From roughly 3000 BCE onward, at the start of Sumerian history, Inanna possessed enormous power within a predominately male pantheon.
Her complex nature has frequently been obscured by the label of a fertility goddess, which only represents a small aspect of this potent and complex deity.
She oversaw a number of natural and cultural factors that were significant to Sumerian society, either alone or in partnership with a male deity, including storms and rain, the harvest storehouse, conflict, and morning and evening stars – as she was associated with the planet Venus – and sexual love, including prostitution. (Stuckey, 2005, p. 35)
In this episode, we’re delving deep into the intriguing world of ancient Mesopotamia, exploring the enigmatic figures of Inanna and Inanna-Ishtar.
She’s a deity who, across millennia, has remained the subject of wonder, mystery, and debate. From the grand temples of Uruk and Ur to the earliest cuneiform records, we’ll trace Inanna’s presence and remarkable influence across different periods and locations in Mesopotamia.
If you’re ready for this mesmerizing journey that challenges our understanding of ancient history and our modern perceptions of gender, social roles, and cultural norms, then stay tuned and let’s get started on this fascinating exploration of Inanna-Ishtar!
Before we dive in, I’d encourage you to support this project of delivering esoteric content based on peer-reviewed academic scholarship by joining my growing Patreon community, sending a one-off PayPal donation, joining memberships, super thanking me in the comments or buying my merch. All links are in a pinned comment and the info box.
Let the Symposium begin…
Hello Symposiast, I’m Dr Angela Puca – Religious Studies PhD and this is your online resource for the academic study of magic, esotericism, Paganism, shamanism and all things occult.
Inanna, the ancient Sumerian goddess, the “lady of heaven,” is known for her roles in sexuality and aggression. Despite her popularity, understanding of Inanna is limited due to scarce references to her in early cuneiform records. Much of our knowledge about her comes from myths, hymns, and prayers attributed to later periods, such as the 3rd Dynasty of Ur III and the Isin-Larsa Dynasties. [see also (Kramer, 1971)]
While some elements in these stories might reflect earlier beliefs and practices, these are hard to identify. Nevertheless, archaeological findings from the late fourth and third millennia have uncovered many temples dedicated to Inanna, indicating an important and widespread cult.
We will also explore Inanna’s syncretism with the Semitic deity Ishtar.
I’ve often encouraged caution on this channel when it comes to syncretizing deities from different cultures, but there are some instances – like the case of Inanna – where you can definitely identify historical and cultural influences to the point of syncretism between Inanna and deities from other pantheons and culture. The most direct syncretism is the one with Ishtar.
Collins’ study details archaeological findings related to Inanna in several locations, including Adab, Bad-tibira, Eresh, Girsu, Kish, Lagash, Nippur, Shuruppak, Ur, and Uruk. Evidence of Inanna’s worship is found in the form of temples, inscriptions, offerings, and administrative records. These findings suggest that even though Inanna’s earliest connections to these locations might be difficult to determine precisely, her influence was significant across different periods and locations in Mesopotamia.
Collins provides a list of time period classifications for Mesopotamia from the Halaf/Ubaid period 5000-4000 BCE through to the 1st Dynasty of Babylon and attempts to align archaeological evidence with these periods to give a chronological account of Inanna’s influence and presence in various regions.
However, the author notes that despite the extensive archaeological record, identifying and understanding specific Inanna temples within various complexes has been complicated due to the complex building phases and the lack of relevant objects in context.
Inanna, the Sumerian goddess, first appeared in clay tablets from the Eanna district of Uruk during the 3rd Dynasty of Ur. These tablets, discovered in unstratified deposits, contained pictographic symbols, one of which was interpreted as Inanna or MUS (‘radiant’). This symbol became progressively abstract over time, evolving into the more familiar cuneiform shapes of later periods. However, the exact significance of this symbol and its relationship with the goddess Inanna remain elusive.
