http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

[LINK] [LINK] 

Guide to the Mesopotamian Pantheon of Gods

© Ian Lawton 2000

The gods played a crucial role in the Sumerians' lives, both as a
nation and as individuals - most Sumerians appear to have had a
personal god or gods with whom they forged a special relationship.
Their texts and stelae indicate that they looked to them for
protection and assistance in all things, while also blaming them or
looking upon it as a punishment - just or otherwise - when things went
wrong. As with the endurance of their literature these gods, with some
amendments, continued to be worshipped right through to the late
Assyro-Babylonian period. Since they play a crucial role in the
literary texts which we will consider in subsequent papers, it is
appropriate that we take time out to consider the key figures.

The collective name most often given to the Sumerian pantheon is the
Anunnaki, although another name, the Igigi, is also encountered. These
two names appear to be interchangeable in some texts, although in
others there are inconsistent and conflicting roles accorded to each
as greater or lesser gods. For example, in Atra-Hasis the Anunnaki are
the 'great gods' while the Igigi 'do the work'. By contrast, in the
Epic of Creation, Erra and Ishum and in the Epic of Anzu the Igigi are
made out to be superior, the first two referring to 'the Igigi of
heaven and the Anunnaki of the Abzu' (the latter term referring to
'the deep', sometimes regarded as the 'watery underworld').

The numbers of gods in the (or each) pantheon also differ from text to
text, sometimes referring to 'fifty great gods' and sometimes to as
many as three hundred. It is likely that this confusion arises because
of changing roles allocated to various pantheons over time as part of
a 'creative editing' process underpinned by political and religious
motives, a subject to which we will return in the next paper; for
example, it appears that the Igigi tend to be the younger gods who
appear primarily in the later Akkadian works, while the Anunnaki are
the older great gods of the Sumerians.

This confusion about different pantheons and a potentially
hierarchical structure permeates most of the Assyriologists' work. In
his book The Chaldean Account of Genesis, published in 1876, George
Smith - who succeeded Henry Rawlinson as the head of the Department of
Oriental Antiquities at the British Museum - describes a pantheon of
'twelve great gods' who despite having been given somewhat different
names in his day are broadly the same figures, with similar
associations, that we currently regard as having been pre-eminent.^1
He suggests the hierarchy then proceeded through a further fifty gods
before the level of the Igigi, and then finally the Anunnaki.

Meanwhile Samuel Kramer describes the 'seven gods who decree the
fates'.^2 He suggests these are probably made up of four 'creative
gods': An who rules heaven, Enlil the air or atmosphere, Enki water,
and Ninhursag earth; and of three 'astral deities': Nanna associated
with the Moon, Utu with the Sun, and Inanna usually with Venus. As
with Smith they are followed by 'fifty great gods', but Kramer
identifies these with the Anunnaki (as 'children of An'), while
relegating the Igigi to a 'relatively minor role'.

What is clear is that there are a number of key players in this
pluralistic pantheon of anthropomorphic gods who appear time and again
in Ancient Mesopotamian literature and sculpture. In the diagram below
I have attempted to piece together a 'family tree' from the texts, not
because this is a strictly correct or appropriate way of looking at
them but because this approach makes them come to life and puts them
into some sort of context.^3 Of course assembling the 'apparent
relationships' is hugely complicated by a number of factors: the gods'
apparently protracted lifespans which lead to significant overlap; the
multiple liaisons between them to produce children, including
incestuous relationships involving brothers, sisters, children and
grandchildren - which is in fact a common behaviour pattern adopted by
the pantheons of most polytheistic philosophies around the world; and
the repeated editing of texts over the millennia. As a result what
follows should not be regarded as anything more than a guide to
introduce the major deities to those new to the subject. It should
also be pointed out that the most likely interpretation of the texts
is that as groups the Anunnaki and the latecoming Igigi were regarded
as subservient to the major deities listed below.

For consistency and ease of understanding I have tried to use the
original Sumerian names of gods, people and places - and also the most
up-to-date renderings thereof - not only here but also throughout
subsequent papers, including when commenting on the later Akkadian
texts. The family tree does however indicate the most commonly found
alternative names (in brackets), especially the Akkadian versions used
through to the end of the Assyro-Babylonian epoch. It also attempts to
show the relationships between long-term consorts, and the main
associations of gods with the elements and so forth; and the notes
which accompany it contain various points of detail, especially
indicating the areas of greatest uncertainty.

The Sumerian Pantheon 

Notes accompanying the family tree: 

1.   These two are sometimes recorded as direct offspring of An
(Ishkur in the Epic of Anzu, Inanna in the Epic of Gilgamesh); however
Ereshkigal is consistently recorded as Inanna's sister, similarly Utu
as her brother - therefore if she were to shift up the generations,
arguably they should do likewise. Note also that gods are often
misleadingly described as the 'son or daughter of An' as a poetic
metaphor, perhaps to indicate that they are part of the main pantheon.
The determination of his main offspring as shown is based on more
substantial statements.

