Author: Matrifocus

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Samhain 2005, Vol 5-1

“Woman at the Window,” often interpreted as a prostitute, sacred or not, soliciting clients, but actually, in all likelihood, the Mesopotamian goddess Kilili, an associate or aspect of Inanna/Ishtar. One of many such ivory inlays of the same motif found in Mesopotamia, but probably made in Phoenicia/Canaan. Dated about 900 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Shepsut 1993:115.

An “improbable percentage of the population [of Mesopotamia and Syria-Canaan] must have been either secular or religious prostitutes of some sort,” wrote Beatrice Brooks in 1941 (231). She was drawing conclusions from the writings of predominantly male scholars who accepted without question the concept of “sacred, cult, or temple prostitutes.” Female temple functionaries, they maintained, regularly engaged in sexual intercourse in return for a payment to their temples. Female devotees of Inanna/Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddess of sexuality and love, were “immediately” suspect of such behavior (Assante 1998:6). Until recently, most scholars took this view for granted, and some still do.

In the nineteenth century, scholars thought Mesopotamia to be a hotbed of “naïve and primitive sexual freedom” (Assante 1998:5-6). Members of the then-new discipline of anthropology, such as Sir James Frazer of The Golden Bough fame, made matters worse by presenting for readers’ delectation the orgiastic rites of fertility cults (Assante 2003:22-24; Oden 2000:136-138). The result was a fertility-cult myth which took hold among scholars (Stuckey 2005:32-44; Assante 2003:24-25; Lambert 1992:136). A number of ancient sources were ultimately responsible for the concept of “sacred prostitute”: the Hebrew Bible; later Greek writers like Herodotus (ca.480-ca.425 BCE), Strabo (ca.64 BCE-19CE), and Lucian (ca.115-ca.200 CE); and early Christian churchmen. They greatly influenced later writers (Oden 2000:140-147; Assante 1998:8; Henshaw 1994:225-228; Yamauchi 1973:216).

Herodotus reported a “wholly shameful” custom by which every woman “once in her life” had intercourse near the temple of Aphrodite (Ishtar) with the first stranger who threw “a silver coin” into her lap (Herodotus 1983:121-122,I:199).[1] Similarly, Lucian described the punishment of women who declined to shave their heads in mourning for Adonis: “For a single day they [had to] stand offering their beauty for sale … [in a] market … open to foreigners only, and the payment [became] an offering to Aphrodite [Astarte]” (1976:13-15). The Christian writers accused pagans of indulging in orgies in honor of Aphrodite, ritual pre-marital sex, and “cult prostitution” (Oden 2000:142-144).

It is true that much ritual activity in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean focussed on promoting the fecundity of the land. In early Mesopotamia, for instance, the “Sacred Marriage,” with its fertility focus, could possibly have involved a “sacred prostitute.”

Canaanite dignitary with staff, possibly a priestess or queen. Ivory plaque carved on both sides. Probably a furniture inset. Pupils of eyes inlaid with glass. Megiddo, Israel. Dated about 1350-1150 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Pritchard 1969:38, Fig. 125.

Webster’s English Dictionary defines a prostitute as, first, “… a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot”; second, “… a man who engages in sexual acts for money” (1996:1553). According to one scholar, “Cultic prostitution is a practice involving the female and at times the male devotees of fertility deities, who presumably dedicated their earnings to their deity.” The “Sacred Marriage” rite was one of “the motives of the practice, particularly in Mesopotamia,” where the king had intercourse with “a temple prostitute” (Yamauchi 1973:213).

Obviously, most scholars did not distinguish between ritual sex and sexuality for pay (Cooper forthcoming). However, ritual sex would not have been prostitution even if the act produced an offering for a temple (Lambert 1992:136). Rather, it would have been an act of worship.

In the Hebrew Bible, the word normally translated “sacred or cult prostitute” is q^edeshah/q^edeshot (feminine singular/ plural) and qadesh/q^edeshim (masculine singular/plural). These four titles do not occur very often in the Hebrew Bible (Henshaw 1994:218-221).[2] The root qdsh means “set apart, consecrated” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1978 (1953):871-874).[3] For the most part, the terms occur in books from Deuteronomy through to II Kings, the so-called Deuteronomistic History, which is especially nationalistic, polemical, and denunciatory of Canaanite religion (Oden 2000:131,132; Olyan 1988:3). The assumption that “sacred prostitution” had not only occurred, but had happened in the context of fertility cults, resulted from the Hebrew Bible’s “deliberate” association of q^edeshah, “sacred/consecrated woman,” with zonah, “prostitute” (Bird 1989:76).[4]

Seated North Syrian lady holding a goblet. Perhaps a priestess or a queen, who would also have been a priestess as a result of her queenship. Fragment of ivory carving found in Assyria, but probably made in Syria-Canaan.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Shepsut 1993:168, fig.62.

Thus, an important category of cult functionary called q^edeshah existed in Canaan (Henshaw 1994:235-236). Otherwise, why would the Bible need to discredit such women? Their function in Canaanite religion is not known, but they were “consecrated women,” probably priestesses.

When the archives of Ugarit, an ancient Semitic-speaking city in Syria, began to be interpreted, it quickly became evident that the religion of Ugarit was similar to the Canaanite religion vilified in the Hebrew Bible. Thousands of clay tablets dated to the Late Bronze Age, 1300-1200 BCE (Astour 1981:4), were found to contain, among other things, lists of gods, offerings, and religious functionaries (del Olmo Lete 1999; de Tarragon 1980). None of the priestly titles in the texts is grammatically in the feminine gender (de Tarragon 1980:7,8,139ff.), but they could have included women if the masculine form included the feminine, as it used to do in English.

Lady from Mari in northern Mesopotamia, now in Syria. Probably a priestess. Detail of main figure in a procession depicted in white shell inlay on slate. Found at Mari. Dated c.2600-2400 BCE. Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Shepsut 1993:33, Fig. 7.

The word qdshm, “consecrated ones,” designated important functionaries: “… we find [them] listed second after the khnm `priests’ ” (Henshaw 1994:222-225; de Tarragon 1980:134,141; Yamauchi 1973:219). Qdshm had high status, could marry and establish families, and could hold other offices (de Tarragon 1980:141). There is no suggestion that the ritual role of the qdshm was sexual, nor, indeed, is there any evidence to date of “sacred prostitution” at Ugarit (de Tarragon 1980:139,140; Yamauchi 1973:219).

In Mesopotamian lists, the Semitic word kharimtu, usually translated “prostitute,” was often written with, or close to, the titles of female cultic personnel. As a result, the latter became “tainted” by proximity (Assante 1998:11). Thus not only qadishtu but other female cultic titles were translated “sacred or temple prostitute” (Assante 2003:32).

