{"collection":"Ancient Near East","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/ane/beheb.htm","path":"ane/beheb.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/ane/beheb.htm","text":"THE BRITISH ACADEMY\nLEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\nIN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\nBY\nLEONARD W. KING, M.A., LITT.D., F.S.A.\nAssistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities\nin the British Museum\nProfessor in the University of London\nKing's College\nTHE SCHWEICH LECTURES\n1916\nPREPARER'S NOTE\nThis text was prepared from a 1920 edition of the book, hence the\nreferences to dates after 1916 in some places.\nGreek text has been transliterated within brackets \"{}\" using an\nOxford English Dictionary alphabet table. Diacritical marks have\nbeen lost.\nPREFACE\nIn these lectures an attempt is made, not so much to restate familiar\nfacts, as to accommodate them to new and supplementary evidence which\nhas been published in America since the outbreak of the war. But even\nwithout the excuse of recent discovery, no apology would be needed for\nany comparison or contrast of Hebrew tradition with the mythological\nand legendary beliefs of Babylon and Egypt. Hebrew achievements in the\nsphere of religion and ethics are only thrown into stronger relief\nwhen studied against their contemporary background.\nThe bulk of our new material is furnished by some early texts, written\ntowards the close of the third millennium B.C. They incorporate\ntraditions which extend in unbroken outline from their own period into\nthe remote ages of the past, and claim to trace the history of man\nback to his creation. They represent the early national traditions of\nthe Sumerian people, who preceded the Semites as the ruling race in\nBabylonia; and incidentally they necessitate a revision of current\nviews with regard to the cradle of Babylonian civilization. The most\nremarkable of the new documents is one which relates in poetical\nnarrative an account of the Creation, of Antediluvian history, and of\nthe Deluge. It thus exhibits a close resemblance in structure to the\ncorresponding Hebrew traditions, a resemblance that is not shared by\nthe Semitic-Babylonian Versions at present known. But in matter the\nSumerian tradition is more primitive than any of the Semitic versions.\nIn spite of the fact that the text appears to have reached us in a\nmagical setting, and to some extent in epitomized form, this early\ndocument enables us to tap the stream of tradition at a point far\nabove any at which approach has hitherto been possible.\nThough the resemblance of early Sumerian tradition to that of the\nHebrews is striking, it furnishes a still closer parallel to the\nsummaries preserved from the history of Berossus. The huge figures\nincorporated in the latter's chronological scheme are no longer to be\ntreated as a product of Neo-Babylonian speculation; they reappear in\ntheir original surroundings in another of these early documents, the\nSumerian Dynastic List. The sources of Berossus had inevitably been\nsemitized by Babylon; but two of his three Antediluvian cities find\ntheir place among the five of primitive Sumerian belief, and two of\nhis ten Antediluvian kings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes. Moreover,\nthe recorded ages of Sumerian and Hebrew patriarchs are strangely\nalike. It may be added that in Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo\nStele has enabled us to verify, by a very similar comparison, the\naccuracy of Manetho's sources for his prehistoric period, while at the\nsame time it demonstrates the way in which possible inaccuracies in\nhis system, deduced from independent evidence, may have arisen in\nremote antiquity. It is clear that both Hebrew and Hellenistic\ntraditions were modelled on very early lines.\nThus our new material enables us to check the age, and in some measure\nthe accuracy, of the traditions concerning the dawn of history which\nthe Greeks reproduced from native sources, both in Babylonia and\nEgypt, after the conquests of Alexander had brought the Near East\nwithin the range of their intimate acquaintance. The third body of\ntradition, that of the Hebrews, though unbacked by the prestige of\nsecular achievement, has, through incorporation in the canons of two\ngreat religious systems, acquired an authority which the others have\nnot enjoyed. In re-examining the sources of all three accounts, so far\nas they are affected by the new discoveries, it will be of interest to\nobserve how the same problems were solved in antiquity by very\ndifferent races, living under widely divergent conditions, but within\neasy reach of one another. Their periods of contact, ascertained in\nhistory or suggested by geographical considerations, will prompt the\nfurther question to what extent each body of belief was evolved in\nindependence of the others. The close correspondence that has long\nbeen recognized and is now confirmed between the Hebrew and the\nSemitic-Babylonian systems, as compared with that of Egypt, naturally\nfalls within the scope of our enquiry.