The Gudea Cylinder,” 421, lines 20–21.
194. See J. Renger, “Zur Lokalisierung von Karkar,” AfO 20 (1970) 73–78; and
Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 6, 18–21, nn. 20, 21. Two other dedicatory inscriptions
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 51
reinforce this possibility, both from the Old Babylonian Period. The first is by Sin-kasid
(ca. 1850 b.c.e.) in A. Falkenstein, Archäische Texte aus Uruk (Ausgrabungen der Deut-
schen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963) 50–51, pl. 6:2,
which records the building of the temple “House like Great Storm, Built on a Fearful Site,”
dedicated to Iskur. Whether the second refers to a temple or a side-chapel inside the temple
is not clear. See R. Biggs, “An Inscription of Dilum-Gamil of Uruk,” in Studies Presented to
A. L. Oppenheim (ed. R. M. Adams; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964) 1–5,
which states that u-bar- dim “for the life of Ilum-gamil king of Uruk, son of Sin-iribam, had
built Iskur’s temple.” Ilum-gamil ruled ca. 1823 b.c.e. For additional discussion, see Doyle,
The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 138–40.
195. E. Chiera, Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents (OIP 16; Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1934) no. 57; and Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 163–66.
196. Schneider, Die Götternamen von Ur III, 8; and Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-
Adad, 8.
197. Ibid., 6 nn. 14–16.
198. The earliest is the pre-Sargonic Il-Addu = Addu-Is-God. Cf. R. R. Jestin, Nou-
velles tablettes sumériennes de Shuruppak au Musée d’Istanbul (Bibliothèque archéologique et
historique de l’Institut français d’archéologie d’Istanbul; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1957) 276,
obv. (?), 2:5. However, Ad-da may also be translated ‘father’. See also Il-Addu (dingir-
Ad-du), found in Deimel’s Schultexte aus Fara, VAT 12511, 9: 5, p. 26. There are also the
Sargonic A-du-ba-na, probably ‘God is gracious’, and other theophoric names from this
period in Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 13–14.
52 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
dence for an initial identification of the combined Iskur and Adad as a unit.
In later Sumerian texts, however, the Semitic deity Adad does not appear
along with the Sumerian Iskur and conversely, in Semitic contexts dim clearly
signifies the Semitic Adad.
The standard Akkadian reading of dim as Adad was first established by
Lehmann-Haupt in 1899 and subsequently confirmed by many other lines
of textual evidence. 201 Among other factors that will be pointed out below,
the existence of the many orthographic variants of the deity’s name has led to
the conclusion that Adad is probably not of south Mesopotamian origin.
There are, for example, the late god-lists with the entry dAd-du = dim, or
Ad-du = the Storm-god of the west. 202 The etymology of Addu is found in
the Arabic root hdd ‘to thunder’ and such terms as hadda ‘break, ruin’; haddu
‘destruction, harsh, noise, braying’; haddatu ‘sound of rainfall’; and haddatu
‘thunderer’. 203 These etymologies indicate that the Storm-god Adad was a
deity of rain and perceived as the ‘thunderer’. 204
The fact that the earliest pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Sumerian documents
identify Adad with Iskur, the son of Enlil, and not with Enlil himself streng-
thens the argument that Adad was alien to the south Mesopotamian scene.
Later, however, in the Old Babylonian Myth of Ninurta and the Anzu Bird,
Adad is called the son of Enlil. In this way, the later Semites placed their
Storm-god almost on the same level with the great Sumerian Storm-god.
Even though the evidence seems to indicate that Adad’s attributes paralleled
those of Enlil in many respects, he could not completely qualify for Enlil’s
task as the greatest among the gods or acquire a definitive place in the Sumer-
ian pantheon.
It is apparent, however, that Adad enjoyed increasing popularity in Mes-
opotamian religion, even though he was not a part of the Sumerian pan-
theon. After Old Babylonian times, the cult of Adad became so widespread
that it led to the frequent use of his symbol in a variety of scenes all over
Mesopotamia. His cult centers have been found, among other places, in
Assur, Babylon, Dilbat, Dur-pad.da, Dur-Rimush, Eshnunna, imki, Isin,
Lagaba, Larsa, Kish, Lagash, Nippur, and Sippar. 205 The temple of Adad at
Bit Karkara was known as Ud-gal-gal ‘the Mighty Storms’. To the ancients
this demonstrated the fundamental conception of the deity. 206
The evidence collected on the god Adad during Sargonic times by J. J. M.
Roberts 207 lists theophoric names with either the god Adda or dim in good
Semitic forms. W. W. Doyle’s material focuses methodologically on the
grammatical and lexical aspects of the literary material involving Iskur-Adad
during the Babylonian Period. 208 It has been noted, however, as indicated
above that, when the ideogram dim appears primarily in a Semitic literary
context, a Sumerian reading Iskur, while unlikely, cannot always be ruled
out, even if Ad(d)u /Anda may be more likely 209 (as, for example, in the later
Mari texts). 210 While Adad may not have been a member of the Nippurian
pantheon in early pre-Sargonic times, a plausible argument may be made for
his inclusion after the Sargonic Period, at least, in view of his popular identi-
fication with the Sumerian Iskur. 211
212. Hammurabi ascribed both the inundation of the fields and the destruction of the
crops to Adad, while simultaneously relying on the deity’s protection by invoking Adad
against his enemies. See Code of Hammurabi, in ANET, 179. These opposing aspects of the
god’s nature are specifically mentioned in his defeat of the Anzu bird, where the feats of
Ninurta are ascribed to Adad. Foster, Before the Muses, 2.545–48.
213. On the basis of the Sumerian King-List, Ur-Ninurta’s dates would be 1932–
1893 b.c.e. See, e.g., M. B. Rowton, “The Date of the Sumerian King-List,” JNES 19
(1960) 122.
214. Note especially the adab compositions regarding Ur-Ninurta of Isin by A. Falk-
enstein, “Sumerische religiöse Texte,” ZA 49 (1949) 80. These have been edited by Doyle,
in The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 59–61. The basic text is VAT 8212.
215. CT 15, 15–16.
216. Basically, Iskur is here the god of all storms; or “Seven storms” = “all storms”; see
J. J. Finkelstein, ”Untersuchungen zur sumerischen Grammatik,” ZA 45 (1954) 187; and
T. H. Gaster Festschrift ( JANESCU 5; ed. David Marcus; New York: Columbia University,
1973) 423 n. 16, as in “Enuma Elish” IV 45–47.
217. This earliest metaphor of the Storm-god “mounted on the storm” was initially
restricted to Iskur alone in a Sumerian context. Cf. von Soden, AHw, 945; A. Salonen,
AnOr 17 (1978) 316. However, the same idea is expressed regarding Adad at a later date in
Atrahasis: dAdad i-na sar erbetti ir-ta-kab pa-reªeº-[su] ‘Adad mounted upon the four winds,
[his] asses’. See W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the
Flood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1999) 122, rev. 5. Even though the word ‘chariot’ never appears in texts dealing with Iskur-
Adad, as has been pointed out by Doyle (The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 81), it is commonplace
in compositions dealing with Ninurta. Foster, Before the Muses, “Atrahasis” II.39, 1.158–74.
218. CT 42 no. 10, which is BM 65145. On this Sumerian hymn, see S. N. Kramer,
“Collations to CT XLII,” JCS 23 (1978) 12; and also Doyle’s translation in The Storm-God
Iskur-Adad, 93–96.
219. See Tallqvist, AG, p. 438 [CT 25, 17: 38]; AG, 477 [CT 25, 20: 2, 3]; Schroeder,
KAV [WVDOG 35] p. 172 rev. 6; AG, p. 476 [CT 25, 20: 14, 24; 40: 45]; AG, 397 [CT
29, 45: 18; 25, 17: 35]; AG, 357 [CT 24: 32]. See also Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 154–55.
220. CT 15, 3–4; D. O. Edzard (ed.), Adam Falkenstein Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag,
17 Sept 1966 (Heidelberg Studien zum Alten Orient; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967)
185–99. Note also Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 103–6.
221. W. W. Hallo, “Royal Inscriptions of the Early Babylonian Period: A Bibliogra-
phy,” BiOr 18 (1961) 10; C. J. Gadd, Ur Excavation Texts I, No. 145 (Philadelphia: Mu-
seum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1928) (A) and p. 44; Sollberger, Ur Excavation
Texts, VIII no. 87 (B) and p. 19; Barton, Royal Inscriptions from Sumer and Akkad, 38ff.;
I. Karki, Die Sprache der sumerischen Königsinschriften der frühaltbabylonischen Zeit (StudOr
35; Helsinki, 1968) 71ff.; Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 132–34.
56 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
222. Lines 308–16, “Enki and the World Order: The Organization of the Earth and
Its Cultural Processes,” in Kramer, The Sumerians, 180; Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad,
141; Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 85–86.
223. Tallqvist, AG, 352 [CT 25, 20: 7; KAV 172 rev. 8]; AG, p. 357 [CT 25, 20: 10,
21; KAV 172 rev. 12]; AG, p. 256 [CT 25, 16: 9]; and Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 155.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 57
224. K.24 + S. H. Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies (Paris: Geuthner, 1913) 16, I 5–18;
Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 151–52; and R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschriftlitera-
tur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967–75) 1.277.
225. See K.5209, in Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies, 13, lines 18–19; and Doyle, The
Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 162.
226. Chiera, Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents, no. 57; and identified as a hymn for
Iskur in C. Wilcke, “Formale Gesichtspunkte in der sumerischen Literatur,” in Sumerolog-
ical Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974 (AS 20;
ed. S. J. Lieberman; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976).
227. K.4614 in S. Langdon, Babylonian Penitential Psalms (Oxford Editions of Cu-
neiform Texts 6; Paris: Geuthner, 1927) 31ff.; M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyr-
ischen Könige bis zum Untergang Nineveh’s (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) 364; Doyle, The
Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 166–67.
228. CT 24, 40: 38–43. Note also E. Ebeling, “Adad,” in RlA 1.22–26.
58 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
Farther to the northwest, the Mari texts show that Addu rather than Adad
is the reading of dim. The late god list contains the entry dAd-du = dim.
marki, or Ad-du = the Storm-god of the west. 229 This is a confirmation that
Adad was not of south Mesopotamian origin. Addu is the most frequently in-
voked deity in the Mari theophorous names, appearing in more than 200. In
addition, he is also called the lord of Appan, Arraphum, Halap, Kallassu,
Kulmis, Mahanum, and Terqa. 230 Fulfilling one of his primary functions as
patron of the kings of the region, Addu is mythically conceptualized as a bull
who conceives the kings “between my thighs” (with my testicles), and estab-
lishes them on their respective thrones. 231 He arms them with the “weapons
of Addu,” 232 scatters their foes in battle, and as the lord of the region grants
his kings house upon house, territory upon territory, and city upon city, from
east to west. 233 In this region, the focus on Addu’s personality is primarily on
his characteristic as a fear-inducing warrior.
While there is a paucity of mythological material bearing on Addu in the
Mari region during the Old Babylonian Period, the numerous other refer-
ences to the attributes of this divinity leave no doubt that his characteristics
are the same as those he had in Babylonia. Addu, the Storm-god of the west,
is the great thunderer who strikes fear in the heart of his enemies. Even
though he is lord of the storm, he is also the beneficent god of fertility who
controls the all-important rainfall upon which the well-being of the entire re-
gion depends.
The change in emphasis in our sources regarding to the nature and per-
sonality of the Storm-god, from Iskur to Iskur-Adad to Adad/Addu, from the
Early Dynastic through the Old Babylonian Periods, reveals an interesting de-
velopment. During the Early Dynastic Period, the mythical portrayal of Iskur
is primarily that of a benevolent herdsman’s god of the thunderstorms, who as
a bull fecundates his flocks and fertilizes the land. The scarcity of any mean-
ingful mythical, theophoric, or historical reference to Iskur during the subse-
quent Sargonic Period may signal that Iskur was no longer a very important
deity. It seems reasonable to presume, however, that the original mythical
personification of this deity as a peaceful water-warden whose thunderstorms
bestowed life on all people continued through the Akkadian Period.
229. Note CT 25, pl. 16, line 16; and Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 156.
230. Nakata, “Deities in the Mari Texts,” 18–27.
231. As in the letter of Nur-Sin to Zimri-Lim. See G. Dossin, CRRAI 14, 78; A. Mala-
mat, “History and Prophetic Vision in a Mari Letter,” ErIsr 5 (1958) 67–73; W. L. Moran,
in ANET 3, 625 n. 7; CAD B 250, where the deity is projected in the form of a bull.
232. G. Dossin, “Une lettre de Iarim-Lim, roi d’Alep, à Iasub-Iahad, roi de Dir,” Syria
33 (1956) lines 11 and 32.
233. Moran, ANET 3, 625 n. 29; and J. Renger, “Untersuchungen zum Priestertum
der altababylonischen Zeit,” ZA 60 (1969) 218–23.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 59
During the subsequent Gutian Interlude and Ur III Period, the benefi-
cent Iskur was characterized as the son of Enlil who, as the god of the herds-
man, had been given control of the winds. At the same time, he was projected
politically as the harsh and destructive Warrior-god, roaring and thundering
against his enemies.
It is during the post–Ur III Period that for the first time Iskur is consis-
tently identified with Adad, the Semitic Storm-god. His beneficence as a
deity is still emphasized, but more and more stress is placed on the malevo-
lent side of his nature throughout the Old Babylonian and into the Kassite
Period. There are now emphatic references to Iskur-Adad as a howling tem-
pest, a raging storm that causes the land to tremble. He has become, without
doubt, the violent god of destruction.
In the northern regions around Mari, however, Adad/Addu’s destructive
power is not projected mythically in the storm, winds, and rain. Rather, his
importance is highlighted time and again as the Warrior-god of the kings of the
region in their conquests around the kingdom of Mari and in the neighboring re-
gions. He is characterized as a terrible “Warrior-god.” The popularity of his cult
is evident from the numerous centers attributed to him and the hundreds of
theophorous names in the Mari texts.
The later mythological themes of Assyria are essentially Sumerian and
Babylonian in origin and character. In political and religious texts, no mean-
ingful conceptual change regarding the Storm-god Adad is apparent, since
these texts were essentially constructed on Old Babylonian models. The po-
litical representations of the Storm-god Adad continue to emphasize the mar-
tial side of his nature, in keeping with the overriding militaristic focus of the
Assyrian kings. Still, since the heartland of Assyria was located geographically
within the areas of northern Mesopotamia that depend on rainfall, we would
expect the fertilizing attributes of Adad to be popular in Assyria. It is interest-
ing that rain is referred to in Assyrian laws as “the waters of Adad.” 234
In the Assyrian recension of Atrahasis, Adad is projected mythically as
“Mounted [on] the four winds, [his] steeds. South wind, north wind, east
wind, and west wind. Storm, gale, whirlwind, cloudburst . . . the chariot of
the gods.” 235 In another portrayal of the harsh and destructive personality of
the Storm-god, Adad is referred to as the “one who gathers ice.” 236 Due in
234. T. J. Meek, “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” in ANET, 186, no. 18; Schroeder,
KAV 2, VI rev. 21.
235. Foster, Before the Muses, “Atrahasis” II.39, 1.195, lines 5–12.
236. See for example, KUB 4, 26: 5; E. Ebeling, Die akkadische Gebetsserie “Hander-
hebung” (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung
20; Berlin: Academie, 1953) 96, no. 20:19; and for suripu kasaru, T. Bauer, A. Falkenstein,
and B. Landsberger, “Lexikalisches Archiv,” ZA 42 (1934) 158 n. 1. See also M. Weinfeld,
“ ‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’ ” JNES 5 (1973) 426 and n. 42.
60 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
part to the terrifying side of this “god of the raging storm,” he is referred to
in other early Assyrian texts as bel (sa) birqi, musabriq, and nasu birqi. 237 This
association with thunder and lightning, mentioned in the texts as the most
important attribute of Adad (fig. 7a, b), corresponds to the Kassite kudurru
examples of the thunderbolt and lightning symbols held by a god carved in
relief, identified as Adad. 238 In these reliefs, Adad is depicted as the all-
powerful Assyrian Storm-god with his beard trimmed in Assyrian fashion.
He has four horns protruding from his head, long hair, a short tunic, and a
double- or triple-pronged thunderbolt in one hand and a battle-axe in the
other. As the great Storm-god, he was directly in control of the elements
affecting human life. In this and other traits, his nature parallels that of the
great Enlil (fig. 7c). 239
In spite of his immense power and influence, there is no evidence that
Adad had any cult center peculiar to him in Assyria proper. However, his in-
fluence as a deity continued to increase considerably from the Old Babylo-
nian Period onward, later reaching its apogee as the symbol of Assyrian
might. Such is the implication of Adad-nirari’s statement during the thir-
teenth century b.c.e., “May Adad overwhelm [the enemy] with an evil
downpour, may floods and storm, confusion and tumult, tempest, want and
famine, drought and hunger, continue in his land; may he [Adad] come upon
his land like a flood and turn it to tells and ruin. May Adad destroy his land
with destructive lightning and cast famine upon the land.” 240
237. Vanel, L’iconographie, 53; and Schroeder, KAV [WVDOG 35] 57: 4; Tallqvist,
AG, 248; and Schlobies, Der Wettergott in Mesopotamien, 11.
238. There are a number of important studies devoted to an analysis of this symbol.
See, e.g., Vanel, L’iconographie, 45–52; Van Buren, SG, 67–73; C. Frank, Bilder und
Symbole babylonisch-assyrischer Götter (LSS 2/2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906) 30–32; P. Jacobs-
thal, Der Blitz in der orientalischen und griechischen Kunst (Berlin: Wiedmann, 1906);
C. Blinkenberg, The Thunder-Weapon in Religion and Folklore (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1911); Schlobies, Der Wettergott in Mesopotamien; Demirciöglu, Der Gott auf
dem Stier; H. Prinz, Altorientalische Symbolik (Berlin: Curtiss, 1915) 126–29; Franz X.
Steinmetzer, Die babylonischen Kudurru (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1922) 167, no. 53;
E. Ebeling, “Adad, Wettergott,” RlA 1.22–26; G. Furlani, “Fulmine Mesopotamici, Hittiti,
Greci ed Etruschi,” Studi Etruschi 5 (1931) 203–31; Frankfort, CS, 124–27. For Kassite ex-
amples, see, e.g., Jacques de Morgan (ed.), Mémoires de la délégation en Perse (Paris: Leroux)
vol. 1, pl. 15; vol. 7, p. 146, fig. 457; vol. 10, p. 95, pl. 13b; L. W. King, Babylonian Bound-
ary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1912)
pl. 107 [BM.102588]; and Van Buren, SG, 67–69.
239. See E. A. Speiser, “Myth of Zu,” in ANET, 110–13; and Foster, Before the Muses,
“Anzu” III.22, 1.463–85.
240. D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, I: Historical Records of
Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon (hereafter ARAB; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1926–27) no. 76.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 61
c
a b
Fig. 7. (a) The Storm-god Adad. He stands with a double lightning symbol in his
right hand and a weapon in the left hand (Vanel, L’iconographie, pp. 38–39, fig. 15);
(b) Typical motif of the Storm-god in his chariot of thunder, cracking his lightning-
producing whip, which results in the falling showers in the hands of the goddess
(Frankfort, CS, pp. 247–48, pl. xxii a); (c) The Storm-god Adad with his horned-
helmet, showers in his left hand and an object in his right hand (Vanel, L’iconogra-
phie, pp. 149–50, fig. 72).
(Ilu)mer
This Storm-God is known under various names: Ilumer, Iluwer, Ilimer,
Mer, Mermer, Mermeri, and probably Mur. 241 The element “Mer” (Wer) is
found in appellations of a Storm-god in various cuneiform lists. 242 It exists in
theophoric names 243 from the Sargonic era, 244 and a deity also appears as Itur-
Mer in one Ur III pantheon text. 245 The etymology and origin of (Ilu)mer,
however, has remained a difficult problem. The ideogram dim has a Sumerian
241. Note primarily Schlobies, Der akkadische Wettergott, 5–14; but also G. Dossin,
“Inscriptions de foundation provenant de Mari,” Syria 21 (1940) 156–57.
242. Wer (CT 25, 16: 8), Ilumer (CT 24, 18: 2 rev., 25, 17: 30), Mu-rim (CT 25, 20:
17), Mu-u-ru-u (CT 25, 17: 28). See also D. O. Edzard, WdM, 1.136.
243. See names such as KA-Me-er, attested since pre-Sargonic times. Gelb, MAD 1,
162: 4; idem, Old Akkadian Inscriptions in the Chicago Natural History Museum (Fieldiana:
Anthropology 44/2; Chicago: Chicago Natural History Museum, 1955) 9:4; and Ni-wa-
ar-Me-er, in Dossin, “Inscriptions de foundation provenant de Mari,” 153.
244. The name of the divinity appears as dingir-ma-Me-er. See, for example, Gelb,
Old Akkadian Inscriptions in the Chicago Natural History Museum, 5; idem, MAD 5, 66,
ii 3; the Manishtushu Obelisk in Vincent Scheil, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 2; Paris:
Leroux, 1900) 3; E3-lu-Me-er, in F. Thureau-Dangin, Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes (Paris:
Leroux, 1903) 127, rev. vi.
245. G. Dossin, “Un panthéon d’Ur III à Mari,” RA 61 (1967) 101; Edzard, “Pan-
theon und Kult in Mari,” 58–60.
62 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
reading me-er ‘wind’ or ‘tempest’, and one can therefore legitimately argue, as
do Schlobies and others, that Mer is a Sumerian reading for a Storm-god. 246
After the Sargonic Period, there is ample evidence of the diffusion of a
cult of Mer farther north in the Middle Euphrates region during the Old
Babylonian Period, linked primarily with the god Dagan at Mari. 247 At Mari
the divine name is consistently spelled dI-tur-Me-er. 248 This god was a patron
deity of the city. He appears in greeting formulas, there were cultic feasts in
his honor, and he is acclaimed as Mari’s king in joint command with another
deity. He has a temple, is honored in festivals by musicians, accepts oaths,
and receives sacrificial sheep, and so on. 249
There is thus little doubt that Itur-Mer held a prominent position at
Mari. He is given six sacrificial sheep, like other important deities such as
Addu, Dagan, Ea, Nergal, Nin-egal, Shamash, and others, in the pantheon
lists. 250 There is compelling evidence to support the proposal that Itur-Mer
was a patron deity of the entire region of which Mari was the largest city. 251
In six of eight passages he occupies a position second only to such important
deities as Dagan, Addu, and Shamash. In one and probably two additional
references, he is actually called the “King of Mari.” 252 Extant references to
246. Schlobies, Der Wettergott in Mesopotamien, 7, 8, 23. See, also Huffmon, Amorite
Personal Names, 271–72; Dossin, “Inscriptions de foundation provenant de Mari,” 152ff.;
E. Dhorme, “Les avatars de dieu Dagan,” RHR 68 (1950) 138–39; Roberts, The Earliest Se-
mitic Pantheon, 36; and Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 176.
247. Note W. G. Lambert’s study “The Pantheon of Mari,” MARI 4 (1985) 525–39
and J.-M. Durand’s extensive discussion in “La religion en Siria durante la epoca de los
reinos amorreos segun la documentacíon de Mari,” in G. del Olmo Lete (ed.), Mitología y
religion del Oriente Antiquo, II/1: Semitas Occidentales (Ebla, Mari) (Barcelona: AUSA,
1995) 125–533, 545–69.
248. Best translated ‘Mer has returned’. Note, e.g., Dhorme, “Les avatars de dieu Da-
gan,” 195; Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari,” 532–35. Only once is his name spelled
dYa-tu-[u] r-Me-[r]; A. Parrot and G. Dossin, ARM 7 6: 10.
249. See ARM 3 19: 10–17; 7 3: 16; 10 4: 31–34; 10 10: 5–23; 10 63: 16, 66: 18; 72:
11–12; 10 68: 8; 51: 8–16; 12 101: 3–5; 13 1: iii 49; 13 26: 10.
250. ARM 8 1: 28; 8 3: 16; 8 6: 10; 8 85: Tr. Lat. 3; 10 41: 31–34; 10 63: 16; 13 101:
3–5; Mélanges syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud, II (ed. A. Causse; Bibliothèque arché-
ologique et historique; Paris: Geuthner, 1939) 993; Nakata, “Deities in the Mari Texts,”
308–10.
251. A view long ago advocated by C.-F. Jean, “Les noms propres de personnes dans
les lettres de Mari,” in Studia Mariana (ed. A. Parrot; Leiden: Brill, 1950) 85. See also ARM
9 349; W. L. Moran, “New Evidence from Mari in the History of Prophecy,” Bib 50 (1969)
41; J. F. Ross, “Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari,” HTR 63 (1970) 21; W. F. Albright,
“Notes on Early Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions,” JPOS 6 (1926) 88; and Nakata, “De-
ities in the Mari Texts,” 308–16.
252. This is the aforementioned ARM 10 66:19 and 72:11–12. Note also Nakata,
“Deities in the Mari Texts,” 309.
this deity from the Sargonic Period at Mari leave little doubt that Itur-Mer of
Mari was but the local Erscheinungsform of the earlier Storm-god Mer, 253
even though the deity’s origin is rather obscure.
The evidence seems to suggest that, although during the earlier Sargonic
Period the only other appearance of his name was in south Babylonia, in the
later Old Babylonian Period Itur-Mer was virtually unknown outside the
north. 254 Mer/Itur-mer/ Ilu-mer has been identified as an old Storm-god of
northern Mesopotamia and Syria, one of the highest deities of the pantheon.
He survived alongside Addu up to the middle of the second millennium
b.c.e. and gradually declined in popularity thereafter. 255
The mere fact that important cult centers, a temple, and priests of this
deity existed bespeaks his power and influence in the region. While there are
no extant myths or hymns associated with Itur-Mer, and no mention is made
of accompanying attendants, his historical importance appears to be on a par
with such imperial greats as Addu, Dagan, and Shamash. At his command, for
example, Zimri-Lim defeated the Yaminites, and Addu-duri reported to the
king a dream he had in which Itur-Mer gave Zimri-Lim permanent kingship.
Individuals also took an oath before the king in the name of Itur-Mer. 256
Even though in Sumerian the deity Mer was understood as the ‘wind’ or
‘tempest’, the diffusion of his cult in the Middle Euphrates region and its
linkage with Akkadian sources suggests that Mer became a predominantly
Semitic deity. A Semitic etymology can also be suggested: the Arabic root
mwr indicates the violent blowing of the wind, especially when it raises dust
storms. These dust storms are common in the semidesert region south of the
upper arch of the Fertile Crescent, with Mari at its center, where the cult of
Mer was popular. Dossin has even suggested a connection between the name
of the city Mari and the divine name Mer; however, the matter is far from
settled. 257 Whatever the etymology of his name or his origin, there is little
doubt that the primary characteristic of this ancient Storm-god of the Middle
Euphrates was his manifestation in the violent winds and dust storms.
Dagan
There is no consensus about the origin of this important Storm-god. The
name Dagan has been closely associated with Amorite movements; however,
253. See Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 271–72; D. O. Edzard, WdM 1.36.
254. So far, there is only one known personal name with Mer outside of this general
area during the Old Babylonian Period. See F. R. Kraus, Altbabylonische Briefe aus dem
Britisch Museum (Leiden: Brill, 1964) vol. 1, no. 27:4.
255. Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari,” 533–35.
256. See for example ARM 8 3:16; ARM 10 10:5–23; ARM 10 51:8–16 .
257. Dossin, “Inscriptions de foundation provenant de Mari,” 155; and Lambert,
“The Pantheon of Mari,” 534–35.
64 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
there was little or no Amorite influence in the Middle Euphrates region be-
fore the Ur III period. 258 Nevertheless, in view of his importance and popu-
larity in the Mari region, his subsequent close connection to the Amorites in
the Middle Euphrates area, and the availability of Semitic cognates for his
name, there is much scholarly support for Dagan’s Amorite origin. 259 How-
ever, due to the fact that Dagan’s name appears regularly in Akkadian con-
texts, there is also support for an Akkadian origin. 260 Others have opted for
placing this deity among an unidentified group of pre-Semitic people, but
this only moves the problem to another area. 261 The best course may be not
to take a definitive position on the question until more material becomes
available. 262
With most deities, the etymology of their name cannot be disassociated
from his/her perceived function. A number of divine names are so transparent
that the functional role of the deity in question is quite clear. The mere name
of the deity, however, should not necessarily be considered to exhaust the
functional scope of the god’s activities. This is particularly true in the case of
Dagan. His name appears on Mari’s earliest list of deities, which dates to the
late Early Dynastic Period. 263 According to Edzard, his name probably also
appears among such pre-Sargonic Old Semitic names as E2-nim-dDa-gan. 264
The name is found in the third-millennium archives from Ebla, 265 and it
258. This has especially been pointed out by I. J. Gelb, “The Early History of the
West Semitic Peoples,” JCS 15 (1961) 35; J.-R. Kupper, Les nomades de Mésopotamie au
temps des rois de Mari (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université
de Liege 142; Paris: Belles lettres, 1957) 70–71; and Edzard, “Pantheon und Kult in Mari,”
59–63.
259. Note, e.g., A. Goetze, “Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Dialect?” Language 17 (1941) 137
n. 85; Dhorme, “Les avatars au dieu Dagan,” 746; idem, Les religions, 165; Bottéro, “Les
divinités sémitiques anciennes en Mésopotamie,” 55; and Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pan-
theon, 75.
260. So Kupper, Les nomades en Mésopotamie, 69–70; T. Bauer, Die Ostkanaanäer: Ein
philologisch-historische Untersuchung über die Wanderschicht der sogenannten “Amoriter” in
Babylonien (Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major, 1926) 7 n. 1, 90; H. Schmökel, “Dagan,” RlA
2.99; M. Dahood, “Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine,” in Le Antiche Divinità
Semitiche, 78 n. 1.
261. Ibid.; Schmökel, “Dagan,” RlA 2.99.
262. So far, Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 180; Roberts, Earliest Semitic Pan-
theon, 74–75; M. Pope, WdM 1.277; and others.
263. See Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari,” 531–32.
264. Edzard, “Pantheon und Kult in Mari,” 51.
265. See A. Archi, “Les dieux d’Ebla au IIIe millenaire avant J. C. et des dieux
d’Ugarit,” AAAS 29–30 (1979–80) 12–17; G. Pettinato and H. Waetzoldt, “Dagan in Ebla
und Mesopotamien nach den Texten aus 3. Jahrtausend,” Or 54 (1985) 235–36; and
M. Krebernik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz (Berliner Beiträge
zum Vorderen Orient 7; Berlin: Reimer, 1988) 79–80, 158.
also appears in texts from the Sargonic 266 and subsequent Shakkanakku
Periods. 267 Dagan’s name is also evident without the determinative in an in-
scription from Mari during this period. 268
In the Mari texts in which Dagan is very prominent, the divine name is
usually spelled dDa-gan; however, in other sources variant spellings such as
dDa-ga-an or even Da-gu-na exist. 269 The evident connection of the name
Dagan with the Semitic root dgn, Arabic dagana, and derived forms meaning
‘to be cloudy, rainy’ 270 supports an understanding of Dagan’s character as an
atmospheric deity and, specifically, a Storm-god. 271
Even though there is a paucity of mythical information regarding other
aspects of his nature and function, Dagan’s primary characteristic as a Storm-
god is supported by other factors. In the Sargonic Period, Dagan was closely
associated with the great Storm-god Enlil, 272 and in the Old Babylonian
texts from Emar, he is also placed on a par with or in a superior position to
the local Storm-god, which appears under an ideogram either as dim or du. 273
266. See, for example, the list of some Dagan names in Roberts, The Earliest Semitic
Pantheon, 18.
267. J.-M. Durand, “La situation historique des Shakkanakku: Nouvelle approche,”
MARI 4 (1985) 147–51; Dossin, “Un ‘panthéon’ d’Ur III à Mari,” 99; P. Talon, “Un nou-
veau panthéon de Mari,” Akkadica 20 (1980) 12–17.
268. Edzard, “Pantheon und Kult in Mari,” 53 n. 1.
269. As in EA pp. 317–18; and I. J. Gelb, Glossary of Old Akkadian (MAD 3; Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957) 109.
270. F. J. Montalbano, “Canaanite Dagon: Origin and Nature,” CBQ 13 (1951) 381–
97. See also Dahood, “Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine,” 65–94; and M. H.
Pope, “Syrien: Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phonizer,” WdM 1.276–78; D. O. Edzard,
“Mesopotamien: Die Mythologie der Sumerer und Akkader,” WdM 1.49–50; Roberts, The
Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 18–19; A. Cooper and M. H. Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets
in the Ugaritic Texts,” in Ras Shamra Parallels 3: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible
(hereafter RSP 3; ed. S. Rummel; AnOr 51; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981) 333–
469, particularly pp. 361–63.
271. W. F. Albright, “Gilgames and Engidu: Mesopotamian Genii of Fecundity,”
JAOS 40 (1920) 319 n. 27; Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 19; and Nicholas
Wyatt, “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad,” UF 12 (1980) 275–79.
272. See H. Schmökel, Der Gott Dagan (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Heidelberg,
1928) 9ff. (Dagan su EN.LIL: CT24 22; 6, 22); Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 19;
W. G. Lambert, “Enmenduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967) 131; A. Goetze, “An
Inscription of Simbar Sihu,” JCS 19 (1965) 127–28; O. R. Gurney et al., The Sultantepe
Tablets (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 1; Lon-
don: British School of Archaeology at Ankara, 1957–64) 19:58.
273. The Hurrian Storm-god Teshub could very well be intended in personal names
with the spelling dU-ub. E. Laroche has cited clear evidence of this at Emar in “Les hiero-
glyphes de Meskene-Emar et le style ‘Syro-hittite,’ ” Akkadica 22 (1981) 5–14. His conclu-
sion is that they can equally be a reference to the Storm-god Addu. On this issue, see also
66 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
dDa-gan sa Hur-ri, the recipient of a sacrifice 274 identifiable with the Hurrian
deity Teshub, has been shown by Gelb to be another early and clear example
of Dagan’s being associated with an atmospheric deity. 275 Furthermore, his
consort’s name is Salas, who also appears as the wife of Adad. In the archives
from Ebla, one of the appellatives of Dagan is ti-lu ma-tim ‘the dew of the
land’, supporting the etymology of his name as being associated with ‘cloudy,
rainy’. 276
Wyatt, who identifies Dagan as a Storm-god by grammatically construing
Baal’s Ugaritic epithet bn dgn as meaning ‘the Rainy One’, has proposed an
additional etymological argument. He disregards the universal interpretation
of this phrase as an indication of the filial relationship of Baal to Dagan. In-
stead, he sees these two deities as ultimately being two hypostases of one di-
vine reality, the fusing of different cultic traditions into one amalgam. 277
He cites as an example the double parallelism in KTU 1.10 iii: 30–36 in
which the deity is identified as bºl ||˙tk dgn ||bºl ||rkb ºrpt ‘Lord || Ruler of
rain’ ‘Lord || Charioteer of the Clouds’. 278 He also argues that the same par-
D. Fleming, “Baal and Dagan in Ancient Syria,” ZA 83 (1993) 2–3. Even though at Emar
the ideogram dim may be read Baal (‘lord’) on the basis of the element en for balu ‘lord’ in
personal names (pp. 3–7), this leads to some confusion: dim-en or du-en ‘lord-is-lord’
simply makes no sense. Evidently, then, while a case for Baal as the other Storm-god along
with Dagan at Emar can be made, it is equally clear that in the majority of the citations, dim
should be read Addu.
274. F. Thureau-Dangin and E. Dhorme, “Cinq jours de fouilles à ªAsherah,” Syria 5
(1924) 271.
275. I. J. Gelb, Hurrians and Subarians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944)
63, a suggestion later accepted by Kupper, CAH, 2/1.40–41.
276. G. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 246.
277. Wyatt, “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad,” 377–78.
278. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín (eds.), Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus
Ugarit einschliesslich der keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarits 1: Transkription (here-
after KTU; AOAT 24; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976); ET: The Cunei-
form Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
1995). N. Wyatt, “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” UF 24 (1992) 408. Wyatt un-
derstands ˙tk as ‘to rule, hold sway, have dominion’, but the sense of ‘scion’ for ˙tk is given
by most scholars. See, e.g., A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques,
vol. 1: Mythes et légendes (Litératures anciennes du Proche-orient 7; Paris: Imprimerie Na-
tionale, 1974) 288; P. J. van Zijl, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Uga-
ritic Epics (AOAT 10; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972) 329–31, 337–39; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome: Pontifical Bib-
lical Institute, 1949) 51; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their
Relevance to the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 71 n. 2; H. L. Ginsberg, in ANET, 142;
R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le groupe des dieux El, Betyle, Dagon et Atlas chez Philon de
Byblos,” RHR 169 (1966) 43; and others. A. S. Kapelrud (Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts
[Copenhagen: Gad, 1952] 52) initially shared the view of ˙tk as ‘scion’ but later decided on
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 67
allelism appears in the titles in KTU 1.12 i: 38–41, bºl ||bn dgn, bºl ||il hd.
Hence, on the basis of his proposed explanation of bn dgn, the passage could
be translated with the same equivalence as ‘the Rainy One || the Thundering
God’ or il.hd.
Wyatt therefore concludes that Dagan was the ancient Storm-god of the
Middle Euphrates region, his name being transparent: ‘Rain’ or ‘Rainy One’.
With the passage of time Dagan became identified with neighboring gods
performing the same function, such as the Hurrian Teshub and the Sumerian
Enlil, receiving in the process a varying number of honorific and liturgical
titles that tended to become alternative names for him—and ultimately,
distinct deities. Thus, he was known as Hadad the Thunderer (Ugaritic hd,
Syrian Hadad, Akkadian/Assyrian Adad) or as Rimmon (Assyrian Ramman)
with the same meaning, and at Ugarit as Baal or ‘Lord’, signifying his special
exaltation by his own worshipers.
A plausible argument can indeed be made for the antiquity of Dagan as
‘the Storm-god’ par excellence in the Middle Euphrates region. However,
Wyatt’s proposal of a subsequent hypostasis of Dagan as Hadad has not been
supported by additional material from this very region. The Emar pantheon
list, 279 sixteenth- to fifteenth-century b.c.e. texts from the neighboring Syr-
ian site of Mumbaqat/Ekalte, 280 and additional material on the pantheons at
Mari and Ebla 281 have clearly shown that as late as the thirteenth century
b.c.e. Dagan and Addu in the Middle Euphrates region were two distinct
deities. In the mid-second-millennium b.c.e. Ugaritic texts, the marked
rendering 1. 34 ‘Yea, good tidings for your life, Dagan!’ Idem, The Violent Goddess: Anath
in the Ras Shamra Texts (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969) 97.
279. Fleming (“Baal and Dagan in Ancient Syria,” 3–7) has pointed out that the
Storm-god who accompanies Dagan in the temple complex at Emar, designated by the
ideograms dim or du according to Laroche (“Les hieroglyphes de Meskene-Emar et le style
‘Syro-hittite,’ ” 5–14; C. Zaccagnini, “Golden Cups Offered to the Gods at Emar,” Or n.s.
59 [1990] 518 nn. 4, 5), could be either the Hurrian Teshub or the Semitic Addu. What is
clear is that neither of these ideograms could represent Dagan.
280. Legal documents recovered from this site mention the gods Baºlaka, dim, Dagan
and dutu. Here again dim (Addu) appears side by side with the god Dagan; hence, they
cannot be the same deity. Note for example, dim u dDa-gan na4si-ka-na a-na li-iz-qu-up
(MBQ-T 73: 8–11; 36: 14–19). See M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and W. Mayer, “Sikkanum
‘Betyle,’ ” UF 21 (1989) 136. The dating of these texts to the 16th–15th century b.c.e. has
been proposed by W. Mayer, “Die Tontafelfunde von Tall Munbaqa 1984,” MDOG 118
(1986) 128.
281. So, e.g., in Dossin, “Un ‘panthéon’ de Ur III a Mari,” 99ff.; Talon, “Un nouveau
panthéon de Mari,” 12–17; and Archi, “Les dieux d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire avant J. C. et les
dieux d’Ugarit,” 170ff.; Pettinato and Waetzoldt, “Dagan in Ebla und Mesopotamien nach
den Texten aus 3. Jahrtausend,” 235–36.
68 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
distinction between Dagan and Hadad is clear, since the two appear sepa-
rately on the lists of divine names and sacrificial lists. 282
Dagan is also described as the father of Mesopotamian Adad. 283 Another
indication that Dagan was the controller of the clouds and the fecundating
rainstorms comes from the fact that he was also responsible for the continu-
ous production of the soil. This last aspect links him to the underworld. At
Mari, Dagan is called Bel Pagre ‘Lord of funerary offerings’, 284 and at Ugarit
he is proposed to have been the recipient of sacrifices for the dead. 285 It also
appears that Dagan was the banquet host of underworld deities entrusted to
Allatum. 286 At Terqa, Yahdun-Lim was recorded as being on his way to offer
a pagrum sacrifice to Dagan. 287 This common chthonic aspect of Dagan and
other Storm-gods such as Enlil grows out of the fructifying role of the rain-
storms, which are thought to be the impregnating power that causes the earth
to produce abundance.
The historical documents leave no doubt concerning the early emergence
of the Storm-god Dagan as the preeminent deity of the Middle to Upper Eu-
phrates region as far west as Canaan. Beginning with the earliest reference to
Dagan’s presence at Mari in the pre-Sargonic period, and the subsequent
statement by Sargon of Akkad in the twenty-fourth century b.c.e., “Sargon
prostrated before Dagan in Tuttul and prayed,” 288 all subsequent historical
references portrayed Dagan as a great Storm-god of the region. Dagan under-
282. Wyatt, “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad,” 378–79.
283. In CRRAI 111 (1954) 129, Dagan is mentioned as the father of Addu.
284. G. Dossin, ARM 10 63: 15–16; C.-F. Jean, ARM 2 90; 137: 43–44; J.-R. Kup-
per, ARM 3 40.
285. Note J. J. Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” JCS 20
(1966) 115–16. In addition, see the earlier discussions on the subject in D. Neiman, “PGR:
A Canaanite Cult Object in the Old Testament,” JBL 67 (1948) 55–60; R. Dussaud, “Deux
stèles de Ras Shamra portant une dédicace au dieu Dagon,” Syria 16 (1935) 177–80.
286. F. Thureau-Dangin, “Un acte de donation de Marduk-zakir-sumi,” RA 16
(1919) 145–46.
287. J.-R. Kupper, ARM 3 40:9, 13–18. See, e.g., G. Dossin, ARM 1 65, where
Shamshi-Addu writes to Yasmah-Addu of Terqa that he will arrive on the day of the kispum,
which is connected with the temple of Dagan. The suggestion has been advanced that
Terqa was the burial place for ancestral kings. See A. Malamat, “ ‘Prophecy’ in the Mari
Documents,” ErIsr 4 (1956) 76. On the mortuary offering by Yahdun-Lim, see also W. von
Soden, “Verkündung des Gotteswillens durch prophetisches Wort in den altababyloni-
schen Breifen aus Mari,” WO 1 (1947–52) 399. Note in addition Roberts, The Earliest Se-
mitic Pantheon, 18–19; Nakata, “Deities in the Mari Texts,” 121–22, 131–32.
288. H. Hirsch, “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade,” AfO 20 (1963) 74–75, in-
scription b5 i 29–ii 13; E. Sollberger and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumériennes et
akkadiennes (hereafter IRSA; Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 2; Paris: Cerf, 1971)
A 1b. See also Nakata, “Deities in the Mari Texts,” 115.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 69
girded the power and prestige of the various kings of the region, investing
them with authority in a manner similar to his Sumerian counterparts Enlil
and Ningirsu/Ninurta.
The earliest inscriptions also appear to attribute to Dagan the founding
of the city of Mari. 289 He appears in the pantheon list along with nine other
deities and especially as a member of the group of four patron divinities,
along with Addu, Itur-Mer, and Belet-ekallim. 290 The extent of his involve-
ment in the daily affairs of the region leaves no doubt that he was considered
the most important deity in the Mari Empire. Aside from being cited as the
god of Mari, Dagan is also conspicuously referred to as “Dagan of Terqa” or
the “Lord of Terqa” in the correspondence sent by the governor of the district
of Terqa to Zimri-Lim. 291 He is also frequently identified as “Dagan of Tut-
tul,” the city that appears to have been his chief cult center. 292 His impor-
tance in the neighboring regions is clearly emphasized when Zimri-Lim
speaks of “Dagan of Subatum” in a letter to Addu-Duri. 293 Dagan was held
in equally high esteem in the petty kingdom of Hana. 294
Dagan’s name is the most popular among the theophoric personal names
at Emar. Out of these theophoric names Fleming has cataloged 16 in which
the element en takes the place of another divine name, all of which are found
along with Dagan, and in 7 of the 16 only the name Dagan occurs. 295 The
same is true for the Mumbaqat/Ekalte site north of Emar. Of 20 theophoric
personal names published, 8 involve Dagan. 296 Dagan emerges as the princi-
pal deity in Emar’s important zukru festival, 297 is placed first in curses in the
hierarchical offering lists, 298 and appears as head of the pantheon at all seven
levels cited in Fleming’s study. 299 In all of these occurrences, Dagan’s title
lord appears only in association with the local Storm-god. In the earlier Emar
festival lists, however, the local Storm-god always appears second in order—
after Dagan. It is evident, therefore, from this wealth of epigraphic material
that Dagan was the dominant deity in this region of Amorite culture.
Temples dedicated to Dagan have been noted at Mari, 300 Terqa, 301 Tut-
tul, and as far west as Ebla. 303 Dagan’s role as the fearsome atmospheric
302
god and the patron deity of the kings of this region, both protecting and as-
suring them of victory over their enemies, is appropriate in the time-honored
tradition of the great Storm-gods of Mesopotamia. Thus, Dagan gave Sargon
the entire region as far as Ebla; 304 and Naram-Sin ascribed his successful
campaign in Aram, Ebla, and Ulisum to the weapon of Dagan, who had
magnified his kingdom. 305 Dagan also manifested a keen interest in the mili-
tary campaigns of Zimri-Lim of Mari, and the elders of the city prayed to
Dagan for the success of the king’s military ventures. 306 Dagan proclaimed
298. Note list of curses in D. Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Ashtata: Emar VI/1–4
(Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985–87) nos. 17:32–40; 125:35–41; 373:
9–13, 66–167, and 378. See also Fleming, The Installation, 240, 242–44.
299. Fleming, on Dagan’s position at Emar in ibid., 240–48.
300. G. Dossin, ARM 1 74:35, [37]; C.-F. Jean, ARM 2 15:39, 40; G. Dossin, ARM
4 72:31, 34. Note the archaeological evidence treated by A. Parrot, “Les fouilles de Mari,”
Syria 41 (1964) 3ff.
301. See Ebeling, Meissner, and Weidner, Die Inschriften der altassyrischen Könige, 26
n. 5; R. Borger, Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften (Handbuch der Orientalistik
Supplements 1/5; Leiden: Brill, 1964) 1.14, 17; G. Dossin, “Une Révélation du Dieu Da-
gan à Terqa,” RA 42 (1948) 129, line 14; Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi
Dynasty,” 115–16; and Nakata, “Deities in the Mari Texts,” 130.
302. R. P. Dougherty, The shirkûtu of Babylonian Deities (YOS 2; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1923) 27–30, 121.
303. As of this writing, a complete list of the temples of the separate deities of Ebla has
not yet been published. However, in view of the fact that a whole quarter of the city and
one of the city gates bear his name, it seems reasonable that a number of temples could have
been consecrated to Dagan. See Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla, 246, 250, 252; Pettinato
and Waetzoldt, “Dagan in Ebla und Mesopotamien nach den Texten aus 3. Jahrtausend,”
235ff.; Archi, “Les dieux d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire avant J. C. et les dieux d’Ugarit,” 170–
71; Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari,” 531–32.
304. “The Upper Land, Yarmuti and Ebla up to the cedar forest and the silver moun-
tains” (H. Hirsch, “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade,” AfO 20 [1963] 38: Sargon In-
schr. b2 vi 17–35); and Sollberger and Kupper, IRSA II, A 1b.
305. Hirsch, “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade,” 74–75; Sollberger and Kupper,
IRSA II, A 4e. Note also Nakata, “Deities in the Mari Texts,” 114, 115, 124, 128, 129.
306. Kupper, “Correspondence de Kibri-Dagan, gouverneur de Terqa” ARMT 3 17:
14–20; 18: 7.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 71
the kingship of Yahdun-Lim and then gave him a mighty weapon with which
to subdue his enemies, 307 just as Zimri-Lim defeated his enemies at the com-
mand of Dagan. 308
As the Storm-god of the Middle Euphrates in the late third millennium
b.c.e., Dagan’s cult extended as far east as the Canaanite coast, where he was
subsequently superseded only by the great Syrian Storm-god Hadad in the
second half of the second millennium b.c.e.
As we have shown, there is an abundance of material that deals with Da-
gan’s functional activities both in the storm and politically among the kings
of the region. His place in the official and popular cult among the Semites in
the Middle Euphrates region during the late third millennium b.c.e. has also
been well documented. Aside from prayers offered to him and the statements
regarding his role as the protector of the kings, however, not much more can
be determined regarding the scope of his mythic activities. He was undeni-
ably the Storm-god of the region, and as a patron Warrior-god of the kings
he functioned on the political plane in a manner similar to Enlil and Adad.
Due to the paucity of liturgical and mythological information, however, very
little can be ascertained from written sources regarding either his mythologi-
cal functions or those of his attendants. The only brief datum of an epi-
graphic nature that may have a bearing on this question is Zimri-Lim’s
statement that he installed lions in the temple of Dagan. 309 In the absence of
any additional written material, we may construe only that lions were in
some way associated with Dagan.
In personality and characteristics, the Storm-god Dagan is to be equated
with Enlil. However, as will also become evident in a subsequent comparison
with Adad, Dagan was not a mere hypostasis of Enlil. Rather, he was initially
conceived as a deity separate from Enlil or any other god. This fact is made
very clear from the Ebla archives. While some Sumerian gods are equated
with their counterparts in the Eblaite pantheon, the bilingual vocabularies do
not have an equation den-lil = dda-gan. Instead of a Semitic equivalent for
Enlil, the Sumerian name is spelled out syllabically. 310 Thus, at least in the
third millennium b.c.e., Enlil and Dagan were viewed as distinct deities. Da-
gan’s subsequent identification with Enlil and his introduction to the south
as the divine element in theophorous personal names during the early second
millennium b.c.e. was the result of the incorporation of his realm into the
southern Mesopotamian sphere of influence.
307. Sollberger and Kupper, IRSA IV, F 6a; RA 33 (1963) 49–51, lines 9–14.
308. G. Dossin, “Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari,” Syria 19 (1938) 110.
309. Idem, “Inscriptions de fondation provenant de Mari,” 167ff.
310. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla. See list on pp. 250–51.
72 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
311. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess, 14–31; E. O. James, Myth and Ritual
in the Ancient Near East, 113ff.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 73
Halaf. 312 How then can we account for the conceptual emergence of a dom-
inant masculine “storm-god” and his endemic role as a fertility deity in his-
toric times?
Although fishing may have been the dominant industry when southern
Mesopotamia emerged during the Eridu culture and into the Ubaid civiliza-
tion, greater reliance on agriculture and changing climatic conditions forced
the inhabitants to engage in drainage operations and work on irrigation. Be-
cause this development necessitated the cooperation of men in larger units
than the typical Neolithic village, this could have had widespread conse-
quences that led to the emergence of the characteristic city-state of the third
millennium b.c.e. 313 The Ubaid culture, through a highly efficient peasant
economy based on irrigation, still made fish offerings to a prehistoric male
Water-god of the region. This is the earliest prehistoric evidence of the prom-
inence of a male deity. The subsequent, protoliterate Uruk culture experi-
enced a revolutionary change in the creation of cities. The aggregation of
communities dictated by the rivers necessitated cooperation on an unprece-
dented scale to control them.
Early civilizations from Mesopotamia to the surrounding lands remained
essentially peasant societies whose religious concepts revolved around the
Mother-goddess; 314 however, cultic activities provide evidence of changes in
the perception of this divinity in areas around the ancient Near East. There
is, for example, the evidence of temples existing in pairs, strongly suggesting
the worship of a divine couple. 315 Male deities began to appear as counter-
parts to the Mother-goddess at the time of the earliest appearances of the
fertility goddess in Sumer 316 and the warlike Kali Durga of India. 317 Presum-
ably, the goddess Inanna, who was the supreme deity of the city of Uruk
312. Note, e.g., Leeming and Page, Goddess: Myths of the Female Divine, 7–47, 50–
83; Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess, 45–57; Clark and Piggott, Prehistoric Soci-
eties, 184–86; Bottéro et al. (eds.), The Near East: The Early Civilizations, 14–30; Mel-
laart, The Neolithic Cultures of the Near East (New York: Scribner’s, 1975) 135–79; CAH,
2/2.270–81.
313. CAH, 1/1.57–62; Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess, 70–80.
314. Ibid., 15–19, 92.
315. See in K. Kessler, Uruk: Urkunden aus Privathausern: Die Wohnhauser Westlich
des Eanna-Tempelbereichs (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1991) 8–10, 74–76; H. J. Len-
zen, Uruk Vorläufiger Berichte (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 18; Ber-
lin: Hinrichs, 1962); H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon (New York: New
American Library, 1968) 46ff.; and Bottéro et al., The Near East, 21–38.
316. Emerging in the Halaf Period; see Roux, Ancient Iraq, 64–67.
317. See M. H. Pope and his discussion of Anat and her supposed counterpart in
India, in “The Goddess Anath and Kali,” Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of
Orientalists, New Delhi (Germantown, N.Y.: Periodical Service, 1968) 51.
74 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
throughout historical times, was also its most important divinity in the pre-
historic period. We would expect her spouse to be Dumuzi. Though the ac-
tual name does not appear until texts from the third millennium, a fertility
god with his characteristics was the focal point of the Uruk cult from earliest
times. 318 Nevertheless, on seals from Eridu, Ur, Uruk, and other places, the
symbol of the Mother-goddess remains paramount during this age of expan-
sion from village to city in the south.
In the subsequent Jemdet Nasr Period in central and northern Mesopo-
tamia, developments appear to have followed a slightly different course.
Probably as a result of some improvement in irrigation techniques, cities such
as Nippur, Kish, and Eshnunna began to grow, and the form of religion also
shifted. In a number of northern sites, the presence of many sanctuaries
points to the existence of a pantheon rather than, as is supposed at Uruk, a
divine couple. 319
With the end of the Uruk and subsequent Jemdet Nasr Periods, when
writing becomes intelligible, we enter the flowering of Sumerian civilization
in the Early Dynastic Period, with its distinctive political institution, the
Sumerian city-state. 320 Eridu, which had previously been abandoned, re-
emerges. The prehistoric male Water-god of Eridu is now identifiable as the
Water-god Enki. 321
Mythology indicates that the center of Sumerian culture was transferred
from Eridu to Uruk. Inanna, the goddess of Uruk, went to the shrine of her
father, Enki, in Eridu and subsequently returned with precious gifts to Uruk.
It is from this Sumerian cultural center during the late third millennium that
a shadowy picture of the religious themes and actual events of prehistoric
Mesopotamia emerges. In poems, mythologies, and of course the Sumerian
318. There is extensive discussion on this early divine pair emerging from the Uruk
Vase and the earliest evidence of the fertility cult. See, e.g., Jacobsen, The Treasures of Dark-
ness, 25–78; and Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite.
319. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess, 9–13; Roberts, The Earliest Semitic
Pantheon, 152ff.; H. J. Nissen, “ ‘Sumerian’ vs. ‘Akkadian Art’: Art and Politics in Babylo-
nia of the Mid–Third Millennium b.c.,” in Insight through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith
Porada (ed. M. Kelly-Buccellati; Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1985) 188–96.
320. R. J. Braidwood, Prehistoric Men (7th ed.; Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1967)
146–53; Adams, “Developmental Stages in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 372–90, 381–83;
Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess, 50–57; F. Hole, “Environmental Instabilities
and Urban Origins,” in Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East (ed. G. Stein and
M. Rothman; Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory, 1994) 121–51; G. Buccellati, “The Origins of
Writing and the Beginning of History,” in The Shape of the Past: Studies in Honor of Frank-
lin D. Murphy (ed. G. Buccellati and C. Sperioni; Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1981) 3–13; and G. Algaze, “The Uruk Expansion: Cross-Cultural Exchange in
Early Mesopotamian Civilization,” Current Anthropology 30 (1989) 571–608.
321. Clark and Piggott, Prehistoric Societies, 189–92.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 75
King List, a school of writers related the exploits of the gods and various rul-
ers of the city-states. These sources also present a picture of the earliest Su-
merian gods of the region, along with the names of the important goddesses.
This material is generally thought to reflect the conditions of the time when
Sumerian society crystallized into the city-state, probably as early as the Jem-
det Nasr Period.
With the rise of agricultural societies and the concomitant emergence of
urban enclaves 322 and with the new dominance of male rulers, a pantheon
began to emerge controlled by the masculine element. In time, the Mother-
goddess as a symbol of fertility was overshadowed by her male counterpart,
the principal god of the pantheon, who eventually became identified with the
male leader of the city. 323
The male deity, whose initial prominence had been rooted in his identity
as the son of the Mother-goddess, subsequently became her lover, then her
consort, and as such gradually began to assume the primary responsibility for
fertility in nature, both plants and animals. This combination of factors
could have been the pre-agricultural, prehistoric basis of the Inanna/Ishtar
and Dumuzi/Tammuz cults. Dumuzi/Tammuz, in iconographic and textual
sources the personification of vegetation, is also called a Shepherd-God in
early Sumerian mythology. 324 In the myth Dumuzi and Enkidu: The Dis-
pute between the Shepherd-God and the Farmer-God, the primary character
of Dumuzi as a symbol of animal fertility is clearly recognizable. 325
The equation of Inanna with the Mother-goddess seems a natural evolu-
tion. The Mother-goddess as a “goddess of fertility,” is known to have em-
bodied two distinct aspects. On the one hand she was the Earth Goddess Ki,
whose name was changed over the course of time to Ninhursag, “Queen of
322. On the important factors that have a bearing on the emergence of cities and the
cultural transition to urban societies see, e.g., D. C. Snell, Life in the Ancient Near East
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) 11–29; Young, “Population Densities and Early
Mesopotamian Origins,” 827–42; and Roux, Ancient Iraq, 72–85.
323. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess, 58–69; G. Stein, “Economy, Ritual,
and Power in ºUbaid Mesopotamia,’ ” in Chiefdoms and Early States (ed. G. Stein and M. S.
Rothman; Madison: Prehistory, 1994) 34–46.
324. The Uruk vessel, a large stone vase for use in Inanna’s sacred marriage, depicts
Dumuzi, the god of years, and Inanna, the goddess of storehouses. Dumuzi brings sheep
and produce from the field to the door, where he is received by Inanna, the bride. This act
established an ancient Sumerian marriage. See, for example, D. Wolkstein and S. N.
Kramer, Inanna (New York: Harper & Row, 1983) 104, 197; Jacobsen, Toward the Image
of Tammuz, 8–9, 18–19, 24–27, 40, 55–56; idem, “Dumuzi’s Wedding,” in The Harps That
Once, 19–23; Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite, 49–66.
325. Ibid.; Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, especially pp. 73–103. See also
Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 152–54.
76 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
the Mountain,” Ninmah, the “Exalted Lady,” Nintu, “Lady Birthgiver,” 326
and other titles. On the other hand, as the “goddess of love and passion,”
Inanna was not only the “Rain Goddess,” the “Goddess of War,” and the
“Goddess of the Morning and Evening Star” 327 but, in addition, as she
evolved along with the male god, this many-faceted goddess became the great
Mother-goddess herself. 328
Archaeological and anthropological studies suggest that the storm genius
existed in prehistoric folklore in one form or another. 329 However, he may
not have emerged as a dominant force associated with the Mother-goddess
until the dawn of the agricultural era, with the accompanying rise of urban
enclaves and the male-dominated pantheon. In reality, therefore, even though
the fertility aspect was intrinsic to the storm from prehistoric times, it was
not fertility but the uncontrolled awesome force of nature that dominated
the human conception of this phenomenon in the form of a powerful anthro-
pomorphic deity who reigned supreme in the heavens.
To the ancient mind, then, violence was an endemic characteristic of the
storm, probably even overshadowing and preceding its fertility aspect. The
Storm-god was essentially conceived as a celestial deity, his fertility attribute
as a consort of the Mother-goddess not only becoming increasingly empha-
sized but also absorbing the goddess’s fertility functions. It was via this pro-
cess in the Near East that he came to assume a gentler and, as plausibly
suggested by Jacobsen regarding the Myth of Enlil and Ninlil, also a chthonic
characteristic. 330
While we may speculate that the concept of a “storm-god” probably ex-
isted in prehistoric times in the symbol of a dragon or a lion-headed bird of
prey, and that combining the lion-headed bird with the dragon constituted a
prelude to the more refined pictographic and textual descriptions of the
Storm-god in subsequent historic periods, there is no way of ascertaining with
any degree of certainty what his true symbolic representation was or his name.
331. Each god seems to have been worshiped in a limited geographical area. See, e.g.,
H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1956) 54–56; Roux, Ancient Iraq, 87–101; Goff, Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia, 230–
31; Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon, 41–44; and Schlobies, Der akkadische Wetter-
gott, 15–17.
332. Note, for example, Enlil’s temple e-kur in the holy city of Nippur, which Ur-
Nammu boasted of having restored out of his love for Enlil; Jean, La religion sumérienne,
39, 214–16. This “House of the Mountain” was the most venerated by all of the kings of
Mesopotamia. Ningirsu’s temple e-ninnu was rebuilt by Entemena and Uruinimgina;
Kramer, The Sumerians, “Votive Inscriptions,” nos. 14–27, pp. 313–23. Ur-Nanshe built
chapels in honor of the god Ningirsu; Allote de Füye, Documents présargoniques, fascs. 1–2,
p. 53, I, 1–6; p. 43, I, 3; idem, “Notes Sumériennes,” RA 9 (1919) 151; Kramer, The Su-
merians, “Votive Inscriptions,” nos. 7–8, pp. 308–9. Iskur’s temple is believed to have been
located in Uruk; Doyle, The Storm-God Iskur-Adad, 6, 18–21. With few exceptions, the
one-god-per-city concept seems to have been firmly entrenched in the religious conscious-
ness of the ancient Mesopotamians.
333. See, in addition, T. Jacobsen, “The Cosmos as a State,” in The Intellectual Adven-
ture of Ancient Man (ed. H. Frankfort et al.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)
125–48.
334. Jean, La religion sumérienne, 160–62.
335. Goff, Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia, 237ff.
336. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon, 40–43; Adams, “Developmental Stages
in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 573–90.
78 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
337. The argument that such a genealogical structure existed from the prehistoric pe-
riod on is based on mythological and historical texts from the late third into the second mil-
lennium b.c.e. (Jacobsen, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia,” 91–140; also in
JNES 2 [1943] pp. 159–72); however, there is no evidence that these later myths were in
vogue or even originated during earlier periods. As indicated above, the iconographic ma-
terial and other archaeological artifacts do not support such a position. There is no conclu-
sive evidence that these relationships began in prehistoric times.
338. The bull was a prominent symbol in the art of the Early Dynastic Period, but it
is only vaguely associated with the deity in some of these early references. See Thureau-
Dangin, Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Accad, 31, 55, cols. XX, lines 1–3, 10–12; XXI, lines 5–
8; XXII, lines 9–10. The Zu bird was subsequently associated with Enlil but only in texts
of a much later date; see Dhorme, Les religions, 29, 49.