2.   Nergal and Ninurta are sometimes assimilated with each other; I
suspect this is because, in Enlil and Ninlil, Nergal is reported as
their second son whereas Ninurta is not mentioned. Furthermore, in
Erra (Nergal) And Ishum, Nergal is again reported as Enlil's son.
Occasionally Nergal is also assimilated with Gibil - this may be due
to nothing more than the similarity in their Akkadian names of Erra
and Gerra respectively.

3.   Marduk is only recorded as Enki's son in the Epic of Creation; he
only came to prominence in the late Assyro-Babylonian period, so the
importance attached to him by some must be viewed with some
scepticism. Note also that he is so well known by this, his Akkadian
name, that I have made an exception and used this throughout; his
original Sumerian name was Asalluhe.

4.   The fact that Ninhursag appears to be Enlil's consort in that
they are Ninurta's parents does not detract from the fact that in Enki
and Ninhursag she is clearly Enki's consort. The continual editing of
texts, the assimilation of one god with another at various times, and
the polygamous and incestuous nature of most relationships, mean that
we should not get too hung up on such details. Although, of course,
such changes in pairings may have a deeper esoteric significance.

Despite the controversies over elements of detail, it is clear that
certain gods in the Sumerian pantheon stood head and shoulders above
the others, especially in earlier times: namely An, Enlil, Enki and
Ninhursag. It is also clear that the relative importance of various
gods changed over time. Kramer suggests that as the father of the gods
An was originally the head of the pantheon (as portrayed in
pictographic texts found at Uruk dating to c. 3000 BC), but this
position was subsequently transferred to Enlil. The latter has built a
widespread reputation for bringing devastation (such as the Deluge) to
mankind, but Kramer suggests that this reputation is misplaced and due
only to the order in which the texts were discovered - the ones found
later, such as Hymn to Enlil, tending to show him in a softer light.
However he and his offspring do tend to be associated with storms and
war, and he is often represented as a bull. By contrast Enki, often
represented as a serpent and who was in charge of the Abzu, is
associated with kindness and compassion, and also the transfer of
civilisation and scientific knowledge to mankind (via a set of 'divine
rules' known as me's). Although there is some consensus that this
'cosmic triad' were probably the most important of all, both Kramer
and Thorkild Jacobsen suggest that Ninhursag - possibly as An's
incestuous consort - may have been regarded as superior to Enki prior
to the Isin-Larsa dynasty c. 2000 BC. Certainly her accepted role as
the original prototypical earth-mother and birth goddess is a crucial
one. Then, moving on down the generations, Marduk eventually usurped
Enlil as the head of the pantheon by the middle Assyro-Babylonian
period c. 1000 BC.

This pantheon clearly forms, at least in part, the basis for the
subsequent more-celebrated western pantheons of the Greeks and Romans.
For example there is little doubt that Inanna, as the goddess of love,
was the role model for Aphrodite and Venus. However any prolonged and
detailed attempt to match the pantheons up exactly is, in my view, a
misguided and fruitless exercise.

It is also worth noting that, as with other religions and
philosophies, genuine human figures could become at least partly
deified in the Mesopotamian world. The most concrete example is that
of Dumuzi, one of Inanna's many lovers, who appears in the King List
under the sobriquet 'the shepherd', as the 5^th antediluvian patriarch
who ruled from Bad-Tibira (uniquely the same name appears a second
time in the list, under the sobriquet 'the fisherman', this time for
the 4^th ruler of the 1^st Dynasty of Uruk - but this is less likely
to be the figure who was deified); since the subjects of the King List
were not normally regarded as members of the pantheon, this entry
gives him a definite human flavour. However in the many literary texts
in which he appears he is quite clearly positioned as a god, and
undoubtedly merits his place in the pantheon of 'great gods' shown
above. Indeed to his disgust Ezekiel (Ezekiel 8:14) finds the women of
Jerusalem still worshipping him under his later name of Tammuz in the
6^th century BC. Another example is Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood
and equivalent of the biblical Noah: although he doesn't appear to
merit inclusion as a 'great god', the texts clearly state that he was
deified - perhaps within the more subordinate levels. This has echoes
of the biblical patriarch Enoch, who was 'taken' by God (Genesis 5:24)
supposedly without, according to some commentators, actually dying in
the normal sense - and this whole subject is one of enormous esoteric
importance which must be left for a separate work.

As to the philosophical role that these Mesopotamian deities played,
and how it can be compared to that of the deities in other
polytheistic pantheons, this difficult but vital subject again must be
left for a separate work. But one thing should be made abundantly
clear... orthodox attempts to dismiss these deities en masse as
primitive philosophical constructs are as misguided as those of
certain 'alternative' writers who insist that they were
anthropomorphic 'flesh and blood' beings.

Source References

1. George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (London, 1876),
Chapter 4.

2. Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians (University of Chicago Press,
1963), Chapter 4, pp. 122-3.

3. An invaluable source in this exercise was Stephanie Dalley, Myths
from Mesopotamia (Oxford University Press, 1989), Glossary, pp.
317-331.