\nExcavation has provided an extraordinarily full archaeological\ncommentary to the legends of Egypt and Babylon; and when I received\nthe invitation to deliver the Schweich Lectures for 1916, I was\nreminded of the terms of the Bequest and was asked to emphasize the\narchaeological side of the subject. Such material illustration was\nalso calculated to bring out, in a more vivid manner than was possible\nwith purely literary evidence, the contrasts and parallels presented\nby Hebrew tradition. Thanks to a special grant for photographs from\nthe British Academy, I was enabled to illustrate by means of lantern\nslides many of the problems discussed in the lectures; and it was\noriginally intended that the photographs then shown should appear as\nplates in this volume. But in view of the continued and increasing\nshortage of paper, it was afterwards felt to be only right that all\nillustrations should be omitted. This very necessary decision has\ninvolved a recasting of certain sections of the lectures as delivered,\nwhich in its turn has rendered possible a fuller treatment of the new\nliterary evidence. To the consequent shifting of interest is also due\na transposition of names in the title. On their literary side, and in\nvirtue of the intimacy of their relation to Hebrew tradition, the\nlegends of Babylon must be given precedence over those of Egypt.\nFor the delay in the appearance of the volume I must plead the\npressure of other work, on subjects far removed from archaeological\nstudy and affording little time and few facilities for a continuance\nof archaeological and textual research. It is hoped that the insertion\nof references throughout, and the more detailed discussion of problems\nsuggested by our new literary material, may incline the reader to add\nhis indulgence to that already extended to me by the British Academy.\nL. W. KING.\nLEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\nIN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\nLECTURE I\nEGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME\nTRADITIONAL ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION\nAt the present moment most of us have little time or thought to spare\nfor subjects not connected directly or indirectly with the war. We\nhave put aside our own interests and studies; and after the war we\nshall all have a certain amount of leeway to make up in acquainting\nourselves with what has been going on in countries not yet involved in\nthe great struggle. Meanwhile the most we can do is to glance for a\nmoment at any discovery of exceptional interest that may come to\nlight.\nThe main object of these lectures will be to examine certain Hebrew\ntraditions in the light of new evidence which has been published in\nAmerica since the outbreak of the war. The evidence is furnished by\nsome literary texts, inscribed on tablets from Nippur, one of the\noldest and most sacred cities of Babylonia. They are written in\nSumerian, the language spoken by the non-Semitic people whom the\nSemitic Babylonians conquered and displaced; and they include a very\nprimitive version of the Deluge story and Creation myth, and some\ntexts which throw new light on the age of Babylonian civilization and\non the area within which it had its rise. In them we have recovered\nsome of the material from which Berossus derived his dynasty of\nAntediluvian kings, and we are thus enabled to test the accuracy of\nthe Greek tradition by that of the Sumerians themselves. So far then\nas Babylonia is concerned, these documents will necessitate a\nre-examination of more than one problem.\nThe myths and legends of ancient Egypt are also to some extent\ninvolved. The trend of much recent anthropological research has been\nin the direction of seeking a single place of origin for similar\nbeliefs and practices, at least among races which were bound to one\nanother by political or commercial ties. And we shall have occasion to\ntest, by means of our new data, a recent theory of Egyptian influence.