# Talk:Anu

In the first paragraph, one can learn the following: He was believed to have the power to judge those who had committed crimes, and to have created the stars as soldiers to destroy the wicked. Is there any source for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibbereen4567 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC) 

Someone keeps updating this page with some truly weird 'pop culture'. Can someone keep an eye on it and make sure whomever this is gets booted? Kaligraphia (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)kaligraphia
I want to add that Sumerians didn't believed they were gods, they actually said in their own writings that they were an alien race who created humans and rule the world. So, for the sumerians the Anunakis were aliens instead of gods.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.184.4 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 

People still believe in Sitchin? The man was a con-artist and a charlatan and as a source is far from credible. To learn what those writings actually say, I suggest you learn Sumerian yourself or ask someone well-versed in Sumerian cuneiform, instead of believing con-men who know nothing about ancient languages.--WANAX (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps updating this page with some truly weird 'pop culture'. Can someone keep an eye on it and make sure whomever this is gets booted? Kaligraphia (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"The oldest reference to the name" cannot be in Sanskrit or Tamil.  Sanscrit is believed to have separated from Indo-Iranian about 1,500 BCE.  Anu is attested in Sumerian civilisation from 3,000 BCE.  The oldest extent work in Tamil dates to 200 BCE.  The Brahmi script (the earliest in India) dates from 600BCE and Karoshthi dates from 400BCE.  So how can they be the first references.  I am deleting this section as it is inaccurate. John D. Croft 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think Mr Sitchin's theory should be considered as a supposition and not an affirmation.-- The Warlock 10:09 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
---
History is a supposition.
Khranus
Can someone verify the supposed Sumerian belief here?  RickK 23:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Unless somebody can verify this, I'm going to delete it in about 48 hours.  RickK 20:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sumerian for "heaven", a sky god, father and king of the gods. He is the son of Anshar and Kishar. He lives in the third heaven. The Eanna in Uruk was dedicated both to him and consort. His first consort was Antu. They produced the Anunnaki - the underworld gods, and the utukki - the seven evil demons. His second consort was Innina (Ishtar). He is a god of monarchs and is not friendly to the common people. He is a "King of the Igigi". He is assigned the sky as his domain in 'Atrahasis'. His 'kishru's (shooting stars) have awesome strength. He has the ability that anything he puts into words, becomes reality. He is Niudimmud's (Ea's) father.
When Anzu stole the Tablet of Destinies from Ellil, he called for one of the gods to slay Anzu and thereby greatly increase his reputation.
He gave Marduk the four winds to play with. He made a whirlwind and a flood wave and stirred up Tiamat on purpose. When Tiamat's retaliation for Apsu's death was discovered, Anshar sent him on a peace mission to her, but he returned unsuccessfully. He helps form a princely shrine for Marduk prior to his battle with Tiamat, and gives him the Anu-power of decreeing fates, such that his word is law.
He calls Dumuzi and Gizzida speak on Adapa's behalf. 
He and Earth father the Sebitti. He gives them fearsome fates and powers and puts them at Erra's command, to aid in killing noisy, over-populous people and animals.
He agrees to send the Bull of Heaven after Gilgamesh on Ishtar's behalf, if she has made sure that the people of Uruk are properly provisioned for seven years. He decrees that either Gilgamesh or Enkidu must die for the slaying of Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. He sends Kakka to Kurnugi to tell Ereshkigal to send a messenger to receive a gift from him.
(See also the Sumerian An and the Hittite Anus)
Symbol: sacred shine surmounted by the divine horned cap.
Sacred number: 60
Astrological region: heavenly equator
Sacred animal: the heavenly Bull
here's the link with bibliography.
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/assyrbabyl-faq.html#Anu
The link above cannot be accessed as it is locked.

...seems irrelevant and isn't cited.  Should it be pruned?
I agree with that. If there was some sort of reliable citation attached to it, I suppose it'd be fine, but there isn't. Besides, is there any proof that the name Anu is given profusely in Thailand and is given to mainly dark-skinned people? I really think someone should cut that statement if no one's going to give reasons for stating it. Ryan 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Anu is female name in Finland, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Sumerian pagan god Anu! Anu is Hannah's Finnish diminutive name form, as also Annushka in Russia. 85.156.224.59 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems largely based upon ancient (pre-World War I) material, reflecting a highly obsolete viewpoint.
For example, Is Bel = Marduk or Enlil.  The three way dision does not wor as Bel as Enlil (Nippur) = Air, not Earth.
Regards
John D. Croft 11:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe we may need to include something from Stephen H. Langdon, he was post WWI at least.--Faro0485 (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up that paragraph and added a citation for the Sumerian cosmogony bit I added. I fail to see how that paragraph has anything to do with the origin of the name. If anyone can help us out with that I would appreciate it. NJMauthor (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In comparative religion, I feel that it may be possible to detect common attributes between Anu and Metatron ; I would dare anyone to try. 69.157.239.212 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
In comparative religion, it would be possible to detect common attributes between Anu and The Jade Emperor. What's your point? NJMauthor (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized this article, I plan to return this article to an earlier form.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.228.106 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 

