Humbanㅣ흄반ㅣ엘람의 신ㅣ 여신을 대신하여 엘람의 지배신

Humban

Elamite and Persian god / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahura Mazda

Sin (mythology)

Elam

 

Humban (Elamite: 𒀭𒃲𒈨𒌍, romanized: Humban, dhu-um-ban, also dhu-ban, Huban) was an Elamite god. He is already attested in the earliest sources preserving information about Elamite religion, but seemingly only grew in importance in the neo-Elamite period, in which many kings had theophoric names invoking him. He was connected with the concept of kitin, or divine protection.

Due to his role in religion of the neo-Elamite person, he was also worshiped by the earliest Persian rulers from the Achaemenid dynasty, as indicated by the Persepolis Administrative Archives, where he is mentioned more often even than Ahura Mazda.

Character

It is likely that while in the west of Elam Inshushinak was regarded as the main god, further east the position of Humban was higher. At the same time, with the exception of texts from the Acheamenid period, Humban does not appear in sources from further east than Izeh in Khuzestan. According to Wouter Henkelman, such evidence indicates that what is referred to as "Elamite religion" in scholarship was most likely a "patchwork of local traditions."

Humban could be called rišar nappipir, "greatest of the gods" or "great among the gods," though this epithet was also applied to Inshushinak. An inscription of Hanni of Ayapir calls him rišar nappirra, "greatest god." Another of his epithets might have been elume, possibly a loan from Akkadian elû ("high," "exalted"), but it is unclear if a passage in which it is attested should be interpreted as referring to the god as Humban the Exalted or if it instead denotes the location of his temple.

Humban's supremacy over other gods could be acknowledged in temples not dedicated to him, for example it is presumed that the Ayapir sanctuary from which the rišar nappirra epithet is known was most likely dedicated to the local god Tirutur, rather tha Humban.

Kitin

Humban was believed to bestow kitin upon rulers. The term is often translated as "divine protection," but its meaning was most likely more broad, and in individual sources it might designate concepts such as "god-given royal power," "divinely-enforced legal protection," "legal authority," "legal order" or even "divine emblem." Other gods were believed to bestow it too, for example Inshushinak, Tepti and Tirutur, but the kitin of Humban was regarded as the most important for the kings in the neo-Elamite period.

It is not clear when did Humban become a god associated with kingship, but it might have been a theological innovation of the neo-Elamite period. Similarly, the term kitin is largely limited to administrative texts in earlier periods, and only starts to appear in royal inscriptions in neo-Elamite times. In personal names, its use prior to this period is limited to sources from Malyan.

A single mention of kitin occurs in the so-called "Daivā Inscription" of Xerxes I, though only in the Elamite version, not the accompanying Akkadian and Persian ones.

Worship

Oldest attestation of Humban is the so-called Treaty of Naram-Sin, whose signatories were the Akkadian ruler in mention (reigned 2260-2223 BCE) and an unknown Elamite monarch, often assumed to be Khita of Awan, though definite evidence is lacking. Humban occupies the second place among the deities listed as witnesses, behind Pinikir. His name is written as dhu-ba-an in this document. The other divine witnesses enumerated include deities of both Elamite (for example Simut and Hutran) and western (Ilaba, Ishara, Manzat, Ninkarrak, Ninurta) origin. The treaty has been used as evidence of Humban being a god originating in Awan, or already occupying an important position in the "Awanite" pantheon in the third millennium BCE, but Wouter Henkelman suggests that caution is necessary, as he is only mentioned once in this document, while Inshushinak, who on the account of being the tutelary god of Susa would not necessarily play a major role in Awan, is mentioned six times.

A text from Susa roughly contemporary with the Naram-Sin treaty mentions a day during which grain was offered to Humban, though it does not specify where did it take place. In the following Sukkalmah period, the only evidence of the worship of Humban are theophoric names in administrative texts, such as Kuk-Humban.

In the Middle Elamite period (second half of second millennium BCE), king Untash-Napirisha built a temple of Humban at Chogha Zanbil. Humban also appears in the inscription from a stele of king Shilhak-Inshushinak I, in which he occupies the fourth place among the gods listed, after Napirisha, Kiririsha and Inshushinak. The same king also rebuilt a "residence" (murti) of Humban.

                                           Assyrian relief depicting the capture of king Humban-haltash III.