\nThe Nile Valley was, of course, one the great centres from which\ncivilization radiated throughout the ancient East; and, even when\ndirect contact is unproved, Egyptian literature may furnish\ninstructive parallels and contrasts in any study of Western Asiatic\nmythology. Moreover, by a strange coincidence, there has also been\npublished in Egypt since the beginning of the war a record referring\nto the reigns of predynastic rulers in the Nile Valley. This, like\nsome of the Nippur texts, takes us back to that dim period before the\ndawn of actual history, and, though the information it affords is not\ndetailed like theirs, it provides fresh confirmation of the general\naccuracy of Manetho's sources, and suggests some interesting points\nfor comparison.\nBut the people with whose traditions we are ultimately concerned are\nthe Hebrews. In the first series of Schweich Lectures, delivered in\nthe year 1908, the late Canon Driver showed how the literature of\nAssyria and Babylon had thrown light upon Hebrew traditions concerning\nthe origin and early history of the world. The majority of the\ncuneiform documents, on which he based his comparison, date from a\nperiod no earlier than the seventh century B.C., and yet it was clear\nthat the texts themselves, in some form or other, must have descended\nfrom a remote antiquity. He concluded his brief reference to the\nCreation and Deluge Tablets with these words: \"The Babylonian\nnarratives are both polytheistic, while the corresponding biblical\nnarratives (Gen. i and vi-xi) are made the vehicle of a pure and\nexalted monotheism; but in spite of this fundamental difference, and\nalso variations in detail, the resemblances are such as to leave no\ndoubt that the Hebrew cosmogony and the Hebrew story of the Deluge are\nboth derived ultimately from the same original as the Babylonian\nnarratives, only transformed by the magic touch of Israel's religion,\nand infused by it with a new spirit.\"[1] Among the recently published\ndocuments from Nippur we have at last recovered one at least of those\nprimitive originals from which the Babylonian accounts were derived,\nwhile others prove the existence of variant stories of the world's\norigin and early history which have not survived in the later\ncuneiform texts. In some of these early Sumerian records we may trace\na faint but remarkable parallel with the Hebrew traditions of man's\nhistory between his Creation and the Flood. It will be our task, then,\nto examine the relations which the Hebrew narratives bear both to the\nearly Sumerian and to the later Babylonian Versions, and to ascertain\nhow far the new discoveries support or modify current views with\nregard to the contents of those early chapters of Genesis.\n[1] Driver, /Modern Research as illustrating the Bible/ (The Schweich\nLectures, 1908), p. 23.\nI need not remind you that Genesis is the book of Hebrew origins, and\nthat its contents mark it off to some extent from the other books of\nthe Hebrew Bible. The object of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua\nis to describe in their origin the fundamental institutions of the\nnational faith and to trace from the earliest times the course of\nevents which led to the Hebrew settlement in Palestine. Of this\nnational history the Book of Genesis forms the introductory section.\nFour centuries of complete silence lie between its close and the\nbeginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history of a nation as\ncontrasted with that of a family.[1] While Exodus and the succeeding\nbooks contain national traditions, Genesis is largely made up of\nindividual biography. Chapters xii-l are concerned with the immediate\nancestors of the Hebrew race, beginning with Abram's migration into\nCanaan and closing with Joseph's death in Egypt. But the aim of the\nbook is not confined to recounting the ancestry of Israel. It seeks\nalso to show her relation to other peoples in the world, and probing\nstill deeper into the past it describes how the earth itself was\nprepared for man's habitation. Thus the patriarchal biographies are\npreceded, in chapters i-xi, by an account of the original of the\nworld, the beginnings of civilization, and the distribution of the\nvarious races of mankind. It is, of course, with certain parts of this\nfirst group of chapters that such striking parallels have long been\nrecognized in the cuneiform texts.\n[1] Cf., e.g., Skinner, /A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on\nGenesis/ (1912), p. ii f.; Driver, /The Book of Genesis/, 10th ed.\n(1916), pp. 1 ff.; Ryle, /The Book of Genesis/ (1914), pp. x ff.