Some Demons of Time and their Functions in

Mesopotamian Iconography

Frans A. M. Wiggermann
(Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

In Mesopotamian iconography monsters usually appear to function as

themselves, that is as low-ranking supernatural beings embodying some
natural phenomena, and operating in the service of the gods, their masters.
In some cases, however, it can be established that they represented a more
abstract, aniconic concept, one that functioned in the fabric of theology,
but was not encoded in the pantheon as a separate god, ghost, or demon.1
In order to illustrate the point two first millennium amulets will be ana-
lyzed, one Neo-Assyrian, the other Neo-Babylonian. It will appear that in
the absence of the gods themselves, lion-headed demons could represent
their commands. The lion-headed demons belong to the class of Day de-
mons, and are in origin demons of time. Another demon of time, Barīrītu,
fulfils a comparable function as one of Ištar’s messengers.
Besides images the amulet contains a magical text consisting of two
incantations, the first exhorting the “Arrow” (MUL.KAK.SI.SÁ/Šukūdu),
that is Sirius, to support the patient, and the second expressing the wish
that Šamaš may carry off his frightenig (pardāti) dreams. The first incanta-
tion was long known from other amulets, and from the magical series
Ḫulbazizi 68–72 (cf. Mayer 1976:431, SbTU III 82 Obv. i 39–41); the sec-
ond is unique, but has some points in common with the incantation ša malṭi
eršiya, to which we will return below.

_____________
1 On this theme see Wiggermann 1996:218ff.
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 103

The lion-headed demon in magic

Fig. 1: The continuing frieze on the two sides of Amulet 1 (Farber 1989:103ff.).

Curiously the text on this stone amulet does not specify the name of the
patient, but retains the NN son of NN of the library text. This might be an
oversight, but it is perhaps more likely that the stone amulet was used on a
number of different occasions for the benifit of a number of different pa-
tients (cf. Wiggermann 2000:240f.). The cheaper clay amulets usually do
spell out the name of the patient.
Neither incantation gives the name of the combatted evil; the frighten-
ing dreams of Incantation II are a symptom rather than the cause of the
patient’s problem.
Inc I
“Arrow” (Šukūdu) (1) is his name,
he who sounds the battle cry, who wanders
the roads and accomplishes everything;
he, the divine weapon, who rises furiously
against armed violence.
May it (the evil) not approach NN son of NN.
Luzizi luzizi:
may it not approach him.
Inc. II
[On] the command of Ninurta (2), the fi[rst] son,
the beloved [so]n?;
on the command of Marduk (3), who lives
in Babylon, the city of E-[sagil];
on the command of Aššur (4), who lives [in Aššur],
the city of E-eš[bar-Enlila?];
on the command of Ea (5), the king of Apsû;
[on] the command of Nabû (6), who lives in [Babylon],
the city of E-sagil;
[on the com]mand of Sagkal (7), the king of batt[le]:
may Šamaš (8) carr[y off] his (the patient’s) frighte[ning] (dreams)
104 F.A.M.Wiggermann

The incantations involve eight gods: Šukūdu (Sirius), six gods that are
preceded by ina qībi “on the command of,” and finally Šamaš. Four of the
six ina qībi gods are supplied with highly unususal qualifications involving
the names of their temples. The frieze of figures on top of the amulet is
unique, and it is likely from the outset that it relates to the incantations,
specifically to the second one, which is equally unique. The frieze involves
a procession of seven supernatural warriors, and it appears that in fact these
can be made to match seven of the eight gods mentioned in the incanta-
tions.
Of the six gods preceded by ina qībi five match the five identical lion-
headed demons on the left of the frieze. The sixth god should correspond to
the sixth figure of the frieze, the one that leads the procession of lion-
headed demons (Fig. 1). Contrary to the first five he is a full god, however,
recognizable by his horned mitre.
Just like the frieze the incantation does not treat the six gods in exactly
the same way. The first five are all major gods, and so should be the sixth
and last, but his name is unusual. In the lexical tradition and the god lists
the name d S a g - k a l (Akkadian kattillu) is born by an aggresive demon,
but he certainly is not in a postion to command anything, and cannot be
meant here. If, as is likely, the name denotes a major god, the major god in
question makes an appearance not under his own name, but under the guise
of an epithet: he is called the “Leader” (s a g - k a l , Akkadian ašaridu). That
in the present context the god is named with an epithet instead of his own
name must have had a specific reason. Presumably the epithet identifies the
function that the god fulfilled among his equals, namely that of leader. The
following phrase qualifies the leadership of the god, he is the šar qabl[i]
“king of battle.” The designation “king” (šarru) in this phrase confirms the
god’s status as a major god. The preferentional treatment of the sixth god
justifies his identification with the divine leader of the lion-headed de-
mons.
The true identity of the divine leader is not immediately obvious.
Among the major gods not yet mentioned in the incantation the titles
“leader,” and “king of battle” (or something equivalent) are born by Adad
and Nergal, but since Nergal under his name [ d p i r i ĝ ] - k a - d u ḫ - a is
surnamed kattillu nadru “raging kattillu” (Böhl 1949:166.2), it is probably
he who is meant here.
It may be concluded that the five lion-headed demons correspond to
the first five gods of incantation II, and that the god preceding them corre-
sponds to their leader, probably Nergal. One property of this divinity, who-
ever he is, remains unexplained: the board-like object that he is carrying in
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 105