The symbol associated with Inanna was found on clay tablets and appeared on various artefacts from the same era, including sculptures, reliefs, and cylinder seals. In many of these instances, the symbol was often associated with a recurring motif of a bearded man, possibly the ‘priest-king’ of Uruk, feeding stylized flowers to sheep and goats. This symbol, however, disappeared during the Early Dynastic II period, possibly due to other cities establishing their own cults dedicated to Inanna.
An intriguing artefact bearing the Inanna symbol is a large alabaster vase discovered in the Archaic level III. The vase, standing 110cm high post-restoration, is decorated with four registers of relief carvings. Depictions range from vegetation, a line of alternating rams and ewes, naked men carrying various objects to scenes featuring the Inanna symbol, possibly indicating the interior of a temple. The exact interpretation of these carvings and their relationship to Inanna remains debated.
The notion of a “sacred marriage,” a ritual that involved a sexual act between fertility deities, was prevalent during the 3rd Dynasty of Ur and the Dynasties of Isin-Larsa periods. This practice saw the king embodying the god Dumuzi, the consort of Inanna, in a symbolic ritual act.
A point of contention among scholars is the interpretation of the relief on the Warka vase, which some believe depicts the sacred marriage ritual. The top register of the vase is said to portray a deity approaching a female figure, assumed to be Inanna or a priestess, with offerings. However, these interpretations are not universally accepted due to the absence of concrete evidence and the problematic identification of the figures. Scholars warn against applying later cultural understandings to depictions from earlier periods, as this could lead to anachronistic and potentially misleading interpretations.
Now let’s delve into the historical and cultural relationship between Inanna, our Sumerian goddess, and Ishtar, a Semitic deity.
Contrary to earlier beliefs of a racial conflict during the Early Dynastic (ED) period between native Sumerians and Semitic invaders, contemporary evidence suggests a mixed population of both Sumerian and Semitic speakers. This discovery has consequently reshaped the understanding of the relationship between Inanna and Ishtar, which was previously viewed through this conflict lens.
Ishtar, originally known as Eshtar, could have her origins in ‘Attar, a male deity mentioned in Ugaritic and South Arabian inscriptions. ‘Attar and ‘Attart, the male and female forms respectively, might represent Venus as a male morning star and a female evening star. This duality could be the basis for Ishtar’s dual role as a goddess of love and war.
In Mesopotamia, there appears to be a transformation in the perception of gender roles of the goddesses, with the male form taking on the functions typically associated with the female, possibly due to the influence of Inanna, who is believed to have had similar attributes.
Sargon of Akkad sought to integrate the Semitic and Sumerian religions during his rule, likely to achieve unity across his empire. His daughter, Enheduanna, was appointed the high priestess at Ur and possibly at Uruk, which were significant cities in Sumer. Her works mainly extol Sumerian gods, especially Inanna. Interestingly, future traditions regarded the dynasty of Akkad as the ‘Dynasty of Ishtar’, which might be due to the prominence of Ishtar’s cult at the capital rather than an explicit Akkadian religious policy.
Despite Sargon and his successors ruling over the southern plain of Sumer, they attributed their dominion to Enlil, the supreme god of the Sumerian pantheon. The association between Inanna and Ishtar most likely stems from the goddesses having similar powers, further intensified by the unification of Mesopotamia under Akkadian kingship.
Archaeological evidence from different sites including Akkad, Ashur, Ebla, and Mari reinforces the complexity of the relationship between Inanna and Ishtar. Each location provides unique insights into the fusion of these two deities and their worship throughout different parts of the Mesopotamian region.
Let’s now look at representations and interpretations of the Sumerian goddess Inanna.
Asher-Greve (1985) posits that there aren’t any fourth-millennium depictions of deities, but the Warka vase, a crucial source for understanding Inanna’s roles, suggests a double shrine for Inanna at Uruk. Various elements within the shrine, including possible cultic statues and other objects, could be linked to different aspects of Inanna’s divinity. For instance, a vase in the form of a ram may connect to a figure holding a stack of vessels, and a lioness vase might associate with a figure bearing an Inanna symbol.
