Source: https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6340.part-i-the-cult-of-kinnaru-2-instrument-gods-and-musician-kings-in-early-mesopotamia-divinized-instruments
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:33:57+00:00

Document:
Figure 2. ‘Harp treaty’, unprovenanced Mesopotamian cylinder seal, ca. fourteenth century. London, BM 89359. Drawn from MgB 2/2 fig. 108.
You are the choice bull, the creation of [the great gods].
Your hide and your sinew have been assigned to the mystery of the great gods.
The victim’s heart was extracted, placed in front of the drum, scattered with juniper, and burned. Its skin was removed, treated with flour, beer, wine, fat, alum, and gall-apples, and then applied in many complex steps to a previously prepared drum frame. The rest of the animal was buried.  One of the gods to whom offerings were made was Lumḫa,  whose name is written in some exemplars as ‘Divine Balang’ (dBALAĜ).  Lumḫa himself was therefore a kind of instrument god, his goodwill needed for the new divinized drum.  One should also note the substantial element of seven-magic that underpins the ritual.  On the fifteenth day after the drum’s completion, it was presented to the temple-god. It was now a Divine Lilissu, and could only be played by the priest to whom it was assigned. Through these procedures, as U. Gabbay has convincingly argued, the bull belonged to both the living and the dead. Its ‘heart’ survived in the drum itself, which wore its skin, and continued to beat in the beating of the instrument; this was in turn the beating heart of the god to be soothed through ritual lamentation, when the kalû would imitate the gestures of mourning.  The mechanism was thus sympathetic magic: the kalû enacted the lamenting god(dess), leading his or her heart to release from anger and grief through the performance of mourning.
A divinized instrument, like other cult-objects, was endowed with a name. This could reflect its physical and conceptual properties, or some aspect of the master-god to whom it was devoted.  In either case, the naming ritual endowed the divinized instrument with individual existence.  This bears in turn on the capacity of divine objects to enjoy ‘personal’ relationships with major gods, and hence appear in mythological narratives with them. Thus, for example, in the Babylonian Erra Myth, an Akkadian narrative work of the early first millennium,  the god Erra’s vizier Ishum is perhaps his deified scepter, Ḫendursanga.  His seven weapons are definitely anthropomorphized as warriors.  Much earlier is the N-S poem Lugal-e, telling the adventures of Ninurta.  The god’s mace Sharur is personified as his advisor, who alerts him in a lengthy speech (24–69) to the existence of a new enemy in the mountains—Azag, who has been chosen leader by that region’s plants and stones, the latter represented as warriors.  Later as Ninurta carries his mace it “snarled at the mountains” (79). Notable among Sharur’s several other actions is his transformation into the thunderbird, flying overhead to spy out the enemy and bring news back to Ninurta (109–150).
This balang-god appears as a kind of musical director for the temple orchestra, responsible for the production of celebratory music in times of peace and good order. I shall return to his larger role in the text below.
But if the poem’s mythological imagery is converted back to cult realities, one must conclude that the instrument itself possessed the power of such counsel. This explains the passage quoted above, describing the balang’s communication of Gudea’s message to Ningirsu, whose obedience it will compel. The balang is like a herald and translator who speaks directly to the divine mind, otherwise inaccessible to man, with a special hermeneutic language. One may compare a Hittite text that refers to “the sweet message of the lyre, the sweet message of the cymbals.”  In the Bible, too, one finds evidence, quite abundant, for the kinnōr as a medium through which gods and mortals can communicate.  The god who ‘consults’ with his balang-servants is a mirror image of the king who seeks divine guidance through the medium of balang-music. Gudea submits his query, and receives his response, through the balang. The respective musings of god and king meet precisely in the instrument, which is thus a kind of hotline between king and divine patron.
In the future rituals that are imagined here, as in the earlier balang-rite in which he appealed to Ningirsu, Gudea is the sole visible actor. While this might reflect political posturing vis-à-vis the temple clergy,  it is also consistent with the ideology of the king as a bridge between the human and divine spheres. To all appearances, Gudea will single-handedly supervise the procession of Ušumgal-kalama, and the balang-god will “walk in front.” On the mythological level, this evokes a scene of king and balang-god side-by-side—an epiphany in which the cultic agents necessary for bringing it about are eclipsed, and suggesting a ‘guardian angel’ relationship between Ušumgal-kalama and Gudea, akin to ‘presentation scenes’ on cylinder-seals of the Akkadian and Ur III periods.  But if the scene is imagined on the mundane level, we are still left with Gudea as the leading human agent, escorting his divinized balang at the head of the procession. The two visions suggest a close association between king and balang, perhaps even their identification. Note especially that the king’s duties in the passage just given are strikingly reminiscent of Ušumgal-kalama himself, who is to supervise musical rites of just this sort.