 

The popularity of Humban seemingly increased in the neo-Elamite period, as indicated by the high number of theophoric names invoking him. At least thirteen neo-Elamite kings or claimants to the throne (roughly a half of Elamite rulers from this period) had such names. Examples include Humban-haltash III and Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak. For comparison, only two are attested from earlier times, namely Huba-simti from the Sargonic period and Humban-Numena, who reigned around 1350 BCE. Neo-Elamite rulers whose inscriptions mention Humban include Hanni of Ayapir, Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak, and possibly Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak. An inscription of Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak indicates that among the clergy of Humban in his times there was a high priestess.

A number of Elamite topographical names invoked Humban, for example Til Humba, "hill of Humban," located near the western border of Elam, or the town Zila-Humban located in the Fahliyan area, possibly near Kurangun.

Achaemenid reception

In the Persepolis fortification archive, Humban appears more commonly than any other Elamite or Persian deity, with a total of twenty six mentions. For comparison, Auramazdā (Ahura Mazda) appears only ten times. The amount of grain which according to these documents was offered to Humban by the Achaemenid administration was more than thrice as big as that offered to Auramazdā. It has been argued that in this period, he should be regarded as not an Elamite god, but a Persian one.

Mary Boyce went as far as suggesting that the prominence of Humban in the neo-Elamite period influenced the position of Ahura Mazda in religion of the Persians, but Wouter Henkelman considers this proposal to be entirely speculative. It is nonetheless plausible that the concept of kitin, associated with the neo-Elamite period with Humban, was later assigned to Ahura Mazda, as indicated by an inscription of Xerxes using this term. Ahura Mazda's role as a divine kingmaker was also likely modeled on Humban's.

Most of the nineteen priests (eight of them designated as šatin) of Humban known from Achaemenid documents bear linguistically Iranian, rather than Elamit, names (for example Mardunuya and Yama), and the percentage of the latter type of names among them is similar to the ten percent attested among the general populace. Humban could receive offerings alongside gods of various backgrounds, including Ahura Mazda and Adad.

Most locations where Humban was worshiped in the Achemenid period were towns located close to the royal road network.

Mesopotamian reception

Humban is attested in four theophoric names from Nippur from the Kassite period, more than any deity of neither Mesopotamian nor Kassite origin with the exception of the Hurrian god Teshub, who is present in fifteen names, and Simut, present in nine names.

In the neo-Assyrian period, Humban was regarded as an equivalent of Enlil, as indicated by two commentaries on the incantation series Šurpu. This equation was most likely based on their shared role as sources of royal power in the respective cultures, as no evidence in favor or against attributing any other functions of Enlil (such as determination of fates or control over weather) to Humban is available. Based on the equation of Humban with Enlil and Anu with Jabru in such sources, Heidemarie Koch proposed that Jabru was regarded as the father of Humban. However, Jabru is not attested in any Elamite sources, but only in Mesopotamian ones, and sometimes was himself described as the Elamite counterpart of Enlil. For example, according to the god list An = Anum, a god bearing the name Yabnu (dia-ab-na) was the "Enlil of Elam." According to Wilfred G. Lambert, Yanbu should be understood as the same god as Jabru.

Humban also appears alongside Jabru and Napirisha in the text Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince. Alexandre Lokotionov notes that this sequence of gods mirrors the reference to Humban in Šurpu, and that its inclusion possibly indicates that to the Assyrians the underworld "could have simply been a repository for the exotic and the unusual."

Ammankasibar, a god whose statue according to the annals of Ashurbanipal was taken to Assyria, has been identified with Humban by some researchers, but there is no plausible explanation for the element kasibar in his name.

Disproved theories

                        A depiction of Humbaba, in the past erroneously assumed to be related to Humban.

 

An early, now discredited, theory proposed by Georg Hüsing in 1916 aimed to connect Humban with biblical Haman, Greek mythical figure Memnon (based on Humban-Numena according to Hüsing), Egyptian god Ammon, and Japanese Hachiman.

While in past scholarship it has been assumed that Humban might have been the model for Humbaba, the guardian of the Cedar Forest in the Epic of Gilgamesh, this theory is no longer considered plausible today according to Andrew R. George, who notes that it relied on "unsafe historical conclusions" Humbaba's name has no clear linguistic affiliation, and its writing varies between various locations and time periods, with the original form being Huwawa. Based on attestations from the Ur III period it was seemingly initially an ordinary personal name in Mesopotamia.