339. Van Dijk, Sumerische Götterlieder, 1.15, lines 77–79, as found in the “Hymn to
Enlil”; and particularly Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 16.
340. Kramer, The Sumerians, 70, 153.
341. W. W. Hallo and W. K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1971) 43–45; Dhorme, Les religions, 52–54; CAH, 1/2.93–
144, 278–80.
342. On Enlil as “Lord Storm,” see Jean, La religion sumérienne, 36–39; Frankfort,
The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, 137, 140–44; Dhorme, Les religions, 26–31;
Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 102–3; idem, The Harps That Once, 101–7, 491.
343. See especially Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschrif-
ten, VB 1 66–67, cone A, col. I, lines 2, 3.
and skillfully governing as “king of all the lands.” 344 This earliest conception
of the Storm-god as fearsome but also benevolent aptly reflects the sociologi-
cal concerns of Mesopotamian society in its transition from an earlier struc-
ture of independent city-states to the new theocentric imperial political
structures dominated by kings such as Lugal-zaggesi and subsequent Akka-
dian kings. They attributed their military successes to their favorable rela-
tionship with the great Enlil.
The subsequent Sumerian depictions of the Storm-god focused on his
three primary characteristics. These characteristics were represented by
(1) the late Early Dynastic Warrior-god, Ningirsu of Lagash, as a Thunder-
bird accompanied by a bull, a lion, or both. 345 These beings were symbols of
the fierce political and military struggles of the rulers of Ur, Lagash, and
Umma, and each ruler in turn attributed his success to his favorable relation-
ship with Ningirsu. Another representation was (2) the warrior and farmer-
god Ninurta, the deity of fertilizing rains that periodically fill the sky. He was
accompanied by benign dragons. (3) The herdsman’s god was Iskur, whose
attendants were the fertilizing bull and the lion. All three of these divinities
were later mythically identified as sons of Enlil. These symbolic projections
of the Storm-god encapsulated the primary sociopolitical concerns that then
permeated Mesopotamian consciousness.
344. Idem, Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Accad, 218–19; and Tallqvist, AG, 48, 235; also
Dhorme, Les religions, 48.
345. Under his Nippurian name, Ninurta, the “champion of Enlil and champion of
the gods,” he served as an important god of Nippur. He was therefore historically conceived
in most cases as one deity present in two cities under two different names.
80 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
who was frightfully evident in vicious streaks of fiery lightning and crashing
thunder. Later, as irrigation techniques successfully diverted and utilized the
once destructive waters to enhance food production, this gradually led to a
gentler perception of the Storm-god, fertility symbols began to be attached
to him that connected him with the irrigation and fecundation of the fields.
The peaceful fertility scenes that employ the dragon can be correlated with
the beneficent characteristics of Enlil in early hymns and mythic descriptions
documenting the presence of his earliest primary attendants. In spite of his
awesome demonstration of destructive power, he was nevertheless the benev-
olent fatherly provider, “the king who waters the field” or “the king who
waters the garden,” and subsequently he even became “the life-giving show-
ers.” 346 The Storm-god represented a synthesis of the kingly power of the lion
and the peaceful, fertilizing attributes of the dragon, and this synthesis epit-
omized the primary cultural and political emphases in Sumerian society dur-
ing Early Dynastic II.
The place and attributes of Enlil as the Storm-god par excellence in the
history and culture of Mesopotamia remained unchallenged. Each subse-
quent Mesopotamian deity within this genre claimed Enlil as the basis for his
authority over the land. His specific function within a given geographical,
ethnic, political or cultural setting was symbolically represented by means of
the imagery of his attendants. These attendants should not be interpreted as
independent entities but as integral aspects of the god’s functional role within
a particular context.
This emphasis on the fecundating powers of the Storm-god despite his
destructive attributes was most pronounced in the god Iskur, who is primar-
ily identified as the “water warden of heaven and earth” and “protector of the
flock.” Iskur’s presence emphasized fertility and beneficence rather than de-
struction and maleficence.
Even though subsequent references to Iskur during the Gutian Interlude
preceding Ur III would describe Iskur as a destructive storm thundering
through the land, in none of the earlier texts did he exhibit the warlike at-
tributes of his mythic brother Ningirsu/Ninurta. Rather, he was mythically
symbolized in numerous texts either as a fecundating bull or as having a bull
closely associated with him as an attendant. It must be concluded, then, that
during the Early Dynastic Period, while there are numerous textual refer-
ences to other deities, the Sumerians perceived the presence of the Storm-god
and his mythic attendants primarily as providers, reflecting an area of con-
cern that was unceasingly important in the Sumerian city-states.
346. As shown earlier, in Tallqvist, AG, 352 [CT 25, 20: 7; Schroeder, KAV, 172
rev. 8]; AG, p. 357 [CT 25, 20: 10, 21; KAV, 122 rev. 12]; AG, 256 [CT 25, 16: 9]; and
Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 155.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 81
347. I will demonstrate below that the fire-belching monster who emerged during this
period, when the Akkadians assumed political hegemony in the south, was in fact indicative
of the infusion of a different concept regarding the role of the Storm-god. This is what pro-
duced this transformation of the dragon from a docile symbol to a terrifying monster.
348. I have earlier referred to such examples as Legrain, Ur Excavations, pl. 22e; Had-
dad, Baal-Hadad, 62–63.
349. It mattered not which king was in power in Lagash. Beginning with Enkhegal,
Eannatum, and Entemena, all rulers of this region paid homage to Ningirsu as the patron
deity of the city.
82 Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers
with the speed of an eagle, destroying his enemies. His thunderous roar was
identified with that of the lion, and the foreboding heavy black stormclouds
floating swiftly across the sky were compared to the huge dark wings of a ter-
rorizing bird of prey. The Storm-god was a fierce thundercloud warrior en-
gaged in conquest and protecting his people. There were thus both natural
and geopolitical implications to this warrior symbol.
The changing emphasis of the Storm-god in Early Dynastic III resulted
less from the historical fact that Sumerian political hegemony had given way
to a Semitic power structure that began with Sargon of Akkad than from the
synthesis of many different ethnic elements within the sociocultural milieu of
Sumer. 350 The continued influx of northern, eastern, and western influences
into the vigorous Sumerian culture gradually but surely modified its concep-
tion of the traditional deity.
A different perception of the Storm-god was to be expected among the
foreigners who had now permeated the south Mesopotamian cultural milieu.
To the newcomers, the atmospheric divinity could not be subjected to paro-
chial geographical limitations; rather, the celestial numen had migrated along
with his worshipers, some peacefully in quest of better living conditions, some
in wars of conquest. In the traditional homelands of these newcomers, agricul-
ture and subsistence depended not so much on artificial irrigation to harness
and control floodwaters as on rainfall. Unlike the people of Sumer, who met-
aphorically interpreted the raging flood waters as the “violent storm”—Enlil
himself—to the newcomers, the Storm-god was an irresistible, thundering
deity riding in the storm-cloud, pouring down the needed luxuriant showers
and the devastating storm-floods. He had no city of his own.
It seems reasonable, then, that this cultural mixture of new ideas empha-
sizing the important rain attribute of the Storm-god would inevitably lead to
a softening of the harsh Sumerian perception of this divinity. This implica-
tion is derived from both textual references to Iskur and iconographic repre-
sentations of his attendant,s beginning with the Akkadian Period.
During the Gutian Interlude sources from Gudea and Ur-Ningirsu of La-
gash and Utuhengal of Uruk were now portraying Iskur as the mythic mighty
storm ravaging the countryside and discomfiting the enemy, and Ningirsu’s
fearful weapons are compared to monsters of a dreaded nature. 351
There is a paucity of historical material from this period. The sources that
have survived should be construed only as a partial barometer of the socio-
cultural value system of southern Mesopotamia in the wake of the disintegra-
tion of the Sargonic Empire and the period of Gutian domination. Though
350. Hallo and Simpson, The Ancient Near East, 24, 54–55.
351. See above, pp. 45–51.
evidence indicates that the king was the supreme administrator and controller
of wealth and offerings at the apex of a vast and formidable bureaucratic hier-
archy of temple managers, city governors, and other officials. 354
Given this context, no attendant of the Warrior-god Ningirsu/Ninurta
could have been more appropriate than the fearless lion, representing the
kingly qualities of authority, power, and strength, which no doubt the state
of Ur perceived as the primary attributes of the great Storm-god. The kings
also saw themselves as imbued with superhuman authority and power. This
is explicit in the assumption of divinity by the kings of Ur III, coincident
with the great imperial expansion in Shulgi’s middle years, 355 when the mon-
archy began to fulfill the ideas of divine government. 356 Throughout these
activities, these kings maintained their allegiance to the great Storm-gods
Enlil, Ningirsu/Ninurta, and Iskur. 357 The Semitic god Adad, in contrast,
played an insignificant role during the period of Sumerian resurgence.
The correlation between the textual and iconographic evidence suggests
that the Storm-gods were the political patrons of each changing power struc-
ture. The Storm-gods Ningirsu/Ninurta and Iskur, for different reasons,
were the nonlocal numina most patronized during the Ur III Period. The re-
emergence of Iskur represented a natural religiopolitical development against
this background of Sumerian prosperity and power. The fact that Ningirsu/
Ninurta was accompanied by his associates Imdugud and the lion in both
textual and iconographic references reinforces the concept that during peri-
ods of internal or external turmoil, the Sumerians saw themselves as assured
of the continued protection and direction of the great “Warrior-god,” in par-
ticular of his kingly authority and power.
354. See especially L. Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur Ex-
cavations; Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1947) no. 129.
355. W. W. Hallo, Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles (AOS 43; New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1957) 60ff.; Hallo and Simpson, The Ancient Near East, 81–84.
356. The evidence indicates that these kings often dispossessed the older patron gods
of the cities and occasionally built temples for themselves in their own cities. See H. Frank-
fort, S. Lloyd, and T. Jacobsen, The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace Rulers at Tell Asmar
(OIP 43; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940) 2; and C. J. Gadd and L. Legrain,
Ur Excavations: Royal Inscriptions (Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Penn-
sylvania, 1928) 18–19 n. 81.
357. This is clear in the cases of Ur-Nammu, Shulgi, and Ibbi-Sin. See P. Garelli (ed.),
Gilgames et sa légende (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960) 61ff.; E. Sollberger,
“The Tummal Inscription,” JCS 16 (1962) 44; Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur, 278, no. 21; and CAH, 1/2.600.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 85
Storm-god. It was he who brought the devastating rains that ravaged the land
and destroyed the crops. He was represented on seals and in inscriptions as
an active, fighting god, always armed with a double or triple thunderbolt in
his upraised hand. This fierce and violent characteristic is reflected in many
of his titles, but there were also other titles, which portrayed him as a benev-
olent deity concerned with the fertility of the land.
The benevolent side of Adad as a premier fertility deity was also period-
ically represented in the text of Babylonia, even though this side was de-
emphasized in contrast to his harsher attributes. In the more popular
iconography of seals, however the beneficent side was clearly and constantly
revealed. The great Storm-god of the Semites in the north and the west had
now become the subject of mythology, hymns, and prayers, accompanied pe-
riodically by his attendants, the leonine dragon and the bull. These associates
became his permanent adjuncts during the Old Babylonian Period. Their
constant presence testifies to a conceptual shift in the ancient mythical per-
ception of the Mesopotamian Storm-god.
The Sumerian Storm-god had originally emerged accompanied by his
fertility associate, the dragon. Subsequently, the nude goddess, another at-
tendant, became a constant associate of the divinity. This occurred when,
during the Sargonic Period, Sumerian culture was gradually being infused
with foreign ideas. Now, during the Old Babylonian Period, the dragon,
nude goddess, and also the bull became constant attendants of the Storm-god
Adad. Bull motifs had appeared prior to this era, but there is no earlier evi-
dence of any cultic or mythological relationship between the bull and the
Storm-god. It was only in the late third millennium that the bull appeared
supporting the figure of a god; this development was simultaneous with the
influx of Semites and other northern immigrants who became an integral
part of the cultural milieu of Sumer and Akkad.
The appearance of a god riding a bull evidently signaled an additional con-
ceptual shift. Textual, mythological, and iconographic evidence has shown
that the “god-riding-on-the-bull” motif was originally Anatolian, 358 intro-
duced to Babylonia via Syria. However, as will be demonstrated in the next
chapter, Adad riding on or being accompanied by a bull as his principal atten-
dant did not bear the same religious significance in southern Mesopotamia as
in regions to the far north.
During the Old Babylonian and Kassite Periods, the cultic emergence of
a bull as an attendant of and at times a substitute for Adad was an indication
of the popularity of this Semitic Storm-god in the Sumero-Babylonian cul-
tural milieu. While in the Akkadian Period this divinity had been mythically
358. This will be discussed more fully in the following chapter; however, see especially
Frankfort, CS, 242–52; Van Buren, SG, 32–37; and Vanel, L’iconographie, 30–45.
Mesopotamia: The Land between Two Rivers 87
89
90 The Highlands of Anatolia
4. Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries, 12. Among relevant studies com-
paring the ecological and climatic changes of prehistoric times with modern times, see, e.g.,
P. Beaumont, The Middle East: A Geographical Study (New York: Halstead, 1988); F. C.
McKoy, “Climatic Change in the Eastern Mediterranean Area during the Past 240,000
Years,” Thera and the Aegean World (London: Thera and the Aegean World, 1980); K. W.
Butzer, “Physical Conditions in Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Egypt before the Period
of Agricultural and Urban Settlement,” in CAH, 1/1.49–52; idem, “Environmental
Change in the Near East and Human Impact on the Land,” in CANE, 1.123–51.
5. Mellaart, The Neolithic Cultures of the Near East, 91–92.
6. S. Lloyd, The Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia (London: Thames & Hudson,
1967) 11-12; Mellaart, “Anatolia before 4000 b.c.,” in CAH, 1/1.307–26; idem, “Anatolia,
c. 4000–2300 b.c.,” in CAH, 1/2, particularly pp. 363–67.
7. See especially Butzer, “Physical Conditions in Eastern Europe,” 51–53.
8. H. R. Cohen, “The Paleoecology of South Central Anatolia at the End of the Pleis-
tocene and the Beginning of the Holocene,” AS 20 (1970) 7–35.
9. Note particularly C. W. Carter, Hittite Cult Inventories (Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Chicago, 1962) 26–27; O. R. Gurney, The Hittites (Baltimore: Penguin, 1972)
152–56.
The Highlands of Anatolia 91
10. See, e.g., S. Erinc, “Changes in the Physical Environment in Turkey since the End
of the Last Glacial,” in The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East since the Last
Ice Age (ed. W. C. Brice; London: Academic, 1978) 101–39; W. C. Brice, “Environmental
Change in the Near East,” 127–32.
11. See J. C. Dewdney, Turkey (London: Thames & Hudson, 1971) 34.
12. Note particularly N. N. Ambraseys, “Some Characteristic Features of the Anato-
lian Fault Zone,” Tectonophysics 9 (1970) 143–65; idem, “Value of Historical Records of
Earthquakes,” Nature 232/5310 (1971) 375–79; idem, “Studies in Historical Seismicity
and Tectonics,” Geodynamics Today (London: Royal Society, 1975) 7–16; H. J. Deighton,
The “Weather-God” in Hittite Anatolia (British Archaeological Reports International Series
143; Oxford: BAR International Series, 1982) 8.
13. Mellaart, The Neolithic of the Near East, 91–96; idem, “Anatolia before 4000 b.c.,”
304–26.
14. CAH, 1/1.52–53; and R. Brinkmann, The Geology of Turkey (Amsterdam: Ameri-
can Elsevier, 1976) 78–81. This work has an excellent and extensive bibliography on the
subject.
92 The Highlands of Anatolia
became the Konya Plain. 15 In part it has been the porous limestone forma-
tions of central Anatolia that have contributed to the indigenous Anatolians’
unique conception of the nature and the role of the Storm-god.
Water seeps through porous karst as through a sponge. Vegetation cover
will hold water, but without plants the water will filter through and disap-
pear into the rock below. As this occurs, it destroys by solution and builds up
by deposition. There are areas in south-central Turkey where the limestone
has disappeared altogether. 16 As water collects at a given level, the water table
sometimes becomes fixed, forming huge lakes underground. In other areas,
where a system of channels has developed, rivers may flow for many miles
underground before debouching above ground, fully formed. Some rivers
may also flow under ridges as under a bridge, occasionally appearing above
ground, and disappearing once again into the earth, never to reappear. Stud-
ies have shown a characteristic appearance of springs at the foot of cliffs,
thermal springs emerging from underground pools, and water gushing out of
hillsides. 17 To the indigenous inhabitants of Anatolia, it must have been
mysterious to observe a stream disappearing into or suddenly appearing out
of presumably solid rock. 18 In the karst regions, these springs rather than riv-
ers are the main providers of water. 19
Because precipitation is quickly absorbed into the limestone and col-
lected invisibly underground, the effect of rain on the terrain is minimized. 20
While the ancient Anatolian might naturally have expected the water supply
in valleys to increase after a downpour, in areas of extensive underground
drainage this did not always happen. Springs might also have been expected
to show an increase in volume after rainfall, but this too was not necessarily
the case.
Another important feature of limestone landscape is the development of
huge holes and caves in the ground. 21 I have explored scores of similar cen-
otes in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, where the geological formation is
comparable to that of central Turkey. 22 In certain areas in the Yucatan region,
these caves comprise a vast network. In both regions, the entrances to many
of the caves are rather ominous and convey an experience of entering into the
gates of the underworld. These are some of the distinctive dynamic features
of the physical environment and the ecology of the Anatolian heartland.
They contributed to a decidedly chthonic conception of the divine world by
the Anatolians.
Anatolia is part of the landbridge between Europe, Asia, and Africa. This
region has historically been subjected to mass migration and ethnic move-
ment from Asia and Europe in the north and northeast and from Syria and
Mesopotamia and other areas in the south and southeast. As a result, tracing
the development of any cultural trend is difficult. This task is further compli-
cated by the complete absence of any epigraphic sources prior to the begin-
ning of the Middle Bronze Age. Even with the emergence of written sources,
material with a direct bearing on Anatolian mythology and cult was only
documented for the first time during the last centuries of the Late Bronze
Age or toward the end of the Hittite Empire. The problem of determining
and tracing a specific religious development within this cultural milieu is fur-
ther compounded by evidence from numerous linguistic strains, many of
which do not correspond to any of the historically documented groups that
once inhabited the Anatolian Plateau.
23. See, e.g., J. Mellaart, Earliest Civilizations (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965), espe-
cially chap. 7; Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 11–16; Mellaart, “Anatolia before c. 4000
b.c.,” 305–26; idem, “Anatolia c. 4000–2300 b.c.,” 363–416.
24. Mellaart, Earliest Civilizations, 77–78; idem, “Anatolia before c. 4000 b.c.,”
309–18.
94 The Highlands of Anatolia
25. Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 11-12; Mellaart, Earliest Civilizations, 77–101;
idem, Catal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia (London: Thames & Hudson, 1976);
Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries, 13–17.
26. E. Akurgal, Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey (Istanbul: Türk Tarih Ku-
rumu Basimevi, 1973) 4–5.
27. Mellaart, Chatal Hüyük, 77–130; idem, Earliest Civilizations, 89–93.
The Highlands of Anatolia 95
self; only his birth and his mating with the goddess are shown. This is evi-
dently an indication that his role and prestige have been greatly diminished.
At Hacilar, while figures of the Mother-goddess appear with a child or with
animals, figures of the male god have completely disappeared. 28
Archaeological surveys of the Konya Plain have shown that the native
Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Central Anatolia came to an end with
the mass migrations and cultural traditions coming from Europe. 29 The first
phase of Bronze Age ethnic and cultural distinctions reveals more than a
dozen cultural groups in different parts of the country. 30 It is now apparent
that some of the changes in the material remains coincide with social trans-
formations and geological upheavals in southeastern Europe and the Trans-
caucasus. In spite of this, the entire population seems to have continued to
31. See S. Diamant and J. Rutter, “Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and
Possible Connections with the Minoan ‘Horns of Consecration,’ ” AS 19 (1969) 147–80.
32. Suggestions abound as to the meaning of these shrines and their association with
the pillars. J. Yakar (“The Twin Shrines of Beycesultan,” AS 24 [1974] 155) has even theo-
rized that the stelas represent a divine couple and the twin shrines either two different cou-
ples or different aspects of the same couple. See also G. M. A. Hanfmann, “Four Urartian
‘Bulls’ Heads,” AS 6 (1956) 205–13; H. Güterbock,” Notes on Some Anatolian Monu-
ments,” AS 6 (1956) 53–56; and W. Lamb, “Some Early Anatolian Shrines,” AS 6 (1956)
87–94.
33. S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, Beycesultan: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (An-
kara: British Institute of Archaeology, 1962) 1.27–34; Lloyd, The Early Highland Peoples,
36–37; Lamb, “Some Early Anatolian Shrines,” 101–35; K. Kohlmeyer, “Anatolian Archi-
tectural Decorations, Statuary, and Stelae,” in CANE, 2.2639–40.
34. Note, for example, the continuity of the deeply rooted Anatolian intramural buri-
als below the floors or courtyards, compared with jar burials, and so forth, that are found
on many sites. See J. Yakar, “The Indo-Europeans and Their Impact on the Anatolian Cul-
tural Development,” Journal of Indo-European Studies 9 (1981) 103–4.
The Highlands of Anatolia 97
Fig. 8. (a) The Standard with stags (S. Lloyd, Early Highland
Peoples, p. 21); (b) another example of the Standard (E. Akurgal,
Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey, pl. 84b).
98 The Highlands of Anatolia
to the north, 35 are dated a little later but reflect the same cultural and reli-
gious pattern as the standard.
There is substantive evidence that the standards were of particular reli-
gious importance as representations of a theriomorphic religious idea, which
lies at the heart of Anatolian religion. 36 The male principle at Chatal Hüyük
is usually represented in the form of a bull, and the animals in the standards
are generally bulls and stags. 37 In view of the evidently chthonic emphasis in
Anatolian religion and also on the basis of studies of later Hittite religion, it
has been plausibly argued that, from earliest times, the bull inside a disc or
circle represented the Water-god emerging from his hole—that is, the water
emerging from the earth. 38 It is this same chthonic bull that would subse-
quently become the symbol of the Storm-god in later Hittite texts. 39 Due to
the peculiar character of the Anatolian topography, with water coming out of
the earth from caves and wells, the major deities evidently developed as
chthonic Water-gods. 40
During Early Bronze III (2300–2000) in areas of Central and Pontic
Anatolia, the local cultures persisted with no significant changes. In spite of
the indications of massive invasions, destructions, and the decline of material
culture, there is ample evidence of the coexistence of a number of different
cultural elements, and the local religious traditions continued on all levels. 41
Archaeological and anthropological studies have so far not detected any
meaningful change in the basic cultic pattern associated with the indigenous
peoples of the region. Cult objects such as figurines of the Mother-goddess,
bull, stag, and standard continued to be produced throughout the region, al-
though there was no absolute uniformity in style. 42
1978) 71–78. See also Yakar, “The Indo-Europeans and Their Impact on the Anatolian
Cultural Development,” 106–8.
43. The early-second-millennium phase of Anatolian civilization, when trading colo-
nies were founded by Assyrian merchants who settled in Cappadocia and elsewhere.
44. N. Özgüc, “Marble Idols and Statuettes from the Excavations at Kültepe,” Belleten
14 (1950) 481–82; and Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 41–42.
45. This broad ethnic designation is usually used to differentiate the indigenous pre-
Cappadocian groups that inhabited Anatolia from prehistoric times from ethnic groups
that arrived later from the south and north.
46. Mellaart, “Anatolia, c. 2300–1750 b.c.,” CAH, 1/2.691–92; idem, “Anatolian
Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age,” AS 7 (1957) 55–58; Yakar, “Troy and
Anatolian Early Bronze Age Chronology,” 51–77; Goetze, “On the Chronology of the Sec-
ond Millennium b.c.,” 63–73.
100 The Highlands of Anatolia
47. See paper and discussion presented by G. Wilhelm and J. Boese, “Absolut Chro-
nologie und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr,” in High,
Middle or Low? Acts of the International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the Uni-
versity of Gothenburg, 20th–22nd August 1987, part 1 (ed. P. Åström; Gothenburg: Åströms,
1989) 74–118; M. Astour, Hittite and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age (Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 73; Gothenburg: Åströms, 1989) 1–73; and
C. A. Burney, “Northern Anatolia before Classical Times,” AS 6 (1956) 178–79; Gurney,
The Hittites, 15–25; G. McMahon, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Hittite Anatolia,”
in CANE, 4.1983–85; J. G. Macqueen, “The History of Anatolia and the Hittite Empire:
An Overview,” CANE, 2.1085–1105.
48. Mellaart, “Anatolia, c. 2300–1750 b.c.”; and H. G. Güterbock, “Kanes and Nesa:
Two Forms of One Anatolian Name,” ErIsr 5 (1958) 46ff.
49. See, e.g., Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 54–55; and Gurney, The Hittites, 130–31.
50. P. Garelli and D. Collon, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1963)
171–230; M. T. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (Copenhagen: Akade-
misk, 1976); H. Lewy, “Notes on the Political Organization of Asia Minor at the Time of
The Highlands of Anatolia 101
ered in Anatolia; however, very little can be learned from them regarding the
indigenous Hattian population. 51 Since these earliest cuneiform tablets basi-
cally deal with day-to-day business between the resident Assyrian merchants
and their capital city, any religious references are primarily to Assyrian dei-
ties. Other than rare mentions of a local god, there is little to shed light on
indigenous religious practices.
The presence of the Assyrians at Kültepe represents the impact of a new
literate culture on the inhabitants of Anatolia. The merchants in these Assyr-
ian colonies in the suburbs appear to have lived on excellent terms with their
Anatolian neighbors and intermarried with them, and there is every indica-
tion that their domestic life conformed to the local mores. Otherwise, the
colonists were left unmolested to pursue their own religious customs. 52
Although texts yield very little on the local Hattian religion, the Assyrian
pantheon, which emerges from the Cappadocian Texts, did render a good
portrait of the underpinnings of the religion during this period. In addition,
the religious customs highlighted in iconography during this period clearly
contrast with the customs of neighboring countries linked by trade. In spite
of the evidence for cultural diversity, migrations, and political changes, there
is also evidence of a persistent, authentic, indigenous Anatolian culture.
A considerable number of Hurrian place-names and personal names are
also to be found in the Cappadocian Texts; in addition, a number of eastern
Anatolian cities bear Hurrian names. 53 This seems in keeping with the con-
temporaneous Mari texts, which also record a list of Hurrian princes who
ruled over parts of northern Mesopotamia. 54 Subsequent materials convey the
impression that during the time of Samsi-Adad I, the region around the head-
waters of the Khabur, later Khanigalbat, had previously been the center of a
Hurrian territory that extended far beyond the Euphrates into Anatolia. 55
the Old Assyrian Texts,” Or n.s. 33 (1964) 181ff.; Mellaart, “Anatolia, c. 2300-1750 b.c.”;
K. R. Veenhof, “Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia,” in CANE, 2.859–71.
51. See, e.g., Burney, “Northern Anatolia before Classical Times,” 179–83; Gurney,
The Hittites, 15–21; K. R. Veenhof, “The Old Assyrian Merchants and Their Relations
with the Native Population of Anatolia,” in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische
und Kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien (CRRAI 25; ed. H. J. Nissen and
J. Renger; Berlin: Reimer, 1982) 147–55.
52. Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 42–51.
53. H. Lewy, “Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period,” CAH, 1/2.716–17.
54. There is the example of Shukru-Teshub of Elakhut. See, e.g., Kupper, Les nomades
de Mésopotamie, 230 n. 1; A. Finet, “Adelsenni, roi de Murundum,” RA 60 (1966) 17. See
also CAH, 2/1.22–24.
55. I. J. Gelb, “The Word Dragoman in the Ancient Near East,” Glossa 2 (1968) 93–
104; CAH, 1/2.716–18; Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, 155ff.; J. Lewy, “Old Assyrian
Evidence concerning Kassara and Its Location,” HUCA 33 (1962) 53ff.
102 The Highlands of Anatolia
It would appear that, unlike the Indo-Europeans, the Hurrians dealt with
the Assyrians on equal terms. Hurrians are mentioned among the influential
merchants of Kanesh, who controlled a large part of trade. Considerable ex-
tant materials now testify to the presence of Hurrian deities and cultic con-
tributions as early as the Assyrian colonial period. 56 These Asiatic Hurrians
represent another significant element emerging from and contributing to the
cultural milieu of Middle Bronze Age Anatolia. Every type of evidence indi-
cates that Hurrian religion is not native to the Anatolian region.
The West Semitic Amorites are yet another important people referred to
in the Cappadocian Texts. 57 While there is evidence suggesting that Amorites
or Syrians were permanent residents of Anatolia even before the arrival of the
Assyrians, there are also data showing that other Amorites arrived in Anatolia
along with the Assyrians. There is no specific reference to Amorite deities in
the Cappadocian Texts. Nevertheless, the presence of personal names contain-
ing theophorous elements from Old West Semitic deity names suggests the ac-
ceptance of these Syrian gods into the pantheon 58 of the Assyrian karum. 59
These deities appear in solemn vows along with the Assyrian national god.
The historical significance of the presence of a West Semitic element at
Kanesh is underscored by the fact that the West Semitic deity Anna was the
patron god of the city. 60 Even though the Syrians and Assyrians were subse-
56. See H. G. Güterbock, “The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire,” in CahHM
2/2 (1954) 383–94; B. Hrouda, “Die Churriter als Problem archäologischer Forschung,”
Archaeologia Geographica 7 (1958) 14–19. Note also E. A. Speiser, “The Hurrian Participa-
tion in the Civilizations of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine,” CahHM 1/2 (1953) 311–27.
57. CAH, 1/2.717–722.
58. Evidence to this effect comes from personal names containing theophorous ele-
ments such as Dagan, Tibar, Laban, and Ilaprat. For Dagan, see H. Hirsch, “Die Inscriften
der Könige von Agade,” AfO 20 (1963) 37ff.; for Tibar, B. Hrozny, Inscriptions cunéiformes
du Kültepe (Prague: Statni pedagogicke nake, 1952) vol. 1, no. 96, lines 3–4; Laban, Su-
Laban is a reflection of the worship of the Moon-god in the region of Lebanon; and for
Ilaprat, see G. Contenau, Tablettes cappadociennes: Textes cunéiformes du Louvre (Paris:
Geuthner, 1920) vol. 4, no. 15, lines 17–18; J. Lewy, “Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’Ancien
Testament,” RHR 110 (1934) 51. As has been pointed out earlier, Dagan was the chief de-
ity of the region around Mari and western Mesopotamia (see above, chap. 1, “Dagan,” 63–
72); Tibar would be the god Tibar of Mt. Tabor in Canaan, and Ilaprat was originally the
god of the town of Ephrath in Palestine. See also Lewy, “Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Pe-
riod,” 719–20.
59. Karum was the term used by the Assyrians for their governing body, followed by
the name of the city (for example, karum Kanes ), with the seat of government being the
karum-house. It also became the designation for the trading center of the Assyrian colo-
nists. See CAH, 1/2.721–23; Veenhof, “Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia,” 859–71.
60. Hrozny, Inscriptions cunéiformes du Kültepe, vol. 1, no. 32, lines 10ff.; J. Lewy,
“Amurritica,” HUCA 32 (1961) 31ff., especially p. 37; CAH, 1/2.719–21.
The Highlands of Anatolia 103
The Storm-God:
Archaeological Pictorial Representations
During the chronological span covering the Middle and Late Bronze
Ages, a clearly defined concept of the Anatolian Storm-god evolved that is
now discernible in the iconographic, literary, and other material remains. On
the one hand, the concept of this deity was deeply anchored in prehistoric
moorings of Anatolian mixed religious traditions. On the other it was trans-
formed under the impact of foreign influence, which had become a part of
the Anatolian cultural milieu.
The long-established Hattian indigenous religious traditions begin to
emerge faintly into the light of history with the Assyrian introduction of
writing on clay tablets uncovered at Kültepe. The vast assortment of tablets
uncovered at Boghazköy and a few other sites was from later times. The As-
syrian texts concentrate on business transactions, even though they do make
brief references to certain Assyrian and West Semitic deities. The later Hittite
texts, however, render abundant evidence on the state cult of the Hittite Em-
pire and the religious concepts on which it was based. These are particularly
apparent in prayers and ritual instructions associated with temple personnel.
Literary materials on the religion of the Anatolians derive primarily from
a few important sites. It is the illustrative evidence, however, found through-
out the country in the form of glyptic art, monuments, and rock-carvings,
that provides invaluable information on the local cults and the development
of religious traditions from earliest times. Glyptic art spans the entire period
of our interest; as a consequence, it affords an opportunity for a balanced
analysis of the development of the Storm-god motif and other important as-
pects of Anatolian religion. The main disadvantage of the monuments and
rock carvings as evidence is that they date for the most part to after the end
of the Hittite Empire, at which time syncretizing tendencies had affected
most of the local cults and even the cults in Boghazköy.
104 The Highlands of Anatolia
61. The material on seals and bullae from Kültepe, Acemhoyuk, and other sites during
this period is found, for example, in H. Demirciöglu, Der Gott auf dem Stier: Geschichte
eines religiösen Bildtypus (Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt, 1939). On the issue of the interpre-
tation of anthropomorphic themes in this and other iconography, see also C. Uehlinger,
“Audienz in der Götterwelt: Anthropomorphismus und Soziomorphismus in der Ikonogra-
phie eines altsyrischen Zylindersiegels,” UF 24 (1992) 339–59. See in addition Vanel, L’ico-
nographie du dieu de l’orage, 58–68; N. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal
Impressions from Kültepe (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 5/22; Ankara: Türk Tarih Ku-
rumu Basimevi, 1965); idem, Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish
(Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 5/25; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1968);
idem, “Seal Impressions from the Palaces at Acemhoyük,” in Ancient Art in Seals (ed. E. Po-
rada; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980) 61–88; D. Collon, The Alalakh Cylinder
Seals (BAR Int. Series 132; London: BAR, 1982); idem, The Seal Impressions from Tell
Atchana/Alalakh (AOAT 27; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon
& Bercker, 1975); idem, “The Smiting God: A Study of a Bronze in the Pomerance Col-
lection in New York,” Levant 4 (1972) 111–35; T. Beran, Die hethitische Glyptik von Bogaz-
köy, I: Die Siegel und Siegelabdrücke den vor- und althethitischen Perioden und die Siegel der
hethitischen Grosskönige (WVDOG 76; Berlin: Mann, 1967); E. Williams-Forte, “The
Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the Bronze Age,” Ancient
Seals and the Bible (ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte; Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1983)
18–43; and others.
The Highlands of Anatolia 105
62. For discussions on this goddess, see Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, 69–72.
63. Özgüc has cataloged the seal impressions from both Kültepe and Acemhoyuk ac-
cording to four basic styles: Old Assyrian, Old Babylonian, Old Anatolian, and Old Syrian
(ibid., 45ff.; idem,“Seal Impressions from the Palaces at Acemhoyük,” 61–88).
64. A. Goetze, Kleinasien (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft: Kulturgeschichte
des Alten Orients; Munich: Beck, 1957) 80–81.
65. M. Mellink discusses the sudden appearance of the Storm-god deity in seal designs
of this period, in “Anatolia: Old and New Perspectives,” Proceedings of the American Philo-
sophical Society 110/2 (1966) 120.
66. These identifying characteristics were first documented in the study by Demirciö-
glu, Der Gott auf dem Stier, and subsequently systematized with the study of other Storm-
gods from other regions in Vanel, L’iconographie, 58–68.
106 The Highlands of Anatolia
Fig. 9. (a) Storm-gods on early Anatolian seals. Identified by the divine horned head-
gear and the bull. Here, one god holds the reins of his sacred bull in his right hand,
and another also on his bull carries a weapon on his right shoulder (Özgüc, Anatolian
Group, pl. ix, no. 26; Vanel, L’iconographie, pp. 59–64, figs. 26–29); (b) Storm-gods
on bulls (Özgüc, Anatolian Group, pl. x, no. 28).
protuberance; the nude hero standing on a bull; and the god struggling with
the bull. 67 On the strength of this analysis, some general conclusions may be
drawn.
Significantly, almost twenty-five percent of the seal impressions depict
deities associated with bulls. This animal, from prehistoric times on, though
chthonic within the substratum of Anatolian religion, was nevertheless al-
ways associated with the Anatolian Storm-god (see below). Since the bull’s
potency is a symbol of fertility and propagation of herds in non-Anatolian
settings, its constant association with an Anatolian deity of this genre would
seem to convey an analogous concept. 68 However, its association in Anatolia
with the Storm-god motif instead suggests the continued presence of an
earth-bound Hattian zoomorphic terrestrial “Water-god.” Pictorially, this ter-
Fig. 10. The Hattian Water-god in human form on his bull with a goblet in his right
hand and the reins of the bull in his left hand. He is followed by the atmospheric
Storm-god with his left foot on a mountaintop and his right foot on a bull. He
clutches the reins of his bull and goblet in his right hand, while in his left he clutches
a dangling serpent. Near his head are rain and cloud (Özgüc, Anatolian Group,
pl. xxiv, no. 71).
69. In the interest of greater clarity and in order to differentiate this Anatolian divinity
from the non-Anatolian Storm-god, the former will be referred to as a terrestrial “Water-
god” and the non-Anatolian as a celestial “Storm-god.”
70. See M. Vieyra, “Les textes hittites,” in Les religions du Proche-Orient (ed. R. Labat
et al.; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1970) 500; M. H. Pope and W. Röllig, “Syrien: Die Mythologie
der Ugariter und Phonizier,” WdM 1.217–34. The primary argument of these scholars re-
volves around the similarities among the various lists of Adads in Mesopotamia and Baals
in Syria–Palestine.
108 The Highlands of Anatolia
Of the five Anatolian types, four project Storm-god trappings. The depictions
of these divinities portray both atmospheric and terrestrial attributes. 71 Fish,
snakes, flowing streams, and striations representing rain appear in most regis-
ters, suggesting that, in spite of the apparent emphasis on an atmospheric
deity there is an accompanying insistence on terrestrial attributes. This con-
clusion is derived not merely from the presence of aquatic symbols but also
from the continued focus on his association with the chthonic symbol of the
earth deity, the bull. As demonstrated above, the bull is portrayed emerging
from his lair under the ground in the standards of earlier periods. In the As-
syrian colonial period, the bovine was depicted in all of the registers as either
the terrestrial Water-god’s equal or his attendant.
For the first time, these seal representations portray the distinctive
Hattian Water-god in human form. On a number of seals, he is portrayed
unarmed and preceding another weapon-wielding, snake-carrying, bull-
mounted atmospheric Storm-god (fig. 10). Nine of the twenty impressions
showing the Storm-god riding a bull depict this unarmed Water-god as well.
All of the registers show him in association with aquatic creatures and flow-
ing streams, never holding a weapon, and exhibiting a peaceful demeanor. 72
He is never depicted leading a procession of more than one deity on a bull.
He exhibits the combined features of high status, a pacific demeanor, and an
association with the bull, the crescent, fish, and nude beings in submissive
postures. He is a divinity whose functions are very much earth-bound, asso-
ciated with earthly waters. Williams-Forte has correctly equated this terres-
trial deity with another enthroned god of high status who is also associated
with flowing streams and aquatic creatures.
The terrestrial Water-god is the ancient divinity projected as a Hattian
“Storm-god,” now portrayed for the first time in anthropomorphic form,
probably due in part to foreign influence. On the basis of this earliest genre
of Anatolian iconography, it seems incorrect to conclude that the Anatolian
seals depict only one Storm-god, with multiple regional variations. Rather, in
spite of certain similarities, their accompanying symbols suggest that two ba-
sic functions are implicit in the two forms of these Anatolian gods. One is a
celestial Storm-god and the other a terrestrial Water-god. The later, celestial
Storm-god is indigenous to cultures of Europe and the ancient Near East.
The earlier, earth-bound Water-god is indigenous to the Hattian population.
This divinity is now depicted in human form, even though his earlier zoo-
71. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, 59–64, §§2 and 1f, for Adad, and 1a, b, and e for
the Storm-god connected with rainfall.
72. For an in-depth discussion of the weapon-wielding Storm-god, see Vanel, L’ico-
nographie, 79–93; and N. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, nos. 19, 20, 26, 28, 64–65, 70–71
and p. 64; Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 23–24.
The Highlands of Anatolia 109
Fig. 11. The Storm-god killing the bull? (Özgüc, Anatolian Group, pl. vi, no. 18).
73. In the Mesopotamian milieu, as discussed above, the earlier, nonhuman form is
quite often depicted either accompanying his later human form or lurking menacingly in
the background. There is, for example, a portrayal of the Storm-god Ningirsu in his older
form as Imdugud, and later the human form of Ningirsu is even shown emerging from his
earlier nonhuman bird form. See Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 128–29.
74. See W. G. Lambert, “Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,”
BSOAS 48 (1985) 449–51.
110 The Highlands of Anatolia
Taru’s having a father. If, on the basis of Hurrian mythology, the unarmed
divinity represents Anu, Kumarbi’s father, 75 there is still a problem. The
myth relates that Kumarbi seized power from Anu by force. According to the
Ullikummi story, Kumarbi gave birth to a stone in order to crush his son
Teshub. 76 This description does not square with the peaceful demeanor pro-
jected by this deity in all of the registers.
One view suggests that in Ugaritic mythology Baal is known as the son
and successor of El, the leader of the Canaanite pantheon, and that this pre-
sumed paternal relationship is of great antiquity. It has therefore been pro-
posed that the portrayal of the unarmed deity as always preceding the Storm-
god “fits so perfectly the figure that precedes Baal in the Anatolian Group
that it justifies a hypothesis that in Hattian religion at Kültepe the Storm-
god’s father corresponds to El in Syrian religion.” 77 It will become evident in
the discussion of the Syrian Storm-god below, however, that, if there was in-
deed a relationship between these two Anatolian figures similar to that of El
and Baal, it was not father and son but some other relationship.
The Anatolian seals must be interpreted within the context of the indig-
enous cultural milieu of early Anatolia. The scenes with the two gods need
not necessarily represent a paternal relationship but could instead reflect the
chronological precedence of one of these deities over the other within the
Anatolian milieu. Here, the peaceful terrestrial Anatolian Water-god pre-
cedes the later energetic celestial non-Anatolian Storm-god. In view of the
fact that both are mounted on bulls, the primordial mount of the Anatolian
Water-god, and in the absence of any other identifying characteristics, a local
interpretation within the context of the twentieth–nineteenth century b.c.e.
Anatolian cultural milieu seems more appropriate.
The only deity identified by name among the various Storm-gods por-
trayed in the Kültepe texts is the northern Mesopotamian Adad (fig. 12a,
b). 78 However, the later, fourteenth–thirteenth-century b.c.e. Hittite texts
describe a number of deities very similar to the Anatolian Storm-gods from
this earlier, Assyrian colonial period. 79 The god holding the rein of a bull
Fig. 12. (a) The Storm-god Adad standing on a leonine dragon, holding the reins of
the dragon and his lightning spear or thunderbolt symbol in his left hand and a spear
pointed toward the ground in his right hand (Özgüc, Anatolian Group, pl. iii, no. 9);
(b) The Storm-god Adad on his leonine dragon, with his thunderbolt symbol and the
reins of the dragon in his left hand (Özgüc, Anatolian Group, pl. i, no. 2).
80. H. T. Bossert, Altanatolien: Kunst und Handwerk in Kleinasien von den Anfangen
bis zum volligen Aufgehen in der griechischen Kultur (Die ältesten Kulturen des Mittelmeer-
kreise 2; Berlin: Wasmuth, 1942) no. 563.
81. K. Bittel, R. Naumann, and H. Otto, Yazilikaya: Architektur, Felsbilder, Inschriften
und Kleinfunde (WVDOG 61; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1941) pl. 18, p. 79; and K. Bittel, Hat-
tusha: The Capital of the Hittites (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).
112 The Highlands of Anatolia
of the bulls as attendants of the Storm-gods. 82 The later Hittite reliefs clearly
represent a continuation of this early indigenous Anatolian concept of the
bull deity.
In addition to the Water-god and the Storm-god, there is the contrasting
profile of still another divinity identified as a War-god. He is usually shown
in a battle scene holding a variety of weapons, most frequently a shaft-hole
axe. He may be attended by different animals but is usually accompanied by
his sacred animal, the lion. This War-god stands in a chariot drawn by either
lions or a team of a lion and a bull. It is apparent that during this early period
the War-god was conceived as a separate deity performing a separate function
from that of the Water-god or the Storm-god. There are seals that show the
Storm-god and the War-god standing side by side or occasionally accompa-
nied by yet another divinity, identified as the Hunting-god (fig. 13). 83
This brings us to the bull. Aside from its role as the constant attendant of
the Water-god and the Storm-god, the bull as a focus of worship is the most
frequently rendered subject on the native Anatolian seals. There is one genre
of scenes that differs from the others treated earlier. In it the bull has a pyra-
mid on his back with a bird on top. A bull cult is implied in a similar set of
scenes portraying a cultic ritual that includes an altar, worshipers offering
gifts to the bull, and an interceding deity. When compared with those scenes
depicting the Storm-god, the interceding deity is rarely offered gifts; the bull,
however, was evidently the deity who was worshiped and more commonly
given offerings.
In settings with bull worship, other gods with bulls do not generally ap-
pear. We infer that the bull was either conceived of as a separate Water-god
or, when appearing in association with other Storm-gods, represented an at-
tribute of the Water-god. In another setting the bull assumes the form of a
therio-anthropomorphic deity, with two human arms protruding from its
taurine chest (fig. 14). 84 It is likely that this symbolizes the tension between
the prehistoric zoomorphic and the emerging anthropomorphic attributes of
the Water-god. Subsequent Hittite reliefs from Alaca Hüyük and Hanyeri 85
also depict the bull cult.
82. So, for example, in the list of gods in von Brandenstein, Hethitische Götter nach
Bildbeschreibungen in Keilschrifttexten; and in H. G. Güterbock, “Eti tanri tasvirleri ile tanri
adlari,” Belleten 26 (1943) 286.
83. For scenes depicting the Storm-god and the War-god in the same registers, see
Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, 65–76; and for those showing the Water-god and the War-
god in the same registers, see pls. XXI, 64a, b, d; XXII, 65.
84. Ibid., 64–65.
85. See, e.g., Bossert, Anatolien: Kunst and Handwerk in Kleinasien, nos. 507, 510, 514.
The Highlands of Anatolia 113
Fig. 13. Deities in procession. Hunting-god on deer, Water-god on bull with reins
in left hand, Storm-god on bull with cone and arrows stands at his back with the
bull’s reins in his right hand, War-god on a lion (Özgüc, Anatolian Group, pl. xxii,
no. 65).
Fig. 14. Bull as a therioanthropomorphic deity, with arms protruding from his
taurine chest and cone on his back. Bull-legged altar in front, with interceding deity
facing bull-god (Özgüc, Anatolian Group, pl. xiv, no. 40).
and cultural value system of its immediate surroundings. The same held true
for the ancient world. Textual evidence indicates that the Assyrians also ex-
erted considerable economic and some political power in Anatolia. 86
An argument can thus be made for the influence of Assyrian religious
ideas upon Anatolian religion. Where relevant, the Cappadocian Texts high-
light the role of Assyrian gods and Assyrian cultic practices among the colo-
nists; however, only meager references to the most important Anatolian
deities are found. As a consequence, we are unable to learn much about the
indigenous Anatolian religion from these texts. Even when an Assyrian deity
with an Anatolian identity is alluded to within an Anatolian cultic setting, its
attributes and function are still unmistakably Assyrian. Of course, the reverse
argument would be that the Assyrians were mere colonists, whose daily ac-
tivities should be expected to have emphasized Assyrian cultural traditions
and to have reflected relatively little of the local Anatolian culture. Because
these sources document transactions at the official and not the popular level,
one should not expect references to a local Anatolian religion unless it had an
impact on trade, politics, or other matters of importance to the colonists.
Nevertheless, out of respect for the host people, at least, iconographic repre-
sentations or the names of one or more of the leading Anatolian deities might
well be expected in the Cappadocian sources.
If there is a paucity of references to Anatolian religious practices in the
written sources from the early Middle Bronze Age, the opposite is true for the
iconography of this era. Above I referred to the pervasive prehistoric religious
ideas inherent in the numerous anthropomorphic representations of the
Mother-goddess. She was depicted riding her sacred leopard, riding on a bull,
or giving birth facing circles or red niches in the wall emphasizing her
chthonic association with the underworld. Since these Mother-goddess sym-
bols are scattered throughout all levels in sites all over Anatolia, it is reason-
abe to conclude that she symbolized the process of fertilization and that she
was the most prominent deity in Anatolia. I have also shown that the pre-
historic male principle symbolizing potency developed progressively in an-
thropomorphic representations to a bearded male riding on a bull and finally
to bulls’ horns or bulls’ heads, but always in association with the Mother-
goddess. All anthropomorphic representations of the male principle disap-
peared completely in the Early Bronze Age, leaving only bulls’ horns and
fully represented bulls, which appeared in association with the Magna Mater.
It is with the Cappadocian Period in Middle Bronze I (ca. 2000–1800
b.c.e.) that a significant change becomes apparent. It is the male god who be-
comes the primary focus. The association between the prehistoric male prin-
ciple of potency and the process of fertilization continues now in the form of
a deified bull or a bull attendant of the anthropomorphic Storm-god. This
iconography portrays a deity whose origin and attributes are very much ter-
restrial. In contrast to his Mesopotamian counterpart, the Anatolian Water-
god was not depicted as a Warrior-god at this stage. Prior to this period the
male principle in the symbolic form of the bull was usually associated with
the Mother-goddess. Now, however, there is no indication that the Magna
Mater was conceived as a comparable major force in the religion of the Ana-
tolians or that she fulfilled an important function in association with the
Water-god.
The earth-bound Mother-goddess had become subordinate to the pow-
erful Water-god, who was constantly represented accompanied by the bull.
After prehistoric times, the bull was always depicted inside his disc or circle—
that is, the Water-god emerging from inside the earth, a chthonic symbol in-
dicating his earthly association. Admittedly, due to the frightening impact of
the storms that cyclically pass through the region, an argument could be
made for an earlier Anatolian conception of an atmospheric Storm-god inde-
pendent of foreign Assyrian influence. The ancient Anatolians would simply
have inferred from the falling snow and rain the existence of an atmospheric
Storm-god who was involved somehow with the water from above. Whether
this required recognition on the part of the indigenous Anatolians that the
terrestrial water was somehow connected with the moisture from the skies is
difficult to determine.
It has also been proposed that the emergence of the atmospheric Storm-
god must somehow be associated with major influence from Indo-European
groups, which introduced their Thunder-god into the indigenous culture of
the earliest Anatolians. 87 There is no doubt that Indo-European influence af-
fected the evolution of the Storm-god motif at a later date. However, no evi-
dence has come to light so far that has a bearing on the anthropomorphic
portrayal of the northern Thunder-god in Anatolia prior to the period of the
Assyrian colonies. In the absence of any sources, the measure of early Indo-
European influence on the emergence of the Storm-god motif prior to the
Assyrian Colonial Period must remain an open question.
Due to the impact of the advanced literate culture in the south, it was
probably inevitable that the Anatolians would borrow names and concepts
from Mesopotamia. The evidence suggests, however, that the inhabitants of
the Anatolian Plateau did not equate the impact of the storm and the rains in
their own region with their continued subsistence and survival. Given the en-
vironmental realities of the Anatolian Plateau, the Anatolian perception of
the deity was different from the Mesopotamian. In spite of the visible effects
of the storm, the perception of this most important divinity was of an earth-
bound deity rather than a sky god.
The likelihood is that an upper stratum of cosmopolitan Anatolians ab-
sorbed the Assyrian concept of a paramount celestial Storm-god, while the
lay people of society maintained the indigenous tradition of the terrestrial
Mother-goddess and her association with male potency in the form of a bull.
The bull, a symbol of the “Water-god,” was a strain that was never lost. It was
always deeply rooted in the conceptual framework of Anatolian religion.
While phenomena such as thunder and rain naturally received veneration as
sustainer gods, the deities of paramount importance were terrestrial, control-
ling and emanating from the ground, which the Anatolian perceived to be
the source of all well-being.
88. The concept of the snake as an attendant of the Syrian Storm-god will be dis-
cussed from the Syrian perspective in the following chapter. See, however, Özgüc, The Ana-
tolian Group, nos. 31, 70; idem, Ancient Art in Seals, III-21; Porada, Corpus, no. 894; and
particularly Williams-Forte (“The Snake and the Tree,” 26–30, and figs. 1, 2), who dis-
cusses this issue at some length. In addition, note particularly Lambert (“Trees, Snakes and
Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” 40–45), who correctly points out that Williams-Forte
has overinterpreted most of the scenes depicting the Storm-god’s association with the snake
in her attempt to identify the serpent with the god Mot of the Ugaritic texts.
89. So, e.g., Ward, SC, nos. 967, 968, 970, 972, 975, and 976; and particularly his
chapter “The Bull Altar”; G. Contenau, La glyptique syro-hittite (Paris: Geuthner, 1922)
86–89, pl. 5, no. 15; E. Porada, “Les cylindres de la jarre Montet,” Syria 43 (1966) 246
n. 2; H. Goldman, “The Sandson Monument of Tarsus,” JAOS 60 (1940) 549; and Özgüc,
The Anatolian Group, nos. 15a, 34–42, 58.
The Highlands of Anatolia 117
92. See, e.g., S. Meyer, Reich und Kultur der Chetiter (Berlin: Karl Curtius, 1914) 52,
153, fig. 42c; H. H. von der Osten, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum 20 (New York:
Metropolitan Museum, 1925) 82, fig. 7; Van Buren, “Entwined Serpents,” 56–65; idem,
SG, 40–42. There is no conclusive evidence that the serpent is a hostile symbol on Meso-
potamian seals depicting the serpent and the tree.
93. E.g., P. Garelli and D. Collon, Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the
British Museum, part 6 (London: British Museum, 1975) no. 14; and Williams-Forte, “The
Snake and the Tree,” fig. 10.
94. Vanel, L’iconographie, 82–84, figs. 34, 35, 41; Delaporte, CCO, A918; and
Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 27–29 and figs. 8, 9, 10.
The Highlands of Anatolia 119
flict between the serpent, whose name or identity we do not know, and the
celestial Storm-god; but, since neither Anatolian nor Syrian art gives us the
background of this conflict, our conclusions must at this stage be tentative.
These composite glyptic scenes portray the Storm-god associated with
bull, nude goddess, serpent, lightning, and atmospheric symbols. They sug-
gest that the deity in question must represent a celestial Storm-god as op-
posed to an earth-bound Water-god. Additional support for this deity’s
atmospheric association is the fact that the majority of seals and bullae de-
picting this combination are of the Old Syrian category, with only a few be-
ing identified as Old Anatolian. It will become clear in our discussion below
that the Anatolian terrestrial serpent, unlike its representations in other parts
of the Near East, symbolizes the indigenous substratum of a tradition that as-
sociated the fertility of the land with moisture, not from the waters in the sky,
but in the earth.
Later, Old Syrian seals from Kültepe, Karum level Ib, continue to portray
these victory scenes of the Storm-god over the serpent. In these cases, how-
ever, the victory is complete. The Storm-god no longer grasps the snake by
its head as if in combat; rather, he is standing on two bulls with the serpent
submissive under his feet, its head rising up between the god’s legs (fig. 18). 95
In this context, the nude goddess stands directly in front of the conquering
Storm-god. 96 The nude goddess symbolizes fertility. Her association with
the celestial Storm-god is a further indication that he is an atmospheric rather
than earth deity, from which we may infer that the celestial concept is em-
phasized here.
In a later scene showing the Storm-god’s triumph over the submissive ser-
pent, the deity is portrayed using the snake as his mount. The fertility aspect
95. See Özgüc, Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanesh, pls. I, 1 and
I, 3; and Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 25.
96. As in Özgüc, Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanesh, pl. XXII, 2.
120 The Highlands of Anatolia
Fig. 19. Hattian Water-god as a bull being worshiped by the Hittite king and queen
(Akurgal, Ancient Civilizations, pl. 88a.
99. While it is true that here the Storm-god is not shown with his bull or even stand-
ing on symbolic mountains, the hieroglyphic sign is unambiguous. Akurgal, The Art of the
Hittites, illustration no. 93.
100. Much study has been dedicated to the meaning of this procession of gods. The
location of the reliefs sheds additional light on the motif of the Anatolian Storm-god. So,
e.g., Bittel, Hattusha, the Capital of the Hittites, 107ff.; Carter, Hittite Cult Inventories, 26ff.;
Gurney, The Hittites, 144–49. Among some of the important studies on the relief are
E. Laroche, “Le panthéon de Yazilikaya,” JCS 6 (1952) 115–23; K. Bittel, Die Felsbilder von
Yazilikaya (Bamberg: Druck der Buch- und Kunstdruckerei Bamberger Tagblatt, 1934);
idem, Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazilikaya (WVDOG 79; Berlin: Mann, 1975). See, in
addition, the significant discussions in Gurney, The Hittites, 132–44; Lloyd, Early High-
land Peoples, 62–70; Macqueen, The Hittites, 126–34; and others.
122 The Highlands of Anatolia
Fig. 20. King Sulumeli pouring libation to the Storm-god (Gurney, The Hittites,
207–8; cf. Lloyd, The Highland Peoples, p. 149, ill. 104).
names of the deities are Hurrian. This monument of the state religion clearly
shows that, in the Hittite capital at this time, the Hittite religious function-
aries had already adopted a Hurrian pantheon.
The entrance to Yazilikaya was probably supervised from a compound of
religious buildings. 101 A combination of rocks and a stream that ran nearby
along with the underground water-sources must have made Yazilikaya a sa-
cred place for the indigenous Hattians from prehistoric times on. After the
emergence of the Hittite Empire, certain places were considered sufficiently
sacred and important to require rock carvings dedicated either by the Hittite
kings or by other local rulers. Most of these sacred sites were associated with
local Water-gods. In the Yazilikaya carving, the procession of minor deities is
extended around the side to include old Hattian gods, some of whom were
also patron deities of Hittite cities. It may plausibly be concluded that Yazili-
kaya was initially an ancient Hattian shrine and that subsequent Hittite
power structures integrated certain deeply rooted Hattian religious concepts
into their own adopted Hurrian religion.
Of primary importance in this context are the attributes of the Hurrian
Storm-god. On the Yazilikaya monument Teshub wears a six-horned hat.
The hieroglyphic sign identifies him as the Storm-god of Heaven. In his right
hand he holds a club and in his left hand a triangular symbol of good. He
stands on two male figures of mountain gods and is accompanied by his two
bulls. As the supreme Hurrian deity, Teshub is followed by the Storm-god of
Hattusas, identified here as a lesser deity. 102
Fig. 21. The horned Water-god and his son facing goddess opposite the entrance of
a burial chamber (Lloyd, The Highland Peoples, p. 73, ill. 70; cf. Akurgal, Ancient Civ-
ilizations, 288–89, figs. 120a, b).
103. Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 29–30; Gurney, The Hittites, 207, fig. 17; Akur-
gal, The Art of the Hittites, 13, 292, fig. 123.
104. See Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 72–73; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 31–32;
Akurgal, Ruins of Turkey, 288–89, fig. 120a, b.
124 The Highlands of Anatolia
105. M. Vieyra, Hittite Art, 2300–750 b.c. (London: Tiranti, 1955) 34; Deighton,
The “Weather-God,” 32.
106. H. T. Bossert, Asia (Istanbul: Literarische Fahultät der Universität, 1946) 72ff.;
Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 32. For the inscription, see also F. Steinherr, “Zu den Fels-
inschriften Tasci I und II,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975) 313–17. It was formerly de-
scribed by some scholars as a victory monument of Tudhaliyas IV; see, e.g., K. Bittel, “Die
Reliefs am Karabel bei Nif (Kemal Pasa),” AfO 12 (1939–41) 181–93.
107. See S. Alp, “Bemerkungen zu den Hieroglyphen des hethitischen Monuments
von Imamkulu,” ArOr 18 (1950) 1–8; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 33.
108. Suggestions have been proposed that this may be King Muwatalli, but this can-
not be ascertained due to the poor state of preservation. See M. Wäfler, “Zum Felsrelief von
Imamkulu,” MDOG 107 (1975) 25–26.
109. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, 112.
110. U. Bahadir Alkim, Anatolia (London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1969) illustrations 111
and 113. See also Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 33.
Much has been written about the very late but important spring sanctu-
ary of Eflatun Pinar. 111 The bas-relief of this sanctuary is located near the
edge of a spring near a river (fig. 22). It depicts a god and a goddess sur-
mounted by two winged sun-discs and surrounded by six small figures with
111. See Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 74–75; R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens
(Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1971) 187–88; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 30–31.
126 The Highlands of Anatolia
hands upraised in adoration; two larger figures stand at either end. The sug-
gestion that the figures of divinities represent fertility 112 is in keeping with
what has been discussed on the nature of indigenous Anatolian religion, in
which the goddess represented the earth, and the god represented the water
in the earth.
Archaeological sources on the religious architecture of Hattian Anatolia
are nonexistent, since there are no identifiable remains of temple buildings or
shrines. The Hattian religion’s natural outdoor emphasis implies a connec-
tion of the cult with the countryside, close to the natural order of things and
not necessarily bound to enclosed man-made structures. If their major deities
resided on the earth, there would be no practical purpose for temple construc-
tion. While Hattian temples may have been nonexistent, the opposite is true
of the later, Hittite cult. Though elements of Hittite religion were borrowed
from the Hurrians, these nevertheless were structured on an indigenous Hat-
tian religious base. The later Hittite temple or shrine included within its ar-
chitectural design aspects reflecting this indigenous Hattian substratum.
The most famous temples of the Hittite Storm-gods are to be found in
the Taurus region, the part of the Hittite Empire in which Hurrians formed
the predominant element of the population. Throughout this region, the cult
of the Hurrian Storm-god Teshub predominated. 113 Excavation results have
indicated that all Hittite temples conformed to one basic plan: an elaborate
entrance and a large central courtyard bounded by corridors, cult-rooms, and
the adytum, which are not immediately accessible from the court. It is at the
smaller shrines, such as the one at Buyukkale, that evidence of cultic practices
that apparently reflect Hattian roots has been uncovered.
Two small “chapels” at this site have been described by Bittel. 114 In one
of them, the central of four rooms is sunk below ground level, and a conduit
leads away from the room. Nearby were found two terra-cotta bulls, pre-
sumed to represent the bulls of the Hurrian Storm-god Teshub. In a second
chapel, the central room of five is also sunk below ground level. The floor of
this room was covered with layers of mud and sand and contained many vo-
tive vessels and nests of shells. Here also there was a channel to the outside.
Bittel states that this room was open to the sky. 115 A third chapel contained
112. Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples, 72; J. Mellaart, “Late Bronze Age Monuments of
Eflatum Pinar and Hasillar near Beysehir,” AS 12 (1962) 117; and Deighton, The “Weather-
God,” 31.
113. See discussion in Gurney, The Hittites, 134–36.
114. K. Bittel and P. Neve, “Quellgrotte,” MDOG 102 (1970) 5–20; Deighton, The
“Weather-God,” 23.
115. K. Bittel and R. Naumann, Boghazköy-Hattusha, Vol. I: Architektur, Topographie,
Landeskunde und Siedlungsgeschichte (WVDOG 63, Supplement 4; Stuttgart: Kohlham-
mer, 1952) 59–61.