his left hand. The object is unique and unidentifiable, but in view of the
magical context and the fact that it replaces the maces in the hands of the
other warriors, it must have been of some use in the battle against evil.
To the right of the five lion-headed demons and their divine leader
there is one more figure, badly damaged. He heads the procession of six,
and stands out among them by having at least one more star. This god must
correspond to one of the two gods of the incantations not preceded by “on
the command of,” that is to Šukūdu or Šamaš. Of these two gods the for-
mer is the most likely candidate by far. He is the subject of Incantation I,
where he is represented as a war god on a par with the row of marching
figures corresponding to the gods named in Incantation II. His name means
“Arrow,” and he is the personification of the star Sirius, which explains the
extra star. In the first millennium “Arrow” is thought of as a war god, and
as such he is identified with Ninurta, the traditional war god.
Šamaš then is the only god of the incantations that is not represented
on the amulet. He is not a star god, however, and clearly he is involved in
the war against the demons only in the morning, at daybreak.2 As such he
takes a different place in the magical proceedings, and as such he does not
appear in the figurative frieze of the amulet, depicting as it does warriors
marching to battle at night.
Although the five lion-headed demons correspond to the first five gods
of incantation II, they do not represent these gods, since they do not wear
the horned mitre as gods should, and since, more generally speaking, com-
posite beings do not represent major gods. What they do represent then is
not the gods themselves, but their commands (ina qībi DN).
The frieze of warriors can now be read as follows (from right to left):
the war god “Arrow” (Incantation I) marches in front of an army of six,
consisting of a “Divine Leader” (d s a g - k a l ), presumably Nergal, followed
by five lion-headed demons who represent the commands of respectively
Ninurta, Marduk, Aššur, Ea, and Nabû (Incantation II). Because “Arrow”
is the name of Sirius, and all figures are supplied with stars, the magical
ritual illustrated by the frieze took place at night. The sun, Šamaš (Incanta-
tion II), appears only in the morning, and consequently does not figure in
this company.

_____________
2 In the context of extispicy the function of Šamaš during the day is fulfilled by Ninur-
ta/Šukūdu (Sirius) during the night. In this context Sirius is the one “who lightens the dark,”
his face is “bright [as] the sun,” and at his appearance the demons “hide in corners” (Mayer
2005:52f.:2, 4, 14).
106 F.A.M.Wiggermann

This function of the lion-headed demons is confirmed by a second amulet:

Fig. 2: Amulet 2, both sides (Becker 1993:5 no. 7, drawing FAMW).

The second amulet is badly damaged. The images on the obverse are hard
to read, and what remains of the two or more incantations on the reverse is
insufficient to identify them.
The scene on the obverse, in as far as it has been deciphered, is com-
pletely singular. The lower register shows a human figure seated on a bed
and gesturing, while in front of him a second human figure combats an
aggresive snake-dragon rearing its head from underneath the bed. This
singular scene corresponds to a remarkable Ḫulbazizi incantation (ša malṭi
eršiya, cf. provisionally Wilhelm 1979), one that often occurs on amulets
and presumably was among the texts written on the reverse. This incanta-
tion has some points in common with the second incantation of the amulet
discussed above, specifically that an unnamed evil causes frightening
dreams, and that divine support comes from the command of gods, two of
which, including their unusual qualifications, occur in both incantations.
He who transgressed the privacy 3 of my bed, made me shrink for fear, and gave me
frightening dreams: on the command 4 of Ninurta, the first son, the beloved son,
_____________
3 On account of the construct state (always malDi, never malaD or mašaD) the word spelled
ma-al-DI or ma-al-DI must be derived from a III weak root, a requirement that is not met by
mašdu/maldu (CAD “edge,” “side,” with question marks). AHw correctly normalizes the
word as mešṭû, maš/lṭû (“Darre” “Bettgestell?”), but mistakenly cites the same passage under
mašdu (“Rand”) as well. A new manuscript of the incantation writes the word in question
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 107

