Begründet von E.Ebeling und B.Meissner fortgeführt von E. Weidner und W. von Soden herausgegeben von D.O.Edzard unter Mitwirkung von RCalmeyer • J.N. Postgate • W. Röilig W. von Soden ■ M.Stol • G.Wilhelm Band 8 • 3./4. Lieferung Miete - Moab 1994 Sonderdruck Walter de Gruyter- Berlin • New York *MIRKÄNU eher); da M. wohl mit dem Namenselement Mini(m)zir zu identifizieren ist, das in Pferdenamen vorkommt und die Pferdebezeichnung nimzir zu enthalten scheint, dürfte es sich um eine Pferdegöttin handeln. K.Balkan, Kassitenstudien (1954) 111-114. M. Krebernik !i,Mirkänu (Mirqänu). Achaemenid Elamite transcription of the Old Persian geographical name Vrkäna, "Hyrcania," the region south of the Caspian Sea. The Elamite is preserved in the gentilic plural Mirkanuyap (Mi-ir-ka^-nu-ia-ip) only in the Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great (DB § 35 Elamite ii 68), where the corresponding Old Persian passage has the place name Vrkäna (DB § 35 Old Persian ii 92f.). But where the Elamite and Old Persian say "the Parthians and Hyrcanians revolted from me (Darius)," the Babylonian (DB § 35:64) has "Parthians and Margians" (\_Mar\-gu-ma-a.MES), apparently in error (see Margiana*). The episode is not included in the Aramaic version; see also Der Kleine Pauly II (1967) 1293-95: H.Treidler, "Hyr-kania". R.Schmitt, AfO 27 (1980) 115. M.W.Stolper MIRku (dMIR-H). Name des mit Marduk gleichgesetzten Tutu* (An = Anum II 200: Litke, God-Lists, 111), in Ee VII 25 als 16. Name Marduks genannt und etymologisierend interpretiert als běl sipti elleti „Herr der reinen (ku) Beschwörung (wohl wegen mir = šibb/ppu „Gürtel"). M. Krebernik Mirmiran Tepe s. Hatay. Mirqänu s. *Mirkänu. MIRšakušu (dMIR-š á - k ú š - ú ). In Ee. VI 137 als 4. Name Marduks genannt (Var. dBÁ= RA-ša-kúš-ú in KAR 164 Rs. 115), auch in An = Anum II 192 (Litke, God-Lists, nof.) - MIR VALI 221 und CT 25,34 K.4209 ii 12 erwähnt. Sowohl in Ee als auch in An = Anum ist der Name etymologiosierend gedeutet als ezzz (mir) u mustäl (s ä - ku s - ü) „(er ist) wütend und umsichtig". M. Krebernik Mír Vali. Große Ruinenstätte im Rumiš-gän-Tal, Luristan (Iran), ca. 3 km nördl. von Coga Sabz,* im November 1935 von der , Holmes Expedition to Luristan' unter der Leitung von E. F. Schmidt kurz untersucht. Zur Lage vgl. bes. R. C. Henrickson 1987, 217 und Fig. 57; ders., Iran 24 (1986) 3; OIP 108, Taf. 5. Innerhalb einer offentichtlich weiträumigen, durch Steinarchitektur gekennzeichneten Stadtanlage, über deren Ausdehnung und mögliche Datierung nichts ausgesagt wird, befanden sich zahlreiche große Ganggräber, z.T. mit sorgfältig gesetzter Giebelbedachung, die meisten davon beraubt. Wie bei den in Westiran häufigen Steinkistengräbern üblich, handelte es sich offensichtlich um Familienbestattungen. Das Inventar von fünf unversehrten oder nur teilweise geplünderten Gräbern konnte von der Expedition geborgen werden. Unter den Grabbeigaben verdienen vor allem die Tongefäße Beachtung. Die monochrom bemalte Keramik von M. V., wie die der benachbarten Fundorte Kamtarlan II und Coga Sabz (OIP 108, Taf. 79-90) findet ihre besten Parallelen in Susa D (c-d), besonders aber in Godin Tepe III 6 (konventionell mit „ED II spät" - ED III gleichgesetzt). Die Pflanzendarstellung auf einem polychrom bemalten Gefäß (MV 13, OIP 108, Taf. 89 = BBV 8, Taf. 30, 2) steht noch eindeutig in der Tradition der „klassischen" ,scarlet wäre' (vgl. OIP 63, Taf. 13. 14, Hafäga, Houses 11 = BBV 8, Taf. 22). ,Grab T enthält eine Sekundärbelegung aus der „Spätbronzezeit". R. Schacht, 1987, S. 176, erwähnt die vage Möglichkeit, Marhaší*/ Barahsum* in Mir Vali (oder Kamtarlan) zu lokalisieren. Die Funde der Holmes Expedition aus M.V. werden im Muze-ye Iran Bastän, Teheran, und im University Museum, Phila- 222 MISARU - MISCHWESEN. A delphia, aufbewahrt; Endpublikation durch Schmidt/van Loon/Curvers 1989. E. F. Schmidt/M. N. van Loon/H. H. Curvers, The Holmes Expedition to Luristan (= OIP 108, 1989). - R. Schacht, Early Historic Cultures, in (ed.) F. Hole, The Archaeology of 'vv estern Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, (1987) 171-103, bes. 176; ebd., R. C.Hen-rickson, Godin III and the Chronology of Central Western Iran circa 2600-1400 B. C, 105-227. N. Karg Misaru s. Richtergottheiten. Misaru-Akte s. Schulden-Erlaß. Misbauzatis, The Elamite transcription of the name of a place in Parthia, where a battle took place on March 8, 521 B. C, according to the Bisitun inscription of Darius the Great (DB), between Hystaspes, the father of Darius, and Phraortes, the Median opponent of Darius. The Elamite version gives the name ASMi-is-ba-u-za-ti-is (DB j 35 Elamite u'70); the Babylonian has U-mi-is-pa-za-tu (DB § 35 Babylonian 65). The Old Persian form, vl-i-s-[p]-u-z-[a]-t-i-s = Vis[pa]uz[ä]tis (DB § 35 Old Persian ii 95), is restored from the Elamite. R. Schmitt, AfO 27 (1980) 122-123, id-> The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great, Old Persian Text (= Cllran I/i [1992]) 62. M.U.Stolper Mischwesen. A. Philologisch. Mesopotamien. * 1. Identifications and method. - ' 2. Historical development and theology. 2.1. Origins and associations with anthropomorphic gods. 2.2. Servants and defeated enemies. 2.3. The army of Tiämat. 2.4. Cosmic functions and constellations. 2.5. Theology. 2.6. Use in art. - J 3. Non-anthropomorphic gods. 3.1. Chthonic snake gods and animal gods. 3.2. Mountains and rivers. 3.3. Abnormalities, redoublings, and metamorphoses. - '] 4. Fabeltier. - 2 5- Flügelgestalten. - . 6. Schuppenkleid und -muster. - j 7. Survey of types. 5 1. Identifications and method. The denotations of the majority of Babylonian monster names were established on the basis of a group of similar Standard Babylonian texts that treat the magical defense of a house or palace against intruding evil (F. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts [1992], hereafter Wiggermann 1992). The texts prescribe the manufacture of clay monster figures to be interred at strategical points in the house (entries, corners, stairs, bathrooms) and there to serve as apotropaic guardians. With the help of the inscriptions prescribed for some of them, the monster figures of the texts could be matched with the monsters actually produced, interred and excavated. The clay monster figures were collected and described by D.Rittig, Ass.-bab. Kleinpla-stik magischer Bedeutung vom 13.-6. Jh. v.Chr. (1977), and A.Green, Neo-Assyrian Apotropaic Figures, Iraq 45 (1983) 87-96. The same group of monsters served the magical defense of NA palaces, but there in relief along the walls, and sometimes in the round, made of precious metals or stone (see J. Reade, Assyrian Architectural Decoration: Techniques and Subject-Matter, BagM 10 [1979] 17-49; D.Kolbe, Die Reliefprogramme religiös-mythologischen Charakters in neu-assyrischen Palästen [1981]). NA royal inscriptions and further official documents contain some information on their manufacture, purpose, and whereabouts (B.J.Engel, Darstellungen von Dämonen und Tieren in assyrischen Palä-• sten und Tempeln nach den schriftlichen Quellen [1987]). The denotations of the monster names thus established are supported by etymology and isolated bits of information from various places and periods (cf. B j 3.1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 20. 22. 23. 26. 