2. The ritual for opening the canal K.2727+

The one-column fragment K.2727+K.6213, from Nineveh, preserves 21 lines of a ritual for the opening of a canal. The reverse is broken, and the obverse should have originally contained at least twice as many lines. The ritual was most probably to be performed by the āšipu priest. A copy of the tablet by W.G. Lambert was recently published by George/Taniguchi (Reference George and Taniguchi2021: no. 451).Footnote ⁴

The beginning of the ritual instructions described in the text are not preserved, but when the preserved text begins, the act of piling up ingredients, including plants, metals, and precious stones on “those soils” (ep(e)rī) is described, most probably referring to the piles of earth and silt dug out of the canal. In addition, figurines of turtles are placed on these earth-piles, presented as a gift to Ea. Then, three silver discs are produced, dedicated as a gift, and sent into the river to the gods Mummu, Qingu and Ešret-nabnīssu. Following this, as in other purification rituals, an agubbû water vessel is prepared. It is set at the head of the canal (for this term see note on l. 8’), and various plants, reeds, stones (mostly identical to the stones used earlier on the earth piles), and liquids are thrown into it. The text probably moves to the location in which the excavations took place (probably near the piles of earth mentioned earlier), where heaps of flour and dates, mirsu dishes, a libation vessel, a juniper censer, and a sheep offering are presented to Mummu, Qingu and Ešret-nabnīssu, and the names of these deities are invoked. The text then shifts again to Ea, prescribing a recitation to him, probably an incantation,Footnote ⁵ the text of which breaks off in the middle.

3. The ritual for opening the canal: the āšipu and kalû priests

Although not explicitly indicated by the text, the ritual for opening the canal K.2727+ was most likely performed by the āšipu. This is evincible by other sources for this type of ritual. However, some of these texts relate to the kalû priest, some to the āšipu priest, and some to the king. These will be briefly discussed here. These sources include a passage describing a canal ritual from the Bavian inscription of Sennacherib, an inscription of the Kassite king Kaštiliaš digging the Sumundar canal using a silver spade and basket (Abraham/Gabbay Reference Abraham and Gabbay2013), K.2727+ edited above, the Namburbi catalogue SpTU 1, 6, the incantation SpTU 2, 5, and the ritual preserved in BM 45952. Some of these sources share similar features, such as the use of stones, figurines of turtles, the mention of ceremonial spades and baskets, and similar groups of gods related to the ritual (see §4 below).

The Bavian inscription of Sennacherib describes a ritual for the initiation of a new watercourse, where both a kalû and an āšipu priest performed the ritual. Some of the details in this passage correspond to the details found in the other sources for the ritual for opening a canal. Below is a transliteration and translation of the relevant passage (Sennacherib 156:r.6'–10' // 223:27–30 [Bavian inscription], see RINAP 3/2, 211, 315):

Does this mean that generally the ritual was indeed performed by the two specialists, each complementing the other, or does this mean that each of them could perform the ritual separately and that usually simply the availability of one of them, or the choice of the political functionary initiating the canal, determined which of the two would perform the ritual? Perhaps the Sennacherib text, where a special monumental waterway was initiated, is a special and unique occasion, and therefore an ideal reality of two priests working together was chosen (in reality or in the text), while more commonly such initiations were only performed by one of them?

It is difficult to answer these questions, but it should be noted that similar questions arise for other rituals as well, such as building rituals and initiation rituals for the divine image (Ambos Reference Ambos2004: 18–20). In these cases, we sometimes find similar ritual texts, some directed to the āšipu, and others to the kalû, sometimes with some overlap or with the appearance of one of these specialists in the ritual of the other specialist, at times with a change of the grammatical deixis between second and third persons (Ambos Reference Ambos2004: 18). The juxtaposition of the āšipu and kalû priests in certain ritual occasions is also documented in some Neo-Assyrian letters, raising similar questions.Footnote ⁸

The verbal repertoires of the āšipu and kalû priests were different: The āšipu's utterances (mostly incantations) usually address the specific ritual context and the materials used in it and are generally concerned with the removal of different kinds of evil for this goal. The kalû's utterances (mostly Emesal prayers) deal with the general notions of divine manifestation and abandonment and are aimed at divine pacification. In the ritual for opening a canal, the duty of the āšipu was to use the ritual materials to “physically open” the canal (spade and basket) and recite incantations to keep the evil away by addressing the netherworld forces (K.2727+ and SpTU 2, 5:59–61). The duty of the kalû was to recite Balaĝ and Eršema prayers probably in order to pacify the gods at the sensitive moment of the ritual opening (BM 54952).