and on the command of Marduk, who lives in the E-sagil in Babylon, he must be
handed over to Bedu, the chief gatekeeper of the Netherworld. You, door and door
bolt, you must know: (from now on) I fall under the protection of these two divine
lords.

Fig. 3: The bed room on the Lamaštu amulets (drawings FAMW, for references see above, note 5).

The “territory of the bed,” or the “privacy of the bed” is a theme that recurs
on quite a number of first millennium amulets (Fig. 3).5 Most of the time

_____________
ma-al-DI-it (SbTU III no. 82 iv 12), which confirms the derivation from a III weak root, and
is most naturally normalized as maš/lṭītu (CAD s.v. malṭīṭû), the feminine form of maš/lṭû.
Formally the word is a mapras(t)-derivation of šeṭû “to spread out,” and should denote some
sort of “(area of) spread”, or “place where things are spread out” (CAD mašṭû “drying-
place”). The word can be combined with eršu “bed” (as here), or be used alone (UET 7 no 8
r. 2, cited by CAD) without a palpable difference of meaning , but it is not a synonym of eršu,
nor a part of the bed, since it can be used with bītu “house” and nāru “river” as well. A re-
cently published text from Emar uses malṭi bītiya instead of simple bīti or bītiya in parallel
documents, again without a palpable difference of meaning (Hallo 2002:204.30, 209). The
only meaning that suits this type of contexts is “private space,” “territory” (of the bed, the
house, the river), which fits the etymology.
4 MS B (Sayce 1888) twice uses ME for qí-bit or DUG4 in the other MSS. The logogram ME =
qibītu is recorded neither in the dictionaries, nor in Borger 2003:419f. Cf. ME.A = qību.
5 The numbers refer to the Lamaštu amulets as collected in Wiggermann 2000:219 note 11.
The following can be added: 86: Westenholz 2004 no. 49, 87: MS 2779 (Schoyencollecti-
on.com/magical).
108 F.A.M.Wiggermann

the bed with the victim occupies a separate register, a representation of the
sleeping room (Fig. 3:1, 2, 3, 5, 20, 29, 37). The entrance to the sleeping
room is protected by one or two lion-demons (Ugallu), often accompanied
by a smiting god (Fig. 3:1, where two lion-demons bar the way; 2, 3, 37).
In the majority of cases the victim is being treated by one or two mytho-
logical sages (exceptions Fig. 3: 60, 62). These sages are the patron saints
of the exorcist, and may appear in their theriomorphic (fish-apkallu) or
anthropomorphic form. Possibly in some cases the anthropomorphic figure
is the exorcist himself, and not his patron-saint. A lamp may be present in
the sleeping room (Fig. 3:1, 2, 62, 63), showing that the rituals were per-
formed at night, the time of demoniac threats and frightening dreams
(Wiggermann 2000:246ff.). In fact the lamp is the symbol of the god
Nuska, Enlil’s vizier and the representative of law and order in the absence
of daylight (Šamaš). Nuska’s function in the ritual is especially clear in the
prayer that the victim recites during the proceedings. The text of this prayer
stems from the magical series bīt mēseri, which describes a ritual for the
protection of the house against intruding evil:6
O Nuska, king of the night, who lightens the dark,
you stand forth in the night, you examine the people,
without you no judgement or verdict [is rendered].
The Genie, the Watcher-Demon, the Net, the Oppressor, the Constable,
the Law-Enforcer, the Evil God, the Demon, the Male Ghost, the Female Ghost,
they all hide in corners.
By means of your divine light drive out the Supporter-of-Evil,
expel the Demon, overcome Evil,
and Šulak, the nightly wanderer, whose touch is death.
I look upon you, I turn towards your divinity,
supply me with a guardian of health and recovery,
put a protective spirit and a healing god at my disposal.
Let them be looking out for me all night until daybreak.
O Nuska, perfect one, lord of wisdom,
let me proclaim your greatness before Šamaš every day.
On the bed of the lower register of amulet 2 (Fig. 2) a human figure com-
bats a dragon-snake, his spears being broken in the process. Since the
mythological sages are concerned with cleansing and purity rather than
with armed combat, the helper figure here is the human exorcist himself
rather than his mythological role model. The elongated object to the left of
the scene might well be the lamp known from the Lamaštu amulets, and
from the prayer to Nuska in the series bīt mēseri.
_____________
6 For the text see Mayer 1976:485f. (Nusku 4), Wiggermann 1992:112, and for the translation
(here slightly modified) Foster 1993:636.
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 109