Anu -> Enki (Sea) and Enlil (Storm) and Ereshkigal (Death)
Cronus -> Poseidon (Sea) and Zeus (Storm) and Hades (Death)
 El -> Yam (Sea) and Hadad (Storm) and  Mot (Death)
There are many  cross-references in all these mythologies to further establish these facts. Even the  Hindu,  ancient Egypt,  Aztec,  Mayan, etc. mythologies ultimately are based on these few deities. The difference is mostly in name and attribute only. We can find these deities even in Norse mythology... 178.201.14.173 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking at various cuniform pages, most display ok, the unicode (presumably) symbols in the first para here do not display properly (the box with numbers in it).
Is this a wiki encoding issue, or do I need another font.
Other pages, when examining the html, show font family e.g.
< span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: Akkadian; transition: transform 1s ease 0s;" title="Classical Sumerian cuneiform" xml:lang="sux-Xsux" lang="sux-Xsux">𒅴𒂠< /span>
Whereas this page has
<span style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;" xml:lang="akk" lang="akk">𒀭𒀭</span>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 

Katolophyromai I have fixed the Category:God description which said that it was restricted to "monotheistic Gods" (i.e. that of Abrahamics). The same definition of "monotheistic God" is nonsense (what is a "monotheistic God"?). Saying that only the God of the monotheistic (i.e. Abrahamic) religions is "God" while the supreme God and begetter of all other gods in any among the polytheistic religions is not "God" is slanted in favor of Abrahamic religions and their idea of God. Indeed, the Category:God, despite the description, already contains many different Category:Conceptions of God, not exclusively those of the Abrahamic religions.--93.71.129.253 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=06We3O2BWVwC&pg=PA178
https://books.google.com/books?id=hydKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA240
The category was not broken. The word "God" primarily refers to a monotheistic God and that is what most people think of when they hear the word. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the article (and corresponding category) should be about the primary subject. Our article God is about a monotheistic God and Category:God is the corresponding category about Him. We have a separate category for male polytheistic deities: Category:Gods. We should keep the categories distinct; if we start just throwing random male deities into Category:God, we will have two categories devoted to polytheistic deities and no category about the monotheistic God. I have replaced the Category:God that you added to this article with Category:Gods, which is the correct category. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion is biased. Your definition of "monotheistic God" versus "polytheistic deities" is biased apart from them being two tautological circularities. An and the other concepts of supreme God in polytheistic religions are not "random male deities", they are the supreme God which is the same conceived in Abrahamic religions. The only difference is that polytheistic religions accept that the world is made up by a multitude of gods who are facets or offsprings of the supreme God (thus, it is immanent), while monotheistic religions conceive God as transcendent and distinct from the world.--93.71.129.253 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see you are a philosopher. Obviously, there are ways that one could make a philosophical argument that monotheism and polytheism are really the same, but WP:OR states that we are not supposed to put our own arguments or opinions into our articles. We must abide by the traditional definitions of words; this is an encyclopedia, not a transformation speech. Anu belongs under Category:Gods, not Category:God. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Attempt at middle ground: Category:God does not include deities on the basis of being a facet of The Divine, but The Divine in Itself.  It overlaps with Category:Singular God (which covers henotheistic deities), which demonstrates that it's not just monotheistic deities but still the transcendent ones.
So, the criteria is transcendence (or being the Ground of all being), but not necessarily monotheism.  Anu was the highest of the gods, and almost the first God.  Now, whether or not they viewed the relationship between Nammu and Anu as potential vs active Divinity, the article doesn't really spell out.  We to read that relationship somewhere into the article (even though that'd be original research, which we don't do), it would be easier to apply it to Anu (potential) and Enlil (active) -- after all Enlil was the one who got the worship.
Including Anu in the God category would require a source that shows that he was regarded as transcendent or the Ground of all being.  That's currently not present, but can't be ruled out.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, looking over this source posted earlier, something to this effect ("Supreme God") would be good -- if the source was by a historian and not just psychiatrist.  This other source is from pay-to-print publisher Lulu.com and so is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I appreciate your insight, but we seem to be applying modern philosophical terminology to a god that was worshipped roughly 4,500 years ago; the Sumerians had their own sort of philosophy, but most of it was very different from anything a modern philosopher would recognize as such. In particular their whole theology was radically different; to them, a "god" was something completely different from what modern, monotheistic religions believe in. Our modern concept of "God" would have been utterly foreign to them.