The Highlands of Anatolia 127
116. Macqueen, The Hittites, 128ff.; P. Neve, “Eine hethitische Quellgrotte in Bo-
ghazköy,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20 (1969–70) 97ff.
117. Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 25.
128 The Highlands of Anatolia
this is one of the basic problems when we are dealing with the Storm-god in
Anatolia.
Written sources from the Anatolian region refer to nine Storm-gods by
name: the Hurrian Storm-god Teshub; 118 the Anatolian terrestrial Water-
gods (Taru, Telepinus, Lelwani, the Storm-god of Nerik, the Storm-god of
Zippalanda); 119 the Luwian Storm-gods Datta and Tarhund; 120 and the Su-
merian Storm-god Iskur. 121 With the possible exception of Zaskhapuna, no
Hittite Storm-god can be identified by name. The largest body of recorded
evidence on the Storm-god in Anatolia comes from the Hittites. In these
sources, the identity of the most important Hittite Storm-god is written in
two different Sumerian ideograms, dim for Iskur and du for Adad. 122 How-
ever, we should not infer that the characteristics and personality of the local
divinity were completely identical to the Mesopotamian Storm-gods Iskur
and Adad.
The designation or name “Storm-god” suggests a divinity whose endemic
characteristic is atmospheric and celestial. In Anatolia, however, while most
of these gods were connected with water, the waters were essentially terres-
trial and subterranean. The divinities were primarily associated with holes in
the ground, water under the ground, rivers, and springs. They vanished into
locations in the ground and were fundamentally chthonic in nature, notwith-
standing their designation by the Sumerian ideogram for an atmospheric di-
vinity. Calling them “Water-gods” or even “Earth-gods” does not really cover
the extensive range of their involvement, even though it may be misleading
to refer to these deities strictly as “Storm-gods.”
The anonymity of the important Hittite Storm-god, who is only referred
to as “the Storm-god of Heaven” or “of Hatti,” is one of the paramount prob-
lems associated with this deity in Anatolia. Added to this, however, is the very
ambiguity of the designation “Storm-god.”
Are the characteristics of all of the deities referred to as “Storm-gods” in
the written sources truly indicative of the function of these gods? Given the
recorded attributes, names, and epithets associated with these deities, along
118. See, e.g., McMahon, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Hittite Anatolia,”
CANE, 4.1982–83, 1985–88, for a list of these deities. In addition, see studies by E. La-
roche, “Panthéon national et panthéons locus chez les Hourrites,” Or 45 (1976) 94–99;
H. A. Hoffner Jr., Hittite Myths (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 85; CAH, 2/1.40–41;
Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 103–5; Güterbock, “Hittite Religion,” 89–95, 100–104.
119. E. Laroche, “Hattic Deities and Their Epithets,” JCS 1 (1947) 187–216; Deigh-
ton, The “Weather-God,” 62–70; Güterbock, “Hittite Religion,” 85–90; idem, “Hittite My-
thology,” 141–53.
120. Gurney, The Hittites, 123, 138.
121. McMahon, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Hittite Anatolia,” 1987–88.
122. Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 48–52.
The Highlands of Anatolia 129
with more than one hundred catalogued variants of du, 123 how should the
designation be understood within the Anatolian milieu? Are we here dealing
with one or numerous divinities within this genre?
In the Hittite cuneiform sources from Boghazköy, the terrestrial Water-
god’s name is generally represented only by the Sumerian ideogram dim. This
constitutes the earliest reference to this deity in historical texts. How the Hit-
tites read this ideogram is uncertain. References to this god are also found on
hieroglyphic Luwian seals and inscriptions, but it is unclear whether these
glyphs should be read phonetically or ideographically. 124
Even though, in terms of hierarchy, the Hittite “Storm-god of Heaven”
or the “Storm-god of Hatti” stands at the head of the pantheon, he remains
nameless throughout Hittite mythological and historical sources. The earli-
est Storm-god of the Anatolian Highlands who can be identified by name is
the Hurrian Storm-god, Teshub. While evidence of Hurrian communities in
the ancient Near East has been dated to as early as the pre–Ur III Periods, 125
the first inscriptional evidence of Teshub as the high god of the Hurrians
comes from the time of Su-Sin of Ur III. 126 Subsequently, as Hurrian influ-
ence spread throughout northern Mesopotamia, Syria, and south central
Anatolia, Teshub is referred to in a text from Mari as “Dagan of the Hurri-
ans.” 127 The Hittites demonstrated a remarkable capacity for assimilating
the cultural values of more advanced cultures; hence, they borrowed the Su-
merian ideogram dim (for Iskur) to express the primary characteristics of Te-
shub, which were transmitted to them by the Hurrians. They also hid the
name of the Anatolian terrestrial Water-god behind the ideogram dim. The
Hittites subsequently adopted the entire indigenous Hattian and Hurrian
theology as their own. 128
The use of dim in Hittite sources was later complemented and eventually
superseded by another ideogram, du, which, in other circles, denoted the
great Semitic Storm-god Adad. As pointed out in the previous chapter, dur-
ing his earliest stage, dim or Iskur, the Sumerian herdsman’s god, is the son
of Enlil and is designated the peaceful “Lord of Winds.” He kept the clouds
together to provide rains. Later, during the late Early Dynastic III through
Ur III Periods, he is symbolically identified as the destructive storms that rav-
aged Mesopotamia.
It is tempting to speculate whether, in their early period of expansion and
synthesis with the indigenous Anatolians, the Hittites deliberately chose this
designation Iskur to represent the Anatolian terrestrial Water-god due to
Iskur’s earliest primarily peaceful attributes, in contrast to the subsequent
designation for tempestuous Adad. The first documentation of Iskur as the
peaceful herdsman’s god of winds synchronizes with the depiction of the
peaceful, anthropomorphic Hattian Water-god on seals, during the earliest
phase of the Assyrian Colonization Period. Iskur, however, is a celestial
Storm-god, whose ecological impact on the inhabitants of the Mesopotamian
heartland was different from the indigenous Anatolian terrestrial Water-god’s.
Any correspondence, therefore, between the Hattian Water-god and the ear-
liest attributes of Iskur must be interpreted only on the basis of their common
peaceful attributes. It cannot be determined on the basis of extant written
Hittite sources which factors were responsible for the use of the Sumerian
ideogram for Iskur as a designation for the important Anatolian Water-god.
It must be presumed moreover, that dim had been mediated through the Hur-
rians, who had previously established the Mitannian Empire, extended their
control throughout northern Mesopotamia and into central Anatolia, 129 and
had themselves used dim as the designation for Teshub. 130 The Hittites, hav-
ing originated within a cultural milieu in which a celestial deity was para-
mount, would presumably have observed a correlation between the storms in
the Anatolian highlands and those of their own cultural past. They adopted
the ideogram dim, used for the most appropriate Sumerian atmospheric deity,
as their designation for this deity of the Anatolian highlands.
In previous treatment of the Sumerian Iskur, it was argued that by the
end of Early Dynastic III, both written and unwritten sources signaled a
gradual shift in emphasis from Iskur’s relatively peaceful and nonhostile at-
tributes to the more active, violent, and destructive characteristics of the
Storm-god Iskur-Adad. However, the combined evidence suggests that it was
still the Sumerian Iskur who was being referred to by dim during the Gutian
129. Note, e.g., the earliest significant discussions on this important historical and
cultural development in Gelb, Hurrians and Subarians, 50–83; R. T. O’Callaghan, Aram
Naharaim (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1948) chap. 4 and pp. 51–74; Speiser, “The
Hurrian Participation in the Civilization of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine,” 311–27;
Güterbock, “The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire”; Wilhelm, “The Kingdom of
Mitanni in Second-Millennium Upper Mesopotamia,” 1243–54.
130. CAH, 1/2.40–41.
The Highlands of Anatolia 131
Interlude and Ur III Period. This was then followed by the final, unchal-
lenged dominance of Semitic Adad starting with the beginning of the second
millennium b.c.e. and the Old Babylonian through the Kassite Periods.
Similarly, in the Hittite written sources, dim was eventually superseded
by du, the unequivocal Sumerian ideogram for the Semitic Adad. 131 This
designation finally became firmly established as the standard form of refer-
ence to the Hittite Storm-god during the centuries of Hittite political hege-
mony in Anatolia spanning the New Kingdom and subsequent periods
(ca. 1450 b.c.e. and on). 132 The profile of the Hittite Storm-god is that of a
supreme divinity who ruled in the thunderstorms, lightning, clouds, and rain
of the Anatolian Highlands. This nameless Hittite Storm-god of Heaven or
of Hatti 133 stood at the head of the Hittite pantheon. His characteristic as-
sociation with thunder and lightning was similar to the god of the original
Hittite homeland, not the important Anatolian terrestrial Water-god. The
designation du rather than dim for this divinity probably stemmed from the
idea that the source of all power, destruction (political and natural), bless-
ings, and prosperity was this all-powerful celestial deity. The reference to
thunder as the voice of god and also the use of thunder vessels as a part of the
Hittite cult 134 can be appreciated against this background. Politically, he was
conceived as the real king, who owned the land of Hatti but entrusted it to a
mortal king. 135 It can only be speculated that the gradually emerging popu-
larity of du for a specific Storm-god during the political and territorial expan-
sion of the Hittite Empire and the eventual disappearance of dim correspond
to the gradual rise and dominance of Hittite power in Anatolia.
Thus, on the one hand the Hittite Storm-god is usually portrayed as a
god of nature referred to as the “Storm-God (du) of the Thunder,” “Storm-
God (du) of the Lightning,” “Storm-God (du) of the Clouds,” “Storm-God
(du) of the Rain,” and so on. On the other hand he may be associated with
important political functions, such as the “Storm-God (du) of the Palace,”
“Storm-God (du) of the Head,” “Storm-God (du) of the Scepter,” “Storm-
God (du) of the Army,” and other titles. 136 These designations make the real
nature of the Hittite Storm-god difficult to describe, and at the same time
they raise the question of whether we are dealing with individual deities or
only different manifestations of the same deity. In the flexible syncretic envi-
ronment of Hittite culture, both positions would be tenable.
As we have observed, the Hittite name for this Storm-god is unknown 137
aside from the fact that it probably ended in -unna. 138 Thus, even though the
Hittites probably recognized the terrestrial nature of the indigenous Anato-
lian Water-god, due to the similarities between the atmospheric deity in Ana-
tolia and their own, they adopted the same ideogram as the literary rendering
for both this Anatolian terrestrial Water-god and their own celestial Storm-
god. Textual evidence suggests that the Hattian name for this deity was prob-
ably Taru, 139 while in Luwian he was probably called Datta 140 or Tarhund. 141
Due in part to phonetic similarity, a correspondence between the earlier Taru
and the later Neo-Hittite Tarhund was proposed long ago. Aside from being
the most important deity of the Neo-Hittites, 142 Tarhund could also have
been the god of the Luwians, 143 whose cult survived in the worship of Zeus
in Hellenistic times. 144 There is no reference, however, to the name Tarhund
in Hittite religious or historical texts. 145 Nevertheless, in view of the fact that
the cult of Tarhund survived into later times in southwestern Asia Minor, the
same area where Taru was worshiped earlier, and since an equation can be
made between Tarhund and the attributes of the Hattian deity behind the
Sumerogram dim, we may infer a direct continuity between the ancient cult
of Taru, the indigenous Hattian Water-god, and the later Tarhund.
The earliest iconographic representations of the Hittite Storm-god and
the Anatolian terrestrial Water-god are in the previously discussed Middle
Bronze Age glyptic art. Usually, the anthropomorphic representations of
both deities are depicted standing on their respective bulls in a single register.
The pacific Anatolian Water-god is later referred to textually as dim, accom-
panied by his aquatic symbols and followed by the armed Hittite Storm-god,
disguised by the ideograph du, along with his agricultural attendants. Later
icons render representations only of the Hittite celestial Storm-god.
While the earlier Old Anatolian seals primarily depict the unarmed, in-
digenous Water-god, the later Old Syrian seals clearly reflect a religious and
cultural shift. These portray the ascendance of the foreign Hittite Storm-god,
accompanied by a conquered serpent, storm-clouds, rain, lightning, and in-
variably a nude goddess. Rarely do any of these atmospheric symbols appear
in the registers of Old Anatolian seals depicting the Hattian Water-god.
These representations reflect the ascendance of the celestial concept over
the earlier terrestrial emphasis. The association of fertility with the Hittite ce-
lestial Storm-god came to be emphasized in the form of the nude goddess,
who did not figure in the Old Anatolian seals. In this newer repertoire of seals,
she initially made her appearance in registers associated with the Storm-god,
142. Gurney, The Hittites, 138. He has compared the name Tarhund with the Etrus-
can Tarchon, and, as a result, Tarquinius. Laroche, who initially denied such a correspon-
dence, later concurred with the suggestion, citing such names as Tarhu or Tarhunna. See
E. Laroche, “Études de Vocabulaire VII,” RHA 63 (1958) 92–93; G. E. Mendenhall, The
Tenth Generation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974) 160–62.
143. So Houwink ten Cate, The Luwian Population Groups, 138; and Gurney, The
Hittites, 130.
144. Houwink ten Cate, The Luwian Population Groups, 201–3, 207ff. In his general
conclusions (pp. 188–215), Houwink ten Cate has also pointed to the survival of the name
as an element in the personal names of priests and in the names of towns. In addition, see
Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 162.
145. Laroche has, however, pointed out evidence of the name’s appearance in proper
names. See Les noms des Hittites, 286–91.
134 The Highlands of Anatolia
he may not be the same deity worshiped on the local level. On the other
hand, while occasionally the deity may indeed be the same, there may be
strange inconsistencies among the roles of the same god in the different con-
texts. In addition, it is evident that only foreign myths such as Hurrian,
Babylonian, or Canaanite were written down as literary compositions. The
local Anatolian myths, in Hattian, Luwian, and Palaic, were committed to
writing only in connection with certain rituals. In the later mythologies, the
protagonists are primarily local or Hattian, the deities of the earliest inhabi-
tants of the Anatolian Plateau.
the welfare of the king. In the Hattian version of the myth, however, the
writer identifies the Storm-god by name; he is not a celestial deity but Taru,
the supreme Anatolian terrestrial/chthonic Water-god.
Given this dual indication, the myth raises three possibilities vis-à-vis the
Storm-god’s identity, character, and function. Since this Storm-god is Taru
in the Hattian version, the first possibility is that, although the ritual context
would indicate that the indigenous Anatolian religion was generally earth-
bound, the supreme Hattian deity, Taru, was actually contemplated as a ce-
lestial Storm-god. It is alternatively possible that, in spite of the endemic
terrestrial/chthonic nature of Anatolian religion from prehistoric times, the
mythic perception of a great atmospheric Thunder-god gradually became a
part of Anatolian religious thinking much earlier, even before the arrival of
the first immigrants from the north in prehistoric times.
The second possibility is that Taru, the supreme Hattian Water-god, was
indeed a terrestrial deity. However, as the supreme deity, he also thundered
from above, where he controlled the winds, rains, and clouds and also the
springs, rivers, and waters inside the earth. As suggested above, the ancient
Anatolians must have recognized that the terrestrial waters were replenished
by waters from the sky. In this same vein, there is an analogy in the Sun-
goddess of Arinna who, while portrayed as a solar deity, was also an Earth-
goddess. 153
Yet a third possibility is that, even though this deity is called Taru in the
Hattian version, in the Hittite version the Storm-god of Heaven was indeed
an important celestial Hittite deity, a Storm-god comparable to Adad. This
god was so important that, whenever he “thundered,” this event was signifi-
cant enough for a specific ritual to be conducted by a specially designated
cultic functionary.
153. Gurney, The Hittites, 139–40; CAH, 2/1.255; Güterbock, “Hittite Mythology,”
148–50.
154. As, for example, H. A. Hoffner Jr., “Myths of the Lost Storm Gods,” Hittite Myths
(ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 24–25. An excellent work on the motif
of these vanishing gods is G. C. Moore, The Disappearing Deity Motif in Hittite Texts (B.Litt.
Thesis, Oxford University, 1975). Among the versions of the Missing God tale are: “Tel-
epinus” (KUB XVII 10 5–10 ); “The Storm-God (du) of Heaven” (KUB XXX 24 I 3); “The
Storm-God (du)of Nerik”; and the “Yuzgat Tablet.” In these myths, named among the van-
ishing gods are Telepinus, the Sun-god, and zababa. Other disappearing divinities are god-
desses such as Anzili, Inara, and Zukki. All the myths are rather standardized. The goddess
Inara is called in one instance the daughter of the Storm-god, and the goddesses Anzili and
The Highlands of Anatolia 137
are clearly Hattian. The signs of the departure of the god are the same in all of
the accounts. These include the Storm-god (dim) putting his right shoe on his
left foot and vice versa. The results of the god’s departure from the land are
also similar: oppression and the stifling of living things, fog, inhibition of
birth, neglect, the gods eating and drinking but not obtaining satiety, and so
on. All of these problems are rectified when the god returns. The essence of
the myth is the ritual and magic to be carried out in order to induce his return.
A number of these myths focus on the Storm-god denoted by dim, 155
while others make reference to the Storm-god as du; 156 still others identify
the Storm-god using both Sumerograms interchangeably. 157 This correlates
with the evidence discussed earlier that, during the Hittite Old Kingdom, the
Storm-god was comparable in attributes to Sumerian Iskur; and subse-
quently, in the Empire Period, he incorporated characteristics original to the
tempestuous Semitic Adad.
Zukki are of unknown linguistic background. See Gurney, The Hittites, 183–90; Deighton,
The “Weather-God,” 68–70; and ANET, 126–28, for the “Myth of Telepinus.”
155. KUB XXXIII 15 11, dim of Ashmunikal; KUB 32 II 4–5, dim of the scribe of
Pirwa; KBo XIV 86 + KUB XXX 17 + KBo IX 109 I 13–16, dim of Kuliwishna, and KUB
XXXIII 33.
156. KUB III 24 I 3–18, du; KUB XXXIII 19 III 2ff., du of Harapshili.
157. KUB XXX 34? 13ff., dim/du; KUB XXXIII 24 I 23ff., du/dim.
158. H. A. Hoffner Jr., “The Disappearance of Telepinus” (3 versions), Hittite Myths
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 14–20; G. Kellerman, “The Telepinus Myth Reconsidered,”
in Kanissuwar (ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr. and G. Beckman; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1986)
115–24; A. Goetze, “The Telepinus Myth,” in ANET, 126–28; Güterbock, “Hittite My-
thology,” 143–47; and Gurney, The Hittites, 183–88.
138 The Highlands of Anatolia
This myth was initially thought to be the Anatolian version of the Near
Eastern seasonal Tammuz/Adonis “dying god” myth. More careful analysis
however, has demonstrated striking differences between them, and this anal-
ogy is no longer made by most scholars. It is evident that the ritual has
nothing to do with seasonal patterns; rather, it serves to bring about a recon-
ciliation between the vanished deity and individuals in order to secure well-
being. The myth emphasizes that the deity did not die but only went into
hiding. There is no consort or lover, as is the case in the Tammuz/Adonis
genre of myths about vegetation gods. 159 While there is no direct correspon-
dence between the Telepinus Myth and the Near Eastern “dying gods” genre,
the form and function of the Telepinus Myth correspond to both the myth
of the indigenous Anatolian terrestrial Water-god and the later myth of the
Indo-European/Semitic Storm-god type.
An example of this genre is the Myth of the Storm-God of Heaven,
dim; 160 in many respects similar to the Telepinus Myth. There are three prin-
159. See, e.g., H. G. Güterbock, “Gedanken über das Wesen des Gottes Telepinus,” in
Festschrift Johannes Friedrich (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959) 207–11; H. Otten, “Ein
kanaanäischer Mythus aus Boghazköy,” MIO 1 (1953) 125–50; Kellerman, “The Telepinus
Myth Reconsidered”; A. Archi, “Hittite and Hurrian Literatures: An Overview,” in CANE,
4.2373–76.
160. The variants are collated and translated in Laroche, Textes mythologiques hittites en
transcription, 1ere partie: Mythologie anatolienne, 29ff. For details and translations, see, e.g.,
Hoffner, “The Disappearance of the Storm God,” Hittite Myths, 20–22; H. Otten, Die
Überlieferung des Telepinus-Mythus (MVAG 46; Leipzig: Vorderasiatische Ägyptische Ge-
sellschaft, 1942); A. Goetze, in ANET, 126ff.; idem, Kleinasien, 143ff.; Güterbock, “Hittite
Mythology,” 144–50.
The Highlands of Anatolia 139
father that things will be made right if he finds his son. The bee is summoned
and he finds the Storm-god of Heaven, with the result that all life returns to
normalcy.
The similarities between Telepinus and the missing Storm-god are that all
life—vegetable, animal, and human—is threatened with destruction, and the
rivers and the springs all dry up. The search for the deities leads to the high
mountains, the deep valleys, and the dark waves. When Telepinus is located,
he is asleep in Lihizina, a known (Hattian) cult site of the Storm-god. 161 He
returns with thunder and lightning, attributes of the Storm-god of Heaven. 162
Both the Storm-god of Heaven and Telepinus in the end offer guidance and
protection to the king. 163 In none of the Hittite versions of the Storm-god
(dim and du) of Heaven is the deity ever mentioned by name. In the Hattian
version, however, the name of the father of the Storm-god of Heaven is Taru,
the Hattian terrestrial Water-god.
Similarities between the deities, along with other factors, lead to the ines-
capable conclusion that Telepinus, too, is a terrestrial Water-god. There are,
however, a number of significant differences. Telepinus, Inara, and other dei-
ties in these vanishing god myths are all Hattian names connected with Hat-
tian terrestrial elements, 164 whereas the Hittite “Storm-god of Heaven” is
represented by the Sumerogram du. 165 Since the Hittite evidence has shown
that the Sumerogram for “Storm-god” could also be used for the Hattian ter-
restrial deity Taru, even though the linguistic context may be Hittite, it is not
difficult to suggest that these incoming Indo-European Hittites adopted the
entire repertoire of Hattian mythologies and completed the process by making
the Hattian gods their own. Furthermore, one of the few known Palaic texts
contains a mythical story followed by a hymn describing a similar distressing
situation, in which gods and men are eating and drinking but are not satiated.
The same town, Lihizina, is also mentioned. In addition, the text names
Zaparwa, the main god of the Palaeans, who may be another terrestrial Water-
god. 166 Although the remainder of the story is different, this tale may point to
a common Hattian undercurrent for most of the Hittite myths regarding the
Storm-god. Significantly, in these myths all of the Hattian deities have names,
while the Hittite deities do not. They are written ideographically.
It seems plausible to conclude, in short, that Telepinus is one of several
Hattian terrestrial Water-gods who are named in the Hittite mythical texts.
Their personal names stood behind the general designation of dim for
‘Storm-god’. In spite of variations, the myths reflect certain common charac-
teristics. All of these gods were associated with mountains, valleys, rivers,
springs, and waters under the earth. They were all terrestrial deities. When
appeased and peaceful, they brought thunder, lightning, clouds, rain, and
fertility from the heavens for the welfare of gods, men, and beasts. When an-
gered and withdrawn, they brought drought, floods, destruction, desolation,
infertility, hunger, and despair on all the earth. When these myths are com-
bined with that of the Storm-god of Nerik, an even clearer picture begins to
emerge.
167. Hoffner, “Sacrifice and Prayer to the Storm God of Nerik,” Hittite Myths, 22–23;
Haas, Der Kult von Nerik; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 74–88.
168. Sulikatte is identified with the Sumerian underworld deity, Nergal, who is re-
sponsible for protection from evil. See, for example, Haas, Der Kult von Nerik, 72–74; and
compare with Moran (ed.), Toward the Image of Tammuz, 33–34; idem, Treasures of Dark-
ness, 229–30.
169. The word hatessar has long been recognized as some sort of hole or pit in the
ground. Offerings were thrown into hatessar, and gods disappeared down into hatessar.
Macqueen has suggested rather convincingly that the so-called “solar-discs” uncovered at
Alaca Hüyük in fact represent these sunken holes, pits, natural caves, and hollows that are
common to the karst landscape of Anatolia. See Macqueen, “Hattian Mythology and Hit-
tite Monarchy,” 171-73; Haas, Der Kult von Nerik, 101–3; Deighton, The “Weather-God,”
24–25; Güterbock, “Hittite Mythology,” 153–54.
The Highlands of Anatolia 141
is also mentioned. The Storm-god has gone down to the “shores of the Nine
Seas . . . to the shores of the honored river.” 170
In another passage further on, mankind is destined to perish, because “he
[the Storm-god (du) of Heaven had] named the children of men for destruc-
tion.” Formerly, the River Marassanta flowed near Nerik, but the Storm-god
of Heaven had threatened to divert its flow in a different direction. Recog-
nizing the peril, the Storm-god of Nerik appealed to the Storm-god (du) of
Heaven not to change the course of the river. “O Marassanta River, do not
let him go to another river, or another spring”; 171 whereupon, the Storm-
god of Heaven relents and orders the river to maintain its original course,
and diverts the River Nakkiliata to a different course instead. “[May it bring]
him away from under the sea, from under the [wave]. May it bring him away
from under the Nine [Sea] shores,” the task originally assigned to the River
Marassanta.
The Sun-goddess of Arinna is called the mother of the Storm-god of
Nerik, and the Storm-god (du) of Heaven is his father. 172 Subsequently,
there is a plea to the god to be as kind to the king and queen as he was to the
River Marassanta. This kindness would take the form of rain from heaven:
“Let soft rain come down from Heaven. Let mankind be well, for mankind
make health. . . . Come Storm-god of Nerik. Come down with soft rain to
the lands of Hatti. . . . Storm-god (du) of Heaven bring the Storm-god of
Nerik down from Heaven in a good mood!” 173
Clearly, the Myth of the Storm-god of Nerik, like the Telepinus Myth,
fits into the genre of Anatolian myths of the terrestrial Water-god. It identi-
fies in greater detail a number of characteristics of the Hattian terrestrial
Water-god not fully developed in the other myths. There is an obvious divi-
sion of the myth into two parts, reflecting successive historical conceptions of
the Storm-god. In the first part, the Storm-god is connected to the earth, the
underground, water, and rivers. He descended into and sacrificed in a “hole”
or “pit” in the earth. He was the son of the Hattian god Sulikkate, and he
went through the gates of the dark earth and met Ereshkigal, his mother, and
was later summoned up from there. Sulikkate, his father, is equated with
Nergal, the Sumerian underworld deity of pestilence. Ereshkigal, his mother,
170. KUB XXXVI 89; Hoffner, “The Storm God of Nerik,” 22–23; Güterbock, “Hit-
tite Mythology,” 152–54.
171. In this confusing section of the myth, the identity of du, the speaker in this case,
is still very much in debate. Whether it is the Storm-god of Heaven or the Storm-god of
Nerik is not clear. See, e.g., Hoffner, “Sacrifice and Prayer,” 23; Deighton, The “Weather-
God,” 83; Haas, Der Cult von Nerik, 93ff.; Macqueen, “Nerik and Its ‘Weather-God,’ ” 179–
87.
172. Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 83–84.
173. Ibid.
142 The Highlands of Anatolia
the Sumerian deity of the underworld, is equated with Wurusemu. 174 Hence,
the terrestrial/chthonic connections of the “Storm-god” of Nerik are clear.
In Sumerian mythology, terrifying characteristics are associated with
both Ereshkigal and Nergal and with their residence in the underworld. They
are to be feared. This is not the case with Sulikkate and Wurusemu, their pre-
sumed counterparts in Anatolia. There is nothing terrifying about these ter-
restrial/chthonic deities in the Anatolian cultural milieu. These subterranean
gods, along with other terrestrial deities, supplied the necessities of life for the
autochthonous Anatolians from earliest times. The myth makes it clear that,
even though the “Storm-god” of Nerik was theoretically the offspring of Su-
likkate and Ereshkigal, the chthonic pair, his favor was eagerly sought for the
king, queen, and mankind as a whole. The emphasis was evidently not on
any characteristics comparable with their Sumerian counterparts but, in this
case, on the analogous terrestrial locations of these Hattian deities and the Su-
merian divinities.
The other texts that deal with recalling the disappearing gods stress the
earthly location and attributes of the Anatolian Water-gods. 175 In one of
these, probably a later version imploring the return of the departed “Storm-
god” of Nerik, once more the Storm-god of Heaven is identified with du, the
ideogram for the Semitic Storm-god Adad. The deity is both in heaven and
inside the earth. “Let him come, the ‘Storm-god’ of Nerik, from Heaven,
from the earth. Come, ‘Storm-god’ of Nerik, from Heaven if [you are] with
the Storm-god (du) of Heaven, your father, (or) if [you are] with Ereshkigal,
your mother.” 176
In addition, the home of the “Storm-god” of Nerik is identified with
mountains, rivers, and springs.
Come from Mt. Huhruwa, from your beloved, your self and your heart [are]
in that place. Come from Mt. Zalianu, from Mt. Harpisha, from Mt. Dahal-
muna . . . from Mt. Tagurta, from Mt. Hulla, from Mt. Pushkurunuwa.
Storm-god of Nerik, my lord [come from] all mountains. [Storm-god of
Nerik] my lord, [come f ]rom your mountains. [Com]e from the River
174. Wurusemu is the Hattian name usually given for the Sun-goddess of Arinna. See
below for a more detailed discussion of her terrestrial characteristics. She was the wife of the
“Storm-god” of Heaven and the mother of the “Storm-gods” of Nerik and Zippalanda. See
Güterbock, “Hittite Religion,” 90–91; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 62–62, 85; Mac-
queen, “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” 175–78; and McMahon, “Theology,
Priests, and Worship in Hittite Anatolia,” 1983–89.
175. These are KUB XXVIII 92; XXXVI 90, and the fragmentary XVIII 60; Haas,
Der Kult von Nerik; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 86–87, 89; and Hoffner, Hittite Myths,
nos. 2, 3, 7, 8.
176. For example, KUB XXXVI 90; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 82–83; Hoffner,
Hittite Myths, 23; and others.
The Highlands of Anatolia 143
Mar[assant]a from . . . the river-bank, from Zalpa, from the sea, come from
your beloved spring of Nerik, come from Lihizina, from Mt. Lihizina.
Come from the west, come from the east. Come from Mt. Kuwapita, come
from the Upper Country, come from the Lower Country, from the land of
Arzaw. . . . 177
In yet another broken text, which deals with the “Storm-god (du)” of Za-
halukka, the emphasis is the recall of the “Storm-god” from the earth:
. . . ? the Sun-god. The four corners [of the world] . . . and the scribe, the
scribe on wood, the Man of the Storm-god. And the man of the Storm-god
calls in the god. “Be present, Neriker,” he says. He recites the words of the
calling . . . from Mt. Haharwa, from Mt. Zitharunuwa, from the River Da-
hastha. He speaks the incantations of calling of Zahalukka, all the tablets. 178
The original version of the Telepinus Myth corresponds to the Hattian
Myth of the Storm-god of Nerik, locating the home of the “Storm-god” in
the “hole” or “pit” of the dark earth, in the springs, the rivers, on the moun-
tains, or the four corners of the earth, to which he had descended in anger.
The result is desolation, destruction, famine, and death from the “drying-up”
of the springs and rivers, and the withering of the vegetation. It is due to this
disastrous development that the god is entreated to return from his home
within the earth. In all of the versions of these Anatolian myths of the Storm-
gods, they are called up from terrestrial locations. Since the “Storm-god” was
also the offspring of two important Hattian earthly deities, Sulikkate and
Wurusemu, and since he brought with his return from within the earth the
revival of all life and the end of famine, destruction, and death, the plausible
conclusion is that the Hattian “Storm-god” was both terrestrial and subterra-
nean, residing on and within the earth. This concept, as we have seen, was
most likely a reflection of the nature of the physical and ecological environ-
ment of Anatolia.
There is additional evidence to support the terrestrial/chthonic element as
one of the fundamental characteristics of the Hattian “Storm-gods” referred
to in Hittite texts. The Syrian goddess Lelwani has long been recognized as a
chthonic deity; however, a male deity of the same name has been identified in
Anatolia. The Syrian Lelwani was probably diffused into Syria from Anatolia
via Hurrian influence. This divinity is also equated with the Akkadian Alla-
tum and the Sumerian Ereshkigal. The Hattian male Lelwani is likewise a
subterranean deity. 179 His importance and stature among Anatolian gods is
to be inferred from the fact that he is addressed in texts both as “Lord” and
“King.” 180
In a historical reference, King Mursilis is cited as having returned to Hat-
tusas in order to celebrate the purulli festival of Lelwani, 181 which presum-
ably was an annual “earth” festival celebrated for the Storm-god of Nerik. 182
That Lelwani was indeed a terrestrial Water-god is textually confirmed in one
version of the Telepinus Myth, where Lelwani is substituted for Telepinus. 183
If Telepinus was originally a Hattian terrestrial Water-god, then the same
must be said for Lelwani. Macqueen has plausibly concluded that he was a
figure like Taru, the terrestrial Water-god of the Hattians. 184
In another text the great Hattian god Taru was called up from the springs
of the earth. 185 Although the Sumerian ideogram dim associated with the
Storm-god Iskur was used for these Hattian deities, they bear a greater resem-
blance to Enki/Ea, the Sumerian/Semitic god of fresh water. 186 It seems evi-
dent, then, that in the first section of the Telepinus Myth and the Myth of
the Storm-God of Nerik, even though crouched behind the Sumerograms
dim and du, the Storm-god had primary characteristics that were terrestrial
180. As “Lord” in Bo. 868, and as “the King” in Bo. 1700c+. See Otten, “Die Gott-
heit Lelvani der Boghazköy,” 128–29.
181. Kbo II, 5, iii, 13ff.; A. Goetze, “Die Annalen des Mursilis,” MVAG 38 (1933)
188ff.
182. Güterbock, “Hittite Mythology,” 173–75; idem, “Forgotten Religions,” 102–3;
Macqueen, “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” 174–75; F. P. Daddi, “Aspects du
culte de la divinité hattie Teteshapi,” in Hethitica VIII: Acta Anatolica E. Laroche oblata (ed.
R. Lebrun; Louvain: Peeters, 1987) 361–80; V. Haas, “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstrucktion
des hethitischen Frühjahrsfestes (ezen purulliyas),” ZA 78 (1988) 284–98.
183. On the basis of text Bo. 7615; and Otten, “Die Gottheit Lelvani,” 130–31.
184. Macqueen, “Hattian Mythologies and Hittite Monarchy,” 179.
185. Haas, Der Kult von Nerik, 183ff.; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 91.
186. Enki/Ea is the god of the subterranean waters believed by the early Sumerians
and Babylonians to be the source of all rivers, springs, and bodies of water. See, in addition,
Macqueen, “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” 175; like Jacobsen, he emphasizes
the active role of water in the earth, typifying productivity, conscious thought, and creativ-
ity. Note Jacobsen, “The Cosmos as a State,” 146–48.
187. Laroche (“Hattic Deities and Their Epithets,” 201) has equated wur with kur in
KUB XXVIII 75 II 12; II 2 II 40.
188. Other deities bearing the wur element are Wurunanniga and Wurunkatte.
Laroche has identified both of these with zababa, the Sumerian goddess of war; Laroche,
The Highlands of Anatolia 145
no current explanation for semu. This Hattian goddess was also called the
Sun-goddess of Arinna. She was the wife of the Storm-god (du) of Heaven/
Hatti and the mother of both the Storm-god of Nerik and of Zippalanda.
Her terrestrial/chthonic nature is further emphasized through her syncretiza-
tion with the Sumerian Ereshkigal and the Syrian goddess Lelwani. When
the Storm-god of Nerik “goes down . . . to the dark earth,” he goes down to
Uruzimu and Urunte, probably variations of the name Wurusemu. 189 In an-
other text, Wurusemu, under her other title, Sun-goddess of the Earth, 190 is
the recipient of offerings, which she receives in the traditional manner of sub-
terranean deities, in a “hole.” 191
Wurusemu’s equation with a solar deity, the Sun-goddess of Arinna, 192
may seem inconsistent in a context in which all of her other equivalents have
distinctly subterranean connections. Furlani has suggested that “Sun-goddess
of Arinna” was a purely honorific title. 193 It is more likely, however, as Mac-
queen has observed, that she belonged to the class of deities that was peculiar
to Anatolia, the “Sun-goddesses of the Earth,” who were primarily concerned
with the earth and the underworld. 194 A goddess of this nature, under strong
Semitic influence, could easily pick up solar characteristics. 195
It seems plausible, then, following Macqueen’s suggestion, that the su-
preme Hittite “goddess of Arinna” was none other than the Hattian Magna
Mater Wurusemu, preeminent ever since prehistoric times in Anatolia. 196
Recherches sur les noms des dieux hittites, 37, 307, 308; idem, “Hattic Deities and Their Epi-
thets,” 215.
189. Three forms of the name have been recognized: Wuruzimu, Wurunte/imu, and
Wuru(n)semu, all of which could be derived from Wuruntsemu. For a discussion of the ety-
mological clues, see Macqueen, “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” 175–76.
190. See Istanbul arkeoloji muzelerinde bulunan Boghazköy tabletlerinden secme metin-
ler II 80 VI 1–3 = (I BoTU II 80 VI 1–3 ); and V. Haas, “Death and the Afterlife in Hittite
Thought,” in CANE, 3.2021–22.
191. O. R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) 73. See also V. Haas, “Die Unterwelts- und Jenseits-
vorstellungen im hethitischen Kleinasien,” Or n.s. 45 (1976) 197–212.
192. It is interesting to note that the Sumerogram used for the goddess of Arinna’s
city is tul ‘spring’. See in addition Haas, “Death and the Afterlife in Hittite Thought,”
1021–22.
193. G. Furlani, La Religione degli Hittiti (Bologna: Zanicelli, 1936) 32–40; idem,
“The Basic Aspect of the Hittite Religion,” HTR 31 (1938) 231–62. See also Delaporte
(ed.), Histoire générale des religions, 1.352.
194. As indicated earlier in Otten, “Die Gottheit Lelvani,” 120 n. 7; and Macqueen,
“Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” 178.
195. See, e.g., Güterbock, “Hittite Mythology,” 90; Gurney, “Hittite Prayers of Mur-
shilis II,” 9ff.
196. Macqueen, “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy,” 178.
146 The Highlands of Anatolia
She was the mother of Telepinus, mother of the “Storm-god,” the “Storm-
god” of Nerik, and the numerous other “Storm-gods” concealed behind the
Sumerian ideograms dim and du. The main task of these gods was to convey
fertility to the land through the underground waters. 197 Various texts refer to
this Sun-goddess as receiving sacrifice in “holes” in the earth, as being associ-
ated with divine rivers, as emerging from a well after a “bloody” ritual, and as
attracting gods from rivers and springs. 198 Additional texts emphasize the
chthonic element in relation to the purulli festival to be discussed below.
Practically all of the early versions of the myths related to Telepinus, the
Storm-god of Nerik, and the other Storm-gods emphasize their strong terres-
trial/chthonic attributes. However, at times there is also a forceful emphasis
on their association with thunder, lightning, clouds, and rains from Heaven.
Similarly, in the later versions of the Myth of Telepinus and the Myth of the
Storm-God of Heaven, the Storm-god’s return brings the soft rain from
Heaven down on the lands of Hatti. He also assures the health of the king
and queen. More importantly, in these later versions, the Storm-god of
Heaven is not called up from the dark earth, the deep wave, or from the rivers
and springs; rather, he is brought down from Heaven.
In the first sections of the earlier versions of these bilingual myths, the
Storm-gods (dim) may reside on or within the earth, but in the later sections
the Storm-god (du) of Heaven dwells in Heaven. The very fact that in the
Myth of the Storm-god of Nerik and subsequent lesser fragments, the deity
is hidden behind the designation du, the Sumerogram for Adad suggests that
the source of water, sustenance, and survival is the sky.
In these later contexts, the Storm-god is asked to supply rain, perfectly in
keeping with the thrust of the Hittite versions. A god’s titular duties need not
reflect the limit of his capabilities; his duties as a provider of water need not
be restricted to the ground. 199 Given what is known of the early Hittites’
Indo-European religious milieu, it seems reasonable to assume that their em-
phasis would be on the sky as the source for water, rain, thunder, lightning,
good, and evil.
The Hittite celestial Storm-god in these texts is not a deity of secondary
status. Rather, Hittite theology gives him almost equal rank with the great
Wurusemu. During the Empire Period, this Hittite divinity is portrayed as
the husband of the Hattian goddess and identified with the great Sky-god of
the mountain that wielded the thunder and lightning. He is a Storm-god of
a different sort from the Hattian terrestrial Water-gods. He was quite likely
comparable to the old indigenous Hattian Taru. He is most likely the same
Hittite deity who time and again is referred to in the Hittite versions of Hat-
tian myths and later Hittite mythology as the Storm-god (du) of Heaven. He
is the husband of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, the father of Telepinus and of
the Storm-god of Nerik. In these texts he probably is the celestial deity hid-
den behind the Sumerogram du for the “Storm-god” Adad. This powerful,
“nameless” Hittite deity could not have risen to prominence prior to the apo-
gee of Hittite political power during the Empire Period.
200. H. A. Hoffner Jr., “The Illuyanka Tales,” (versions 1 and 2), Hittite Myths
(Atlanta: Scholars Press) 10–14; A. Goetze, “The Myth of Illuyankas,” ANET, 125–26;
G. Beckman, “The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka,” JANES 14 (1982) 11-25; Haas, Der Kult
von Nerik, 252. Haas’s interpretation of Hupasiya as a king participating in a hieros gamos
has not received wide acceptance: V. Haas, Hethitische Berggötter und hurritische Stein-
dämonen: Riten, Kulte und Mythen—Eine Einführung in die altkleinasiatischen religiösen
Vorstellungen (Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt; Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1982);
Güterbock, “Hittite Mythology,” 140–79; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 65–67; and Gur-
ney, The Hittites, 180–83.
201. See Goetze, Kleinasien, 131ff.; H. A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite Mythological Texts,”
in Unity and Diversity (ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1975) 138–42; idem, “The Illuyanka Tales,” 10–14.
202. So, for example, the purulli festival was also celebrated for the deity Lelwani. See
Goetze, “Die Annalen des Mursilis,” 1–13; KBo III 7. King Mursilis had already celebrated
the festival for the Storm-gods of Hatti and Zipaplanda.
203. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 1–81; and Gurney, The Hittites, 180–81.
148 The Highlands of Anatolia
his aid and concocted a plan that would enable the Storm-god to wreak his re-
venge on the Dragon Illuyanka. In order to carry out her scheme, she secured
the assistance of the mortal Hupasiya, after promising him her love. Having
slept with Hupasiya, Inara prepared a great banquet with drinks of every kind
and invited Illuyanka, who came with his children. Illuyanka and all the
guests ate and drank and “emptied every barrel and quenched their thirst.” As
a result, the Dragon and his children could no longer go back into their
“hole.” Hupasiya the mortal then came and bound the Dragon with a rope.
Illuyanka having now been immobilized, the Storm-god came and took his re-
venge by killing him and all of the other gods who had accompanied him.
Inara then built a house on a mountain in the country, warning Hupasiya
to stay inside and not look out of the window when she departed. But, as an-
ticipated, in Inara’s absence Hupasiya looked out of the window, saw his wife
and children, and grew homesick. When Inara returned, he asked to be al-
lowed to return home. The text then becomes fragmentary, but it is possible
that Hupasiya was punished or destroyed for his disobedience. Inara then re-
turned “to (the town of ) Kishkilussa (and placed) her house [of the] watery
abyss in the hand of the king. . . .” Since that time they have “celebrated the
purulli [festival]. . . . Zalianu is first of all. When he has granted rain for
Nerik, the Staff-Bearer brings thick bread from Nerik. . . . Zalianu asks for
rain.” 204
In the later version the dragon does not merely defeat the Storm-god of
Heaven but also incapacitates him by taking possession of his heart and eyes.
In order to recover them, the Storm-god of Heaven resorts to a ruse. He mar-
ries the daughter of a poor man, who bears him a son. The son falls in love
with and marries the daughter of the Dragon Illuyanka, at which point the
Storm-god of Heaven instructs his son to ask for the return of the Storm-
god’s heart and eyes when he went to his wife’s house. This he does, and the
stolen organs are also given to him. He returns them to his father. With his
body thus restored to its former state, the Storm-god goes off to the sea to do
battle with his enemy, Illuyanka, and succeeds in defeating him. At the defeat
of the Dragon, the Storm-god’s son, who happens to be in the Dragon’s house
at the time, cries out to his father, “Include me with him; have no pity on
me,” upon which the Storm-god kills both the Dragon and his own son. 205
The early and later versions clearly state that the deity involved is the
Storm-god. In the early version, he is identified exclusively as dim, the ideo-
204. This text has been translated in different ways. See, for example, Hoffner, “The
Illuyanka Tales,” 12; Deighton, The “Weather-God,” 65–66, 97–98; and ANET, 125–26;
Güterbock, “Hittite Mythology,” 150–52.
205. Hoffner, “The Illuyanka Tales” (version 2), 13; Gurney, The Hittites, 181-82;
and ANET, 126; Güterbock, Hittite Mythology, 152.
The Highlands of Anatolia 149
gram for Iskur. In the later version, however, he is identified as both dim and
du, the ideograms for Iskur and Adad, respectively. The use of the ideogram
is analogous to the treatment in the early and late versions of the Vanishing
God myths; it seems to imply a recognition by the writers that the pre-Hit-
tites identified their Storm-god more often with the earlier, Sumerian Iskur
than with the later, Semitic Adad. On the other hand, the later Hittite ver-
sions usually associate their Storm-god of Heaven with Adad. In both ver-
sions, the Dragon lives underground and, like the other Hattian deities,
emerges from his “hole.” Furthermore, in the later version, the encounter
takes place at the edge of “the sea,” which may indicate that the location of
the earlier encounter was by the sea as well. The goddess Inara also sits on a
throne located over the water, and in the end rain is apportioned for Nerik.
There are a number of factors in the text relative to the purulli festival.
This festival portrays the importance that the Hattians placed on water from
the ground. Since the myth explicitly states that it was to be recited at the pu-
rulli festival, some infer that the purulli was an annual spring festival. 206 It has
also been proposed that the festival represented the struggle between life and
death, between drought and plenty. 207 While this interpretation may seem
plausible on the surface, another interpretation is possible, more in keeping
with the terrestrial/chthonic emphasis in pre-Hittite Anatolian religion.
The major Hattian deities, Wurusemu, Taru, Lelwani, and the various
“Storm-gods,” such as Telepinus, were terrestrial and subterranean. There is
no evidence that the Hattians were fearful of these deities, even though they
were equated with such terrifying Sumerian and Akkadian deities as Eresh-
kigal and Allatum. Rather, these subterranean gods were comparable to the
benevolent Sumerian Iskur and Enki. In the myths of the Vanishing Storm-
God, desolation and destruction are brought about by the absence of the god.
The appeal for his return was recognition that his presence guaranteed the
well-being of society. Good came from the earth where these gods resided.
The theory that the Dragon Fight reflected an annual spring event as-
sumes that the Dragon inside the earth represented drought, chaos, evil, and
death and, hence, that life-sustaining forces were in the control of evil gods.
The implication is that the earth, the source of all good and well-being, was
periodically taken over by the forces of evil. This necessitated the periodic de-
feat of these forces and the reestablishment (every spring) of the Storm-god’s
authority. Such a concept, however, runs counter to the underlying focus of
206. On the purulli festival see, e.g, Haas, “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstruktion des
hethitischen Frühjahrsfests (ezen purulliyas )”; and the new interpretation of the goddess
Teteshapi’s cult in Daddi, “Aspects du culte de la divinité hattie Teteshapi.”
207. So, for example, Gurney (The Hittites, 152–53), among others. On the Dragon
Fight, see also Beckman, “The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka.”
150 The Highlands of Anatolia
the role and activities of the older terrestrial Water-god. Based on what we
can determine from extant sources, the terrestrial Water-god was always in
control of the earth, and all of his attributes had to do with essentially life-
sustaining elements.
The recounting of the Dragon Fight during the purulli festival could also
be plausibly interpreted as the mythic reflection of earlier historical develop-
ments. The Dragon, like other Hattian deities, resided in his “hole.” Rather
than representing evil, he may have represented the earlier traditional reli-
gious concept of the pre-Hittites, who, in keeping with their ecological envi-
ronment, conceived of all of their life-sustaining resources as residing on and
under the earth. These good gods would also have been responsible for bring-
ing evil on the land—as for example, when they periodically disappeared.
The disappearance of the Dragon into his “hole” need not imply, therefore,
that he and his associates were evil.
Later, with the increasing political dominance of migrants from the
north, east, and south, the concept of a celestial Storm-god of Heaven as
the source of all good and evil, which had initially been subsumed into the
deeply embedded Hattian religious tradition, gradually became the prevalent
religious ideology of the ruling elite, at least within Anatolia. This resulted in
the subordination of the indigenous religious concept of a terrestrial/
chthonic deity under the all-powerful celestial Storm-god of Heaven, which
may very well have been the tradition behind the purulli festival, with its ac-
companying myth of the Dragon fight.
The fact that the myth is originally Hattian does not undermine the plau-
sibility of this theory. The mythology merely developed out of an early Hat-
tian tradition of the tension between two conflicting conceptual viewpoints,
the earlier Hattian version being embellished by and subsumed into the later,
more-sophisticated Hittite account. It is this second account that can best be
compared with the later Greek Typhon/Zeus Myth. In a battle, Zeus loses
his sinew, which is recovered by Hermes and Aegipan with the help of the
Dragon’s daughter. Zeus, after having regained his strength, succeeds in kill-
ing Typhon. 208 In this myth, the location of the last battle is also by the sea.
In sum, in the earliest Near Eastern mythology and iconography from
Mesopotamia, the serpent or Dragon was traditionally a peaceful symbol of
blessing and fertility. It was only in Anatolia that this early snake/Dragon
symbol was projected as a hostile force in both the iconographic and the writ-
ten sources. Anatolian seals and bullae depict the serpent in conflict with and
being vanquished by an armed, active Storm-god, mounted on his sacred bull
and accompanied by celestial symbols. Frequently, on the same seal and in
the same register there is a figure of an accompanying, unarmed Storm-god,
also riding his bull mount, accompanied by aquatic symbols. This genre of
seals, with the Storm-god conquering the serpent, could plausibly be a depic-
tion of the essentials of the Illuyanka Myth—the terrestrial/chthonic Water-
god tradition’s becoming subordinated by the tradition of the celestial
Storm-god of Heaven. I conclude, then, that on the one hand the Water-god
is represented first as a colleague of the celestial Storm-god and on the other
hand as a serpent in the god’s hand.
Summary
From prehistoric times on, the concept of the Water-god in Anatolia
seems gradually to have emerged from a concept of fertilization, in which the
earth-mother initially played a dominant role. The fertilization process was
symbolized beginning during the time of Chatal Hüyük first by a squatting
female, then by subterranean water, and progressing on to a bull, or its horns.
The Magna Mater and her bull consort were portrayed in a succession of dif-
ferent forms and symbols and became the dominant characteristic of Anato-
lian religion. The deified water from the earth was subsequently depicted on
“standards” as a bull within a circle, representing an Anatolian terrestrial
Water-god emerging from his “hole” or “pit” in the earth.
Immigrants from the north, east, and south, however, brought with them
a recognition of the important role of a “celestial Storm-god,” who was im-
manent in the thunder, rains, and lightning. It was presumably under the in-
fluence of these people that the indigenous Hattian terrestrial Water-god and
the foreign, celestial Storm-god were first depicted in human form around
the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.
In Hattian mythical contexts, the indigenous Anatolian terrestrial Water-
god appearing anthropomorphically is identified as Taru and written in the
earliest Hittite sources as dim. Meanwhile, Taru’s Hittite/Semitic counterpart,
also portrayed in human form in both iconography and later Hittite written
sources, is identified as the powerful, “nameless” celestial Storm-god con-
cealed by the Sumerogram du but referred to consistently in the empire as ei-
ther the “Storm-god of Heaven” or the “Storm-god of Hatti.” This Hittite
divinity, a celestial Storm-god was always distinguished by his sacred mount
and constant attendant, the chthonic bull, as was his Hattian counterpart.
Anatolian mythology continually stressed the association of both of these
divinities with the soil. Both were great deities whose provisions for well-
being and sustenance were constantly required. Thus, the nature myths rep-
resented the Hattian terrestrial Water-gods as disappearing into the earth
152 The Highlands of Anatolia
209. Since only in the Anatolian milieu is there a continuous, developing iconography
of the deified bull, it can be presumed that, wherever the bull appears deified in Mesopota-
mian iconography and literature, it was the result of the influence of the terrestrial/chthonic
Hattian cult, diffused through intermediaries.
153
154 Syria: The Upper Country
conditions and cultures that the religions of the Syrians and their Storm-gods
evolved.
Culturally, the heterogeneity of this region resulted in a series of borrow-
ings, blending, and interchanges of populations. Within this milieu, there-
fore, the flow of ideas during the early Syrian cultural evolution can be
difficult to analyze. As a result of the syncretic environment, the pantheons
of the various cities tended to receive with hospitality the gods of strangers
who settled within their confines. Deities with similar attributes were identi-
fied, their personalities were fused, and even their ritual and regalia were
commingled. To a certain degree, this may be considered characteristic of all
of the cultures in the ancient Near East, but due to its geographical location
at the crossroads of the Fertile Crescent, Syria was particularly susceptible to
syncretism in religion, art, and literature. This blending is especially evident
in the extant epigraphic and iconographic material relating to the Storm-god.
once supplied timber for the shipbuilders of Egypt and the architects of Assyria and Baby-
lonia. See CAH, 1/2.318–19; J. Mattern, “À travers les villes mortes de la Syrie,” Mélanges
de l’Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrout 17 (1953) 136ff.; Mallowan, “Excavations at Brak and
Chagar Bazar,” 15; C. L. Woolley, A Forgotten Kingdom (London: Harmondsworth,
1968) 20ff.
Syria: The Upper Country 155
a b
Fig. 23. (a) Storm-god in long tunic and conical headgear carrying lightning symbol
in his raised left hand and wielding a weapon in his right hand, over his head. His
foot rests on a kneeling bull (Vanel, L’iconographie, pp. 36–37, fig. 12; cf. Özgüc, The
Anatolian Group, pp. 81–82, pls. xxi, xxii, figs. 63, 64, 65); (b) Storm-god in short
tunic and conical headgear wielding a weapon in his raised right hand and holding a
serpent in his left hand (Vanel, L’iconographie, pp. 78–79, fig. 36).
3. We have shown in chap. 2 that this Anatolian deity of higher status is none other
than the indigenous, chthonic, Anatolian Water-god who appears with a number of earthly
symbols. See N. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, 63–65; P. Amiet, “Notes sur le répertoire
iconographique de Mari à l’époque de Palais,” Syria 37 (1960) 215–23; Vanel, L’iconogra-
phie, 81–82.
4. Note particularly Dijkstra, “The Weather-God on Two Mountains,” UF 23 (1991)
127–40, pls. 1, 2, 3; and N. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, 63–64. Several versions of the
Storm-god are represented.
Syria: The Upper Country 157
Other seals show the snake rising from beneath or between the legs of the
Storm-god, below what appears to be a vegetal symbol, 10 or with an upright
head and open mouth, while the Storm-god thrusts a spear-like weapon with
a branched butt down its throat (fig. 17a, b on p. 118). 11 All of these seals
appear to depict a conflict between the Storm-god and the serpent, with the
subsequent triumph of the Storm-god.
In this study I have proposed that, as a terrestrial symbol in Anatolia, the
serpent embodied a religious tradition that held that good emerged from
within the earth. This concept was at variance with the newer, imported cul-
tural tradition that located the source of life and continuity in the heavens
(chap. 2).
Representations of the serpent held by the neck, dangling at the side of
the Storm-god always depict celestial symbols such as orbs, wings, moon-
crescents, clouds, and rain, in addition to the Syrian nude goddess. The
twentieth–nineteenth-century seals from Kültepe are among the very earliest
to associate the snake with the Storm-god. It is plausible to conclude that
they symbolize the dual religious traditions of the time: the indigenous Ana-
tolian terrestrial/chthonic idea of fertility and the Syrian emphasis on the
heavens as the source of fertility.
Another type of what Williams-Forte has called “victory scenes,” 12 from
another phase, portrays the subdued serpent as rising submissively from be-
tween the legs of the Storm-god, who holds a battle-mace in his right hand.
In his left hand, above the serpent’s head, he holds a winged sun-disc as a
symbol of celestial authority (fig. 18 on p. 119). 13 Williams-Forte has dem-
onstrated that the atmospheric imagery of orbs, clouds, rain, and moon-cres-
cents never appears in battle scenes but only in scenes portraying the Storm-
god’s complete triumph over the serpent. In one example, the Storm-god
holds in his hand the reins of a crouching bull with the nude goddess stand-
ing on its back. 14
10. Note in N. Özgüc, Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanesh (Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 5/25; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1968) pl. XXII,
no. 2; Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” fig. 6.
11. Delaporte, CCO, A918; and as cited by Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,”
figs. 8, 9, 10. These correspond to BM 89514 and the Seyrig Collection in the Bibilothèque
Nationale (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1910) no. 108.
12. See Williams-Forte’s discussion in “The Snake and the Tree,” 28–30.
13. Note particularly B. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Col-
lection (ed. Ulla Kasten; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981) YBC 1222; N. Özgüc,
Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib, pl. XXII, 2. See also Williams-Forte, “The Snake and
the Tree,” fig. 6.
14. Porada, Corpus, no. 967.
Syria: The Upper Country 159
15. So, e.g., Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 29.
16. See discussion above, in chap. 2, pp. 107–12.
17. Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 29–30, citing the Seyrig Collection in
the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, pl. I-2; B. Teissier, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals
(Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984) 250–51, no. 495.
18. Note, e.g., Porada, Corpus, no. 967; M.-T. Barrelet, “Les déesses armées et ailées,”
Syria 32 (1955) 242–43.
19. See above, pp. 18–24, 27–34.
160 Syria: The Upper Country
Fig. 25. Storm-god about to thrust his spear into the ground (Vanel, L’iconographie,
pp. 73–74, fig. 30).
Even though they clearly portray a Syrian motif, the cultural context is the
Anatolian heartland.
20. See A. Parrot, “Les fouilles de Mari, 9e campagne,” Syria 31 (1954) 153, pl. XV, 1;
idem, Mission archéologique de Mari 2/3: Le Palais, documents et monuments (Bibliothèque
Archéologique et Historique 70; Paris: Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth, 1959)
157, pl. 45; P. Amiet, “Notes sur le répertoire iconographique,” 215–32; idem, “Le glyp-
tique de Mari à l’époque du Palais, note additionelle,” Syria 38 (1961) 1–6; Vanel, L’iconog-
raphie, fig. no. 30.
21. For this group of seals, Parrot has specifically identified the Storm-god with Baal.
See also MAM, 157, pl. 45; Vanel, L’iconographie, 74.
22. See in addition Frankfort, CS, 243, fig. 72.
Syria: The Upper Country 161
A later seal type, from the time of Zimri-Lim in the eighteenth century,
continues the representation of the Syrian Storm-god with his typical sym-
bol, the horned tiara. In this case, however, he is attired in a short tunic and
brandishes a battle-mace over his left shoulder. 23 In his right hand he carries
a long-necked earthenware jar symbolizing rainfall. 24
In another eighteenth-century seal from Samiya, the Syrian Storm-god
appears in a different setting. He is attired in a long tunic with a protruding
leg, brandishing a weapon in his hand as if about to strike. A bull, probably
an adversary, carries a rectangular protuberance on its back, in which there is
the figure of a nude goddess with upraised arms (fig. 27). 25
Stylistically, this early group of Syrian seals reveals a combination of
Babylonian and Syrian iconographic elements. The headdress and hairstyle,
striding stance, short kilt, and downturned spear are unquestionably Syrian,
while the ascending stance, long tunic, and emanating rays are characteristi-
cally Babylonian. Occasionally the Storm-god may also be represented in the
presence of his two attendants, the bull and the nude goddess with upraised
arms. 26 Even though certain aspects of these Mari seals indicate Babylonian
influence, the weapon, headdress, hairstyle, stance, and attendants of the
Storm-god clearly show that the motif is originally Syrian.
Middle Bronze II glyptic from the coastal cosmopolitan city of Ras
Shamra in Syria proper continues to portray the Storm-god in the distinctive
27. See, e.g., C. F.-A. Schaeffer, Corpus des Cylindres-Sceaux de Ras Shamra–Ugarit et
d’Enkomi–Alasia (Paris: Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1983) 68–70, particularly
RS 5.175, 7.181, 21.020, 24.358, and 28.025; Vanel, L’iconographie, 77–84.
28. Schaeffer, Corpus des Cylindres-Sceaux de Ras Shamra, Enkomi-Alasia, 13.093.
29. E. Porada, “The Cylinder Seal from Tell el-Dabºa,” AJA 88 (1984) 485–88, pl. 65,
fig. 1; Dijkstra, “The Weather-God on Two Mountains,” 130, pl. 1, 1.
Syria: The Upper Country 163
seals. 30 Along with the image of the Storm-god, these Egyptian scenes always
show traditional Egyptian symbols such as the ºankh, weapons such as the
multiple battle-mace, battle-axe, and other items that reflect the Egyptian
cultural milieu. 31 Edith Porada has specifically identified this deity as the Syr-
ian Storm-god Baal Íaphon.
The more-recent seals from Alalakh VII (1720–1620 b.c.e.) and Alalakh
IV (ca. 1450 b.c.e.) in Syria represent the Syrian Storm-god with the same
identifying characteristics. In these scenes, however, a battle-mace is always
present with a lance as the Storm-god’s weapons of preference. A mace is held
in the right hand and brandished overhead, while the left hand either holds
the leash of one or two bulls or carries the traditional spear pointed toward
the ground. In rare instances, the god may carry other weapons. 32
A goddess characteristically accompanies the Syrian Storm-god, and she
appears nude in most Syrian collections. At Alalakh, however, she rarely ap-
pears, and whenever she does she is fully clad. Significantly, the bull as a con-
stant attendant of the Storm-god appears relatively infrequently in glyptic art
outside the Anatolian heartland.
Two goddesses appear singly or together on the majority of Syrian seals as
attendants of the Storm-god. One is winged, clad, and warlike; 33 the other is
peaceful and nude. 34 Because the winged, warlike goddess appears almost ex-
clusively in the Syrian repertoire, she has been identified as a “Syrian” god-
dess. 35 Her attire is a long, fringed garment and a tall, square, horned tiara.
In scenes reflecting Egyptian influence, she sometimes holds the ºankh, a cup,
a multiple battle-mace, or an axe. 36 Due to the fact that she usually appears
with a royal figure in dynastic seal impressions from Alalakh, it has been
suggested that she was of a high status, probably a senior female deity par
30. Note the examples in N. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, pls. I, 4; XVIId, 52; and
T. Özgüc and N. Özgüc, Kültepe Kazisi Raporu 1949, no. 694. See discussion in Collon,
“The Smiting God: A Study of a Bronze in the Pomerance Collection in New York,” 128.
31. Note in Vanel, L’iconographie, 85–97.
32. Collon, The Alalakh Cylinder Seals, pp. 54–55, seals nos. 20, 21; pp. 180–81, 184–
85. For other examples of the same motif, see idem, “The Smiting God,” 111–33. For ad-
ditional portrayals of this deity in both Alalakh VII and IV, see The Alalakh Cylinder Seals,
nos. 44, 45, 212–16; and Dijkstra, “The Weather-God on Two Mountains,” pls. 1–3.
33. Note, e.g., in Teissier, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals, 241–53, nos. 475–76,
487–502.