The ram and lioness may symbolize two facets of the goddess, possibly the male and female principles. These ideas are further hinted at by the double Inanna symbols at the temple entrance. Inanna or Ishtar, the Semitic goddess she’s often equated with, frequently appear alongside a lion in later art and iconography, symbolizing their aggressive aspects. A bowl found in the Inanna temple at Nippur, which illustrates a snake fighting a large cat, confirms this early connection.
The role of the ram, depicted in association with the Inanna symbol on the Warka vase and other contemporary art forms, is more elusive. While it doesn’t appear with deities in later periods, it may represent Inanna’s fertility aspect.
Inanna and Ishtar likely shared similar attributes. As the ‘skirmisher,’ Ishtar embodied the warrior role, with evidence suggesting a sexual aspect as well.
A cylinder seal from Akkad depicts four major Mesopotamian gods, including a female deity, possibly Inanna or Ishtar. This deity combines the two aspects of war and sexuality. A similar goddess is depicted on a fragment of a large vessel from the time of Entemena of Lagash.
The complex character of Inanna or Ishtar that emerges from representations and texts may represent an amalgamation of numerous other female deities’ functions. This complex character ensured Inanna’s survival as a significant deity throughout ancient Mesopotamia.(Collins, 1994)
Inanna-Ishtar – that we now understand to be a syncretic ancient Near Eastern goddess, is seen as an intricate deity with many facets. She has been analysed and interpreted differently by various scholars. Thorkild Jacobsen believes that she embodies a wide range of aspects, while Samuel N. Kramer underlines the contrasting elements in her character. Leo Oppenheim and C. Wilcke have expressed that her divine attributes are difficult to describe, with Wilcke remarking that nearly every part of human life falls within her realm.
B. Alster puts forth the idea that Inanna stands as a symbol for irrational ideas within Sumerian society. On the other hand, J. Bottero, a French Assyriologist, draws attention to her bipolarity and marginality, which he associates with her link to the profession of prostitution. H. I. J. Vanstiphout highlights her constant change and struggle for dominance, suggesting that the concept of strife was embedded into the goddess’s psychology by the Mesopotamians.
While there’s a substantial amount of literature on Inanna-Ishtar, some of it tends to oversimplify or standardize her unique characteristics as a Mesopotamian deity. Joan O’Brien’s review and Marvin Pope’s observations exemplify such simplifying views. Jo Ann Hackett offers a counterpoint, emphasizing that these goddesses embodied a broad spectrum of power in the ancient world.
The fusion of the Sumerian Inanna and the Akkadian Ishtar presents a complex historical problem. Despite this, there’s an intention to present a theoretical understanding of the goddess’s distinctive features, recognizing that both goddesses share numerous similar traits.
Let’s now look at the complex and paradoxical nature of her character.
“The Descent of Innana,” an ancient Sumerian mythological poem is a foundational piece of literature to understand the complexity of this deity.
The poem depicts Innana, also known as Ishtar, goddess of love, beauty, sex, and war descending to the Nether world – ruled by her sister Ereshkigal.
“The Descent of Inanna” is an ancient Sumerian mythological poem that tells the story of Inanna, also known as Ishtar, the goddess of love, beauty, sex, and war, and her journey to the netherworld, sometimes referred to as the underworld.
The story begins with Inanna deciding to visit the underworld, which is ruled by her sister Ereshkigal. Before she leaves, Inanna instructs her faithful servant, Ninshubur, to get help from the other gods if she doesn’t return in three days.
Inanna arrives at the underworld and passes through seven gates. At each gate, she is required to remove an item of clothing or piece of jewellery until she stands naked before Ereshkigal. Inanna tries to usurp her sister’s throne, but Ereshkigal judges her as guilty of hubris and kills her, hanging her corpse on a hook.
Speaking of sibling rivalry!!
After three days, Ninshubur goes to the gods for help.