For instance, while we today think of "God" as incorporeal and spiritual, textual evidence clearly and conclusively shows that Enlil and Anu were thought of as anthropomorphic and corporeal, albeit far more majestic and terrifying than the ordinary human mind is capable of envisioning. They are rarely, if ever, shown in art in human form, but we can be sure that this is how they were envisioned. Similarly, we tend to think of "God" as limitless and all-powerful, but even Anu and Enlil's powers, while they were indeed considered to be exceedingly great, were always regarded as limited. Likewise, the Sumerians never saw their gods as omnibenevolent or anything close; instead, they were human-like and, while generally benevolent to their worshippers, they could also be cruel and capricious.
The gods were far from being seen as universal; each deity was associated with a particular city or region, where they were thought to hold power, and a god's power depended heavily on the political clout wielded by the city that served as their primary cult center. Even Anu as the chief god was still a regional deity, whose power was mostly confined to the cities where he was worshipped. These gods are scarcely anything at all like the universal, incorporeal, all-powerful, all-loving conception of "God" that modern readers are most likely to be familiar with, which is why they belong in a different category. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Our modern conception of God largely comes from a text that treats God in an anthropomorphic manner -- which most of us read as metaphorical.  We picked up that interpretation from the Platonists.  Simo Parpola argues that some Assyrians interpreted their myths in a similar fashion as well.  But while the average Sumerian certainly would have regarded those figures as invisible crotchety men in the sky, whether or not more subtle views were possible is beside the point, the issue is "what do the sources say?" and in this case, there are none present to support the inclusion of Anu in the God category.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, Katolophyromai Please note that the Category:God contains articles about the conceptions of supreme God of non-Abrahamic religions, for instance Hindu and African ones. The same article "God" is not exclusively about the Abrahamic conception (transcendent), but it includes, for instance, the Hindu conception (manifold immanent manifestation). If An does not fit that category, then it fits the Category:Conceptions of God. An means "Heaven", and therefore it was not conceived as completely transcendent like the Abrahamic god, but manifest in the sky and stars, and indeed it is the "Lord of the Gods and the Constellations".
Also, there is plenty of good sources which clearly discuss such theology (this time I have verified that publishers are academia); An is clearly discussed as the supreme God, and first one of the triad An—Enlil—Enki:
https://books.google.com/books?id=LQtUAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137
https://books.google.com/books?id=qevX11bQRi8C&pg=PA134
Moreover, which sky are we talking about? An was identified as the north pole in Draco, while Enlil and Enki rotated about it:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=it&id=zucsAQAAIAAJ - pages 300-301: "As the north pole of heaven, Draco is the seat of Anu ... the circumpolar region is ... assigned to Anu's household"
https://books.google.com/books?id=XY3pLLsqLJQC&pg=PA29
This astral theology should be explained in our articles, so that the picture of Sumerian religion would become clearer.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You've got it backwards: the concept of transcendence is not limited to the Abrahamic religions.  At no point have I claimed that the God category is limited solely to the Abrahamic conception -- you are the only person raising that strawman.  You'll notice that the God category doesn't include Yahweh.  The figures listed in the God category may well also be immanent, but are still transcendent as well.  Having both transcendence and immanence would be a logical consequence of omnipresence (which, regardless of actual location, would be a logical consequence of omniscience, omnipotence, and an eternal nature).
The Delaporte source is closer to what we need, but still doesn't actually say that Anu was transcendent.  Supreme, yes, but while transcendence includes supremacy, supremacy is not automatically transcendent.  This is why, again, Yahweh is missing from the God category.
The Conceptions of God category still lists figures that are, in some way, the Absolute (i.e. ground of all being).  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your argumentation that transcendence is not limited to the Abrahamic religions and that the Category:God should not be limited to the transcendent God. What I meant is that absolute transcendence, and the related idea of creation from nothing, is the distinctive characteristic of the God of the mainstream theology of the Abrahamic religions; I was convinced that it was the criterion used to determine what is "God" and should be included in the category, and what is not "God" and should not.
Anu was probably not conceived as transcendent, but surely as the first, supreme creator. I think that the idea of transcendence does not apply to Nammu—Apsu either, which was the primordial chaos rather than a nothing; it was, we could say, a no-God.
Ultimately, An fits the Category:God (supreme God) even better than Yahweh, a tribal god later proclaimed the "single God". Maybe we could create a Category:Supreme God to resolve all these issues.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Again: you're the one bringing up the Abrahamic religions.  You're also the one who brought up creation ex nihilo, which no one else has attempted to use to define the God category.  Ahura Mazda, Olorun, and Shangdi are all transcendent such that Christian missionaries have only been able to conclude "same God, different culture" more universally than they have with the more obviously related Allah.
Maybe, if you tried paying attention to what people are saying instead of arguing with your own strawman arguments, this discussion would go somewhere a little faster.