27). Some of the remaining monsters could be identified from correspondences between text and image: Huwawa* (B j 3.12) from an OB tablet with on one side his face and on the other an omen concerning "entrails in the form of the head of Huwawa" (F. Thureau-Dangin, RA 22 [1925] 23-26), Lamastu* (B § 3.11) and Pazuzu* (B £ 3.10) from amulets showing their images and inscribed with incantations mentioning their name. All other identifications are based on circumstantial evidence, and more or less debatable. With every increase in the number MISCHWESEN. A 223 of sure identifications, however, the evidence required to match the remaining types with the remaining names decreases. The Bull-of-Heaven (B § 3.18; Himmelsstier*; Wiggermann 1992 VII. C. 6 a note 10) was identified by R. Opificius and W. G. Lambert with a winged man-headed bull attacked by Gilgames and Enkidu on late second and first millennium seals; earlier (Opificius, UAVA 2 [1961] 227) and in more conservative contexts the Bull-of-Heaven is a (humped) bull (drawings with captions, see Thureau-Dangin, RA 16 [1919] 1561; E. "weidner, Gestirndarstellungen auf babylo-nischen Tontafeln [1967] 8f.). The relations of these two types of Bull-of-Heaven with other (winged) human-headed bulls and bisons (Menschenstier*) remain unclear. For Bes (B 3.13) a plausible Babylonian name has been suggested (CAD K kirru A 1 a), pessu, the "halt one". Among objects sent from Egypt to Burnaburias is one lupe-es-su-u of stone holding kirru containers in his hands (EA 14 iii 60). Undoubtedly in origin this is the name of the dwarfs that play a part on OB seals, only later applied to the similar Egyptian god. The Snake-god (B % 3.28) and the Boat-god (B § 4.30) belong in the context of the third millennium chthonic snake gods (§ 3.1), but cannot be named with certainty. The identification of the Bird-man (B $ 3.2) with Anzu is certainly incorrect (cf. Lambert, Iraq 28 [1966] 69f.): the bird part of the Bird-man is not that of an eagle, but that of an aquatic bird (§ 7.2), his activities (companion of Utu; carrying stalk of vegetation) do not fit the mythology of Anzu, and worst of all, he does not play a part in the official iconography of Lagas, which any Anzu should. Apparently, like Anzu, the Bird-man challenged the rule of the gods, and besides Anzu the only important mythological figure known to have done so in Sumerian texts is Enmesarra* (see M. Civil, AfO 25 [1974/77] 65-71, with previous lit.). As a primeval god Enmesarra may well have been a hybrid, and in first millennium magical texts he is associated with the anameru plant (SpTU II 20 Rs-4ff., and duplicates). There are no indications of avian features, however. Lion-dragon (B ^ 3.25) ar*d Lion-headed eagle (B § 3.14). The classical Akkadian Lion-dragon (Lowen-drache* J 3 a; [r 7, 25) was preceded in earlier art by a more leonine type (Lowendrache* J) 1). Its development (addition of bird parts) is comparable to that of the mushussu*. The Lion-dragon is Iskur/Adad*'s mount, and called u4(gal)/Mra« (rabu), "(Big) Day" (denoting turbulent weather phenomena) in the texts (Wiggermann 1992 VII. C.4a). The term u4-ka-duh-a/wraK na^irulkaduhhu (CAD N/l, 150, K 35, § 2.4), "Roaring Day" probably refers to the same monster that typically lowers its head to the earth and emits jets of water from its widely opened jaws. Anzu was represented in art initially by the Lion-headed eagle (Lbwenadler*). After the Ur III period the Lion-headed eagle disappears from Mesopotamian art, but since representations of Anzu continue to be mentioned in the texts, another monster must have taken its place. Apparently, while Iskur's interests shifted from the Lion-dragon to the bull, the Lion-dragon (like the Lion-headed eagle composed out of eagle and lion parts) came to represent Anzu. In the NA period the Lion-dragon was split into two beings (a comparable split is attested for the mushuisu*), one (with feathered tail, Lowendrache* '~ 3 a) the enemy of Ninurta, one (with scorpion's sting, Lowendrache* f 3 c) his mount (for the NA iconography of Ninurta see U. Moortgat-Correns, AfO 35 [1988] 117-133). The monster on which Ninurta has his feet in the MB Gbttertypentext (F.Kocher, MIO 1 [1953] 66 i 59', ii 9), that is before the split and therefore the one with the feathered tail, is called Anzu; the monsters that stand next to his throne in his NA temple in Kalhu (D.J.Wiseman, Iraq 14 [1952] 34, 72f.) are referred to with the general term usumgallu, "dragon" (also used for the Snake-dragon mushussu* ^ 2.3). A slightly different local form of the Lion-dragon/ Anzu occurs in MA art (Lowendrache* r. 2; for the date of the Lamastu-amulets 27. 34. 35 see O.Pe-dersen, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur I [1986] 120. 125) On Lamastu*-amulets they fulfill the same apotropaic function as the Bull-man (amulet 29) and Pazuzu. For Anzu/awiti see '". 3.3. Although images (salmu) of gods and demons are regularly referred to in the texts, detailed descriptions are extremely rare. The images (salmu) of twenty-seven gods and hybrids are described in the so-called Gbttertypentext of MB origin (Kocher, MIO 1, 57_95; see Lambert, Or. 54 [1985] 197L). Many of their names are not attested elsewhere, and most of the described images do not actually occur in art. The text has a highly specific, though unknown, purpose, and is of limited value for the study of Mesopotamian iconography. Forms (gattu) of dragons and snakes are described in a text similar to those describing stones and plants (CT 14,7 and duplicates, see Landsberger, Fauna [1934] 52rf-)- Unfortunately it does 224 MISCHW not describe the most important dragons. A complete description of the constellations would ascertain the identity of the monsters among them (§ 2.4), but so far little has come to light (Weidner, Eine Beschreibung des Sternenhimmels aus Assur, AfO 4 [1927] 73-85; id., Gestirndarstellungen [1967]). The underworld vision of an Assyrian crown prince called Kummaju (perhaps Assurbanipal) is described in a difficult text recently reedited by A. Livingstone in SAA III (1989) 68-76 (see also K. Frank, MAOG 14/2 [1941] 24-41). In a dream the prince sees Nergal on his throne, holding his two-headed maces (B § 3.6), and surrounded by the members of his court: Namtar, the vizier of the underworld, Namtartu, his wife (with the head of a kurlbu, perhaps "Griffin"), Mutu, "Death" (with the head of a Snake-dragon), Sedu lemnu, "Evil Genie" (with eagle's talons), MukTl reslemutti, "Upholder-of-Evil" (with the head of a bird and wings), Humut-tabal, "Take-away-quickly", the ferryman of the underworld (with the head of an Anzu), Etemmu, "Ghost" (with the head of an ox), Utukku lemnu, "Evil Spirit" (with a lion's head, claws for hands and eagle's talons for feet), Sulak (a lion on its hind legs), Mamitu, "Curse" (with a goat's head), Bedu (dNE.DUs), the porter of the underworld (with a lion's head and bird's talons), Allu-happu, "Net" (with a lion's head), Mimma lemnu, "Any Evil" (with two heads, one of a lion, one of a [. . .]), Muhra, "Confrontation" (with three feet, the two front ones those of a bird, the rear one that of a bull). Of two gods the prince does not know the names; one has the head, hands, and feet of an Anzu, the other is apparently anthropomorphic. Thus the prince understands most of what he sees, although the images described are not preserved in the Assyrian art we know. Frank (LSS 3/3 [1908] liff.j MAOG 14/2,33) identified the six or seven animal-headed figures of the Lamastu*-amulets with the seven Evil Spirits, one of them described in the underworld vision. His reasons, however, were insufficient (Wigger-mann 1992 II. A. 4. B urigallu). More convincing was his identification of an unnamed clay figure of "one cubit" having a lion's head (KAR 227 i 24, etemmu ritual) with 7ESEN. A Bedu (MAOG 14/2,35). Sulak has been associated with the Hon attacked by an ur-mahlullü on a MA seal (B '~, 4,20). Among the monsters known from the texts the following remain unidentified: the third millennium adversaries of Ningirsu/Ninurta, ku-li-an-na (J. Cooper, AnOr. 51 [1978] 149), ma-(ar-)gi-lum/ma-gillu/magisu (Cooper ibid. 148; ^.Heimpel, ZA 77 [1977] 38s2), and especially i-z&g/asakku (see Th. Jacobsen, Mem. A.Sachs [1989] 2.2.5-131). Sume-rian ä-zäg characterizes diseases or the demons that cause them in a general way; it does not denote a specific disease, but a kind of disease. The nature of the diseases it denotes is revealed by incantations and medical texts, in which ä-zäg is practically always paired with nam-tar, "decided" disease (for a selection of examples see CAD s.v. asakku and namtaru). From the observation that ä-zäg and nam-tar fill a semantic field, it follows that ä-zäg denotes diseases that are not decided by the gods, "disorders". That the ä-zäg combatted by Ninurta in Lugal-e* is the same demon "Disorder" on a cosmic level is born out by the myth, which is concerned exactly with Ninurta deciding the fates, and ä-zäg hindering htm at it. In view of the artificial, abstract nature of the cosmic demon "Disorder", it is not surprising that we do not find him represented in art (B f 3.2.5). Of the first millennium monsters that remain unidentified must be mentioned: abübu, "Flood" (CAD A/i abübu 3), kurlbu, perhaps "Griffin" (B 34,2.1; Engel, Darstellungen von Dämonen 77 f.), melü, once understood as the deified staircase, but apparently having hands ("v-. iggermann 1992 II. A. 2.26), and Lu-hussu*, a form of Nergal with an abnormal nose (TCS 4,56:27) and non-human feet (CT 38,5:125; 2:16; see j 3.1). A scholarly curiosity is the sah-lu-u\uiu/ saha[tnelu], "pig-man" (for the type see B 3.4. 