34. A representation of this type of seal is given in Porada, Corpus, no. 967.
35. On the “Syrian Goddess,” see P. Amiet, “Jalons pour une interpretation du réper-
toire des sceaux-cylindres syriens au II millénaire,” Akkadica 28 (1982) 19–40. The “Syrian
Goddess” has been identified with Anat in Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (eds.), Textes ou-
garitiques, Vol. 1: Mythes et légendes, 85–86.
36. See Teissier, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals, 79, 80, nos. 474, 476, and 502;
Collon, The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh, 180–81.
164 Syria: The Upper Country
37. P. Amiet, “Jalons pour une interpretation du répertoire des sceaux-cylindres syr-
iens,” 27. Note also Teissier, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals, 80; additional examples are
in Collon, Seal Impressions from Alalakh, pl. V, 3–6, and 10.
38. N. Özgüc, The Anatolian Group, pl. XXIV, 71.
39. Note also idem, “Some Contributions to Early Anatolian Art from Acemhoyuk,”
Belleten 43 (1979) pl. I, no. 2; Teissier, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals, 81.
Syria: The Upper Country 165
deity. 40 As goddess of war, she appears armed with a spear, clad in a tunic,
with a square, horned headdress. 41 As goddess of love, she is portrayed allur-
ingly revealing herself with her fringed garment pushed to one side or lifting
her veil. 42 Occasionally, these two aspects are combined.
Another rendering of the Syrian Storm-god, the most distinctive depic-
tion, is the sixteenth–fifteenth-century relief of the “Great Stele of Baal” un-
earthed at Ugarit and published by Claude Schaeffer (fig. 28a, b). 43 The
Storm-god is represented brandishing a battle-mace over his head in his right
hand, while in his left he holds a stylized thunderbolt ending in a spearhead
thrusting toward the ground. He wears a horned helmet and is clad in a short
kilt. He is portrayed as a vigorous, young, graceful, athletic deity marching
forward, as in various gold-plated, bronzes and silver statuettes from this re-
gion. The deity’s horns are styled in the form of bulls’ horns.
water table roughly about the middle of the fourth millennium b.c.e., 44 how-
ever, these people also began to see themselves as subject to the whims of the
weather—in particular, the ever-threatening dangers of either insufficient
moisture or destructive storms that resulted in devastating floods.
It was due in part to these environmental factors that the peoples of north-
western Mesopotamia and Syria often saw their god as irascible, capricious,
even hostile, galloping across the sky in his dark and ominous storm-clouds,
arbitrarily disposed either to pour down the deadly devastating storm-floods
or to mete out desperately needed rain showers. Depending on the circum-
stances, such a god could either punish his own people or visit destruction
upon their enemies. Unlike his Mesopotamian counterpart, this Syrian divin-
ity had no parochial limitations, nor was he confined to a specific place or
even identified consistently with any one city. This peripatetic deity accompa-
nied groups everywhere in the various regions around northwestern Mesopo-
tamia and Syria in war and peacetime, in famine and plenty.
Hadad/Adad
The earliest deity identified with the devastating storms and ravaging
floods in the Middle Euphrates and Syrian region was the Semitic god Adad.
However, the first textual references to this Storm-god emerge from Ur in
southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian and Akkadian sources from the third
millennium b.c.e. 45 Adad was never a member of the Sumerian pantheon.
His characteristics have always identified him as a non-Sumerian, West Se-
mitic or Amorite deity. Conclusive evidence from written sources points to
the heartland of northwestern Mesopotamia and Syria as the homeland of
Adad.
In Sumerian sources, Hadad/Adad was the proper name for a specific
deity, similar to Enlil and Dagan. His name, hdd, as suggested above, quite
likely is derived from a root that in Arabic means ‘to demolish with vio-
lence, with a vehement noise’, ‘the sound of rain falling from the sky’, and
‘thunder’. 46 This aptly describes the basic conception of the Storm-god by a
44. Nissen, The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 55–64; Nützel, “The Climatic
Changes of Mesopotmia and Bordering Areas,” 20ff.
45. See pre-Sargonic and Sargonic references above, in chap. 1. The Sumerian ideo-
gram dim could be a reference to either the Sumerian Storm-god Iskur or the Semitic Adad
in the Sargonic Period—more specifically to Iskur during Ur III and to Adad in the post–
Ur III Period. Note also later evidence of the name Adad in syllabic spelling of personal
names—for example, En-ni-ma-da-ad, I-ti-na-da-ad, and Ze-la-da-ad, which belong to the
Ur III Period. See Gelb, MAD 3, 18; Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 13–14.
46. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 2882.
doubt of his Amorite origin and natural popularity among the Amorites. At
the turn of the second millennium b.c.e., the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad I
was named for Adad. From the same era, Hammurabi’s Code also portrayed
the popular perception of Adad:
As the great Semitic Storm-god, Adad was the creator of fertility, but by
withholding moisture from the heavens he could also bring destruction to
the land or, conversely, he could send devastating floods. In southern Meso-
potamia, however, Adad was not viewed in this manner, and for that reason
he was not easily assimilated into the Sumerian pantheon by equation with
the kingly and lofty Enlil. As a newcomer, he was equated with the more be-
nign and fructifying Iskur, Storm-god of the Winds, the benevolent deity of
the herdsmen and farmers.
Adad was also equated with Itur-Mer, the god of wind and rainstorm, 51
and probably a patron deity of Mari and an important Storm-god of the
Middle Euphrates region from earliest times. While not much is known of
Mer, 52 personal names with the theophoric element Mer are attested from
47. Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 18, 19; and CT 25 (1909) 16: 24, 25, 27.
48. See A. Deimel, Sumerisches Lexicon, vol. 2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1932) 399, no. 15. There are, of course, numerous variants of the name in the Akkadian
texts, such as Addu, Addi, Adda, Ada, Khaddu, Khadda, and Dada. Hadad, the more com-
mon form, probably originated from Haddad; however, many of these forms existed con-
temporaneously, and there is no indication than any one was ever used exclusively.
49. CT 25 (1909) 16: 16.
50. T. J. Meek, “The Code of Hammurabi,” in ANET, 179.
51. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta, 246–49.
52. See Lambert, “The Pantheon at Mari.”
168 Syria: The Upper Country
the time of the Dynasty of Akkad on, and offerings were made to him from
the time of the Ur III Period on. 53 Adad was thus a dominant deity in the
Middle and Upper Euphrates and Syrian regions, even prior to his emergence
as dim in Sargonic times. Adad’s filial relationship to Dagan accurately de-
scribes his important function as the god par excellence of the Middle and
Upper Euphrates and Syria. 54
We have shown above that Dagan was the national god of the countries
in the Middle Euphrates, 55 and Mari’s oldest god list from the Early Dynastic
Period calls him the “Lord of Terqa,” 56 “Lord of the Land,” 57 and also the
“King of Lands.” 58 In the pantheon texts from Ebla, Dagan is given the title
“Lord.” 59 Dagan appears as the head of the later second-millennium pan-
theon of Emar in texts from several time periods. 60 Dagan as the great Storm-
god of this region was evidently identified as a rain-agriculture deity; hence,
the later association of his name with ‘grain’ or with the sowing of fields. 61
Ishbi-Irra of Mari named his progeny and royal successors after Dagan, 62
and a number of the succeeding monarchs of the region, including those of
Assyria, 63 recognized Dagan as the supreme deity. Both native and foreign
kings attributed their military and political successes to Dagan, sought his
blessing, brought him offerings, and prostrated themselves before him. It was
Dagan who installed and removed kings.
The importance of Dagan as the Storm-god par excellence of the region
seems only logical. The livelihood of the inhabitants depended on the culti-
vation of the soil. Their sustenance could be assured only if Dagan, the god
of thunder, clouds, and rains, provided the necessary showers. This made
him the supreme deity, on a par with the great Enlil of southern Mesopota-
mia. Thus it would appear that Dagan had been the primary divinity of the
Middle Euphrates region long before the first mention of his name in the
third millennium b.c.e.
As the center of Amorite influence and power began to move southward,
northward, and westward, however, from as early as the time of Zimri-Lim
of Mari on, Dagan gradually began to be replaced by his son Adad, who as-
sumed all of the important titles of his father, along with his prerogatives as
the god of the Middle Euphrates and Syria. Farther to the west, Adad even-
tually emerged as the great Storm-god of the entire region, with Dagan in his
shadow. And Adad’s cult was diffused not only southward throughout Baby-
lonia but also to the north, affecting the Anatolian Plateau, and to the north-
east, in the Urartian regions.
The early importance of Adad in these regions seems evident from his pop-
ularity as a theophoric element in personal names. There is evidence for his cult
in Assyrian texts from Cappadocia as early as the second millennium. 64 As
60. This is revealed time and again in Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess
at Emar, 240–48.
61. In Hebrew and Ugaritic dgn denotes ‘grain’ as well as the god Dagan. See UT 126:
III: 13, 14. In Sanchuniathon’s Phoenician History, “Dagon is the cornfield,” for he discov-
ered grain and the plough and was called Zeus Agrotrios ‘belonging to agriculture’. Eusebius
Pamphili, Evangelicae Praeparationis, in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum 5/3 (ed.
C. Mullerus; Paris: Didot, 1851–53) 560–73. See Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and
Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 10–11.
62. He named his son Ishme-Dagan (CT 21 [1905] 20, 21) and his grandson Idin-
Dagan (F. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babyloni-
enne [Paris: Geuthner, 1910] no. 178: 13).
63. E.g., Shamshi-Adad I and his son Yasmah-Adad. See Roux, Ancient Iraq, 173–77.
64. H. Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; Graz:
Archiv für Orientforschung, 1961) 2ff.
170 Syria: The Upper Country
demonstrated above in the Hittite texts, the ideograms dim and du used for
the Semitic Storm-god Adad were possibly also used for the Hattian Storm-
god Taru. 65 Hittite kings are said to have placed the statue of Adad, referred
to as the “Storm-god of Halab (Aleppo),” in the main sanctuary of the sun-
goddess of Arinna. They even invoked the “Storm-god of Halab” in interna-
tional treaties. 66
The popularity of Adad among the Hurrians is also apparent in the Nuzi
texts, which identify the Hurrian Storm-god Teshub with Adad. 67 In addi-
tion, in the Hittite capital of Hattusha, the cult of Adad and his consort be-
came so important that the city was once referred to as the city of the Storm-
god, or Teshub of Halab. 68 The Nuzi archives also list a temple of “Teshub
of Hal-pa-hi. 69 It was in Syria proper, however, that the power, prestige, and
importance of the Storm-god Adad emerged during the Middle Bronze Age
to such unrivaled prominence—that he became the most important and pro-
fusely cited deity in the Near East.
nium b.c.e. 70 Though fewer in number, these earlier sources from farther to
the west stress his importance primarily as a beneficent fertility deity 71
whereas, interestingly enough, in the Middle and Upper Euphrates region
the emphasis was on Hadad’s attribute as an executor of violence. 72 In subse-
quent western epigraphic sources there is a remarkable diffusion of references
to this deity.
It is apparent from historical, literary, political, and cultic documents,
that what the city of Terqa was to the Middle Euphrates Storm-god Dagan,
Aleppo was to the Syrian Storm-god Hadad from the beginning of the
Middle Bronze Age on. In texts from Mari, Hadad is called “Adad, Lord of
Aleppo,” 73 and Zimri-Lim called one of his regnal years “the year [he] offered
his statue to Adad of Halab.” 74 The prophet Nur-Sin had conveyed Hadad’s
designation to the king in the following message: “Am I not Addu, the lord
of Kallasu, who has brought him [Zimri-Lim] up on my knees and who has
led him back to the throne of the house of his father? I have also given him
residence.” 75 This is followed by the words, “Behold, this is what the prophet
of Addu, lord of Halap, has spoken to Abu-halim. May my lord know
70. The Execration Texts are of two kinds. Those known as the Berlin texts are in-
scribed on bowls (K. Sethe, “Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürster, Völker, und Dinge auf alt-
ägyptischen Tongefässcherben des Mitteleren Reiches,” Abhandlungen d. preuss. Akad. d.
Wiss., Phil.-Hist. Klasse [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926] no. 5), and others known as the Posener
texts, are inscribed on figurines (G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie: Textes hiera-
tiques sur des figurines d’envoutement du Moyen Empire [Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique
Reine Elisabeth, 1940]) 66 no. E4, 68 no. E7, 75 no. E19. A new set was also found at Mir-
gissa in Nubia (J. Vercoutter, “Deux mois de fouilles à Mirgissa en Nubie Soudanaise,”
BSFE 37–38 [1963] 23ff.). See, in addition, W. F. Albright, “The Land of Damascus be-
tween 1850 and 1750 b.c.” BASOR 83 (1941) 34; and S. H. Horn, The Relations between
Egypt and Asia during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chi-
cago, 1951) 185, 165, 173. In the texts the divine element appears in the names of seven
Syrian and Palestinian princes. All of these texts have been dated to the nineteenth century.
An argument has been made, however, for dating them to the eighteenth century. See
J. Van Seters, The Hyksos (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966) 78–81.
71. Note J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 114; and Bottéro, “Les divinités sémitiques
anciennes en Mésopotamie,” 30–31.
72. For example, Adad is petitioned to send his thunder violently over the enemy’s city
or to send his violent floodwaters over the land. See above, pp. 166–67.
73. dim be-el Ha-la-ab ki; Dossin, “Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari,” 115
n. 3; also H. Klengel, “Der Wettergott von Halab,” JCS 19 (1965) 87–93.
74. G. Dossin, “Les archives économiques du palais de Mari,” Syria 20 (1939) 108.
75. Idem, “Le royaume d’Alep en le XVIIIe siècle avant notre ère d’après les ‘Archives
de Mari,’ ” Bulletin des Académie Royale de Belgique: Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales
et politiques 38 (1952) 234 n. 21.
172 Syria: The Upper Country
85. S. A. B. Mercer and F. H. Hallock (eds.), The Tell El-Amarna Tablets (2 vols.; To-
ronto: Macmillan, 1939) 8: 18, 35; 68: 1; 225: 3, etc. See also the more comprehensive
original along with glossary in Knudtson, Weber, and Ebeling (eds.), EA. Note in addition
Dossin, “Les archives économiques du palais de Mari,” 111ff.; R. S. Hess, “Divine Names
in the Amarna Texts,” UF 18 (1986) 149–68; W. L. Moran, Les lettres d’el-Amarna (LAPO;
Paris: Cerf, 1987); idem, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1992) 16, 287, 288, etc.
86. Note, for example, in a list of mythic divinities in the Ugaritic texts, “Adad, lord
of Mount Hazzi,” directly corresponds to “Baal Íaphon.” See F. B. Knutson, “Divine
Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts,” in RSP, 474–76; and RS 20. 24 with RS 1929.
17, Ugaritica V 44–45, 47–48. See also M. Pope, “Baal-Hadad,” WdM 1.253–54; and
van Zijl, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics, 346–51.
87. See Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 347–
52; Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 44–53; Dahood, “Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Pales-
tine,” 75–79; W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London: Athlone Press, 1968;
repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1978) 140–45.
88. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (hereafter UT; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Insti-
tute, 1965) 62: rev. 57. All subsequent references herewith to Ugaritic texts will follow the
sigla given in UT, usually followed in parenthesis by a reference to KTU. See in addition,
174 Syria: The Upper Country
the Earth’, 92 any ‘lord’; 93 or a husband. 94 But, above all, the Ras Shamra
texts clearly show that the term bºl developed from the generic use to the
proper name for one specific god, Hadad. 95 He eventually became the god
par excellence in the Ugaritic pantheon, exercising dominion over all the
other gods. 96
The Ugaritic texts feature the proper name Baal either alone or in com-
posite names such as ªaliyn.bºl 97 and bºl.ßpn. 98 The designation bºl alone, un-
connected with any other substantives or adjectives, is found approximately
140 times, primarily for Haddu, son of Dagan; it is more than twice as com-
mon as the second-most-frequent designation, the compound ªaliyn.bºl. 99
André Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra–
Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 (hereafter CTA; 2 vols.; MRS 10; Paris: Imprimerie, 1963).
89. UT 77: 42 (KTU 1.24: 42).
90. UT 137: 17 (KTU 1.2 I: 17).
91. UT 70: 2 (KTU 6.14).
92. UT 49: III: 3, 9, 21; IV: 29, 40 (KTU 1.6 iii: 9, 21; iv: 29, 40); etc.
93. UT 137: 42 (KTU 1.2 ii: 42).
94. PRU II, no. 77: 2–5.
95. See Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 335–
469, particularly 347–61, with accompanying bibliography.
96. D. E. Fleming, “Baal and Dagan in Ancient Syria,” ZA 83 (1993) 1–8; U. Olden-
burg, The Conflict between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 57–59.
97. For example, in UT 127: 14 (KTU 1.16 vi: 14). ªAliyn is the most frequently used
epithet, meaning ‘the One who Prevails’ or ‘Conquering Hero’. See N. Wyatt, “The Titles
of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” 403–24; van Zijl, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connection with
Baal in the Ugaritic Epics, 341–45; Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the
Ugaritic Texts,” 428–31; L. Vigano, Nomi e titoli di YHWH alla luce del semitico del Nord-
ouest (BibOr 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976) 80–106; C. Virolleaud, “Un
poème phénicien de Ras Shamra: La lutte de Mot, fils des dieux, et d’Alein, fils de Baal,”
Syria 12 (1931) 196, 356; W. F. Albright, “The North-Canaanite Epic of ªAlªeyan Baal and
Mot,” JPOS 12 (1932) 185ff.; idem, “More Light on the Canaanite Epic of ªAlªeyn Baal
and Mot,” BASOR 50 (1933) 19.
98. So UT 1: 10 (KTU 1.34: 10); UT 9: 14 (KTU 1.36: 14); UT 125: 6–7 (KTU
1.16 i: 6–7), etc., meaning ‘Lord of Íaphon’, Íaphon being the mountain abode of Baal; it
may even be a reference to “heaven” in some instances. A detailed discussion will be given
below. However, note, e.g., Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 57–58; and particu-
larly O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer
(Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1932); also R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the
Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972) 135–62; Cooper and
Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” especially 410–13; van Zijl, Baal,
332–36; J. de Savignac, “Le sens du terme Sâphôn,” UF 16 (1984) 273–78; Wyatt, “Titles
of the Ugaritic Storm-god,” 409–10.
99. The other significant designations by which this deity is known in the Ugaritic
Texts are bºl.ugrt ‘Lord of Ugarit’ (UT 107: 10ff. [KTU 1.65: 10]); zbl.bºl.arß ‘Prince Lord
Syria: The Upper Country 175
of the Earth’ (UT 49: I 43–45, III 3, 9, 21; IV 29, 40, etc. [KTU 1.6 i: 43–45; iii: 3, 9, 21;
iv: 15 etc.]); bºl.knp ‘Lord of the Wing’ (UT 9: 6); bºl.ºnt.m˙rtt ‘Lord of the Ploughed Fur-
rows’ or ‘Lord of the Ploughed Land’ (UT 49: IV 27 [KTU 1.6 iv: 1–5]); bn.dgn ‘Son of
Dagan’ (UT 49: I 24; 62: 6 [KTU 1.6 i: 52]).
100. See, e.g., UT 51: VI 39; VII: 36, 38; 67: I 23, II: 22, IV: 7; 75: II 55; 76: II 33
(KTU 1.4 iv: 39; vii: 36 , 38; 5 i: 23; ii: 22; iv: 7 etc.); Wyatt, “Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-
god,” 412; Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (eds.), Textes ougaritiques, vol. I: Mythes et lé-
gendes, 217; van Zijl, Baal, 346–51.
101. See also Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 43–45, 51–52.
102. In Semitic references, the god appears under the divine names hd, hdd, and add.
See Edzard, “Mesopotamien: Die Mythologie der Sumerer und Akkader,” WdM 1, see es-
pecially pp. 135–37; M. H. Pope and W. Röllig, “Syrien: Die Mythologie der Ugariter und
Phonizier,” WdM 1.217–312, particularly pp. 253ff.; P. Xella, I testi rituali di Ugarit
(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981) 1.213–14; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. San-
martín, “Schreibüng oder Religiöser Text?” UF 7 (1975) 524.
103. See UT 103: 5. Also Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 50.
104. UT 133: rev. 6. In Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ugaritic the name is spelled hdd, while
in the Akkadian cuneiform texts it is written both Adad and Addu.
105. See M. S. Smith, The Early History of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1993)
xix–xxvii, 56–60, etc.; S. Moon-Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and the Ancient
Near East (BZAW 177; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989) 115ff., 179ff., 197ff.; T. N. D. Mettinger,
“YHWH SABAOTH: The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Pe-
riod of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for
Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979 (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 1982) 117ff.; and others.
176 Syria: The Upper Country
106. The objective here is not a review of the Baal mythical cycle; countless studies are
available on this subject. Rather, I will focus specifically on the unique role and function of
the Storm-god in the northwestern Syrian ecological and cultural milieu.
107. All of the Ras Shamra texts were found at a level dated to between the sixteenth–
fifteenth and twelfth centuries b.c.e. In addition to other evidence, references to Kings
Niqmad of Ugarit and Suppiluliuma of the Hittites place the religious and literary tablets
between 1400 and 1350 b.c.e.
108. This was proposed earlier by W. F. Albright (“The Old Testament and the Ar-
chaeology of the Ancient Near East,” in The Old Testament and Modern Study [ed. H. H.
Rowley; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951] 26–47, especially p. 31; and later in “Spec-
imens of Late Ugaritic Prose,” BASOR 150 [1958] 36–38). T. Jacobsen, in “The Battle be-
tween Marduk and Tiamat” (JAOS 88 [1968] 104–8), proposed a West Semitic origin for
the Marduk-Tiamat Myth of conflict between the Storm and the Sea, inasmuch as Syria is
adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea. W. G. Lambert (“A New Look at the Babylonian Back-
ground of Genesis,” JTS n.s. 16 [1965] 295–96) initially sustained the plausibility of Amor-
ite origin. However, he subsequently rejected this position (“Zum Forschungsstand der
sumerisch-babylonischen Literatur-Geschichte” ZDMG Supplement 3/1 [1977] 69–71),
pointing out that Enuma Elish does not go back to the Amorite Dynasty of Babylon, as was
first thought by Jacobsen, but instead must be dated to the time of Nebuchadrezzar, ca.
1100 b.c.e. See W. G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadrezzar I: A Turning Point in the
History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J.
Meek (ed. W. S. McCullogh; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964) 3–13.
109. As part of the extensive literature currently available, see translations in Driver,
Canaanite Myths and Legends, 73–83; J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic
Myth of Baºlu (AOAT 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker, 1971); van Zijl, Baal; and J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 37–45. Among the more recent discussions are those by M. S.
Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” UF 18 (1987) 313–19; D. Pardee, “Ugaritic Proper
Nouns,” AfO 36–37 (1989–90) 388–513; J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the
Sea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985); idem, “Baal (Deity),” ABD 1.545–49;
and S. B. Parker (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
Syria: The Upper Country 177
cosmos as king of the pantheon. 110 In the following cycle, his palace is built
and he effectively exercises his kingship. 111
In the cosmic evolution of Baal as a Storm-god, his earliest identifying
characteristic is that of a powerful warrior. 112 This prowess as a conquering
deity, suggested by the epithet ªAliyan ‘Conquering Hero’, 113 may be in-
terpreted as the generic attribute with which Hadad was traditionally as-
sociated, on the basis of his relationship to the Storm-gods in the south
Mesopotamian and to Itur-Mer and Dagan in the Middle Euphrates milieu.
However, whether Baal’s battles reflect analogous historical developments is
still a much-debated question. 114
One of the reasons for this problem is that, unlike the texts discussed
above concerning the Mesopotamian and Anatolian myths, there are hardly
any extant texts specifying that the Baal myths or any other myths were re-
cited in conjunction with or dramatizing a ritual. One apparent exception to
this is the Myth of Shachar and Shalim and the Gracious Gods (UT 52
[KTU 1.23]). While interpretations of the details differ rather widely, schol-
ars generally agree (particularly Near Eastern and biblical scholars) that the
110. The first cycle of kingship is found in UT texts nos. 129, 137, and 68 (CTA 2 iii,
i, iv). See, in addition, M. S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. S. B.
Parker; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 81–86.
111. The second cycle of kingship is UT ºnt (KTU 1.3); Driver, Canaanite Myths and
Legends, 83–88 (Baal V i 1–V iii 46); Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 46–48. On the
Baal cycle of myths, see, e.g., van Zijl, Baal; de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern; B. Margalit, A
Matter of “Life” and “Death”: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4-5-6) (AOAT 206; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1980); M. S. Smith,
“Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 313–19; idem, “The Baal Cycle,” 81–86.
112. Baal is described in confrontation with El, UT ºnt pl. 10: V (KTU 1.1 v); UM,
appendix, 185–86; with Yam, UT 68 (KTU 1.2 iv); with Mot, UT 49: VI (KTU 1.6); with
the sons of Asherah, UT 49: V 1–4 (KTU 1.6); and with other enemies, UT 51: VII 35–
39 (KTU 1.4).
113. Note, for example, lan in UT 127: 14 (KTU 1.16 vi: 14). This title can be vari-
ously translated ‘valiant warrior’, ‘conquering hero’, and ‘victorious one’. See also van Zijl,
Baal, 341–45; Wyatt, “Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” 404–6; Gordon, UM, 283,
where the verbal root lay (Akkadian and Hebrew leªu, and laªah) means ‘to prevail’.
114. The problem of whether or not these myths reflect important developments in
history has been highlighted in discussions as early as Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra
Texts, 13–27. The functional aspects of the texts are discussed in detail in J. Gray, Canaanite
Myths and Legends, 11ff.; however, R. de Langhe is much more cautious in his essay “Myth,
Ritual and Kingship in the Ras Shamra Tablets,” in Myth, Ritual and Kingship (ed. S. H.
Hooke; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 141. See also Fisher, RSP, 1.xiv–xx; G. del Olmo Lete,
“UG tº, tºy, tºt: Nombre divino y acción cultural,” UF 20 (1988) 27–33; D. T. Tsumura,
“A Problem of Myth and Ritual Relationship: CTA 23 (UT 52): 56–57,” UF 10 (1978)
387–96; C. E. L’Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite Gods (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars
Press, 1979) 71–108.
178 Syria: The Upper Country
myth and the ritual are intricately intertwined. 115 Aside from this reference,
the mythical texts offer no accompanying cultic or liturgical ceremonies. Be
that as it may, the possibility that these myths reflected religious and political
developments in Syria is suggested by the prominence given to the construc-
tion of the Baal temple.
115. Some scholars who do not work in Semitic or biblical studies, however, do not
favor this position, preferring to analyze the mythical sections as entirely separate from the
cultic instructions, such as the burning of incense, singing of hymns, or invocation of praise
to the deities. See, e.g., G. S. Kirk, Myth and Its Meaning in Ancient and Other Cultures
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974) 28ff., 253ff.
116. There is no universal agreement about the order of the first six tablets in the se-
ries. See, e.g., M. S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” 81–83; and A. R. Peterson, “Where Did
Schaeffer Find the Clay Tablets of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament 8 (1994) 45–60. However, there is a consensus that the first six tablets belong
together. See S. Meier, “Baal’s Fight with Yam (KTU 1.2. I, IV): A Part of the Baal Myth
as Known in KTU 1.1, 3–6?,” UF 18 (1986) 241–54; de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern, 40ff.;
van Zijl, Baal, 6–12.
117. An early description of the nature, extent, and dimensions of the many fragments
is available in R. de Langhe, Les textes de Ras Shamra–Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu
biblique de l’Ancien Testament (vols. 1–2; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1945) 153–62.
118. So, e.g., van Zijl, Baal, 13–46; M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 324–
28; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 20–30; Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 10–12;
N. C. Habel, Yahweh versus Baal (New York: Bookman, 1964) 51–58; T. H. Gaster, Thes-
pis: Ritual, Myth and Dreams in the Ancient Near East (New York: Schuman, 1950) 115–
19; M. S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” 87–97. However, for an alternate viewpoint that re-
gards all of the Baal texts as a unit, see Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 99–112;
S. Mowinckel, “Psalm Criticism between 1900 and 1935,” VT 5 (1955) 13–33; Olden-
burg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 1–20, 52–55, 69–77.
119. UT 129, 137, and 68 (KTU 1.2 iii, i, iv). M. S. Smith reconstructs the order
quite differently (“The Baal Cycle,” 81–180).
the deity Athtar occupying the position of cosmic king. His claim, however,
is completely ignored, when Yam, another deity, is exalted to the royal throne
by El. Yam, protective of his kingly status, demands the surrender of his main
antagonist, Baal the son of Dagan, from the members of the Canaanite pan-
theon. In spite of Baal’s heroic efforts and his attempts to persuade the assem-
bly to stand firm, El, the titular head of the pantheon, endorses the demands
of Yam with the reply:
ºbdk.bºl.yymm Baal is your servant, O Yam!
ºbdk.bºl.[yymm] Baal is your slave, [O Yam]!
bn.dgn.a [s]rkm The son of Dagan your prisoner. 121
Baal’s defiance of Yam is due not only to Yam’s installation as cosmic king but
to the fact that, because of Yam’s arrogance and power, all of the other gods
are afraid of him. There is even the likelihood that the hoary El has actually
schemed with Yam in his rise to power and subsequent seizure of the cosmic
kingship. This could explain El’s apparent capitulation to Yam and his sum-
moning of the divine craftsman, Kothar-and-Khasis, to build a temple for
him:
Ktr. w[hss.] sb [. . .] bth.ym [. . .]m.hkl.tpt.nhr
[b] irtk [. . .] tbr.r.[. . . t] bn.bht zbl ym
Kothar-and-Khasis, hu[rry] bu[ild] a mansion for Yam, Ere[ct] a palace for
Judge River;
Your breast . . . shall be ble[ssed] . . . build the mansion for Prince Yam. 122
Yam, also called Nahar, is the mythical deified seas, rivers, lakes, and
the subterranean abyss—that is, the terrestrial water sources. 123 As such, he
120. See Elimelek’s cycle in KTU 1.1–6. His role in the preservation of the Baal my-
thology was extremely important. He apparently attempted to bring order to the Baal cor-
pus of myths.
121. UT 137: 36–37 (KTU 1.2 i: 37–37). See also van Zijl, Baal, 26–28; Driver,
Canaanite Myths and Legends, 80–81; Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 42; M. S.
Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” 101.
122. UT 129: 8–9 (KTU 1.2 iii: 9–10).
123. Yam’s complete title is zbl.ym.tp†.nhr ‘Prince Yam, Judge Nahar’. In Sanchunia-
thon’s Phoenician History, Pontos is simply the Greek word for ‘Sea’. The writer mentions
that “in their time were born [to El] Pontos and Typhon.” Typhon is a dragon with a hun-
dred snake-like heads in Greek mythology whom Zeus fights and defeats at Mount Casius.
Strabo says of the Orontes River, “though formerly called Typhon, its name was changed
to that of Orontes, the man who built a bridge across it” (H. L. Jones, The Geography of
Strabo 8 [LCL; Cambridge: Harvard / London: Heinemann, 1930] 244–45, xiii. 4. 6; xvi.
2. 7). The Syrian Judge River is thus none other than the deified Orontes River, which fol-
lows its winding, serpent-like course from its source (past the city of Ugarit) and reaches the
Sea north of Mount Casius. For the fragments of Sanchuniathon’s Phoenician History, see
180 Syria: The Upper Country
controlled the cosmic waters and the rivers with which he fertilized the
earth. 124 In interpretations of the Ugaritic list of divinities, yam is usually
correlated with the Babylonian divinity Tiamat of the Enuma Elish. 125 An
indication of his importance is the fact that he was called upon to serve as one
of the witnesses to the treaty between the Hittite king Mursilis and his vassal
Niqmepa of Ugarit. 126 Furthermore, there was probably a cult for Yam if, as
has been proposed, Yahdun-Lim of Mari made an offering to him. 127 Texts
from Emar also deal with offerings to Yam. 128 Further evidence that Yam was
mythische Bedeutung des Meers in Ägypten, Ugarit, und Israel (BZAW 78; Berlin: Alfred
Töpelmann, 1962) 42–56.
129. See, e.g., Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 120, 124, 210; I. J. Gelb, A Com-
puter-Aided Analysis of Amorite (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) 272–73;
J.-M. Durand, “Differentes questions à propos de la religion,” MARI 5 (1987) 613–714.
On the historical importance of the god Yam in the earliest Semitic sources, see especially
idem, “Le mythologème du combat entre le Dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie,” es-
pecially, 57–60.
130. T. H. Gaster, “The Battle of the Rain and Sea: An Ancient Semitic Nature-
Myth,” Iraq 4 (1937) 21–32.
131. Yarim-lim, king of Aleppo, tells Yashub-Yadad of Dir about the powerful weap-
ons of Adad. See Dossin, “Une lettre de Iarim-Lim, roi d’Alep, à Iasub-Iahad, roi de Dir,”
63–69; CAD K 54; D. Charpin, “De la joie à l’Orage,” MARI 5 (1987) 661. On the origin
and importance of these divine weapons for the exercise of divine power, see R. T. O’Cal-
laghan, “The Word kpt in Ugaritic and Egypto-Semitic Mythology,” Or n.s. 21 (1952) 37–
46; Bordreuil and Pardee, “Le combat de Baºlu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques,”
67–70; P. Bordreuil, “Recherches ougaritiques I: Ou Baal a-t-il remporte la victoire contre
Yam?” Sem 40 (1991) 17–27.
132. UT 68: 32 (KTU 1.2 iv: 32).
133. See Obermann, “How Baal Destroyed a Rival,” 195–208; M. Dietrich and
O. Loretz, “Baal vernichtet Jammu (KTU 1.2 IV 20–30),” UF 17 (1986) 117–21; E. L.
Greenstein, “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic,” Maarav 2/3 (1982) 195–216; Bordreuil
and Pardee, “Le combat de Baºlu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques,” 63–70.
134. See, e.g., KTU 1.2 iv: 28ff.
135. On the basis of KTU 1.4 iii: 1ff. In Baal’s subsequent confrontation with Mot,
he is reminded that Yam is his (Mot’s) cup-bearer, the obvious implication being that Yam
182 Syria: The Upper Country
victory over the subterranean waters was final in the sense that its objective
was to settle the problem of kingship over the gods and sovereignty over the
cosmos once and for all. 136 Kothar-and-Khasis had anticipated this victory of
Baal over Yam with these words:
tq˙.mlk.ºmk You will take your everlasting kingdom,
drkt.dt.dr drk Your dominion forever and ever. 137
Significant here is the fact that Baal’s ascendance to this lofty status has not
been due to a natural or hereditary right to sovereignty or even acquiescence
to a vote by the assembly. This myth specifically states that Baal was not El’s
choice for the position. In other words, Baal had no right to the kingship
over the pantheon. He took it by force and thereby imposed himself, albeit
with the assistance of other gods, as champion of the gods and king of the
cosmos.
A logical sequel to Baal’s victory over Yam seems to appear in a separate
unit, which focuses on the assembly’s exaltation of Baal as Victor and affirma-
tion of his right to rule the cosmos. The pantheon’s celebration of Baal’s great
victory appropriately opens with the following lines:
ºbd.ªali[yn].bºl . . . Serve Baal the Victor,
sid.zbl.bºl.arß Satisfy 138 the Prince, Lord of the earth.
qm.ytºr.w.ysl˙mnh Rise, let preparation be made that I might feed him. 139
and Mot are allies. If Yam is Seas and Rivers, he is as permanent a presence as Mot (Death)
and hence, cannot be completely eliminated.
136. Regarding the episode of the opening of the window in Baal’s palace, it has been
proposed on the basis of UT 51: VII: l–4 (KTU 1.4 vi: 4–9, vii: 14–20) that Yam still posed
a real threat to Baal; hence, his defeat had been temporary. However, since these lines fall
in a broken context that is unknown, in the context of Baal’s celebration they could be in-
terpreted as a statement celebrating the great defeat by Baal himself or by some other god
who was present. Note Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 64 n. 1. It can also be argued
that, if indeed Yam continued to exist, his power has been rendered impotent; in effect he
has been annihilated. See, e.g., A. Waterston, “Death and Resurrection in the A. B. Cycle,”
UF 21 (1989) 425–34.
137. UT 68: 10 (KTU 1.2 iv: 10). See L. R Fisher and F. B. Knutson, “An Enthrone-
ment Ritual at Ugarit,” JNES 28 (1969) 157–67; J. C. L. Gibson, “The Theology of the
Ugaritic Baal Cycle,” Or 53 (1984) 204–9; M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,”
318–20; J. C. Greenfield, “Baal’s Throne and Isaiah 6:1,” in Mélanges biblique et orientaux
en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (ed. A. Caquot, S. Lagasse, and M. Tardieu; AOAT 215;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985) 193–98;
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Sieges und Thronbesteigungslied Baals (KTU 1.101),” UF 17
(1986) 129–46.
138. The verb sad parallels sl˙m (‘feed’) and ssqy (‘give drink’) in UT 2, Aqhat V: 20.
Gordon translates it ‘honor’ instead. See also van Zijl, Baal, 47–48.
139. UT ºnt I: 2–3 (KTU 1.3 i: 2–3).
Syria: The Upper Country 183
Baal’s titles Victorious Prince and Lord of the Earth aptly express his new he-
gemony. As the seas, rivers, and subterranean waters, Yam had fertilized the
earth and fed the multitudes. Baal has wrested these titles, among others,
from Yam. 140 There are no apparent fertility implications or allusions to the
seasonal cycle in this section of the Baal cycle. 141 The stress here is clearly on
the affirmation of Baal’s prerogatives as cosmic overlord. 142 It is only after he
assumes the cosmic kingship that he becomes intrinsically linked to the cycli-
cal fertility process.
140. N. Wyatt, “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in West Semitic Royal
Ideology,” UF 18 (1986) 424; D. L. Peterson, “Northwest Semitic Religion: A Study of Re-
lational Structures,” UF 9 (1977) 233–48.
141. It has been proposed, however, that the weapons called Baal’s ßmdm are identified
in the text as ‘double lightning’, presaging the appearance of autumn rains, overtaking the
heat in the late summer. Hence, the three sections of the Baal cycle fit into the annual sea-
sonal pattern. So M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 331–34; and The Early His-
tory of God, 59–60.
142. Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 55–57; Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal,
141–42; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 30–31; P. Reymond, L’eau, sa vie, et sa signification
dans l’Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 182–98. Baal is clearly not in the Nether-
world, as suggested by R. Dussaud, “ªAlªeyn Baal et ses messages d’outre-tombe,” RHR 96
(1937) 121–35; idem, Les découvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l’Ancien Testament (2d ed.;
Paris: Geuthner, 1941) 116–17.
143. So, e.g., Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 56–57; W. F. Albright, “Anath and the
Dragon,” BASOR 84 (1941) 14–17; idem, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968) 195 n. 14; van Zijl, Baal, 64–65; and others.
144. UT ºnt III 34–39 (KTU 1.3 iii: 34–39). In line 37, whether we should read
istbm (KTU ), istbm (Smith), istmli (Gibson), istmlh (Herdner), isbm[-]h (Virolleaud), or
isbm[n]h (Gordon) is uncertain. See D. Pardee, “Will the Dragon Never Be Muzzled?” UF
16 (1984) 251–55.
184 Syria: The Upper Country
The argument for Anat as a hypostasis of Baal presumes that his victory
over Yam and his subsequent confrontation with Lotan, the Dragon, repre-
sent his conquest of one and the same cosmic entity. It also implies that, on
the occasion of Baal’s victory, both he and Anat were engaged in the destruc-
tion of Yam, since the text also refers to Baal’s defeat of Lotan in the follow-
ing words:
ktmhß.ltn 145. . . btn.br˙ For you smote Lotan the crooked serpent
tkly.btn.ºqltn And made an end of the twisting serpent,
slyt.d.sbºt.rasm The tyrant with seven heads.
ttk˙.ttrp.smm The heavens will burn (wilt?) up and will shine
(droop?). 146
145. For other references to the defeat of seven-headed ltn, see KTU 1.3 iii: 37–39;
1.5 i: 1–3. This mythic creature is also called the ‘twisting serpent’ btn.brh in KTU 1.5 i: 1;
and ‘Crooked Serpent’ btn.ºqltn in KTU 1.3 iii: 38. Since W. F. Albright’s article, “New
Light on Early Canaanite Language and Literature” (BASOR 46 [1932] 19), ltn has been
vocalized as Lotan. However, J. A. Emerton has also proposed (in “Leviathan and ltn: The
Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for Dragon,” VT 32 [1982] 327–31) that this name
should be vocalized Litan(u), the development being liwyatan(u) > liwyitan(u) > liyitan(u)
> litan(u).
146. UT 67: I, 1–4 (KTU 1.5 i: 1–3).
147. See H. F. von Rooy, “The Relation between Anat and Baal,” JNSL 7 (1979)
85–95.
on the other hand, indicates that the goddess Anat claimed to have made an
end to Yam and to other enemies of Baal. This is clearly a reference to a dif-
ferent context and occasion: to a previous defeat of Yam, Lotan, Arik, Arsh,
and Fire by both Baal and Anat. 148 Neither can the myth be taken as imply-
ing that the vanquished Yam is also called Tannin and Lotan, the Crooked
Serpent. 149 The thrust of this mythical unit is Baal’s decisive victory over
Yam-Nahar. There is no reason why Baal should have to defeat several other
sea monsters or “rulers” in order to acquire or retain this lofty position. In
order for him to establish sovereignty over the earth, he must achieve this vic-
tory once and for all. The decisive battle resulted in the acceptance of Baal’s
sovereignty by the gods, the feast in celebration, and the recognition of his
kingship. 150
Nothing in the myth points to an annual confrontation between the
Storm-god and Yam comparable to the subsequent Baal-Mot conflict. 151 Ad-
mittedly, some scholars compare the establishment of Cosmos over primeval
148. It has been proposed that ºnt III: 33–44 (KTU 1.3) is a unit separate from the
other tablets of the Baal cycle, connected to a tradition of Anat’s battles that is significantly
different from Baal’s cosmogonic battles; S. Rummel, “Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic
Texts,” Ras Shamra Parallels (hereafter RSP ; 3 vols.; AnOr 49–51; ed. L. R. Fisher and
S. Rummel; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972–81) 3.233–84, especially p. 251.
This could also be the occasion for the fragmentary text UT 1003: 1: 10. See van Zijl, Baal,
11–12; O. Eissfeldt, “The Alphabetical Cuneiform Texts from Ras Shamra Published in ‘Le
Palais Royal d’Ugarit,’ ” JSS 5 (1960) 34; Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea,
62ff. Note also M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 326, and n. 73.
149. As proposed on the basis of UT 67: I 1–3, paired with the preceding UT ºnt III
52–58. See Gaster, Thespis, 137–200; Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 100–103;
J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 23–29; A. Jirku, Der Mythus der Kanaanäer (Bonn: Habelt,
1966) 28–29; Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 7–8; Oldenburg, The Conflict between
El and Baal, 32–34; Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 52–58; Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names
and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 369–83; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 52–53;
Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Baal I: i-5, 102–3. It has been shown, however, that
Yam cannot be equated with Lotan; see Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 62–
75. An alternative viewpoint, based on the study of certain seals, suggests an identification
of this “sea” monster with the god Mot, an “earth” monster (Williams-Forte, “The Snake
and the Tree,” 32–35). Such a position, however, is equally unconvincing. See, e.g., Lam-
bert, “Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” 442–45.
150. H. L. Ginsberg, “The Victory of the Land-God over the Sea-God,” JPOS 15
(1935) 327–33; Greenstein, “The Snaring of Sea,” 195–216; Rummel, “Narrative Struc-
tures,” 233–36.
151. It has been proposed that the Baal-Yam episode is tied to the Baal-Mot section in
a continuing confrontation of Baal with Chaos and Death. This is projected as an annual,
seasonal process: Yam and Mot are the beloved sons of El, attacking the Storm-god again
and again. So J. C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Leu-
ven: Leuven University Press, 1990) 88–89.
186 Syria: The Upper Country
Chaos in other traditional Near Eastern mythologies. 152 The most promi-
nent parallel drawn is the Babylonian Marduk’s triumph over Tiamat, begin-
ning the Babylonian New Year in the Enuma Elish. 153 But the primary
reason to interpret the Baal-Yam conflict as another example of a mythical
portrayal of the battle between order and chaos is the fact that the name of
Baal’s antagonist, Yam ‘Sea’, recalls Tiamat of Babylon. 154
The mythology of Ugarit, however, has been shown to be singularly in-
dependent from that of Mesopotamia. We must interpret the Canaanite
myth within its own cultural and geographical context rather than attempt-
ing to fit the various pieces into a predetermined Mesopotamian framework.
While there may indeed be some similarity in form, this need not imply a
similarity in function, either for the myth or for the deities involved.
Theodore Gaster has shown that the fight between Baal and Yam paral-
lels mythological episodes around the ancient Near East, India, and Europe
in certain respects. Among the examples he cites are the conflict between the
Sumerian god Ninurta and the monster Azag; the Akkadian deity Marduk
and Tiamat; the Indian god Indra and Vritra; the Greek deity Zeus and Ty-
phon; the Hittite Weather-god and the Dragon Illuyanka; the Egyptian Ho-
rus and Seth; the Phoenician Kronos and the Dragon Ophion; and the
Hebrew Yahweh and the Dragon Rahab. He has drawn attention to the fact
that in most of these stories the gods cower until a champion finally emerges
and the question of sovereignty is resolved. Other areas of similarity extend
to the special weapons, identified as thunderbolt and lightning, supplied to
the victor by an accompanying divine artisan, and the victor’s refraining from
killing the vanquished foe. 155
The Baal-Yam section of the cycle fits well into the ancient Near Eastern
pattern of the heroic deity’s fighting and defeating an imperious rival in order
to acquire full sovereignty over the Cosmos and the gods. However, to sug-
gest that the initial encounter between Baal and Yam was simply a seasonal
myth of the traditional Near Eastern pattern would also be misleading. A
clearer understanding of its purpose may be obtained by recalling Baal’s ori-
gin as Hadad.
Emphases in the mythical and historical references to the Storm-god
Hadad in the Middle Euphrates, prior to his emergence as Baal in western
Syria, were on his primary function as the king of the Cosmos, who directed
human kings in their conquests and established them on their thrones. In
this context he fulfilled a function similar to the Babylonian Marduk. Adad’s
conflict with and defeat of Sea in the Mari texts may very well be a reflection
of Babylonian influence, paralleling Marduk versus Tiamat in the Enuma
Elish Babylonian New Year tradition. In Enuma Elish he was the thundering
deity in the heavens who came and went with his clouds. However, in emerg-
ing in the west as Baal, his function must have reflected the ecological and
environmental realities of this region. Once he had defeated the subterranean
waters, he became the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, and his dominion was
extended to the earth as well. In contrast to his original dominion of the sky,
he had now become zbl.bºl.ªarß ‘Prince, Lord of the Earth’. 156
Within this western Syrian cultural milieu it is incorrect, then, to con-
sider Baal as representing the seasonal mythical pattern prior to, or even in
conjunction with, his conflict with Yam. 157 Only in his new capacity as
“Lord of the Earth” in the subsequent section of the mythical cycle, which
treats his contest with Mot (Death), can a plausible argument for Baal’s asso-
ciation with fertility and the resurgence of life be made. 158
RHR 105 (1932) 298–302; R. Dussaud, “La mythologie phénicienne d’après les tablettes
de Ras Shamra,” RHR 104 (1931) 353–408; F. Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old
Testament: A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1962) especially 51–55;
and others.
158. Other positions that run counter to this viewpoint are summarized in M. S.
Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” particularly 313–24.
159. See Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, 39–42.
160. This is the implication of the text. Schaeffer, Cuneiform Texts, 8; Kapelrud, Baºal
in the Ras Shamra Texts, 88–93; F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Stu-
dia Pohl 1; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967) 131, 263; D. F. Kinlaw, A Study of the
Personal Names in the Akkadian Texts from Ugarit (Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis University,
1967) 214, 257; Edzard, “Mesopotamien: Die Mythologie der Sumerer und Akkader,”
135–37; note also Pope, “Syrien: Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phonizier,” 253ff.
161. See primarily Hoffner, Hittite Myths, 37–39; idem, “Hurrian Myths,” in Hittite
Myths, 40–61; along with E. A. Speiser, “An Intrusive Hurro-Hittite Myth,” JAOS 52
(1942) 88–102; H. G. Güterbock, “Kumarbi,” Kumarbi: Mythen vom churritischen Kronos
(Zurich: Europa, 1946); idem, “The Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Ori-
ental Forerunners to Hesiod,” AJA 52 (1948) 123–34; idem, “Hittite Mythology,” in My-
thologies of the Ancient World (ed. S. N. Kramer; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961)
155–75; idem, The Song of Ullikummi (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Re-
search, 1952) 121–25; G. Komoroczy, “The Separation of Sky and Earth, the Cycle of Ku-
marbi, and the Myths of Cosmogony in Mesopotamia,” Acta Antiqua 21 (1973) 21–45.
162. Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 88–89.
Syria: The Upper Country 189
theon can be traced, in the Ugaritic material there exists no comparable ac-
count of the conflict’s background. Given the important role of the Hurrians
in the regions around the ancient Near East since early in the second millen-
nium b.c.e., and particularly their influence in the Hittite milieu, 163 along
with the corresponding Hittite influence on Ugarit, it is plausible to con-
clude that the Hittites were instrumental in transmitting some of the reli-
gious concepts found in the Ugaritic texts. In view of the prior importance
ascribed to the Storm-god in the Middle Euphrates and northern Syria, it is
conceivable that Baal-Hadad’s position in the Ugaritic pantheon reflects that
of the Storm-god Teshub.
Notwithstanding the similarities between the Ugaritic and Hurro-Hittite
cycles of myths involving Baal-Yam and Teshub-Kumarbi, it seems unlikely
that the former deals either with the struggle between Cosmos and Chaos
and creatio ex nihilo or with the cyclical pattern of the seasonal dying-/rising-
god motif. The argument that the struggle symbolizes the pattern of the dy-
ing/rising-god proposes an analogy with the Spring Babylonian New Year.
However, when compared with the geography and ecology of southern Mes-
opotamia, the natural coastal environment of western Syria dictates a differ-
ent mythical response.
In sister myths that entail Cosmos and Chaos, the deity’s kingship results
in some sort of creative activity, 164 though not always a creatio ex nihilo;
rather, it is a process of reordering or rearranging. 165 It seem that, even
though the Baal-Yam section parallels this genre of myths somewhat, such
myths do not always focus on the establishment of the Cosmos as a result of
the defeat of Chaos. It is unnecessary, then, to conclude that the Baal Myth
emphasizes the “triumph of order over disorder, or of the power which sus-
tained ordered nature against the menace of blind caprice and ungoverned
violence.” 166
The first section of the Baal cycle highlights instead a struggle for power
between different categories of gods, reflecting different sociocultural con-
cepts: a new atmospheric deity, Baal, whose generic characteristic focuses on
the rain as the primary means of fertilization and who successfully wrests
power from Yam-Nahar, the god of the subterranean waters and source of all
rivers, lakes, and streams. The possible historical developments behind these
changes will be discussed below.
This suggests that we are here dealing with the gradual subordination of
an idea, the transition from one era to another. The Baal-Yam conflict is a
mythic rendering of an emphasis on the fertilization of the earth through at-
mospheric means in contrast to fertilization through rivers, seas, and subter-
ranean waters.
Baal, the Cloud-Rider
As we have seen, there is no indication in UT ºnt III: 2–5, 10–14 (KTU
1.3 iii: 2–5, 10–14) that a hieros gamos actually takes place with the victory
banquet celebration of Baal. 167 Nor should we expect one. 168 Instead, the
emphasis is on the peace and well-being of Baal’s domain as a result of his tri-
umph and consequent kingship. Baal’s newly acquired ability to diffuse peace
in the land and bring about the well-being of the earth is due to his prowess
as the creator of something new, the introduction of certain life-generating
elements within the earth, as an inherent part of his responsibilities as king of
the Ugaritic pantheon. It is with this activity that he unequivocally demon-
strates his vast power within the cosmos. The significant text reads:
rgm.ºß.w.lhst.abn The word of the tree, the whisper of the stone,
tant.smm.ºm.arß The murmur of the heavens to the earth,
thmt.ºmn.kbkbm Of the deep to the stars.
abn.brq.dl.tdº.smm I will create lightning which the heavens do not
know, 169
rgm.ltdº.nsm A matter that mankind does not know,
wltbn.hmlt.arß Nor the multitudes of the earth understand. 170
Thunder and lightning are the generic manifestations of Hadad. The novelty
of their introduction following Baal’s victory over Yam may indicate that
Hadad’s ancient attribute has been readapted to bridge the gap between two
categories of gods and two mythical concepts: the subterranean waters repre-
sented by Yam giving way to the atmospheric waters represented by Baal, as
the main source of life.
This new section in the Baal mythical cycle begins with the building of a
“temple” for Baal 171 and proceeds to a full development of the alternating
167. Suggested by some scholars—e.g., Gordon, UL, 18ff.; J. Gray, The Legacy of
Canaan, 36–39; etc.
168. The argument for a hieros gamos presumes that the sacred marriage occurs in the
15-line lacuna at the beginning of the column. The event is supposedly suggested by Baal’s
speech in the following lines, 2–5.
169. M. S. Smith, “Baal’s Cosmic Secret,” UF 16 (1984) 295–98; J. Gray, The Legacy
of Canaan, 38–42; van Zijl, Baal, 110–13; de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic
Myth of Baºlu, 148–51.
170. UT ºnt III: 19–24 (KTU 1.3: 19–24).
171. UT 51 (KTU 1.4).
Syria: The Upper Country 191
domination of Baal and his rival Mot. 172 It is in this latter section that the
theme of cyclical fertility is articulated, foreshadowing the primary character-
istic of Baal as a fertility deity. The Anat section serves as a bridge between
the Baal-Yam section and the Baal-Mot section. 173
Having shown Anat the thunder and lightning that he has created, Baal
invites her to accompany him to Mount Íaphon, the place that he has chosen
for his dwelling:
atm.wank.ibfyh Come now and I will show it to you
btk.fry.il.ßpn I, God of Íaphon, in the midst of my mountain
bqds.bfr.nhlty In the sanctuary, in the mountain of my inheritance
bnºm.bgbº.tliyt In the good place, the hill of victory. 174
Baal is henceforth associated with Íaphon, 175 where he will live and reign as
king and where he will be buried by Anat. 176 Among other numerous titles
he is variously designated both as the “God of Íaphon” and “Baal of the
heights of Íaphon.” 177 Íaphon has long been identified with Jebel ªel-ºAqra,
the ancient Mount Casius, clearly visible from Ugarit. 178 Because Jebel ªel-
ºAqra is almost always encircled by heavy clouds, bearing rain from the Medi-
terranean, it was naturally conceived by the ancients to be the dwelling place
of the Storm-god.
172. UT 67; 49; 62; with subsidiary texts ºnt, pls. IX, X, ii, iii, v, and 75 (KTU 1.5;
1.6 i, ii, iii, v, and 12).
173. UT: ºnt I–VII (KTU 1.3; 1.1).
174. UT: ºnt III: 25–28 (KTU 1.3 iii: 28–31).
175. It has long been recognized, however, that the Ugaritic texts use ßpn in four dif-
ferent contexts: to denote the mountain called Jebel ªel-ºAqra at the mouth of the Orontes,
north of Ras Shamra; to denote the mythical mountain home of Baal; in the epithet il.ßpn
‘divine Íaphon’, a deified mountain, used particularly in liturgical texts; and as a part of the
epithet bºl.ßpn. For additional discussion on this issue, note Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain,
58–64; van Zijl, Baal, 332–36; and M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 53–54.
176. The myths clearly identify Íaphon as the home of Baal. M. C. Astour, “Place
Names,” in RSP, 2.318–24; A. Robinson, “Zion and Saphon in Psalms XLVIII 3,” VT 24
(1974) 118–23; Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon.
177. On the various titles, see, e.g., Astour, “Place Names,” 318–24; Cooper and
Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 410–13; M. S. Smith, The Early
History of God, 52–55; Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 57–58; N. Wyatt, “The
Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-god,” 409–10, 423–24. Note also such phrases as bºl.ßrrt.ßpn in
UT 49 VI: 12–13 (KTU 1.6 vi: 12–13); bºl.mrym.ßpn in UT 51 V: 85 (KTU 1.4 v: 25); 67
I: 10–11 (KTU 1.5 i: 10–11); ºnt IV: 81–82 (KTU 1.3 iv: 39); etc.
178. W. F. Albright, “Baal-Zephon,” in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag
(ed. Walter Baumgartner; Tübingen: Mohr, 1950) 1–14; Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon; C. Virol-
leaud, “Les villes et les corporations de royaume d’Ugarit,” Syria 21 (1940) 123–51; J. J. M.
Roberts, “Saphon in Job 28:7,” Bib 56 (1975) 554–57; van Zijl, Baal, 332–34.
192 Syria: The Upper Country
cult of Baal Íaphon reached as far as Egypt. 186 In fact, the Egyptian Pharaoh
recognized Baal Íaphon as the god of Ugarit just as Amon was the god of
Egypt. 187
The subsequent negotiations of Baal, Anat, and Athirat with El for the
building of a temple for Baal underscore the importance of Baal’s fertility
function. Athirat finally received permission from El to have Baal’s temple
built. 188 The implications of this structure are clearly stated in the following
words: 189
wnap.ºdn.m†rh.bºl.yºdn Moreover, Baal will appoint the season of his rain,
ºdn.tkt.bglt A season for moisture to appear and snow.
wtn.qlh.b.ºrpt He will set his voice in the clouds,
srh.larß.bqrm His lightning bolts to the earth. 190
186. The letter reads, “to Baal Zaphon and every god of Tahpanhes.” H. Donner and
W. Röllig (eds.), Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (hereafter KAI; Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz, 1962) 3.50. 2–3; de Savignac, “Le sens du terme Sâphôn”; H. Avalos, “Zaphon,
Mount,” ABD 6.1040–41. Note, in addition, the earlier studies of Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon;
Albright, “Baal-Zephon,” 1–14.
187. Note, e.g., O. Eissfeldt, “Baal Saphon von Ugarit und Amon von Ägypten,” For-
schungen und Fortschritte 36 (1962) 338–40 (reprinted in KS, 4.53–57); Albright, “Baal-
Zephon,” 1–14. On the fourteenth-century b.c.e. “Stele of Mani” found at Ugarit dedi-
cated to Seth (= Baal) of Íapuna; see Schaeffer, Ugaritica I 39–41; Vine, The Establishment
of Baal, 206 n. 24.
188. The importance of Baal’s temple and the place of temple-building in conjunction
with victory celebrations is amply discussed in V. Hurowitz, Temple Building in the Bible in
the Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew
University, 1988). On the implications and meaning of Baal’s temple, see also J. M. Lund-
quist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God:
Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (eds. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W.
Green; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 205–9; B. A. Levine, “The Descriptive Rit-
ual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre,” in The Word of
the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixti-
eth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983)
471ff.; F. Lokkegaard, “The House of Baal,” AcOr 22 (1955) 10–27; R. J. Clifford, “The
Temple in the Ugaritic Myth of Baal,” in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary
of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1979) (ed. F. M. Cross;
Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1979) 137–45.
189. UT 51 V: 68–71 (KTU 1 4 v: 6–9).
190. Whether this passage provides the clue to the Sitz im Leben of the texts as a part
of the Canaanite New Year Festival is questionable. For such a proposal, see J. Gray, The
Legacy of Canaan, 40–41. On this text see also Pope and Tigay, “A Description of Baal,”
128–29; van Zijl, Baal, 107–15; M. S. Smith, “Baal’s Cosmic Secret,” 295–98; G. del
Olmo Lete, Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan según la tradición de Ugarit (Madrid: Cristianidad,
1981) 202–3; J. M. de Tarragon, Le culte à Ugarit (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 19; Paris:
Gabalda, 1980) 184ff.; and particularly de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern.
194 Syria: The Upper Country
191. Among scholars who advocate a seasonal interpretation of the Baal cycle, there is
disagreement about whether this is a reference to the spring or the fall rains. For the pur-
poses of this study it is only important to recognize the meteorological implications of
Baal’s temple.
192. See M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the
Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990); in addition, M. Tsevat, “A Window for Baal’s
House: The Maturing of a God,” in Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented
to Samuel E. Loewenstamm (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1978) 155–
57; D. Neiman, “The Supercaelian Sea,” JNES 28 (1969) 246–49; M. S. Smith, “Interpret-
ing the Baal Cycle,” 334–36; I. Feigan, “The Heavenly Sieve,” JNES 9 (1950) 40–43;
U. Cassuto, “Il palazzo di Baal nella tavola II AB di Ras Shamra,” Or n.s. 7 (1938) 265–90,
idem, “The Palace of Baal,” JBL 61 (1942) 51–56; idem, “Psalm LXVIII,” BOS (2 vols.;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973–75) 1.245–51; W. F. Albright, “The North-Canaanite Poem of
ªAlªeyan Baal and the ‘Gracious Gods,’ ” JPOS 14 (1934) 115–18; Gaster, Thespis, 175ff.;
Obermann, Ugaritic Mythology, 11, 31; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 51–56; Kapelrud,
Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 95–96; and Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 76–78. Among the
different interpretations: Baal’s negative reaction to the installation of the window in his
palace is an attempt to keep out Mot; the deity fears that this opening will endanger his
daughters/wives, causing them to be carried off by others; the window is merely a literary
device to emphasize a particular feature of the accompanying ritual—that is, Baal, being
Lord of the Seasons, is obliged to wait for the appropriate time for the rains.
Syria: The Upper Country 195
amid the rocks, the earth quaking violently, the rocks shaking, while from the
heavens the Storm-god waves his lightning “spear” 193 in his right hand.
Baal’s primary function as a fertility deity is further underscored by his
most common designation: rkb.ºrpt ‘the Rider of the Clouds’ or ‘Driver of
the Clouds’, found some 16 times in the Ras Shamra texts. 194 In the Middle
Euphrates, Hadad is also referred to as “the Crasher” who rides or drives his
clouds. 195 At Ugarit, this was his distinguishing function under the name
Baal. This designation may simply be typecasting Baal in his role as a spear-
wielding warrior, 196 with the clouds serving as his war-chariot, as for the
Mesopotamian Storm-gods. However, since the clouds constitute his vehicle,
and his attendants are Gupan and Ugar ‘Vine and Field’, there is also an im-
plicit reference to his fertility function as a Storm-god. The rain of the Rider
of the Clouds is mentioned alongside the dew of heaven and the fat of the
earth ([t]l.smm.smn.arß), underscoring Baal’s basic fertility function. 197
This section of the Baal Myth, therefore, makes it evident that Baal is
a Storm-god whose primary function is to send fructifying rains to nourish
the earth. From his temple on the heights of Íaphon, he “thunders from
the clouds and brandishes his lightning to the earth,” 198 “opens a cleft in the
clouds” calling forth the rains from heaven, 199 and “sets the seasons for his
rains.” 200 Whenever he thunders from heaven, the earth shakes, the mountains
193. UT 51 VII: 30–41 (KTU 1.4 vii: 30–41). The word used in line 41,ªarz, is lit-
erally ‘cedar’. As Storm-god, Baal carries his lightning and thunderbolt in the form of a
spear, as is very clear from other passages and iconography. See, e.g., van Zijl, Baal, 145–56.