Another no longer accepted theory, in the past supported for example by Walther Hinz, considered Humban to be the same god as Napirisha, with the latter being a "taboo name" of the former. Similarly, Kiririsha was held to be a taboo name of Pinikir rather than a distinct deity. This view has been commonly criticized from the 1980s onward, with some doubts about the former case expressed as early as 1901, and it is no longer supported by experts today. Due to its prevalence in the past, some older publications overestimate the number of inscriptions referring to Humban by treating the logogram ANGAL or DINGIR.GAL, corresponding to Napirisha (Elamite: "great god;" the cuneiform signs of the logogram have the same meaning in Sumerian) as representing him instead.

 

훔반
엘람과 페르시아의 신 / 무료 백과사전 Wikipedia에서

아후라 마즈다
죄(신화)

엘람
훔반(엘람어: 𒀭𒃲𒈨𒌍, 로마자 표기: Humban, dhu-um-ban, 또한 dhu-ban, Huban)은 엘람의 신이었습니다. 그는 엘람 종교에 대한 정보를 보존하는 초기 자료에서 이미 입증되었지만, 많은 왕이 그를 부르는 신학적 이름을 가졌던 신엘람 시대에 와서야 중요성이 커진 것 같습니다. 그는 키틴 또는 신성한 보호의 개념과 관련이 있었습니다.

신엘람인의 종교에서 그의 역할로 인해, 그는 또한 아후라 마즈다보다 더 자주 언급되는 페르세폴리스 행정 기록 보관소에 표시된 것처럼 아케메네스 왕조의 초기 페르시아 통치자들에 의해 숭배되었습니다.

성격
Elam Inshushinak의 서쪽에서는 주요 신으로 간주되었지만 동쪽으로 가면 Humban의 위치가 더 높았을 것입니다. 동시에 아케메네스 시대의 문헌을 제외하고는 후제스탄의 이제보다 더 동쪽의 문헌에는 훔반이 나오지 않는다. Wouter Henkelman에 따르면, 그러한 증거는 학문에서 "엘람인 종교"라고 불리는 것이 "지역 전통의 패치워크"였을 가능성이 가장 높음을 나타냅니다.

훔반은 리샤르 나피피르(rišar nappipir), "신들 중 가장 위대한 것" 또는 "신들 중 위대한 것"이라고 부를 수 있지만, 이 별명은 Inshushinak에도 적용되었습니다. Ayapir의 Hanni의 비문은 그를 "가장 위대한 신"인 rišar nappirra라고 부릅니다. 그의 또 다른 별명은 elume, 아마도 Akkadian elû("높은", "고귀한")에서 빌려온 것일 수 있지만, 그것이 증명되는 구절에서 신을 Humban Exalted 또는 대신 그의 사원의 위치를 ​​나타내는 경우.

다른 신들에 대한 Humban의 우월성은 그에게 헌정되지 않은 사원에서 인정될 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, rišar nappirra 소명이 알려진 Ayapir 성역은 Humban보다 오히려 지역 신 Tirutur에게 헌정되었을 가능성이 가장 높은 것으로 추정됩니다.

키틴
Humban은 통치자에게 키틴을 수여한다고 믿었습니다. 이 용어는 종종 "신의 보호"로 번역되지만 그 의미는 더 광범위했을 가능성이 높으며 개별 출처에서는 "신이 부여한 왕권", "신이 시행하는 법적 보호", "법적 권위, " "법적 질서" 또는 "신의 상징". Inshushinak, Tepti 및 Tirutur와 같은 다른 신들도 그것을 수여한다고 믿었지만 Humban의 키틴은 신 엘람 시대에 왕에게 가장 중요한 것으로 간주되었습니다.

훔반이 언제 왕권과 관련된 신이 되었는지는 분명하지 않지만 신엘람 시대의 신학적 혁신이었을 가능성이 있습니다. 마찬가지로 키틴이라는 용어는 초기의 행정 문서에 주로 제한되어 있으며 신 엘람 시대의 왕실 비문에만 나타나기 시작합니다. 개인 이름에서 이 기간 이전의 사용은 Malyan의 출처로 제한됩니다.

키틴에 대한 단일 언급은 크세르크세스 1세의 소위 "다이바 비문(Daivā Inscription)"에 나오지만, 수반되는 아카드어와 페르시아어가 아니라 엘람어 버전에서만 발생합니다.