20. 22) of NabnTtu XXXI 10 (MSL 16,245). The ritual texts describe three groups of seven apkallü, "sages", one group of fish-man hybrids (B j 3.8), one of bird-man hybrids (B j 3-9), and one of anthropomorphic figures (B § 3.31). The first group of sages is rooted in third millennium Mesopotamia, but the iconographic type was introduced only in the Kassite period. The two other types are adopted by Assyrian iconography from a foreign source, and secondarily named "sages". In magic all three types of sages perform purifying and exorcising functions. Assyrian art borrowed or invented a number of further iconographic types, involved in tasks more or less similar to those of the apkallü (without further distinction collected in B § 3.31). They do not correspond to a god or genius of the Me-sopotamian tradition and are named with vague descriptive terms: kamsütu, "kneeling MISCHWESEN. A ones", sut kakki, "armed ones", sut kappl, "winged ones", il biti, "god of the house", and set istet ammatu lansu, "the one of one cubit" (Wiggermann 1992 II.A.4. B). Sages and related figures are to be kept distinct from the monsters whose histories are treated in the second paragraph. The applicability of the identifications proved or proposed is not unlimited. Me-sopotamian iconography spread widely beyond the limits of Mesopotamian culture, and served the needs of a variety of religions, each with its own ideas on gods and monsters (Syria, Anatolia, and in part also Assyria). Their names and values should be related to the native theologies, not to Mesopotamian ones. Inside Mesopotamia itself, mythology varies from place to place, and from period to period. Ideally the identity of each monster should be proved for each place and period independently, a demand that in view of the scarcity of relevant texts can never be met. The point of view taken here is that when the identity of a monster is proved for one random time and place, and its history is straightforeward, its identity can be confirmed for other times and places. Obviously, however, historical straightforwardness is not an exact datum, and seemingly straightforeward cases may have to be reassessed in the future. § 2. Historical development and theology. 52.1. Origins and associations with anthropomorphic gods. There are three sources for the early history of monsters: art, etymology, and their place in theology. The earliest and at once most tenacious monsters of Mesopotamian art are the Snake-dragon/ Mushussu (B j 3.27), the Bull-man/i^wia-rikku (B ^ 4.3), the Lion-headed Ea.g\e/Anzu (B 5 3-14)) the Long-haired Hero/Lahmu (B \3.i), and the Lion-dragon/umu naHru (B J 3.25). The Sumerian names of the Snake-dragon and the Bull-man (or rather Bison-man) do not reveal the composite character of these beings, Sumerian mus-hus meaning "awesome snake", and Sumerian gu4-alim "bison(-bull)". Presumably in origin these words did not denote monsters, but mythological animals, abstract Exemplary Members of a species to whom its awe-inspiring qualities were ascribed. The transition from Exemplary Member to monster can only be explained from the demands of visual expression. Since simple representation of one member of a species does not adequately express the extraordinary qualities that are ascribed to the abstract Exemplary Member, it follows that in order to express those qualities the Exemplary Member must be formally distinct from the ordinary member. Conversely, it is only regular artistic activity that can be made responsible for the creation of a commonly known and accepted religious art, the only channel through which the novelty of monster form could spread and take a hold on public imagination. Art needs monsters and monsters need art, which implies that monsters in general cannot be older than the first recognizable art styles (Late Uruk period), and more specifically, that first attestations cannot be very far removed from invention. A conceivable alternative channel through which monster form could have spread is the cult, dress-ed-up priests. For the Snake-dragon and the Bull-man this is not an alternative, since formally they cannot be dressed-up human beings. Conceivably the fourth millennium Iranian Ibex-man or Mufflon-man (P.Amiet, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 1 [1986] 1-2.4) has his roots in the cult, as well as in mythology. Lahama, "Hairy-One", the Sumerian name of the Long-haired hero, is a special case. The name is purely descriptive and must have been given to the being after it had been formed. The secondary nature of the name is also indicated by the fact that it is a Semitic loanword in Sumerian. Formally the Long-haired hero is the only one among the early monsters that could be a human being and thus could have its origins in the cult rather than in art. The transition from mythological animal to monster is an observable fact in the case of the Scorpion(-man) (j 7,4a. b.; B * 3.4). The names of the other early and tenacious monsters in origin do not denote monsters or animals, but the natural phenomena these monsters symbolically represent, Anzu the "clouds", and u4-ka-duh-a/z7mw naHru the "Roaring Day", that is turbulent weather. They are convincingly realized as eagle (air) and lion (roaring) composites. The u4-ka-duh-a belongs to a class of beings, personified days, to which also the somewhat later u4-ga\/ugallu, "Big Day" (B MISCHE "ESEN. A 5 4.6) belongs. Most of them are days of death and destruction, like one's dying day, the "Evil Day" (umu lemnu, dU4), the messenger of the underworld god Erra (UET 6,395:iz; SEM 117 ii 9). They are "released from the sky" (e.g. UET 6,391:16), howl and roar (A. Sjoberg, TCS 3,100). The days of exceptional splendor and plenty, the golden age before the flood, are realized in first millennium art as seven anthropomorphic Sages (B ^3-31; Wiggermann 1992 II. A. 4. B umu-apkallu). The analysis of the names has revealed two types of early monsters, the animal spirits turned into monsters by the addition of animal and human parts (Snake-dragon, Bull-man), and the turbulent days and weather phenomena symbolically represented by lion/eagle composites. Whether or not the monsters are the original forms of the anthropomorphic gods (^ 3.1), they must have been in some way associated with the gods that in the next period became their masters. Apparently each monster is associated with a god that operates in the same field of action, a part of nature; but while the god covers the whole of his realm, the monster covers only a slice, and while the god is responsible for a stable and lasting background, the monster's responsibilities are limited, it accentuates, emphasizes. The Snake-dragon is associated with Ninazu*, "Lord Healer", the