Answer · Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk

Not Enlil: the archaic spelling is EN.KID

No: Uruk III writes Enlil as EN.KID (EN+NUN), and the EN.E2 spelling of Enlil is an Early Dynastic IIIa development, so EN AN E2 on MS 3035 is not Enlil but a combination of EN, AN and E2.

No evidence yetAnswers 1 question0

Where it stands

No evidence yetNo evidence yet.

What it predicts

Archaic lexical lists write Enlil/Nippur with KID or NUN, not E2.
No other archaic text has EN.E2 in a context marked as divine.

What would rule it out

An Uruk III text with EN.E2 in a clearly divine or Nippur context.

The questions it answers

Does the name entry EN AN E2 on MS 3035 (P006268, obv. i 1.b09) contain the divine name Enlil, written as in Early Dynastic {d}en-lil2?

Part of Do the roughly 440 personal names in the archaic texts follow Sumerian, Semitic or some other naming pattern?

Open2 answers, none ahead

Cite it

Mysteries Department. (2026). Not Enlil: the archaic spelling is EN.KID [Answer ANS0DG2YAFQ4T2X]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0DG2YAFQ4T2X

@misc{mysteriesdept_ans0dg2yafq4t2x,
  title     = {Not Enlil: the archaic spelling is EN.KID},
  author    = {{Mysteries Department}},
  year      = {2026},
  note      = {Answer, catalog key ANS0DG2YAFQ4T2X},
  url       = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0DG2YAFQ4T2X}
}