194. Among the numerous references are, e.g., UT 68: 8, 29 (KTU 1.2 iv: 8, 29); UT
51 III: 11, 18; V: 122; 67 II: 7 (KTU 1.4 iii: 11, 18; v: 60; 1.5 ii: 7). It has also been argued
that rkb means essentially ‘mount’, or ‘ascend’; hence, rkb.ºrpt should mean ‘He who
mounts the Clouds’. E.g., R. de Langhe, “Jaweh de wolkenrijder,” Handelingen van het ze-
ventiende Flaamse Filologencongress 18 (1959) 96; or that rkb, based on south Semitic evi-
dence, could mean instead ‘join or combine’, as in E. Ullendorf, “Ugaritic Studies within
Their Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting,” BJRL 46 (1963) 243. See especially van
Zijl, Baal, 329–31. Note in addition Gaster, Thespis, 122–23; Weinfeld, “ ‘Rider of Clouds’
and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’ ” 421–26; Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 72–75; M. S. Smith,
The Early History of God, 49–53; Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the
Ugaritic Texts,” 458–60.
195. See CT 25, 16.32.
196. This is evident from the iconography of Mesopotamia and Syria. See Vanel,
L’iconographie, figs. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, etc.; O. Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal (Tel Aviv: Uni-
versity of Tel Aviv, 1976) pl. 5, fig. 22ff. etc.; L. L. Grabbe, “The Seasonal Pattern and the
Baal Cycle,” UF 8 (1976) 57–64.
197. UT ºnt II: 39–40 (KTU 1.3 ii: 39ff.).
198. UT 51 V: 70–71 (KTU 1.4 v: 70, 71).
199. UT 51 VII: 26–28 (KTU 1.4 vii: 26–28).
200. UT 51 V: 67–68 (KTU 1.4 v: 67–68).
196 Syria: The Upper Country
tremble, and the high places rock. 201 When he waves his spear in his right
hand, bolts of lightning flash downward to the earth. 202 It is in his subsequent
confrontations with the god Mot, however, that the Syrian Storm-god’s spe-
cific role in the cyclical process of nature can be more precisely defined.
The confrontation with Mot was the direct result of Baal’s installation as
king and his subsequent theophany when his palace was built. His messen-
gers, Vine and Field, were dispatched to summon Mot to recognize his king-
ship. 203 Mot, son of El, 204 was a king in his own right, occupying a throne
and palace in the underworld, with authority over the entire earth. 205 He
considered Baal’s claim to sovereignty presumptuous. Consequently, the
confrontation between Baal and Mot was essentially a confrontation between
life and death, fertility and infertility. Their struggle represented the alterna-
tion between fertility and drought, the ecological realities in Syria. 206
however, de Moor has argued for a seasonal interpretation of the entire Baal cycle. See his
bibliography in regard to this approach, on pp. 10–23. The weaknesses of this comprehen-
sive seasonal interpretation have been detailed in Grabbe, “The Seasonal Pattern and the
Baal Cycle,” 57–64; and a summary in M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 314–16.
On the nature of Mot, see P. L. Watson, Mot, the God of Death, at Ugarit and in the Old
Testament (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1970); M. Yon, “Í˙r mt, la chaleur de Mot,”
UF 21 (1989) 461–66; W. E. Aufrecht, “The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age,”
BASOR 266 (1987) 92ff.; Bordreuil and Pardee, “Le combat de Baºlu avec Yammu d’après
les textes ougaritiques,” 66–67; F. Saracino, “Ger. 9, 20, un polome ugaritico e la forza di
Mot,” Annali dell’istituto orientali di Napoli 44 (1984) 539–43; Cunchillos, “Le dieu Mut,
guerrier de El”; Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Tes-
tament, 99–107; and Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,”
392–400. In Sanchuniaton’s Phoenician History, Muth (Mot) is the dead son of El and
Asherah, equated with ‘Death’. Muth is also described as “mire” and “corruption of watery
mixture,” agreeing essentially with the nature of the dominion of the Ugaritic Mot. In order
to reach Mot’s abode, the messengers of Baal must go down into the depths of the earth,
where “mire is the throne of his [Mot’s] sitting, rottenness the land of his inheritance” (UT
51 VIII: 11–14). See Cassuto, “Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic Texts,” 81–82; Oldenburg,
The Conflict between El and Baal, 34–39. Mesopotamian tradition occasionally personifies
death by means of the figure mutu, even though it does not appear as a literary character,
CAD M/2 317–18; for example, the Netherworld is called bit muti, CT 18, 30 rev. 28–30.
In several passages in the Hebrew Bible, Canaanite muth is called mawet ‘death’. See Isa
25:8, 28:15, 38:18; Hos 13:14; Jer 9:20; Ps 6:6; etc. In Semitic literature, both the Neth-
erworld and the desert are known as the dwellings of Death.
198 Syria: The Upper Country
The Storm-god does not now project the image of the obdurate and defiant
Baal-Hadad. He has become a passive and submissive fertility god.
ated with Baal in fulfillment of his fertility function, with him to the Neth-
erworld. In the words of Mot:
wat.q˙.ºrptk And you, take with you your clouds,
r˙k.mdlk.m†r†k Your wind, your thunder-bolts, your rains;
ºmk.sbºt.flmk (Take) with you your seven attendants,
tmn.hnzrk And your eight swine;
ºmk.pdry.bt.ar (Take) with you Pidriya daughter of mist,
ºmk.[t]†ly.bt.rb (Take) with you Taliya daughter of showers,
idk.pnk.al.ttn Then your face you will surely set,
tk.fr.knkny Toward the cavernous mountain. 210
The statement that the Storm-god’s entire retinue must accompany him into
the Netherworld represents the near total disappearance of moisture and pre-
cipitation from the earth and the consequent emergence of a dry season.
Some have plausibly suggested that Pidriya, Taliya, and Arßiya, men-
tioned in other texts, 211 pre-date the emergence of Baal in Ugaritic mythol-
ogy. Each is described as possessing her own “house,” while Baal, the most
important deity, must appeal to El for his. By this theory, only after the
emergence of Baal in western Syria did the women become connected with
the Storm-god, as his daughters. Another possibility, however, is that the
mention of a house for each of these goddesses is intended merely to contrast
with Baal’s lack of abode. 212 Whether or not the women are considered the
daughters of Baal, what is important here is that they serve as attendants of
the Storm-god and reflect his characteristics, illustrating how he functions to
provide fertility for the cultivation of the land.
Baal’s other two attendants, Gupan and Ugar (gpn.wugr), fulfill the func-
tion of courier between the Storm-god and Mot. 213 Their names indicate
that they were agricultural personifications: 214 Gupan, from the Semitic gpn
(Akkadian gapnu or gupnu and Hebrew gepen) ‘vine’; Ugar from the Semitic
ªgr (Akkadian ªugaru) ‘cultivated field’. 215 These lesser deities are also cited as
Baal’s ‘helper-gods’ and are portrayed as members of the Storm-god’s military
retinue. 216 These attendants are also designated his ‘clouds’ ºnn.ilm. 217 All of
these subsidiary deities are personifications of the natural phenomena, and
they suggest most strongly that fertility was the characteristic par excellence
of Baal’s kingship in western Syria. 218
214. See Ginsberg, “Baal’s Two Messengers”; Gaster, Thespis, 127–28; and Gibson
(Canaanite Myths and Legends, 8), who suggests that Gupan could have been a divine pa-
tron of the city of Ugarit. See also del Olmo Lete, Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan, 609ff. An
argument against this viewpoint has been advanced in Wyatt, “The Titles of the Ugaritic
Storm-God,” 420–22.
215. Albright, “Anath and the Dragon,” 14 n. 2; Gaster, Thespis, 127–28. Also Kapel-
rud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 82–83; M. R. Lehmann, “A New Interpretation of the
Term twmdç,” VT 3 (1953) 363–64.
216. Ugaritica V 18: 25 ; RS 20: 24; Ugaritica V 13: 21 (RS 24: 253).
217. KTU 1.4. viii: 15. See Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in
Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, 214.
218. On Baal and his entourage, see further F. M. Cross Jr., Canaanite Myth and He-
brew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (hereafter CMHE; Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1973) 116; and Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 211–16; T. W.
Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation (Bal-
timore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977) 98–100.
219. UT ºnt IV: 83 (KTU 1.3 iv: 83); UT 49 II: 6–12 (KTU 1.6 ii: 6–12).
220. UT ºnt III: 5–9; 51 II: 15–16; 2 Aqhat VI: 19ff. (KTU 1.3 iv: 4–9; 4 ii: 4–9; 17
vi: 19ff.; 1.17 vi: 18–19). There is no consensus on the true meaning of this title, and vari-
ous translations have been given. For ybmt there are, for example, ‘Progenitor’, ‘Sister-in-
Law’, and ‘Nubile Widow’; for limm, we have ‘People(s)’, ‘Nations’, ‘Rulers’, and ‘Mighty
One’. See, e.g., Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 48, 58, 108; W. A. Maier III,
“Anath,” ABD 1.225–27.
221. See, e.g., UT 52: 16, 28; 49 II: 27; 52: 13 (KTU 1.23: 16, 28; 6 ii: 29; 23: 13).
222. For some of these, see Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 66–67; idem, The
Violent Goddess in the Ras Shamra Texts, 27–39; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan,
128–33; N. H. Walls, The Goddess Anath in Ugaritic Myth (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992);
Syria: The Upper Country 201
U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971); M. H. Pope and W. Röllig,
“Syrien: Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phonizier,” WdM 1.235–41; M. S. Smith, The
Early History of God, 61–64, 77–79; J. Gray, “The Blood Bath of the Goddess Anath in the
Ras Shamra Texts, UF 11 (1979) 315–24; Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets
in the Ugaritic Texts,” 400–402; G. del Olmo Lete, “Le mythe de la Vierge-Mere: Une
nouvelle interpretation de CTA/KTU 13,” UF 13 (1981) 49–62.
223. Anat appears as Hanat; see W. F. Albright, “The Evolution of the West-Semitic
Divinity ºnt-ºAnat-ºAtta,” AJSL 41 (1925) 73–101; G. Dossin, “Le Panthéon de Mari,” in
Studia Mariana (Leiden: Brill, 1950) 43ff. The city of Hanat on the eastern banks of the
Upper Euphrates could have been named after her; idem, “Inscriptions de fondation prov-
enant de Mari,” 159; J. Bottéro, “Textes économiques et administratifs,” ARM 7, nos. 181,
rev. 13; 130: 5. See, in addition, Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 86–90.
224. E.g., Bu-nu-a-na-ti and Mu-ti-a-na-ta. Cf. CT viii 17 c: 14, 15.
225. See Ap-ti-a-na-ti in AT, 128 and nos. 300: 14; 301: 6.
226. The name A-na-ti, in EA 170, line 43.
227. Note such names as Beth-ºAnat in Naphtali (Josh 19:38); Beth-ºAnoth in Judah
(Josh 15:59); ºAnatot in Benjamin (Josh 21:18 and Jer 1:1); etc.
228. As in the case of the temple at Beth-Shan. Here, one temple was devoted to Mi-
kal and, since only a figure of Anat was found in the second temple, it has been presumed
that it was devoted to Anat. A. Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-Shan (Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1930) City Level no. V, pp. 32–33, pl. 50, no. 2.
229. One of Seti I’s favorite chariot teams was called ºAnat-Hrty ‘Anat is content’, J. H.
Breasted, A History of Egypt (New York: Scribner’s, 1924) 449. For other names, see also
A. Mellon, “Les Hebreux en Égypte,” Or 3 (1921) 44–45; W. M. Flinders Petrie, Scarabs
and Cylinders with Names (London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1917) pl. 21, no. 1.
202 Syria: The Upper Country
named after her. 230 An Egyptian stele also portrays the Semitic goddess, sit-
ting on a throne, with a shield and a spear in her left hand and a battle-axe in
her right hand. The accompanying inscription describes Anat as “Queen of
Heaven, Mistress of the Gods.” 231 This combined evidence illustrates the im-
portance of Anat in Egypt as a goddess of war. There is but one highly ambiv-
alent Egyptian allusion to Anat as a participant in the fertility process. Two
papyri from the Twentieth Dynasty refer to Astarte and Anat, both wives of
the god Seth, as “the great goddesses who conceive but do not bear.” 232
The warlike characteristics of Anat are best-identified in Ugaritic my-
thology and particularly in the Baal-Anat cycle. Here she is portrayed as ren-
dering continued assistance to Baal in achieving his goals through terror and
warfare. For example, she threatens to trample her father, El, to the ground
and cause his gray beard to flow with blood unless he gives his consent that a
house be built for Baal; 233 later, she attacks Mot and ultimately destroys him
in order to save her lover, Baal. 234 Anat also massacres the inhabitants of two
cities, plunging to her knees in the blood of the warriors, while she lets fly
their severed hands like locusts above her head and hangs their heads upon
her back. 235 Anat’s heart is described as being filled with joy as she fights vio-
lently in her palace. 236
Notwithstanding these destructive attributes, whenever Anat accompa-
nies the Storm-god in the fulfillment of his fertility function, she is portrayed
as a charming goddess of passion, love, and fertility. In these contexts she is
described as both Baal’s sister and his consort. As the Storm-god’s active part-
ner in the fertility ritual, she appears in various settings and forms. One of
the most attractive of these settings describes the Storm-god’s meeting with
230. See H. Brugsch, Geschichte Ägyptens unter den Pharaonen (Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1877) 529. For other names, such as Rameses’ title “Hero of Anat,” and his dog “Anat pro-
tects,” see W. M. Flinders Petrie, Tanis (London: Trubner, 1888–89) vol. 1, pl. 7, no. 44;
vol. 2, p. 22; A. Erman, Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben in Altertum (rev. H. Ranke; Tü-
bingen: Mohr, 1923) 616 n. 3. For Rameses’ calling Anat and Astarte “Shield,” see J. H.
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1906) 4.62.
231. H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Bilder zum Alten Testament (2d ed.; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1927) pl. 114, fig. 270; W. A. Maier, “Anath,” 226.
232. The first is found in the Harris Papyrus, F. Chabas (trans.), Le papyrus magique
Harris (Chalon-sur-Saone: Dejussieu, 1860) 51ff.; the second in A. H. Gardiner (trans.),
The Chester Beatty Papyri (London: Oxford University Press, 1931) no. 1, p. 15, and n. 10.
See also Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 83–86.
233. UT ºnt vi IV: 6–V: 12 (KTU 1.3 v: 27–33).
234. UT 49 II: 30–37 (KTU 1.6 ii: 30–37).
235. UT ºnt II: 5–15 (KTU 1.3 ii: 5–15).
236. UT ºnt II (KTU 1.3 ii: 16–41).
Syria: The Upper Country 203
the virgin Anat in a meadow after his submission to Mot and prior to his own
death:
wysu.ºnh.ªaliyn.bºl And the Victor Baal raises his eyes,
wysu.ºnh.wyºn He raises his eyes and sees,
wyºn.btlt.ºnt He sees the Virgin Anat
nºmt.bn.aht.bºl The fairest among Baal’s sisters. 237
The remainder of the text describes this meeting as copulation between a bull
and a cow, in a mythopoeic enactment of the fertility process:
ysmº.ªaliyn.bºl Baal the Victor hears.
Yuhb.ºglt.bdbr He makes love to a heifer in the meadows,
prt.bsd.s˙lmmt 238 A cow in the fields beside the realm of death,
skb.ºmnh.sbº.lsbsm He lies with her seven and seventy times,
ts [º]ly.tmn.ltmnym She makes [him] mount eight and eighty times
w[ ].rn.wtldn.mt And she conceives and bears a male. 239
In another passage Anat longs for the dead Baal “like a cow for its calf.” 240
Another text states explicitly that Anat as a cow copulates with Baal and
bears a bull:
ql.lbºl.ttnn She gives forth her voice unto Baal,
bsrt.il.bs [r b]ºl Good tidings of El, Be informed, [O Ba]al,
wbsr.˙tk.[dgn] Be informed, O son of Dagan:
wibr.lbºl.[yl ]d Surely a bull is born unto Baal,
wrum.lrkb.ºrpt A buffalo to the Rider of the Clouds.
ysmh.ªaliyn.bºl Baal the Victor rejoices. 241
There is one final fragment where, in a confrontation between Mot and Baal,
the Syrian Storm-god is not called a bull but is compared to one:
kn.npl.bºl.km.t[r] So has Baal fallen like a [bull],
w.tkms.hd.[ ] Like a bull and a buffalo Hadad [ ],
km.ibr.btk.msms.bºl Like a buffalo in the midst of a miry swamp. 242
The classic Syrian iconographic depictions of Baal portray him with bull’s
horns protruding from the front and back of his head.
Implicit in the anthropomorphic characterization of the Storm-god is the
symbol of a divinity who sustains human life and who supplies the rain and
moisture for the fertilization of the fields, plant life, and vegetation in gen-
eral. In the above passages the theriomorphic symbol of Baal as a bull that
mates with a heifer underscores the fact that his capacity as a Storm-god ex-
tended to the animal world as well.
Anat’s intimate association with the fertility process is also emphasized in
her involvement with the Storm-god and the construction of his palace as he
prepares a fertility ritual to bring moisture from the heavens to fertilize the
earth:
the premier fertility deity in Syria. 247 When used as a proper name, the word
Baal is usually the designation for the deity who is intimately connected with
the process of fertility. 248 Such is the case in certain Hebrew scriptural refer-
ences to the Canaanite god: for example, the episode described in 1 Kings
18, 249 in which the Storm-god Baal is expected to bring rain from the heav-
ens in order to provide fertility for the land. This is precisely the attribute of
this divinity in the majority of the cases in which he is actively involved as the
leading deity in the Ugaritic Texts.
Baal in the Middle Euphrates
Under the patronym bn.dgn, 250 Baal was closely associated with eastern
Syria and central Mesopotamia. 251 The historical importance of the god Da-
gan in Mesopotamia has been shown by his equation with the supreme
Storm-god, Enlil, 252 as the most significant Storm-god in the Middle Eu-
phrates region. 253 Dagan had a temple in Ugarit, where his name appears on
three offering lists and two dedicatory steles, 254 although he is never featured
in Ugaritic mythology. The interpretation of these two steles has been the
subject of much discussion, particularly with regard to the meaning of the
words skn and pgr. 255
247. For example, bºl, bºl.ßpn, bn.dgn, ªaliyn.bºl, il.hdd, ˙tk.dgn, zbl.bºl.arß, rkb.ºrpt. In
Pope, “Baal-Hadad”; van Zijl, Baal, 329–51; Wyatt, “Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-god,”
403–7, etc.
248. Van Zijl, Baal, 323–27.
249. We will deal with the confrontation between Yahweh and Baal on Mount Carmel
within its proper context in chap. 4 below.
250. See, e.g., UT 62: 6; 67: VI: 23–24; 75: I: 39, II: 26; 76: III: 13; 137: 19, 35, 37;
Krt 78, 170 (KTU 1.6: 6; 5 vi: 23–24; 12 i: 39; ii: 25; 10: 13, etc.), where Baal appears as
bn.dgn ‘son of Dagan’. In addition, see N. Wyatt, “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan
and Hadad,” UF 12 (1980) 375–79; and Fleming (“Baal and Dagan,” 3–7), who shows the
very strong connection between Dagan and Baal among the personal names and god lists
in the Akkadian archives of Early Bronze Age Terqa and Ebla, Middle Bronze Mari, and the
Late Bronze Syrian sites of Emar and Mumbaqat/Ekalte. In addition, note Kapelrud, Baºal
in the Ras Shamra Texts, 52–56.
251. This association between Baal and the Middle Euphrates region has long been
proposed (Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 87–88; Oldenburg, The Conflict between
El and Baal, 46–48) and more recently strengthened in studies such as Wyatt’s “Relation-
ship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad,” 375–76; Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High
Priestess at Emar, 240–48.
252. Schmökel, Der Gott Dagan, 47, citing Dagan su en.lil in CT 24: 22, 120; 6, 22.
253. See above, “Storm-god Dagan” in chap. 1; and subsequent studies, such as
Schmökel, “Dagan”; Dhorme, “Les avatars de dieu Dagan,” 129–44; J. Fontenrose, “Da-
gan and El,” Oriens 10 (1957) 277–79.
254. UT 69: 2; 70: 2; 9: 3; 609: rev. 4; 613: 21.
255. See, among others, particularly J. F. Healey, “The Underworld Character of the
God Dagan,” JNSL 5 (1977) 43–51; Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 18; Schmökel,
206 Syria: The Upper Country
“Dagan”; Dussaud, “Deux stèles de Ras Shamra portant une dédicace au dieu Dagon,”
179–80; Neiman, “PGR: A Canaanite Cult Object in the Old Testament”; von Soden,
AHw, 809; E. Lipinski, “Skn et sgn dans le sémitique occidentale du nord,” UF 5 (1973)
192–207. On the basis of the terms skn and pgr and the Mari evidence giving Dagan the
title Bel-Pagre ‘Lord of the funerary offerings’ (ARM 10 63: 15), it has been proposed that
the steles were funerary monuments in temples connected with the cult of the dead. How-
ever, this evidence is essentially circumstantial and rather inconclusive.
256. See CT 24 6: 23.
257. Montalbano, “Canaanite Dagon,” 395; Laroche, Recherches, 57; N. Wyatt, “The
Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad,” 375–79; and Haddad, Baal-Hadad, 172–74.
258. Ótk is rendered ‘scion’ in Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (eds.), Mythes et
légendes, 188; Gordon, UL, 51; Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 119; J. Gray, The Leg-
acy of Canaan, 71 n. 2; van Zijl, Baal, 252; H. L. Ginsberg, in ANET, 142; du Mesnil du
Buisson, “Le groupe des dieux El, Betyle, Dagon et Atlas chez Philon de Byblos,” 43. But
we also find ‘your life’, Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess in the Ras Shamra Texts, 97; ‘sway’,
de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra,” 167–88, 176; and ‘pa-
tronage’, idem, New Year with the Canaanites and Israelites (Kampen: Kok, 1972) 2.26.
259. So N. Wyatt, “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad,” 378–79; van
Zijl, Baal, 323–27; de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern, 150–63; Pope and Tigay, “A Descrip-
tion of Baal,” 117–30.
260. UT ºnt III: 26; IV: 63 (KTU 1.3 iii: 38; 3 iv: 19).
261. UT ºnt 51: V: 85; ºnt IV: 81–83; etc. (KTU 1.3 iv: 17; iv: 38).
Syria: The Upper Country 207
with the bull. Baal was thus identified with one of the more characteristic
zoomorphic fertility symbols in regions around Anatolia beginning in the
early Middle Bronze Age. However, aside from these passages, none of the
mythical texts equates this deity either directly or indirectly with the bull. It
is rather the great El, leader of the Ugaritic pantheon, who is referred to as
tr.il ‘Bull El’ 262 or, regarding his relationship to Baal, as tr.abh.il 263 ‘Bull, his
father El’, or even as tr.il.dpid 264 ‘Bull, El the Merciful’.
El precedes Baal in the hierarchy of the Ugaritic pantheon. Even though
there is no written or iconographic evidence to suggest that El was ever iden-
tified as a Storm-god, his characterization as a bull since earliest times carries
with it the implication that he was probably conceived of as fulfilling certain
fertility functions. Under his bull identity he represented the most archaic
symbol of fecundity and fertility known in the ancient Near East.
One of El’s titles was “Lord of the Earth.” In Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akka-
dian, the earth often refers to the Netherworld. 265 Albright has noted that
“the god of the Netherworld was at the same time a chthonic deity, that is,
he was lord of the ground and of its productive faculties.” 266 By associating
El with Melqart, Levi della Vida has shown that what we know of El points
to his connection with the earth, not heaven. 267 Pope has left no doubt that
El was a chthonic deity. 268 El’s abode, as described in the Ugaritic texts, was
clearly subterranean. He resided “at the sources of the (two) rivers,” “midst
the sources of the (two) deeps.” The expressions mbk.nhrm and apq.thmtm
leave no doubt that El’s mythical residence was associated with the deep, in
an aqueous subterranean environment. 269 As “Lord of the Earth” he was
therefore responsible for its fertility.
The Storm-god, having assumed some of the prerogatives of the great El,
was also conceived of as being linked with animal fertility. While he may not
have been designated by the title “Bull,” there is no doubt that he was linked
to the bull symbol and could even be conceived of as a Bull-god. Still, Baal
was almost always characterized as an atmospheric fertility god, to the near-
total exclusion of the bull symbol of fecundity. 270 This reflects the overrid-
ing importance of the atmospheric elements for survival in this area. Baal
262. UT 49 IV: 34; VI: 26–27; 51 III: 31; IV 47; 129: 16–17, 19, 21 (KTU 1.6 iv:
34; vi: 26–27; 4 iii: 31; iv: 47; 2 iii: 16–17, 19, 21).
263. UT 137: 16, 33, 36 (KTU 1.2 I vi: 16, i: 33, 36).
264. UT 51: II: 10 (KTU 1.4 ii: 10).
265. See, e.g., Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, 22.
266. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 81.
267. G. Levi della Vida, “El ªElyon in Genesis 14:18–20,” JBL 63 (1944) 1–9.
268. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 61–72.
269. See, e.g., UT 129 4–6 (KTU 1.2 iii: 4–6) and other passages.
270. On this issue, see van Zijl, Baal, 323–24.
208 Syria: The Upper Country
271. UT 49 IV: 27, 38 (KTU 1.6 iv: 3, 14). See also H. L. Ginsberg in ANET, 141;
and the alternate translations, ‘May Baal pour out over the furrows of the ploughed land’,
van Zijl, Baal, 207–8; or ‘Baal should be occupying the furrows of the ploughed land’, Gib-
son, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 78.
272. UT 67 VI: 8–10 (KTU 1.5 vi: 8–10). Yon, “Shr Mt, la chaleur de Mot,” 461–66;
Waterston, “Death and Resurrection in the A. B. Cycle,” 425–34.
273. Such is the implication of other, earlier sources, such as the “Execration Texts,”
with Hadad theophorics Itnhddw (‘Hadad gives’), Ibshddw (‘Hadad fattens’), Itphddw
Syria: The Upper Country 209
The earliest mythical reference to the death of a fertility deity is the death
of Dumuzi, Inanna’s spouse. 274 The subsequent emergence of his cult is in
some way related to the dying-goddess theme. 275 Though the cult of Dumuzi
deals with fertility among human beings, 276 it could have been the back-
ground for the Sumerian Tammuz agricultural myth projected in such myths
as “The Courtship between Dumuzi and Inanna” and “Dumuzi and Enkidu:
The Dispute between the Shepherd-God and the Farmer-God.” 277 It was
Inanna’s marriage to Dumuzi that gave expression to the annual vegetation
cycle.
In southern Mesopotamia, after the third millennium b.c.e., the cult
commemorating Tammuz’s suffering, death, and resurrection remained be-
low the level of official religiosity. 278 Gradually, however, it became custom-
ary to mourn Tammuz’s death and disappearance in solemn lamentations in
many strata of the early Mesopotamian population, as is evident from the
Damu cult 279 and its identification with the kings of Ur III. 280 Inanna’s
(‘Hadad increases’ or ‘Hadad gathers’), Thlhddw (‘Hadad beats the drum’), Yndmhddw
(‘Hadad marks the seasons’), Rwrhddw (‘Hadad moistens’), etc. See, e.g., J. Gray, The Leg-
acy of Canaan, 114–15.
274. See, e.g., S. N. Kramer, “Inanna’s Descent to the Nether World,” in ANET, 53–
59; Wolkstein and Kramer, Inanna, 51–94; etc.
275. Other forms of the deity, such as “Dumuzi of the Grain,” and Damu, “the child,”
may have derived from seeing the god as the power in the grain and the god in the sap lying
dormant in the rushes and trees. These clearly address the interests of the farmer and, ac-
cording to Jacobsen, may originally have been independent of the Dumuzi cult (Jacobsen,
Treasures of Darkness, 26–27, 47–49, 72–73).
276. Jacobsen has pointed to the great age of the Dumuzi cult as being evident from
the representations on the Uruk Vase. Drawing upon the numerous references to the Du-
muzi cult in early Sumerian literature, he observes that its full pattern can be found only
when all aspects are connected, each segment emphasizing a particular basic economy and
its own characteristic segment of ritual activity. For example, “Dumuzi the Shepherd” was
worshiped among the shepherds and the cowherds, and the bitter lament when he died
marked the dry heat of the summer and the end of lambing, calving, and milking. Jacobsen,
“Dying Gods of Fertility,” Treasures of Darkness, 25–73, particularly 26–27; idem, The
Harps That Once, 205–32.
277. ANET, 41–42; Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite, 67–84; Wolkstein and Kra-
mer, Inanna, 29–49, 150–55; Frankfort, The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, 152–
56; Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 25–63.
278. A. L. Oppenheim, “Assyro-Babylonian Religion,” in Forgotten Religions (ed.
V. Fern; New York: Philosophical Library, 1950) 70–72; Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite,
56–58.
279. Moran (ed.), Toward the Image of Tammuz, 29, 73. On Damu as a form of Du-
muzi, see Edzard, WdM 1.50ff.
280. Moran (ed.), Toward the Image of Tammuz, 324–25.
210 Syria: The Upper Country
relation to Dumuzi is Ishtar’s relation to Tammuz, 281 the young god who per-
sonified the autumnal decline in the seasonal cycle. It is plausible, therefore,
that the rising popularity of the dying-god cult of Tammuz was influenced by
the concept of Baal in Syria during the late Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian
Period.
The departure of Baal was only a temporary intrusion into the natural
process. The god Mot, possibly with his own natural positive and negative
characteristics, temporarily supplemented the life-giving attributes of his
dead nemesis. 282 With the summer heat he caused the ripening of all fruit
and grain; 283 however, with the drying up of moisture he brought death to
vegetation.
In the myth the necessity for continuity in the life-giving process leads to
the unsuccessful attempt to install Athtar. Since the name Athtar is cognate
with Arabic ºattari ‘soil artificially irrigated’ and ºatur, denoting a canal or
trench dug for purposes of irrigation, 284 the deity Athtar represents artifi-
281. E. O. James, The Ancient Gods: The History and Diffusion of Religion in the An-
cient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (New York: Capricorn, 1974) 78–80.
282. See C. Virolleaud, “La lutte de Mot, fils des dieux, et d’Alein, fils de Baal,” Syria
12 (1931) 193–224; Cassuto, “Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic Texts,” 77–86; M. Dijkstra,
“Baºlu and His Antagonists: Some Remarks on CTA 6 v 1–6,” JANES 6 (1974) 59–68;
H. L. Ginsberg, “The Rebellion and Death of Baºlu,” Or 5 (1936) 161–98; Watson, “The
Death of Death in the Ugaritic Texts”; Cunchillos, “Le dieu Mut, guerrier de El”; Margalit,
A Matter of “Life” and “Death.”
283. The subsequent winnowing, grinding, and scattering of Mot by Anat need not
suggest that Mot is also the god of grain (N. Robertson, “The Ritual Background of the
Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine,” HTR 75 [1982] 314–47). It seems more plau-
sible to view this process merely as a broader aspect of Mot’s personality, since the ripening
and drying of the grain is the final episode in the fertility process before the death of all
vegetation, for which he is fundamentally responsible. Note the discussion of both of these
aspects in Loewenstamm, “The Killing of Mot in Ugaritic Myth,” 372ff. In addition, see
V. Rosensohn Jacobs and I. Rosensohn Jacobs, “The Myth of Mot and ªAliªyan Baal,” HTR
38 (1945) 77–109, especially 77–81; Watson, “The Death of Death in the Ugaritic Texts,”
60–64; Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 117–22; J. Healey, “Burning the Corn:
New Light on the Killing of Motu,” Or 52 (1983) 248–51.
284. See discussion in Gaster (Thespis, 126–27, 196–98), who also draws on Arabic
cognates for ‘land of Baal’, meaning ‘rain-watered soil’, and mawat, meaning ‘arid and in-
fertile soil’, a viewpoint largely shared by others. Note, e.g., A. Caquot, “Le dieu ªAthtar
et les textes de Ras Shamra,” Syria 35 (1958) 45–60; A. Waterston, “The Kingdom of
ºATTAR and His Role in the A B Cycle,” UF 20 (1988) 357–64. Note a counter viewpoint,
however, in W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (New York: Schocken,
1972) 92 n. 2. On the idea of ºAthtar as the male morning star representing the “morning
mist” paired with the goddess ºAttrt, probably the evening star, see Oldenburg, The Conflict
between El and Baal, 41–44; J. Day, “Ashtoreth (Deity),” ABD 1.493; M. H. Pope, “Atirat,
ºAttar, ºAttart,” WdM 1.250–52; J. Leclant, “Astarté à cheval,” Syria 37 (1960) 1–67.
Syria: The Upper Country 211
Whenever Mot is in control of the earth, life is absent from the land, the fer-
tile places become desolate, and the entire earth is subject to him for several
months of the year. Since Mot is mythically conceived of as residing in the
wilderness, parched places, and Netherworld, a large part of the earth is con-
stantly under his control.
285. UT 49 I: 54–65 (CTA 6 i: 54–65). See the recent studies by Waterston, “The
Kingdom of ºATTAR and His Role in the A B Cycle,” 357–64; N. Wyatt, “The Hollow
Crown,” 430ff. See, in addition, van Zijl, Baal, 196–97; Gaster, Thespis, 125–27, 198–99;
R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “ºAshtart et ºAstar à Ras Shamra,” JEOL 10 (1964) 406; J. Gray,
“The Desert God ºATTR in the Literature and Religion of Canaan,” JNES 8 (1949) 72–83;
idem, The Legacy of Canaan, 54–55; Vine, “The Establishment of Baal at Ugarit,” 50–52;
Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 20–21; Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 16–17,
75–76.
286. UT 49 II: 14–23 (CTA 6 ii: 14–23). Gaster, Thespis, 120–21; Driver, Canaanite
Myths and Legends, 110–11; Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 17, 76.
212 Syria: The Upper Country
In the cyclical progression, Baal has died and descended into the earth. 287
Nevertheless, Mot states that he encountered Baal in dbr.prt.bsd.s˙lmmt,
where he devoured him. Later Anat will find her lover in dbr.lysmt.sd.
s˙lmmt, 288 on the ‘edge of both the earth and the Netherworld’, rather than
in the Netherworld (a place from which there is no return). 289 Since Baal is
not in the Netherworld, his return/resurrection is to be anticipated. 290
In order to bring about Baal’s return and the concomitant restoration of
fertility, Anat enters into a battle to the death with Mot. 291 This results in
Anat’s victory over and vengeful dismemberment of Mot, followed by the
parching, grinding, winnowing, and scattering of his remains. Simulta-
neously, the imminent resuscitation of Baal is anticipated in a dream by El.
Baal’s victorious presence will assure the restoration of his fertile, life-giving
showers:
b˙lm.l†pn.il.dp[id ] In a dream of Lutpan, the kindly god,
bdrt.bny.bnwt In a vision of the Creator of Creatures,
smm.smn.tm†rn The heavens rained oil;
nhlm.tlk.nbtm The ravines ran with honey.
smh.l†pn.il.dpid Lutpan, the God of mercy, rejoices.
pºnh.lhdm.ytpd He places his feet on the footstool,
wyprq.lßb.wysq He relaxes formality and laughs;
ysu.gh.wyß˙ He raises his voice and cries:
atbn.ank.wanhn ”Now I will sit and take my ease,
wtnh.birty.nps And my soul will rest in my breast,
k˙y.ªaliyn.bºl For Baal the Victor is alive,
kit.zbl.bºl.arß For the Prince, Lord of the earth, exists.” 292
287. UT 67 II: 1: 7, 10–12 (KTU 1.5 v: 6, 14–17); UT 67 VI: 3–10 (KTU 1.5 vi: 3–
10; vi: 28–31).
288. That this is not the Netherworld is demonstrated in ibid., 74 n. 4; L’Heureux,
Rank among the Canaanite Gods, 195–96; F. C. Fensham, “Notes on Keret, CTA 14: 106–
114,” JNSL 9 (1981) 43–54; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7c; Garden City, N.Y.: 1977)
426; and others.
289. See M. S. Smith, “Baal in the Land of Death,” UF 17 (1986) 311–14.
290. Margalit, A Matter of “Life” and “Death,” 155–56; Waterston, “Death and Resur-
rection in the A. B. Cycle,” 425–34.
291. Yon, “Shr Mt, la chaleur de Mot,” 461–66; Cassuto, “Baal and Mot in the Uga-
ritic Texts,” BOS, 2.168–77; del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan, 143–53; Margalit,
A Matter of “Life” and “Death,” 65–69.
292. UT 49 III: 10–21 (KTU 1.6 iii: 10–21). Also Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 99–
100; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 58–59; Gaster, Thespis, 120–22; Loewenstamm, “The
Killing of Mot in Ugaritic Myth,” 378–82; V. and I. Rosensohn Jacobs, “The Myth of Mot
and ªAliªyan Baal,” 77–101; Toombs, “Baal, Lord of the Earth: The Ugaritic Baal Epic”;
van Zijl, Baal, 326ff.; M. Lichtenstein, “Dream Theophany and the E Document,” JANES
The resuscitation of the Storm-god was intrinsic to the return of life in na-
ture. Date honey and olive oil, representing the richest commodities of life,
were dependent on the continued fertilizing presence of Baal.
In this initial confrontation between Baal, the genius of fertility, and
Mot, the god of sterility and death, it is significant that Baal’s disappearance
is not the result of a battle and defeat at the hands of Mot. Baal’s passive
descent into the Netherworld is a mythologization of the inevitable annual
alternation between fertility and drought. Struggling with Mot in this con-
frontation would have been futile; Baal’s destiny was fixed and, hence, noth-
ing could prevent Mot from taking charge of the earth. The struggle between
the Storm-god and Mot must be viewed in a different context from the battle
between Baal and Yam.
The subsequent death, dismemberment, sowing, and harvesting of the
dead Mot leads to the reappearance and temporary supremacy of Baal. Con-
versely, the reemergence of Mot and the impending expansion of his domain
lead to the unavoidable surrender and disappearance of the Storm-god once
again, and so the natural process continues from year to year. There is never
a definitive outcome to the struggle between Baal and Mot. The subsequent
furious battle between these two foes must be interpreted on the cosmic level
as the conflict that begins in the autumnal season, between the heavy rains
coming in from the Mediterranean Sea and the torrid, dry winds coming in
from the eastern desert. This results in the continuing battle between fertility
and drought. 293 The earlier defeat and annihilation of Yam ended forever the
latter’s pretensions to supremacy in the cosmos. However, Mot’s destructive
powers were ever present; the annual expansion of his powers over the entire
region had to be contained continually during the year.
It has been proposed, however, on the basis of a fragment that contains
the names of Baal and Mot 294 that the Baal Myth alludes to an extended
1/2 (1969) 51ff.; L. J. Greenspoon, “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection,” in Traditions
in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 261–81; and particularly de Moor, The Seasonal
Pattern, 61ff.
293. So Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 100–101; Smith, The Early History
of God, 60. It is this section of the Baal cycle that logically forms the core for proponents of
seasonal and ritual interpretations, for example, L. L. Grabbe, “The Seasonal Pattern and
the Baal Cycle,” UF 8 (1976) 57–63.
294. UT 49: V: 7–10 (KTU 1.6 v: 7–10). This is the significant passage in which the
number seven appears that has generated this theory. The fragment contains a great lacuna.
There are several compelling arguments against this view. See, e.g., Kapelrud, Baºal in the
Ras Shamra Texts, 128–30; Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 100–101.
214 Syria: The Upper Country
seven-year period of drought. 295 But nothing in the description of the subse-
quent battle suggests a conclusive victory for either contestant:
ytºn.kgmrm They glare at each other like glowing coals:
mt.ºz.bºl.ºz Mot is fierce; is fierce.
yng˙n.krumm They thrust at each other like oxen:
mt.ºz.bºl.ºz Mot is fierce; Baal is fierce.
yntkn.btnm They bite like serpents:
mt.ºz.bºl.ºz Mot is fierce; Baal is fierce.
ymßhn.klsmm They kick like stallions:
mt.ql.bºl.ql. Mot falls; Baal falls. 296
In the battle, Baal is the victor when the Sun-goddess intervenes on his behalf
and rebukes Mot, who subsequently recognizes his rival’s claim to kingship.
If this were an allusion to an abnormal drought, then the temporary defeat of
Mot by Baal would represent the eventual reestablishment of the seasonal pe-
riod of fertility personified by the Storm-god. There is no conclusive evi-
dence in the Ugaritic texts that such a period of drought extended for seven
years or that a sabbatical year was observed. 297
295. Primarily Gordon, UL, 3–5, followed by J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 63–64;
del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 143–53; van Zijl, Baal, 225–26. While it has been con-
firmed that Baal is primarily a fertility god, it is argued that he is not necessarily a seasonal
deity. On this same question, see also H.-J. Kraus, Gottesdienst in Israel: Grundriss einer Ge-
schichte des alttestamentlichen Gottesdienstes (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1962) 129–32; J. Gray,
“The Hunting of Baal: Fratricide and Atonement in the Mythology of Ras Shamra,” JNES
10 (1951) 146–55; de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern, 50ff.; G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Re-
ligion (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1999) 49–50; Gibson, Canaanite
Myths and Legends, 18–19, 79.
296. UT 49 VI: 16–31 (KTU 1.6 vi: 16–31).
297. In addition, there is no indication that seven years after his death Mot was re-
vived to challenge Baal for the kingship. Nor, for that matter, is there support for the argu-
ment that Baal’s descent into the earth has anything to do with a seven-year cycle. The
number seven does appear in the mythical texts, but there is nothing cyclical in the various
contexts, nor does the number really play any significant role. Among the passages in which
the number seven appears outside the Baal/Mot section are I Aqhat: 42, in which Danil is
threatened with a seven-year drought; UT 52, dealing with the “Birth of Dawn and Dusk”;
and UT 75 I: 45. For additional references and discussion, see Gordon, UL, 4–5; and
van Zijl, Baal, 225–26.
Syria: The Upper Country 215
298. For additional names with the theophoric element Adad, see Thureau-Dangin,
Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne, 12; Kapelrud, Baºal in the
Ras Shamra Texts, 31–33.
299. CT 24, 40: 38–43.
300. Strong arguments have been proposed that the Baal myths reflect cultic, not cul-
tural or historical, developments. So, e.g., Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 137–38;
M. D. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 81; F. Stolz,
“Funktionen und Bedeutungsbereichte des ugaritischen Baal mythos,” in Funktionen und
Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele (OBO 48; ed. J. Assman et al.; Frei-
burg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 83–118.
301. These were probably among three of the oldest deities of the region worshiped by
the earliest Western Semites, prior to either the arrival of the “new wave” of West Semites
designated as “Amorites” or, as C. E. L’Heureux has suggested, the emergence of the trib-
ally organized pastoralists and agriculturists who succeeded in breaking the power of the
oppressive cities (Rank among the Canaanite Gods, 71–72, 100–108). For discussion on the
Amorite problem, see, e.g., Gelb, “The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples,” 41ff.;
Kupper, Les nomades, 152–53; Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, 1–7;
Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 151–63; M. Liverani, “Per una considerazi-
one storica del problema Amorreo,” AnOr 9 (1970) 5–27; idem, “The Amorites,” in Peoples
of the Old Testament (ed. D. J. Wiseman; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 100–133.
216 Syria: The Upper Country
302. Note, e.g., W. Helck, Betrachtungen zur Grossen Göttin und den ihr verbunden
Gottheiten (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1971).
303. See the discussion in chap. 2 above on the Anatolian Weather-god. Among the
indigenous inhabitants of Anatolia the Water-god is consistently identified with the subter-
ranean water sources.
304. M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 58; idem, “The Baal Cycle,” 84–85.
305. See above, pp. 58–59; J.-M. Durand, “ ‘Fils de Simªal’: Les origines tribales des
rois de Mari,” RA 80 (1986) 174; Lafont, “Le roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieu Adad,”
7–18; idem, “Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopo-
tamie,” MARI 7 (1993) 41–61; Bordreuil and Pardee, “Le combat de Baºlu avec Yammu
d’après les textes ougaritiques”; F. Stolz, “Funcktionen und Bedeutungsbereichte des uga-
ritischen Baal mythos”; M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 330–31; idem, The
Early History of God, 57–58; idem, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 1: Introduction with Text,
Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (VTSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 96–110;
K. A. Kitchen, “The King List of Ugarit,” UF 9 (1977) 131–42.
Syria: The Upper Country 217
306. As offered by M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 330–31 n. 95, on the
basis of KTU 1.6 vi.
307. See, e.g., L. Malten, “Der Stier im Kult und mythischen Bild,” Jahrbuch des deut-
schen Archäologischen Instituts 43 (1928) 90–139; Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 35; C. H.
Gordon, “El, the Father of shnm,” JNES 35 (1976) 261–62; P. D. Miller, “El, Creator of
the Earth,” BASOR 239 (1980) 43–46.
308. See Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 72–73; Pope, El in the Uga-
ritic Texts, 35; idem, “Ups and Downs in El’s Amours.”
218 Syria: The Upper Country
219
220 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
countries referred to both the coastal region and its immediate hinterland as
Canaan, as for example in the story of Idrimi, who fled to ‘the land of
Canaan’. 5 Other references in contemporaneous Hittite documents 6 and the
mention of a knºny ‘Canaanite’ in a list of foreign merchants at Ugarit (UT
311.7) also support this position. According to Egyptian documents of the
late fifteenth century, Amenhotep III collected booty from this region, which
included Palestine, the Phoenician coast, and southern Syria. 7 It was vari-
ously designated as the “Land of Retenu,” 8 the “Land of Djahi,” 9 and the
“Land of Ha-rw.” 10
continues through to the Gulf of Aqaba into the Red Sea and eastern Africa.
East of the Jordan rift and the Dead Sea, Transjordan has no eastern bound-
ary other than the precarious limit between the desert and the sown land.
The plateau slopes away eastward into the Arabian Desert. There are, how-
ever, natural divisions to the west of the Jordan rift.
The region is divided into four sharply distinguishable belts from north
to south. Rising from the deep gorge, the rugged central highlands descend
from Lebanon through Galilee and the mountains of Samaria and Judea.
They finally drop off to the tableland of the Negev. Within this region nestle
numerous towns and villages. The topography, moving westward through
the hills toward the coast from north to south, begins with the fertile pockets
among the Galilean foothills, anchored by Mount Carmel, jutting out into
the sea in the north, with the central Plain of Esdraelon and the Plain of Acco
terminating in the highlands of Samaria and Ephraim. Farther west and
south, the hill country of Judah gradually recedes westward and southward
into the plain along the seacoast.
The topography of this southwestern extreme of Syria, called Palestine,
resembles most regions of the Syrian hinterland. Although this arid and
rocky mountain country in modern times has been largely barren, the land-
scape, as elsewhere in Syria, was once covered with thick forests of evergreens.
In the course of time most of these were destroyed in order to obtain open
space for agriculture, with the resultant effect of continued soil erosion off the
mountain slopes, exposing limestone rock in large areas.
Devoid of any significant river as a constant source of water, the land re-
lies heavily on the winter and spring rains brought in by the prevailing west
winds from over the Mediterranean Sea. These winds strike the mountains,
shedding their moisture on western Palestine up to the mountain ridge. The
same ecological factor brings water to western Transjordan, with added mois-
ture evaporated from the Jordan River and the Dead Sea. It is the clash of
these moisture-laden west winds with the scorching east winds from the
desert that forms the transition from the dry summer heat to the wet winter
season and vice versa. During the hot, dry months from June to September,
most vegetation withers and the entire region takes on a dead, desert-like ap-
pearance. A great transformation occurs with the coming of the rains. The
whole country suddenly comes to life. Out of crevices in the ground spring
flowers, and the dead brown grass turns lush and green. The greatest amount
of precipitation usually comes late in December, with the final showers of the
season in March and early April, promoting the ripening of the grain. With
no other dependable source of water, the winter rains are absolutely necessary
for the continued stability of life. This ecological fact became the central con-
cern in the religions of this region.
Just as the topography of inland and northern Syria differs markedly from
that of southwestern Syria and Palestine, its early material cultures also con-
trast sharply. By the fourth millennium b.c.e., Palestine was settled by
groups of diverse origins living side by side. 15 The culture and ethnic identity
of these peoples later came to be known as “Canaanite.” They founded and
occupied an increasing number of towns with good Semitic names during
this period. 16
This region was subjected to tribal upheavals and numerous invasions of
seminomadic groups during the final centuries of the third millennium
b.c.e., resulting in much destruction and abandonment of towns and bring-
ing the urban civilization of the Early Bronze Age to an end. Nevertheless,
the culture of the region remained basically the same. 17 Between that time
and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, the Execration Texts feature
personal names from Palestine and southwestern Syria that are not merely
Semitic but nearly always of the Northwest Semitic type. 18 In terms of the
material assemblage, the Middle Bronze Age II culture of Palestine could be
described as distinctively Canaanite. 19
Archaeology has established that the Middle Bronze Canaanite culture
that dominated the region during most of the second millennium b.c.e., un-
til its disruption by the migrating Sea Peoples toward the end of the Late
15. See K. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (New York: Praeger, 1970) 83.
16. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 110–11; Dever, “The Middle Bronze
Age,” 147–87. Other studies have attempted to demonstrate the non-Semitic origins of a
number of early Palestinian and south Syrian place-names. However, the evidence pre-
sented is rather weak. For additional material on the Semitic origin of these names, see also
B. S. J. Isserlin, “Names and Provinces in Semitic-Speaking Ancient Near East,” Proceedings
of the Leeds Philosophical Society 7 (1956) 83–110; idem, “Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-
Names in Palestine: A Historical and Geographical Sketch,” PEQ 89 (1957) 133–44; R. de
Vaux, “Le pays de Canaan,” JAOS 88 (1968) 23–30.
17. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 185; W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Pal-
estine (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1963) 65–89; W. G. Dever, “The Collapse of the Urban
Early Bronze Age in Palestine: Toward a Systemic Analysis,” in L’urbanization de la Palestine
à l’âge du Bronze ancien (ed. P. de Miroschedji; Oxford: B.A.R. International Series, 1989)
225–46.
18. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 112–13; idem, Vocalization of the Egyp-
tian Syllabic Orthography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934) 8 n. 21; idem, “The
Egyptian Empire in Asia in the Twenty-First Century b.c.,” JPOS 8 (1928) 223–56; idem,
“New Egyptian Data on Palestine in the Patriarchal Age,” BASOR 81 (1941) 16–21; idem,
“The Land of Damascus between 1850 and 1750 b.c.”; Dever, “The Middle Bronze Age”;
idem, “The Collapse of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine: Toward a Systemic Analy-
sis,” 225–46; idem, “The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine,” IEJ 18 (1986) 65–97.
19. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 190–92.
224 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Bronze Age, emerged out of the elements of the Early Bronze Age urban
civilization and the subsequent Amorite seminomadic culture of the Early
Bronze–Middle Bronze Period. Even though the Sea Peoples introduced
new elements, there still was an overwhelming Early Bronze urban Canaan-
ite cultural continuum throughout southern Syria and Palestine during the
early Iron Age. Notwithstanding the disruptions caused by migrants or the
march of hostile armies over the centuries, Canaanite culture was transmit-
ted and generations of Canaanites maintained their identity and traditional
mode of life.
The culture of the indigenous Canaanite population is evident from such
sites as Megiddo, Tell el-Farah, and Jericho. Excavations have produced a co-
herent picture, showing the existence of a uniform culture throughout south-
western Syria and Palestine from the Early Bronze through the Iron Age.
Professor W. F. Albright pointed out that “there was a homogeneous civiliza-
tion, which extended in the Bronze Age from Mount Casius, north of Ugarit,
to the Negev in Palestine, and in the Iron Age from north of Arvad to the ex-
treme south of Palestine. This civilization shared a common material culture
in language, literature, art, and religion in the Bronze Age” 20 (see map 6).
22. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (hereafter FSAC; Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1957) 150ff. See also relevant sections from his Yahweh and the
Gods of Canaan. Some of his views are continued by his students—for example: Cross,
CMHE ; D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980); Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, to name a few.
23. So, e.g., H. Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion,” in The
Triumph of Elohim (ed. D. V. Edelman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 45–71; Cassuto,
“Psalm LXVIII,” BOS, 1.241–98; O. Eissfeldt, “Der Gott Bethel,” Kleine Schriften (Tü-
bingen: Mohr, 1962) 1.206–33.
24. Note for instance, N. Lohfink, “Das Alte Testament und sein Monotheismus,” in
Der eine Gott und der dreieine Gott: Das Gottesverständnis bei Christen, Juden und Muslimen
(ed. K. Rahner; Munich: Schnel & Steiner, 1983) 28–47; P. Welten, “Gott Israels – Gott
von Sinai,” Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 1 (1984) 225–39; J. Scharbert, “Jahwe im
frühisraelitischen Recht,” in Gott, der Einzige: Zur Entstehung des biblischen Monotheismus
(ed. E. Haag; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1985) 160–83; J. C. de Moor, The Rise of Yah-
wism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990) 2–5.
25. See, among others, ibid., 69–100; idem, “El the Creator,” in The Bible World: Es-
says in Honor of C. H. Gordon (ed. G. Rendsburg; New York: Ktav, 1980) 171–87; B. D.
Mianbé, El: Le Dieu suprême et le Dieu des patriarches, Gen 14:18–20 (New York: Olms,
1986); M. H. Pope, “The Status of El at Ugarit,” UF 19 (1987) 219–30; idem, El in the
Ugaritic Texts; Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 15–45; Cross, CMHE, 11–43.
26. So prominently argued first by R. G. Roggia, “Alcune osservationi sul culto di El
a Ras-Shamra,” Aevum 15 (1941) 559–75; and subsequently supported by Cassuto, The
Goddess Anath, 55–57; Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts; Pope, El in the Ugaritic
Texts, 96ff.; idem, “The Status of El at Ugarit,” 219–30; Oldenburg, The Conflict between El
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 227
Other studies interpret the rise of Baal as corresponding to the fusion be-
tween two different strata of Canaanite religion around the end of the third
and the beginning of the second millennium b.c.e. 27
An equally valid interpretation proposes that Baal’s challenges to El are
merely mythical references to explain Baal’s additional responsibilities as lord
of the cosmos. The texts show that El elevated the Storm-god Baal to king-
ship and effected a peaceful transfer of some of his own authority to him. 28
In the northwestern regions, however, where Baal evolved as the most promi-
nent figure besides El among the gods of the Canaanite pantheon, the my-
thology still tends to point out certain weaknesses in his character, such as his
reliance on others to mediate his problems before the lofty El. 29 Texts indi-
cate that in spite of the continued prominence of El references to him are in
fact limited, while there is an increase in references to other deities. This sug-
gests, in certain circles, that El’s popularity was declining. 30
In Baal’s elevated status as the cosmic king of the gods, he assumed El’s
residence on Mount Íaphon. 31 Subsequently El lived in a tent removed “a
and Baal, 121–25; J. C. de Moor, “The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit,” UF 2 (1970) 218ff.;
idem, The Rise of Yahwism, 69ff.; G. del Olmo Lete, “Notes on Ugaritic Semantics III,” UF
9 (1977) 32–35; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 154–55.
27. For example, the conclusion to be derived from Vine, The Establishment of Baal at
Ugarit.
28. In the early Late Bronze Age, theophoric personal names with either El or Baal
were equally divided among the people of Ugarit (Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte
aus Ugarit, 94ff., 114ff.). By the end of the Late Bronze and into the Iron Age, however,
Baal names vastly outnumber El names throughout Canaan. See F. L. Benz, Personal Names
in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972) 266–67,
288ff.; J. K. Stark, Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 4,
74ff. Note counter arguments, however, in L’Heureux (Rank among the Canaanite Gods,
29–49), who forcefully proposes that, on the basis of external evidence, there is no question
that the texts reflect a peaceful transfer of power to rather than dominance by Baal.
29. After he has gained his great victory over Yam, Baal sends both Athirat and Anat
as his emissaries to El as mediators, requesting El’s permission to build his temple. UT 51
V: 61–71 (KTU 1.4 iv: 50–v: 1). See also Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 75–77; de Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism, 75.
30. L’Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite Gods,” 69–70.
31. Note the discussion above, pp. 191–93. Sanchuniathon has indicated that Íaphon
(Mount Cassius) was named after the powerful deity who occupied it (Eusebius, Praepara-
tio Evangelica 1.10.7); hence, this was the mountain of El’s kingship. That El-Íaphon was
originally the name of the mountain is also implied when Baal calls Anat to Mount Íaphon
and sends her to El to ask for a palace, “Come, and I will reveal it [the secret] to you, El-
Íaphon in the midst of my mountain, in the sanctuary on the mountain of my inheritance.
. . .” The mountain kept its original name for a time, even after Baal had taken over the
kingship on Mount Íaphon. See UT ºnt III: 25–28 (KTU 1.3 iii: 25–31); also Pope, El in
228 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
thousand fields, ten thousand acres” from the kingdom of Ugarit, distantly
described as located “at the source of the two rivers, in the midst of the
streams of the two deeps.” 32 This did not diminish El’s stature among the
gods. Even if El’s role as head of the pantheon had indeed been taken over by
Baal toward the end of the Late Bronze Age in northern Syria, the Ugaritic
texts still indicate that El was regarded as the senior deity of the pantheon.
There are also strong epigraphic indications that in Canaan, including Cis-
jordan and Transjordan, the power of El as king of the gods was not at all di-
minished. 33 El was foremost among deities as mlk ‘King’ of the Gods; 34 he
the Ugaritic Texts, 102–3; Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 105–6. Baal’s ref-
erence to “my mountain” or “the mountain of my inheritance” could also be an expression
of his primacy, based on his unique function in the region under the general control of El.
See N. Wyatt, “Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” 409–10; van Zijl, Baal, 332–36; Kapel-
rud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 57–58.
32. Mbk.nhrm/apq.thmtm, UT 51 IV: 20–25; ºnt V: 13–16 (KTU 1.4 iv: 20–25; 1.3
v: 6–7; 4 iv: 20–24; 6 i: 32–36; 2 iii: 4–5; 17 vi: 46–49). See, in addition, Cross, CMHE,
36–43; idem, “The Priestly Tabernacle in Light of Recent Research,” in Temples and High
Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of the He-
brew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, March, 1977 (ed. A. Biran; Jeru-
salem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981) 177–78; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic
Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Pro-
ceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Jerusalem, August 16–30, 1981 (Jeru-
salem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983) 103–4; M. H. Pope, “The Scene of the
Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright (ed. H. Goe-
dicke; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 393–405; E. Lipinski, “El’s
Abode: Mythological Traditions Related to Mt. Hermon and the Mountains of Armenia,”
Orientalia lovaniensia periodica 2 (1971) 13–69; R. J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and Israelite
Tent of Meeting,” CBQ 33 (1971) 221–27; Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 128–68.
33. Note for example, J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in
the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 19; J. Naveh, “The Ostracon
from Nimrud: An Ammonite Name-List,” Maarav 2 (1979–80) 163ff.; P. Bordreuil, “Les
noms propres transjordaniens de l’Ostracon de Nimroud,” in Prophètes, poètes et sages d’Is-
raël: Hommages à E. Jacob à l’occasion de son 70 ème anniversaire par ses amis, ses collègues et ses
élèves (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979) 313–17; J. Hoftijzer and G. van der
Kooij, The Aramaic Texts from Deir ºAlla (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 275; W. M. Wyatt, “Belief in
a ‘High God’ in Pre-Islamic Mecca,” SHR 31 (1975) 228–29; G. L. Harding, An Index and
Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1971) 907.
34. It has been shown that El is not the only deity whose name is compounded with
the epithet mlk in personal names. However, in the Ugaritic Texts and other Northwest
Semitic epigraphic sources, “king” is the most ancient and widely attested epithet of this
deity. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 25–27; idem, “The Status of El at Ugarit,” 219–30. See
also UT 49 I: 8; 51 IV: 24 (KTU 1.6 i: 36; 1.4 iv: 24); Mianbé, El, le Dieu suprême et le
Dieu des Patriarches, Gen 14:18–20.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 229
was ab.snm ‘Father of Years’; 35 ab.adm ‘Father of man’; 36 and also, by impli-
cation, Father of the Gods. 37 He was bny.bnwt ‘Creator of the Created’ 38 and
tr ‘Bull’. 39 In addition, he was ‘Lord of the Earth’, ‘Kind One, the God of
Mercy’, the ‘Kind and Holy’, the ‘Most High’, the ‘Eternal King’, the ‘Lord
of Eternity’, and so on. 40 If El maintained his unique position as King and
Father of the Gods’, we may infer that, despite Baal’s rise to prominence, El’s
superiority among the gods remained intact.
This emphasis on El’s position as the most exalted, powerful, and impor-
tant deity in southern Syria is comparable to the position occupied by Amun-
Re in Egypt at this time. In spite of internal upheavals, Egypt continued
to exert a strong political and religious influence on its peripheral regions.
Akhenaton’s radical policies had a significant impact on areas such as Palestine
and Transjordan. The religious development associated with the emergence of
the god Aton in Egypt 41 and the subsequent reemergence of Amun-Re as
35. UT 49 I: 8; 51 IV: 24 (KTU 1.6 i: 36; 4 iv: 24). Both snm and snt appear as plurals
in Old Canaanite. See also Mianbé, El, le Dieu suprême et le Dieu des Patriarches, Gen
14:18–20 ; Cross, CHME, 15–16; Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 32–33; J. Gray, The Legacy
of Canaan, 116–17; Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 17–18; de Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism, 69–70; and others.
36. E.g., UT Krt 37, 151, 297 (KTU 1.14 i: 36; 14 iii: 33; 14 v: 43; vi: 33). See pri-
marily Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 47–48; de Moor, “El the Creator,” 173; Oldenburg,
The Conflict between El and Baal, 19–20; and Cross, CMHE, 15–16.
37. As outlined, for example, in the amorous tale of El’s lovemaking and the birth of
the gods in UT 52: 1–76 (KTU 1.23); Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 73.
As the Father of the Gods, El is reckoned to have sired 70 sons with Asherah, who is called
the qnyt.ilm ‘Mistress of the Gods’; for example, UT 51: IV: 27–39; II: 30–53 (KTU 1.iv:
33; iii: 28–30; 33–36). The entire pantheon is called bn.ilm, possibly to be rendered ‘Sons
of El’.
38. The epithet bny.bnwt can be variously translated ‘Creator of Creatures’, ‘Creator
of the Created Things’, or even ‘Builder of the Built’; UT 49: III: 5, 11; 51: II: 11; III: 32
(KTU 1.6 iii: 5, 11; 4 ii: 11; iii: 32 ). El is thus the creator of the physical world. Note also
the discussions by de Moor, “El the Creator,” 171–87, especially p. 182; Pope, El in the
Ugaritic Texts, 49–55; and Miller, “El, Creator of the Earth.”
39. This title emphasizes El’s power and also confirms his procreative power within
the pantheon. Cf. UT 52; 49: IV: 34; VI: 26–27; 51: III: 31 (KTU 1.23; vi: 27–29; 4 iii:
30–32). See particularly the discussions in Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 35–42; and Cross,
CMHE, 21–24.
40. Ibid., 15–25; Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 25–54; L’Heureux, Rank among the
Canaanite Gods, 3–28; Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 12–20; Mianbé, El, le Dieu su-
prême et le Dieu des patriarches, Gen 14:18–20.