ruler of the Netherworld before Nergal, and king of the snakes (^ 3.1; mushussu \ 3.2.); the Long-haired hero, a spirit of streams, is associated with Enki*, the god of sweet waters; the Lion-dragon "Roaring Day" is associated with the storm god Iskur/Adad*; the Scorpion-man, who watches over the mountain of sunrise and sunset, the Human-headed Bison (j 2.4; B 5 3.17) and the Bull-man (B j 3.3) with the sun god Utu*, who alone travels the distant mountains where they are at home. Anzu, although his cry makes the Anunna gods hide like mice in the earth (C.Wilcke, Das Lugalban-daepos [1969] 100:8zf.), is still a faithful servant of the gods in the Lugalbanda Epic of Ur III origin, and not yet among the defeated enemies of Nin-girsu(/Ninurta) in Gudea Cyl. A. Under orders of his father Enlil he blocks the entry of the (rebellious) mountains "as if he were a big door" (o. c. 100:99ff.). Thus it is no coincidence that Anzu is not among the defeated enemies of Ningirsu in the Gudea texts; they fight at the same side against the same enemy, the mountain lands. In return for his blessings Lugalbanda promises Anzu to set up statues of his in the temples of the great gods, and to make him famous all over Sumer (o.c. io8:i8iff., no:i98ff.). The poet would not have let Lugalbanda make such a promise, if he could not show his public that he kept it. Thus, when the Lugalbanda epic was composed (Ur III period), statues of Anzu were visible all over Sumer in the temples. U'ith the simile cited above ("as a big door") the poet reveals that at least some of the Anzu representations he knew were apotropaic door keepers under orders of Enlil. Composite emblems consisting of twice the same animal with an Anzu/eagle stretching out its wings above them are attested in third millennium and rarely in later contexts (cf. UET 6,105: iof., OB). The stags under an Anzu on a copper relief (PKG XIV Taf. 97) from Ninhursag*'s ED III temple in Ubaid are the symbolic animals of that goddess (Hirsch* ] 4). The bezoar/ibex belongs to Enki, who is called the "pure bezoar/ibex of Abzu" (Gudea, Cyl. A xxiv 21) and ^Dara-abzu*. Thus the symbolism of Enmetena's silver vase (drawing Lowenadler* Abb. 1) becomes transparent. It shows three pairs of animals, each pair under an Anzu; the bezoars belong to Enki, in this time Ningirsu's father (A. Falkenstein, AnOr. 30 [19S6] 91), the stags belong to his mother Ninhursag, and the lions to Ningirsu himself, the god to whom the vase is dedicated. The Anzu's belong to none, but represent another, more general power, under whose supervision they all operate. This higher power can only be Enlil, which is exactly what the Lugalbanda epic and the Anzu myth (NX*. W. Hallo/ N£'. L. Moran, JCS 31 [1979] 80 ii 25 f., iii iff.) tell us. The association of the Lion-headed eagle/Anzu with Enlil, the god of the space between Heaven and Earth, fits the pattern of associations established for the other monsters. 1 z.z. Servants and defeated enemies. Their unnatural form defines the monsters as a group and distinguishes them from the anthropomorphic gods. Although a group of non-anthropomorphic gods (\ 3.1) held out until the end of the OB period, the process of complementary definition seems to be essentially closed at the end of the ED period. The establishment of formal complementarity fixes the character of the monsters in opposition to that of the anthropomorphic gods: whereas the gods represent the lawfully ordered cosmos, the monsters represent what threatens it, the unpredictable. Mesopotamian mythology, as reflected in the art of the late ED and Akkad periods, found two ways of formulating the difference between gods and monsters, both subordinating monsters to gods: MISCH^ a) The vague "associations" assumed for the previous period are transformed into master-servant relations. The monsters became the doormen (Long-haired hero of Enki, Bull-man of Utu) or mounts (Human-headed Bison of Utu, Lion-dragon of Iskur, Snake-dragon of Ninazu) of the gods they were associated with. The monsters may change hands (mushussu*), but remain in the service of gods until the end of Mesopotam-ian civilization, even though in other contexts they are rebels and defeated enemies. b) Rebels and defeated enemies. The art of the Akkad period gives precedence to a subject that was hardly treated before, battles between gods and gods (Gotter-kampfe*) and between gods and monsters (Drachen und Drachenkampf*). Although it cannot be totally excluded that Akkadian art finally found a way to depict a traditional subject that for some reason was avoided by earlier art, it is much more likely that the political innovations of the empire gave rise to mythological adaptations, and that the gods became more imperious and sensitive to rebellion. For the monsters, outlaws by nature, it is only a small step from unpredictable associate to rebel, and from rebel to defeated enemy. The role of the god in their relation changes accordingly from master to rightful ruler, and from rightful ruler to victor. In Akkadian art the Bull-man, the forerunner of the Lion-demon (B § 3.6), and rebellious mountain gods are combatted by Utu, the supervisor of distant regions (EWO 368 ff.), who is sometimes assisted by members of his court and his sister Inanna (R. M.Boehmer, UAVA 4 [1965] Abb. 300-309; A. Green, BagM 17 [1986] Taf.z). After the Akkad period the warrior Utu survived only in Assyria (R. Mayer-Opificius, UF 16 [1984] 200), while in southern Mesopotamia he was replaced by Ninurta(/Ningirsu) (Heimpel, JCS 38 [1986] 136 f.), monster slayer at least from the time of Gudea onwards. Ningirsu(/Ninurta)'s enemies are listed by Gudea, and essentially the same list occurs in the late Ur III myths Lugal-e* and Angim (see Cooper, AnOr. 52 [1978] 141 ff., with discussions of individual enemies, J. J. A. van Dijk, Lugal I [1983] 11 ff.; Lam- "ESEN. A 227 bert, CRRA 32 [1986] 56 ff., J. Black, SMS Bulletin 15 [1988] 19-25). The only important addition to the two later lists is Anzu. The political dimension is now entirely explicit. The enemies are referred to as "captured warriors and kings", and as "slain warriors" (AnOr. 52,142), while Lugale-e 134 makes it clear that they were defeated in the mountains, the traditional home of Mesopotamia's enemies. Among the enemies is the mysterious sag-ar (Gudea Cyl. A xxv 25), who in view of the context must be mount Saggar (Gabal Singar, cf. M. Stol, On Trees ■ ■ • [i979] 75 ff-), a rebel like mount Ebeh* defeated by Inanna in a Sumerian myth (Literatur* § 3.1.s). Of the whole list of Ninurta(/Ningirsu)'s enemies only the usum/faw, the gu^-a.\im/kusarikku and Anzu have a mythological future and recur in later lists of defeated enemies of gods (5 2.3; there are some exceptional revivals in later texts). The dragon ur/mus-sag-imin, "Seven-headed Lion/Snake" must be identical with the seven-headed Lion-dragon fought by gods in third millennium art (B j 3.28); it is to be distinguished from the seven-headed snake mus-mah, one of Ninurta's weapons (Heimpel, StPohl 2 [1968] 480 f.) and an enemy of gods(?) on an ED seal (^7,28). For ku-li-an-na, ma-(ar-)gi4-lum and a-zag see above J) 1. "Head-of-the-Bison", "(King) Palmtree", "(Strong) Copper", "Gypsum", the lion and the captured cattle are apo-tropaic features (in part booty from foreign lands) of temples and gates, etiologically explained as defeated enemies and trophies. Not among the enemies of Ninurta(/Ningirsu) are certain iconographic types that disappear after the Akkad period: the Bird-man (B j 3.2), the (human-faced) lion ('7,17b), and the Boat-god (B ' 3.30). Whereas the Ninurta(/Ningirsu) mythology emphatically associated monsters with rebellious mountains (Lugal-e 134; also Angim 33ff-), Angim 34 admits that ma-gi4-lum, a kind of ship, is an unlikely inhabitant of the mountains and has it live in Apsu*. In Angim 33 the usum/basmu lives in the "fortress of the mountains", but another third millennium text presents the related usumgal/pirig-dragon as "roaring in the flood" (Trouvaille 1,3. 