Perhaps for fear of conjuring up the actual demon with the image, the
Mesopotamian iconography of evil has remained very restricted. The only
evil that is regularly depicted is the child-snatching she-devil Lamaštu,
while occasionally a dog, snake, or scorpion may represent a demonic
power (Wiggermann 2000:234). On the amulet the dragon-snake, called
bašmu in Akkadian (Wiggermann 1992:213), represents the unnamed evil
of the incantation, the demoniac power that brings the victim frightening
dreams. On Neo-Assyrian seals (Fig. 4) the same dragon-snake is combat-
ted by a god who is Ninurta rather than Adad (Moortgat-Correns 1988,
Collon 2001:148f., Collon 2006:106ff.). Since there is no contemporane-
ous combat myth dealing with Ninurta (or Adad) and a bašmu, the dragon-
snake of the seals may express the same generic, unnamed evil as that of
the amulet.

Fig. 4: The bašmu snake-dragon combatted by Ninurta (Teissier 1984 no. 224, drawing FAMW).

The middle of the upper register is seriously damaged, but what remains
along the edges suggests a link to the rest of the incantation ša malṭi eršiya.
To the left and right of the scene are two oversized lion-headed demons
comparable to those of amulet 1. With a threatening gesture they guard the
space between them against invisible intruders, evil demons undoubtedly.
There is no room for any further oversized guardians, so these two must
have been the only ones of their kind.
The incantation adduces the command (qibītu) and the protection (kid-
innu) of two helper gods, Ninurta and Marduk, who are supplied with the
same unusual qualifications that they have in the second incantation of
amulet 1. The commands of the gods function in the incantation in two
different ways: on the one hand they must deliver the unnamed evil to the
gate of the netherworld and hand it over to Bedu, its gatekeeper; and on the
other they must guard the entrance to the house (“door and door bolt”)
against a conceivable return of the same. This strongly suggests that the
two lion-headed demons guarding the inner space of the amulet represent
110 F.A.M.Wiggermann

the commands of Ninurta and Marduk, just like the five lion-headed de-
mons on the first amulet represent the commands of Ninurta, Marduk,
Aššur, Ea, and Nabû.

The lion-headed demon and the Ugallu

The two singular amulets share not only a link to the series Ḫulbazizi, but
also an iconographic theme: on both amulets the commands of gods are
visualized by lion-headed demons.

Fig. 5: The Lion-Demon Ugallu (left) on a Neo-Assyrian amulet from Leyden (Green 1986:226
no.134; drawing FAMW).

The lion-headed demon of the amulets is similar to, but not identical with a
common iconographic type of the same period, the lion-demon that is
called Ugallu in Akkadian (Fig. 5, cf. Green 1986). It differs from the latter
in the following details:
1. the feet: the Ugallu in this period always has the talons of an eagle,
not human feet;
2. the dress: the Ugallu always wears a short skirt;
3. the weapons: the Ugallu is always armed with a dagger in one
hand and a mace in the other;
4. the posture: the Ugallu always raises his dagger in a threatening
manner.
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 111