41. Even during Akhenaton’s reign, Egypt kept up its policy of erecting fortifications,
temples, and possibly even conducting campaigns in southern Syria. See Weinstein, “The
Egyptian Empire in Palestine”; M. Several, “Reconsidering the Egyptian Empire in Pales-
tine during the Amarna Period,” PEQ 104 (1972) 123–33; T. Dothan, “The Impact of
230 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Egypt’s highest god 42 were certainly among the important factors that con-
tributed to the strength of El as the deity par excellence in southern Syria. 43
The sources imply, however, that during this same period El did not enjoy as
exalted a stature in northern Syria. 44
Additional evidence suggests the strength of both Baal and El in Canaan,
even if the former did not dominate over the latter. As demonstrated above,
Baal’s new position as a leader in the pantheon resulted in his acquisition of
numerous titles. A number of his more frequent epithets, such as “Rider of
the Clouds” and “Prince, Lord of the Earth,” point to his unique primary
function within the ecological milieu of Canaan. Although the epithet “Bull”
was not given directly to Baal, through bovine metaphors he was implicitly
associated with the generative potency proper to the mighty El. 45
Rainfall was crucial to the Canaanite region for agriculture, cattle breed-
ing, and sustenance in general. Without the life-giving showers between Oc-
tober and April, the Canaanites could have had no assurance of continued
existence. The attributes of the powerful Warrior-god Baal provided the my-
thopoeic explanation for the rhythmic pattern of the fertilizing showers. In
spite of El’s prominence, in the Ugaritic texts he was not usually projected as
a great Warrior-god associated with the thunder, winds and rain, nor as a
god of the ploughed land nor, for that matter, as a Storm-god. Only the vig-
orous young god Baal was mythically equipped for sustaining the needs of
this region.
The religious milieu of southernmost Syria during the Late Bronze Age
and into Iron I provided the mythic underpinnings of the cult in Canaan.
This cult involved not one but two primary deities: the hoary Creator El,
possessor and bestower of supreme kingly authority; and the triumphant
Egypt on Canaan during the 18th and 19th Dynasties in the Light of the Excavations at
Deir el-Balah,” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Bib-
lical Period (ed. A. F. Rainey; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987) 121–35; W. L.
Murnane, The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety at
Karnak (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) 11ff.
42. Note, for example, the titles used by the Egyptian vassals in the Amarna Letters
cited in D. Pardee, “Epigraphic and Philological Notes,” UF 19 (1987) 205ff.; and the good
wishes proffered to the king of Egypt in the name of Amun, before the Akhenaton reform.
Moran, Les lettres d’el-Amarna, 590.
43. De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 63–68; O. Eissfeldt, “Baal Saphon von Ugarit und
Amon von Ägypten,” Forschungen und Fortschritte 36 (1962) 338–40.
44. See R. Rendtorff, “El, Baal und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanä-
ischer und israelitischer Religion,” ZAW 78 (1971) 277–92, especially p. 284; L’Heureux,
Rank among the Canaanite Gods, 68–70.
45. On these various epithets of Baal, see particularly, N. Wyatt, “The Titles of the
Ugaritic Storm-God,” 403–28; van Zijl, Baal, 329–51; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism,
71–72.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 231
46. The following are among some of the more significant treatments on the subject:
H. O. Thompson, “Yahweh (Deity),” ABD 6.1011–13; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, es-
pecially pp. 108–36; T. N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the
Everlasting Names (trans. F. H. Cryer; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); M. S. Smith, The Early
History of God; G. W. Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1986) 59–60; E. A. Knauf, “Yahwe,” VT 34 (1984) 467–72; Z. Zevit, “A Chapter in the
History of Israelite Personal Names,” BASOR 250 (1983) 1–16; Cooper and Pope, “Divine
Name and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 337–42; C. E. L’Heureux, “Searching for the
Origins of God,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Frank
Moore Cross Festschrift; ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 1981) 33–44; idem, Rank among the Canaanite Gods, 49–70; W. H. Brownlee,
“The Ineffable Name of God,” BASOR 226 (1977) 39–46; M. Görg, “Jahwe: Ein Topo-
nym?” BN 1 (1976) 7–14; Cross, CMHE, 44–75; R. de Vaux, “El et Baal, le Dieu des peres
et Yahweh,” Ugaritica IV, 501–17; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 168–72; J. P.
Hyatt, “Was Yahweh Originally a Creator Deity?” JBL 86 (1967) 369–67; W. von Soden,
“Yahwe, er ist, er erweist sich,” WO 3 (1944–66) 177–87; A. Finet, “Iawi-ila, roi de Talha-
yun,” Syria 41 (1964) 117–24; J. P. Hyatt, “The Origin of Mosaic Yahwism,” in The
Teacher’s Yoke (ed. E. J. Vardaman et al.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1964) 85–93;
J. Lindblom, “Noch einmal die Deutung des Jahwe-Namens in Ex. 3:14,” ASTI 3 (1964)
4–14; H. Kosmala, “The Name of God (YHWH and HUª),” ASTI 2 (1963) 103–20;
O. Eissfeldt, “Jahwe der Gott der Väter,” TLZ 88 (1963) cols. 481–90; idem, “ªähéyäh ªåsär
ªähéyäh und ªEl ºÔlam,” KS, 4.193–98; F. M. Cross Jr., “Yahweh and the God of the Patri-
archs,” HTR 55 (1962) 250–59; S. Mowinckel, “The Name of the God of Moses,” HUCA
32 (1961) 121–33; R. Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” JBL 80 (1961) 320–28; D. N.
Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses,” JBL 79 (1960) 151–56; R. Meyer, “Der
Gottesname Jahwe im Lichte der neuesten Forschung,” BZ n.s. 2 (1958) 26–53; M. Reisel,
The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957); M. H. Segal, “El, Elohim,
and Yahweh in the Bible,” JQR 46 (1955) 98–115; A. Murtonen, A Philological and Literary
Treatise on the Old Testament Divine Names ªl, ªlwh, ªlhym, and yhwh (StudOr 18; Hel-
sinki: Societas orientalis Fennica, 1952).
47. For a discussion on the form, see Cross, CMHE, 60–75; and Freedman (“The
Name of the God of Moses,” 156), who shows that even in the primordial stories of Genesis
232 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
verbal form takes an object—for example, yahweh ßébaªôt ‘he creates the
(divine ) hosts’, rather than ‘Yahweh of hosts’, as in a construct chain. Thus,
the name Yahweh is an acclamation describing God as Creator.
The epigraphic evidence attests the independent appearance of the form
Yahweh among place-names in south Palestine as early as the fourteenth cen-
tury b.c.e. 48 The topographic list of Amenhotep III refers to t· s·sw yhw· ‘the
Shosu-land of Yhwh’, implying that the name Yahweh was applied to an ag-
gressive seminomadic group somewhere around the north of Edom, 49 the
Yahweh group in this context being interpreted as a militant people among
the Shosu. However, the entry could also refer to the name of the region
where the deity was worshiped, 50 the ‘land of Yahweh’.
Since the Egyptian topographical list mentions sºrr associated with yhw·,
some have equated sºrr with biblical Seir in Edom. 51 However, even though
the name Yahweh ªélohîm goes back to an earlier sentence name of the god of Israel. In ad-
dition, see Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” 320–28; Brownlee, “The Ineffable Name of
God,” 39–46; Thompson, “Yahweh,” ABD 6.1011–12.
48. See R. Giveon, “Toponymes Ouest-Asiatiques à Soleb,” VT 14 (1964) 239–55,
particularly p. 244; R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978) 334; M. C. Astour, “Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists,” in Festschrift Elmar
Edel (ed. M. Görg; Bamberg: M. Görg, 1979) 17–34; E. Edel, “Neue Identifikationen
typographischer Namen in den konventionellen Namenszusammenstellungen des Neuen
Reiches,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 3 (1975) 57–73. See in addition, R. S. Hess,
“The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Sources,” UF 23 (1991) 181–86. The name
appears in a list of Amenhotep III (1406–1370 b.c.), subsequently copied by Rameses II
(1290–1224).
49. Note, e.g., M. Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” in Ancient Israelite Religion
(ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 303–
14, especially p. 304; E. A. Knauf, Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und
Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988) 37
n. 188, 141; M. Weippert, “Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends, über die Sh·sw
der ägyptischen Quellen,” Bib 55 (1974) 270ff.; L. E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir:
Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (Lund: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 1987) 60; R. Giveon, Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens (Leiden: Brill,
1972) 76, 235–36; S. Herrmann, “Der Name Jhw in den Inschriften von Soleb,” Fourth
World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967) 213–16;
Görg, “Jahwe: Ein Toponym?” 7–9.
50. See discussion in ibid., 7–14; idem, “Zur Geschichte der Sh·sw, “ Or 45 (1978)
424–28; Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” 304. For a much earlier parallel to a tribe
that was probably named after its god, see E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme
(Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1906) 297.
51. On the basis of the fifteenth-century lists from Soleb and Amarah, it has been pro-
posed that an original concentration of the Shosu was around southern Transjordan, Moab,
and northern Edom; hence, the locating of the “Land of the Shosu” in the mountainous
areas of biblical Seir, east of the Arabah. See D. B. Redford, Eg ypt, Canaan, and Israel in
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 233
sºrr was placed close to toponyms such as Laban (rbn) in these lists, 52 we have
been informed that yhw· need not necessarily be located in southern Palestine
or specifically around Edom but is probably farther to the north in Transjor-
dan. 53 On the basis of current data, there is no compelling reason for locating
this aggressive seminomadic yhw· group around Seir in Edom, 54 since there
is plausible evidence that the Yhw 55 Shosu were found all over Canaan. 56
Shosu groups periodically caused the Egyptians problems during the four-
teenth century. 57
In addition, the worship of Yahweh among the Kenites/Midianites has
been established from another Egyptian geographical list from the time of
Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) 272–73; S. A˙ituv, Canaanite
Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1984) 57–58; M. Görg, “Thut-
mose III und die Sh·sw-Region,” JNES 38 (1979) 199–202.
52. Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” 303–4.
53. No location has been specifically assigned toYhw· by Astour and others in their
treatment of the Egyptian topographic lists. They separate the Sºrr of the Amarah list,
which some have identified with the biblical Seir, from the normal Sºr. Astour, “Yahweh
in Egyptian Topographic Lists,” 17–34; Edel, “Neue Identifikationen typographischer
Namen in den konventionellen Namenszusammenstellungen des Neuen Reiches,” 57,
73; F. J. Yurco, “Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” JARCE 23 (1986) 209; Görg, “Bei-
träge zur Zeitgeschichte der Anfänge Israels,” 61–62; Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites?
59–60. However, Redford opposes this position, in, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient
Times, 272.
54. So for example, Giveon, Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens, 36, 235–36;
Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien, 266; M. Weippert, “Semitische Nomaden
des zweiten Jahrtausend: Über die Sh·sw der ägyptischen Quellen”; Görg, “Jahwe: Ein To-
ponym?” 12–13; Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir, 60; Knauf, Midian, 50–51; Wein-
feld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” 304–8.
55. See Görg, “Jahwe: Ein Toponym?” 7ff.; “Zur Geschichte der S·¶w,” Or 45 (1976)
424–28; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 110–12.
56. The Shosu, who are found in the Egyptian texts from the 18th Dynasty through
the Third Intermediate Period, most frequently appear in generalized toponym lists where
the context helps little in pinpointing their location. So Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel
in Ancient Times, 272–73. See also Giveon, Les bédouins Shosou, 236ff.; Edel, “Neue Iden-
tifikationen typographischer Namen,” 57, 73.
57. Giveon, Les bédouins Shosou, 26–28; M. Weippert, The Settlement of the Israelite
Tribes in Palestine (ET; London: SCM, 1971) 106; idem, “Semitische Nomaden des
zweiten Jahrtausends,” 270ff.; B. Mazar, “Yahweh Came Out of Sinai,” in Temples and High
Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of the He-
brew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, March, 1977 (ed. A. Biran; Jeru-
salem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981) 5–9; A˙ituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient
Egyptian Documents, 121ff.; R. B. Coote and K. W. Whitelam, The Emergence of Early Israel
in Historical Perspective (Sheffield: Almond, 1987) 106ff.; Astour, “Yahweh in Egyptian To-
pographic Lists,” 17–34; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 110–11.
234 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Rameses II, found at Medinet Habu. The name Yahu (List XXVII 115) ap-
pears close to the name rºwªr/l (XXVII) 58—Reuel. In the Hebrew Scriptures,
Reuel, a priest of Midian, is associated with Jethro (Num 10:29; Exod 2:18,
18:1). Both the J and E epic traditions place Moses’ first encounter with Yah-
weh during his residence with his Midianite/Kenite in-laws, raising the pos-
sibility that Yahweh was associated with the Midianites and Kenites long
before Moses. 59
This connects the Midianites/Kenites with the Yhw· group of the Shosu
and, since the Shosu were found all over the land of Canaan, nothing pre-
cludes the association of Yhw with Midian and the Kenites. According to
Egyptian inscriptions, therefore, there was an affinity between these pre-
Mosaic Yahweh elements living in the region of Midian. Both the Egyptian
evidence and certain archaic sections of the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that
these Yahweh groups were found around the south and in Transjordan.
In the Amarna Letters, the Pharaoh warns Abi-Milki of Tyre to be on the
alert against [m]Ia-we. 60 Whether this Iawe is the leader of a group or a ge-
neric name such as the Shosu-Yhw remains inconclusive. 61 However, in light
of the fact that Abi-Milki was known to have had problems with the Apiru,
it is reasonable to conclude that this warning refers either to an important in-
dividual or to a problematic group such as the Shosu-Yhw, many of whom
were living in Transjordan. 62 On the basis of the context, however, one can-
not simply equate the Iawe with the Shosu-Yhw. 63
The situation in Cisjordan, however, changed significantly with the
emergence of the Egyptian nineteenth dynasty, especially after the Battle of
58. See Görg, “Jahwe: Ein Toponymy?” 14; Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,”
308–10.
59. There are still strong arguments in support of the Kenite or Midianite hypothesis.
See more recently, for example, A˙ituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Docu-
ments, 121–22; Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” 304–5. See also S. Herrmann, “Der
Name Jhw in den Inschriften von Soleb,” Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish
Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967) 213–16.
60. EA no. 154: 7f. Note also Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, no. 196: 10, mIa-we-e;
de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 112; Moran, Les lettres d’el-Amarna, 389; idem, The Amarna
Letters, 240–41.
61. EA nos. 146, 148. It occurs elsewhere as ia-ou or even ia-a-pu. Even if the broken
sign had been a town, ia-pi, the fact that it could also be the remnant of a personal name
such as ba-ia-wa leaves the issue unsettled. See also Hess, “The Divine Name Yahweh,”
183–87.
62. Giveon, Les bédouins Shosou, 235–37. Note also the bibliography in N. Naªaman,
“Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz ºApiru Letters,” UF 20 (1988)
189 n. 45.
63. While not stated specifically, this equation of Iawe with the Shosu-Yhw is strongly
implied by de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 112–13.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 235
64. Among the numerous studies dealing with the Battle of Kadesh are J. H. Breasted,
The Battle of Kadesh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904); J. A. Wilson, “The Texts
of the Battle of Kadesh,” AJSL 43 (1927) 266ff.; M. Noth, “Ramesses II in Syrien,” ZDPV
64 (1941) 39–40; J. G. Botterweck, “Der sogenannte hattische Bericht über die Schlacht
bei Qadesch, ein verkannter Brief Rameses II,” Alttestamentliche Studien: Fredrich Nötscher
zum sechzigsten Geburtstage 19. Jul, 1950 (BBB 1; Bonn: Hanstein, 1950) 26ff.; E. Edel,
“Zur historischen Geographie der Gegend von Kadesh,” ZA 50 (1953) 253ff.; R. O. Faulk-
ner, “The Battle of Kadesh,” Mitt. deutsch. Inst. Kairo 16 (1958) 93ff.; V. Korosec, “Les Hit-
tites et leurs vassaux syriens à la lumière des nouveau textes de Ugarit,” RHA 18/66 (1960)
65ff.; P. Montet, “De Tjarou à Qadesh avec Ramesés II,” RHA 18/67 (1960) 109ff.
65. See above, n. 56, along with Astour, “Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists,”
17–34.
66. On the heels of his defeat or escape from the Hittite army, it took a full five years
for Rameses finally to put down the subsequent uprisings throughout the region. See
J. Bright, History of Israel (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 109–13; R. O.
Faulkner, “Egypt: From the Inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty to the Death of Ramesses
III,” CAH 2/2 (3d ed.) 227–29; Z. Gal, “The Late Bronze Age in Galilee: A Reassessment,”
BASOR 272 (1988) 79–84.
67. See, e.g., T. Dothan, “Aspects of Egyptian and Palestinian Presence in Canaan dur-
ing the Late Bronze Age,” in The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilization (ed. E. Lipinski;
Leuven: Peeters, 1985) 55–75; I. Singer, “Merneptah’s Campaign to Canaan and the Egyp-
tian Occupation of the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period,”
BASOR 269 (1988) 1–10.
68. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 247–51.
69. J. A. Wilson, “Hymn of Victory of Mer-ne-Ptah (The ‘Israel Stela’),” ANET,
376–78.
236 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
70. Yurco, “Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” 209; R. Giveon, “Two Egyptian Doc-
uments concerning Bashan from the Time of Rameses II,” RSO 40 (1965) 179–202; A. Er-
man, “Der Hiobstein,” ZDPV 15 (1892) 211; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 118.
71. Giveon, “Two Egyptian Documents concerning Bashan,” 197–202; M. Görg,
Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte der Anfange Israels (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989) 175–79;
de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 118–28.
72. In these “march in the south” passages, the writers clearly do not perceive Yahweh
as being localized in one specific place. Har, when the word appears in these contexts, can
be either a specific mountain or a mountainous territory. See, e.g., Clifford, The Cosmic
Mountain, 107–23.
73. On the semantics of ‘shining’, ‘appearing’, and ‘forthcoming’ in the Semitic lan-
guages, see S. Morag, “Psalm 37:35,” Tarbiz 41 (1971–72) i–iii, 4–7; Weinfeld, “The Tribal
League at Sinai,” 304–5.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 237
Exodus account; rather, they remind one more of the Bible’s tradition about
Midian (Exod 2:16–18, 3:1, 18:1–27; Num 10:29–32). Though it can be ar-
gued that the alliance between Israel and Midian may not be historical, it does
reflect an authentic tradition of the close relationship between the Kenites/
Midianites 74 and other pre-Mosaic Yahweh groups in a “wandering” period.
74. On this possibility, see F. C. Fensham, “Did a Treaty between the Israelites and the
Qenites Exist?” BASOR 175 (1964) 51–54; A. Cody, “Exodus 18,12: Jethro Accepts a Cov-
enant with the Israelites,” Bib 49 (1968) 153–66; E. W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in
History and Tradition (Oxford: Basil and Blackwell, 1973) 69ff.; Weinfeld, “The Tribal
League at Sinai,” 308–9.
75. R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975) 101–20;
D. N. Freedman, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry,” in Unity and
Diversity (ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1975) 3–35; idem, “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions,” in Sympo-
sia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Ori-
ental Research (1900–1975) (ed. F. M. Cross Jr.; Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of
Oriental Research, 1975) 85–96; idem, “The Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew
Poetry,” in Magnalia Dei—The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in
Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. F. M. Cross Jr. et al.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976)
55–107, esp. pp. 60–62; idem, “Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,” JBL 96 (1977) 5–26; idem,
“The Religion of Early Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore
Cross, Jr. (ed. P. D. Miller Jr; P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1987) 315–35.
238 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Egypt led by Moses. The tradition recorded in these more archaic poems
makes repeated references to this group’s coming from the south and moving
around Transjordan in preparation for entry and settlement in the land of
Canaan.
The rest of the song comes from a later time. In it the god Yahweh is por-
trayed at the head of his warriors, who have been reorganized into a tribal
league and have succeeded in winning a significant victory against the
Canaanites. 76 In the “Song of Deborah,” ºm yhwh ‘the people of Yahweh’
may be an allusion to this group of warriors who fought in the name of their
god. 77 If so, the warlike traits of the yhw·-Shosu survived into Iron Age I (ca.
1150 b.c.e.), as the people of Yahweh began to settle in the northern regions
of Canaan. 78 By drawing on the earlier incidents highlighted in the two ar-
chaic verses, the song compares this great victory to the prior experiences of
the warriors of Yahweh, when the “One of Sinai” had led his band of warriors
from Sinai during their “March in the South.” If the south was the original
home of Yahweh, then Yahweh was not yet the god of the tribes of Canaan
proper. This is an important element also mentioned in the other archaic
fragments.
76. P. D. Miller Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1975) 87–102.
77. Judg 5:11, 13. See Miller, ibid., 80, 85, 92, 159–60; D. N. Freedman, “ ‘Who Is
like Thee among the Gods?’: The Religion of Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in
Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 315–35; H. W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie
(Festschrift Gerhard von Rad; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971) 281–82; G. von Rad, Holy War
in Ancient Israel (trans. M. J. Dawn and J. H. Yoder; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1991) 17–18.
78. For the situation following the raids of Rameses II and Merenptah in the thir-
teenth century b.c.e., see Gal, “The Late Bronze Age in Galilee”; F. J. Yurco, “Merenptah’s
Canaanite Campaign and Israel’s Origins,” in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence (ed. E. S. Fre-
richs and L. H. Lesko; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 27–54.
79. See, for example, a treatment of the entire chapter in F. M. Cross Jr. and D. N.
Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975) 97–
122.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 239
The reference to the name and activity of the god Yahweh indicates that the
mixed group led by Moses, originally non-Yahwistic, had learned the divine
name earlier in the south as a result of contacts with the Yahweh groups
around such regions as Sinai, Paran, Seir, Midian, Edom, and so on. Signifi-
cantly, given these historical developments, current literature locates the ar-
chaic “Blessing of Moses” in Transjordan. 85
Yahweh’s triumphant march from the south is presented as the historical
experience of the victorious Yahweh leading his cosmic and earthly armies
from Sinai to Canaan. 86 The experience is represented in Deuteronomy 33
as the collaboration between the cosmic and the historical warriors of Yah-
weh in a fight against their enemies. The circumstances fit well into the pic-
ture of the early to mid–twelfth century. 87 By this time, the people led by
Moses had settled into Transjordan following confrontations and victories
80. As per D. N. Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation (Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 1997) 2.100–104.
81. Yahweh is often associated with mountains in the poetry of this period. See, for
example, Pss 18:8–16, 68:6–7; Hab 3:3–15.
82. On the basis of the earlier emendation from ªsdt lmw to ªsrw ªlm, proposed in
D. N. Freedman and F. M. Cross Jr., “The Blessings of Moses,” JBL 67 (1948) 191–210;
Cross, CMHE, 100–101. Freedman has since translated on the basis of ªåsédôt lamô. See Di-
vine Commitment, 2.93–95, 100–103.
83. ªp ˙bb. Quite likely a variant of Hebyon, rather than a human being, as proposed
by Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” 307–8. See, in addition, de Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism, 162–63.
84. For such a rendering of this problematic passage, note Cross and Freedman, Stud-
ies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 108–9 n. 16.
85. See Freedman, “Who Is like Thee among the Gods?” 331–34; idem, “The Reli-
gion of Early Israel,” 322–27; idem, “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstruc-
tions”; Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 97–122; D. N. Freedman,
“Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry,” in Pottery, Poetry, and Proph-
ecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 131–78.
86. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 75–87.
87. Note especially Mendenhall’s discussion of the situation in and around Transjor-
dan, in The Tenth Generation, 19–31.
240 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
such as the victories over the Amorite kings Sihon and Og described in Num-
bers 21. The poem in Deuteronomy, therefore, should be considered con-
temporaneous with the Oracles of Balaam in Numbers 23–24. 88 There is as
yet no indication of any meaningful amalgamation between these Yahweh
groups in Transjordan and the Canaanites of Cisjordan.
Psalm 68
The lengthy, archaic, and extremely difficult Ps 68 contains passages in
the same vein as Judg 5:4–5 and Deut 33:2–3. 89 A series of poetic segments
about war interspersed throughout the text include references to military en-
gagements and victories involving presettlement Yahweh warriors led by the
Warrior-god himself.
(2) When Elohim 90 arises, his enemies are scattered,
And his haters flee before him.
................
(4) Sing unto Elohim; play music to his name.
Raise up a highway for the Rider through the Desert. 91
n. 6; Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 31–32. Compare Isa 40:3, baºårabâ
mésillâ ‘a highway through the desert’, with the root sll ‘to construct a highway’, evoking
sollû larokeb baºårabôt. Also in the previously discussed Judg 5:4–5, Yahweh leads his group
of warriors through the desert. See A. Ohler, Mythologische Elemente im Alten Testament
(Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1969) 63. The imagery finds a direct analogy in the mythical por-
trayal of the Storm-god Baal driving the clouds as a war-chariot into battle and is further
reinforced by the fact that, in v. 18, the members of Yahweh’s council are also pictured as
riding on chariots; see also Deut 33:26, Hab 3:8, Ps 104:3. Note, in addition, Ullendorf,
“Ugaritic Studies within Their Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting,” 243–44;
Weinfeld, “ ‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’ ” 421–26; G. M. A. Hanf-
mann, “A Near Eastern Horseman,” Syria 38 (1961) 252 n. 7; S. Mowinckel, “Drive and/
or Ride in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962) 278–99; and others.
92. Bkwsrwt has been variously explained. Based on the parallelism with byth and
s˙y˙h, it is presumed that, after their long isolation, the prisoners are led back to the merry
circle of the Canaanite goddesses of conception and childbirth, the Kosharoth (Ugaritic
ktrt); so, e.g., de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 119. On the other hand, “female singers,”
might be employed here with the nuance “music”; hence, “led forth the prisoners to mu-
sic”; e.g., Dahood, Psalms II, 130, 137–38 n. 7.
93. The similarity between vv. 8–9 and Judg 5:4–5 is evident. The difference is that in
the former Yahweh leads his warriors from his home in the regions of the south Sinai, Seir,
Edom, and so on, while here Elohim leads them through the wilderness.
94. The meaning of these two lines is difficult; it could be a reference to the winged
sun-disk. Note Dahood, Psalms II, 141–42. It has also been suggested that this may be a
metaphor for Mt. Zalmon, with its gray-black appearance that evokes the color of a dove.
Note the discussion of the terrain in D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible (New York: Harper
& Row, 1974) 213–19; see also de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 120–21.
242 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
95. G. del Olmo Lete (“Bashan o el ‘Infierno’ Cananeo,” SEL 5 [1988] 54–56) sees
gbnnym as a designation of the Netherworld deities who were thought to dwell in the area.
96. Following Albright’s emendation to snnw on the basis of Ugaritic tnn, generally
understood as a class of troops (“Notes on Psalms 68 and 134,” 2–4). See also Dahood,
Psalms II, 142ff.; J. Vlaardingerbroek, Psalm 68 (Amsterdam: J. Vlaardingerbroek, 1973)
80–83; J. C. de Moor, New Year with the Canaanites and Israelites (Kampen: Kok, 1972)
2.19 n. 70.
97. Albright (“A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems [Psalm LXVIII],” 14, 27–28,
38); Cassuto (“Psalm LXVIII,” BOS, 1.269 n. 71) first suggested that Bashan here is a ref-
erence to the sea serpent (Ugaritic btm, Hebrew peten), since it is parallel with the “Deep
Sea.” This was also the understanding of Cross and Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses,”
195, 208. Now scholars find the serpent, dragon, or snake in many comparable contexts.
Note, e.g., J. Gray, “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: Ps. LXVIII,” 9–10, 24; L. H. Brock-
ington, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973) 173;
Miller, “Two Critical Notes on Psalm 68 and Deuteronomy 33,” 240 n. 3; Dahood, Psalms
II, 131, 145–47; Fensham, “Ps. 68:23 in the Light of the Recently Discovered Ugaritic
Tablets,” 292–93. However, Bashan as a mountain is mentioned twice earlier in the poem
but never otherwise in correlation with a serpent or dragon. Rather, in v. 23 it appears in
antithetical parallelism to the “Deep Sea.” In other words, Bashan is presumably Mount
Hermon, the tallest mountain in the region; see Vlaardingerbroek, Psalm 68, 75; Day,
God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 113–17; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 118–24.
98. Recent studies on the Deir ºAlla texts have shown that Shaddai is an epithet not of
El, but rather of the Amorite god Amurru. See J. Hackett, The Balaam Texts from Deir ºAlla
(Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984) 85–89; idem, “Some Observations on the Balaam Tra-
ditions at Deir ºAlla,” BA 49 (1986) 216–22; idem, “Religious Traditions in Israelite Trans-
jordan,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (ed. P. D.
Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 125–36;
O. Loretz, “Der kanaanäische Ursprung des biblischen Gottesnamen El Shaddaj,” UF 11
(1979) 420–21; E. A. Knauf, “El Shaddai: Der Gott Abrahams,” BZ 29 (1985) 97–103.
99. There are two questions here: are we dealing with a construct or a sentence, and
what do the Armies comprise? On the differing interpretations, see R. Schmitt, Zelt und
Lade als Thema Alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972) 145–59. “Saba-
oth” may be taken as a reference to the earthly armies of Israel, as, for example, in J. Maier,
Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum (BZAW 93; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1965) 50–51; or
it is viewed as a reference to a host of cosmic powers, as in B. N. Wambacq, L’epithete di-
vine Jahve Í ebaªot (Brussels: Desclée, 1947) 276. It has also been proposed that the desig-
nation should be understood as “Yahweh militant,” referring to his leadership of both
terrestrial and celestial armies; so W. R. Arnold, Ephod and the Ark (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1917) 142–43. O. Eissfeldt, viewed “sabaoth” as an abstract plural,
pointing to its compatibility with the statement that Yahweh “sits enthroned on the cher-
ubim” (“Jahwe Sabaoth,” KS, 3.102–23). Yahweh Sabaoth is also taken as an example of
verb + object, “He who creates the heavenly armies,” by Cross, CMHE, 65–75; Miller, The
Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 256ff.; Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH: The Heavenly
King on the Cherubim Throne.” Another view disregards the philological question but em-
phasizes the history-of-religions approach, concluding that the contexts in which Sabaoth
244 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
In view of Yahweh’s identification with El, Cross has concluded that the great
El might earlier have borne the epithet ªel, du yahwi ßabaªot ‘El, who creates
the (Heavenly) armies’. 100 In the context of this psalm, Yahweh/El is called
the God of Israel (v. 8) and his warriors are referred to as ßbªwt (vv. 11, 17).
The Sabaoth armies (heavenly armies) here would include, in addition, the
groups identified as the “Yahweh warriors.” 101 Hence, in addition to the ter-
restrial scope of Yahweh’s activities emphasized in Judg 5:4–5 and Deut
33:2–3, Psalm 68 mentions the cosmic identity of the opponents of the Yah-
weh and his warriors, conveying the sense that, for the psalmist, both terres-
trial and cosmic armies are included in Yahweh’s retinue. These references
may therefore convey an identification of the ancient designation of the God
of Israel as Yhwh ßbªwt. 102 The warrior El/Shaddai/Yahweh is the god who is
responsible for the successes of the groups in their march from the south
through Transjordan.
Habakkuk 3:3–6
The final, late-thirteenth–early-twelfth-century poetic segment dealing
with the tradition of Yahweh at the head of his warriors marching from the
south is the ancient fragment in the hymn of Habakkuk 3. 103 The theophany
appears are predominantly royal; J. F. Ross, “Jahweh Íebaªot in Samuel and Kings,” VT 17
(1967) 76–92; and V. Maag, who concludes that the name originated in a meeting between
the Yahweh faith of the Hebrew tribes and Canaanite polytheism (“Jahwäs Heerscharen,”
STU 20 [1950] 27–52).
100. Cross, CMHE, 68–72.
101. G. H. Jones, “ ‘Holy War’ or ‘Yahweh War,’ ” VT 25 (1975) 642–58; Cross,
CMHE, 91–111.
102. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH: The Heavenly King on the Cherubim
Throne,” 109–38, especially pp. 130–38; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 126–27.
103. Some of the obscure aspects of Habakkuk 3 were solved with the publication and
interpretation of the Ugaritic texts dealing with the struggle between Baal and Yam. Al-
bright raised the probability that the fragment in vv. 3–7 was taken from an earlier archaic
Israelite poem on the theophany of Yahweh as exhibited in the southeast storm, the
zaubaºah of the Arabs, with very little alteration. However, Albright subjected the text to
extensive emendation, some of which is now open to question. See W. F. Albright, “The
Psalm of Habakkuk,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1950) 1–18. For subsequent studies see, e.g., J. H. Heaton, “The Origin and
Meaning of Habakkuk 3,” ZAW 76 (1964) 144–71; P. Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk: Darstel-
lung der Geschichte seiner kritischen Erforschung mit einer eigenen Beurteilung (Bonn: Han-
stein, 1977); T. Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn of Habakkuk 3 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986 ); W. van der Meer and J. C. de Moor, The Structural Analysis of Bib-
lical Poetry (Sheffield: Almond, 1988). The latter work contains an excellent bibliography
on the subject.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 245
The theophanic emphasis of the hymn is even more pronounced than that of
Psalm 68. It portrays the Warrior-god Yahweh marching in the heavens at the
head of his host, engaging the enemy. His attendants, Hebyon, Deber, and
Resheph, accompany him. The appearance of Resheph, the Canaanite god of
plague, in Yahweh’s entourage lends support to a Canaanite textual back-
ground for at least v. 5. 106 The militant Yahweh marching at the head of his
104. This language of the theophany is the same language used in Psalm 68, and it has
been shown that it also agrees with the Hebrew inscription from Kuntillet ºAjrud bzrh . . .
ªl wymsn hrm ‘when El shines forth . . . , the mountains melt’; see M. Weinfeld, “Kuntillet
ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance,” SEL 1 (1987) 121-130. It can be concluded
that the reference here is to Yahweh/El, since yhwh tmn ‘Yahweh of Teman’ is also attested
at this same site. Note also J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implica-
tions of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ºAjrud,” ZAW 94 (1982) 10; J. M. Hadley, “Some
Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ºAjrud,” VT 37 (1987) 188–89.
105. A badly corrupted verse that was subjected to extensive emendations by Albright.
However, rather than emend the text, Gordon’s solution seems appropriate in this context.
He has identified hby as a demon who acted as the housekeeper of El at Ugarit. See C. H.
Gordon, Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies 33 (1985) 15; idem, “HBY: Possessor of Horns and
Tails,” UF 18 (1986) 129–32; idem, “Notes on Proper Names in the Ebla Tablets,” in
Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving: Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, July
15–17, 1985 (ed. A. Archi; Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988) 156. See
also P. Xella, “Un antecedente eblaita del ‘demonio’ ugarítica HBY,” SEL 3 (1986) 17–25.
106. See UT 1001: 1–3, where Resheph is identified as one of the warrior acolytes of
the Storm-god Baal; W. J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Reshep (New Haven, Conn.: American
Oriental Society, 1976 ); D. Conrad, “Der Gott Reschef,” ZAW 83 (1972) 172–73; J. Day,
“New Light on the Mythological Background of the Allusion to Resheph in Habakkuk iii
5,” VT 29 (1979) 353–55; Y. Yadin, “New Gleanings on Resheph from Ugarit,” in Biblical
and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Irwy (ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser; Winona
246 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
entourage resembles the departures of other prominent deities around the an-
cient Near East. 107
The impact is that both heaven and earth react violently. While the em-
phasis is on Yahweh’s activity on the cosmic plane, the references to Teman
and Paran and the nations reacting in fear make it clear that this song recalls
an important historical event: the march of the Yahweh-led warriors through
the mountains around the south from Sinai to Transjordan.
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 259–74; Cooper and Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic Texts,” 413–15; P. Xella, “Le dieu Rashap à Ugarit,” AAAS 29–30 (1979–80)
145–62. For Resheph, the Canaanite god of plague, see R. Stadelmann, Syrisch-palästi-
nische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Leiden: Brill, 1967) 47–49. Note also J. C. de Moor and
K. Spronk, “More on Demons in Ugarit,” UF 16 (1984) 239ff.; E. Lipinski, “Resheph
Amyklos,” StudPhoen 5 (1987) 87–89; de Moor, “O Death, Where Is Thy Sting?” 105ff.
107. We find the identical concept in Mesopotamia, where Marduk marches at the
head of his warriors, flanked by his close attendants; for example, J. Hehn, Hymnen und
Gebete an Marduk (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905) 314, lines 4–5. The many mythological ele-
ments in this chapter have been culled in Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk, 290–13.
108. Among pertinent literature, see de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 11–34; G. W.
Ahlström, “Where Did the Israelites Live?” JNES 41 (1982) 134.
109. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 83–85.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 247
110. Idem, “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry,” 63–66; idem, “Early
Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry,” 3–35; idem, “Early Israelite Poetry
and Historical Reconstructions,” 85–96.
111. Idem, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 322–27.
112. Idem, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, 1.492–93.
113. See H. Seebass, “Die Stämmessprüche Gen. 49:3–27,” ZAW 96 (1984) 333–50;
Freedman, “Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy”; idem, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 322–27;
idem, “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions,” 85–91; Cross and Freedman,
Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 69–93; Cross, CMHE, 45–59.
114. Yurco, “Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” 209ff.; Gal, “The Late Bronze Age
in Galilee: A Reassessment,” 79–84.
115. The only appearance of the name Yahweh in the entire poem is in a liturgical
comment placed in the mouth of Jacob (Gen 49:18). Here, however, it is not a part of the
blessing of Dan; rather, it comes between the blessing of Dan and the blessing of Gad.
116. See also significant discussions in Freedman, “Divine Names and Titles in Early
Hebrew Poetry,” 63–70; idem, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 322–27; Cross and Freed-
man, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 69–93.
117. A number of emendations have been proposed for these verses. For various dis-
cussions, see B. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49,” CBQ 17 (1955) 12ff.;
248 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Freedman and Cross, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 75–76, 91–92 nn. 78–83; Freed-
man, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 322–25; M. P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 177–78; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God,
16–19; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 235–36; Cross, CMHE, 51–59.
118. The first translation as a parallel to v. 25b makes little sense and does not fit the
context; hence, the position that the words be redivided and the verb repointed in this man-
ner. This seems logical in view of the fact that it is El, the Father, who is intended in v. 25.
So, for example, Freedman, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 324–25; O’Connor, Hebrew
Verse Structure, 177; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 17 nn. 80–81.
119. Derived from the root tdw/y. See W. F. Albright, “The Names Shaddai and
Abram,” JBL (1935) 180–87; Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” 244–50;
Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir ºAlla, 275–76; M. Weippert, “Die
‘Bileam’: Inschrift von Tell Der ºAlla,” ZDPV 98 (1982) 88–92.
120. Note L. R. Bailey, “Israelite ªEl shadday and Amorite Bel Shade,” JBL 87 (1968)
434–38; J. Ouellette, “More on ªEl Shadday and Bel Shade,” JBL 88 (1969) 470ff. On the
god Amurru, see especially Kupper, L’iconographie du dieu Amurru, 66–88.
121. Hackett, The Balaam Texts from Deir ºAlla, 85ff.; idem, “Religious Traditions in
Israelite Transjordan,” 133–34; Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir ºAlla,
275–76.
122. Hackett, “Some Observations on the Balaam Traditions at Deir ºAlla,” 216–22;
Loretz, “Der kanaanäische Ursprung des biblischen Gottesnamen El Shaddaj,” 420–21;
Knauf, “El Shaddai: Der Gott Abrahams?”; Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from
Deir ºAlla, 275ff.; W. E. Aufrecht, “A Bibliography of the Deir ºAlla Plaster Texts,” News-
letter for Targumic and Cognate Studies, Supplement 2 (1985) 1–7; M. S. Smith, The Early
History of God, 23–24.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 249
123. Compare the Akkadian saddaªu in von Soden, AHw, 1123; Sabaean sdw ‘moun-
tain – slope’ in J. C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic – Sabaean Dialect (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1982) 511. Note also Cross, CMHE, 52ff.; Mettinger, In Search of
God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names, 69ff. For some scholars, Hebrew
¶adeh occasionally means ‘highland’, just as Akkadian sadu sometimes means ‘lowlands’; so
W. H. Propp, “On Hebrew sade(h), ‘Highland’,” VT 37 (1987) 230–36. The name Shaddai
also appears in a PN on an Egyptian figurine from the thirteenth century b.c.e. and, in the
Balaam text from Deir ºAlla, sdyn is a synonym for ªlhn ‘gods’. So Hoftijzer and van der
Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir ºAlla, 275ff.; Weippert, “Die ‘Bileam’: Inschrift von Tell
Deir ºAlla,” 88, 92; Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ºAlla, 85ff. It would seem that the
most natural translation for the epithet is ‘Mountain-dweller’. For other opinions see, e.g.,
Knauf, “El Shaddai: Der Gott Abrahams?”
124. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49,” especially pp. 16–17;
Freedman, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 324–29; idem, “Divine Names and Titles in
Early Hebrew Poetry,” 55–107, especially pp. 63–66; Albright, FSAC, 247.
125. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49,” 16–17; M. S. Smith, The
Early History of God, 17–18; M. H. Pope, “Mid Rock and Scrub: A Ugaritic Parallel to Ex-
odus 7:19,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of W. S. LaSor (ed. G. Tut-
tle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 146–50; and Pope’s discussion on Ugaritic r˙m. He
has shown the association between r˙m and the goddess Anat in KTU 1.23: 16 and 1.6 ii:
27; 15 ii: 6; and in 1.23: 13 and 28, the goddess Anat is paired with Asherah.
126. Athirat as wife of El carries the epithet qnyt.ilm the ‘Creatress of the gods’, as in
UT 49: I etc.; Freedman, “The Religion of Early Israel,” 324; Oldenburg, The Conflict be-
tween El and Baal, 28–31, 83–95; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 121–25. For
250 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
a comprehensive study on the impact of Athirat as the Hebrew Asherah, see S. Olyan, Ashe-
rah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); Pope, “ºAtirat, ºAttar,
and ºAttart,” 246–52; A. L. Perlman, Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic
Literature (Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California and Graduate Theological Semi-
nary, 1978); J. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Scriptures and Northwest Semitic Literature,”
JBL 105 (1986) 385–408.
127. There is still much controversy as to whether this is actually a reference to the
goddess or instead a cultic symbol. Note Z. Meshel, “Kuntillet ºAjrud: An Israelite Site
from the Monarchical Period on the Sinai Border,” Qadmoniot 9 (1976) 118–24; idem,
“Kuntillet ºAjrud: An Israelite Religious Center in Northern Sinai,” Expedition 20 (1978)
50–54; idem, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” BARev 5/2 (1979) 24–34; J. Naveh, “Graffiti
and Dedications,” BASOR 235 (1979) 27–30; D. Chase, “A Note on an Inscription from
Kuntillet ºAjrud,” BASOR 246 (1982) 63–67; J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Reli-
gion: The Implications of the Inscriptions of Kuntillet ºAjrud,” ZAW 94 (1982) 2–20;
P. Beck, “The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ºAjrud),” Tel Aviv 9 (1983) 3–86;
Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance,” 121–30; A. Lemaire,
“Date et origine des inscriptions paleo-hebraïques et phéniciennes de Kuntillet ºAjrud,”
SEL (1984) 131–43; W. G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?: New Evidence from
Kuntillet ºAjrud,” BASOR 255 (1984) 21–37; Hadley, “Some Drawings and Inscriptions
on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ºAjrud.” Hadley supplies an excellent bibliography on this
subject.
128. A. Alt, Der Gott der Väter (BWANT 3/12; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929), sub-
sequently reprinted in KS, 3.1–78, and in English translation, Essays on Old Testament His-
tory and Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968) 3–100. All page references here are
to the English edition.
129. J. Lewy, “Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’Ancien Testament.”
130. For important later corrections to Alt’s theory, see e.g., H. G. May, “The Patriar-
chal Idea of God,” JBL 60 (1941) 113–28; J. P. Hyatt, “Yahweh as ‘God of My Father,’ ”
VT 5 (1955) 130–36; V. Maag, “Der Hirte Israels,” Schweiz. Theol. Umschau 27 (1958) 2–
28; K. T. Anderson, “Der Gott meines Vaters,” StudOr 16 (1963) 170–88; H. Hirsch,
“Gott der Väter,” AfO 21 (1966) 56–58.
131. Albright long ago argued that, aside from being the name of a specific deity, the
generic Semitic word for ‘god’ was originally ilum, which subsequently became ªel, an ad-
jectival formation from the stem ªwl meaning ‘the strong, powerful one’ (Albright, Archae-
ology and the Religion of Israel, 72). See in addition, e.g., O. Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen
Pantheon (Berlin: Akademie, 1951); Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts; pp. 16–19; Cross,
CMHE, 13–20; del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 47–52.
132. See also Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 32–86.
133. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 6–15; Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon, 29–
53; Cross, CMHE, 11–43; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 5–12.
134. Gen 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14.
135. For example, on the name Olam, see Dahood, Psalms I, xxxviii; Cross, “Yahweh
and the God of the Patriarchs,” 232–50; de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, especially pp.
274–82.
136. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 48–52.
137. Note Miller, “El, The Creator of the Earth,” 43–46; and compare the epithet
banat same u erßiti ‘Creator of heaven and Earth’, associated with Anu, Enlil, Marduk, and
Shamash in Akkadian. See also Levi della Vida, “El ªElyon in Genesis 14:18–20”; Cross,
CMHE, 16–17. In addition, note Otten, “Ein kanaanäischer Mythus aus Bogazköy.”
138. Compare the title qnyt.ilm ‘Creatress of the gods’, applied to Asherah, the con-
sort of El. See discussion in Cross, CMHE, 15–16.
252 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
ªabu sanima ‘King, Father of years’; 139 and ªabu bani ªili ‘Father of the
gods’. 140 ªEl ºÔlam ‘the God of Eternity’ or ‘the Ancient One’ has long been
recognized as one of the primordial cultic epithets for El. 141 It also appears
inscriptionally as melek ºolam ‘eternal King’ and ªl d ºlm, ºil du ºolami ‘El, the
One of Eternity’. 142
The name Bêt-ªel simply means ‘house (temple) of El’. 143 However, there
is reasonable evidence that the secondary hypostatization of Bethel resulted
in the emergence of a deity by that name. 144 That the patriarchs worshiped
El at the ancient tribal league sanctuary of Bethel is implicit in the later story
of the bull iconography instituted by Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12–13. 145 Bêtªel,
139. The stress is on the deity’s eternal existence. So Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 32–
33; J. C. Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” in The Literary Guide
to the Bible (ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989) 555;
E. Ullendorf, “Ugaritic Marginalia IV,” ErIsr 14 (1978) 23. Some writers infer, however,
that ab.snm refers to El’s paternity of a god named snm, in view of UT 107: 4 (KTU 1.65:
4), where tknm.w.snm is a son of El. See, e.g., A. Jirku, “Shnm (Schunama) der Sohn des
Gottes ªIl,” ZAW 82 (1970) 278–79; C. H. Gordon, “El, the Father of Shnm,” JNES 35
(1976) 261–62; J. Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1979) 235 and n. 201.
140. UT 2: 17, 34; 107: 3 (KTU 1.2: 17, 34) refers to mpht.bn.il ‘the totality of the
sons of El’ in UT 107: 2 (KTU 1.65: 2) they are all called dr.bn.il ‘the family of the sons of
El’. As pointed out above, since El sired the pantheon, he was called tr.il ‘the Bull El’; cf.
UT 49: IV: 34; VI: 26–27; 51: III: 2 (KTU 1.6 iv: 10; vi: 26–27; 1.4 iii: 31)..
141. W. F. Albright, The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment (Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1966); R. F. Butin, “The Serabit Expedition of 1930,”
HTR 25 (1932) 184–85; Freedman and Cross, “The Blessings of Moses,” 103 n. 85; Cross,
CMHE, 17–20; E. Jenni, “Das Wort ºolam im Alten Testament,” ZAW 64 (1952–53) 197–
248; 65 (1954) 1–35; Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 14ff.; W. L. Moran, “The Hebrew Lan-
guage in Its Northwest Semitic Background,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed.
G. E. Wright; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961) 61; R. M. Good, “Geminated So-
nants, Word Stress, and Energic in -nn/-.nn in Ugaritic,” UF 13 (1981) 118–19.
142. Cross, CMHE, 16–18, 49–50.
143. O. Eissfeldt, “Der Gott Bethel,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 28 (1930) 1–28;
J. T. Milik, “Les papyrus araméens d’Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens,” Bib 48
(1967) 556–64; J. P. Hyatt, “The Deity Bethel in the Old Testament,” JAOS 59 (1939)
81–89.
144. Ibid.; H. Gese et al., Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970) 112–13, 224–25; M. L. Barré, The God-List in the Treaty
between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1983) 48–49.
145. It is erroneous to view these developments under Jeroboam as merely an attempt
to claim the exodus tradition for his rival cult, as argued by some. So, e.g., de Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism, 212 -13; J. Hahn, Das “Goldene Kalb”: Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stier-
bildern in der Geschichte Israels (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1981) 302ff., 338ff. The
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 253
the patriarchal sanctuary of El, became one of two royal chapels of the
Northern Kingdom.
El is also the deity referred to as ªEl Berit in a Hurrian hymn at Ugarit. 146
All lines of evidence indicate that El/El Berit was the deity of Shechem prior
to the emergence of the tribal league and during the league’s existence until
its destruction in the time of Merenptah. In addition, this Shechemite deity
may have been identified subsequently with Baal. 147 A plausible argument
has been made that his original epithet was ªEl baºl bérît ‘El, lord of the Cov-
enant’. 148 Since, as will be shown below, later accounts in the conquest nar-
rative appear to indicate that the Shechemites were on friendly terms with
the incoming Israelites, 149 it is reasonable to conclude that in a subsequent,
reconstituted league, the element bérît was an epithet of El.
We have demonstrated from segments of Judges 5, Deuteronomy 33,
Psalm 68, Habakkuk 3, Genesis 49, and other prose sections in Genesis that
deal with the Patriarchal Period that the attributes of the god El became the
characteristics of Yahweh for the earliest Yahweh-warrior groups around
Canaan. El, the ancient god of the patriarchal tribal league, became Yahweh/
El of the warrior groups toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. These
groups depended on their god for leadership and victory in “holy warfare.”
roots of this important archaizing process must antedate the exodus. The source of Jero-
boam’s initiative was the patriarchal tribal league and the sanctuary of El. See also Cross,
CHME, 198–200.
146. See Laroche, Ugaritica V, 510–16 (RS 24.278); E. Lipinski, “Recherches Ugari-
tiques,” Syria 50 (1973) 35–51; G. E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 123–38.
147. K. A. Kitchen, “Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant,” UF 11 (1979) 453–64.
On the relationship between El-Berit and Baal-Berit, and Yahweh, note e.g., Wright,
Shechem, 123–38; and more recently, T. J. Lewis, “Baal-Berit (Deity),” ABD 1.350–51.
148. So Cross, CMHE, 49 n. 23.
149. Joshua 21 and 24. There are plausible theories that the tribal league emerged at
Shechem. Both archaeological and written evidence attests to the antiquity and complexity
of the cult of Shechem. See L. Toombs and G. E. Wright, “The Fourth Campaign at Bala-
tah (Shechem),” BASOR 169 (1963) 28ff.; L. E. Toombs, “Shechem: Problems of the Early
Israelite Era,” in Symposia (ed. F. M. Cross Jr.; Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Ori-
ental Research, 1979) 69–84; idem, “Shechem (Place),” ABD 5.1174–86; A. Lemaire, “As-
riel, srªl: Israel et l’origine de la confederation Israelite,” VT 23 (1973) 239–43; idem, “Les
Bene Jacob: Essai d’interprétation historique d’une tradition patriarchale,” RB (1978) 321–
37; G. W. Ahlström, “Another Moses Tradition,” JNES 39 (1980) 65–69; B. Mazar, “The
Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country,” BASOR 241 (1981) 75–85.
254 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
“God of the Fathers.” Yet in the Late Bronze Age passages that reflect the ac-
tivities of the pre-Merenptah tribal league from Transjordan and Cisjordan,
it is the warrior aspect of the storm motif that is most prominently associated
with El. In the previously treated poetic segments from the thirteenth/
twelfth century b.c.e., during the formative stage of the development of Yah-
wism, there is an occasional association of the deity with the storm idea.
However, Yahweh/El had not yet fully begun to assume the permanent
theophanic attributes characteristically associated with Storm-gods around
the ancient Near East.
The deity who emerges from the patriarchal era in later early Yahwistic
passages is referred to as Yahweh. He was initially worshiped by compara-
tively diverse groups around the south and in Transjordan in the fourteenth/
thirteenth century b.c.e. and by this time had merged completely with the
god El. In the historical process, he appropriated numerous epithets of El, in-
cluding “King of the gods,” the “Creator of Heaven and Earth,” the “Ancient
One,” the “Father of god and man,” the “God of the Covenant,” and the
“Compassionate and the Merciful.” In addition, a variety of functions ini-
tially associated with El now became identified with Yahweh. In light of the
early poetic passages previously considered, we must ask whether the catego-
ries Patriarch and Warrior are mutually exclusive. That is, when the old po-
etic passages describe God as a warrior or Storm-god, did this preclude the
“God of the Fathers”—that is, El?
As pointed out above, on the basis of the Ugaritic texts, one tends to view
El merely as a pacific king of the gods, whose power and authority were on
the wane, challenged by the aggressive Baal or his warlike consort Anat. As a
consequence, it is proposed that the bellicose and stormy attributes ascribed
to Yahweh/El in thirteenth/twelfth-century b.c.e. biblical passages are actu-
ally characteristics of the Storm-god Baal, not El. The patriarchal segments
have demonstrated, however, that Yahweh’s earliest identity and synthesis
was with El and not Baal. Even though certain sections of Ugaritic literature
did apparently portray El as a pacific rather than an aggressive deity, perhaps
El was not as peaceful a deity as is generally assumed. For example, there are
passages that reveal his aggressive side. El is called ilmhr ‘El is a warrior’, 150
mril ‘God [El] is strong’, 151 and there are other indicative Semitic names. 152
150. For example, UT 321: I:9 (KTU 4.63: 1–9), and A. G. Vaughn, “il fzr: An Ex-
plicit Epithet of El as a Hero/Warrior,” UF 25 (1993) 423–30.
151. UT, glossary, no. 1545. In addition, see Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon, 46;
Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 120–21; Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 17–21;
P. D. Miller Jr., “El the Warrior,” HTR 60 (1967) 411–31.
152. Murtonen, A Philological and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament Divine Names
ªl, ªlwh, ªlhym, and yhwh in the Old Testament, 95–103. On his list, see el, eloh, elohim, and
Yahweh.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 255
The Keret Epic alludes to El’s strength and power when he organizes and
commands Keret’s military expedition. 153 In another text, Mot is fearful that
El will forcefully remove him from his kingdom. 154
In the references used to support the theory that Baal usurped El’s powers
as king of the cosmos, one could argue that the functional activities of El and
Baal are complementary rather than in opposition. This is, for example, the
sense of the passage ªil.ytb.bºttrt.ªil.bhd rºy ‘El sits next to Astarte, El next to
Hadad the shepherd’. 155
It is El, not Baal, who presides over the appointment of the gods to their
respective positions. At Baal’s death, it is El who appoints Athtar to assume
Baal’s throne, and Shapash threatens Mot that El will depose him. 156 Two
other passages may refer to Baal’s installation and appointment as king by El
himself. 157 In sum, all of these references from the Ugaritic texts portray El
as an assertive deity of power.
Sanchuniathon (Philo of Byblos) portrays an even more aggressive profile
of El. 158 Though caution is warranted due to the tendentious nature of this
source, Philo’s account bolsters modern inferences regarding El’s power and
strengths and warrior attributes in the Ugaritic texts. Here, El (Kronos) is de-
scribed as a Warrior-god who goes to battle along with other gods as his al-
lies. It is El (Kronos), rather than Baal (Demaros), who is the focus of warlike
activity. El (Kronos) eliminates his progeny and displaces his father, Uranos,
after a series of military engagements. Unlike the peaceful El often projected
in the Ugaritic texts, Kronos is portrayed as aggressive and evincing some of
the same bellicose characteristics as Baal in the Ugaritic texts.
The aggressive characteristics of El in Sanchuniathon’s tradition are
worth noting. 159 They suggest that Sanchuniathon’s account represents an
earlier stage in the tradition, when El was conceived of as a fierce warrior, 160
the original image of this deity held in other parts of southern Syria. 161
weh/El is associated with the storm theophany in vv. 13–16, with the
Canaanite imagery of the blessings of fertility very pronounced. In addition,
the common mythical title of Near Eastern Storm-gods, “Rider of the
Clouds,” is specifically ascribed to Yahweh/El in vv. 26–29. Unlike the Song
of Deborah in the twelfth century, however, the composition of the Blessing
of Moses is dated to the eleventh century b.c.e., a century removed from the
events associated with the Song of Deborah.
This is also the case with the archaic fragments in Psalm 68 and Ha-
bakkuk 3. Even though the historical occurrences referred to here took place
in the fourteenth/thirteenth century b.c.e., the mythic battles that Yahweh
and his attendants fought were against his cosmic enemies Mot (Ps 68:21),
Yam (Ps 68:23), Hebyon (Hab 3:5), and Resheph (Hab 3:5). These are the
same deities represented in the Ugaritic texts either as members of the Storm-
god Baal’s entourage or as his main cosmic foes. These passages reflect histori-
cal developments from as early as the late fourteenth century down to the
middle of the twelfth century b.c.e., spanning the historic triumphant march
through the south to Israel’s present abode in Canaan and Transjordan. The
composition of these poems, however, is dated between the late twelfth and
tenth centuries b.c.e. by Freedman, Cross, Miller, Boling, Day, and others.
Other than Judges 5, all of these poems were composed from the end of
the twelfth century b.c.e. onward, when the groups of Yahweh warriors had
become fully integrated and identified with the Canaanites in Transjordan
and Cisjordan, not too long after the important victory referred to in the
Song of Deborah.
While these passages allude to historical events prior to the “conquest”
and settlement, the compositions also reflect the Canaanite cultural and reli-
gious milieu at the time of composition that did not revolve primarily around
the pastoral, patriarchal Warrior-deity El but rather was grounded in a sed-
entary, agricultural-based society venerating the Storm-god Baal. This fertil-
ity deity would exert a strong and continuing influence on the Yahwistic
communities’ conception of Yahweh.
This sequence of development is reflected in two sources: (1) the source
with the original El language in which the Yahweh and El synthesis occurred,
during the fourteenth/thirteenth century b.c.e. marches around the south
and Transjordan; and (2) a later source that reflects borrowing from Baal, be-
ginning with the settlement of the Yahweh warriors and their subsequent tri-
umph over the Canaanite city-states in the twelfth century (Judges 5). This
process would culminate in Yahweh’s emergence as Israel’s incomparable
Storm-god. Textual support for the continuing evolution of Yahweh into the
Storm-god of Israel within the Canaanite milieu at this stage of Israelite reli-
gion will be analyzed on the basis of the following selected pieces of Hebrew
poetry and prose.
subhead drop
162. All of these attributes are discussed in such studies as Cross, CMHE, 147–56;
Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 24–48, Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 57–78;
M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 324–38; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 103–
7; Kapelrud, Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 93–145; Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, 1–30; Habel,
Yahweh versus Baal, 51–91; Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baal, 46–100, to name
a few.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 259
163. The antiquity of the poem is easily recognized. So S. I. L. Norin, Er spaltete das
Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel (Lund: Ohlsson, 1977)
127, 151; D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1972) 28–31, 135, 156; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 210–12;
F. Foresti, “Composizione e redazione deuteronomistica in Ex 15,1–18,” Lateranum 48
(1982) 41–69; Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 97–101; M. J. Mulder,
“Die Bedeutung von Jachin und Boaz in 1 Kon. 7:21 (2 Chr. 3:17),” in Tradition and Re-
interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Festschrift in Honor of J. C. H. Lebram
(ed. W. Anderson; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 19–26.
164. G. Fohrer, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann,
1964) 115; M. Treves, “The Reign of God in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969) 230–43;
J. Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1987) 15–29.
165. Cross, CMHE, 121–23; B. Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan (Chico,
Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 32–34; Freedman, “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew
Poetry,” 55–105; idem, “Who Is like Thee among the Gods?” 331–34; idem, “The Religion
of Early Israel,” 322–27.
166. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 179–227.
260 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
As a result of this great victory, the nations of Philistia, 167 Edom, Moab,
and Canaan were struck dumb with terror. Yahweh subsequently led his band
of warriors southward on their victorious march through the wilderness to
his holy habitation on Sinai/Horeb.
Further analysis shows that, compared to the poetry emerging even half a
century later, though the mythic language is somewhat restrained, the
writer’s description of Yahweh’s power was quite consciously drawing on
available West Semitic mythical symbols, terminologies, and patterns. The
Song reveals a clear line of continuity with contemporary Canaanite mytho-
poeic literature.
The poet begins the song with a triumphant refrain that is repeated at the
end, in a separate piece by Miriam:
I will sing unto Yahweh,
For he has triumphed gloriously;
Horse and rider
He cast into the sea. (Exod 15:1, 21)
In this poem note the imagery of Yahweh’s enemies who were “cast into the
sea,” (v. 4) because “You [Yahweh] blew with your wind” (v. 10). It was this
storm that made the Egyptians
(10) Sink like lead;
The sea covered them.
167. See Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 41–44; followed by F. M. Cross
and D. N. Freedman. The anachronism of the Philistines does not invalidate a premonar-
chic dating of the passage. Note Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, 32–33. How-
ever, a premonarchic dating is still regarded as too high by some: e.g., de Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism, 210–12; B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1974) 243–48.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 261
It is evident from the wording of the poem that specific historical events
regarding the victory at the Yam suph are recounted. The enemy is not the
mythical Sea. While the writer’s portrayal of Yahweh’s triumph is influenced
by Canaanite motifs deriving from the mythical conflict between the Storm-
god Baal and Yam/Nahar, 168 the imagery is of Yahweh destroying the human
enemy with a storm. Like other cosmic Storm-gods of the ancient Near East,
Yahweh the Warrior achieves his great victory at the sea and then marches
victoriously to his sacred mountain and takes possession of his sanctuary, har
na˙ålatéka makôn lésibtéka, 169 escorted by his followers. Yahweh then right-
fully assumes his kingship, which he will possess forever. This progression of
events is a familiar motif in Canaanite mythology. Even though the mythic
language is not as effusive as in the Ugaritic Texts, it is apparent that the Song
of the Sea has borrowed Canaanite mythical patterns. Similarly, in the
Canaanite sources Baal’s victory over Yam is followed by all of these activities,
including inheriting and building a temple on a sacred mountain, btk.fyh.il.
ßpn.bqds.bfr.n˙lty ‘within my mountain divine Íaphon, in the holy place, in
the mountain of my inheritance’. 170 This mythical concept of a deity assum-
ing his throne in the land of his inheritance is attributed to other Canaanite
deities in the Ugaritic texts as well. 171
Psalm 29
Psalm 29 has long been recognized as a vivid example of a Yahwistic ad-
aptation of an older Canaanite hymn to the Storm-god Baal. 172 On the basis
of comparisons with the Song of Deborah, the Song of the Sea, and other
early Yahwistic poetry, coupled with the internal evidence of divine names
and titles, archaic language, and other factors, this psalm is dated to as early
as the latter part of the twelfth century b.c.e. 173 In this hymn, the bénê ªelîm
(1973) 237–56. Other scholars may date it somewhat later, as e.g., Cross, CMHE, 151–56
(in his earlier treatment, “Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament,” he merely
dates it to the early monarchic period). Albright (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 21, 27)
has identified the poetry as “clearly archaic” or “very archaic.” See also A. Weiser, The
Psalms (trans. H. Hartwell; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962); Dahood, Psalms I: 1–50
(AB 16; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 174–80; Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, 86–91;
and P. C. Craigie, “Psalm XXIX in Hebrew Poetic Tradition,” VT 22 (1972) 143–51, all of
whom date it to premonarchic times.
174. Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, 2.70–87; Cross, CMHE,
151–52.