No doubt a king could be well educated, and really cultivate music. Yasmah-Addu of Mari (crowned ca. 1790) may have studied as a boy with his father’s master musician.  One of the Hurrian hymns from Ugarit may have been composed by king ‘Ammurapi of Ugarit.  Psalms were attributed to several Biblical kings.  But Shulgi’s claims are so extravagant as to be incredible. The essentially symbolic nature of his ‘achievements’ is revealed by their deliberate recycling in the royal praise-hymns of Ishme-Dagan (ca. 1953–1935), fourth king of the Isin dynasty.  At the pinnacle of human society, the king was all things to his people—a living god, the ideal embodiment of civilization and all its arts. His preternatural beauty made the royal shepherd a worthy spouse of Inanna, a new Dumuzi. He was the perfect soldier, the wisest judge, the best diviner, the ultimate scribe—and the ideal musician, of celebratory song and lamentation alike.
Thus, although the royal praise hymns are composed in the first person, there is no compelling reason to believe that the king himself was always, or perhaps ever, the actual composer. (If he were, of course, it would be still more interesting.) The mode of presentation allows any king to compose and perform, at least in spirit, through the mouth of a singer or singers who voiced these songs in the first person. This circular conception is similar to the poetics of divinized instruments considered above.  With both, human ministers are effaced, and their offices, actions, and abilities are symbolically co-opted by a higher power—be it god, king, or god-king.
This material lets us glimpse an intricate network of ideas about divinized instruments, the cognitive interaction of instrument and player, and the elaboration of both in the ritual poetics of kingship. Another such case may be a GU4.BALAĜ servant of the moon-god Suen/Sin, called Amar-Suen (‘Calf of Suen’); for this is the name of Shulgi’s successor (ca. 2046–2038), while Suen/Sin was the patron god of the dynasty.  Similarly Ishbi-Erra, first king of the Isin dynasty, dedicated a divinized balang called ‘Ishbi-Erra trusts in Enlil’.  To judge from its name, this instrument was a servant-god of Enlil. And yet, the incorporation of Ishbi-Erra’s own name suggests that the balang was equally an intermediary between the earthly king and his divine counterpart.
These conceptions will be important when considering David, an overt ‘lyre-king’ serving, praising, and giving voice to Yahweh. And the kinnōr-playing David is in turn our best parallel for understanding Kinyras himself—a Divine Lyre lingering on in Greco-Cypriot and Levantine myth, remodeled as an ancient lyre-playing king in the service of ‘Aphrodite’.
The precise nature and purpose of any actual rites underpinning this ideology at various periods remain disputed. Recent studies downplay the more ‘hands-on’ interpretations of Frazer and his followers in favor of symbolic rituals tied to regeneration of the land and periodic renewal of royal legitimacy and social order.  In any case, the poetic treatment of intimacy between king and goddess remains an observable artifact in its own right, with especially rich material from the N-S and OB periods.
In this vignette—a striking example of seven-magic combined with music (see below)—the king receives musical offerings, the godly honors he enjoys with his goddess wife, here still a maiden, performed by his royal musicians. Yet once again, by the logic of genre, it should actually be Shulgi who—presumably inspired by Inanna, as in Shulgi B—sings about his own musicians. This creates an infinite regrade in which Shulgi embodies the entire musical activity of his court.  Subject and object, performer and recipient, merge in a single musical epiphany.
The passage is valuable for envisioning the participation of actual cult-­musicians. As presented, however, they merely echo and amplify the king’s own praises of the goddess. It seems they are to sing the very hymn in which they are themselves so described. Once again, a purposefully circular construction blurs the line between king and musicians, spotlighting the royal performance.