Enki, the god of wisdom and water, agrees to help and creates two sexless beings who empathize with Ereshkigal’s suffering, thereby winning her favour. She offers them a gift, and they ask for Inanna’s body, which they revive using the food and water of life.
However, as Inanna tries to leave the underworld, the underworld’s demons insist that she must provide a substitute to take her place. On her journey back, she finds that her consort Dumuzid has not mourned her death and is enjoying his time on her throne. She designates him as her substitute, and he is taken to the underworld. Dumuzid’s sister Geshtinanna offers to take his place for half the year, thus explaining the cycle of seasons and vegetation, with growth and abundance when Inanna is in the world, and decline and lack when she is in the underworld.(Laneri, 2002; Black, et al., 1998)
This myth is one of the earliest recorded versions of the dying-and-rising-god motif and has significant parallels with the later Greek myth of Persephone’s abduction by Hades. It is symbolic of the cyclical nature of life and death, light and darkness, and abundance and scarcity. It’s a pivotal work in the context of ancient literature, myth, and religion.
Inanna-Ishtar embodies polarities and contradictions – she represents both order and disorder, structure and anti-structure. Her behaviour often disrupts societal norms and boundaries, but in doing so, she defines and protects the structure of Mesopotamian civilization. She is more than just a goddess of fertility, love, war, and the Venus star; she embodies fundamental paradoxes and anomalies, qualities that were typically assigned to female deities in Mesopotamian culture.
Inanna-Ishtar is depicted in various myths with traits that are both benign and horrific. She can act wildly and savagely, often indulging excessively in war and eroticism. Yet, she is also depicted as a compassionate maternal figure and a lover. The texts depict her as having an immense capacity for both creation and destruction, causing confusion and disorder while also creating norms and structures.
She’s portrayed as a goddess of profound contradiction and ambiguity, as shown in hymns and prayers. These writings highlight her ability to soothe and cause venom, to destroy and build, to turn a man into a woman and vice versa, to incite quarrels and cause peace, and to bring joy and impose suffering. She has been described as someone who destroys what should not be destroyed and creates what should not be made. Furthermore, she is known to provoke conflict among humans.
Despite the paradoxical nature of her character, two myths suggest that her raw power could lead to devastating consequences if left unchecked, thus implying the need for a balance in her representation of power. These paradoxes make her an elusive and fascinating figure in Mesopotamian mythology, embodying various polarities and transcending them at the same time.
In Mesopotamian mythology, central to the discussion is the concept of “MES,” divine attributes or cultural norms, which represent a variety of dichotomous traits, creating a sense of antitheses and contradictions intrinsic to the Mesopotamian perspective.
Inanna-Ishtar is described as a goddess of paradoxes. She is androgynous, embodying both masculine and feminine characteristics. She is depicted as compassionate, nurturing, assertive, aggressive, and strong-willed. This androgyny also extends to her cultic personnel who practice transvestism, blurring the boundaries between male and female as a means to instil religious fear in people.
Furthermore, Inanna-Ishtar personifies a mixture of male aggressiveness and female sexuality, the two forms of potential disorder and violence, that is, sex and war. She confounds the social boundaries of status, associating with both the most powerful figures in society, like kings and its marginal members, such as prostitutes. In fact, she’s known to break down these boundaries explicitly.
Inanna-Ishtar also transcends the divisions between species – divine, human, and animal. This is evidenced in her choice of lovers from different species and her ability to transform humans into animals. Lions, in particular, are strongly associated with her, complimenting her fierceness and power.
Harris also suggests that her cultic celebrations play with societal norms and categories, creating a time for disorder and anti-structure. the worship practices and cultic celebrations of the ancient Mesopotamian goddess Inanna-Ishtar. These festivities were characterized by elements of disorder, comedy, and explicit eroticism, often involving theatrical performances that pushed societal boundaries. This ‘play’ or ‘melulu’ in Akkadian, which included dancing, acting, and even symbolic war, was integral to Inanna-Ishtar’s persona and the worship rituals associated with her.