The Mesopotamian Semitic titles which have usually been translated as “sacred prostitute” include naditu, qadishtu, and entu (Oden 2000:148-150; Assante 1998:9; Lambert 1992:137-141). In general, naditu priestesses were high-status women who were expected to be chaste (Assante 1998:38-39; Henshaw 1994:192-195). At Sippar in Old Babylonian times (ca.1880-1550 BCE), they included royal and noble women (Harris 1960:109, 123ff.). There is no evidence that a naditu‘s duties included ritual sex (Oden 2000:148). The title qadishtu, “holy, consecrated, or set-apart woman,” has the same root as the Hebrew q^edeshah (Assante 1998:44-45; Henshaw 1994:207-213). After scholars have carefully scrutinized “extensive evidence of [the qadishtu’s] cultic and other functions” (Gruber 1986:139), it is clear that the qadishtu was no “cult prostitute” (Oden 2000:149). Indeed, it is likely that most Mesopotamian priestesses, with one possible exception, were expected to be pure and chaste.

Enthroned lady, probably a high priestess, found in the Ishtar temple at Mari in northern Mesopotamia. Alabaster statue. Dated c.2600-2400 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Shepsut 1993:33, Fig. 6.

The one exception might have been the entu, whom the Sumerians called Nin.Dingir “Lady Deity” or “Lady Who Is Goddess” (Henshaw 1994:47; Frayne 1985:14). If the “Sacred Marriage Rite” ever involved human participants, this priestess might, as “Inanna,” have had ritual intercourse with the king. However, the entu had very high status (Henshaw 1994:46) and, according to Mesopotamian law codes, had to adhere to “strict ethical standards” (Hooks 1985:13). Whatever else she was, she was not a prostitute.

For a certain period, the “Sacred Marriage” was an important fertility ritual in Mesopotamia (Frayne 1985:6). As a result of the king’s participation, whatever form it took, he became Inanna’s consort, sharing “her invaluable fertility power and potency” (Kramer 1969:57), as well as, to some extent, her divinity and that of her bridegroom Dumuzi. Unfortunately, no text tells us what happened in the temple’s ritual bedroom, not even whether the participants were human beings or statues (Hooks 1985:29). However, in a persuasive article, Douglas Frayne argues that, at least in early times, the participants were human: the king and the Nin.Dindir/entu (Frayne 1985:14).

In the “Sacred Marriage” material, the female participant is always called Inanna (Sefati 1998:305), so her human identity is obscured. That is not surprising, for I suspect that, during the ritual, the only female present was Inanna. What I am suggesting is that the Nin.Dindir/entu was a medium. Through talent and training, she went into a trance and allowed Inanna to take over her body. Then the goddess could actually be present during the ritual. To a greater or lesser degree, the king could similarly have embodied the god Dumuzi.

One of a large number of terracotta images of lovers on beds found in Mesopotamia. Often understood as connected to the “Sacred Marriage” rite, with the woman seen as a “sacred prostitute.” Dated to the third millennium BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Teubel 1984:117, Plate 19

A medium is “… a social functionary whose body only, the person’s awareness suppressed while in an ecstatic state, serves as a means for spirits to assist and/or communicate with members of the medium’s group in a positive manner” (Paper 1995:87). The “witch of Endor” in the Hebrew Bible (I Samuel 28:7-25) was likely a medium, and other ancient examples include the oracular priestesses through whom Apollo spoke at Delphi and the Maenad devotees of Dionysus (Kraemer 1989:49). Today mediums function in many religions: for instance, Chinese, Korean, African, and African-Christian of the Americas (Paper 1997:95,104-107,222-226,303; Sered 1994:181-193). Interestingly, the majority of contemporary mediums are female (Paper 1997:95).

Ancient Mesopotamia, like most other cultures, had its prophets and seers (Westenholz 2004:295). A number of them probably worked through trance. Indeed, “… ecstatic religious functionaries, that is, those whose religious functioning involves trance, are virtually ubiquitous in human cultures” (Paper forthcoming). So it would not surprise me to discover that the Inanna of the “Sacred Marriage” rite was actually properly named, for the goddess was using the body of a willing and devout ecstatic and priestess, who was certainly not a “cult prostitute.” On the contrary, she would have had extremely high status and have been deeply revered, for she was chosen of the goddess. Finally, then, the identity of the human female participant in the ritual is irrelevant. She was Inanna!

“Tragically,” says one contemporary scholar, “scholarship suffered from scholars being unable to imagine any cultic role for women in antiquity that did not involve sexual intercourse” (Gruber 1986:138). However, recent scholars are fast setting the record straight. Even if ancient priestesses were involved in ritual sex, even if they received offerings for their temples, they were not prostitutes but devotees worshipping their deity.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Lammas 2005, Vol 4-4

Gardener Planting a Sapling at the Base of Another Tree in a Garden, with Wilderness Outside. From a relief vessel found at Mari. Steatite. Dated around 2500 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:5

As a result of her control of fecundity and her centrality in the “Sacred Marriage,” Inanna kept her high standing among the Sumerian deities even as society increased in male-dominance (Wakeman 1985: 8). The poem “Inanna and the Huluppu Tree” gives a mythic explanation of how the throne and the bed used in the “Sacred Marriage” came into existence and, in the process, records a drastic demotion in Inanna’s status.[2]

Story

The poem begins at the beginning, “when what was needful had first come forth,” when bread first started to be baked in ovens of shrines, and when the first separation occurred, that of sky and earth (Frayne 2001:130; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 4). A violent storm uprooted a huluppu (poplar?) tree. Inanna rescued it and planted it in her “sacred grove” at Uruk (Frayne 2001: 131). She waited for it to get large enough to be made into a chair and a bed. Unfortunately, three creatures settled in the tree: in its roots “a snake which fears no spell”; in its trunk a lilitu, a female spirit; and in its branches the Anzu bird. Unable to rid herself of these intruders, tearful Inanna requested her brother Utu, the sun god, to help. He refused, but Gilgamesh, Uruk’s warrior king, did not. After the heavily armed hero “smote” the snake, the others fled. Gilgamesh cut down the tree, took the branches for himself, and gave the trunk to Inanna.

Analysis

Inanna rescued the huluppu tree at the time of beginnings, “when what was needful had first come forth.” Is it possible that the huluppu tree was among the “needful”? Perhaps the huluppu was the World Tree, which connects heaven, earth, and underworld (Campbell 1965: 486-89). In other mythologies, the World Tree usually has a serpent in its roots and often a bird in its branches (Campbell 1964: 41).