Mesopotamian sources present very rich evidence for the practice and ideology of music in many contexts. The material’s abundance varies considerably with time and place through accidents of survival and discovery. I have restricted my discussion to those issues that provide the best parallels for Kinyras, Kinnaru of Ugarit, and Syro-Levantine kinnāru-culture generally: divinized cult-tools, their construction and anthropomorphosis in myth; conceptions of musical cognition and communication with the gods through this medium; and royal ideology and self-representation, including ideas of hierogamy. The separate functions of Ningirsu’s two balang-gods will also be echoed by the celebratory and lamentative contexts in which Kinyras and the knr are found. Mesopotamia is of course a different world from Cyprus and its environs, so one must not expect exact parallels. Nevertheless the material considered here will help illuminate many otherwise obscure facets of Kinyras and his mythology.
[ back ] 1. For the material in this paragraph, see Selz 1997, especially 169–177.
[ back ] 2. See also p580n21.
[ back ] 3. For the ùb, see also PHG:142 et passim.
[ back ] 4. For the identity of the balang, see Appendix A and Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 1 (with 9, 11, 12–13, 15, 17f, 20a–20b, etc. for ED III and later evidence of balang-offerings).
[ back ] 5. Cf. Jean 1931:159; Galpin 1936:65–66; Hartmann 1960:53 and n3, 61–62; MgB 2/2:13, 140; RlA 8:464, 466 (Kilmer, *Musik A I). For offerings to the balang specifically, see references in Sjöberg 1984–, s.v. 1.1.1–2; further material noted by Heimpel 1998a:6–10.
[ back ] 6. Selz 1997:176–177; cf. Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 2b and 13.
[ back ] 7. Selz 1997; Selz 2008.
[ back ] 8. Selz 1997:167 (emphasis added).
[ back ] 9. Lambert 1990:129.
[ back ] 11. Selz 1997:175.
[ back ] 12. Reiner 1958:1 (quotation). The series was cited in connection with Kinnaru by Nougayrol 1968:59. Note that the instruments are not written with divine determinatives. Yet if instruments held such power without being divinized, their divinized counterparts will have been all the more numinous. The evidence is therefore relevant.
[ back ] 13. Reiner 1958:3.
[ back ] 14. Šurpu III:37 and 88–91. The translation of Reiner 1958:20–21 will serve to illustrate the variety of combinations, although the identification of specific instruments may be questionable. Thus we find an “oath of the cymbals or harp” (37); “oath of the drum and kettledrum” (88); “oath of the timbrel and cymbals” (89); “oath of lyre, harp (pa-lag-gi), and timbūtu-harp” (90); “the oath of lute and pipe” (91).
[ back ] 15. Reiner 1958:55.
[ back ] 16. London, BM 89359. See Porada 1980; MgB 2/2:102–104 (fig. 108); Collon 1987 no. 665.
[ back ] 17. Compare perhaps Homer’s use of ἁρμονίαι for an agreement between two warriors overseen by the gods (Iliad 22.254–255), and the invocation of Κενυριστής Apollo in the loyalty oath to Tiberius at Roman Paphos: see p205.
[ back ] 18. See Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 53 III 153–158; cf. V 291 (a balang-servant of Ishtaran, with Heimpel’s comments there).
[ back ] 19. Falkenstein 1966:8; Sigrist and Gomi 1991:317; RIME 3/1:27 (1.1.7, 3); Selz 1997:200n218; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 17b. The precise sequence of Gudea’s regnal years has not been fully established: RIME 3/1:27.
[ back ] 20. Gudea dedicated another balang to the goddess Bau (spouse of Ningirsu), called “Greatly speaking with the Lady”: RIME 3/1 1.1.7.StE iv.12–14; cf. Radner 2005:51 no. 52; Ziegler, FM 9:222 (on 8).
[ back ] 21. Sigrist and Gomi 1991:329, year 22; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 23a1.
[ back ] 22. See p84–85.
[ back ] 23. See p83–84.
[ back ] 24. Lambert 1990:123.
[ back ] 25. DeVale 1988. For drum-construction rituals of several African cultures, see Rattray 1923:258–266; HMI:34–36; Nketia 1963:4–16; Blades 1984:57–64.
[ back ] 26. Thureau-Dangin 1921:1–5; Thureau-Dangin 1922 no. 44–46; Livingstone 1986:187–204; ANET:334–338; Linssen 2004:92–99, 267–282; cf. also Stauder 1970:199–201 and fig. 3a; RlA 8:465 (Kilmer, *Musik A I); Selz 1997:201n215; PHG:118–138.