\nIn approaching this particular body of Hebrew traditions, the\nnecessity for some caution will be apparent. It is not as though we\nwere dealing with the reported beliefs of a Malayan or Central\nAustralian tribe. In such a case there would be no difficulty in\napplying a purely objective criticism, without regard to ulterior\nconsequences. But here our own feelings are involved, having their\nroots deep in early associations. The ground too is well trodden; and,\nhad there been no new material to discuss, I think I should have\npreferred a less contentious theme. The new material is my\njustification for the choice of subject, and also the fact that,\nwhatever views we may hold, it will be necessary for us to assimilate\nit to them. I shall have no hesitation in giving you my own reading of\nthe evidence; but at the same time it will be possible to indicate\nsolutions which will probably appeal to those who view the subject\nfrom more conservative standpoints. That side of the discussion may\nwell be postponed until after the examination of the new evidence in\ndetail. And first of all it will be advisable to clear up some general\naspects of the problem, and to define the limits within which our\ncriticism may be applied.\nIt must be admitted that both Egypt and Babylon bear a bad name in\nHebrew tradition. Both are synonymous with captivity, the symbols of\nsuffering endured at the beginning and at the close of the national\nlife. And during the struggle against Assyrian aggression, the\ndisappointment at the failure of expected help is reflected in\nprophecies of the period. These great crises in Hebrew history have\ntended to obscure in the national memory the part which both Babylon\nand Egypt may have played in moulding the civilization of the smaller\nnations with whom they came in contact. To such influence the races of\nSyria were, by geographical position, peculiarly subject. The country\nhas often been compared to a bridge between the two great continents\nof Asia and Africa, flanked by the sea on one side and the desert on\nthe other, a narrow causeway of highland and coastal plain connecting\nthe valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates.[1] For, except on the\nfrontier of Egypt, desert and sea do not meet. Farther north the\nArabian plateau is separated from the Mediterranean by a double\nmountain chain, which runs south from the Taurus at varying\nelevations, and encloses in its lower course the remarkable depression\nof the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and the `Arabah. The Judaean hills\nand the mountains of Moab are merely the southward prolongation of the\nLebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and their neighbourhood to the sea endows\nthis narrow tract of habitable country with its moisture and\nfertility. It thus formed the natural channel of intercourse between\nthe two earliest centres of civilization, and was later the battle-\nground of their opposing empires.\n[1] See G. A. Smith, /Historical Geography of the Holy Land/, pp. 5\nff., 45 ff., and Myres, /Dawn of History/, pp. 137 ff.; and cf.\nHogarth, /The Nearer East/, pp. 65 ff., and Reclus, /Nouvelle\nG\u00e9ographie universelle/, t. IX, pp. 685 ff.\nThe great trunk-roads of through communication run north and south,\nacross the eastern plateaus of the Haur\u00e2n and Moab, and along the\ncoastal plains. The old highway from Egypt, which left the Delta at\nPelusium, at first follows the coast, then trends eastward across the\nplain of Esdraelon, which breaks the coastal range, and passing under\nHermon runs northward through Damascus and reaches the Euphrates at\nits most westerly point. Other through tracks in Palestine ran then as\nthey do to-day, by Beesheba and Hebron, or along the `Arabah and west\nof the Dead Sea, or through Edom and east of Jordan by the present\nHajj route to Damascus. But the great highway from Egypt, the most\nwesterly of the trunk-roads through Palestine, was that mainly\nfollowed, with some variant sections, by both caravans and armies, and\nwas known by the Hebrews in its southern course as the \"Way of the\nPhilistines\" and farther north as the \"Way of the East\".\nThe plain of Esraelon, where the road first trends eastward, has been\nthe battle-ground for most invaders of Palestine from the north, and\nthough Egyptian armies often fought in the southern coastal plain,\nthey too have battled there when they held the southern country.\nMegiddo, which commands the main pass into the plain through the low\nSamaritan hills to the southeast of Carmel, was the site of Thothmes\nIII's famous battle against a Syrian confederation, and it inspired\nthe writer of the Apocalypse with his vision of an Armageddon of the\nfuture. But invading armies always followed the beaten track of\ncaravans, and movements represented by the great campaigns were\nreflected in the daily passage of international commerce.