Anyway, the huluppu flourished in “pure Inanna’s fruitful garden” in the sanctuary at Uruk (Kramer 1967: 200; Shaffer 1963: 30, n.1). Many ancient precincts had sacred groves complete with sacred trees. In male-dominated Mesopotamia, a king usually held the title “Gardener” (Widegren 1951: 9, 11, 15). Indeed, gardening and plowing could be metaphors for taking the male part in sexual intercourse. For example, in one Sumerian love poem Inanna sings of her vulva, her “uncultivated land,” and asks, “Who will plow it?” Dumu-zi answers that he will plow it for her (Sefati 1998:224-225). Metaphorically, then, the fertile grove is the goddess, particularly her womb, her vulva. In the huluppu poem, however, the garden, the womb, was “fruitful” in and of itself. Inanna did no more than tamp the tree into place with her foot and water it with her foot! Clearly, her garden did not yet have a gardener, a plowman to plow it, to control its fertility. Not surprisingly, in a world where a gardener was beginning to be necessary for ordered and controlled cultivation, untended plants had to be incapable of normal progress. So the tree acquired what, in a male-dominated world (garden, womb), would have been considered parasites.[3]

If the huluppu was the World Tree, we would expect a serpent in its roots. Also, snakes had connections with earth and fecundity goddesses (Henshaw 1994: 173; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 3). Indeed, these beings of earth and underworld often lived under such goddesses’s shrines. Snakes are also boundary creatures, able to move in several elements. They often live at wells and springs, entrances to the netherworld.[4] From the roots the serpent “which fears no spell” could have connected with the underworld (Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 180). Interestingly, Inanna tended the tree with her foot, her roots. Could the snake have been Inanna’s underworld self?

Probably the Anzu, an eagle-like bird with lion’s head and outstretched wings. Detail of a relief plaque from Girsu, Mesopotamia. Stone. Around 2450 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Kramer and Wolkstein 1983:8.

The Anzu was an eagle-like, powerful bird-monster with a lion’s head. When it flapped its wings, it caused whirlwinds and other kinds of storms. Inanna may also have had some connection with storms, making the bird’s presence understandable (Williams-Forte 1983: 180, 194; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 95-96, 102; Jacobsen 1976: 136-137). In the branches of Inanna’s tree, the bird was also at the boundary between earth and sky. It too was able to move across thresholds. Is it possible that the Anzu was Inanna’s heavenly self?

From Mesopotamian writings going back into the third millennium BCE comes evidence of spirits like the one in the tree trunk (Hutter 1995: 973).[5] She was a member of the lilu family of demons (feminine lilitu) (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 1956). Lilu demons manipulated “stormy winds,” and the lilitu could fly like a bird. They also had negative sexual characteristics, especially the females. Unmarried, they roamed about looking for men to ensnare, and they got into buildings through windows. More important, lilu sexuality was not “normal,” so that men could not have sex with lilitus in the way they did with their wives (Hutter 1995: 973).

The lilitu sounds very much like Inanna and Ishtar, Inanna’s Semitic counterpart. Ishtar “stands at the window looking for a man in order to seduce him, love him and kill him” (Hutter 1995: 973-4). Inanna too displayed herself provocatively in windows and doors (Jacobsen 1976: 140), and, like Ishtar, she was called “sahiratu, ‘the one who roams about.'” In hymns she goes “from house to house and street to street,” a phrase later used to describe demons (Frymer-Kensky 1992: 28).

Such paralleling of independent women and demons suggests that, in increasingly patriarchal culture, Inanna’s independence was slowly being isolated from her other characteristics, and the hard-to-assimilate independence was assigned to two separate functions: prostitute and demon. The prostitute was useful, if marginalized, and the demon was feared and rejected. The fact that many translators render the word lilitu as “Lilith” may indirectly support such a theory (Kramer 1967: 200; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 6). The lilitu was antecedent to Lilith, the first wife of Adam, vilified in later Jewish texts (Ausubel 1979: 393-4; Graves & Patai 1964: 68).

Queen of Heaven, Earth, and the Underworld, almost certainly the Goddess Inanna/Ishtar. Terracotta relief. Dated around 2000 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Neumann Plate 126

According to Raphael Patai, an image on a Babylonian baked-clay plaque, dated as “roughly contemporary with the [huluppu-tree] poem,” depicts a lilitu (Patai 1990: 222 & Plate 31; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 6). He thought that the nude figure, standing on lions and flanked by owls, was a night goddess and lady of wild animals. However, she wears the multi-horned crown and carries the ring-and-rod symbol of power (Henshaw 1994: 240; Williams-Forte 1983: 181; Jacobsen 1976: 38). She is most unlikely to be merely a lilitu. Rather she is the goddess Inanna with the wings and the death-dealing talons of an owl (?), perhaps indicating a connection with the netherworld (Williams-Forte 1983: 189). This suggestion gains support from a cylinder seal dated 2000-1600 BCE.[6] The head of a winged goddess with many-horned crown reaches its top register, and her clawed feet are firmly planted in the bottom one. Above the line are deities and human worshipers, while below it are “demonic creatures.” Some scholars interpret this winged goddess as Lilith and so a lilitu, but she too is probably Inanna (Williams-Forte 1983: 189; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 51). This seal provides another part of Inanna’s nature. Not only does its arrangement present the goddess’s duality — of both of the upper world and the underworld — but it suggests that she joins the two. Like the huluppu tree, she stands with feet, roots, in the underworld and head, branches, in the heavens, her body, the trunk, joining them. She herself could be interpreted as the “cosmic tree of life” and death (Campbell 1965: 64).

When Gilgamesh had disposed of the huluppu tree’s inhabitants, he uprooted it, thus eliminating, finally, any natural connection between earth and underworld.[7] He then gave the wood to Inanna to make into a bed and a throne, the furniture used in the “Sacred Marriage.” However, the furniture, which was essentially constructed from her body, was no longer entirely hers. The institution of kingship had appropriated it and, with the furniture, Inanna herself. What is more, the poem presents her as willingly co-operating in her own demotion. Both she and the furniture would henceforth serve a male monarchy in a male-dominated society. In this way, society was able to circumscribe her and direct her undoubted power into channels that would be useful to the male-dominated city.

Sacred Tree, Horned Goddess, and Priest(ess). Cylinder seal impression. Dated about 2330-2150 B.C.E.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein and Kramer 1983: 3.

Inanna was now goddess only of the heavens and the earth, and the cycle of life had suffered irreparable damage. The destroying of the huluppu tree meant that human beings could no longer count on Inanna and the World Tree to maintain the cycle of life and death. Instead, they were now facing a terrifying, linear world. The old cyclical understanding of death as merely one stage in the eternal round of birth, death, and renewal, symbolized by the tree, had been replaced by a linear perception of life with death and the underworld as the end (Kovacs 1989:59-75; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983:51-89).

The seemingly innocent poem “Inanna and the Huluppu Tree,” then, constitutes an androcentric account of the reasons for Inanna’s involvement in the “Sacred Marriage,” both as herself and as furniture. It shows well how myth can be remade to serve ideology! A powerful goddess subject, the sacred World Tree, had, over the centuries, been reshaped into limited goddess objects, a bed and a throne, while the goddess herself was co-opted into seeing this limited role as powerful. Independent Inanna had become feminine, a woman reliant on males to get her out of trouble. The extant poem probably echoes an earlier story, one in which Inanna and the World Tree had very different roles. We can only imagine what they were.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Beltane 2005, Vol 4-3

Between mountains containing monsters and deities and perhaps representing the underworld, a goddess (Inanna?) holds a ring. Could it be the one taken from Inanna at a gate of the underworld? Mesopotamian cylinder seal. Hematite. Around 2330-2150 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:57

From the great heaven [great above] she set her mind on the great below. From the great heaven the goddess set her mind on the great below. From the great heaven Inana[2] set her mind on the great below. My mistress abandoned heaven, abandoned earth, and descended to the underworld.
(Black, Cunningham, et al. 1998-2000:1 of 8)

Story

Before she left for the underworld, Inanna put on her divine regalia and took up “the appropriate divine decrees [me]” (Kramer 1972:86). She instructed her minister Ninshubur that, after three days, she was to ask help of the great gods. At each of the seven gates of the underworld, Inanna removed part of her regalia, until, naked and bent, she came before the seven judges of the underworld and her elder twin-sister Ereshkigal, whose name means “Queen of the Great Earth.” All gave her “the look of death,” and they had her dead body hung on a hook.