[ back ] 27. Linssen 2004:94n495.
[ back ] 28. See Livingstone 1986:200; Linssen 2004:267, whose study upholds in general the traditional nature of the late ritual texts (167–168); similarly Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 4a §2.
[ back ] 29. Thus Selz 1997:178–179 assumes that, already in the N-S period, divinization entailed rituals of name-giving, animation, induction to an appropriate cult place, and ongoing offerings and maintenance.
[ back ] 30. The following account conflates elements from several versions; they are, however, essentially compatible.
[ back ] 31. For the gala, see Michalowski 2006; Bachvarova 2008; Gadotti 2010; Shehata 2013; PHG; and further p29–30.
[ back ] 32. Livingstone 1986:201–204; PHG:137–139.
[ back ] 33. Selz 1997:178.
[ back ] 35. See PHG:127–128, 138.
[ back ] 36. A0 6479 II.5, 33–35, III.15, after drum has been made.
[ back ] 37. For example, KAR 60, obv. 15, N-A, seventh century; in this text the bull is placed in front of Lumḫa while being sacrificed.
[ back ] 38. Thureau-Dangin 1921:49n13, calls Lumḫa the god of the tympanum, patron of the kalû; Linssen 2004:96, treats him as a ‘divine harp’, but for this period BALAĜ probably represents a drum: see p531, 573.
[ back ] 39. For the relevance of seven-magic to the larger question of divinized instruments and ritual music, see p40–41. Seven-magic in the lilissu texts includes sevenfold offerings in AO 6479 I.17 and 23. Among the twelve divine figurines are the “seven children of Enmešarra” (enumerated at AO 6479 III.3–14), represented by seven heaps of flour (as stated in K 4806, 5–8). These heaps, accompanied by the god-names, are apparently represented in the diagram of O175 reverse, where they have a definite arrangement vis-à-vis the bull. See Livingstone 1986:194, 203. The seven gods/heaps correspond somehow to seven “hands” or “handles” (on the drum itself?), and stand in an obscure relationship to the “seven defeated Enlils” who also appear in the diagram.
[ back ] 40. PHG:79, 173, 177 (mimetic performance of kalû); 126, 138, 154 (lilissu equated with the divine heart in theological commentaries, and both connected with that of the bull).
[ back ] 41. See PHG:113–114. For examples of ‘conceptual names,’ see below and Heimpel, “Balang-Gods”.
[ back ] 42. Selz 1997:178; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 4b1.
[ back ] 43. Text: Cagni 1969; English translation: Foster 2005:771–805. Despite the work’s late date (Machinist 1983a:221–222), Ḫendursanga himself is known already in the third millennium (Fara; I–II dynasty of Lagash; Ur III): Cagni 1969:138–140 with further references.
[ back ] 44. Cagni 1969:138–140; Foster 2005:742.
[ back ] 45. Machinist 1983a:222. As Divine Heptad, RlA 12/5–6:461 (Wiggerman, *Siebengötter A).
[ back ] 46. Lugal-e: ed. van Dijk 1983 = Exploits of Ninurta, ETCSL 1.6.2; trans./comm. Jacobsen 1987:233–272. The work has been dated to soon after ca. 2150, due to its allusion at 475–478 to Gudea’s building of Ningirsu’s sanctuary Eninnu: see van Dijk 1983:1–9; Jacobsen 1987:234.
[ back ] 47. For the allegory of the stones, see van Dijk 1983:37–47.
[ back ] 48. Livingstone 1986:169–170 (original emphasis).
[ back ] 49. For the Sebettu (vel sim.), their association with the Pleiades, and other variations, see RlA 12/5–6:459–466 (Wiggerman, *Siebengötter A), with ritual uses at 461 §2 and 464 §4. The bulk of the evidence is from the first millennium (especially N-A contexts), but there are scattered antecedents going back to the N-S period. Classicists will recall here W. Burkert’s hypothesis that the myth of the Seven against Thebes derives ultimately from these Seven Warriors (1992:106–114; cf. EFH:455–457), although the pattern of seven against seven suggests Anatolian mediation (for the Hittite doubling of the Divine Heptad, see RlA 12/5–6:466 [Polvani, *Siebengötter B]).