175. I identify kbwd wºz as a name of Yahweh in vv. 3 and 9. See also Ps 4:3, 62:8, and
66:2 for the double name “Glorious and Victorious.” For a discussion of divine double
names such as “Vine and Field,” “Kothar and Khasis,” and others, see for example, Albright,
Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 136–37; Dahood, Psalms I, 18; del Olmo Lete, Canaanite
Religion, 51–52, 64–66.
176. Freedman proposes that bé be read before lhbwt ªs, assuming that it was lost by
haplography after the b of hoseb (Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, 2.83–84).
177. The MT yé˙ôlel ªayyalôt ‘hinds writhe’ closely resembles ˙ôlel ªayyalôt in Job 39.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 263
The thundering voice (qôl ) of Yahweh emanating from the heavens is the
storm, which awakens nature; its awesome, devastating force is emphasized 7
times. 179 The striking parallel between the sevenfold manifestation of Yah-
weh’s voice is apparent in Baal’s 7 thunders and lightning and the 7 winds of
Iskur and Marduk. Whenever Yahweh thunders, the mountains skip, the
hinds writhe, and the lightning flashes toward the earth.
The poem concludes with the manifestation of Yahweh’s royal supremacy
as King enthroned over the primeval flood, 180 the cosmic Watery Deep, in a
manner similar to his counterparts. 181 Baal utters his voice in 7 thunders and
then takes his seat enthroned like the flood:
bºl.ytb.ktbt.gr
hd.r [ºy] kmdb.btk.grh
ªil ßpn.b[tk] gr.tlªiyt
Baal sits enthroned, like sitting on a mountain;
Hadad (the shepherd) like the flood, in the midst of his mountain;
the god Íaphon in the (midst of ) the mountain of victory. 182
178. Reconstructed to read béhêkalô ªamor kabôd. Cf. Cross, CMHE, 154 n. 39.
179. See, for example, the list of seven gods in UT 17 (KTU 1.47) and Ugaritica V
3.3b–4. An Akkadian parallel is also to be noted with the Storm-god Adad in RS 20: 24.
See also A. S. Kapelrud, “The Number Seven in the Ugaritic Texts,” VT 18 (1968) 94–99;
Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 140–43; M. C. Astour, “Some Divine Names
from Ugarit,” JAOS 86 (1966) 279ff. J. Day, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Light-
nings in Psalm xxix and Habakkuk iii 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah vi,” VT
29 (1979) 143–51; R. M. Good, “Some Draught Terms Relating to Draught and Riding
Animals,” UF 16 (1984) 80–81. The number seven is also associated with the Storm-gods
as Enlil and Iskur; for example, Enlil’s instructions to his son Iskur, “Let the seven winds be
harnessed before you like a team,” in ANET, 598, and Marduk’s seven winds as a part of his
weaponry in the struggle with Tiamat in Enuma Elish 4: 46–47; ANET, 66.
180. Even as Baal’s victory over Yam, the subterranean waters, gives him eternal do-
minion, Yahweh’s sitting enthroned on the flood means that his victory over the primeval
forces of chaos is conceived mythopoeically as acquiring complete dominion over earth
and sea.
181. Note H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim ‘Many Wa-
ters’,” JBL 64 (1955) 9–21; E. Lipinski, “Yahweh Malak,” Bib 44 (1963) 435–36; Day,
God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 57–61.
182. Ugaritica V 3.1–3a.
264 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Psalm of Habakkuk
Yahweh is also associated with the storm in Habakkuk 3:1–15. 183 Verses
1-6 of this poem have been explored above; 184 they deal with the march of
Yahweh at the head of his warrior groups from the south and their subse-
quent integration into the Canaanite cultural milieu on both sides of the Jor-
dan. The primary emphasis of vv. 7–15 is on Yahweh’s battle against the
cosmic forces, described in Canaanite mythical language:
(3) El came from Teman, 185
the Holy One from Mount Paran.
His glory covered the heaven,
His praise filled the earth.
(4) There was brightness like the sun;
rays protruded from his hand.
There was Hebyon, the strong one;
(5) Before him walked Pestilence,
and Resheph 186 marched behind him.
(6) He stood and shook the earth;
he looked, and nations were startled.
The ancient mountains were scattered,
183. The psalm of Habakkuk draws heavily on the ancient Canaanite mythology of
Baal. In addition to the discussion above, on pp. 242–46, see Gaster, “The Battle of the
Rain and the Sea: An Ancient Semitic Nature-Myth,” 26ff.; idem, “On Habakkuk 3, 4,”
JBL 62 (1943) 345ff.; idem, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (New York:
Harper & Row, 1975) 668–78; U. Cassuto, “Chapter iii of Habakkuk and the Ras Shamra
texts,” BOS, 2.3–15; Cross, CMHE, 102–3; Day, “New Light on the Mythological Back-
ground of the Allusion to Resheph in Habakkuk 3:5”; Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early
Israel, 118–21; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 128–36; M. S. Smith, The Early History of
God, 49–52; Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of
Israel, 42–52; M. Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel in the Ancient
Near East,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform
Literatures (ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983) 121–47; S. Moon-
Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (BZAW 177; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1989) 77–79.
184. See above pp. 332–33.
185. In light of the inscription at Kuntillet ºAjrud, one must assume that this Elohistic
statement is a reference to Yahweh, the god of this people. See Hadley, “Some Drawings
and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ºAjrud,” 186ff.; Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ºAjrud
Inscriptions and Their Significance,” 126; Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The
Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ºAjrud,” 10.
186. On the Canaanite god Resheph, see above, n. 106 (p. 245).
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 265
The psalm of Habakkuk reveals a close similarity with Psalm 29. Here, too,
Yahweh has appropriated most of the prerogatives of Baal; he too is a Storm-
god striding forward with spear in hand, conquering his foes, or galloping
triumphantly into battle with his horse hitched to his cloud-chariot (vv. 8,
11, 12). 191 Yahweh’s main foe is Yam/Nahar (v. 15). The known Canaanite
deities who are the associates of Baal—Hebyon, Deber (Pestilence), and Re-
sheph 192—have now joined the entourage of Yahweh (vv. 4–5). Moreover,
Earth, Mountains, Flood, Sun, and Moon, all divine beings in the Ugaritic
texts, are personified entities subject to the will of Yahweh (vv. 10–11). Yah-
weh appears at the head of both his divine and human warriors (vv. 13–15),
marching victoriously up from the south into the region of Transjordan and
Cisjordan. The fact that these two ancient pieces of late-twelfth-/early-
eleventh-century b.c.e. poetry assign epithets of Baal to Yahweh is an indica-
tion that the Yahweh groups now identify with the mythical, religious, and
economic value system of Canaan.
Deuteronomy 33
The mid-eleventh-century b.c.e. Blessing of Moses poem in Deuter-
onomy 33 193 reflects the tribal confederacy, with strong hints of an impend-
ing transition to the traditional Near Eastern system of monarchy. 194 The
poem describes the Canaanite milieu of several tribes at a time just before the
death of Moses. 195 The literary style, language, and vocabulary of the poem,
which is similar to others of this genre treated above, reveal affinities with
Canaanite mythology. The theophany and kingship of Yahweh are expressed
in language commonly used not only for the Canaanite Baal but also for
most Storm-gods around the ancient Near East. The archaic themes reflected
in vv. 2–3, 13–16, and 26–29 contain many stylistic, linguistic, and gram-
matical indicators showing strong Canaanite influence:
196. Since the context is similar to Hab 3:5, in which the deity Hebyon is mentioned,
in vv. 2–3 it seems appropriate to read “also Hebyon was among them, all the holy ones at
his side”; hbb (Hebab) in this case is a variant for Hebyon. See also de Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism, 162 n. 283.
197. The sequence of divine pairs here is similar to that of Gen 49:25–26. As indi-
cated earlier, the context is the Canaanite mytheme in which the Storm-god Baal fulfills his
primary function as the earth’s fertility deity par excellence. In this vein, note in addition,
M. S. Smith, “Baal’s Cosmic Secret,” 295–98.
198. The reference to Moses and his encounter with Yahweh is another indication of
the antiquity of the poem. See, e.g., M. A. Beek, “Der Dornbusch als Wohnsitz Gottes
(Deut. xxxiii 16),” OTS 14 (1965) 155–61.
199. This is based on the emendation by Cross and Freedman, in Studies in Ancient
Yahwistic Poetry, 102–3. Here, once again, the portrayal of Yahweh as a “Cloud–chariot
rider” is drawn from the theophany of Baal, the “Rider of the Clouds.” Note also Day, God’s
Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 30–32.
268 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
200. Compare Anat’s reference to the victorious Baal in his conflict with Yam, UT ºnt
III: 34; IV: 49 (KTU 1.3 iii, iv). The verb hôpîª as ‘to shine, illuminate’ in the Hebrew Bible
is most often associated with the theophany of Yahweh. See Jeremias, Theophanie, 62ff.
Miller, The Divine Warrior, 76–77; Moon-Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in
the Ancient Near East, 73–80; Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and
in the Ancient Near East,” 122–23.
201. A number of specific terms are used in Ugaritic literature to describe the assem-
bly, such as phr.bn.ilm, mph.bn.ilm, or dr.i / dr.bn.il; see Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods,
111–80. It has long been recognized that the motif of lesser supernatural beings’ appearing
in session before the leader of the pantheon exists in Assyro-Babylonian, Canaanite, and
Hittite literature. See the early study by Gaster, “An Ancient Eulogy of Israel, Deut 33:3–
5, 26–29.” For other Mesopotamian parallels, note particularly F. Thureau-Dangin, Textes
cunéiformes (Louvre), Tome VI: Tablettes d’Uruk (Paris: Geuthner, 1922) pl. 82, no. 43, lines
4–20; and Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 109–11.
202. Exod 15:11 poses the mythical question: “Who is like unto you among the gods,
Yahweh?” See also Dahood, Psalms II, 224, 230; C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 269
produces grain and wine and the heavens drip with dew (v. 28), because, like
his counterparts, Yahweh, the Storm-god of Israel, is also the fierce warrior,
driving his cloud-chariot across the heavens. He is the rain-producing “Rider
in the Clouds.”
Psalm 18
Psalm 18 is usually referred to as “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving.” 203 It,
too, describes Yahweh’s theophany in the storm. 204 This hymn is divided
naturally into two parts (vv. 1–30 and vv. 31–50). The first part introduces
expressions of praise to Yahweh and the writer’s mortal peril, gives a depic-
tion of Yahweh’s theophany in unmistakable Canaanite mythic language, and
then concludes with an affirmation of Yahweh’s justice. The second part
praises Yahweh for having given the psalmist victory over his enemies and do-
minion over foreign peoples, ending in a note of thanksgiving.
Some view this psalm as an amalgam of two or more independent
poems, 205 a position rejected by others. 206 Some favor a postexilic prove-
nance, 207 while others, citing the language and theology in certain sections,
propose a date prior to the fall of Samaria in 722. 208 Even if we were to divide
Yahweh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966); T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah:
The Civil and Sacral Ligitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1976) 177ff.;
de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 163–64. For Sumero-Akkadian usage of this formula, see
F. Stummer, Sumerisch-akkadische Parallelen zum Aufbau alttestamentlicher Psalmen (Pader-
born: Schoningh, 1922) 57.
203. This psalm appears in a slightly variant form in 2 Samuel 22.
204. Dahood, Psalms I, 101–19; F. M. Cross Jr. and D. N. Freedman, “A Royal Psalm
of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18,” JBL 72 (1953) 16–21; Johnson, Sacral King-
ship in Ancient Israel, 161ff.; G. Schmuttermayr, Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22: Studien zu
einem Doppeltext (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 55; Munich: Kosel, 1971).
The last presents an excellent review of the literature on this subject up to that time. Sub-
sequent significant studies are H. E. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster, 1976) 388–98; J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (London: SPCK, 1976) 113–16,
127–29; J. Gray, “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: Psalm XVIII”; P. K. McCarter Jr.,
II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984) 452–75; Day, God’s Conflict with
the Dragon and the Sea, 119–25.
205. So, e.g., H. Schmidt, Die Psalmen (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1; Tü-
bingen: Mohr, 1934) 15; E. Baumann, “Struktur-Untersuchungen im Psalter I,” ZAW 61
(1945–48) 114–76, especially p. 132; D. Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen
(Abhandlungen zur evangelischen Theologie 1; Bonn: Bouvier, 1960) 49ff.
206. E.g., Weiser, The Psalms, 186–87.
207. R. Tournay, “En marge d’un traduction des Psaumes,” RB 63 (1956) 161–81.
208. G. R. Driver, “Textual and Linguistic Problems in the Book of Psalms,” HTR 29
(1936) 171–95.
270 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
the psalm into two independent parts, a seventh-century terminus ante quem
must be recognized for both sections.
The broader consensus is that the psalm is rather archaic and dates to a
period as early as the tenth century b.c.e. 209 The language is consistent with
other examples of early Hebrew poetry, such as Exodus 15 and Habakkuk 3,
and also with Ugaritic poetry that deals with the theophany of Baal. Its inclu-
sion in 2 Samuel alongside the “Last Words of David” is an indication of an
old tradition associating the psalm with the early monarchy.
The theophany of Yahweh is described in the first part in typical Baalistic
mythical language (vv. 7–15):
(7) The earth quaked and shuddered;
The foundations of the mountains trembled.
They reeled when his anger blazed.
(8) Smoke went out from his nostrils,
And a fire from his mouth devoured;
Coals flamed forth from him.
(9) He spread apart the heavens and came down,
A storm-cloud under his feet.
(10) He mounted the cherub and flew; 210
He flew on the wings of the wind.
(11) He set darkness around him, 211
With the rain-cloud his pavilion.
(12) Cloudbanks were before him;
Before him the clouds raced by,
Hailstones and coals of fire.
(13) Yahweh thundered from the heavens,
And Elyon gave forth his voice,
Hailstones and coals of fire.
(14) He shot his arrows and scattered them;
Lightning he flashed and dispersed them.
(15) The sources of the sea were exposed,
209. See the pioneering treatment of this psalm by Cross and Freedman, “A Royal
Song of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18”; in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry,
129, they concluded that “a 10th century date for this poem is not at all improbable.” See
also Freedman, “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry,” 78–79, 97–98. Others
have generally dated it between the tenth and ninth centuries b.c.e.: e.g., Hertzberg, I and
II Samuel, 392–93; McCarter, II Samuel, 473–75; Dahood, Psalms I, 104–19; Schmutter-
mayr, Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22, 23–24; A. van den Born, Samuel: De Boker van het Oude
Testament IV (Masseik: Roermond, 1956); H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen (2 vols.; 2d ed.; Biblischer
Kommentar 15; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963) 141ff.
210. On the imagery of Yahweh flying on the cherub, see Dahood, Psalms I, 107–8.
211. For a reading of this problematic verse, see Cross and Freedman, “A Royal Song
of Thanksgiving,” 25; Cross, CMHE, 159, and n. 60.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 271
Reflecting the cultural environment during the early period of the monarchy,
these attributes of Yahweh almost entirely derive from the imagery of Baal. 213
The quaking earth and the shuddering foundations of the mountains (vv. 7–
8) are the recognized mythical reactions to a thundering Storm-god 214 (cf.
Judg 5:4–5; Ps 68:9; and Habakkuk 3). Yahweh is once again viewed as
breathing smoke and fire, mounted on a cherub, flying on the wings of the
wind (v. 10).
Yahweh is surrounded with the dense, dark clouds containing raindrops.
He thunders from the heavens (v. 13 and Psalm 29), projecting his voice like
Baal. He hurls his arrows of lightning bolts (v. 14) and causes the snow and
hail to descend toward the earth. In Ugarit and the contiguous regions, it is
the thundering voice of Baal that brings the hail and refreshing showers to re-
plenish the earth. 215 In reaction to this violent epiphany and the roar of Yah-
weh’s nostrils, the sources of the sea are laid bare (v. 15). 216
212. See May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim ‘Many Waters’,” 17
n. 32.
213. M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 49–55.
214. Note Hadad’s thundering voice and the same reaction of nature in UT 51: VII:
27–35; also Weinfeld, “ ‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’ ” 421–26;
Moon-Kang, Divine War, 23–48; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 93.
215. De Moor, The Seasonal Pattern, 150ff.; idem, An Anthology of Religious Texts from
Ugarit (Leiden: Brill, 1987) 55, 63; RSP 1: i 17.
216. On Canaanite mythical Storm-god language in this passage, see further Green-
field, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 545–60.
217. Dahood, Psalms II, 224–25, 231; Cross, CMHE, 136–37. Others, however, have
dated this passage to the late eighth century. See de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 213–15;
O. Eissfeldt, “Psalm 80,” KS, 3.221–32.
218. It has long been recognized that the reading yhwh forªlhym is often necessary in
the Elohistic Psalter. See Cross, CMHE, 136.
272 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
As in the other poems, Yahweh is glorified for his victory over the cosmic Sea.
The pattern particularly resembles that of Habakkuk 3. 219 The mythical ele-
ments again reflect Israel’s religious environment. Yahweh’s roaring theoph-
any in the storm, evoking the tempestuous showers, 220 his bolts of lightning
shooting back and forth, the earth trembling and shuddering—all are the
typical mythopoeic language of the Storm-god Baal. 221 Unlike in the text of
Baal, however, the foundation of Yahweh’s power was not his great victory
over the mythical Sea but his historic encounter with and defeat of the Egyp-
tian host at the Yam suph. 222 Our final passage also highlights this theme.
Psalm 89
Psalm 89 contains considerable archaic mythological material that bears
the stamp of having been heavily reworked; hence, the dating has been the
subject of much debate. The presence of numerous mythological phrases and
allusions need not imply, however, that its import was merely liturgical, 223 or
that it contains material of no historical value. The numerous archaic mytho-
logical phrases allude to a historical ideology of Yahweh that was in vogue
during the tenth century b.c.e. and correlates well with similar expressions
219. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 96–98. On this theme, see also
Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis,” 287–300.
220. Note Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine;
M. J. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV,” Bib 47 (1966) 415; idem, Psalms II,
223–33.
221. Note, e.g., UT 51: V: 70 (KTU 1.4 vii: 25–42).
222. On Yam Suph as the demythologized enemy of Baal, see F. Eakin, “The Reed Sea
and Baalism,” JBL 86 (1967) 378–84.
223. As proposed, for example, in G. W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem
Ritual des leidenden Königs (Lund: Ohlsson, 1959) 71ff.; Johnson, Sacral Kingship in An-
cient Israel, 106ff.; A. H. W. Curtis, “The ‘Subjugation of the Waters’ Motif in the Psalms:
Imagery or Polemics?” JSS 23 (1978) 245–56; J. Ward, “The Literary Form and Liturgical
Background of Psalm LXXXIX,” VT 11 (1961) 321–29; Day, God’s Conflict with the
Dragon and the Sea, 26–27.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 273
found in the poetic sections treated above. The language and theme contain
strong reflections of a dynastic covenant and comport well with a Solomonic
date. 224
Of particular importance are vv. 5–11, which introduce a new hymn in
the form of an address to the Divine Council:
(5) Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Yahweh;
Yea, your faithfulness in the council of the holy ones.
(6) For who in the heavens can compare with Yahweh?
Who may be likened to Yahweh among the gods?
(7) For he is El, fearsome in the council of the holy ones,
Great and terrible above all who are around him!
(8) O Yahweh, god of hosts, who is like you?
Your fidelity surrounds you.
(9) You rule the raging Sea.
When his waves rise, you check them.
(10) You crushed Rahab like a carcass;
With your mighty arm you scattered your foes.
(11) Yours is the heavens and yours is the earth;
The world and all it holds, you created it.
224. Norin, Er spaltete das Meer, 115–16; J. Ward, “The Literary Form and Liturgical
Background of Psalm LXXXIX”; Dahood, Psalms II, 311.
225. A similar scene is portrayed in Ps 29:1. See, in addition, C. H. W. Brekelmanns,
“The Saints of the Most High and Their Kingdom,” OTS 14 (1965) 305–29; Cross,
CMHE, 160–61; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 80–81.
226. Numerous scholars have associated Yahweh’s creative attributes after his defeat of
Sea during the exodus with the creative activity of Baal after his defeat of the mythical Sea.
In this way they compare the exodus and Yahweh’s triumph with Baal’s defeat of Yam. So,
e.g., H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 2, 787–88; Ahlström, Psalm 89, 71ff.; Labuschagne, The Incom-
parability of Yahweh, 115–16. However, there is a clear distinction here. Baal’s defeat of
Yam is mythical, while Yahweh’s defeat of the Egyptians at the Yam Suph is a historical
event.
274 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
eration could identify Yahweh. All of the samples of archaic poetry from the
twelfth through the tenth centuries b.c.e. reflect this concept. Yahweh has
assumed every functional activity, characteristic, and title of Baal. When the
descriptions of Baal from extrabiblical sources are compared with those of
Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is hard to tell these deities apart. Baal is
the Storm-god par excellence of the Canaanite region, equipped with the spe-
cific functions necessary for human survival. Within the same cultural and
ecological Canaanite-Israelite milieu, it is reasonable that the functions and
attributes of Yahweh inevitably paralleled those of Baal.
As we have seen, when the Yahweh warriors under Moses migrated into
areas around the south and subsequently assimilated with the earlier Israelites
of the tribal league, the Warrior-god Yahweh became syncretized first with
Bull El, the Warrior-god of the pastoralists, their supreme deity. In the pro-
cess, El’s warrior attributes and his role as king of the gods became endemic
attributes of Yahweh. Subsequently, the continuing process of assimilation
resulted in ascribing to Yahweh the rain-producing characteristics of Baal, the
warrior god of the farmers, the life-giving deity endemically identified with
survival in the region.
This process of assimilation and Yahweh’s consequent adaptation of the
storm as his method of self-disclosure obtain regardless of whether one sub-
scribes to either of the alternate settlement models of “Immigration” or “Re-
volt.” 227 The “Immigration Model” stresses a peaceful occupation of the land
by treaty-making and intermarriage with the inhabitants over an extended
period of time. The uniqueness of Israel, according to the “Immigration”
model, lies not in Moses but in the premonarchic tribal league and the later
religion of Israel’s prophets. There was no massive wiping out of the Canaan-
ite inhabitants or sweeping “conquest” of the land. 228
227. In the books of Joshua and Judges, the Deuteronomic portrayal of the “Con-
quest” or “Settlement” of Canaan depicts Israel under Joshua leading a unified twelve-tribe
group from its base in Transjordan on a massive campaign, conquering the land of Canaan.
Biblical chronology would place this conquest between 1450 and 1400 b.c.e. However,
most biblical historians have recognized that this picture is rather schematic, and the con-
sensus is that the events described in the book of Joshua should be located about two hun-
dred years later, approximately 1250–1200. b.c.e.
228. For a brief synopsis of this model, see N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A
Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979) 204–9. The ear-
liest proponent is M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT 3/10; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1930); idem, The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 68–97.
See also A. Alt, “The Settlement of the Israelites in Palestine,” Essays in Old Testament His-
tory and Religion (New York: Doubleday, 1968) 175–221; M. Weippert, The Settlement of
the Israelite Tribes in Palestine, especially pp. 128–36; de Vaux, The Early History of Israel,
673–80.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 275
On the other hand, the “Revolt Model” argues that Israel’s “entry” into
Canaan was primarily a native Canaanite revolt against a power structure
dominated by an interlocking system of city-state overlords. These Canaan-
ites joined up with the nuclear group of Yahwists who infiltrated from the
desert. The infiltrators’ enthusiastic adherence to Yahweh supplied the Ca-
naanite peasants with a militant stimulus to revolt. 229
Both models make no sharp distinction between the incoming Yahwists
and the sedentary Canaanite underclass. Both stress that the formation of Is-
rael was the result of an amalgamation of diverse groups, each with its own
prehistory and ethnic background. The latter model, however, essentially es-
tablishes the linkage between Yahwism and the socioeconomic and political
realities of Canaan.
In their stress upon Israel in Canaan as representing an assimilation of the
Yahwists into the indigenous population, both models offer a plausible expla-
nation for the similarity between the cultural and religious traditions of
Canaanites and Yahwists. 230 Yahweh’s appropriation of all of the characteris-
tic theophanic functions and attributes of the Storm-god Baal was therefore
both logical and inescapable.
231. Job 7:12; 26:11; 38:8, 10, 11; Ps 65:8; 74:13; 89:10–11; 104:9; Prov 8:29; Isa
51:9; Jer 5:22. See C. H. Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins
and Transformations (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) 4;
Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the
Bronze Age”; Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster; G. Rendsburg, “UT 68 and the Tell
Asmar Seal,” Or 53 (1984) 448–52.
232. In such passages as Ps 18:5–6 (= 2 Samuel 22); Isa 25:8; 28:15, 18; Jer 9:20; Hos
13:14; Hab 2:5.
233. Ps 48:3. Note too, that ßpn has been substituted for Zion in the Aramaic version
of Ps 20:3, written in Demotic. Josephus described Belsephon as a city in the territory of
Ephraim (Ant. 7.174). See also Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Tes-
tament, 42–44; Robinson, “Zion and Saphon in Psalm XLVIII 3”; Astour, “Place Names,”
318–24; Roberts, “Saphon in Job 28:7”; Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 154–55. For ref-
erences to Baal Íaphon in Egyptian and Phoenician sources, see among others, Stadel-
mann, Syrisch-palästinische Gottheiten in Ägypten, 32–47.
234. In Exod 15:13, 17; Ps 16:6; 27:4; 46:5; 48:2, 3; 79:1; 87:1; 93:5; Isa 31:4;
66:18–21; Jer 12:7; Ezekiel 38–39; Joel 3:9–17, 19–21; Zech 14:4. In addition, see J. D.
Levenson, Theology of the Program of the Restoration in Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1975) 15–16; M. L. Barré, “The Seven Epithets of Zion in Ps 48, 2–3,” Bib
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 277
took up his battle against his foes. Yahweh’s victories, kingship, and subse-
quent decrees from his “holy mountain” are praised in poems that are very
similar to those about Baal. 235 As Baal thunders from Íaphon, so Yahweh
roars from Zion. As Baal opens his window from his temple and brings forth
the fertilizing rains, so too Yahweh gives forth rains from Zion, 236 a fact that
continued to be emphasized as late as the postexilic period. 237
Some would discount syncretism between Yahweh and Baal on the basis
of the infrequency of Israelite theophoric personal names containing the ele-
ment Baal during the premonarchic period. Of the 466 known Israelite
theophoric names, only 53 (11 percent) plausibly have non-Israelite connec-
tions, with only a mere 8 of them containing the element baºal. 238 Seven
names are from the period of the Judges, and one is from the United Monar-
chy. 239 Comparison of the MT with the LXX on this issue, however, shows
that, due to the attempt to suppress the religious implications, a good per-
centage of “unacceptable” Baal names appear in an altered form in the MT. 240
69 (1988) 557–63; M. S. Smith, “God and Zion: Form and Meaning in Psalm 48,” SEL 6
(1989) 66–77.
235. S. Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1963) 23–27.
236. Amos 1:2, 4:7; Isa 30:19; Jer 3:3, 5:24, 10:13, 14:4, 51:16.
237. The postexilic prophets claim that famine, drought, and scarcity have been the
result of the people’s not taking the time to rebuild the Temple of Yahweh on Zion. See Hag
1:7–11; Zech 10:1; and Joel 4. Note also G. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient
Israel: Studies on Their Social and Political Importance (HSM 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987) 9–122.
238. Among the more recent studies of Israelite theophoric personal names are J. H.
Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and
S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 161–81; idem, You Shall Have No Other Gods:
Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, 26ff.; J. D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal
Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 141–51; de
Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 10–41; R. B. Lawton, Israelite Personal Names in Pre-exilic He-
brew Inscriptions Antedating 500 b.c.e. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1977). See
also earlier studies by M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemein-
semitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928); G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names (London: Black, 1896).
239. See particularly Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evi-
dence,” 161–62, and n. 8.
240. For example, the element baºal in PNs in the LXX (e.g., 1 Chr 14:7) is replaced
in the MT with boset or ªel (e.g., 2 Sam 5:16). Other variants or replacements are also evi-
dent in the MT. Note, e.g., Hadoram (“Haddu is exalted”) in 2 Chr 10:18 and Adoram
(“Addu is exalted”) in 2 Sam 20:24 and 1 Kgs 12:18, changed to Adoniram (“My Lord is
exalted”) in 1 Kgs 4:6; also Jeshebeab and Jashobeam for Ishbaal and Isebaal; see Tigay,
“Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence.” Note also Gray, Studies in
278 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
Inscriptional evidence as late as the sixth century b.c.e. makes this rather
clear. 241
Attempts to discount the importance of Yahweh-Baal syncretism have
also been made by using place-names, since toponyms tend to be more con-
servative than personal names because they necessitate a double transmission
for a very long time. Premonarchic onomastic evidence has shown that theo-
phoric toponyms with El and Baal are found in almost all tribal territories. 242
However, while toponyms with Yahweh are virtually unattested throughout
Israelite history, many contain the names of such deities as Anat, Ashtoreth,
and Shamash. 243 During the premonarchic period up to the time of David,
of the 89 theophoric toponyms, 29 contained the element El (Yahweh) and
22 the name Baal. 244 We have shown that El is the most important deity for
the Canaanite predecessors of Israel (and on the basis of personal names, also
for the Israelites themselves). It has been suggested that for Israel, since El
meant Yahweh, in certain contexts the name Baal simply meant Lord, and
hence the Baal toponyms need not indicate a simultaneous worship of Baal
and Yahweh, but rather that Baºal ‘Lord’ was an epithet for Yahweh. But if
this were the case and the premonarchic Israelites were such strict mono-
Hebrew Proper Names, 121–22; Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen, 119. M. Tsevat
(“Ishbosheth and Congeners,” HUCA 46 [1975] 71–87) has proposed that boset was not a
“dysphemism” for baºal in these names; rather, it was a legitimate element of personal
names, a cognate with Akkadian bastu, meaning ‘dignity, pride, vigor, guardian angel, pa-
tron saint’. However, this argument is not convincing, because this element does not ap-
pear randomly in Hebrew personal names but only in Baal names. Conceivably, bast was
originally an epithet of Baal but, even if so, the MT vocalization is probably dysphemistic.
241. There are a number of studies dealing with onomastic evidence from inscrip-
tions, such as R. B. Lawton, “Israelite Personal Names on Pre-exilic Hebrew Inscriptions,”
Bib 65 (1984) 330–46; L. G. Herr, The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals (Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978); A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques 1: Les ostraca (Literatures
anciennes du Porche Orient; Paris: Cerf, 1977); N. Avigad, “New Names on Hebrew
Seals,” ErIsr 12 (1975) 66–71; P. Bordreuil and A. Lemaire, “Nouveaux sceaux hebreux,
araméens, et ammonites,” Sem 29 (1976) 45–53; Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions (Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 1981) 141–51; Meshel, “Kuntillet ºAjrud: An Israelite Religious
Center in Northern Sinai”; S. Moscati, L’Epigrafia Ebraica Antica, 1935–1950 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1951); M. Dayagi-Mendels, Hotamot Mime Bayit Rishon (Jeru-
salem: Israel Museum, 1978).
242. As of yet, there is no adequate evidence of toponyms with the Baal element in
Palestinian sources prior to the Judges period. However, since the documentation in this
area is still sparse, care should be exercised in the utilization of the data. Note, e.g., Isserlin,
“Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-Names in Palestine: A Historical and Geographical
Sketch”; A. F. Rainey, “The Toponymics of Eretz-Israel,” BASOR 231 (1978) 3–17.
243. The remaining 38 theophoric names are divided among 16 divinities. Only the
Sun (sms) reaches a level of relative importance, with 8 toponyms. See de Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism, 40–41.
244. See ibid., 34–41.
Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents 279
theists, why would they then employ toponyms that include such goddesses
as Anat and Astarte?
Onomastic evidence, however, cannot and does not project an accurate
image of cultural life-style; in this case, it might be merely a partial and hazy
picture of the religious value system in vogue during the period of the judges.
Other epigraphic evidence suggests that, during this adaptive period, Yah-
weh’s and Baal’s functions and attributes were conceived of as being identical.
It is most plausible, for example, that the annual lamentation over the daugh-
ter of Jephthah was actually a historicization of a fertility ritual that was en-
demic to the Canaanite cultus, practiced in some regions during the period
of the judges. 245 In most of the literature on the subject, the hostility be-
tween Yahweh and Baal first emerges with the prophet Elijah on Mount Car-
mel (1 Kings 17–19). Even though attempts have been made to push this
conflict back to the beginning of the period of the settlement, our earliest evi-
dence does not support such a position.
The case for a cultural and religious synthesis during the thirteenth to
tenth centuries b.c.e. 246 cannot be disproved by the selective use of ninth–
sixth-century b.c.e. Hebrew textual sources. The evident similarities be-
tween the Canaanite and Hebrew mythological texts and agricultural ritual
confirm that in the earlier stages, Canaanite and Israelite religion were prac-
tically identical. The polemic against Baal developed gradually, particularly
in the ninth century b.c.e., when prophets such as Elijah began to emphasize
that Israel’s existence and continued strength was a debt owed exclusively to
the god Yahweh.
Although it has been argued in some circles that the attribution of
Canaanite Storm-god mythical warrior language to Yahweh emerged in con-
junction with the Israelite royal theology of David, 247 the textual evidence
shows that it antedates this development. A strong case can be made, how-
ever, for the increased popularity of Baal language during the Davidic
dynasty. 248 The ecology of the region predetermined that a mythic Storm-
god would emerge as Israel’s national deity. Consequently, Yahweh naturally
245. See Judg 11:34–40 and Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near
East, 163–65; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 53, 149.
246. N. C. Habel and others have gone to great lengths to establish the uniqueness of
Yahwism at this time, notwithstanding the marked similarity between it and certain funda-
mental tenets of Baalism. Arguments tend to draw on later material in order to make the
case for the uniqueness of Yahwism. See, for example, Habel, Yahweh versus Baal, particu-
larly pp. 93–113; Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 7–149.
247. For example, J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic
Empire,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed. T. Ishida;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 93–108; Mettinger, “Yhwh Sabaoth: The Heav-
enly King on the Cherubim Throne,” 117ff.; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, 54–57.
248. Moon-Kang, Divine War, 197–203.
280 Coastal Canaan: A Land Bridge between the Continents
281
282 The Storm-God and His Associates: Summary and Conclusions
In contrast to the other Storm-gods around the ancient Near East, the
emergence of Yahweh, the god of the Hebrews, in southwestern Syria repre-
sented something new. His origin was not in the mythical storm; rather, he
emerged as a historic, terrestrial Warrior-deity in the Late Bronze Age. All of
the mythical and historical texts focus on his leading his followers around the
southern regions of Canaan and Transjordan and subsequently settling down
with them on both sides of the Jordan during the two centuries spanning the
Late Bronze and Iron Ages. There is no indication in these earliest sources of
Yahweh’s generic emergence within the storm or the fertility process. Unlike
some of the other Near Eastern Storm-gods, his stormy attributes were ex-
pressed, not mythically in the fearful storm or through sonship, but rather
through a synthesis first with the Canaanite deity El and subsequently with
the Syrian Storm-god Baal.
Yahweh’s self-disclosure as the Israelite Storm-god was gradually achieved
when he became a sedentary deity. This was the result of the cultural synthe-
sis among his adherents and the inhabitants of Canaan between the twelfth
and the tenth centuries b.c.e. Since the primary religious and economic con-
cerns of the region centered on the continual self-disclosure of Baal through
his fertilizing showers, Yahweh became a viable deity to the Canaanite-Yah-
wists only as he came to resemble Baal. Within this Canaanite agricultural
environment, Hebrew poetic, prosaic, and historical sources therefore attrib-
uted to Yahweh most of the mythical characteristics of Baal, in the process
using identical mythical and cultic language attributed to the Syrian Storm-
god. It was within the context of the Iron Age I Canaanite milieu that Yah-
weh, the terrestrial Warrior-god of history, became the Storm-god of Israel.
and III the authority to rule over these vast territories. This emphatic posi-
tion constituted the underlying justification for all subsequent activities in-
volving political domination made by Enlil’s son, Ningirsu/Ninurta. In the
historical and political development of the various kingdoms of the region,
this Storm-god was referred to as the “champion” or “hero” of Enlil, or the
ferocious Warrior-god of “war and hunt.”
Historically, the Early Dynastic kings not only assured themselves of the
Storm-god’s favor but also likened the flash of arrows during their continued
wars of conquest in his name to the flashes of his lightning in the skies above.
Conversely, Ningirsu/Ninurta’s thundering roar in the heavens was likened
to the roar of the battlefield as these kings expanded their political control
over vast areas. Utuhengal of Uruk was assured of Iskur’s guidance before em-
barking on his campaign against the Gutians, and Gudea of Lagash reaf-
firmed that Ningirsu had conferred upon him the right to rule by engraving
the god’s symbol, the divine lion-headed Imdugud, on his standard.
Farther to the north, in the region of the Middle and Upper Euphrates,
the evidence suggests that different Storm-gods constituted the foundation of
political structures and kingships of the region. For example, Ilumer person-
ified as a powerful warrior in the violent wind and dust storms directed
Zimri-Lim when he inflicted a crushing defeat on the Yaminites and gave
him permanent possession of the kingship of Mari.
Historical sources are replete with references to the political role and
functional activities of the Storm-god Dagan. As a patron Warrior-god, he
was the Storm-god par excellence of the Middle Euphrates region upon
whom kings based their power and authority. Evidence for Dagan’s activities
in this area dates from the mid–third millennium b.c.e. Dagan gave Sargon
the vast region of the Upper Land, Yarmuti and Ebla, and it was Dagan’s
weapons that enabled Naram-Sin to be successful in his campaigns in Aram,
Ebla, and Ulisum. The elders of the city of Mari prayed to Dagan for Zimri-
Lim’s successful campaign against his enemies, and he defeated them at Da-
gan’s command with the god’s weapons. It was also Dagan who proclaimed
the kingship of Yahdun-Lim. Dagan represented the bedrock of power and
prestige of all of the kings of this region.
Metaphorically, however, it was Adad, the son of Dagan, galloping in his
destructive war chariot, who best epitomized the fundamental base upon
which the kings of the Middle and Upper Euphrates and Syria established
and asserted their monopoly of power. The mighty Adad conceived the kings
“between his thighs,” established them on their respective thrones, armed
them with the “weapons of Adad,” scattered their foes in battle, and granted
the kings house upon house, territory upon territory, and city upon city from
east to west. Adad was conceptually, therefore, the divine underpinning for
continued territorial expansion and political domination throughout this
The Storm-God and His Associates: Summary and Conclusions 287
region. His impact on the evolving sociopolitical process is evident in the nu-
merous occurrences of his name as a theophoric element in personal names
and as the guarantor of international treaties.
In the Anatolian highlands, the earth-centered indigenous religion por-
trayed its pacific Hattian Water-god first as a bull and subsequently in human
form. The fact that, prior to the emergence of written texts, the local kings or
rulers are always depicted accompanied by this deity is an implication that,
within the Anatolian milieu, even prior to the emergence of the powerful at-
mospheric Storm-god, the pacific Water-god was initially conceived of as the
ultimate source of political power and authority. Such political designations
as the “Storm-god of the Palace,” “Storm-god of the Army,” and “Storm-god
of Hatti” confirm that it was the Storm-god who empowered kings for con-
quests in his name. The kings of the land of Hatti saw themselves as mortals
to whom had been entrusted all power and authority for the care and keeping
of the Storm-god’s land.
In western Syria proper, due in part to the Storm-god’s exalted position
among the gods and his increasing importance in human affairs, the title Baal
(Lord) gradually replaced the name of the Syrian Storm-god Hadad. While
the mythical and historical sources correctly emphasized his unique fertility
attributes, his earliest characteristic as the powerful Warrior-god remained
implicit in the epithet Aliyan, “conquering hero.” It was the Storm-god Baal-
Hadad who was responsible for the continued conquests and successes of the
rulers throughout this region.
In contrast to the other Storm-gods, Yahweh’s prowess as the nucleus of
power and political authority preceded his identification as the Hebrew
Storm-god. Whereas the kingly power and authority of other Storm-gods
around the ancient Near East was deeply imbedded in the mythical frame-
work, in the Hebrew milieu Yahweh’s origin was completely different. The
proper name Yahweh (from the causative stem of the verb HWY ) indicates
that his primary functional activity was the historicosocial action that
brought the Israelite society into being. Yahweh emerged historically at the
head of his band of warriors in the south Canaan/Transjordan region. He is
frequently depicted as king himself in the imagery of the storm phenomena.
With his dark clouds, flashes of lightning, and rain, he is portrayed as a War-
rior-god fighting at the head of his warriors. These Yahweh warriors captured
territory after territory, dispossessed king after king, and took possession of
previously existing kingdoms in the name of Yahweh as they moved through-
out Canaan.
In this series of successful conquests, Yahweh became synthesized with
the Canaanite god El. The earliest written sources are emphatic that it was
Yahweh himself who as king had empowered his followers with the authority
to possess the land of Canaan and to administer it in his name. These actions
288 The Storm-God and His Associates: Summary and Conclusions
On the one hand, the kingly power and authority of Ningirsu was projected
in the form of his constant attendant, the Lion, representing the power and
authority of the kings during this period. On the other hand, as a result of po-
litical stability, we find the fertilizing benevolence of Iskur/Adad with his
lightning fork and his attendant the Bull.
The Storm-god par excellence who emerges from all sources during the
era from Isin and Larsa into the Old Babylonian Period is Adad with his
lightning fork symbol. Semitic influence is evident in the attributes of his as-
sociates. The bull that had appeared periodically as Adad’s attendant begin-
ning in the Akkadian Period and once again during Ur III has now become
one of his permanent associates. In addition, this divinity is now constantly
accompanied by the nude goddess with rivulets of water flowing from her
hands. On occasions, Adad also appears riding on a dragon with water flow-
ing from its mouth, guiding the dragon which draws a plough, or on a bi-
cephalic dragon with a lion’s and a bull’s head.
The presence of these immediate attendants of the Storm-god Adad dur-
ing the Old Babylonian Period indicates that he was first and foremost a pro-
vider. The intermittent conflicts among the various powers of the region did
nothing to diminish or significantly affect this generic profile of Adad. The
fundamental concern among the different peoples throughout this region
was survival, and the requisites for subsistence were conceived of as being
supplied by Adad. The constant presence of his immediate attendants the
bull and the nude goddess with rivulets of water flowing from her hands un-
derscores this fact.
Farther to the north and west, in the Middle Bronze Age, the picture
changes somewhat. Whereas Adad is perceived here as provider of the neces-
sities of life, in addition to his attendant the bull, now he is also accompanied
by such violent cosmic elements as the stormy winds, rains, clouds, and dev-
astating flood waters. The Storm-god is referred to as the “god of the raging
storms.” He is characterized as a terrible Warrior-god, wearing a four-horned
crown and carrying a triple thunderbolt symbol in one hand and a battle-axe
in the other.
Adad is conceived of as the god who provides the necessary sustenance for
daily living; however, in the continuing conflicts throughout this vast area, it
was also Adad who overwhelmed his enemies with his floods, evil downpour,
and tempests. It was Adad who brought famine, destruction, and ruin on the
land with his storm clouds and devastating floods. These emphasize a Storm-
god conceived of primarily as a destructive force in the north and west.
In Syria proper, this aggressive function of the Storm-god is emphasized
in the form of his accompanying deified retinue. In addition, he is associated
with either a robed, warlike goddess, a nude goddess of fertility, or both.
The Storm-God and His Associates: Summary and Conclusions 291
Even though, thus far, there are comparatively few sources on the robed war-
like goddess, the fact that they do occur at all is an indication that within the
hinterland of Syria, the popular conception of Hadad was an aggressive and
active Storm-god, primarily engaged in warfare on behalf of his people.
In western Syria, in the Middle through the Late Bronze Ages, Hadad be-
came the Storm-god Baal. It is evident that the sociocultural emphasis was
changed from the conception of Hadad as an active warrior-god primarily to
that of a pacific fertility deity. Baal’s immediate cosmic attendants are all rec-
ognized elements of the fertility process. As “Rider of the Clouds,” he is al-
ways accompanied by his deified cosmic associates—the winds, thunderbolt,
lightning, and rains. His daughters are Pidriya the mist, Taliya the showers,
and Arsiya the soil. Actively participating in this ongoing fertility process is
his consort and constant associate, the goddess Anat.
It was within this cultural milieu that the active Storm-god warrior
Hadad became the passive, dying, Fertility-god Baal. On the one hand,
sources still represent him wearing a crown with stylized bull’s horns, bran-
dishing a battle-mace in his right hand, while holdsing in his left hand a styl-
ized thunderbolt that ends in a spear-head thrusting toward the ground. On
the other hand, his immediate attendants graphically represent the primary
elements indispensable for survival within the tenuous ecosystem of the west-
ern Syrian environment.
Within the southwestern Syrian milieu, Yahweh became a Storm-god,
adopting many of the Syrian Storm-god’s attributes. However, while the
titles and imagery of Yahweh were similar to other numina of this genre in
the ancient Near East, the differences were also striking. There was a diminu-
tion of Yahweh’s aspect as a nature god and an increasing emphasis on his
functional role within the historical and social sphere. Since, unlike Baal,
Yahweh’s conception was more historical than mythical, even though his im-
mediate attendants may bear the same names and assume the same forms as
Baal’s, they need not be presumed to perform the same functions. Even as
Baal’s origin was mythical and his attendants were necessarily parts of the
mythical realm, so conversely, Yahweh was a god of history, and his associates
must be conceived of as active within the historical sphere.
On the cosmic plane, Yahweh as a “Rider of the Clouds,” “. . . mounted
on his cherub” and “flew on the wings of the wind.” He carried with him his
clouds streaming with water, his thunder in the tempest, his hailstones and
flashes of fire, and his bolts of lightning. Similar language was used in the de-
scription of Baal’s deified cosmic attendants. The difference here is that,
while these lesser gods constituted some of the deified elements of the Syrian
Storm-god’s mythical retinue and served to underscore his unique function
as a Fertility-god, to the Hebrew poet, these cosmic forces were natural
292 The Storm-God and His Associates: Summary and Conclusions
293
294 Bibliography
________. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. London: School of African and Oriental
Studies, 1968. Repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1978.
________. “Zabul Yam and Thapit Nahar in the Combat between Baal and the Sea.”
JPOS 16 (1936) 17–21.
Algaze, G. “The Uruk Expansion: Cross-Cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civ-
ilization.” Current Anthropology 30 (1989) 571–608.
Alkim, U. Bahadir. Anatolia. London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1969.
Allote de Füye, F.-M. Documents présargoniques. Paris: Leroux, 1908–20.
________. “Notes Sumériennes.” RA (1919) 143–54.
Alp, S. “Bemerkungen zu den Hieroglyphen des hethitischen Monuments von Imam-
kulu.” ArOr 18 (1950) 1–8.
Alt, A. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
________. Der Gott der Väter. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929.
________. “The Settlement of the Israelites in Palestine.” Pp. 175–221 in Essays in Old
Testament History and Religion. New York: Doubleday, 1968.
Ambraseys, N. N. “Some Characteristic Features of the Anatolian Fault Zone.” Tectono-
physics 9 (1970) 143–65.
________. “Studies in Historical Seismicity and Tectonics.” Pp. 7–16 in Geodynamics To-
day. London: Royal Society, 1975.
________. “Value of Historical Records of Earthquakes.” Nature 232/5310 (1971) 375–
79.
Anderson, G. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies on Their Social and Political
Importance. HSM 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Anderson, K. T. “Der Gott meines Vaters.” StudOr 16 (1963) 170–88.
Archi, A. “Les dieux d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire avant J. C. et des dieux d’Ugarit.” AAAS 29–
30 (1979–80) 12–17, 170.
________. “Hittite and Hurrian Literatures: An Overview.” Pp. 2373–76 in vol. 4 of
CANE.
Arnaud, D. Recherches au pays d’Astata: Emar VI/1–4. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations, 1985–87.
Arnold, W. R. The Ephod and the Ark. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.
Astour, M. C. Hittite and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age. Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology and Literature 73. Gothenburg: Åströms, 1989.
________. “The Origin of the Terms ‘Canaan,’ ‘Phoenician,’ and ‘Purple.’ ” JNES 24
(1965) 346–50.
________. “Place Names.” Pp. 312–24 in vol. 2 of RSP.
________. “Some Divine Names from Ugarit.” JAOS 86 (1966) 277–84.
________. “Toponymy of Ebla and Ethnohistory of Northern Syria.” JAOS 108 (1988)
545–55.
________. “Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists.” Pp. 17–34 in Festschrift Elmar Edel,
ed. M. Görg. Bamberg: M. Görg, 1979.
Aufrecht, W. E. “The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age” (review article of K. P. Jackson
1983). BASOR 266 (1987) 85–95.
________. “A Bibliography of the Deir ºAlla Plaster Texts.” Newsletter for Targumic and
Cognate Studies, Supplement 2 (1985) 1–7.
Avalos, H. “Zaphon, Mount.” Pp. 1040–41 in vol. 6 of ABD.
Avigad, N. “New Names on Hebrew Seals.” ErIsr 12 (1975) 66–71.
296 Bibliography
Axelsson, L. E. The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Ne-
gev and Southern Judah. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987.
Bailey, L. R. “Israelite ªEl shadday and Amorite Bel Shade.” JBL 87 (1968) 434–38.
Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
Barré, M. L. The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. Bal-
timore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.
________. “The Seven Epithets of Zion in Ps 48, 2–3.” Bib 69 (1988) 557–63.
Barrelet, M.-T. “Les déesses armées et ailées.” Syria 32 (1955) 242–43.
Barton, G. A. Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1918.
________. Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1929.
Bauer, T. Die Ostkanaanäer: Ein philologisch-historische Untersuchung über die Wander-
schicht der sogenannten “Amoriter” in Babylonien. Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major,
1926.
Bauer, T., A. Falkenstein, and B. Landsberger. “Lexikalisches Archiv.” ZA 42 (1934) 152–
69.
Baumann, E. “Struktur-Untersuchungen im Psalter I.” ZAW 61 (1945–48) 114–76.
Beaumont, P. The Middle East: A Geographical Study. New York: Halstead, 1988.
Beck, P. “The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ºAjrud).” Tel Aviv 9 (1983) 3–86.
Beckman, G. “The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka.” JANES 14 (1982) 11–25.
________. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Hittite Anatolia.” Pp. 529–32 in
vol. 1 of CANE.
Beek, M. A. “Der Dornbusch als Wohnsitz Gottes (Deut. xxxiii 16).” OTS 14 (1965)
155–61.
Biella, J. C. Dictionary of Old South Arabic – Sabaean Dialect. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1982.
Benz, F. L. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Pontifical Bibli-
cal Institute, 1972.
Beran, T. Die hethitische Glyptik von Bogazköy, I: Die Siegel und Siegelabdrücke den vor-
und althethitischen Perioden und die Siegel der hethitischen Grosskönige. WVDOG 76.
Berlin: Mann, 1967.
Bezold, C. Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection IV. London: British
Museum, 1888–89.
Biggs, R. “The Abu Salabikh Tablets.” JCS 20 (1966) 73–88.
________. “An Inscription of Dilum-Gamil of Uruk.” Pp. 1–5 in Studies Presented to
A. L. Oppenheim June 7, 1964, ed. R. M. Adams. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1964.
________. Inscriptions from Tell Abu Íalabikh. OIP 99. Chicago: Oriental Institute,
1974.
Bittel, K. Die Felsbilder von Yazilikaya. Bamberg: Druck der Buch- und Kunstdruckerei
Bamberger Tagblatt, 1934.
________. Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press,
1970.
________. Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazilikaya. WVDOG 79. Berlin: Mann, 1975.
________. “Die Reliefs am Karabel bei Nif (Kemal Pasa).” AfO 12 (1939–41) 181–93.
Bibliography 297
Causse, A. (ed.). Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, II. Bibliothèque
archéologique et historique. Paris: Geuthner, 1939.
Chabas, F. Le papyrus magique Harris. Chalon-sur-Saone: Dejussieu, 1860.
Charpin, D. “De la joie à l’Orage.” MARI 5 (1987) 661.
Chase, D. “A Note on an Inscription from Kuntillet ºAjrud.” BASOR 246 (1982) 63–67.
Chiera, E. “King, Storm, the Glory of Which Is Noble.” No. 18 in Sumerian Religious
Texts: Catalogue of the Babylonian Cuneiform Tablets in the Princeton University Library.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1921.
________. Sumerian Epics and Myths. OIP 15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1934.
________. Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents. OIP 16. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1934.
Childs, B. S. The Book of Exodus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.
________. A Study of Myth in Genesis I–XI. Ph.D. Dissertation. Basel University, 1955.
Civil, M., and E. Reiner. “Another Volume of the Sultantepe Tablets.” JNES 26 (1967)
200–205.
Clark, G., and S. Piggott. Prehistoric Societies. New York: Knopf, 1970.
Clay, A. T. “Entemena.” Pp. 5–7 in vol. 1 of Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions, ed.
G. A. Barton. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1918.
Clemen, C. “Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos.” MVAG 42/43 (1939) 1–
77.
Clerc, L. C. de. Catalogue methodique et raisonnée, I et II: Cylindres orientaux. Paris: Leroux,
1888–90.
Clifford, R. J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. HSM 4. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
________. “Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts.” Or 53 (1984) 184–98.
________. “The Temple in the Ugaritic Myth of Baal.” Pp. 137–45 in Symposium Cele-
brating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental
Research (1900–1979), ed. F. M. Cross. Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1979.
________. “The Tent of El and Israelite Tent of Meeting.” CBQ 33 (1971) 221–27.
Cody, A. “Exodus 18,12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites.” Bib 49 (1968)
153–66.
Cohen, H. R. “The Paleoecology of South Central Anatolia at the End of the Pleistocene
and the Beginning of the Holocene.” AS 20 (1970) 7–35.
Collon, D. The Alalakh Cylinder Seals. BAR International Series 132. London: BAR Series,
1982.
________. The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. AOAT 27. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1975.
________. “The Smiting God: A Study of a Bronze in the Pomerance Collection in New
York.” Levant 4 (1972) 111–35.
Conrad, D. “Der Gott Reschef.” ZAW 83 (1972) 172–73.
Contenau, G. Antiquités Orientales. 2 vols. Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1926–31.
________. La glyptique syro-hittite. Paris: Geuthner, 1922.
________. Tablettes cappadociennes: Textes cunéiformes du Louvre. Vol. 4. Paris: Geuthner,
1920.
________. Umma sous la dynastie d’Ur. Paris: Champion, 1916.
Coogan, M. D. Stories from Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
300 Bibliography
Cooper, A. “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts.” Pp. 347–52 in vol. 3 of
RSP.
Cooper, A., and M. H. Pope. “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts.” Pp.
333–469 in vol. 3 of RSP.
Cooper, J. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur: an-gim dim-ma. AnOr 52. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1978.
Coote, R. B., and K. W. Whitelam. The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective.
Sheffield: Almond, 1987.
Craigie, P. C. “Psalm XXIX in Hebrew Poetic Tradition.” VT 22 (1972) 143–51.
Cross, F. M., Jr. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
________. “Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament.” BASOR 117 (1950) 19–
21.
________. “The ‘Olden Gods’ in Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths.” Pp. 329–38 in
Magnalia Dei—The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory
of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross Jr., W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976.
________. “The Priestly Tabernacle in Light of Recent Research.” Pp. 169–80 in Temples
and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Cen-
tennial of Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, March, 1977,
ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981.
________. “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs.” HTR 55 (1962) 244–59.
Cross, F. M. Jr., and D. N. Freedman. “A Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 =
Psalm 18.” JBL 72 (1953) 16–21.
________. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975.
Cunchillos, J.-L. “Le dieu Mut, guerrier de El.” Syria 62 (1985) 205–18.
Curtis, A. H. W. “The ‘Subjugation of the Waters’ Motif in the Psalms: Imagery or Polem-
ics?” JSS 23 (1978) 245–56.
Curtiss, C. R. The Lion, the Eagle, the Man and the Bull in Mesopotamian Glyptic. 2 vols.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale University, 1974.
Daddi, F. P. “Aspects du culte de la divinité hattie Teteshapi.” Pp. 361–80 in Hethitica VII:
Acta Anatolica E. Laroche oblata, ed. T. Lebrun. Louvain: Peeters, 1987.
Dahood, M. J. “Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine.” Pp. 75–79 in Le Antiche
Divinità Semitiche, ed. S. Moscati. Rome: Studi Semitici, 1958.
________. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV.” Bib 47 (1966) 403–19.
________. Psalms I: 1–50. AB 16. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966.
________. Psalms II: 51–100. AB 17. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
David, M. “L’edit de Samsi-iluna.” In Compte rendu de la troisième rencontre assyriologique
internationale. Leiden: Nederlandsch Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1954.
Day, J. “Asherah in the Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature.” JBL 105 (1986) 385–
408.
________. “Baal (Deity).” Pp. 545–49 in vol. 1 of ABD.
________. “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm xxix and Ha-
bakkuk iii 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah vi.” VT 29 (1979) 143–51.
________. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1985.
Bibliography 301
________. “Deux stèles de Ras Shamra portant une dédicace au dieu Dagon.” Syria 16
(1935) 177–80.
________. “La mythologie phénicienne d’après les tablettes de Ras Shamra.” RHR 104
(1931) 353–408.
________. “Le sanctuaire et les dieux phéniciens de Ras Shamra.” RHR 105 (1932) 245–
302.
Eakin, F. “The Reed Sea and Baalism.” JBL 86 (1967) 378–84.
Eaton, J. H. Kingship and the Psalms. London: SPCK, 1976.
Ebeling, E. “Adad, Wettergott.” Pp. 22–26 in RlA 1.
________. Die akkadische Gebetsserie “Handerhebung.” Deutsche Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung 20. Berlin: Akademie, 1953.
Ebeling, E. (ed.). Keilschrift aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. WVDOG 34. Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1915–23.
Ebeling, E., B. Meissner, and E. F. Weidner. Die Inschriften der altassyrischen Könige. Alto-
rientalische Bibliotek 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926.
Ebeling, E., B. Meissner, et al. (eds.). Reallexicon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archäologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928–.
Edel, E. “Neue Identifikationen typographischer Namen in den konventionellen Namens-
zusammenstellungen des Neuen Reiches.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 3 (1975)
57–73.
________. “Zur historischen Geographie der Gegend von Kadesh.” ZA 50 (1953) 253–
58.
Edwards, I. E. S., C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond (eds.). Prolegomena and Prehistory.
Vol. 1/1 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970.
Edzard, D. O. La Civilisation de Mari. Bibliotheque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres
de l’Université de Liege, 182. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1967.
________. “Enlil.” P. 36 in Die Mythologie der alten Kulturvölker, Vorderer Orient, ed.
H. W. Haussig. Vol. 1 of Wörterbuch der Mythologie. Stuttgart: Klett, 1965.
________. “Mesopotamien: Die Mythologie der Sumerer und Akkader.” Pp. 35–50 in
Die Mythologie der alten Kulturvölker, Vorderer Orient, ed. H. W. Haussig. Vol. 1 of
Wörterbuch der Mythologie. Stuttgart: Klett, 1965.
________. “Pantheon und Kult in Mari.” CRRAI 15 (1966) 51–71.
Edzard, D. O. (ed.). Adam Falkenstein Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag, 17 Sept 1966. Heidel-
berg Studien zum Alten Orient. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967.
Eisen, G. A. Ancient Oriental Cylinder and Other Seals with a Description of the Collection
of Mrs. William H. Moore. OIP 47. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.
Eissfeldt, O. “ªähéyäh ªåsär ªähéyäh und ªEl ºÔlam.” Pp. 193–98 in Kleine Schriften 4. Tü-
bingen: Mohr, 1968.
________. “The Alphabetical Cuneiform Texts from Ras Shamra Published in ‘Le Palais
Royal d’Ugarit.’ ” JSS 5 (1960) 1–49.
________. “Baal Saphon von Ugarit und Amon von Ägypten.” Forschungen und
Fortschritte 36 (1962) 338–40.
________. Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer. Halle:
Max Niemeyer, 1932.
________. El im Ugaritischen Pantheon. Berlin: Akademie, 1951.
304 Bibliography
________. “Der Gott Bethel.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 28 (1930) 1–28. Reprinted
as pp. 206–33 in vol. 1 of Kleine Schriften. Tübingen: Mohr, 1962.
________. “Jahwe der Gott der Väter.” TLZ 88 (1963) cols. 481–90.
________. “Jahwe Sabaoth.” KS, 3.102–23.
________. “Psalm 80,” KS, 3.221–32.
Eliade, M. Patterns of Comparative Religion, trans. R. Sheed. Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press, 1996.
Emerton, J. A. “Leviathan and ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for Dragon.”
VT 32 (1982) 327–31.
________. “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions of
Kuntillet ºAjrud.” ZAW 94 (1982) 2–20.
Erinc, S. “Changes in the Physical Environment in Turkey since the End of the Last Gla-
cial.” Pp. 101–39 in The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East since the
Last Ice Age, ed. W. C. Brice. London: Academic, 1978.
Erman, A. Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben in Altertum, rev. H. Ranke. Tübingen: Mohr,
1923.
________. “Der Hiobstein.” ZDPV 15 (1892) 205–11.
Eusebius Pamphili. Evangelicae Praeparationis. Vol. 5/3 of Fragmenta Historicorum Grae-
corum, ed. C. Mullerus. Paris: Didot, Instituti Franciae Typographo, 1851–53.
Eyre, C. J. “The Agricultural Cycle, Farming, and Water Management in the Ancient
Near East.” Pp. 175–89 in vol. 1 of CANE .
Falkenstein, A. “Die Anunna in der sumerischen Überlieferung.” Pp. 127–40 in Studies in
Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965. AS 16. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
________. Archäische Texte aus Uruk. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemein-
schaft in Uruk-Warka 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.
________. Grammatik der Sprache Gudea von Lagash. AnOr 28. Rome: Pontifical Bibli-
cal Institute, 1949.
________. “Hymn to Enlil,” Sumerische Gotterlieder. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger 1.
Heidelberg Akademie der Wissenschaften phil.-hist. Klasse. Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
1959–60.
________. “Sumerische religiöse Texte.” ZA 49 (1949) 80–150.
________. “Ein sumerischer Gottesbrief.” ZA 44 (1938) 1–25.
________. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Forschungensgemeinschaft Aus-
grabungen in Uruk-Warka, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.
Falkenstein, A., and W. von Soden (eds.). Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete.
Bibliothek der Alten Welt. Zurich: Artemis, 1953.
Faulkner, R. O. “The Battle of Kadesh.” Mitt. deutsch. Inst. Kairo 16 (1958) 93ff.
________. “Egypt: From the Inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty to the Death of
Ramesses III.” Pp. 227–29 in vol. 2/2 (3d ed.) of CAH.
Feigan, I. “The Heavenly Sieve.” JNES 9 (1950) 40–43.
Fensham, F. C. “Did a Treaty between the Israelites and the Qenites Exist?” BASOR 175
(1964) 51–54.
________. “Notes on Keret, CTA 14: 106–14.” JNSL 9 (1981) 43–54.
________. “Ps. 68:23 in the Light of the Recently Discovered Ugaritic Tablets.” JNES 19
(1960) 292–93.
Bibliography 305
University Press, 1975. Repr. pp. 131–78 in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in
Early Hebrew Poetry, 1980.
________. “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions.” Pp. 85–96 in Sympo-
sia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of
Oriental Research (1900–1975), ed. F. M. Cross Jr. Cambridge, Mass.: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 1975.
________. “The Name of the God of Moses.” JBL 79 (1960) 151–56.
________. “The Poetic Structure of the Framework of Deuteronomy 33.” Pp. 25–46 in
The Bible World: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gordon, ed. G. Rendsburg et al. New York:
Ktav, 1980.