Three days later, Ninshubur began to seek help, but neither the chief god nor the moon god, Inanna’s father, was sympathetic. However, the god of wisdom instructed two creatures to sprinkle over Inanna’s corpse both a life-giving plant and life-giving water.

When the creatures sympathized with Ereshkigal, who was groaning in misery, she offered them rich rewards, but they asked only for the corpse on the peg. They sprinkled it, and Inanna lived again. However, before the judges would let her leave the great below, they insisted she provide a substitute, and so demons ascended with her to bring her substitute back. Inanna refused to give them several faithful servants, but she surrendered her bridegroom Dumuzi because he was not in mourning for her. For a while Dumuzi escaped the demons, but finally they carried him off. Then Inanna mourned for him. Finally, Dumuzi’s sister arranged to take his place in the underworld for part of each year (Black, Cunningham, et al. 1998, 1999, 2000: 1-8).[3]

Man in net skirt (Dumuzi?) feeding sheep. Inanna’s standards (“gateposts”) that frame the image suggest that the event is happening inside her temple grounds. Mesopotamian cylinder seal. Marble. About 3200-3000 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:85

Interpretation

When Inanna arrived at the first gate, she demanded entrance, telling the gatekeeper she had come to attend her brother-in-law’s funeral. Kramer, followed by other scholars, considered this excuse “false” (1981:157); so they advanced various explanations of Inanna’s decision. Joseph Campbell saw her as going to meet her opposite (1964:105-109), Kramer judged her as longing for “still greater power” (1981:156), and Lipinkivi thought she went “to deprive her sister, Eres[h]kigal, of her powers” (2004:190). Feminist discussions of the poem include Perera’s Jungian interpretation (1981) and Diane Wolkstein’s, who viewed Inanna as searching for knowledge (1983:156).

“Inanna’s Descent” took its final written form after years of recopying in a male-dominated religion, and, during that time, it is probable that Inanna slowly changed. Visual as well as written material[4] from Sumer persuades me that originally Inanna had the right to visit the underworld as part of her realm. For instance, a Babylonian seal depicts a winged female with high, horned crown and bird feet, standing with her head among “deities and their human worshippers” and her feet among “demonic creatures.”

A winged goddess wearing a multi-horned crown stands with her head in the realm of the deities and their devotees. Her bird-clawed feet rest in a place, likely the underworld, inhabited by strange and demonic creatures. Some think her to be Lilith, but the crown shows her to be a great goddess, almost certainly Inanna. Mesopotamian cylinder seal. Hematite. 2000-1600 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein and Kramer 1983: 51.

This dominating goddess may be Inanna, and the “hierarchical arrangement” perhaps indicates “her dual nature, partially of ‘heaven and earth’ and partially of the underworld” (Williams-Forte in Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:189). In addition, the fact that Ereshkigal and Inanna were sisters may indicate that they could once have been a single goddess.[5] This suggestion may explain not only Inanna’s decision, but also her assertiveness at the first gate.[6]

By the time the poem reached the form in which it has come down to us, death seems no longer an accepted part of the cycle of life. Instead, it was terrifying, to be avoided, since it led to a dreary existence in the Land of No Return (Foster 2001:138-142). Further, it seems likely that only in a culture that feared death and the underworld would there be enmity between deities of the great above and the great below, as there seems to have been between Inanna and Ereshkigal. Now not even a goddess could enter the underworld without being humiliated, stripped of means, abject, and naked.

When Inanna protested the removal of her regalia, the gatekeeper told her to be quiet: “Be satisfied, Inana, a divine power of the underworld has been fulfilled. Inana, you must not open your mouth against the rites of the underworld.” During her descent, Inanna lost in order: crown (queenship?), precious necklace (charisma, glamour?), two oval stones (birthing ability or femaleness?), breastplate “Come, man, come” (sexual allure), gold ring (her seal, her signature?), rod and measuring line (authority), and “garment of ladyship” (robe of deity). Everything that signified her status and identity disappeared. Some translators understand the naked Inanna as forcing Ereshkigal to relinquish the throne to her; others have Ereshkigal retaining the throne.[7]Nevertheless, Inanna became a corpse.

Significantly, in this poem from a male-dominated society, Inanna could return to the great above only with the help of a male deity, as she had clearly known when she instructed her minister to appeal to several of them. The god of wisdom hatched the plan to free Inanna and created from dirt under his fingernails two ghostly, fly-like creatures, so like the denizens of the underworld that they could pass the gates unnoticed. They were to get Ereshkigal to release Inanna’s corpse to them.[8] All went as planned: they sprinkled the corpse with the life-giving substances, and Inanna came alive again.

Surprisingly, the Sumerian poem does not mention a decrease in fertility on earth during Inanna’s absence even though fertility was supposedly her concern.[9] It is also curious that, while Inanna’s corpse was hanging on the peg, her sister Ereshkigal was lying moaning, seemingly in the act of giving birth or after doing so: “The mother who gave birth, Erec-ki-gala [Ereshkigal], because of her children, was lying there.” Was Ereshkigal, not Inanna, the source of fertility?

To reward the creatures who commiserated with her, Ereshkigal offered them “a river with its water,” which they refused, and “a field with its grain,” which they also refused. Not only could Ereshkigal give away river water, but she could also offer grain! In Mesopotamia, river water was life, fertility, for it irrigated the fields in which grew the grain that people depended on. So, here, fertility came from the underworld; life-giving rivers flowed out of it, and seemingly dead seed placed under the earth’s surface produced new life.

In the poem, there is a connection, at least of proximity, between Ereshkigal’s sickness and Inanna’s revival. Ereshkigal appeared to be suffering from birth pains. Was Ereshkigal birthing Inanna? Was Inanna’s body the seed of her revived self? All a seed seems to need to become new life is water and nourishment, water and plant. Was it then Ereshkigal who brought new life into the world? She seemed to have some control of seed. Were the dead in the underworld seeds of new life? Is this poem preserving a remnant of an earlier cyclical attitude to life?[10]

Goddess with multi-horned crown (Inanna?) welcomes a mace-holding and crowned god who emerges from the base of a tree (Dumuzi?). Mesopotamian cylinder seal. Serpentine. About 2320-2150 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:40.