[ back ] 50. See p280–291.
[ back ] 51. Text: RIME 3/1:68–101 (1.1.7 CylA/B); ETCSL 2.1.7 (translation followed here, with exceptions as noted); CS 2 no. 155. For the work’s genre and title (Gudea Cylinders B 24.17), Suter 2000:277. Pantheon of Lagash: Falkenstein 1966.
[ back ] 52. Suter 2000:274 et passim. The musical scenes are Suter 2000:ST.9, 13, 15, 23, 25, 53, 54, with discussion on 190–195; for those showing a giant drum, see p532. A proposal by J. Börker-Klähn to restore a bow-harp on a further fragment is unlikely: see Suter 2000:189, with 172 fig. 19a.
[ back ] 53. Suter 2000:157 and 278, wondering about the audience for the text of the cylinders, notes their reference to the performance of various songs during the construction process, and suggests that the cylinders were a ‘draft’ for a more polished stele-inscription. Be that as it may, the content of the text and the figurative steles are to a large extent parallel, and sometimes mirror each other. Thus, for instance, the steles depict ritual musical performances like those mentioned in the text, which in turn alludes to various decorative schemes on steles set up in the temple. Given that “the verbal composition was probably recited in some form at least once” (Suter 2000:279), it is an easy guess that this was during the same set of events that saw the dedication of the steles—i.e., inauguration of the temple.
[ back ] 54. For this last qualification, see the comments of Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 2a.
[ back ] 55. Gudea Cylinders A 9.24. For the historical conflation of Ninurta (Nippur name) and Ningirsu (Lagash name), see Jacobsen 1987:233–235.
[ back ] 56. Gudea Cylinders A 15.19–25. For “The year in which the wood for the Sharur-weapon was made,” and a further year-name from the making (or repair) of the mace itself, see Falkenstein 1966:8; RIME 3/1:27 (1.1.7, 6).
[ back ] 57. Gudea Cylinders A 22.20, B 7.12–21.
[ back ] 58. Gudea Cylinders B 6.11–23. Cf. Jacobsen 1987:430n22.
[ back ] 59. Gudea Cylinders B 6.24–7.11.
[ back ] 60. See e.g. Elum Gusun (Honored One, Wild Ox) and CLAM:296–297, 314–316.
[ back ] 61. See p280–291.
[ back ] 62. Adapting the formulation of Austin 1962. For theoretical considerations of the intersection of ‘speech-act’ and ‘song’ in the Hellenic sphere, see inter al. Martin 1989 (with illuminating cultural parallels 1–14 et passim); Nagy 1990:30–34.
[ back ] 64. Gudea Cylinders A 6.24–7.6. My translations adapted from ETCSL and Jacobsen 1987. Gudea carries out these instructions at A 7.9–8.1.
[ back ] 65. For the status and organization of nar generally, including the elite offices of “Chief Singer” (nar-gal, a substantially administrative position) and “Singer before the King” (nar lugal, associated especially with the Ur III period), see now Pruzsinszky 2010; Pruzsinszky 2013. The evidence naturally varies from city to city. In the Ur III period there was a ‘great academy’ (e2 umum gu-la) for royal musicians at Ur itself: Pruzsinszky 2013:35–36.
[ back ] 66. Wilson 1996:158.
[ back ] 67. Gudea Cylinders B 10.9–15: translation after Jacobsen 1987 and one by Stephen Langdon in the margin of his copy of Thureau-Dangin 1907, held in the Sackler Library, Oxford. Wilson 1996:159 renders the last line as “(sc. Ušumgal-kalama) passed by the lord Ningirsu with (emblems of the) rituals.” Ušumgal-kalama appears further at B 15.19–16.2, for which see below; and B 18.22–19.1, “Ušumgal-kalama took its stand among the tigi-harps, the alu-lyres roared for him like a storm” (trans. Jacobsen). For these instruments, see 531n1, 532, 575, 606–7n92.
[ back ] 68. Falkenstein 1966:82 (“Herr mit dem schrecklichen Blick”); Selz 1997:178 (“Red-Eyed Lord”). The existence of two distinct balang-gods is justified by their separate functions. The lexical collection An:Anum lists no fewer than seven balang-gods of Ningirsu, all otherwise unattested (Heimpel 1998b:5 and “Balang-Gods,” Section 2c and 53 V 100–106).