The consistent differences define the lion-headed demon as a separate ico-

nographic type.
The Ugallu is a member of a large class of u d – demons, mythological
“Days.”7 Demons of this class personify the moments of divine interven-
tion in human life, for instance the Evil Day of one’s death, or the eventful
Days that brought the Ur III empire to its end. Such Day-Demons, espe-
cially the bad ones, were imagined as roaring storms, and vizualized as
leonine monsters (Wiggermann 1992:171f.). The Ugallu (U4.GAL) is the
“Big Day,” who was defined early in the second millennium, and func-
tioned widely in the iconography of magic during the first (Fig. 5). I sus-
pect that the apotropaic power of this being stemmed at least in part from
its nature as a representative of (day) light, a property that brought him on
a par with the other important protectors of humanity, Šamaš, the sun,
Šukūdu, the star Sirius, and Nuska, the god of the lamp. In any case a
number of its appearances, specifically those on Lamaštu amulets, can be
related to rituals taking place at night.
Formally the lion-headed demon with its human feet and fancy dress
looks like a less fierce and more god-like version of the Ugallu, and, by
marching obediently behind its leader, it shows its propensity to follow
orders. Functionally too, the lion-headed demon resembles the Ugallu: it
expresses divine intervention in some form, and in the company of Sirius it
is likely to represent light. As such the iconographic type is well suited to
its function, the visualization of divine commands in the context of
apotropaic magic.
Thus, although the lion-headed demon is novel both in form and func-
tion, it is closely comparable to the Ugallu, and may be classified as a Day-
Demon. Presumably it was derived from the Ugallu to express something
just beyond the latter’s range, a specialized version of an existing type in
the same way as the Abūbu, Ninurta’s mount, was a specialized version of
Anzû, Ninurta’s defeated enemy (Seidl 1998). Unlike the Abūbu, however,
the human-feeted variant of the Ugallu never caught on. The two amulets
discussed above feature the only examples known to date.

_____________
7 In the OB Sumerian incantation to Utu (Alster 1991) the chariot of the sun god is drawn by
four u d - beings during the day (“riding in the middle of the sky”), and by four p i r i ĝ -
beings during the night (“riding in the midst of the sea”). Both the u d - and the p i r i ĝ -
beings are classified as p i r i ĝ “leonine monsters” in the summaries (Cf. Alster 1991:51f.
89-91, 53.96-100, and for a first millennium text on this topic see KAV 64 iv 16-26). The
lion-dragon in front of Adad’s chariot has been identified as an u d ( - g a l ), or u d - k a -
d u ḫ - a /ūmu nā’iru, “Roaring Day” (Wiggermann 1992:169f., 185).
112 F.A.M.Wiggermann

Another demon of time and her peers

The Ugallu and the lion-headed demon can be called demons of time.8
Another demon or low-ranking deity of the same class is Barīrītu, “She
who (comes) at dusk.” In SB and other first millennium sources the Sume-
rian form of her name is spelled d n u n - ù r - d ù - d ù , d n u n - n i r - d ù - d ù
(CAD B s. v. barīrītu), or ù r - d u 1 1 - d u 1 1 (MSL 12 109:179 MS X = RA
17:144 K 4596 Obv. 3’), but this is not its original form. The original form
can be deduced from a comparison of An-Anum IV 143–145 (KAV 73:17–
19) with the Old-Babylonian forerunner (TCL XV 10:243ff., cf. Volk
1995:196):
Forerunner 243ff. An-Anum IV 143ff.
d
ab-ba-šú-šú [dab-ba-šú-šú] d
ki-l[i-li]
d
ab-ta-gi4-gi4 d
[ ab-ta-gi4-gi4] Š[U]9
d
inim-kúr-du11-du11 [dnun-ùr-dù-dù] [dba-ri-ri-tum]
The original Sumerian form10 of the name reveals a character trait of the
being’s Akkadian counterpart, Barīrītu: she is the one “who speaks hostile
words.” This character trait fits Barīrītu’s function in the pantheon, since
together with Abbašušu (“She who spills through the window”), Abtagigi
(“She who retires from the window”), and 15 other deities she constitutes
Ištar’s diplomatic service; eighteen in all, they are her “messengers” (l ú -