As will be discussed below, opening a canal implies opening a channel between the groundwater of the Apsû and the water on earth, which implies the participation of both the netherworld and ancestral gods. The perceived risk (especially by non-ritual sources) was probably to awaken both evil beings and anger the gods, therefore some clients (like Sennacherib) probably wanted to protect this sensitive moment from any possible evil influences. Thus, they appointed both an āšipu and a kalû. We should keep in mind that this was at least the theoretical overlap in some sources, like the Bavian inscription. However, it remains unclear whether this was the case in all sources, and if this ritual was actually carried out by one or two specialists at the same time.

The ritual of the āšipu priest

As previously said, K.2727+ was most probably performed by the āšipu priest. The ritual, incantation and Namburbi catalogue SpTU 1, 6 provides an important support for this argument. It lists the following three incipits related to the ritual for opening a canal (left edge 1’–3’) (see Maul Reference Maul1994: 194 with nn. 332–333):

The first incipit cannot be identified. The third incipit, as identified by Maul (Reference Maul1994: 194, n. 333), corresponds to the incantation SpTU 2, 5 (see below). The second incipit is identical to the incipit of BM 54952 (// catchline of BM 46548, see below), but as noted by Maul (Reference Maul1994: 194, n. 332), it may also correspond to K.2727+ edited here (perhaps implying that K.2727+ had a similar incipit). This raises several possibilities: (1) There were two different (but similar) ritual texts with the same incipit, one for the kalû (BM 54952) and one for the āšipu (K.2727+). (2) K.2727+ is actually not an āšipu ritual (and accordingly én should perhaps not be restored in line 16’), but part of the same kalû ritual as BM 54952 (i.e. containing both Emesal recitations and an Akkadian recitation). (3) K.2727+ and BM 54952 contain the same ritual, and there was one ritual text which included instructions both related to the kalû and the āšipu (this would be a rare phenomenon in the Neo-Assyrian period). (4) K.2727+ did not begin with the incipit e-nu-ma ká íd i-pat-tu-u but rather with the first incipit cited above (e-nu-ma lú íd gibil), while the second incipit in the catalogue related to the kalû ritual BM 54952 (although listed in an āšipūtu catalogue).

We assume, although not with certainty, that option 1 is the case here, meaning that there were two different texts with an identical incipit, one for the āšipu and one for the kalû, even if this cannot be confirmed.Footnote ⁹ Although no specialist is clearly mentioned in K.2727+, the incipit in l. 16’ probably refers to an incantation, indicating that it belonged to the āšipu's repertoire. Specifically, since it is mentioned in a catalogue of Namburbi rituals, and since the ritual actions and ingredients listed in it resemble those in such rituals (compare Maul Reference Maul1994: 41–46), it may have been part of a Namburbi ritual, used to overcome the impurity and malevolent omens that may arise from digging a new canal (compare Ambos Reference Ambos2004: 35 with n. 250). Furthermore, the ritual instructions in lines 1’–15’ resemble those of SpTU 2, 5 (see below), where an āšipu is clearly involved.

As noted above, the Sumerian incipit mentioned in the Namburbi catalogue SpTU 1, 6 can be identified with the bilingual incantation SpTU 2, 5 (// TIM 9, 29 // Collection S. Preston), followed by a short passage with ritual instructions. This incantation represents the best piece of evidence for assigning K.2727+ to the āšipu's repertoire: first, SpTU 2, 5 clearly belongs to the āšipu's repertoire, since it begins with the incipit én and bears the rubric ka-inim-ma íd ka ĝál-tak₄-a-ke₄ “It is the wording for opening the mouth of a canal”; second, it shares several features with K.2727+. SpTU 2, 5 deals with the divine purity of a canal, noting that its earth (eperū, Sum. saḫar) was removed with tools of precious metals and stones (lines 12–13), and its waters filled by the deities Enki (Ea), Iškur (Adad), Enbilulu, Ninazu, Enkimdu, and Šakkan (lines 14–23). Then, the incantation notes that Asalluḫi purified the river with various materials (this purification probably reflecting, as is common in such incantations, the ritual acts of the āšipu): an agubbû cultic vessel filled with various plants and oils, liquids, gold, silver, carnelian, lapis lazuli; various types of grains; as well as a scapegoat, a sheep, and potsherds (lines 26–41). The incantation ends with Enki purifying the canal, deciding its fate, and with pleas that evil demons and impurities should keep away from the canal (lines 41–61). The rubric of the incantation notes that it is an incantation for opening the “mouth” of a canalFootnote ¹⁰ (ka-inim-ma íd ka ĝál-tak₄-a-ke₄) (line 62).

This is followed by ritual instructions (lines 61–71) prescribing the preparation of offerings on the riverbank to the same gods mentioned in the incantation, together with Šamaš and Asalluḫi, the recitation of the incantation three times, and the purification of the river through a scapegoat and other acts and materials, which eventually will result in flowing of the canal's waters (line 71: mû išširū).