11), while in the SB myth KAR 6 the basmu is a sea dragon. In Angim 35 the gu4-alim is brought forth by Ninurta from "his battle dust", while the prologue of the SB Anzu myth alludes to his MISCHWESEN. A victory over the kusarikku "in the midst of the sea" (JCS 31,78:12). The mushussu, not among the defeated enemies of Nin-urta(/Ningirsu), but as a snake-dragon and associate of chthonic gods naturally at home in the earth, is associated with the sea in an Ur III incantation (cited by P. Steinkeller, SEL 1 [1984] 6), in Angim 139, and in a SB myth of older origin (CT 13,33:6). Later reflexes of the Ninurta(/Ningirsu) mythology introduce Sea as one of his enemies (Sm. 1875, cited by B. Landsberger, WZKM 57 [1961] 1046; Lambert, Or. 36 [1967] 124,149); monstrous beings are suckled by her (O.R.Gurney, AnSt. 5 [1955] 98,34). Besides ma-gi4-lum a number of monsters are associated with Enki and Apsu: the lahmu (B § 3.1), the kulullu (B § 3.22), and the suhurmasu (B § 3.23). The sea, Tiamat, is an Akkadian contribution to the Mesopotamian pantheon. She is attested for the first time in the Akkad period (A."Vv"estenholz AfO 25 [1978] 102), and contrary to the monsters (except lahmu) whose mother she was to become (', 2.3), her name is Semitic and not Sumerian. Her later history reveals a rebellious nature that is best explained by reference to the West, where the tension between near-by Sea and the ruling gods is naturally expected and in fact attested (Th. Jacobsen, JAOS 88 [1968] 105 ff.; D.Charpin/J.-M.Durand, RA 80 [1986] 174). In the course of the second millennium Sea replaces the mountains as geographical focus of monster mythology. The shift is most clearly observable in the cases of the basmu and the kusarikku cited above. Thus both Apsu and Tiamat shelter monsters before the mythology of Enuma Elis makes them into a cosmogonic pair and arch enemies of Marduk and the gods (§ 2-3)- The mythology of combat and defeat naturally solves the tension between gods and monsters, rightful rulers and outlawed freaks, good and evil. Just like anthropomorphism and monster form are general schemes distinguishing two groups of different beings, so the combat myth is a general scheme defining their relation. Thus there is no need to look for one specific collision between a god and a monster more monstrous than the others to find the origin of the combat myth. The general scheme is the origin of the combat myth, to be a rebel is an inalienable property of every monster, and to be a victor of every god. Once this is established it is no longer surprising that so very little is known about the personality of each individual monster, and that the nature of its collision with the gods is not specified in a separate myth. The few myths that feature a monster treat extraordinary developments related to the position of their divine protagonists in the pantheon, not the common tension between god and monster. The most influential of them is the Anzu myth (Literatur* ^4.1.1; Sumerian forerunner: S.N.Kramer, AulaOr. 2 [1984] 23iff.), the model for the combat between Marduk, Tiamat, and her army of monsters in Ee. (Lambert, CRRA 32,56^). Of local (Esnunna) importance only is the so-called Labbu*-myth (CT 13,33 f.; Literatur* §4..i.i.k), in which Enlil has Sea create the mus-[hussu] (also referred to as Labbu) in order to wipe out mankind. The monster is defeated, apparently by Tispak, and the victor is rev. arded with kingship, probably over Esnunna (see "SSf iggermann in: (ed.) O.M. Haex et al., Fs. M. van Loon [1989] 117-133). A badly mutilated tablet contains a local Assyrian version of a similar myth concerning the ba\jmu\ (KAR 6; Literatur* f 4.1.1.I1). The deeds of a lesser monster slayer, Gilgames*, are describe'd in two Sumerian epics, Gilgames and Huwawa (Literatur* r 3-l.n; D.O. Edzard, ZA 80 [1990] 165-203; 81 [1991] 165-233), and Gilgames and the Bull of Heaven (Literatur* J 3.l.m). The two stories became part of the unified Babylonian Epic of Gilgames (Literatur* J 4.1.1.1), and are sometimes illustrated in second and first millennium art (B \ 3.12. 18). 5 2.3. The army of Tiamat. The third millennium Ninurta(/Ningirsu) mythology became a shaping force on the later second and first millennium mythologies of other gods, notably of Marduk. Marduk started collecting trophies probably from the time of Hammurabi's defeat of Esnunna onwards, when he took over the mushussu {mushussu* § 3.5) from Tispak, the defeated god of Esnunna. The lahmu, kulullu and suhurmasu were servants of his father Ea, and probably served Marduk as well. The itr(i)-dimmu (B § 3.5) may have been Marduk's from the time of its invention onwards. One text, an inscription of Agum-kakrime (5 R 33 iv 50ff., cf. "w'iggermann 1992 VII.B.7) MISCHWESEN. A 229 attests to the association of a group of monsters, probably his defeated enemies, with Marduk before the creation of Ee. The list includes two former enemies of Nin-urta(/Ningirsu), the basmu and the kusar-ikku. Up to the creation of Ee., Marduk's ruler-ship was apparently felt to be sufficiently covered by the traditional model that made the ruling city god an appointee of the divine assembly led by Anu and Enlil. At the end of the second millennium the old model, in which the power of the ruling city god was checked by the divine assembly, was abolished. The justification of Marduk's ru-lership was changed: he was made independent of the decisions of a divine assembly and promoted to sole ruler of the universe. The myth giving form to this rearrangement of divine power is Ee. (Literatur* § 4.1.1.01), presumably composed at the occasion of the return of Marduk's statue to Babylon in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (Lambert in: (ed.) W.S.McCuIlough, The Seed of Wisdom [1964] 3-13). Implicit in Marduk's elevation is the elevation of his enemies, and the promotion of the combat myth from good versus evil to Good versus Evil, The collection of preexisting enemies was indeed restructured along this line. Tiamat, formerly only one among the enemies and a breeding place of monsters (^ 2.2), was promoted to arch enemy and cosmic power of evil. The other monsters were made dependent on her as her children and soldiers: basmu (B § 3.26), mushussu (B l 3.27), lahmu (B 5 3.1), ugallu (B j 3.4), ur(i)dimmu (B § 3-5)> girtablullu (B ^ 3.4), kulullu (B § 3.22), kusarikku (B ^ 3.3), with the addition of three types of monsters that do not recur in other lists enumerating enemies of Marduk or of gods identified with him (Wiggermann 1992 VILA; see also VS 24,97, and A.R.George, RA 80 [1988] i39ff.). According to G.Lambert (The History of the mus-hus in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: L'animal, l'homme, le dieu dans le proche orient ancien, Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1981 [1985] 90; apud U. Seidl, BagM 4 [1968] 2.06) Tiamat is represented by wavy lines on Marduk's seal (F.^'etzel, V.*VDOG 62 [1957] Taf-43f.) and on a kudurru* (no.41) showing a battle scene perhaps related to Ee. Berossos (S.M. Burstein, SANE 1/5 [1978] 14L) presents her both as a body of water and a woman. In Ee. she is the cosmic sea, apparently imagined as a cow (Landsberger, JNES 20 [1961] 175) or a goat. She has udders (V 57), a tail (V 59, cf. Livingstone, SAA III 101,14) and a horn, cut off by Marduk (SAA III 82,1. 13), and undoubtedly to be connected with the body of water called "Horn of the Sea" (si-a-ab-ba) that enters the land from the Persian gulf and gave its name to Borsippa (Barsip*; A.L.Oppenheim, Diet, of Scientific Bibliography 15 [1978] 640"). 