During these festivals, the usual societal norms were often subverted. Participants may have enacted roles of various deities and wore costumes or masks, possibly blurring the boundaries between human and animal, and male and female. This could be seen as a form of “creative negation,” encouraging devotees to embrace the impure and irrational aspects of life, providing temporary relief from societal constraints.
The roles and identities of Inanna-Ishtar’s chief cult participants, such as the assinnu, habbibu, kurgarru, kulu’u, and pilpilu, are ambiguous. Their sexual identities are uncertain, with possibilities ranging from eunuchs to hermaphrodites or transvestites. Regardless, these individuals were integral to the goddess’s cult, performing songs, games, and dances during the festivals.
The rituals also included elements of self-m**ilation and blurred gender norms, reinforcing the goddess’s connection to transcending societal norms as well as to war and violence.
Inanna-Ishtar was revered by all, regardless of gender or social status. This broad appeal might be attributed to her capacity to symbolize an ordered world that accommodates and even celebrates the inherent ambiguities, puzzles, and paradoxes of human experience. (Harris, 1991)
As we draw this exploration of the ancient Sumerian goddess Inanna to a close, after having reviewed the literature on the topic, I’d love to share with you my personal considerations.
I think that it’s important that we don’t leave without challenging some fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality itself. Throughout our journey, we’ve discussed the concept of ‘ambiguity’ as it applies to gender roles, social status, and the dynamics between peace and war. But what if the true ambiguity lies not in these concepts themselves but in our perceptions of them?
In Inanna’s festivals, we’ve seen a breakdown of societal norms. A king becomes a commoner, a man becomes a woman, an adult becomes a child, and the sacred melds with the profane. These transgressions are not seen as violations of order but as celebrations of life’s inherent complexity. They blur the lines between the sacred and the mundane, the ruler and the ruled, the male and the female, the divine and the mortal. But were these truly transgressions, or were they merely a recognition of the complex and overlapping identities that form the fabric of our existence?
As we conclude, we may remember Inanna’s teachings on embracing the complexity of life, challenging our preconceived notions, and celebrating the rich tapestry of experiences that make us human. The real ‘ambiguity’, perhaps, lies not in our world but in our perception of it. And with this understanding, we can begin to dismantle the societal constructs that limit our understanding and begin to appreciate the beautiful complexity that is life.
Wow! What a journey! If you watched until this point, leave me a lion emoji in the comments in honour of Inanna-Ishtar.
If you’d like to support our mission of making esotericism, magic and Paganism engaging and accessible, there are many ways you can help me.
Pledging on my Patreon to join a fantastic community, making a one-time donation through PayPal, or becoming a channel member can make a huge difference. We also have some awesome merch, if you’d like to wear your academic fun as well as the option of super thanking me in the comments! You’ll find all the links in the info box and in a pinned comment.
REFERENCES
Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm), Oxford 1998
Black, J. A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E., Robson, E. and Zólyomi, G. (1998) Inana’s descent to the nether world: translation [Online]. Available at https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm (Accessed 17 June 2023).
Collins, P. (1994) ‘The Sumerian Goddess Inanna (3400-2200 BC)’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, University College London (UCL), vol. 5, no. 0 [Online]. DOI: 10.5334/pia.57 (Accessed 16 June 2023).
Harris, R. (1991) ‘Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites’, History of Religions, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 261–278.
Kramer, S. N. (1971) The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press [Online]. Available at https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo27481022.html (Accessed 17 June 2023).
Laneri, N. (2002) ‘The Discovery of a Funerary Ritual: Inanna/Ishtar and Her Descent to the Nether World in Titriş Höyük, Turkey’, East and West, Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO), vol. 52, no. 1/4, pp. 9–51.
Stuckey, J. H. (2005) ‘Ancient Mother Goddesses and Fertility Cults’, Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement [Online]. Available at https://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/view/4952 (Accessed 17 June 2023).
First uploaded on the Summer Solstice (21 Jun 2023)