[ back ] 71. Cf. also Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 4b2. For the following overview, see PHG:63–64, 70–71, 159–168, et passim. I assume that the detailed first-millennium sources can serve at least as a rough guide to earlier periods. Surviving literary laments: CLAM.
[ back ] 72. The two narratives are The Fashioning of the Gala (BM 29616, balang-composition of OB date): see Kramer 1981; and Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld (ETCSL 1.4.1) 228–239. See further Shehata 2006a; PHG:76–78; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 3b.
[ back ] 73. PHG:83–84; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 3b.
[ back ] 74. See especially Cooper 2006:43–45; approved by Michalowski 2006:49. For the linguistic evidence itself, Schretter 1990. Whittaker 2002 is a good critical review of theories. See also Bachvarova 2008; PHG:68.
[ back ] 75. The use of ‘male’ and ‘his’ are complicated by the third-gender interpretation. See recently, with earlier literature, Cooper 2006:44–45; Gabbay 2008; PHG:67–68. Evidence for the gala’s funerary function is early (third-millennium and OB), cf. e.g. Gudea’s suspension of funeral rites when purifying the ground for Ningirsu’s temple: “corpses were not buried, the gala did not set up his balang and bring forth laments from it, the woman lamenter did not utter laments” (RIME 3/1 1.1.7.StB v.1–4; translation after Cooper 2006:42–43); see further material in PHG:18–19n19.
[ back ] 76. PHG:79, 172–173.
[ back ] 77. See PHG Part VII.
[ back ] 78. Heimpel 1998a:14–16 with parallels; also “Balang-Gods,” 42a.
[ back ] 79. PHG:164n76, 165–166, 173, 180. For the lilissu ritual, see p23–25. Dada, a well-documented gala attached to the royal palace in the reigns of Shulgi and Shu-Sin, is also known to have supervised the manufacture and repair of instruments. For Dada, see Michalowski 2006; Mirelman 2010; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 54.
[ back ] 80. Ambos 2004:171–198; PHG: 87, 158, 165–168, 181–182, 187, 272. See further p280–282.
[ back ] 81. Gudea Cylinders A 7.25. “To which he keeps listening,” in the translation of RIME 3/1:73, will yield compatible sense when other evidence for the counseling balang is take into account.
[ back ] 82. Gudea Cylinders B 8.10–22.
[ back ] 84. The following points come from Heimpel 1998b; Gabbay 2014 §9–13.
[ back ] 85. Cf. Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 2c.
[ back ] 86. Heimpel 1998b:5.
[ back ] 87. Heimpel 1998b:5; “Balang-Gods,” Section 2c.
[ back ] 88. Gabbay 2014 §13.
[ back ] 89. See p28n65, 74.
[ back ] 90. See MgB 2/2:52–53 (fig. 28–29, ca. 2600/2450), 54–57 (fig. 32–34, ca. 2600), 60–61 (fig. 36, ca. 2550), 62–65 (fig. 38–39, 41–43, OAkk. period).
[ back ] 91. See p165–166.
[ back ] 92. KBo 12.88.5–10; also KBo 26.137, 2: see HKm:203.
[ back ] 93. See p158–164.
[ back ] 94. See p24.
[ back ] 95. There may have been occasions, however, when the instrument itself was the focus of a ritual, without actually sounding. In the Ishtar ritual from OB Mari, a balang is said to be ‘placed’—the instrument was heavy—but whether it was actually played is not made clear; it may rather have been the object of lamentation. See further p85, 291–292.
[ back ] 96. Gudea Cylinders B 15.19–16.2.
[ back ] 98. E.g. Collon 1987:36; Asher-Greve and Westenholz 2013:199–202, with emphasis on underlying rituals.
[ back ] 99. Building works of Shulgi and Ur-Nammu: Sallaberger 1999:137–140, 151–152.
[ back ] 100. For divine kingship, see the lucid account of Michalowski 2008, distinguishing between sacred and divine (41–42).
[ back ] 101. Bassetki statue: Al-Fouadi 1976; RIME 2 1.4.10; CS 2 no. 90; Kuhrt 1995 1:48–49, 51–52. Great Revolt: Westenholz 1999:51–54.
[ back ] 102. For the evidence of Shulgi’s divine status, Sallaberger 1999:152–156.