5 2.4. Cosmic functions and constellations. Before Ee. a connection of monsters with the early cosmos (Kosmogonie*) cannot be proved, with one exception, the lahmu. Babylonian incantations reveal the existence of independent cosmogonic traditions with a genealogy of An that differs completely from the one recorded in the OB forerunner of the canonical godlist (TCL 15,10:3iff.; Gotterlisten* j 5): Duri-Dari, Lahmu-La-hamu, Alala-Belili (Lambert, Or. 54 [1985] 190). The canonical godlist An-Anum (Gotterlisten* j 6) that assimilates traditions of many different sources, inserts the originally independent list before the last pair of Anu's ancestors of the forerunner. The occurence in Babylonian incantations, the Semitic words (Duri/Dari, Lahmu/Lahamu), and the importance of Alala-Anu in Hurrian cosmogony (Kumarbi* f, 4) point to a non-Sume-rian (northern) background for this cosmogonic tradition. Ee., that rebuilds mythology from the debris of previous ages, finds room for both traditions concerning lahmu, for the cosmogonic god (I 10), and for the humbler monster, soldier of Tiamat. The fact that Ee. recognizes both, shows that the two existed side by side as separate entities. Since the texts are silent on this point, the cosmogonic function of the lahmu can only be derived from art. It is found in Longhaired heros appearing in functions that can be interpreted as cosmic and at the same time distinguish them from their peers, the soldier lahmu's (P.Amiet, RA 50 [1956] n8ff.; id., Glyptique 147ft., PI. 111; E.Po-rada, Fs. E.Reiner [1987] 279ff.): they are Long-haired heros in horizontal position (contrasting with the common servant lahmu on two OB seals, Glyptique 1478. 1480), sometimes with watery bodies, and z3o MISCHWESEN. A sometimes with stars on either side of their heads. Apparently these Long-haired heroes are in some way connected with cosmic water, but the cosmogonic function of the lahmu cannot be defined sharper on this basis. Unfortunately the only text that tries to inform us on the nature of the cosmogonic lahmu (KAV 52 and duplicates, see "VTigger-mann, JEOL 27 [1981/82] 94) is completely ununderstandable. Cosmic (not cosmogonic) functions were established by Amiet, RA 50,113 ff. for three third millennium monsters associated with the sun god Utu: the Scorpion(-man) (5 7,4 a), who supports moon and stars with its pinchers; the Human-headed Bison (§ 7,17 a), who together with its double may form the mountains through which the sun rises; and the Bull-man, who may appear as atlantid. Obscure is the human-faced bearded goat(?), formed out of, or accompanied by, moon and stars, and carrying three naked women on its back (Porada, Fs. I.M. Diakonoff 287; B.Schlossman, AfO 25 [1974/77] i5of.). The scene has been interpreted as "the representation of some astral myth" (Porada, CANES I 24). In late second and first millennium art many monsters and genies (R.Mayer-Opificius, UF 16, 197L) appear as atlantids (D.M.Matthews, Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Millennium B.C. [1990] 452ff.). Anzu, who provides the water for Euphrates and Tigris in the SB Anzu myth (Hallo/Moran, JCS 31,70. 92 f.) and takes care of Enlil's bath (ibid. 80 iii 6), is shown with streams coming from each of his two heads on late second millennium seals (Porada, AfO 28 [1981] 52L no. 27 and Fig.o), undoubtedly the two rivers. Among gods, animals, plants, objects, and geometric figures also monsters appear in the night sky as constellations: basmu/M.XJ§ (§L IV/1,51. 284. 370), (<3)/w/GU4.AN.NA (ibid. 73. 75. 77, cf. 96. 200. 279), kusarikku /GU4.ALIM (ibid. 76), kaduhhu/\J ^ .KA.-DUH.A (ibid. 144. 208), ur(i)dimmu (ibid. 163), Anzu (ibid. 196), and suhurmasu (ibid. 263. 344). The constellation mushussu did not survive the OB period, and must have been renamed {mushussu ^6). Patently the stars and constellations were not all named at one place and period, and a coherent mythology underlying all figures of the night sky as known mainly from first millennium sources is not to be expected. Babylonian sources of the second and first millennia consider the monsters in heaven symbolic representations of the "real" monsters, drawings of gods (cf. CAD lumasu, mushussu* § 6, and passim). Earlier they seem to have been imagined as the "real" monsters, that, like the sun god Utu, travelled not only the distant regions at the end of the earth (§ 4), but also the bordering skies. Thus in the i-a-lum-lum version of Gilgames and Huwawa (Literatur* \ 3-i.n.z; A.Shaffer, JAOS 103 [1983] 3074;"S.N.Kramer, JCS 1 [1947] 36217) the dragons assigned by Utu to Gilgames (Edzard ZA 80,184,36-45) guide him to the cedar forest from heaven. Gigantic upright lions and bovids, male and female, appear as atlantids, masters of wild animals (Herr(in) der Tiere*), and mythological actors in early third millennium Elamite, Iranian (Glyptique 574-589; 1690), and rarely Mesopotamian (Glyptique 641) art. They may have contributed to the development of ED Mesopotamian monsters such as the Bull-man, and perhaps even the much later La-mastu (Porada, JAOS 70 [1950] Z2.6; van Dijk, BBVO l/I [1982.] 105 f.). The later ED and Akkadian Boat-god (Glyptique 1411-1488; 1777-1785; 1495-1506; N.Karg, Bag-Forsch. 8 [1984] 6^i.), transporting Utu through a cosmic ocean in heaven (thus Amiet, Or. 45 [1976] 17f.5 id. RA 71 [1977] ii3f.) or under the earth (thus H.Frankfort, Iraq 1 [1934] 18 f., id. CS 95 ff., 105 ff., i32.ff.), is accompanied by a remarkably stable collection of unrelated objects, animals, and monsters, that can be explained as forerunners of (planets or) constellations known from much later sources: the plowed field (Glyptique 1431) of mulAS\GAN, "Field", the pointed star (Venus) of mulDili-bat, "Venus", plow (and pot) of mulAPIN, "Plow", Bird-man C 1) of mu'§(J.GI/Enmesarra, bull-altar (Glyptique 1412.) or Human-headed Bison of Bull-of-Heaven (Taurus), (human-faced) lion of mu'UR. GU.LA, "Lion" (Leo), the Boat-god of mulMUS\ ". . .-Dragon" (Hydra), the woman with an ear of corn (Glyptique 1505) of Virgo with Spica (Weid-ner, Gestirndarstellungen, Taf. 10), the scorpion of mulGIR.TAB, "Scorpio". To what groups of stars the images belong at this early period, however, cannot be established, and the relation with the agricultural cycle that is indicated by "Field", "Plow", and Spica, must remain indeterminate. The night sky of the second half of the year (autumn/winter), the "himmlische Wasserregion" (§L IV/l p. 27), is dominated by mulGU.LA/Aquarius (ibid. 81), the "Giant" from whose aryballoi issue the streams (ibid. 53. 19Z, Euphrates and Tigris) in which MISCHWESEN. A 231 the fishes (Pisces and Piscis Austrinus) swim (ibid. 27. 218. 389). Nearby are suhurmdsu/Capiicom who belonged to Enki from the Ur III period onwards, enzu (ibid. 145), "She-goat" who is marked as his by a curved staff {gamlu, D.Pingree/C. B.F. alker, Mem. A.Sachs [1988] 315,31), a simplified form of the staff with ram's head (U.Seidl, BagM 4 [1968] 180), and the Lion-dragon U4.KA.DUH.A who, being Iskur's mount, spits water on Akkadian, Old Babylonian, and Nuzi seals (\ 7,25, B \, 3.25). The gigantic water god/genius (J 3.1) of Kassite seals (Matthews, Principles of Composition, 129-131, 135-137) who fertilizes the land with the assistance of Fish-men (B 2 3.2.1) and a two-headed (lion-headed) eagle (Aquila/Anzu), is undoubtedly related to, and perhaps identical with, the "Giant" Aquarius. The red star in the kidney of LU.LIM (P An-dromedae), ka-mus-i-ku-e (SL IV/i, 215), "Eaten by the mouth of the Hydra", is named in Babylonian pdsittu, the "obliterating one", or, in view of the Su-merian perhaps better, pasittu, the "obliterated one". The star is identified with the she-demon Lamastu who was thrown out of heaven because of her evil intentions towards mankind (BIN 4,126:1-16 and parallels). 