According to the rules of the underworld, when one went there, one did not return, unless, of course, one were a goddess and could provide a substitute, as Inanna eventually did when she turned “the look of death” on her bridegroom Dumuzi! From then on, Inanna stayed above as queen of heaven and earth and left the underworld to her sister Ereshkigal. Her substitute, Dumuzi undertook the cyclical visits on Inanna’s behalf. Luckily for Dumuzi, who is the first in a long line of Eastern Mediterranean male deities (“Dying Gods”) who disappear and return, he too provided a substitute, his devoted sister.

The poem ends: “Holy Erec-ki-gala [Ereshkigal] — sweet is your praise.” This ending makes one wonder whom the poem is really about. Perhaps it is not primarily about the queen of heaven, but about the queen of the underworld. There is no doubt that, as soon as Inanna entered the underworld, Ereshkigal was in charge, in her realm. She also seemed to be involved in fertility and bringing to birth. Perhaps we are dealing here with an underworld that still retained elements of a cyclical view of life and nature. In addition, the underworld was the source not only of new life, rebirth, but also of the riches of the earth, in an agrarian culture, the crops.[11] The crops grow from seemingly dead seeds deposited in the earth and seemingly decaying before bringing forth new life. Is Inanna’s descent a planting metaphor?

As I interpret it, “The Descent of Inanna” is a possible patriarchalization of a pre-patriarchal story of a deity connected with fertility who disappears and returns, a story that affirms the cyclicity of the round of life and death. Farming cultures understand the cycle and accept it. Beginning her descent, Inanna anticipated problems; maybe she suspected that things had changed. One of the main changes, I suggest, was that Ereshkigal, probably originally Inanna’s underworld aspect, had now taken on a personality of her own. And she was not particularly welcoming to her counterpart from the great above.

Later, even Ereshkigal’s hold on the underworld would be broken forever when she encountered the young macho god Nergal, a minor deity. Arrogant and bad-mannered, Nergal insulted Ereshkigal’s messenger/ambassador. Furious, she demanded his life. Then, properly briefed by the god of wisdom, he descended to the underworld and violently overpowered the goddess. When he was about to behead her, she offered him marriage and rule over her realm. His reaction was exceedingly macho:

He listened to her, picked her up, kissed her and wiped away her tears, saying — in sudden enlightenment; “It was but love you wanted of me from months long ago to now!”
(Jacobsen 1976: 229)

In an even later version Nergal descended to the underworld when Ereshkigal demanded his life. Instead of killing him, she took him to her bed. After seven days, he made off! Ereshkigal demanded that the gods send him back to marry her because she was now “impure” and could no longer be a proper judge. Nergal returned — as king of the underworld (Jacobsen 1976:230). To what depths had this great goddess been brought!!

My interpretation of the “Descent of Inanna” poem is, of course, speculative. Yet, the poem has many elements that show that it is one that has undergone change. Perhaps originally it was a poem in praise of a goddess who combined the characteristics and realms of Inanna and Ereshkigal, she who was the source of all becoming, the reason why the cycles rolled back on themselves and the world continued.

Notes

Bibliography

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Samhain 2004, Vol 4-1

Enheduanna in full regalia supervising ritual at altar before temple tower. Limestone disk, from Ur, ca.2300 BCE, restored.
Drawing @ S. Beaulieu, after Meador 2000:38,13a.

“The Amazement of the Land [of Sumer],”[1] Inanna was a powerful and assertive goddess whose areas of control and influence included warfare, love/sexuality, and prosperity/fertility. As “Lady Who Ascends into the Heavens,” she was the Venus Star. One of her regular epithets was “the maiden,” and her usual roles — little sister and pert daughter, sweetheart, nubile bride, and grief-stricken young widow — all present her as in late adolescence, permanently poised on the edge of full womanhood, not yet tied down by wifehood. It is no surprise, then, that Inanna was a female who behaved like a male and lived “essentially the same existence as young men,” exulting in battle and seeking sexual experiences (Frymer-Kensky 1992:29). In addition, Mesopotamian texts normally refer to her as “the (or a) woman,” and, even when they call her “warrior,” she is still “the woman” (Stuckey 2001:92).[2]

The great American scholar of Sumer and things Sumerian Samuel Noah Kramer described Inanna as “…the ambitious, aggressive and demanding goddess of love …” (1963:153). In historic times, she certainly was goddess of love and sexuality, but she also held and could bestow the mes, the attributes of civilization.[3] Thus, she ruled over many areas of culture. According to Thorkild Jacobsen, these included “the storehouse” (1976:135), “the rains” (136), “war” (137), “Morning and Evening Stars” (138), and what he calls “harlotry,” prostitution (Jacobsen 139). Of Inanna, he says:

In the epics and myths, Inanna is a beautiful, rather willful young aristocrat. We see her as a charming, slightly difficult younger sister [to her Sun God brother], as a grown daughter [of her Moon God father]…, and a worry to her elders…. We see her as a sweetheart, as a happy bride, and as a sorrowing young widow. We see her, in fact, in all the roles a woman may fill except the two which call for maturity and a sense of responsibility. She is never depicted as a wife and helpmate or as a mother.(Jacobsen 1976: 141)[4]

This description of Inanna includes many of her aspects, but all the roles that Jacobsen discusses are ones that attach a woman to males by means of the patriarchal family and so control her sexuality and ability to reproduce. Feminist scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky understands Inanna differently: Inanna was the divine model for a role that was not considered socially desirable. “She represents the non-domesticated woman, and she exemplifies all the fear and attraction that such a woman elicits” (1992: 25). She is a woman who is not tied to the patriarchal family, whose sexuality is not controlled for its ends. In addition, Inanna is the fearsome spirit of “the attraction necessary for all sexual copulation, regardless of its social purpose or value.” Nonetheless, despite being the goddess of prostitutes, Inanna was, as goddess Ishara, also “patron of marital sexuality” (47-48).

Rain goddess, possibly Inanna-Ishtar, holding streams of rain and standing on the storm god’s lion-bird. Shell cylinder seal. Akkadian, ca. 2334-2154 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein & Kramer 1983:94

Whereas Inanna seems to have been the foremost female deity of the male-dominated Sumerian culture, a similar goddess Ishtar was worshipped by Semitic-speaking peoples to the north (Kramer 1983: 115, 123). From early times, Inanna and Ishtar became increasingly identified, until, by the period of Sargon the Great (about 2300 BCE), they were so similar that, in discussing them, scholars usually treat them as one deity — Inanna-Ishtar. Slowly, Inanna in her “infinite variety” gave way to Ishtar, whose primary functions were love/sexuality and war. Finally, with the first-millennium Assyrians and later, only Ishtar remained. We can still see remnants of Inanna in later Ishtar, but, in her final form, Ishtar seems a very different goddess.