The suggestion of "Category:Supreme God" (or, following the article, Category:Supreme Being) could be a way to resolve this, but would also include Yahweh (as Yahweh was the supreme being among the later Israelites).  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson I am sorry, I admit that I read your comments only cursorily. What about not restricting the Category:God to the supreme transcendent but opening it also to the supreme immanent? What I see at the moment is a very chaotic categorization (and this is the reason why I did not understand what are the criteria of those categories).
By the way, I have found a strong source that solves the whole issue, H. W. F. Saggs. In Everyday Life in Babylonia & Assyria, p. 191, he identifies An as the supreme, Enlil as the transcendent aspect and Enki as the immanent aspect of divinity. Thus, An may be regarded as reconciling the two, and therefore it is neither transcendent nor immanent. This description also fits the stellar identification of the three gods (see source in previous comment, h 17:37), in which An is the medium path between the inner "path of Enlil" and the outer "path of Enki".--2.34.169.73 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Further addition: Edwin Oliver James, in The Worship of the Sky-god: A Comparative Study in Semitic and Indo-European Religion, p. 140, says: "While in their respective spheres of influence they [the triad An-Enlil-Enki] were co-equal, Anu, 'the one on high' personifying the sky, was the leader of the pantheon and the most important force in the cosmos notwithstanding his transcendental obscurity". Here Anu is identified as "transcendental", which may be different from "transcendent", given the differentiation of the two terms in German idealism: "transcendental" is something transcendent which is constitutive for anything immanent.
So, based on what we can rely upon at the moment, An is defined as "trascendental", Enlil as his/its "transcendent" aspect and Enki as his/its "immanent" aspect.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
So, Katolophyromai and Ian.thomson, can you add these important sources and informations to the article and find an appropriate category where An can fit?--2.34.169.73 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I have added the information myself. I noted that many citations were not working because the respective reference in bibliography did not have the ref=harv parameter. I have fixed the problem. I also note that the article does not contain information about the identification of An with the semitic equivalent concept Ilu. It should be mentioned.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
However, we still have to solve the issue of the category.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai: We still have to solve the category issue.--93.151.216.6 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, I think that the article needs a little rewording. Given that Anu was always considered the source of divinity, as attested by the fact that other deities were considered to have the An-utu (note that the suffix is utu; variously translated in sources as "Anship", "An-power" or "An-word", given that it was the power of the performative word [I have a good source about this in Italian but I can't find any online material in English]), I wouldn't say that An was replaced by Enlil and later Enlil was in turn replaced by Marduk (who always remained hierarchically below An), also given that in Babylonian astrolabes Enlil (mulApin) and Marduk (mulMarduk) feature side-by-side in the map. The relation between Enlil and Marduk was rather one of identification (with Jupiter being the representative of Enlil among the planets of the Solar System), and they received the cult on behalf of An, as An was probably never worshipped (at least by commoners).--93.151.216.6 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to go along with adding this article to the "God" category if you really insist it needs to be there. I will take a look at the wording and try to adjust it. I also just noticed your note above, which I had forgotten about, regarding An's identification with Ilu, so I will add mention of that as well.
On a side note, I thought I would invite you that you might want to create an account, since you are still editing by your IP address, which keeps changing, making it hard for me to tell when I am talking with the same user and when I am talking to someone different. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The what-is-that-again? 
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1998JBAA..108....9R. Page 12..
"The three great gods and the three divisions of the heavens were Anu, the ancient god of the heavens; Enlol, son of Anu, god of the air and the forces of nature, and lord of the gods; and Ea, the beneficent god of earth and life, who dwelt in the abyssal waters. The Babylonians divided the sky into three parts named after them. The northern sky was the Way of Enlil; the equator and most of the zodiac occupied the Way of Anu; and the southern sky was the Way of Ea."
(20040302 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC))

In the article about Kumarbi, it is said that Kumarbi is a Hurrian god and that the Hittite equivalent is called Halki, but in this article we can read the following: 
"In ancient Hittite religion, Anu is a former ruler of the gods, who was overthrown by his son Kumarbi, who bit off his father's genitals and gave birth to the storm god Teshub. Teshub overthrew Kumarbi, avenged Anu's mutilation, and became the new king of the gods. This story was the later basis for the castration of Ouranos in Hesiod's Theogony". 
Which page is incorrect? Was this god called Kumarbi or Halki in Hittite? Oddeivind (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Kudurru of Nebuchadnezzar I (Isin 2) says "From  the  city  Der,  the cult centre of the god Anum, he  made an incursion to (a distance  of) thirty leagues." Frame, Grant. Rulers of Babylonia, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995Ploversegg (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure the references to Anu in texts from Der are a stand-in for Ishtaran. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)