5 2.5. Theology, The monsters belong to a class of supernatural beings that are neither gods nor demons. They do not occur in god lists, are supplied with the determinative only sporadically, and generally do not wear the horned crown of divinity (exceptions: § 7,17 a and its successors from the Ur III period onwards; ^7,5 and other figures in first millennium art). They are not listed among the "evil spirits" (utukku lem-niitu*) and are not demons of disease in the medical texts, although sometimes they appear to be noxious (mushussu in OECT 5,24:4; lahmu see J.-M.Durand, ARMT XXI 36f\a.l\ OB). The languages of Mesopotamia do not have a generic term "monster". The monsters that constitute Tiamat's army are referred to in SB texts as: &Esret-nabnissu, "His(Qingu's)-ten-creatures" (K 2727 + , see Lambert, CRRA 32,58), umu, „Storms" (literally "Days") (Surpu VIII 8), umamdnu, "beasts" (OIP 2,141:14), gallu, "soldiers" (Ee. IV 116), iiit me nari u nabali, "those of the water of the river, and of the dry land" (Surpu VIII 6), biniit apst, "creatures of Apsu" (Wiggermann 1992 text I 144), and, in apotropaic context, iakip lemnuti sa Ea u Marduk, "those that repel the evil ones, of Ea and Marduk" (o. c. text I 160f., 165f.). Sumerian texts refer to monsters as ur-sag, "warriors": the captured and killed enemies of Ninurta(/Ningirsu) (Gudea Cyl. A xxvi 15, Lugal-e 128), the dragons that accompany Gilgames to the cedar forest (Edzard, 2A 80,184:36), and Huwawa (Cooper, AnOr. 52,110). A late theological text explains dGUD.ALIM as kabtu (ALIM) qar-radu (GUD), "Venerable Warrior" (CT 46,51 r.2o')- Like the gods the monsters were immortal, but not invulnerable; they could be killed. The mythology of captured and killed monsters gains increasing importance from the time of Gudea onwards (^ 2.2b-2. 3), but does not replace the simpler model in which the monsters are servants of gods (§ 2.2 a). In practice the tension between the two models did not surface, since both serve equally well to cover the most important application of monster mythology, apotropaic magic. Alive, as servants of the gods, they guard temples, houses, and palaces against intruding evil, while as dead enemies, the god's trophies, they remind it of the futility of its endeavours. The fastening of slain adversaries to the god's war chariot (Ninurta: Angim 51 ff.; Marduk: Lambert, Symbolae Bohl [1973] 275 f.) or temple (Ee. V 73 ff.; Burstein SANE 1/5,14; T. Frymer-Kinsky, JAOS 103,133:20, STT 237/25:56'; cf. Lambert, Iraq 27 [1965] 8:6 ff.) is well attested in the texts, but not in art, where the monsters on chariots (PKG XIV Abb. 111) and in gates are alive, with opened eyes, and holding gate posts or symbols. The artists and their public apparently favoured the servant model. The application of the mythology of combat and defeat to other apotropaic features of temples and gates lead to the creation of a number of highly unlikely enemies, included in the list of trophies of Nin-urta(/Ningirsu) (J 2.2b). The application of this mythology to monsters in general, lead to the inclusion of a thoroughly peaceful being like the kulullu in the list of enemies of Marduk. j 2.6. Use in art. Besides gods and heros monsters appear in art in apotropaic function as masters of the animals from the late Uruk period onwards (Herr(in) der Tiere*), and as guardians of temples and houses from the Akkad period onwards. From the late ED period onwards monsters reinforce the iconography of their divine masters by 232. MISCHWESEN. A being present as their mounts or servants. Battles between gods and monsters are depicted from the late ED period onwards, but rarely, and schematically fixed only in the second half of the second millennium. The battles take place in the mountains, and the shift to Sea as focus of monster mythology attested in the texts (§ 2.2) is not reflected in art (for an exception on a Middle-Syrian seal see Mayer-Opificius, UF 16,185). Battle scenes do not depict specific mythological battles (^ 3.2), but highlight, and implicitly praise, the power of the ruling gods and the victory of rightful rule. Only the killing of Huwawa and the killing of the Bull-of-Heaven, episodes of the Epic of Gilgames, are illustrated with a certain regularity from the OB period onwards (B 5 3.12. 18, with literature). Descriptions of evil demons and underworld servants in texts like Lugal-e (a-zag § 1), utukkii lemnutu, and the Underworld Vision (§ 1) imply that they could be imagined as hybrids. For such evil beings Mesop-otamian art had little room, which must have prevented the formation of fixed iconography types. Two exceptions are the bull-eared gods (5 3.1), and Lamastu (\ 3.11), but even her iconography is not completely fixed (deviant Lamastu's on amulets 18. 3Z. 42, MDP 23,51 Fig. 19/z). How the Assyrian prince Kummaju (\J 1) identified most of the demons he saw in his vision of the underworld remains obscure, but since it is highly unlikely that the entire art form re-sponsable for the fixation of iconographic types had disappeared without leaving a trace, his identifications were presumably based on theological interpretation, rather than on recognition. The exorcist that made figurines of demons and ghosts must have known how to, but his products may have been just as undefined as the drawings of gods on STT 73 r. 57 ff. The rituals generally ask for the destruction of the figurines, and consequently they have not come to light. Mesopotamian art invented, or borrowed from foreign sources, a number of iconographic types that do not correspond to a god or genie of Mesopotamian mythology. Lacking mythological back-up these figures remained ill-defined good luck charms. Some such symbolic function must be ascribed to the OB bowlegged dwarf (f, 1, pessu; B [. 3.13). A comparable symbol of luck and prosperity, but much older, is the figure of the Naked Woman (£, 7,25; winged: j 5). On OB seals she appears, like the bowlegged dwarf, as a diminutive added element unrelated to the main scene. She has been tentatively identified as Bastu, "Bloom" (Wiggermann, JEOL 29,28). Assyrian art employs anthropomorphic genies (B 5 3.31) and Griffin-demons (B 5 3-9) m purifying and exorcising functions. They are labelled apkallu after the similarly employed iish-apkallu (B § 3.8). Other (winged) genies and gods employed in vague apotropaic or ritual functions have received equally vague descriptive names (j 1.7, 17c). The Naked ^ oman is not only a vaguely defined figure of good luck, but also a goddess, integrated in mythology as the wife of the storm god, presumably at first in the North where she received the name §ala ("Well-being", from Semitic slw; ^differently Lambert in J. A. Emerton, V.T. Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986 [1988] 137: from Hurrian sala, "daughter"). In Mesopotamia, where she is attested with this identity from the Akkad period onwards, she also has the Sumerian name Medimsa*, "The beautiful one", while in Hurrian she is the lady of Nineveh, Sauska (cf. R.L.Alexander,JNES 50 [1991] 165 ff., with previous literature; D. Stein, Xenia 21 [1988] 173-209), This goddess appears in Ur III Sumer under the name ^§a/Sa-u^/u-sa/sa^ (Ni-nu-a-kam, AnOr. 7,79:6), Sauska (of Niniveh), the same word without the diminutive suffix -ga (I. M. Diakonoff/S. A. Starostin, Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language [1986] 69). Figurines of Sausa were votive objects (W^.Hallo, BiOr. 20 [1963] 141), and a type of lute is called a sausa-Iute, translated into Akkadian as inu malhati (Laute* A § 1.2). Unfortunately the meaning of the adjective malhu is not clear, but the verb malahu denotes some kind of dance, and on this basis A.D.Kilmer associated sausa/malhu with the nude lutanists (Laute* A f 1.3). The context adduced here points rather to his nude female companions (Laute* B). In Assyria Sauska is called Istar of Niniveh. Both goddesses have androgynous traits (ff 3.3). On occasion Mesopotamian mythogra-phers promoted abstractions to gods or (evil) demons, some of them imagined as hybrids (a-zag, "Disorder", Mam ft it, "Oath", Mutu, "Death" J, 1; u4, "Day" "2.1; ni/pu-luhtu, "Fear" § 5, etc.). With some exceptions, notably the u4-beings, such personified abstractions were not represented in art, MISCHWESEN. A 2-33 and their hybrid nature remained dependent on the imprecise descriptions of the texts. The unique iconographic program of the Gottertypentext 1), whether executed or not, reveals, however, an unexpected need to visualize abstractions and to express notions that lay beyond the horizon of the texts. Besides sometimes shocking alterations in the iconography of known gods Q 3.1 En-simah), and the creation of imaginative iconographies for little known ones (<1Amma[kurkur], the ututu, "door woman" (!) of Ereškigal, with a monkey's face, Kocher, MIO 1,72 iv 5 ff.)