Some argue that the identification of the two goddesses was partly the result of a policy of Sargon the Great, the Semitic-speaking ruler of Agade, biblical Akkad, who had conquered Sumer and most of western Asia (Kramer 1983:117). For a time, he managed to unite the whole of Mesopotamia under his rule (Meador 2000: 41). To help him control “the restless and rebellious populations of the southern Sumerian cities” (Meador 2000: 49), Sargon appointed his accomplished daughter Enheduanna as high priestess and thus spouse of the moon god Nanna, tutelary deity of Ur, one of Sumer’s most important cities. For over forty years, she held this priestly office (Meador 2000:6). On the back of the now-famous disc found in the 1920s inside the Nanna complex near the residence of Ur’s high priestess, an inscription names Enheduanna as “wife of Nanna, daughter of Sargon” and dedicates the disc to Inanna (Meador 2000:37). As incumbent of an ancient and revered office, Enheduanna wielded great power among the Sumerians (Meador 2000:49). However, she is remembered today primarily as a great poet, indeed as the first poet in history whose name we know. The forty-two poems she wrote to temples throughout the area “spread her influence and her beliefs …” (Meador 2000: 50). Further, her three poems to the goddess Inanna “effectively defined a new hierarchy of the gods” and helped Sargon by identifying Inanna and Ishtar (Meador 2000:51). During the period when the Semitic-speaking Akkadians controlled Mesopotamia (2334-2154 BCE), the melding of Inanna and Ishtar continued (Williams-Forte1983:189).

Inanna’s symbols appear on some of the earliest Mesopotamian seals (Adams 1966:12), and she is the first goddess about whom we have written records (Hallo & Van Dijk 1968). However, it is clear that she did not spring into existence with the invention of writing. Throughout Mesopotamia, archaeologists have found a large number of female figurines, dating from as early as the sixth millennium BCE. Some, which may be forerunners of Inanna, display prominent breasts and have their hands under or cupping them, a gesture employed by many later goddesses, among them Inanna. In Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia, Beatrice L. Goff traced Mesopotamian symbols from Neolithic times into the historical period. From her study of various symbols and figurines, she concluded that the main concern of the early Mesopotamians was fertility (1963: 21), later one of Inanna’s special interests.

In historic times, the sacred animal of Inanna-Ishtar was the lion, which the goddess usually stood on or otherwise controlled. Often winged, Inanna-Ishtar also had close association with birds, like the thunderbird and especially the owl (Lipinkivi 2004: 140). As queen or lady of the sky, she was the Morning and Evening Stars, the planet Venus, and, as daughter of the moon god, Inanna also had connections to both the crescent and the full moon (Lapinkivi 2004: 60,111). An unmistakable symbol of Inanna-Ishtar was the eight-pointed star or rosette, which signified her identification with the planet Venus (Williams-Forte 1983:187). A significant symbol of Inanna was a pair of standards, usually called gateposts, which appeared very early in the archaeological record (Goff 1963:84). The standards signaled both the presence of the goddess and the entrance to her temple (Williams-Forte 1983:188; Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 47, 106).

Triumphant Inanna-Ishtar, winged, with foot on her roaring lion and star symbol, being worshipped by a lesser goddess. Black-stone cylinder seal. Akkadian, ca. 2334-2154 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein & Kramer 1983:92

Inanna’s paramount city in Mesopotamia was Uruk, one of the world’s first urban centers. The oldest preserved temple in Uruk is the sacred precinct of Inanna, the E-anna, the “House of Heaven.” There archaeologists found some of the earliest writing on clay tablets (Williams-Forte 1983:174-175). As protector of the city, Inanna was originally its owner (Steinkeller 1996:113). She was also a tutelary deity of a number of other cities, and over time many other goddesses were identified with her. Through the ritual known as “the Sacred Marriage,” which I will discuss in the next column, Inanna bestowed power on Uruk’s ruler and ensured the fertility and prosperity of the land and its people. The “Sacred Marriage” rite spread from Uruk to other cities in Mesopotamia and became one of the central Mesopotamian rituals for validating a king.

Inanna-Ishtar is far and away the most written-about deity in Mesopotamian texts. To judge from the amount of Inanna material extant, she was very popular, though, of course, the survival of so much about her may be just a matter of chance. One of the major poems focusing on the goddess is “The Descent of Inanna [to the Underworld],” a great work of world literature; I will analyze it in a later column. “The Descent of Ishtar” is also extant. Other compositions in which Inanna is central are “Inanna and the Huluppu Tree,” which I will also examine in a later column; “Inanna and the God of Wisdom”; songs and poems relating the Sacred Marriage; and hymns to Inanna by Enheduanna and other poets (Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 4-110).

Enthroned Inanna, with date palm and Anzu bird, her feet on lion, raising hand to worshippers, bald, bare-footed suppliant and lesser goddess leading him. Steatite cylinder seal. Neo-Sumerian, ca. 2112-2004 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Wolkstein & Kramer 1983:102

Despite scholarly views on her “infinite variety” and contradictory nature, there is no question that the Sumerians saw Inanna as a single deity. So there ought to be one factor that unified her varying roles and functions. They were the power in the storehouse and in the rain; the spirit of battle and warfare; Morning and Evening Stars; the impetus for sex and sexuality, not just of the prostitute but also of the marriage bed; goddess of love; bringer of fertility; perpetual adolescence; and non-domesticated femaleness. The answer is hinted at in at least one of her symbols. Birds soar through the skies, also live on earth, and so cross boundaries — indeed, birds live in a boundary situation. Inanna-Ishtar is also a boundary crosser — a woman who behaves like a man. She often cross-dressed and was sometimes presented as an androgyne; further, many of her cult personnel were “transvestites and castrates” (Lipinkivi 2004:159).

All of her various aspects and functions involve transition, boundary crossing, and transformation — food and seed in a storehouse seemingly dead, but alive, poised to become something else; rain which changes infertile to fertile or the opposite. On the battlefield fortunes change, and people die — the ultimate transformation. What more appropriate place for the Lady of Transformation than on a battlefield! Morning and Evening Stars herald change: they appear at the boundaries of dark and light, light and dark. Love, sexuality, and sexual intercourse — all present important ways for human beings to change. No wonder Inanna-Ishtar is patron goddess of sex, sexuality, and love! Adolescence is a transition time — a non-domestic woman has no fixed place. Neither does the prostitute. Both are crossers of boundaries.

So Inanna was a sex goddess, a love goddess, a war goddess, but she was much more. Although she was a goddess of “infinite variety,” she was not, however, a contradictory deity, but a unified one. What unifies Inanna is change — transformation and transition. She is the way in and the way out, the door, the gateway. What more appropriate symbol for her than gateposts? Forever an adolescent poised at the threshold of full womanhood, maiden Inanna was the eternal threshold through which everything passed in fulfillment of the cycle that is life.