_____________
8 Lambert 2004 briefly discusses Day, Month, and Year as cosmic powers capable of driving
away forces of evil and bringing about blessings.
9 An Akkadian equivalent of d A b - t a - g i 4 - g i 4 is not known, and where she appears, she
appears as Abtagigi (Šurpu III 80, next to Barīrītu in 75, and Kilili in 78). Only in the Neo-
Babylonian text AnOr 9 6 (cf. Beaulieu 2003:319f.) A b - t a - g i 4 - g i 4 is rendered Kilili,
while d A b - b a - š ú - š ú is the term that remains untranslated. The two goddesses Abba-
šušu/Kilili and Abtagigi are so closely related that they must be considered complementary
manifestations of one deity, the one coming (“spilling through the window,” cf. CAD tabāku
mng. 11b), and the other going (“retiring from the window”). Kilili (Abbašušu/Abtagigi) and
Barīrītu often occur together, and among the 18 messengers of Ištar they are the only ones
that really function in the texts. As a messenger of Ištar Kilili has an interest in sexual matters
(cf. provisionally Jacobsen 1987:4ff.), but the “window” in her name has nothing to do with
prostitution. The activity of “spilling through the window” is attested for the succuba Kisikil-
lila/Ardat lilî (SbTU II 6:8, cf. Lackenbacher 1971:136.6-8), as well as for a variety of other
evils (CT 16 31:103; Behrens 1998:126f., dg i d i m), and does not point to an etymological
connection between Kilili and Kisikillila (differently Geller apud Behrens 1998:127) .
10 The a b - b a - š ú - š ú , and the i n i m - k ú r - d u 1 1 - d u 1 1 (both plural, both without divine
determinative) occur in Inanna and Sukaletuda 190//202 (passage damaged) as the counse-
lors of Inanna (Volk 1995:196). The SB form of the name (n u n u r d u d u ) is presumably
based on the reinterpretation of an oral variant with aphaeresis of the initial vowel, and a
shift of i to u under the influence of the labial m and the u’s in the rest of the word
(i n i m k u r d u d u > n u m k u r d u d u > n u n ’ u r d u d u ).
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 113

k i n - g i 4 - a ). The relation of this messenger to the goddess obviously par-

allels that of dusk (cf. barārītu “evening watch”) to evening star (a mani-
festation of Ištar).
In the hymn to the Queen of Nippur the goddess punishes a sinner by
putting Barīrītu on his case as her representative (rābiṣu[š] išakkanma); the
latter fulfils her assignment by deranging the sinner’s mind (ušanna
ṭēmašu) (Lambert 1982:194.22f.). On a kudurru (boundary-stone) Barīrītu
is Ištar’s “messenger of wrath” (našpartaša ša uzzi, BBSt. no. 7 ii 22).
Thus “She who (comes) at dusk” visualizes Ištar’s bad mood (“wrath”)
and its verbal expression (“hostile words”), and communicates them to
mankind. Unfortunately it is not known what she looked like, but at least in
the later part of the first millennium she must have been represented in
some form, since she had a minor cult in Neo-Babylonian and Hellenistic
Uruk (Beaulieu 2003:320, Linsen 2004:238.9’). I suspect that, as the em-
bodiment of an atmospheric phenomenon and a member of Ištar’s court, 11
she must be found among the unidentified winged nude goddesses of the
period. If so, she would closely resemble the spirit of the South Wind
(Šūtu),12 and the harpy-like figure of the Burney Relief, presumably
Barīrītu’s colleague, Ištar’s other high-profiled messenger Kilili.13
_____________
11 That Barīrītu shares Kilili’s interest in sexual matters goes forth from the company she keeps
in SB lexical texts (CAD barīrītu Lexical Section), where Sumerian g a - a n - z a - z a “lewd”
(cf. CAD ganzazû) is equated with Barīrītu, muttīku “fornicator,” and muttatiku “habitual
fornicator.”
12 For the identification of the “Snake Goddess” (Buchanan 1971) with the South Wind see
Wiggermann 2004:379f.. But for the entwined legs (and the double pair of wings), variants of
the South Wind may coincide with the goddess of the Burney relief (South Wind with horned
mitre mastering lions on Kassite seal MVN 10 no. 76).
13 If, as is generally admitted (cf. most recently Von der Osten-Sacken 2002:481,483 note 41,
Collon 2005:22), the Burney Relief is a cult relief, the harpy-like figure cannot be identified
with demons like Lilītu/Ardat-lilî (Groneberg 1997:126ff.), nor with the goddess Ereškigal
(Barrelet 1952, Von der Osten-Sacken 2002; considered possible by Collon 2005:44). Ereš-
kigal lives in the netherwold permanently, and on principle has no business on earth, no city
to call her own, and no cult. The few exceptions (George 1993:174) are unclear (Umma), late
(NB Kutha, together with Nergal), or peripheral (Aššur, Emar), and insufficient reason to
doubt the consequent mythology. The identification with Kilili (Jacobsen 1987), on the other
hand, meets all demands: the figure is a deity (horned mitre) related to Ištar (lions, interest in
sexual matters), but not a major goddess herself (monster features); lexical texts establish a
relation with the owl, the “bird of Kilili;” and Kilili has a cult: MA Gula temple in Assur
(Menzel 1981 T:116 iii 16), MA rituals (T:5 1’, T:7 5’), NA temple of Bēlet-Ninua (Borger
1956:84.40f.), NB (Beaulieu 2003:320) and Hellensitic (Linsen 2004”238.9’) Uruk. Repre-
sentation is also implied by NB figurines in the shape of Kilili (Beaulieu 2003:320 ad YOS 3
149:8, uncertain). The two Rod-and-Ring symbols, if that is what the loops in her hands are,
remain an anomaly on any interpretation (Wiggermann, forthc.). Von der Osten-Sacken’s ob-
jection (2002:483) that Kilili/Abbašušu does not have second millennium roots is met by the
114 F.A.M.Wiggermann