예배
훔반에 대한 가장 오래된 증거는 이른바 나람-신 조약으로, 그 서명자는 언급된 아카드의 통치자(기원전 2260-2223 재위)와 알려지지 않은 엘람 군주였으며, 확실한 증거는 없지만 종종 아완의 키타로 추정됩니다. 훔반은 증인으로 나열된 신들 중에서 피니키르 다음으로 2위를 차지합니다. 그의 이름은 이 문서에 dhu-ba-an으로 기재되어 있습니다. 열거된 다른 신성한 증인들은 엘람족(예: 시무트와 후트란)과 서부(일라바, 이샤라, 만자트, 닌카라크, 닌우르타) 기원의 신들을 모두 포함합니다. 이 조약은 Humban이 Awan에서 기원한 신이거나 기원전 3천년에 "Awanite" 판테온에서 이미 중요한 위치를 차지하고 있다는 증거로 사용되었지만 Wouter Henkelman은 주의가 필요하다고 제안합니다. 이 문서에서는 수사의 수호신이었기 때문에 아완에서 반드시 중요한 역할을 하지는 않았을 인슈시낙이 6번 언급된다.

Naram-Sin 조약과 대략 동시대인 Susa의 문헌에는 곡식이 어디에서 발생했는지는 명시되어 있지 않지만 Humban에게 곡식이 제공되었던 날이 언급되어 있습니다. 다음 Sukkalmah 시대에 Humban 숭배의 유일한 증거는 Kuk-Humban과 같은 행정 문헌에 있는 신의 이름입니다.

중기 엘람 시대(기원전 2000년 후반)에 운타쉬-나피리샤 왕은 초가 잔빌에 훔반 신전을 지었습니다. 훔반은 또한 나피리샤, 키리리샤, 인슈시낙에 이어 나열된 신들 중 4위를 차지하는 실학-인슈시낙 1세 왕의 비석의 비문에 나타납니다. 같은 왕은 또한 Humban의 "거주지"(murti)를 재건했습니다.


훔반-할타쉬 3세의 포로를 묘사한 아시리아 부조.
훔반의 인기는 신엘람 시대에 증가한 것으로 보이며, 그를 부르는 신학적 이름이 많이 나타납니다. 적어도 13명의 신 엘람 왕 또는 왕위를 주장하는 자(이 시대의 엘람 통치자의 약 절반)가 그러한 이름을 가졌습니다. 예로는 Humban-haltash III 및 Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak이 있습니다. 비교를 위해, 사르고니즘 시대의 Huba-simti와 기원전 1350년경에 통치한 Humban-Numena의 두 가지만 초기 시대에 증명되었습니다. 비문에 Humban이 언급된 Neo-Elamite 통치자에는 Ayapir의 Hanni, Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak, 그리고 아마도 Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak이 포함됩니다. Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak의 비문은 당시 Humban의 성직자 중에 대제사장이 있었음을 나타냅니다.

예를 들어 엘람의 서쪽 경계 근처에 위치한 Til Humba, "Humban의 언덕", Fahliyan 지역에 위치한 Zila-Humban 마을, 아마도 Kurangun 근처일 가능성이 있는 Elamite 지형 이름이 많이 있습니다.

아케메네스 수용소
Persepolis 요새 기록 보관소에서 Humban은 총 26개의 언급과 함께 다른 어떤 엘람 사람이나 페르시아의 신보다 더 일반적으로 나타납니다. 비교를 위해 Auramazdā(Ahura Mazda)는 10번만 나타납니다. 이 문서에 따르면 Achaemenid 행정부가 Humban에게 제공한 곡물의 양은 Auramazdā에게 제공된 것의 3배 이상이었습니다. 이 시기에 그는 엘람의 신이 아니라 페르시아의 신으로 여겨져야 한다고 주장되어 왔다.

Mary Boyce는 신 엘람 시대에 Humban의 탁월함이 페르시아인의 종교에서 Ahura Mazda(아후라마즈다)의 위치에 영향을 미쳤다고 제안하기까지 했지만 Wouter Henkelman은 이 제안이 전적으로 추측이라고 생각합니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이 용어를 사용하는 크세르크세스의 비문에서 알 수 있듯이, 훔반과 함께 신 엘람 시대와 관련된 키틴 개념이 나중에 아후라 마즈다에게 할당되었다는 것은 그럴듯하다. 신성한 킹메이커로서의 아후라 마즈다의 역할도 훔반을 모델로 삼았을 가능성이 큽니다.

Achaemenid 문서에서 알려진 Humban의 19명의 사제 대부분(그 중 8명은 šatin으로 지정됨)은 언어적으로 Elamit가 아닌 이란 이름을 가지고 있으며(예: Mardunuya 및 Yama), 그들 중 후자 유형 이름의 비율은 다음과 유사합니다. 10퍼센트는 일반 대중들 사이에서 증명되었습니다. Humban은 Ahura Mazda와 Adad를 포함한 다양한 배경의 신들과 함께 제물을 받을 수 있었습니다.