Notes

1. By 3000 BCE, the land of Sumer occupied the southern half of Iraq.
2. Since I cannot read Sumerian, Akkadian, or Babylonian, I have to work with translations. However, my training in Ancient Greek, Latin, and Biblical Hebrew has taught me that critical comparison of a number of different translations produces a good understanding of an original text. I also check my understanding with colleagues who do read the original languages. Nonetheless I am responsible for any errors and especially for interpretations.
3. The word me is difficult to define. Samuel N. Kramer says that the mes were “a set of rules and regulations assigned to each cosmic entity and cultural phenomenon for the purpose of keeping it operating forever …” (1963:115-116). In the poem “Inanna and the God of Wisdom” (Kramer & Wolkstein 1983:12-27), Inanna persuades the drunken god Enki to give her all the mes, and she takes them to her city Uruk. The poem lists over a hundred of them; they include kingship, heroship, truth, prostitution, various priestly offices, power, scribeship, and the crafts (Kramer 1963:116).
4. While Inanna seems rarely to have been motherly, the texts do report her as being mother of some sons (Wolkstein & Kramer 1983:70). She also had maternal feelings, especially for the people of Sumer (Lapinkivi 2004:125-127).

References

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.

Author: Johanna Stuckey, PhD
From the Archives of MatriFocus
A Cross-Quarterly Web Magazine for Goddess Women Near & Far
Imbolc 2005, Vol 4-2

Couple on terracotta bed, perhaps representing the “Sacred Marriage.” Object could have been bought at the festival. Mesopotamia 3rd. millennium BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Teubal 1983: 117.

The king goes with lifted head to the holy lap,
Goes with lifted head to the holy lap of Inanna,
[Dumuzi] beds with her,
He delights in her pure lap.
(Sefati 1998: 105)

The “Sacred Marriage” was “joyously and rapturously” celebrated in the ancient eastern Mediterranean for over two thousand years (Kramer 1969:49). “Sacred Marriage” translates Classical Greek hieros gamos, originally the marriage of Zeus and Hera, but Classicists used the term for alliances between other deities or deities and humans, particularly when marked by ritual. Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), author of The Golden Bough, expanded the term to mean “mythic and ritual sexual acts” connected with fertility (Cooper 1993:82).

Although, for ancient Mesopotamia, the term refers to “the ritual enactment of the marriage of two deities or a human and a deity” (Cooper 1993:82), the participants were understood as deities: usually Inanna-Ishtar and Dumuzi-Tammuz.[1] In historic times, the main aim was “to decree a good fate for the king and his country” (Lapinkivi 2004:7).[2] Nonetheless, as I shall speculate later, early priests could have appropriated to their own ends a rite which, originally, had a very different function.

Uruk Vase, with procession of naked priests carrying gifts to Inanna’s shrine., Inanna greeting them at its door marked by her gateposts. Alabaster. 3′. Uruk, Mesopotamia. Fourth millennium BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989:137.

From extant hymns, we can piece together what happened in the ritual (Lapinkivi 2004:47,#29;50,#35). First, Inanna was bathed, perfumed, and adorned, while Dumuzi and his retinue processed towards her shrine. The famous Uruk vase may represent this procession. All the while, temple personnel sang love songs, many of which are extant (Sefati 1998:25,120-364). Resplendent Inanna greeted Dumuzi at the door, which, on the Uruk vase, is flanked by her signature standards (gateposts), and there he presented her with sumptuous gifts. Subsequently, the pair seated themselves on thrones, although sometimes the enthronement took place only after sexual consummation (Jacobsen 1976:38).

The deities entered a chamber fragrant with spices and decorated with costly draperies. Lying down on a ceremonial bed constructed for the occasion (Jacobsen 1976:38), they united in sexual intercourse (Henshaw 1994:238). Afterwards, pleased by and with her lover, Inanna decreed long life and sovereignty for him and fertility and prosperity for the land. She might also have presented him with the ring, rod, and line, emblems of royal power. The ritual over, the people celebrated in a huge festival.

The earliest “detailed direct evidence” of the ritual comes from the time of King Shulgi of Ur (2095-2048), but the first ruler named “beloved of Inanna” reigned in Uruk around 2700 BCE, a hint that the ritual was already occurring by then (Lapinkivi 2004:2; Sefati 1998:30-31).

How do we know that the ritual actually took place? Some consider this question “controversial” considering the paucity of evidence (Henshaw 1994:239). When and how often it occurred is also controversial. However, since a number of poems describe the ritual in detail and some of the details are supported in “important and reliable evidence” such as “royal inscriptions, economic texts, etc.” (Sefati 1998:32), we can assume that Sumerians did celebrate the “Sacred Marriage.”

Did the participants actually engage in sexual intercourse? Again the subject is controversial, some scholars arguing that they did (Frayne 1983, Kramer 1969; see Cooper 1993:87-88), others insisting that the act was “purely symbolic” (Steinkeller 1999:133).

Couple on terracotta bed, perhaps representing the “Sacred Marriage.” Object could have been bought at the festival. Mesopotamia 3rd. millennium BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Teubal 1983: 117.

Who, then, were the participants? It appears certain that, at Uruk, the priest-ruler, the en, spent at least one ritual night in the high-priestly residence, the gipar, “during which [period] he consummated the marriage with Inanna” (Steinkeller 1999:132). Further, poems name two historically identifiable kings as participants in the rite, but only for the period 2100-2000 BCE. A king of Sumer could take part only if he held the office of en of Uruk and bore the title “spouse of Inanna” (Steinkeller 1999:130-131). By 2000 BCE, according to some scholars, the monarch of Sumer normally represented Dumuzi in the rite. As a result of the ceremony, he received the authority to manipulate “the natural and human environments for greater productivity and security” (Wakeman 1985:13).

The texts refer to the female participant only as Inanna (Frayne 1985:14), a possible indication that Inanna had incarnated herself in a priestess.[3] The likeliest candidate would be the priestess known as nin-dingir, Sumerian for “Lady Deity” or “Lady Who Is Goddess.”[4]

A man could achieve authority in Inanna’s temple community at Uruk as either her “trusted servant” or her consort or both. Indeed, traditionally, the ruler of Uruk and its goddess co-habited in the gipar. The “Sacred Marriage,” which at first conferred authority temporarily on one man, eventually provided religious sanction for male exercise of power (Wakeman 1985:12).

Around 2900 BCE, Inanna, incarnated in the nin-dingir,[5] “chose [Uruk’s] en” (Wakeman 1985:23-my emphasis). By around 2300 BCE, however, the Mesopotamian king had appropriated the right to appoint an en.[6] Eventually, around 2100 BCE, the nin-dingir/entu became merely spouse of the city god she served and/or the consort of Dumuzi. Furthermore, after about 1700 BCE, the title entu disappeared from archival texts (Frayne 1985:22). Concomitantly, the “Sacred Marriage” also altered, until, in its latest form, it probably involved two statues (Cooper 1993:91; Frayne 1985:22).

According to Steinkeller, “the earliest Sumerian pantheon was dominated by female deities,” and a goddess, the divine “owner” of most early cities, “controlled … fertility, procreation, healing, and death.” Paired with each was a god, “a personification of male reproductive power.” Over time, the power of male deities increased, “though never superseding that of goddesses” (1999:113). Perhaps Inanna’s domination of much “Sacred Marriage” material (Jacobsen 1976:39-40) reflects those earliest times, when the “Sacred Marriage” centred on goddesses. Is it possible that the ceremony originally dealt with her concerns alone?