The class of winged nude goddesses contains another member, one that
is known only from a description in the SB Göttertypenttext (Köcher 1953
80 vi 13–23). According to the description this figure wears the horned cap
of divinity, has bovid ears, a female face, and hair hanging loose (sigbarrû)
over her back; she has wings, and human hands that are pointing to the tips
of her wings; her naked body is female, and her feet are standing in the
ḫuppu-posture. Apparently the wings are not pointing downwards like
those of the figure of the Burney Relief, since if this were the case the text
would have said so, as it does in the description of Tiruru (80 vi 24ff.).
Physiologically the described goddess differs from those attested in art
on one point only: she has bovid ears instead of human ones. The Göt-
tertypentext, however, regularly attributes uncommon physiological fea-
tures to well known figures, so it is not neccesary to attach much weight to
the aberrant ears. More important is the ḫuppu posture; it contrasts in the
Göttertypentext with a walking posture (āliku, 64 I 6’, 80 vi 2’) and a run-
ning? posture (šēp-šu/ša purīda petât, 66 ii 8, 78 vi 27ff.), and other texts
suggest that it denotes some kind of vigorous movement of the feet, which
serves as an expression of mourning (George 2003:842).14
The winged nude female of the Göttertypentext wears the horned cap,
and therefore must be a goddess, be it a low-ranking one. Although a god-
dess, she is named simply Niziqtu “Grief,” not an existing gods’ name, and
consequenly not written with the determinative for gods. Niziqtu then does
not call the goddess by her divine name, but by her symbolic function, or,
from an iconographical point of view: the unnamed goddess, marked by
_____________
forerunner of An-Anum in combination with the Sumerian literary passage cited in note 9.
Occasionally Ištar is idenified with Kilili (Farber 1977:79f., Wiggermann 1992:111, Beaulieu
2003:320 and note 46). Maul 1992:164f. convincingly argues that Ištar/Kilili is the „aus der
Unterwelt emporsteigende Ištar, die nach ein Ersatz für sich sucht, den sie den sie begleiten-
den Dämonen auslieferen kann.“ We may go one step further, and suggest that Abbašušu de-
notes the (first) visibility of Ištar/Venus in the evening (and the ensuing intensification of
human fertility), while her complement Abtagigi denotes the (last) visibility of Ištar /Venus
in the morning (and the ensuing weakening of human fertility) (for the fertility theme in In-
nana’s Descent cf. provisionally Maul 1992:161). Conceivably the Akkadian and early se-
cond millennium triad of three nude females with clear stellar associations has a place in the
ancestry of the triad Abbašušu, Abtagigi, and Barīrītu (Wiggermann 1998:52, Uehlinger
1998:58, 64).
14 Other figures in the ḫuppu posture in the Göttertypentext are Damu (Köcher 1953:64 i 15’),
and Tiruru (82 vi 35), and, in the Epic of Gilgameš, Ištar (VI 152). The only iconographic
posture that could conceivably be described as expressing a vigorous movement of the feet is
that of “dansers” (Matoušová 1970 Figs.3, 6, 1978 Figs. 7, 10, etc.), in which case ḫuppû
“acrobat,” “cultic danser” becomes relevant. Gods and goddesses, whether nude or not, do
not normally exhibit a dancing postures; an exception is the late third millennium Ištar-figure
from Mari (Barellet 1952, Wiggermann 1998:51).
 Some Demons of Time and their Functions in Mesopotamian Iconography 115

the ḫuppu posture, represents grief. Who this goddess was, and to what
higher power she owed allegiance, we can only guess at; her nudity and the
emotional impact (“Grief”) of her presence bring her in the circle of Ištar,
and among the likes of Kilili, Barīrītu, and the naked but unwinged Baštu
“Bloom” (Wiggermann 1998:50).