The ritual of the kalû priest (BM 54952)

The small fragment BM 54952 was copied and edited by Ambos (Reference Ambos2004: 198, 261, no. 22) with slight corrections in reading an incipit by Gabbay (Reference Gabbay2005). The fragment preserves the beginning and the end of the kalû ritual for opening a canal, with a catchline to a different building ritual of the kalû (see Ambos Reference Ambos2004: 186:21'). The incipit of the fragment is now duplicated by the catchline on BM 46548: r.9, a tablet containing part of the kalû's lilissu ritual (George/Taniguchi Reference George and Taniguchi2021, no. 446): e-nu-ma ká íd i-pat-tu-ú.Footnote ¹¹ Since BM 54952 was collated (by U. Gabbay) and a few new suggestions are made, it is edited anew below.

4. Common features in the different sources for the ritual for opening a canal

There are several common features in the different sources for the ritual for opening a canal listed above, such as the mythological or ceremonial digging with a spade and basket made of precious metals (in the incantation SpTU 2, 5 and in the Kaštiliaš inscription); the dedication of turtle figurines (in K.2727+ and in the inscription of Sennacherib); the use of stones and other materials (in K.2727+, the Sennacherib inscription, the ritual BM 54952, and the incantation SpTU 2, 5), and some of the gods associated with the ritual (Ea in K.2727+, the Sennacherib inscription, and the incantation SpTU 2, 5; other irrigation gods in the Sennacherib inscription and the incantation SpTU 2, 5; netherworld or ancestral gods in K.2727+ and SpTU 2, 5). These features can be summarized as follows:

Table 1:

Overview of specific and common features in the sources for the ritual opening of a canal

The river and the removal of its earth

The ritual K.2727+ emphasizes the earth piles (eperū) coming out of the canal, and ritual actions are performed on this earth (the laying of the stones and turtles).Footnote ¹⁷ Also the incantation SpTU 2, 5 emphasizes this earth, beginning with the words “canal, whose earth is removed” (l. 1).Footnote ¹⁸ This removal of earth by regular human labor is mythologically connected to the divine sphere. The text emphasizes that the tools used for this labor were made of precious materials, thus pointing to their divine and pure nature. This is emphasized in the same incantation: “Its soils are carried with a spade of silver, with a spade of copper, with a basket of lapis lazuli” (lines 12–13).Footnote ¹⁹ After the earth was removed, the gods let the water flow in it: “They (= the gods) had this river carry the waters of life, the everlasting waters” (lines 20–21).Footnote ²⁰

Similarly, Kaštiliaš III describes the excavation work on the Sumundar canal: “By order of Enlil, my lord, I dug the Sumundar waterway with a silver spade. I carried the earth in a silver basket. I established everlasting water for Nippur” (Abraham/Gabbay Reference Abraham and Gabbay2013: 184:10–15).Footnote ²¹ Only after the earth is removed, can the everlasting water of life flow in the river. That the tools used are actually divine tools can be deduced from their placement in front of Enlil after they were used in the Kaštiliaš inscription (lines 15–17). These tools, through their ritual use, are connected to the mythological canal digging of the gods in primordial times, as described, e.g., in the Atraḫasīs epic (see Abraham/Gabbay Reference Abraham and Gabbay2013: 191).

This divine act is also described in an incantation to the river performed during Namburbi rituals: “You, river, creatress of everything! When the great gods dug you, (var. adds: the Igigi gods removed [your earth piles]), they placed favor (var. abundance) in your banks. Within you, Ea, king of the Apsû, created his dwelling” (Maul Reference Maul1994: 86:7'–11'; Lambert Reference Lambert2013: 397:1–4).Footnote ²²

Thus, the gods dug the watercourses, removed its earth, and let abundant water flow, and this enabled Ea to dwell there. In the ritual for opening the canals, the humans continue this task, ensuring the everlasting flow of waters, both for the future, but also connecting it to the past, namely to the mythological times before humans were created. The water that flows after the removal of the earth is ritually defined and consecrated as the water of the Apsû, and this could only be done through the removal of the earth which prevented the connection between the Apsû and the water in the canal. In other words, the water canal is the water of the Apsû. The ritual act thus connects the water on earth flowing in the form of a canal to the groundwater of the Apsû. This also enables Ea to dwell in these waters and continues the everlasting struggle between the waters of life and the earth clogging up the watercourses, or mythologically, the everlasting struggle between Ea (and other gods) with the netherworld gods who wish to take over the same watercourses (see above). The victory of Ea in this struggle is ritually achieved by placing the pure stones and metals on the earth that was dug from the canal. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that by removing the earth, mythologically connected to the netherworld deities and fierce creatures, some loss is caused to these deities, who although “bound” by Ea, are not killed nor disregarded, but just controlled, and therefore they are compensated for this earth by the gift of the golden disks to them.