Detail, Uruk Vase, with procession of naked priests carrying gifts to Inanna’s shrine., Inanna greeting them at its door marked by her gateposts. Alabaster. 3′. Uruk, Mesopotamia. Fourth millennium BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989:137.

Part of the answer lies, I think, in an exciting theory propounded by Sumerologist Douglas Frayne, who presents a convincing explanation of the evidence.[7] After showing that nin-dingir and entu refer to the same office, Frayne suggests that this priestess was the Inanna of the “Sacred Marriage” poems. He then re-examines the available evidence and concludes that the ritual was integral to the installation of “new entu priestesses” (Frayne 1985:12ff.,14-18).

In supporting his theory, Frayne discusses what scholars call “year formulae”; the Mesopotamians named a year by its significant event and recorded it on, for instance, building bricks (Cohen 1993:4). One such happening was the installation of an en: for instance, “The year the entu of Nanna was chosen by omens” or “The year Nur-Adad installed the entu of Utu [the sun god]” (Frayne 1985:15). The latter correlates with a passage in a “literary letter of Sin-Iddinam” who describes significant occurrences in the early reign of his father Nur-Adad:

An entu priestess who perfected the immaculate lustration rites, he installed for [Utu] in her gipar. From evening to morning he added [offerings?], and filled it with abundance (Frayne 1985: 15).

The last sentence recalls the ruler’s bringing gifts to Inanna in the “Sacred Marriage.”

Frayne then points to archival texts that “record disbursements of materials that were used to construct cult objects, or were used in ceremonies …” (1985:17). One, almost certainly relating to the installation of an entu, lists as cult objects: “[One] lady’s throne/one bed …” “Sacred Marriage” hymns often describe the setting up of a bed and a throne before the ritual (Frayne 1985:18ff.). Thus, Frayne concludes that the installation of a nin-dingir/entu entailed the celebration of the “Sacred Marriage.”

The question is: Why? The nin-dingir/entu was probably the priestess who, at Uruk, incarnated Inanna, and in other cities she sometimes embodied the female half of the divine couple that protected the city (Steinkeller 1999:123). If her installation necessitated the “Sacred Marriage,” she might also have incarnated Inanna. The Mesopotamians clearly understood Inanna to be closely connected with fecundity. Originally, then, the ritual might have been a fertility rite, a possibility supported by Wakeman’s suggestion that the “Sacred Marriage” was central to an early Urukian harvest festival.[8]

Couple on terracotta bed, perhaps representing the “Sacred Marriage.” Object could have been bought at the festival. Mesopotamia 3rd. millennium BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Teubal 1983: 117.

My high field that which is well watered,
My own nakedness, a well-watered, a rising mound–
I, the maiden-who will plough it? . . . .
Young lady, may the king plough it for you,
May Dumuzi, the king, plough it for you!”
(Sefati 1998:225)

The agricultural Sumerians metaphorically equated ploughing of land with sexual intercourse (Jacobsen 1976:46). Therefore, it seems reasonable to theorize that “Goddess on Earth” Inanna, whose body was identified with arable land, would not be able to bring about the land’s fertility until she herself, at least potentially, became fertile. Thus, the “Sacred Marriage” might have been integral to the installation of nin-dingir/entu as Inanna because, I suggest, like the land, she had to be “ploughed” to be fertile and to bring fecundity and prosperity to Sumer.

Possibly, then, the “Sacred Marriage” rite was not originally concerned with king-making at all, but rather with “goddess-making”; perhaps it was a ritual for, as it were, “activating,” making fertile a “Goddess on Earth.” To that end, the ceremony entailed ritual mating between the entu-designate and, say, a temple priest, since, for the Mesopotamians, fertility on earth, as in heaven, resulted from the union of male and female.

Dumuzi (man in net kilt; see Steinkeller 1999: 104-111) approaching Inanna at shrine, procession of naked priests following, with gifts. Reconstruction. Alabaster Vase. 3′. Fourth millennium BCE. Uruk, Mesopotamia.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Meador 2000: 59.

The ritual would, I theorize, have confirmed the priestess as Inanna — permanently — and, for a short time, the priest would have incarnated a divine lover. However, to have embodied a deity, if only temporarily, would have set him apart: for a time he had been a god!

At some point, one priest might have seen the advantage of continuing to incarnate the goddess’s lover, of using the role’s charisma to achieve power in the community. Indeed he could have been the first en!

According to Kramer, the “Sacred Marriage” was being celebrated for several generations before the Sumerians associated Dumuzi with it (1969:57-8). Furthermore, Dumuzi occurs in the Sumerian “King List” as an early en of Uruk (Kramer 1969:328). Could it have been this very Dumuzi who appropriated the mating ritual for the validation of kingship? As en, he would have been the main administrative officer of the temple complex and its estates, in effect the ruler of the city (Steinkeller 1999:105; Henshaw 1994:44). Possibly also a talented general, he could slowly have increased the significance of his role through military activity at the city’s need. Nevertheless, he would have remained aware of the importance of continuing his relationship with Inanna and of keeping the title en to indicate that connection.

Inanna holding date frond. Fragment of a relief vessel. Mesopotamia. About 2400 BCE.
Drawing © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989:134.

Succeeding male ens, now perhaps also using the title lugal “big man,” could have followed suit, until gradually they became kings in their own right.[9]Steinkeller’s view, that “enship apparently was the original form of Sumerian kingship,” supports this theory (1999:112). However, as many later Mesopotamian kings appear to have done, early en/lugals would still have had to rely on a relationship with Inanna to confirm their kingship. Although eventually Mesopotamian kings ruled without reference to an entu or a “Sacred Marriage” rite, many of them continued to style themselves “beloved” or “spouse” of Inanna or her counterpart Ishtar (Lapinkivi 2004:59-62).

As we saw, Mary Wakeman argues that the “Sacred Marriage” originated in early Uruk to provide religious sanction for male exercise of power. Although this explanation throws light on how an increasingly male-dominated city might have exploited the ritual, it does not explain why the city would have needed to use this particular rite instead of developing another which was less empowering of the goddess. Nor does it really speak to the origin of the ritual. I have hypothesized, however, that the “Sacred Marriage” originated as a ritual for activating a nin-dingir/entu to ensure the fertility of her land. Not only does this suggestion explain the historically attested references to the association of the “Sacred Marriage” with the installation of entus, but it also illuminates the powerful fertility elements in the ritual.

The inviolability of religious tradition would explain why an increasingly male-dominant society would have been forced to continue to use the time-honoured ritual to achieve its own ends; why the ritual survived for so long; and why, even after the entu had disappeared from archival texts, most kings of Mesopotamia continued to call themselves “spouse/beloved of Inanna-Ishtar.”

Notes

Works Cited

Graphics Credits

Contributors retain the copyright to their work; please do not take art or words without permission. Other graphics and reference materials are used and attributed as per the Fair Use Provision of The Copyright Act and individual terms of use.