아케메네스 왕조 시대에 훔반이 숭배되었던 곳은 대부분 왕도 네트워크에 가까운 마을이었다.

메소포타미아 리셉션
Humban은 15개의 이름으로 존재하는 Hurrian 신 Teshub와 9개의 이름으로 존재하는 Simut을 제외하고 메소포타미아 또는 Kassite 기원이 아닌 어떤 신보다 더 많은 Kassite 시대의 Nippur에서 나온 4개의 신학적 이름으로 증명됩니다.

신 아시리아 시대에 훔반은 주문 시리즈 Šurpu에 대한 두 개의 주석에서 알 수 있듯이 Enlil엔닐과 동등한 것으로 간주되었습니다. 이 방정식은 Enlil의 다른 기능(운명 결정 또는 날씨 제어와 같은)을 Humban에게 돌리는 것에 찬성하거나 반대하는 증거가 없기 때문에 각 문화에서 왕권의 원천으로서 공유된 역할을 기반으로 했을 가능성이 큽니다. Heidemarie Koch는 이러한 출처에서 Humban과 Enlil, Anu와 Jabru의 방정식을 기반으로 Jabru를 Humban의 아버지로 간주한다고 제안했습니다. 그러나 Jabru는 Elamite 출처에서 증명되지 않고 Mesopotamian 출처에서만 확인되며 때로는 Enlil의 Elamite 대응물로 묘사되기도 합니다. 예를 들어, 신 목록 An = Anum에 따르면 Yabnu(dia-ab-na)라는 이름을 가진 신은 "Elam의 Enlil"이었습니다. Wilfred G. Lambert에 따르면 Yanbu는 Jabru와 동일한 신으로 이해되어야 합니다.

Humban은 또한 Assyrian Prince의 Underworld Vision이라는 텍스트에서 Jabru 및 Napirisha와 함께 나타납니다. Alexandre Lokotionov는 이러한 신들의 순서가 슈르푸에 있는 훔반에 대한 언급을 반영하며, 여기에 포함된 것은 아마도 아시리아인들에게 지하 세계가 "이국적이고 특이한 것을 위한 저장소일 수 있었다"는 것을 나타낼 수 있다고 지적합니다.

Ashurbanipal 아슈루바니팔의 연대기에 따르면 동상이 아시리아로 옮겨진 신 Ammankasibar는 일부 연구원에 의해 Humban과 동일시되었지만 그의 이름에 있는 kasibar 요소에 대한 그럴듯한 설명은 없습니다.

반증된 이론

과거에 Humban과 관련이 있다고 잘못 가정된 Humbaba의 묘사.
1916년 Georg Hüsing이 제안한 초기의 지금은 불명예스러운 이론은 Humban을 성서의 Haman, 그리스 신화의 인물 Memnon(Hüsing에 따른 Humban-Numena 기반), 이집트의 신 Ammon, 일본의 Hachiman과 연결하는 것을 목표로 했습니다.

과거 학계에서는 훔반이 길가메시 서사시에서 삼나무 숲의 수호자인 훔바바의 모델일 수 있다고 가정했지만, 앤드류 R. 조지에 따르면 이 이론은 오늘날 더 이상 그럴듯한 것으로 간주되지 않습니다. "안전하지 않은 역사적 결론"에 대하여 훔바바의 이름은 명확한 언어적 연관성이 없으며, 원래 형태는 후와와(Huwawa)인 다양한 위치와 시대에 따라 쓰입니다. Ur III 시대의 증명에 따르면 처음에는 메소포타미아에서 평범한 개인 이름이었습니다.

더 이상 받아들여지지 않는 또 다른 이론은 과거에 예를 들어 Walther Hinz가 지지한 것으로, Humban을 Napirisha와 동일한 신으로 간주했으며 후자는 전자의 "금기 이름"이었습니다. 마찬가지로, 키리리샤는 별개의 신이라기보다는 피니키르의 금기된 이름으로 여겨졌습니다. 이 견해는 1980년대 이후로 일반적으로 비판을 받아 1901년에 표현된 전자의 경우에 대한 약간의 의구심과 함께 오늘날 전문가들에 의해 더 이상 지지되지 않습니다. 과거에 널리 퍼졌기 때문에 일부 오래된 출판물에서는 로고그램 ANGAL 또는 DINGIR.GAL을 Napirisha(엘람어: "위대한 신", 로고그램의 설형 문자 기호는 동일한 의미를 가짐)로 취급하여 Humban을 언급하는 비문의 수를 과대평가합니다. 수메르어로) 대신 그를 대표합니다.