> the text introduces a set of completely new "demons", personified abstractions represented by newly created hybrids: Conflict (adammu), Struggle (ippiru), Zeal (hintu), and Grief (niziqtu) (ibid. 74 iv 47; 76 v 10; 105 v 42; 80 vi 23, cf. Wiggermann JEOL 27,97^; Lambert Or. 54,197L). § 3. Non-anthropomorphic gods. Anthropomorphism (Anthropomorphis-mus*) distinguishes gods from monsters, and helped to shape their contrastive roles in Mesopotamian mythology (\ 2.2). Among the major gods two groups can be defined, the astral (Nanna*, Utu*, Inanna*) and cosmic (Enki*, Enlil*, Ninhursag*) gods that became anthropomorphic early, and the chthonic and underworld gods 3.1) that retained theriomorphic features until the end of the OB period. Halfway in the third millennium members of both groups have horns growing out of their heads (Horner-krone*), not a theriomorphic feature but the mark of their divinity, later transformed into a horned tiara. Lesser gods of nature (5 3.2; 5; 7.32, 33) can be represented by hybrids composed out of human and natural elements. §3.1. Chthonic snake gods and animal gods. The canonical list of gods An-Anum starts its treatment of underworld deities in V 213 with Ereškigal*, followed by her son Ninazu* (V 239), his son Ningiszida* (V 250), Ninazu's successor as city god of Eš-nunna, Tišpak* (V 273), the city god of Susa, Inšušinak* (V 286), and the city god of Děr, Ištarán* (V 287), all with their fami- lies and courts except Insusinak. A nearly identical grouping is attested in an OB list of city gods from Ur (UET 6/2,412:7-13; followed by Nergal). The traits held in common by the members of this subgroup of underworld deities define it as chthonic, and based in the Transtigridian region. Not each of these gods is well documented, but for all a relation with snakes can be established with reasonable certainty. Ereskigal and Ningiszida are linked to the constellation Hydra (§L IV/1,284 iii); Ereskigal's messenger Mutum, "Death", has the head of a mushussu in the Vision of the Underworld (5 1). Dannina (cf. CAD D 91), one of the names of the underworld (An-Anum V 234), is undoubtedly identical with the Hebrew dragon Tannin (Ugaritic Tunnanu). Ninazu, "Lord Healer", is king of the snakes in OB incantations (YOS 11,32:4, 34:3; see van Dijk, Or. 38,541 ff.) and the original master of the mushussu* (J 3.2). One of his names is dMU§ (An-Anum V 240) and he himself, or one of the members of his family, is scaled on an Akkadian sculptured stone from Esnunna (H.Frankfort, OIP 60 [1943] no. 331). In an OB incantation his successor Tispak is still "green" (van Dijk Or. 38,540,2), obviously because of his snake's skin. He is the next owner of the mushussu* (§ 3.4), and at least two members of his court are dragons (dBasmu and dUsum-ur-sag, An-Anum V 278 f.). An Akkadian seal (Boeh-mer UAVA 4, Abb. 570) shows a god on a dragon, probably Ninazu rather than Tispak in view of the name Ur-dNin-a-zu in the inscription. The seal is dedicated to the god I-ba-um, that is Ipahum, "Viper" (Hebrew 'efeh, cf. MEE 4,351:034, where the same word is equated with mus-dagal, also attested in presargonic Lagas, R. D. Biggs, JNES 32 [1973] 30x1'). This god was canonized in An-Anum V 262 as dIb-bu, the vizier of Ningiszida, and is probably to be identified with the second god on the seal, the anthropomorphic servant of the god on the Snake-dragon. Ningiszida, the "Lord of the true tree", is, like his father, master of the (or a) mushussu^- $ 3.3). Ninazu, Ningiszida, and members of their family, are linked to Istaran not only by An-Anum and other god lists, but also by the fact that all 234 MISCH^ > of them are among the dying gods of vegetation lamented in Sumerian litanies (cf. Ja-cobsen, The Harps that Once [1987] 59f.). Istaran's messenger is Nirah*, the deified snake (Seidl, BagM 4,155^). The Snake-god (B % 3.29) of Akkadian seals, whose ophidian nature and stalk of vegetation link him to the gods under discussion, is, in view of the fact that he receives worship, Istaran rather than his servant Nirah. The winding snake's body on which he seems to sit (§7,29) relates the Snake-god to a similar Elamite god 7.35, and below for the bull's ears), attested from the 19th to the 13th century. The context favours de Miroschedji's identification of this god as Istaran's neighbour Insusinak (P. de Miroschedji, IrAnt. 16 [1981] 1-25; id. Syria 66 [1990] 360, differently: Seidl, Die Elamischen Felsreliefs von Kurangun und Naqs-e Rustam [1986] 2of.). Insusinak is an underworld god, who like his peers must be expected to be associated with snakes. Finally also the Boat-god (B § 3.30) is ophidian and chthonic (j 2.4). Above he has been tentatively determined as a forerunner of the constellation Hydra 2.4), but unless he is identical with one of the snake-gods already mentioned (Ningis-zida), he does not occur in the An-Anum section of chthonic gods. Gods with animal names are not uncommon, but in most cases it is not known whether they were represented by therio-morphic, hybrid, or anthropomorphic figures. Theriomorphic animal gods and genies certainly existed (Nirah, Hallulaja, see m a s = kim* § 3.3), as well as anthropomorphic ones (Ipahum). The owl goddess Kilili (j 5, 7.33) is a hybrid. The name of a number of gods and demons are equated with, or spelled by, the logogram GUD, bull, and, while not for all of them a bovine nature can be demonstrated, most of them are related to death or the netherworld (An-Anum VI 203ff., Ea IV I38ff., with glosses; SLT 124 vii 17-19, VS 24,20 iii 7-9, OB, without glosses). West Semitic are the pest demon Dapar*/Dipar (Hebrew daber, cf. A. Ca-quot, Sources Orientales 8 [1971] 116; STT 136 iii 32,42; Dipar), and the death gods Ruspan* (Resef) and Kammus* (a form of Nergal). Kusum must be the underworld ESEN. A demon kusu(m)*. Qudma(s)* and Nirah (Civil, JNES 33,334; BAM 499 iii 3') are servants of Istaran; a bull-headed snake did exist in Mitannian glyptics (Porada, in: (ed.) D.J. W. Meijer, Nat. Phen. [1992] 227-243), but can not be proved to be Nirah, and Qudma(s) must have been anthropomorphic because he had a nin-dingir (OB seal, B.Buchanan, Catalogue . . . Ashmolean Museum [1966] no. 513). Kusdim and Gugarit remain unidentified, and may belong to a foreign or peripheral pantheon as well. Certainly bovid is (Ba)har, the messenger of the underworld gods Lugal-irra* and Meslamta-ea (see Lu-gal-(ba)har/Har*, PSD 46 b), whose name derives from Proto-Semitic baTr (Akkadian birulburu, "calf", cf. P. Fronzaroli, Rendi-conti delle Sedute dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei [1969] Serie VIII 24,313). SB texts occasionally spell the name of the Hur-rian bull god Seris (Hurri, Seri und*) with an^ by T.Kendall, Boston Museum Bulletin 75 [1977] 49). As A. H. Layard* puts it: "They could find no better type of intellect and knowledge than the head of a man; of strength, than the body of the lion; of ubiquity, than the wings of a bird" (Nineveh and Its Remains [31849/50] I 70), "the union of the greatest intellectual and physical powers" (ibid., II 460). Certain combinations were especially popular. Lion-headed beings, for instance, often have upright ears, perhaps those of a donkey (although the textual base for this,