[ back ] 103. Quotation: Michalowski 2008:41. For Isin’s cultural relationship to Ur, and the promotion of legitimate continuity from Ur in royal hymns and other media, see Michalowski 1983:242–243.
[ back ] 104. For the royal promotion and organization of music in this period, see the studies cited in n65 above.
[ back ] 105. Hallo 1963; Klein 1981.
[ back ] 106. For zan(n)aru—with the double-n guaranteed for Akk. by Diri III.043—see further p55, 78–79.
[ back ] 107. Shulgi B, 154–174, trans. adapted from ETCSL 2.4.2.02, partially on the basis of text and commentary in Krispijn 1990 (who attempts some identifications with the catalogue of MgB 2/2). See especially 8–12 for miritum, sabitum, urzababitum, and zan(n)aru. For the first two, which are also found in Enki’s Journey to Nippur as part of the god’s temple orchestra at Eridu (ETCSL 1.1.4, 60–67), see too Hartmann 1960:77–78; cf. Castellino 1972:162–170; Henshaw 1993:84–86. Similar boasts are found in Shulgi C, segment B, 75–101 (especially 77–78, ETCSL 2.4.2.03); Shulgi E, 34–35 (ETCSL 2.4.2.05).
[ back ] 108. Ziegler 2006b:36.
[ back ] 109. See p119, 383.
[ back ] 110. See p178, 383.
[ back ] 111. See p80–81.
[ back ] 112. See p30–33.
[ back ] 113. Could there be a connection here with the obscure but important honorific “King of Kish” which was assumed by several Sumerian rulers of the ED III period and Sargon’s dynasty? See generally RlA 5:608–610 (Edzard, Kiš A); Maeda 1981; Kuhrt 1995 2:41–43.
[ back ] 114. An:Anum I 268 (cited according to Litke 1998). For this god-list, and this entry, see further Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 2c and 53.
[ back ] 115. Ḫh 79–80 (MSL 6:123); Ḫg 169 (MSL 6:142); Diri III.49 (MSL 6:119, 15:138): see Falkenstein and Matouš 1934:147 §49; Castellino 1972:166 §166; Heimpel 1998b:6 (translating Sum. nârūti as “music”).
[ back ] 116. As U. Gabbay notes, “It is also not coincidental that the Urzababa instrument is the balang of Ninurta, since this god as hero going out to war was often conceived [as] the mythological mirror image of Mesopotamian kings” (communication, March, 2010).
[ back ] 117. See further p86.
[ back ] 119. RIME 4 1.1.1, 13–14; CS 2 no. 92; Radner 2005:56 no. 82; FM 9:222 (on 8); Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 40.
[ back ] 120. For identifications, see p34n107, 35–36. For the zan(n)aru (Krispijn’s “Anatolian lyre”), see further p78–79.
[ back ] 121. By contrast, catastrophic situations are marked by the silencing of music; for example, Ur-Nammu A (The Death of Ur-Nammu, ETCSL 2.4.1.1), 187–188 (“My tigi, adab, flute and zamzam songs have been turned into laments because of me. The instruments of the house of music have been propped against the wall.”); so too the ruin of Isin in The Destroyed House (Jacobsen 1987:475–477, lines 17–24). For the Curse of Agade, see below.
[ back ] 123. Quotation: Michalowski 2008:34. Ishtar appears first in the list of gods who supported Naram-Sin’s divinization (Bassetki statue: RIME 2 1.4.10; Foster I.c3, cd.
[ back ] 124. Westenholz 1997:35, 83, 109, 137–139, etc.
[ back ] 125. The convergence of these themes is seen clearly in Shulgi X (ETCSL 2.4.2.24) and Iddin-Dagan A (ETCSL 2.5.3.1). Shulgi as shepherd: Shulgi D 2, 60, 364; E 5, 11; G 28–30, 49–53, 60–62; P 11–14, 17, 56–66; Q 6, 28, 45–48; R 41, 67, 84, 89; X 9, 37, 40, 53; etc. (these are ETCSL 2.4.2.04, 05, 07, 16, 18, 24, respectively).