References
ALSTER, B. 1991, Incantation to Utu, ASJ 13, 27–96.
BARRELET, M.-Th. 1952, À Propos d’une plaquette trouvée à Mari, Syria 29, 285–293.
BEAULIEU, P.-A. 2003, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period.
BECKER, A. 1993, Uruk. Kleinfunde I. Stein.
BÖHL, F.M.Th. 1949, Hymne an Nergal, den Gott der Unterwelt, BiOr 6, 165–170.
BORGER, R. 1956, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien.
— 2003, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon.
BUCHANAN, B. 1971, A Snake Goddess and her Companions, Iraq 33, 1–18.
COLLON, D. 2001, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals
V. Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods.
— 2005, The Queen of the Night.
— 2006, The Iconography of Ninurta, 100–109 in: P. Taylor ed., The Iconography of Cylinder
Seals.
FARBER, W. 1977, Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi.
— 1989, Dämonen ohne Stammbaum: Zu einigen mesopotamischen Amuletten aus dem
Kunsthandel, SAOC 47 (Studies H. Kantor), 95–101.
FOSTER, B. 1993, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature.
GEORGE, A.R. 1993, House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia.
— 2003, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic.
GREEN, A. 1986, The Lion-Demon in the Art of Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, BaM
17, 141–254.
HALLO, W.W. 2002, Love and Marriage in Ashtata, CRRAI 47, 203–216.
JACOBSEN, Th. 1987, Pictures and Pictorial Language (The Burney relief), 1–11 in: M.Mindlin
et al. eds., Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East.
KÖCHER, F, 1953, Der babylonische Göttertypentext, MIO 1, 57–107.
LACKENBACHER, S. 1971, Note sur l’Ardat lilî, RA 65, 119–145.
LAMBERT, W.G. 1982, The Hymn to the Queen of Nippur, 173–218 in: G. van Driel et al. eds.,
Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seven-
tieth Birthday.
— 2002, Units of Time as Cosmic Powers in Sumero-Babylonian Texts, 189 in: C. Wunsch
ed., Mining the Archives.
MATOUŠOVÁ, 1970, Quelques remarques sur la danse en mésopotamie, ArOr 38, 140–147.
116 F.A.M.Wiggermann

— 1978, Illustration de la danse sur les sceaux de l’époque babylonienne ancienne, ArOr 46,
152–163.
MAUL, S. M. 1992, Kurgarrû und assinnu und ihr Stand in der babylonischen Gesellschaft, Xenia
32, 159–171.
MAYER, W. 1976, Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der Babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörun-
gen”.
— 2005, Das Gebet des Eingeweideschauers an Ninurta, OrNS 74, 51–56.
MENZEL, B. 1981, Assyrische Tempel.
MOORTGAT-CORRENS, U. 1988, Ein Kultbild Ninurtas aus Neuassyrischer Zeit, AfO 35, 117–
135.
SAYCE, A.H. 1888, An Assyrian Talismanic Amulet Belonging to M. Bouriant, BOR 3, 17–19.
SEIDL, U. 1998, Das Flut-Ungeheuer abūbu, ZA 88, 100–113.
TEISSIER, B. 1984, Ancient Near Easten Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection.
UEHLINGER, Chr. 1998, Nackte Göttin B, RlA.
VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, E. 2002, Überlegungen zur Göttin auf dem Burney Relief, CRRAI
47, 479–487.
VOLK, K. 1995, Inanna und Sukaletuda. Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines Sumerischen
Literaturwerkes .
WESTENHOLZ, J.G. ed. 2004, Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts.
WIGGERMANN, F.A.M. 1992, Mesopotamian Protective Figures. The Ritual Texts.
— 1996, Scenes from the Shadow Side, 207–230 in: M.E.Vogelzang, H.L.J. Vanstiphout eds.,
Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian.
— 1998, art. Nackte Göttin A, RlA.
— 2000, Lamaštu, Daughter of Anu. A Profile, 217–252 in: M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and
the Bible.
— 2004, art. Pazuzu, RlA.
— forthc., art. Ring und Stab, RlA.
WILHELM, G. 1979, Ein neues Lamaštu-Amulett, ZA 69, 34–40.