________. “Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy.” JBL 96 (1977) 5–26.
________. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980.
________. “The Religion of Early Israel.” Pp. 315–35 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays
in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr., ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D.
McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
________. “ ‘Who Is like Thee among the Gods?’: The Religion of Israel.” Pp. 315–35 in
Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr., ed. P. D. Miller Jr.,
P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
________. “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs.” HTR 55 (1962) 250–59.
Freedman, D. N., and F. M. Cross Jr. “The Blessings of Moses.” JBL 67 (1948) 191–210.
Freedman, D. N., and C. F. Hyland. “Psalm 29: A Structural Analysis.” HTR 66 (1973)
237–56.
Friedrich, J. Hethitisches Keilschrift Lesebuch. Vols. 1–2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1960.
Frymer-Kensky, T. In the Wake of the Goddess: Women, Culture and the Transformation of
Pagan Myth. New York: Free Press, 1992.
________. “The Planting of Man: A Study in Biblical Imagery.” Pp. 130–31 in Love and
Death in the Ancient Near East. ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, Conn.:
Four Quarters, 1987.
Fulco, W. J. The Canaanite God Reshep. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society,
1976.
Furlani, G. “The Basic Aspect of the Hittite Religion.” HTR 31 (1938) 231–62.
________. “Quattro Sigilli Babilonesi e Assiri,” Rendiconti della Real Accademia dei Lincei
6/4 (Rome: Academia Nazionale di Lincei, 1928) 130–31.
________. “Fulmine Mesopotamici, Hittiti, Greci ed Etruschi.” Studi Etruschi 5 (1931)
203–31.
________. La Religione degli Hittiti. Bologna: Zanicelli, 1936.
Gadd, C. J. Ur Excavation Texts I, No. 145. Philadelphia: Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania, 1928.
Gadd, C. J., and L. Legrain. Ur Excavations: Royal Inscriptions. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1928.
Gal, Z. “The Late Bronze Age in Galilee: A Reassessment.” BASOR 272 (1988) 79–84.
Gardiner, A. H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1947.
________. The Chester Beatty Papyri. London: Oxford University Press, 1931.
Garelli, P. (ed.). Gilgames et sa légende. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960.
Garelli, P., and D. Collon. Les Assyriens en Cappadoce. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1963.
Bibliography 307
________. Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum. Part 6. Lon-
don: British Museum, 1975.
Gaster, T. H. “An Ancient Eulogy of Israel: Deut 33:3–5, 26–29.” JBL 66 (1947) 53–62.
________. “The Battle of the Rain and the Sea: An Ancient Semitic Nature-Myth.” Iraq
4 (1937) 21–32.
________. Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row,
1975.
________. “On Habakkuk 3, 4,” JBL 62 (1943) 345ff.
________. “Psalm 29.” JQR 37 (1946–47) 55–65.
________. Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Dreams in the Ancient Near East. New York: Schu-
man, 1950.
Gelb, I. J. A Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1980.
________. “The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples.” JCS 15 (1961) 35–46.
________. Glossary of Old Akkadian. MAD 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1957.
________. Hurrians and Subarians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944.
________. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1970.
________. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in the Chicago Natural History Museum, Fieldiana:
Anthropology 44/2. Chicago: Chicago Natural History Museum, 1955.
________. “The Word Dragoman in the Ancient Near East.” Glossa 2 (1968) 93–104.
Genouillac, H. de. Fouilles de Telloh. Paris: Geuthner, 1934–36.
________. Inventaire de tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Imperial Ottoman. Vol. 2.
Paris: Geuthner, 1909.
________. Textes économiques d’Oumma de l’époque d’Our. Paris: Geuthner, 1922.
Gese, H., et al. Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer. Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 1970.
Gevirtz, S. Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1963.
Gibson, J. C. L. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978.
________. “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.” Or 53 (1984) 204–9.
Gibson, M., and R. D. Biggs (eds.). Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East. Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 6. Malibu: Undena, 1977.
Gifford, E. H. Eusebii Pamphili, Evangelicae Praeparationis: Libri xv. Vol. 3 (Oxonii: Ty-
pographeo Academio, 1903).
Ginsberg, H. L. “Baal’s Two Messengers.” BASOR 95 (1944) 25–30.
________. “The Rebellion and Death of Baºlu.” Or 5 (1936) 161–98.
________. “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody.” ErIsr 9 (1969) 45–50.
________. “The Ugaritic Texts and Textual Criticism.” JBL 62 (1943) 109–15.
________. “The Victory of the Land-God over the Sea-God.” JPOS 15 (1935) 327–33.
Giveon, R. Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
________. “Toponymes Ouest-Asiatiques à Soleb.” VT 14 (1964) 239–55.
________. “Two Egyptian Documents concerning Bashan from the Time of Rameses
II.” RSO 40 (1965) 179–202.
Glock, A. E. “Early Israel as the Kingdom of Yahweh: The Influence of Archaeological Ev-
idence on the Reconstruction of Religion in Early Israel.” CTM 41 (1970) 558–605.
308 Bibliography
Görg, M. Beitrage zur Zeitgeschichte der Anfange Israels. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989.
________. “Jahwe: Ein Toponym?” BN 1 (1976) 7–14.
________. “Der Name ‘Kanaan’ in ägyptischer Wiedergabe.” BN 18 (1982) 26–33.
________. “Thutmose III und die Sh·sw-Region.” JNES 38 (1979) 199–202.
________. “Zur Geschichte der S·¶w.” Or 45 (1976) 424–28.
Goetze, A. “Die Annalen des Murshilish.” MVAG 38: 1–274. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1933.
________. “The City Khalbi and the Khapiru People.” BASOR 79 (1940) 32–34.
________. “An Inscription of Simbar Shihu.” JCS 19 (1965) 127–28.
________. “Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Dialect?” Language 17 (1941) 127–37.
________. Kleinasien. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft: Kulturgeschichte des Alten
Orients. Munich: Beck, 1957.
________. Kulturgeschichte Kleinasiens. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3/1/3.
Munich: Beck, 1974.
________. “An Old Babylonian Itinerary.” JCS 7 (1953) 51–63.
________. “On the Chronology of the Second Millennium b.c.” JCS 11 (1957) 63–73.
Goff, B. Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963.
Goldman, H. “The Sandson Monument of Tarsus.” JAOS 60 (1940) 544–53.
Good, R. M. “Geminated Sonants, Word Stress, and Energic in -nn/-.nn in Ugaritic.” UF
13 (1981) 117–21.
________. “Some Draught Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals.” UF 16
(1984) 77–81.
Gordon, C. H. “El, the Father of Shnm.” JNES 35 (1976) 261–62.
________. “HBY: Possessor of Horns and Tails.” UF 18 (1986) 129–32.
________. “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil.” Pp. 4–30 in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Trans-
formations, ed. A. Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.
________. “The Meaning of the Ideogram Dkaskal. kur = ‘Underground Water-
Course’,” JCS 21 (1967) 82ff.
________. Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies 33 (1985) 15.
________. “Notes on Proper Names in the Ebla Tablets.” P. 156 in Eblaite Personal
Names and Semitic Name-Giving: Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, July 15–17,
1985, ed. A. Archi. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988.
________. Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949.
________. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965.
________. “Western Asiatic Seals in the Walters Gallery.” Iraq 6 (1939) 3–34.
Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–
1050 B.C. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979.
Grabbe, L. L. “The Seasonal Pattern and the Baal Cycle.” UF 8 (1976) 57–64.
Gray, G. B. Studies in Hebrew Proper Names. London: Black, 1896.
Gray, J. The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.
________. “The Blood Bath of the Goddess Anath in the Ras Shamra Texts.” UF 11
(1979) 315–24.
________. “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: Ps. LXVIII.” JSS 22 (1977) 2–26.
________. “The Desert God ºATTR in the Literature and Religion of Canaan.” JNES 8
(1949) 72–83.
________. “The Hunting of Baal: Fratricide and Atonement in the Mythology of Ras
Shamra.” JNES 10 (1951) 146–55.
Bibliography 309
________. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old
Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Green, A. “Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography.” Pp. 1842–55 in vol. 3 of
CANE.
Green, A. R. The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Missoula, Mont.:
American Schools of Oriental Research, 1975.
Greenfield, J. C. “Baal’s Throne and Isaiah 6:1.” Pp. 193–98 in Mélanges biblique et orien-
taux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Lagasse, and M. Tardieu.
AOAT 215. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker,
1985.
________. “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature.” Pp. 545–60 in The Literary
Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1989.
Greenspoon, L. J. “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection.” Pp. 261–81 in Traditions in
Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Greenstein, E. L. “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic.” Maarav 2/3 (1982) 195–216.
Gressmann, H. Altorientalische Bilder zum Alten Testament. 2d ed. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1927.
Grønback, J. H. “Baal’s Battle with Yam: A Canaanite Creation Fight.” JSOT 33 (1985)
27–44.
Grondahl, F. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Bib-
lical Institute, 1967.
Grund, A. “Der geographische Zyklus im Karst.” Pp. 621–40 in Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft
für Erdkunde zu Berlin. Published by the author, 1914.
Güterbock, H. “Eti tanri tasvirleri ile tanri adlari.” Belleten 26 (1943) 273–93.
________. “Gedanken über das Wesen des Gottes Telepinus.” Pp. 207–11 in Festschrift
Johannes Friedrich. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959.
________. “Hittite Mythology.” Pp. 155–75 in Mythologies of the Ancient World, ed.
S. N. Kramer. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961.
________. “Hittite Religion.” Pp. 89–95 in Forgotten Religions, ed. V. Ferm. New York:
Philosophical, 1950.
________. “The Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Forerunners to
Hesiod.” AJA 52 (1948) 123–34.
________. “The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire.” CahHM 2/2 (1954) 383–94.
________. “Kanes and Nesa: Two Forms of One Anatolian Name.” ErIsr 5 (1958) 46–
53.
________. Kumarbi: Mythen vom churritischen Kronos. Zurich: Europa, 1946.
________. “Notes on Some Anatolian Monuments.” AS 6 (1956) 53–58.
________. The Song of Ullikummi. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research,
1952.
Gurney, O. R. “Hittite Kingship.” Pp. 105–22 in Myth, Ritual and Kingship, ed. S. H.
Hooke. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958.
________. “Hittite Prayers of Murshili II.” Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthro-
pology 27 (1940) 124.
________. The Hittites. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1972.
310 Bibliography
________. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford: Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy, 1977.
Gurney, O. R., et al. The Sultantepe Tablets. Occasional Publications of the British Insti-
tute of Archaeology at Ankara 1. London: British School of Archaeology at Ankara,
1957–64.
Haas, V. “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstrucktion des hethitischen Frühjahrsfestes (ezen pu-
rulliyas).” ZA 78 (1988) 284–98.
________. “Death and the Afterlife in Hittite Thought.” Pp. 2021–22 in vol. 3 of
CANE.
________. Hethitische Berggötter und hurritische Steindämonen: Riten, Kulte und Mythen—
Eine Einführung in die altkleinasiatischen religiösen Vorstellungen. Kulturgeschichte der
Antiken Welt. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1982.
________. Der Kult von Nerik. Studia Pohl 4. Dissertationes Scientificae de Rebus Ori-
entis. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970.
________. “Die Unterwelts- und Jenseitsvorstellungen im hethitischen Kleinasien.” Or
n.s. 45 (1976) 197–212.
Habel, N. C. Yahweh versus Baal. New York: Bookman, 1964.
Hackett, J. A. The Balaam Texts from Deir ºAlla. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984.
________. “Religious Traditions in Israelite Transjordan.” Pp. 125–36 in Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr., ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson,
and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
________. “Some Observations on the Balaam Traditions at Deir ºAlla.” BA 49 (1986)
216–22.
Haddad, H. S. Baal-Hadad: A Study of the Syrian Storm-God. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univer-
sity of Chicago, 1960.
Hadley, J. M. “Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ºAjrud.” VT
37 (1987) 180–213.
Hahn, J. Das “Goldene Kalb”: Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte Israels.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1981.
Hall, H. R. Ur Excavations I. London: Oxford University Press, 1927.
Hallo, W. W. Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles. American Oriental Series 43. New Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1957.
________. “Royal Inscriptions of the Early Babylonian Period: A Bibliography.” BiOr 18
(1961) 4–14.
Hallo, W. W., and W. K. Simpson The Ancient Near East: A History. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich, 1971.
Halpern, B. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983.
Hanfmann, G. M. A. “Four Urartian ‘Bulls’ Heads.” AS 6 (1956) 205–13.
________. “A Near Eastern Horseman.” Syria 38 (1961) 243–55.
Harding, G. L. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.
Hawkins, J. D. “The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian.” AS 25 (1975) 119–56.
Healey, J. F. “The Underworld Character of the God Dagan.” JNSL 5 (1977) 43–51.
Heaton, J. H. “Burning the Corn: New Light on the Killing of Motu.” Or 52 (1983) 248–
51.
________. “The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3.” ZAW 76 (1964) 144–71.
Hehn, J. Hymnen und Gebete an Marduk. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905.
Bibliography 311
Hole, F. “Environmental Instabilities and Urban Origins.” Pp. 121–51 in Chiefdoms and
Early States in the Near East, ed. G. Stein and M. Rothman. Madison, Wisc.: Prehis-
tory, 1994.
Horn, S. H. The Relations between Egypt and Asia during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago, 1951.
Houwink ten Cate, P. H. The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during
the Hellenistic Period. Leiden: Brill, 1961.
Hrouda, B. “Die Churriter als Problem archäologischer Forschung,” Archaeologia Geo-
graphica 7 (1958) 14–19.
Hrozny, B. Inscriptions cunéiformes du Kültepe. Vol. 1. Prague: Statni pedagogicke nake,
1952.
________. “Sumer-babylon: Mythen von dem Gott Ninrag.” MVAG 8/5 (1903) 170–72.
Huffmon, H. B. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1965.
Hurowitz, V. Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Se-
mitic Writings. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University, 1988.
Hvidberg, F. Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Re-
ligion. Leiden: Brill, 1962.
Hyatt, J. P. “The Deity Bethel in the Old Testament.” JAOS 59 (1939) 81–89.
________. “The Origin of Mosaic Yahwism.” Pp. 85–93 in The Teacher’s Yoke, ed. E. J.
Vardaman et al. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1964.
________. “Was Yahweh Originally a Creator Deity?” JBL 86 (1967) 369–67.
________. “Yahweh as ‘God of My Father.’ ” VT 5 (1955) 130–36.
Isserlin, B. S. J. “Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-Names in Palestine: A Historical and
Geographical Sketch.” PEQ 89 (1957) 133–44.
________. “Names and Provinces in Semitic-Speaking Ancient Near East.” Proceedings of
the Leeds Philosophical Society 7 (1956) 83–110.
Jacobsen, T. “The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat.” JAOS 88 (1968) 104–8.
________. “The Cosmos as a State.” Pp. 125–84 in The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient
Man, ed. H. Frankfort et al. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
________. “The Creation of the Hoe.” Textes religieux sumériens du Louvre 72. Paris: Le-
roux, 1930.
________. “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia.” ZA 48 (1957) 91–140. Repr.
pp. 132–56 in Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History
and Culture, ed. W. Moran. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
________. “The Inscriptions.” Pp. 289–98 in Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region,
ed. P. Delougaz and S. Lloyd. OIP 58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
________. “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pp. 71–76 in Unity and Diver-
sity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1975.
________. “Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article.” Pp. 104–31 in Toward the Image of
Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. W. Moran. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
________. Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and
Culture, ed. W. Moran. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
________. Treasures of Darkness. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.
Bibliography 313
Jacobsen, T. (ed. and trans.). The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Jacobsen, T., and R. M. Adams. “Progressive Changes in Soil Salinity and Sedimentation
Contributed to the Breakup of Past Civilizations.” Science 128 (1958) 1251–58.
Jacobsen, T., and S. N. Kramer. “The Myth of Inanna and Bilulu.” JNES 12 (1953) 160–
88.
Jacobsthal, P. Der Blitz in der orientalischen und griechischen Kunst. Berlin: Wiedmann,
1906.
James, E. O. The Ancient Gods: The History and Diffusion of Religion in the Ancient Near
East and the Eastern Mediterranean. New York: Capricorn, 1974.
________. Myth and Ritual in the Ancient Near East. London: Capricorn, 1958.
Jean, C.-F. “Les noms propres de personnes dans les lettres de Mari.” Pp. 63–98 in Studia
Mariana, ed A. Parrot. Leiden: Brill, 1950.
________. La religion sumérienne. Paris: Geuthner, 1931.
Jenni, E. “Das Wort ºolam im Alten Testament” (part 1). ZAW 64 (1952–53) 197–248.
________. “Das Wort ºolam im Alten Testament” (part 2). ZAW 65 (1954) 1–35.
Jennings, J. N. Karst. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Jensen, P. Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1900.
________. Die Kosmologie der Babylonier. Strassburg: Trübner, 1890.
Jeremias, J. Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1987.
________. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977.
Jestin, R. R. Nouvelles tablettes sumériennes de Shuruppak au Musée d’Istanbul. Biblio-
thèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut français d’archéologie d’Istanbul.
Paris: Maisonneuve, 1957.
Jirku, A. Der Mythus der Kanaanäer. Bonn: Habelt, 1966.
________. “Shnm (Schunama) der Sohn des Gottes ªIl.” ZAW 82 (1970) 278–79.
Jöcken, P. Das Buch Habakuk: Darstellung der Geschichte seiner kritischen Erforschung mit
einer eigenen Beurteilung. Bonn: Hanstein, 1977.
Johnson, A. R. Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967.
Jones, G. H. “ ‘Holy War’ or ‘Yahweh War.’ ” VT 25 (1975) 642–58.
Jones, H. L. The Geography of Strabo 8. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.
Kaiser, O. Die mythische Bedeutung des Meers in Ägypten, Ugarit, und Israel. BZAW 78.
Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1962.
Kapelrud, A. S. Baºal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen: Gad, 1952.
________. “Baal, Schöpfung und Chaos.” UF 11 (1979) 407–12.
________. “The Number Seven in the Ugaritic Texts.” VT 18 (1968) 94–99.
________. The Violent Goddess: Anath in the Ras Shamra Texts. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,
1969.
Karki, I. Die Sprache der sumerischen Königsinschriften der frühaltbabylonischen Zeit. Stu-
dOr 35. Helsinki, 1968.
Katzenstein, H. J. The History of Tyre. Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research,
1973.
Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Kellerman, G. “The Telepinus Myth Reconsidered.” Pp. 115–24 in Kanishshuwar, ed.
H. A. Hoffner Jr. and G. Beckman. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1986.
314 Bibliography
Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard. Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford:
Oxford University Press 1969. Repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Landsberger, B. Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1934.
________. “Über Farben im Sumerisch-akkadischen.” JCS 21 (1967) 139–73.
Lane, E. M. Arabic-English Lexicon. New York: Ungar, 1955–56.
Langdon, S. H. Babylonian Liturgies. Paris: Geuthner, 1913.
________. “Ibi-Sin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Ur.” RA 20 (1923) 49–51.
________. Pictographic Inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform
Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928.
________. Semitic Mythology. Boston: The Archaeological Institute of America, 1931.
Langdon, S. (ed.). Babylonian Penitential Psalms. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 6.
Paris: Geuthner, 1927.
Langhe, R. de. “Jaweh de wolkenrijder.” Handelingen van het zeventiende Flaamse Filolo-
gencongress 18 (1959) 96.
________. “Myth, Ritual and Kingship in the Ras Shamra Tablets.” Pp. 121–48 in Myth,
Ritual and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958.
________. Les textes de Ras Shamra–Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu biblique de l’An-
cien Testament. Vols. 1–2. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1945.
Laroche, E. “Le dieux de Yazilikaya.” RHA 27 (1969) 61–109.
________. “Études de Vocabulaire VII.” RHA 63 (1958) 92–93.
________. “Hattic Deities and Their Epithets.” JCS 1 (1947) 187–216.
________. “Les hieroglyphes de Meskene-Emar et le style ‘Syro-hittite.’ ” Akkadica 22
(1981) 5–14.
________. “Un hymne trilingue à Iskur-Adad.” RA 58 (1964) 69–78.
________. Les noms des Hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966.
________. “Le panthéon de Yazilikaya.” JCS 6 (1952) 115–23.
________. “Panthéon national et panthéons locus chez les Hourrites.” Or 45 (1976) 94–
99.
________. “Recherches sur les noms des dieux Hittites.” RHA 7 (1947).
________. Textes mythologiques hittites en transcription. Paris: Klincksieck, 1969.
Larsen, M. T. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies. Copenhagen: Akademisk, 1976.
Lawton, R. B. Israelite Personal Names in Pre-exilic Hebrew Inscriptions Antedating 500
b.c.e. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University, 1977.
________. “Israelite Personal Names on Pre-Exilic Hebrew Inscriptions.” Bib 65 (1984)
330–46.
Leclant, J. “Astarté à cheval.” Syria 37 (1960) 1–67.
Leeming, D., and J. Page. Goddess: Myths of the Female Divine. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1994.
Legrain, L. The Babylonian Collections of the University Museum. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944.
________. Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Ur Excavations. Philadelphia:
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1947.
________. Catalogue des cylindres orientaux de la collection Louis Cugnin. Paris: Leroux,
1911.
________. The Culture of the Babylonians from Their Seals in the Collection of the Museum
of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1925.
Bibliography 317
________. Ur Excavations III: Archaic Seal Impressions. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1936.
Lehmann, M. R. “A New Interpretation of the Term twmdç.” VT 3 (1953) 361–74.
Lemaire, A. “Asriel, srªl: Israel et l’origine de la confederation Israelite,” VT 23 (1973) 239–
43.
________. “Les Bene Jacob: Essai d’interprétation historique d’une tradition patriar-
chale.” RB (1978) 321–37.
________. “Date et origine des inscriptions paleo-hebraïques et phéniciennes de Kun-
tillet ºAjrud.” SEL (1984) 131–43.
________. Inscriptions hébraïques 1: Les ostraca. Litteratures anciennes du Proche Orient.
Paris: Cerf, 1977.
Lemche, N. P. The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites. JSOTSup
110. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Lenzen, H. J. Uruk Vorläufiger Berichte. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesell-
schaft 18. Berlin: Hinrichs, 1962.
Leonard, A., Jr.“The Late Bronze Age.” BA 52 (1989) 4–39.
Lesky, A. “Hethitische Texte und griechischer Mythos.” Anzeiger der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 87 (1950) 137–60.
Levenson, J. D. Theology of the Program of the Restoration in Ezekiel 40–48. Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975.
Levine, B. A. “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional
Features of the Genre.” Pp. 467–75 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays
in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L.
Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Levine, B., and J. M. Tarragon. “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic
Dynasty.” JAOS 104 (1984) 649–59.
Lewis, T. J. “Baal-Berit (Deity).” Pp. 350–51 in vol. 1 of ABD.
Lewy, H. “Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period.” Pp. 716 –17 in vol. 1/2 of CAH.
________. “Notes on the Political Organization of Asia Minor at the Time of the Old
Assyrian Texts.” Or n.s. 33 (1964) 181–98.
Lewy, J. “Amurritica.” HUCA 32 (1961) 31–74.
________. “Old Assyrian Evidence concerning Kassara and Its Location.” HUCA 33
(1962) 45–56.
________. “Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’Ancien Testament.” RHR 110 (1934) 29–65.
L’Heureux, C. E. Rank among the Canaanite Gods. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.
________. “Searching for the Origins of God.” Pp. 33–44 in Traditions in Transforma-
tion: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Festschrift in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed.
B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Lichtenstein, M. “Dream Theophany and the E Document.” JANES 1/2 (1969) 51ff.
Lindblom, J. “Noch einmal die Deutung des Jahwe-Namens in Ex. 3:14.” ASTI 3 (1964)
4–14.
Lipinski, E. “Ditanu.” Pp. 91–99 in Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented
to Samuel E. Loewenstamm. ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubinstein’s, 1978.
________. “Épiphanie de Baal-Haddu RS 24.24,” UF 3 (1981) 81–92.
________. “Recherches Ugaritiques,” Syria 50 (1973) 35–51.
________. “Resheph Amyklos.” StudPhoen 5 (1987) 87–89.
________. “Skn et sgn dans le sémitique occidentale du nord.” UF 5 (1973) 192–207.
318 Bibliography
________. “Der Gottesname Jahwe im Lichte der neuesten Forschung.” BZ n.s. 2 (1958)
26–53.
________. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1906.
________. Sumerier und Semiten. Berlin: Verlag der konigl. Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, 1906.
Meyer, G. R. “Die älteste Erwähnung des hurrischen Wettergottes Teshup.” AfO 12
(1937–39) 366–71.
Meyer, R. “Der Gottesname Jahwe im Lichte der neuesten Forschung.” BZ n.s. 2 (1958))
26–53.
Meyer, S. Reich und Kultur der Chetiter. Berlin: Curtius, 1914.
Mianbé, B. D. El: Le Dieu suprême et le Dieu des patriarches, Gen 14:18–20. New York:
Olms, 1986.
Michel, D. Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Abhandlungen zur evangelischen
Theologie 1. Bonn: Bouvier, 1960.
Milik, J. T. “Les papyrus araméens d’Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens.” Bib 48
(1967) 556–64.
Miller, P. D., Jr. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1975.
________. “El, Creator of the Earth.” BASOR 239 (1980) 43–46.
________. “El the Warrior.” HTR 60 (1967) 411–31.
________. “Two Critical Notes on Psalm 68 and Deuteronomy 33.” HTR 57 (1964)
240–43.
Montalbano, F. J. “Canaanite Dagon: Origin, Nature.” CBQ 13 (1951) 381–97.
Montet, P. “De Tjarou à Qadesh avec Ramesés II.” RHA 18/67 (1960) 109.
Montgomery, J. A. “Ras Shamra Notes IV: The Conflict of Baal and the Waters.” JAOS
55 (1935) 268–77.
________. “The Ugaritic Fantasia of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods.” JAOS 62 (1942)
49–51.
Moon-Kang, S. Divine War in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.
Moor, J. C. de. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
________. “El the Creator.” Pp. 171–87 in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gor-
don, ed. G. Rendsburg. New York: Ktav, 1980.
________. New Year with the Canaanites and Israelites. Vol 2. Kampen: Kok, 1972.
________. “O Death, Where Is Thy Sting?” Pp. 99–107 in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical
and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. JSOT-
Sup 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
________. “Rapium-Rephaim.” ZAW 88 (1977) 323–45.
________. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. Leuven: Leuven Uni-
versity Press, 1990.
________. The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Baºlu. AOAT 16. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1971.
________. “The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit.” UF 2 (1970) 187–228.
________. “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra.” UF 1 (1969) 167–
88.
Moor, J. C. de, and K. Spronk. “More on Demons in Ugarit.” UF 16 (1984) 237–50.
322 Bibliography
Moore, G. C. The Disappearing Deity Motif in Hittite Texts. B. Litt. Thesis. Oxford Uni-
versity, 1975.
Moortgat, A. Tammuz: Der Unsterblickeitsglaube in der altorientalischen Bildkunst. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1949.
Moortgat, A., and U. Moortgat-Correns. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1940.
Morag, S. “Psalm 37:35.” Tarbiz 41 (1971–72) i–iii, 1–23.
Moran, W. L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
________. “The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background.” Pp. 54–84 in
The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1961.
________. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. Paris: Cerf, 1987.
________. “New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy.” Bib 50 (1969) 15–
56.
Morgan, Jacques de (ed.). Mémoires de la délégation en Perse. Paris: Leroux, 1898–.
Moscati, S. L’Epigrafia Ebraica Antica, 1935–1950. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1951.
Mowinckel, S. “Drive and/or Ride in the Old Testament.” VT 12 (1962) 278–99.
________. “The Name of the God of Moses.” HUCA 32 (1961) 121–33.
________. “Psalm Criticism between 1900 and 1935.” VT 5 (1955) 13–33.
Mueller, G. Asien und Europa: Nach den altägyptischen Denkmalern. Leipzig: Mohr, 1893.
Mulder, M. J. “Die Bedeutung von Jachin und Boaz in 1 Kon. 7:21 (2 Chr. 3:17).” Pp.
19–26 in Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Fest-
schrift in Honor of J. C. H. Lebram, ed. W. Anderson. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Mullen, E. T. The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew
Literature. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.
Murnane, W. L. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King
Sety at Karnak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Murtonen, A. R. A Philological and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament Divine Names
ªl, ªlwh, ªlhym, and yhwh. StudOr 18. Helsinki: Societas orientalis Fennica, 1952.
Naªaman, N. “Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz ºApiru Letters.”
UF 20 (1988) 189.
Nagel, W. Der mesopotamische Streitwagen und seine Entwicklung im ostmediterranen Be-
reich. Berlin: Hessling, 1966.
Nakata, I. Deities in the Mari Texts. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University, 1974.
Naumann, R. Architektur Kleinasiens. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1971.
Naveh, J. “Graffiti and Dedications.” BASOR 235 (1979) 27–30.
________. “The Ostracon from Nimrud: An Ammonite Name-List.” Maarav 2 (1979–
80) 163–71.
Negbi, O. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv, 1976.
Neiman, D. “PGR: A Canaanite Cult Object in the Old Testament.” JBL 67 (1948) 55–
60.
________. “The Supercaelian Sea.” JNES 28 (1969) 243–49.
Neve, P. “Eine hethitische Quellgrotte in Boghazköy.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20
(1969–70) 97–107.
Nibbi, A. Canaan and the Canaanites in Ancient Egypt. Hawksworth: D. E., 1989.
Bibliography 323
Nicholson, E. W. Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition. Oxford: Basil and Blackwell,
1973.
Niehr, H. “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion.” Pp. 45–71 in The Tri-
umph of Elohim, ed. D. V. Edelman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Nissen, H. J. The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 b.c., trans. Elizabeth
Lutzeier with Kenneth J. Nortcroft. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
________. “ ‘Sumerian’ vs. ‘Akkadian Art’: Art and Politics in Babylonia of the Mid–
Third Millennium b.c.” Pp. 188–96 in Insight through Images: Studies in Honor of
Edith Porada, ed. M. Kelly-Buccellati. Malibu, California: Undena, 1985.
Norin, S. I. L. Er spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten
Israel. Lund: Ohlsson, 1977.
Noth, M. The History of Israel. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
________. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namenge-
bung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.
________. “Ramesses II in Syrien.” ZDPV 64 (1941) 39–40.
________. “Die syrisch-palästinische Bevölkerung des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. im
Lichte neuer Quellen.” ZDPV 65 (1942) 9–67.
________. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. BWANT 3/10. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1930.
Nougayrol, J. “Guerre et Paix à Ugarit.” Iraq 25 (1963) 110–23.
________. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit VI. MRS 12. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Klincksieck,
1970.
Nützel, W. “The Climatic Changes of Mesopotamia and Bordering Areas.” Sumer 32
(1976) 11–20.
Obermann, J. “How Baal Destroyed a Rival: A Mythological Incantation Scene. “ JAOS
67 (1947) 195–208.
________. Ugaritic Mythology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.
O’Callaghan, R. T. Aram Naharaim. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1948.
________. “The Word kpt in Ugaritic and Egypto-Semitic Mythology.” Or n.s. 21
(1952) 37–46.
O’Connor, M. P. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980.
Özgüc, N. The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe. Türk Tarih Ku-
rumu Yayinlarindan 5/22. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1965.
________. “Les empreintes de seaux découvertes dans les palais d’Acemhouyuk.” Belleten
41/162 (1977) 356–70.
________. Excavations at Masat Hoyük and Investigations in Its Vicinity. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1978.
________. “Marble Idols and Statuettes from the Excavations at Kültepe.” Belleten 14
(1950) 481–82.
________. Seal and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanesh. Türk Tarih Kurumu
Yayinlarindan 5/25. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1968.
________. “Seal Impressions from the Palaces at Acemhoyük.” Pp. 61–88 in Ancient Art
in Seals, ed. E. Porada. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
________. “Some Contributions to Early Anatolian Art from Acemhoyük.” Belleten 43
(1979) 289–95.
Özgüc, T., and N. Özgüc. Kültepe Kazisi Raporu 1949. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan
5/12. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1953.
324 Bibliography
Radau, H. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Vol. 19. Philadel-
phia: Department of Archaeology, 1908.
Rainey, A. F. “A Canaanite at Ugarit.” IEJ 13 (1963) 43–45.
________. “The Toponymics of Eretz-Israel.” BASOR 231 (1978) 3–17.
Ravn, O. E. A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Seals and Seal Impressions in the Danish Na-
tional Museum. Copenhagen: Danish National Museum, 1960.
Redford, D. B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992.
Reisel, M. The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957.
Reisner, G. A. Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit. Berlin:
Spemann, 1896.
Rendsburg, G. “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal.” Or 53 (1984) 448–52.
Rendtorff, R. “El, Baal und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und
israelitischer Religion.” ZAW 78 (1971) 277–92.
Renger, J. “Untersuchungen zum Priestertum der altababylonischen Zeit.” ZA 60 (1969)
218–23.
________. “Zur Lokalisierung von Karkar.” AfO 20 (1970) 73–78.
Reymond, P. L’eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l’Ancien Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1958.
Roberts, J. J. M. The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1972.
________. “Saphon in Job 28:7.” Bib 56 (1975) 554–57.
________. “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire.” Pp. 93–108 in
Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982.
Robertson, D. A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1972.
Robertson, N. “The Ritual Background of the Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine.”
HTR 75 (1982) 313–59.
Robinson, A. “Zion and Saphon in Psalms XLVIII 3.” VT 24 (1974) 118–123.
Römer, W. H. “Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten.” WO 4 (1967)
12–28.
Roggia, R. G. “Alcune osservationi sul culto di El a Ras-Shamra.” Aevum 15 (1941) 559–
75.
Rooy, H. F. von. “The Relation between Anat and Baal.” JNSL 7 (1979) 85–95.
Rosensohn Jacobs, V., and I. Rosensohn Jacobs, “The Myth of Mot and ªAliªyan Baal.”
HTR 38 (1945) 77–109.
Ross, J. F. “Jahweh Íebaªot in Samuel and Kings.” VT 17 (1967) 76–92.
________. “Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari.” HTR 63 (1970) 1–28.
Roux, G. Ancient Iraq. Baltimore: Penguin, 1969.
Rowe, A. The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-
nia Press, 1930.
Rowton, M. B. “The Date of the Sumerian King-List.” JNES 19 (1960) 122–62.
________. “The Role of Watercourses and the Growth of Mesopotamian Civilization.”
Pp. 307–16 in lisan mithurti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich
and W. Röllig. AOAT 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon
& Bercker, 1969.
________. “The Woodlands of Ancient Western Asia.” JNES 26 (1967) 261–77.
Bibliography 327
Sjöberg, Å. W., and E. Bergmann. The Collection of Sumerian Temple Hymns. Texts from
Cuneiform Sources 3. Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1969.
Smith, M. S. “Baal’s Cosmic Secret.” UF 16 (1984) 295–98.
________. “The Baal Cycle.” Pp. 81–86 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
________. “Baal in the Land of Death,” UF 17 (1986) 311–14.
________. The Early History of God. New York: Harper & Row, 1993.
________. “God and Zion: Form and Meaning in Psalm 48,” SEL 6 (1989) 66–77.
________. “Interpreting the Baal Cycle.” UF 18 (1987) 313–19.
________. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. Vol. 1 of
The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. VTSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
________. “Myth and Mythmaking in Canaan and Ancient Israel.” Pp. 2032–33 in
vol. 3 of CANE.
Smith, S. The Statue of Idrimi. London: British School of Archaeology in Ankara, 1949.
Smith, W. R. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. New York: Schocken, 1972.
Snell, D. C. Life in the Ancient Near East. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Soden, W. von. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1959–81.
________. “Das sumerische Verbalmorphem /ed/ in den alten numerischen Texten.” ZA
40 (1953) 163–227.
________. “Verkündung des Gotteswillens durch prophetisches Wort in den Altababy-
lonischen Breifen aus Mari.” WO 1(1947–52) 397–403.
________. “Yahwe, er ist, er erweist sich.” WO 3 (1944–66) 177–87.
Sollberger, E. Corpus des inscriptions “royales” présargoniques de Lagash. Geneva: Droz,
1956.
________. “The Tummal Inscription.” JCS 16 (1962) 40–44.
Sollberger, E., and J.-R. Kupper. Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes. Littéra-
tures anciennes du Proche-Orient 3. Paris: Cerf, 1971.
Southesk, J. C. Catalogue of the Collection of Antique Gems. London: Quatrich, 1908.
Speiser, E. A. “The Hurrian Participation in the Civilizations of Mesopotamia, Syria and
Palestine.” CahHM 1/2 (1953) 311–27.
________. “An Intrusive Hurro-Hittite Myth.” JAOS 52 (1942) 88–102.
________. “The Name ‘Phoinikes.’ ” Language 12 (1936) 121–26.
Stadelmann, R. Syrisch-palästinische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Stark, J. K. Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Starr, R. F. Nuzi. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937–39.
Stein, G. “Economy, Ritual, and Power in ‘Ubaid Mesopotamia.’ ” Pp. 34–46 in Chief-
doms and Early States, ed. G. Stein and M. S. Rothman. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory,
1994.
Steinherr, F. “Zu den Felsinschriften Tasci I und II.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975)
313–17.
Steinmetzer, F. X. Die Babylonischen Kudurru. Paderborn: Schoningh, 1922.
Stolz, F. “Funcktionen und Bedeutungsbereichte des ugaritischen Baal mythos.” Pp. 83–118
in Fucktionen und Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele, ed. J. Assman
et al. OBO 48. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1982.
Streck, M. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Nineveh’s.
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916.
Bibliography 329
________. “A Window for Baal’s House: The Maturing of a God.” Pp. 155–57 in Studies
in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm, ed.
Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1978.
Tsumura, D. T. “A Problem of Myth and Ritual Relationship: CTA 23 (UT 52): 56–57.”
UF 10 (1978) 387–96.
Uehlinger, C. “Audienz in der Götterwelt: Anthropomorphismus und Soziomorphismus
in der Ikonographie eines altsyrischen Zylindersiegels.” UF 24 (1992) 339–59.
Ullendorf, E. “Ugaritic Marginalia IV.” ErIsr 14 (1978) 23.
________. “Ugaritic Studies within Their Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting.”
BJRL 46 (1963) 236–49.
Van Buren, E. D. Catalogue of the Ugo Sissa Collection. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1959.
________. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1930.
________. The Cylinder Seals of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. AnOr 21. Rome: Pontifi-
cal Biblical Institute, 1940.
________. “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Or 15 (1946) 1–45.
________. “The Entwined Serpents.” AFO 10 (1957) 56–65.
________. Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1939.
________. “The Rain Goddess as Represented in Early Mesopotamia.” SBO 3 (1959)
343–55.
________. Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art. An Or 23. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1945.
Vanel, A. L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage. Paris: Gabalda, 1964.
Van Seters, J. The Hyksos. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.
Vaughn, A. G. “il fzr: An Explicit Epithet of El as a Hero/Warrior.” UF 25 (1993) 423–
30.
Vaux, R. de. The Early History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
________. “El et Baal, le Dieu des peres et Yahweh.” Pp. 501–17in Ugaritica IV.
________. “Le pays de Canaan.” JAOS 88 (1968) 23–30.
Vawter, B. “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49.” CBQ 17 (1955) 12ff.
Veenhof, K. R. “Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia.” Pp. 859–71 in vol. 2 of CANE.
________. “The Old Assyrian Merchants and Their Relations with the Native Popula-
tion of Anatolia.” Pp. 147–55 in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kul-
turelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien, ed. H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger. Berlin:
Reimer, 1982.
Vercoutter, J. “Deux mois de fouilles à Mirgissa en Nubie Soudanaise.” BSFE 37–38
(1963) 23–28.
Vida, L. della. “El ªElyon in Genesis 14:18–20.” JBL 63 (1944) 1–9.
Vieyra, M. Hittite Art, 2300–750 b.c. London: Tiranti, 1955.
________. “Les textes hittites.” Pp. 459–500 in Les religions du Proche-Orient, ed. R. La-
bat et al. Paris: Libraire d’Amerique et d’Orient, 1970.
Vigano, L. Nomi e titoli di YHWH alla luce del semitico del Nord-ouest. BibOr 31. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976.
Vine, K. The Establishment of Baal at Ugarit. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Michigan,
1965.
Bibliography 331
Virolleaud, C. “La lutte de Mot, fils des dieux, et d’Alein, fils de Baal.” Syria 12 (1931)
193–224.
________. “Les nouveaux textes mythologiques de Ras Shamra.” CRAIBL (1962) 107.
Vlaardingerbroek, J. “Un poème phénicien de Ras Shamra: La lutte de Mot, fils des dieux,
et d’Alein, fils de Baal.” Syria 12 (1931) 193–224.
________. Psalm 68. Amsterdam: Vlaardingerbroek, 1973.
________. “Les villes et les corporations de royaume d’Ugarit.” Syria 21 (1940) 123–51.
Waetzoldt, H. “Dagan in Ebla und Mesopotamien nach den Texten aus 3. Jahrtausend.”
Or 54 (1985) 234–56.
Wäfler, M. “Zum Felsrelief von Imamkulu.” MDOG 107 (1975) 17–26.
Wakeman, M. God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Leiden: Brill,
1973.
Walls, N. H. The Goddess Anath in Ugaritic Myth. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Wambacq, B. N. L’epithete divine Jahve Í ebaªot. Brussels: Desclée, 1947.
Ward, J. “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX.” VT 11
(1961) 321–29.
Ward, W. H. Cylinders and Other Ancient Oriental Seals in the Library of J. Pierpont Mor-
gan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920.
________. The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute of
Washington, 1910.
Waterston, A.“Death and Resurrection in the AB Cycle.” UF 21 (1989) 425–34.
________. “The Kingdom of ºATTAR and His Role in the A B Cycle.” UF 20 (1988)
357–64.
Watson, P. L. “The Death of Death in the Ugaritic Texts.” JAOS 92 (1972) 60–64.
________. Mot, the God of Death, at Ugarit and in the Old Testament. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Yale University, 1970.
Weber, O. Altorientalische Siegelbilder. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920.
Weidner, E. F. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Bogazköi Studien 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1923.
Weinfeld, M. “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near
East.” Pp. 121–47 in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and
Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983.
________. “Kuntillet ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance.” SEL l (1987) 121–30.
________. “ ‘Rider of Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds.’ ” JNES 5 (1973) 421–26.
________. “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient
Near Eastern Background.” Pp. 103–4 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of
Jewish Studies: Jerusalem, August 16–30, 1981. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1983.
________. “The Tribal League at Sinai.” Pp. 303–14 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays
in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr., ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D.
McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Weinstein, J. M. “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment.” BASOR 241 (1981)
1–28.
Weippert, M. “Die ‘Bileam’: Inschrift von Tell Der ºAlla.” ZDPV 98 (1982) 88–92.
________. “Kanaan.” Pp. 352–55 in vol. 5 of RlA.
________. “Kinahhi.” BN 27 (1985) 18–21.
332 Bibliography
________. “Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends: Über die Sh·sw der ägypti-
schen Quellen.” Bib 55 (1974) 265–80.
________. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. ET. London: SCM, 1971.
Weiser, A. The Psalms: A Commentary, trans. H. Hartwell. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1962.
Welten, P. “Gott Israels—Gott von Sinai.” Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 1 (1984) 225–
39.
Wilcke, C. “Formale Gesichtspunkte in der sumerischen Literatur.” In Sumerological Stud-
ies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974, ed. S. J. Lie-
berman. Assyriological Studies 20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
________. “Lugalbanda and the Thunderbird.” Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz, 1969.
Wilhelm, G. “The Kingdom of Mitanni in Second-Millennium Upper Mesopotamia.”
Pp. 1243–54 in vol. 2 of CANE.
Wilhelm, G., and J. Boese. “Absolut Chronologie und die hethitische Geschichte des 15.
und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” Pp. 74–118 in part 1 of High, Middle or Low? Acts of the
International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg,
20th–22nd August 1987, ed. P. Åström. Gothenburg: Åströms, 1989.
Williams-Forte, E. “The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during
the Bronze Age.” Pp. 18–43 in Ancient Seals and the Bible, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Wil-
liams-Forte. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1983.
Wilson, J. A. “Hymn of Victory of Mer-ne-Ptah (The ‘Israel Stela’).” Pp. 376–78 in
ANET.
________. “The Texts of the Battle of Kadesh.” AJSL 43 (1927) 266–70.
Wiseman, D. J. The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara,
1953.
Witzel, M. Der Drachenkämpfer Ninib. Keilinschriftliche Studien, Part 2. Fulda: Fuldaer
Aktiendruckerei, 1920.
Wolff, H. W. (ed.). Probleme biblischer Theologie. Festschrift Gerhard von Rad. Munich:
Chr. Kaiser, 1971.
Wolkstein, D., and S. N. Kramer. Inanna. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
Woolley, C. L. A Forgotten Kingdom. London: Harmondsworth, 1968.
________. Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1934.
Worden, T. “The Literary Influence of the Ugaritic Fertility Myth on the Old Testament.”
VT 3 (1953) 273–97.
Wright, G. E. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Wyatt, N. “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in West Semitic Royal Ideology.”
UF 18 (1986) 421–36.
________. “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad.” UF 12 (1980) 375–79.
________. “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God.” UF 24 (1992) 403–24.
Wyatt, W. M. “Belief in a ‘High God’ in Pre-Islamic Mecca.” SHR 31 (1975) 228–29.
Xella, P. “Un antecedente eblaita del ‘demonio’ ugarítica HBY.” SEL 3 (1986) 17–25.
________. “Le dieu Rashap à Ugarit.” AAAS 29–30 (1979–80) 145–62.
________. I testi rituali di Ugarit. Vol. 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981.
Bibliography 333
Yadin, Y. “New Gleanings on Resheph from Ugarit.” Pp. 259–74 in Biblical and Related
Studies Presented to Samuel Irwy, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1985.
Yakar, J. “The Indo-Europeans and Their Impact on the Anatolian Cultural Develop-
ment.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 9 (1981) 94–118.
________. “Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Age Chronology.” AS 29 (1979) 51–77.
________. “The Twin Shrines of Beycesultan.” AS 24 (1974) 151–61.
Yon, M. “Í˙r mt, la chaleur de Mot.” UF 21 (1989) 461–66.
Young, T. C. “Population Densities and Early Mesopotamian Origins.” Pp. 827–42 in
Man, Settlement and Urbanism, ed. P. Ucko. London: Duckworth, 1972.
Yurco, F. J. “Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign and Israel’s Origins.” Pp. 27–54 in Exodus:
The Egyptian Evidence, ed. E. S. Frerichs and L. H. Lesko. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 1997.
________. “Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign.” JARCE 23 (1986) 189–209.
Zaccagnini, C. “Golden Cups Offered to the Gods at Emar.” Or n.s. 59 (1990) 518–20.
Zevit, Z. “A Chapter in the History of Israelite Personal Names.” BASOR 250 (1983) 1–
16.
Zijl, P. J. van. Baal: A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics. AOAT
10. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.
Zimmern, H. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Berlin: Reuther & Rei-
chard, 1910.
Zobel, H. Stammenssprüch und Geschichte. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1965.
Zuntz, L. “Un testo ittita di sconguiri.” Pp. 495–98 in Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Sci-
enze Lettere ed Arti 96/2. Venice: Real istituto veneto, 1936–37.
334 Bibliography
Index of Scripture
335
336 Index of Scripture
A Bauer, T. 59, 64
Abba, R. 231–232 Baumann, E. 269
Abou Assaf, A. 20 Beaumont, P. 90
Adams, R. M. 8 Beck, P. 250
Aharoni, Y. 224, 278 Beckman, G. 131, 147, 149
A˙ituv, S. 233–234 Beek, M. A. 267
Ahlström, G. W. 231, 233, 246, 253, Benz, F. L. 227
272–273 Beran, T. 104
Akurgal, E. 94, 97–98, 117, 120– Bergmann, E. 49–50
121, 123–124 Bezold, C. 46
Albright, W. F. 62, 65, 171, 173–174, Biella, J. C. 249
176, 180, 183–184, 191–194, 200– Biggs, R. D. 14, 42, 49, 51
201, 204, 207, 217, 223–224, 226, Birot, M. 69
229, 231, 240, 242, 244–245, 248– Bittel, K. 111, 121, 124, 126
249, 251–252, 254, 260, 262–263 Blinkenberg, C. 60
Algaze, G. 74 Böhl, T. F. 220
Alkim, U. B. 124 Boese, J. 100
Allote de Füye, F. M. 49, 77 Boling, R. G. 237, 257
Alp, S. 124 Bordreuil, P. 180–181, 197, 216, 228,
Alt, A. 250–251, 274 278
Ambraseys, N. N. 91 Borger, R. 57, 70
Amiet, P. 15, 29, 156–157, 160–161, Born, A. van den 270
163–164 Bossert, H. T. 111–112, 124, 157
Anderson, G. 277 Bottéro, J. 53, 64, 73, 171, 201
Anderson, K. T. 250 Botterweck, J. G. 235
Archi, A. 64, 67, 70, 138, 168, 245 Braidwood, R. J. 74
Arnaud, D. 70, 180 Brandenstein, C. G. von 98, 110, 112
Astour, M. C. 100, 191, 219–220, Breasted, J. H. 201–202, 235
232–233, 235, 263, 276 Brekelmanns, C. H. W. 273
Aufrecht, W. E. 197, 248 Brentjes, B. 9
Avalos, H. 193 Brice, W. C. 91
Avigad, N. 278 Bright, J. 235, 275
Axelsson, L. E. 232–233, 266 Brinkman, J. A. 89
B Brinkmann, R. 91–92
Bailey, L. R. 248 Brockington, L. H. 242
Baly, D. 241 Brownlee, W. H. 231–232
Barré, M. L. 252, 276 Brugsch, H. 202
Barrelet, M.-T. 159, 165 Buccellati, G. 74
Barton, G. A. 34–35, 37–38, 40, 43, Buchanan, B. 16, 18, 158
46, 55 Burney, C. A. 100–101
337
338 Index of Authors
Eyre, C. J. 10 Gibson, M. 9, 14
F Gifford, E. H. 180
Falkenstein, A. 20, 26, 35, 38–39, Ginsberg, H. L. 66, 185, 187, 196,
42–43, 47, 50–51, 54, 59 200, 206, 208, 210, 240, 261
Faulkner, R. O. 235 Giveon, R. 232–234, 236
Feigan, I. 194 Glock, A. E. 275
Fensham, F. C. 212, 237, 240, 242 Görg, M. 220, 231–234, 236
Ferrara, A. J. 255 Goetze, A. 64–65, 69, 99, 105, 131,
Finet, A. 101, 231 137–138, 144, 147, 168, 170, 192,
Finkelstein, J. J. 8, 54, 68, 70 220
Fisher, L. R. 177, 182, 185–186, 189, Goff, B. 40, 43, 77
192 Goldman, H. 116
Fitzgerald, A. 261 Good, R. M. 252, 263
Fleming, D. 66–67, 69–70, 168–169, Gordon, C. H. 21–22, 66, 132, 139,
174, 205 173, 177, 182–183, 190, 204, 206,
Fohrer, G. 259 214, 217, 245, 252, 276
Fontenrose, J. 205 Gottwald, N. K. 274–275
Foresti, F. 259 Grabbe, L. L. 195, 197, 213
Forrer, E. 172 Gray, G. B. 277
Foster, B. J. 44, 52, 54–55, 59–60 Gray, J. 66, 171, 177–178, 180,
Fowler, J. D. 277 183, 185, 187, 189–190, 193–194,
Frank, C. 60 196, 201, 203, 206, 209, 211–212,
Frankfort, H. 14, 16, 18–20, 22–27, 214, 227, 229, 240, 242, 252, 269,
30, 32–34, 40, 60–61, 77–78, 84, 279
86, 89, 110, 160, 209 Green, A. 15
Freedman, D. N. 226, 231, 237–240, Green, A. R. 18, 279
242, 246–249, 252, 257, 259–262, Greenfield, J. C. 182, 192, 252, 271
266–270, 273 Greenspoon, L. J. 213
Friedrich, J. 129, 131, 135 Greenstein, E. L. 181, 185
Frymer-Kensky, T. 31, 37, 72–76 Gressmann, H. 202
Fulco, W. J. 245 Grønback, J. H. 186
Furlani, G. 22, 33, 60, 145 Gröndahl, F. 188, 227
G Grund, A. 92
Gadd, C. J. 9, 55, 84 Güterbock, H. G. 96, 100, 102, 110,
Gal, Z. 235, 238, 247 112, 128, 130–132, 135–142, 144–
Gardiner, A. H. 202, 220 145, 147–148, 150, 188, 192
Garelli, P. 84, 100–101, 118, 157 Gurney, O. R. 65, 90, 100–101, 120–
Gaster, T. H. 178, 180–181, 185– 123, 126, 128, 131–133, 135–137,
187, 194–196, 200, 210–212, 261, 145, 147–149, 170, 172
264, 266, 268 H
Gelb, I. J. 52–53, 61, 64–66, 101, Haas, V. 98, 134, 139–142, 144–145,
129–130, 166, 168, 181, 215 147, 149
Genouillac, H. de 19, 31, 40 Habel, N. C. 178, 180, 183, 185,
Gese, H. 252 194–196, 212–213, 227, 258, 262,
Gevirtz, S. 277 279
Gibson, J. C. L. 176–177, 179, 182– Hackett, J. 243, 248–249
183, 185, 187, 199–200, 204, 208, Haddad, H. S. ix, 22, 55–56, 75, 80–
211, 214 81, 167, 173, 196, 206
340 Index of Authors
A J
Abi-Milki 234 Jeroboam 252
Abu-halim 171–172 Jethro 234
Adad-Asharid 215 L
Adad-Erish 215 Laban 102
Adad-Mushalim 215 Labarnas 135
Adad-Nasir 215 Levi 247
Adad-nirari 60 Lugal-zaggesi 79
Adad-Rabi 215 M
Adad-Rimeni 215 Mattiwaza 170, 172
Addu-Duri 63, 69 Merenptah 235–236, 247, 253–254
Amar-Sin 83 Mesilim 43
Amenhotep III 232 Moses 234, 238–239, 256, 266–267,
Ashurbanipal 42 272, 274
B Mursilis 144, 170, 172, 180
Bahdi-Lim 69 Muwatalli 124
Baºlu (king of Tyre) 192 N
Bur-Sin 26 Naram-Sin 70, 168
E Nebuchadrezzar I 176
Eannatum 34, 40, 42, 81 Niqmad 173, 176
Elijah 276, 279 Niqmaddu II 217
Elimelek 178–179 Niqmepa 180
Enheduanna 49 Nur-Sin 58, 171–172, 216
Enkhegal 43, 81 O
Enshakushanna 34, 40 Og 240
Entemena 25, 40, 43, 77, 81 P
Esarhaddon 192 Puduhepa 124
G Puzris-Dagan 51, 83
Gudea 17, 20, 23, 25–27, 30–31, 42, 46– R
47, 50, 82, 286 Rameses II 172, 202, 232, 234–235
H Rim-Sin 19, 47, 55–56
Hammurabi 168 S
Hattusilis III 124, 172 Samsi-Adad I 101, 167, 215
I Sargon (of Akkad) 70, 82, 168
Ibbi-Sin 83–84 Seti I 201
Idrimi 220 Shukru-Teshub 101
Il-Addu 51 Shulgi 26, 83–84, 168
Ilum-gamil 51 Sihon 240
Ishbi-Irra 168–169 Simeon 247
345
346 Index of Personal Names
A Arßiya 199
Ada (variant of Adad) 167 Asherah 177, 197, 217, 229, 249–251
Adad 4, 19, 23–24, 41, 48–49, 51–61, Astarte 181, 202, 255, 279
66–68, 71–72, 83–88, 107–108, Athirat 181, 193, 227, 249
110–111, 128–131, 135–137, 142, Athtar 179, 210–211, 215, 217, 255
146–147, 149, 166–172, 175, 181, Aton 229
187, 206, 208, 215–216, 263, 283– Azag 186
284, 286, 288–290 B
as son of Dagan 286 Baal 5–6, 66–67, 107, 110, 160, 164,
as Teshub of Aleppo 172 168, 173–179, 181–200, 202–208,
in theophoric names 215 210–218, 226–231, 244–246, 253–
of Aleppo 171 258, 261–268, 270–274, 276–280,
of Halab 171 284–285, 288, 291–292
of Mt. Hazzi 173, 192 as Demaros 255
see also Addu as fertility-god 214, 291
see also dim as king of the gods 227, 255
see also Iskur as Storm-god 227, 254, 256, 261,
Adda (variant of Adad) 167 275, 284–285, 291
Addi (variant of Adad) 167 as title 287
Addu 52–53, 58–59, 62–63, 65–69, 87 Baal-Berit 253
of Mari 87 Baal Íaphon 192–193, 276
see also Adad Canaanite hymn to 261
Addu (variant of Adad) 167 Canaanite mythology of 264
Adonis 138 epithets of 230, 240
Alalu 188 theophoric names and 277–278
Allatum 68, 143 Baºlaka 67
Amon 193 Belet-ekallim 69
Amun-Re 229 Bethel 252
Amurru 243, 248 D
An 36, 56 Dada (variant of Adad) 167
Anat 73, 181, 183–185, 191, 193, 200– Dagan 4, 41, 62–72, 87–88, 102, 166,
204, 206, 210–212, 227, 249, 254, 168–169, 171, 173–174, 177, 179,
268, 278–279, 291–292 203, 205–206, 283–284, 286
Anna 102 Amorite origin 64
Anu 40, 110, 188, 251 as Bel-Pagre 206
Anzili 136 at Emar 66, 70
Arik 185 at Mari 62, 68, 102
Arinna see Sun-goddess of Arinna in personal names 69
Arsh 185 of Subatum 69
347
348 Index of Divine Names and Epithets
A Arpachiyeh 19
Abu Salabikh 41, 49 Arraphum 58
Acco (plain) 222 Arvad 224
Acemhoyuk 104–105, 116, 157 Asia Minor 89, 91
Aegean (sea) 89–90 southwestern 133
Agade 83 see also Anatolia
Alaca Hüyük 98, 112 Asmar, Tell 16
bas relief from 120 Assur 53, 105
royal tombs from 96 Assyria 59, 169
solar discs from 140 Azerbaijan 90
Alalakh 163, 172, 201 B
Aleppo 168, 170–172, 181, 216 Babylon 53, 186
Alishar 99 Babylonia 9, 57–58, 85–86, 154, 169
Al ªUbaid see Ubaid southern 63
Amanus (mountains) 153 Baghdad 9, 12
Amarah 232 Balikh (river) 8, 153
Amurru 167, 221 Bashan 236, 242–243
as an Egyptian province 221 Bashan (mountain) 236, 242
Anatolia 89–93, 95, 99, 101–104, 113– identification with Mt. Hermon 242
114, 117, 124, 126–129, 131, 135, Beer-lahay-roi 251
142–145, 150–152, 154, 156, 158– Beersheba 251
160, 165, 188, 207, 216, 219, 283– Benjamin (tribal territory) 201
284, 288 Bethel 251–252
central 91, 95, 98, 100, 130, 157 Beth-Shan 201
eastern 100 Black Sea 89
Pontic 98 Boghazköy 100, 103, 129, 157, 172
prehistoric 90–91 Bosphorus 99
western 124 Buget 98
Anatolian Highlands 129–131, 152 Buyukkale 126
Anatolian Plateau 89–91, 93, 115, 135, C
165, 169 Can Hasan 93
Antitaurus (mountains) 153 Canaan 68, 102, 219–221, 224–225,
Appan 58 228, 230, 233–236, 238–239, 253,
Aqaba (gulf ) 222 256–257, 260, 266, 274–276, 280,
Arabian Desert 153, 222 285, 287
Aram 70, 224 Cappadocia 100
Arinna 136, 141–142, 145 Carmel (mountain) 205, 222, 276, 279
Armenian mountains 89 Casius (mountain) 179, 224
351
352 Index of Places
Terqa 58, 68–70, 168, 171, 205 Ugarit 67–68, 162, 165, 173, 175–176,
Dagan’s cult center at 69, 87 179–180, 188–189, 191, 193, 195,
Tigris (river) 8–9, 11, 89, 153, 165, 283 200, 205, 217, 220–221, 224, 227–
Transcaucasus 95 228, 245, 253, 271
Transjordan 222, 228–229, 233–234, Ulisum 70
236–240, 243–244, 246–248, 254, Umma 35, 43, 51, 79
256–257, 266, 285, 287 Upi 221
Canaanites in 257 Ur 19, 74, 79, 83–84, 166
cultic sites in 248 Urartia 169
patriarchs of 248 Uruk 34, 50, 73–75, 77, 82–83, 286
southern 232 W
tribal league in 256, 274 Warka 28
see also Cisjordan see also Uruk
Turkey Y
central 90, 92 Yazilikaya 111, 121–122
eastern 90 Z
south-central 90, 92 Zagros (mountains) 10
western 90 Zahalukka 143
Tuttul 68–70, 168 Zalianu (mountain) 142
Typhon (river) 179 Zalpa 143
Tyre 221 Zion 261, 277
U Zion (mountain) 276–277
Ubaid 19–20, 25, 73 Zippalanda 142
Zitharunuwa (mountain) 143
Index of Topics
A Asbuta 235
Akkadian Assyrian
fertility theme 33 culture 114–115
Marduk 186 Storm-god 116
origin of Dagan 64 texts 60
Akkadian (language) 8, 42, 48–49, 52, Assyrian (language)
63–64, 67, 143, 149, 175, 177, 200, archive from Kültepe 103
207, 219, 249, 251, 269, 278 Assyrian (period) 210
archives 205 Assyrians 100, 102, 113–114
literary texts 49, 52, 166–167, 175 colonies in Anatolia 113
treaties 192 colonies in Cappadocia 130
Ugaritic text 192, 263 colony at Kültepe 101, 110, 114–115
Akkadian (period) 16, 18, 23, 29–32, 36, cylinder seals and bullae, in
51, 58, 81–82 Anatolia 104
Adad 86 gods 101, 113–114
glyptic 18, 20, 24 immigrants to Anatolia 120
Ningirsu 43 merchants at Kültepe 101–102
Akkadians (people) 81 religion 114
kings 79 “Atrahasis” 59
Amarna Letters 173, 234 B
Amorite “Baal Myth” 213
“Amorite problem” 215 baboon 162
gods 70, 102 Babylonian
influence 169 gods 105
migrations 63 religion 135
origin of Dagan 64 Babylonian (period) 53, 87
origins of Adad 166–167 Babylonian New Year 186–187, 189
Amorite (language) Battle of Kadesh 234–235
personal names 102 battle-mace 20, 24, 32, 161–163
Amorite Dynasty of Babylon 57, 85, 176 Baal holding 291
Amorites (people) 102, 167, 176, 215 Storm-god holding 158–159, 165
Anatolians, indigenous 92 bull 18, 20–25, 54, 57, 96, 98–99, 106–
see also Hattian (people) 108, 110, 112–113, 115, 120, 123,
ºankh 163 132, 152
Anzu Bird 52, 54 Adad and 23–24, 55, 87
Apiru 234, 236 Adad’s attendant 86–87
Arabic (language) 52, 63, 166, 210 Anatolian deity 112, 156
Aramaic (language) 175 Anatolian Storm-god and 105
356
Index of Topics 357
waters (cont.) Y
destructive 80 Yahwism 6, 219, 224, 226, 231, 237,
subterranean 128, 136, 140, 144, 246, 250, 254, 256, 258, 275, 279
146, 181–183, 187, 189–190, Yaminites (people) 63
215–216, 263 Z
zukru festival, at Emar 69