Stones used in the ritual for opening a canal

K.2727+ lists twice a group of materials, consisting of metals (^ĝiššinig, ^útuḫ-lam, ^ĝišgišimmar.tur, gi.šul.ḫi, ĝiš.búr) and stones (^na₄gug, ^na₄za.gìn, ^na₄nír, ^na₄muš.gír, ^na₄babbar.dili^(meš), ^na₄babbar.min_5, ia ₄-ni-bu) that are used for purification. These materials correspond to materials used in other rituals too, especially Namburbi rituals, but also in others (Maul Reference Maul1994: 41–44; Ambos Reference Ambos2004: 71–73).Footnote ²³ While in Namburbi rituals these materials are used in the libation vessel (agubbû), and then they can be used separately for other purifications (Maul Reference Maul1994, 44–45), in K.2727+ the materials are first placed on the heaps of earth dug out of the canal, and only later placed in the libation vessel.Footnote ²⁴ Perhaps, unlike other Namburbi rituals which use pure waters of an already flowing river, the ritual in K.2727+, which deals with the initial purification of the river, first has to take care of the purification of the materials related to the digging of the river itself.

Although the aforementioned stones appear with purification materials in other rituals too, it is noteworthy that both the Bavian inscription of Sennacherib and the kalû ritual BM 54952 specifically emphasize the same list of seven metals and stones. This is probably due to the emphasis on the pure minerals quarried from the earth and mountains in contrast to the earth dug out of the canal. It should be noted that the lists do not fully correspond: In BM 54952 only the summary “seven stones” is preserved. In the Bavian inscription, the first four stones correspond to those in K.2727+ (^na₄gug, ^na₄za.gìn, ^na₄nír, ^na₄muš.gír), then ^na₄babbar.dili^meš is listed, the plural probably corresponding to both ^na₄babbar.dili and ^na₄babbar.min₅ in K.2727+. The Bavian inscription concludes with the general “selected (precious) stones” (abnī nisiqti, see CAD N/II, 271–272), while K.2727+ lists the yānibu-shell.

The use of turtle figurines in the ritual for opening a canal

Turtle figurines are attested not only in K.2727+ and in the Sennacherib inscription, but in other rituals connected to rivers (compare Weszeli Reference Weszeli2009-11: 180). In the Nineveh ritual tablet of the Mīs pî ceremony, after the procession from the craftsmen's house to the river, the āšipu performs these ritual actions on the river bank (Walker/Dick Reference Walker and Dick2001: 43, translation following p. 58):

These lines are restored according to the Babylonian ritual tablet, which are formulated slightly differently (Walker/Dick Reference Walker and Dick2001: 70, translation following p. 78):

According to Walker/Dick (Reference Walker and Dick2001: 58 n. 78), Ea reclaims these tools since he is the one together with the craft-deities, who created the god of the cultic statue. The figurines of the tortoise and turtle are represented, because these animals – as amphibians – act as messengers or mediators between two worlds: the land and the waters, the human world and the Apsû, thus standing in a liminal position (see Abraham/Gabbay Reference Abraham and Gabbay2013: 192 n. 48). Indeed, in iconography, especially of kudurru stones, the turtle represents Ea, king of the Apsû (Seidl Reference Seidl1989: 152–154).Footnote ²⁵

The connection between the turtle and the Apsû is clearly described also in the Old Babylonian composition Ninurta and the Turtle (Alster Reference Alster, Michalowski and Veldhuis2006), where Enki fashioned a turtle (ba-al-gu₇) from Abzu's clay and put it at the entrance of the Abzu itself (lines 36–37). Although some parts of this myth remain mostly unclear, it is possible that the subsequent rituals resemble this myth that features the turtle as a guardian of the Abzu.

Moreover, among the several literary and administrative texts,Footnote ²⁶ where the níĝ-bún-na-turtle is attested, the same concept might probably be also found in the Old Babylonian turtle incantation VS 17 12 (Owen Reference Owen1981: 42–43; Peterson Reference Peterson2007: 411, 418; compare Weszeli Reference Weszeli2009-11: 181), which might be an early source for the ritual usage of a turtle figurine (although it cannot be excluded that the incantation refers to an actual turtle):Footnote ²⁷

The incantation continues with an invocation to abjure the diseases probably of the client (lines 11–14). Without embarking on an in-depth discussion of these problematic lines, which would go beyond the scope of the present study, this incantation shows a connection with the liminal aspect of the turtle between sea and land (lines 1–3).