[ back ] 126. For an up-to-date survey of approaches formerly and presently taken, see the essays in Nissinen and Uro 2008, especially those of P. Lapinkivi, B. Pongratz-Leisten, and M. Nissinen. Representative recent studies are Cooper 1993; Sweet 1994; Steinkeller 1999; Jones 2003; Lapinkivi 2004. Cf. RlA 4:251–259 (Renger, *Heilige Hochzeit), for cautions about earlier studies, of which one may cite inter al. Jacobsen in Frankfort et al. 1946:198–200; Frankfort 1948:295–299; Gurney 1962; Kramer 1963; Kramer 1969:132–133, for the idea of transmission to Anatolia, Greece, and Cyprus in connection with Adonis; Yamauchi 1973; Jacobsen 1975.
[ back ] 127. Pongratz-Leisten 2008:54–60 (quotation at 60), et passim; further references in Parpola 1997:CIVn237; Jones 2003:291.
[ back ] 128. Parpola 1997:XVIII–XXXVI, XLVII–XLVIII (with reference to antecedents), et passim. Note that here Ishtar often appears in the role of the king’s mother.
[ back ] 129. Shulgi B (ETCSL 2.4.2.01),131–149.
[ back ] 130. Shulgi B, 381–382.
[ back ] 131. Shulgi B, 1–10 (quotation at 9–10).
[ back ] 132. Shulgi X (ETCSL 2.4.2.24), 13–41.
[ back ] 133. Shulgi A (ETCSL 2.4.2.01), 81–83. For the tigi instrument, see p531n1, 575, 606–7n92.
[ back ] 134. Compare the double harpist imagery on a thirteenth-century bronze stand from Kourion: p388–392.
[ back ] 135. Iddin-Dagan A (ETCSL 2.5.3.1), 181–194.
[ back ] 136. Iddin-Dagan A, 3, 9–10, 35–37.
[ back ] 137. See Franklin 2014:224–226.
[ back ] 138. See p114.
[ back ] 139. See p167–174.
[ back ] 140. For the wonder-working lyre in early Greek poetics, and the importance of seven-magic, see Franklin 2002b:17–21; Franklin 2006a:52–63.
[ back ] 141. For the symbolism of seven in the ANE generally, a good source book is Reinhold 2008; for Greece with some discussion of neighboring cultures, Roscher 2003; in Pythagorean cosmology, Burkert 1972a:465–482 et passim.
[ back ] 142. See p24, 39.
[ back ] 144. See index s.v. ‘seven-magic’.
[ back ] 145. Franklin 2006a:58.
[ back ] 146. For an introduction to these texts, see RlA 8:463–482 (Kilmer, *Musik A I) with further literature.
[ back ] 147. From the so-called Retuning Text UET 7/74 (Ur, ca. 1800), as well as CBS 10996 (Nippur, ca. 500–300), which enumerates and names intervals formed from the first seven strings. For these texts, see also p59–60, 97, 119, 392, 451.
[ back ] 148. Horowitz 2006 (ed. princ.); Waerzeggers and Siebes 2007 (connecting to musical texts, suggested emendations); Horowitz and Shnider 2009 (collation and verification of some proposed re-­readings); Shnider 2010 (suggesting some connection with astronomical and/or divinatory lore).
[ back ] 149. TSA 1 ix:12–14 (dated to end of first dynasty of Lagash, p. IX).
[ back ] 150. ETCSL 2.1.5, 34–36, 196–204. Translation after Cooper 1983 and Jacobsen 1987; cf. Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 43. Discussion: PHG:16–17, 58. For music as symbolizing Agade’s prosperity, Cooper 1983:38–39; 238; 252. For the identity of tigi-lyre, see 531n1, 575, 606–7n92.
[ back ] 151. “Balang-Gods,” Section 2c.
[ back ] 152. Further material: “Balang-Gods,” Section 2c and 9, 11, 37, 43; PHG:91, 117, 141, 161n55–56. Probably relevant is the intersection of balang-cult with the lunar calendar. A monthly offering is known from Umma during the Ur III period, made to the ‘Balang of the Day-of-Laying’, that is, when the moon was invisible before starting again to wax; presumably the occasion called for apotropaic magic. Cited by Heimpel 1998a:6–7 and “Balang-Gods,” 28. Cf. Linssen 2004:93 and 306–320 for the kettledrum’s use in late Babylonian rituals relating to lunar eclipse.

References: §2
 §2
 §4
 §9
 §13
 §49
 §166