\nWith so much through traffic continually passing within her borders,\nit may be matter for surprise that far more striking evidence of its\ncultural effect should not have been revealed by archaeological\nresearch in Palestine. Here again the explanation is mainly of a\ngeographical character. For though the plains and plateaus could be\ncrossed by the trunk-roads, the rest of the country is so broken up by\nmountain and valley that it presented few facilities either to foreign\npenetration or to external control. The physical barriers to local\nintercourse, reinforced by striking differences in soil, altitude, and\nclimate, while they precluded Syria herself from attaining national\nunity, always tended to protect her separate provinces, or \"kingdoms,\"\nfrom the full effects of foreign aggression. One city-state could be\ntraversed, devastated, or annexed, without in the least degree\naffecting neighbouring areas. It is true that the population of Syria\nhas always been predominantly Semitic, for she was on the fringe of\nthe great breeding-ground of the Semitic race and her landward\nboundary was open to the Arabian nomad. Indeed, in the whole course of\nher history the only race that bade fair at one time to oust the\nSemite in Syria was the Greek. But the Greeks remained within the\ncities which they founded or rebuilt, and, as Robertson Smith pointed\nout, the death-rate in Eastern cities habitually exceeds the birth-\nrate; the urban population must be reinforced from the country if it\nis to be maintained, so that the type of population is ultimately\ndetermined by the blood of the peasantry.[1] Hence after the Arab\nconquest the Greek elements in Syria and Palestine tended rapidly to\ndisappear. The Moslem invasion was only the last of a series of\nsimilar great inroads, which have followed one another since the dawn\nof history, and during all that time absorption was continually taking\nplace from desert tribes that ranged the Syrian border. As we have\nseen, the country of his adoption was such as to encourage the Semitic\nnomad's particularism, which was inherent in his tribal organization.\nThus the predominance of a single racial element in the population of\nPalestine and Syria did little to break down or overstep the natural\nbarriers and lines of cleavage.\n[1] See Robertson Smith, /Religion of the Semites/, p. 12 f.; and cf.\nSmith, /Hist. Geogr./, p. 10 f.\nThese facts suffice to show why the influence of both Egypt and\nBabylon upon the various peoples and kingdoms of Palestine was only\nintensified at certain periods, when ambition for extended empire\ndictated the reduction of her provinces in detail. But in the long\nintervals, during which there was no attempt to enforce political\ncontrol, regular relations were maintained along the lines of trade\nand barter. And in any estimate of the possible effect of foreign\ninfluence upon Hebrew thought, it is important to realize that some of\nthe channels through which in later periods it may have acted had been\nflowing since the dawn of history, and even perhaps in prehistoric\ntimes. It is probable that Syria formed one of the links by which we\nmay explain the Babylonian elements that are attested in prehistoric\nEgyptian culture.[1] But another possible line of advance may have\nbeen by way of Arabia and across the Red Sea into Upper Egypt.\n[1] Cf. /Sumer and Akkad/, pp. 322 ff.; and for a full discussion of\nthe points of resemblance between the early Babylonian and\nEgyptian civilizations, see Sayce, /The Archaeology of the\nCuneiform Inscriptions/, chap. iv, pp. 101 ff.\nThe latter line of contact is suggested by an interesting piece of\nevidence that has recently been obtained. A prehistoric flint knife,\nwith a handle carved from the tooth of a hippopotamus, has been\npurchased lately by the Louvre,[1] and is said to have been found at\nGebel el-`Arak near Naga` Ham\u00e2di, which lies on the Nile not far below\nKoptos, where an ancient caravan-track leads by W\u00e2di Hamm\u00e2m\u00e2t to the\nRed Sea. On one side of the handle is a battle-scene including some\nremarkable representations of ancient boats. All the warriors are nude\nwith the exception of a loin girdle, but, while one set of combatants\nhave shaven heads or short hair, the others have abundant locks\nfalling in a thick mass upon the shoulder. On the other face of the\nhandle is carved a hunting scene, two hunters with dogs and desert\nanimals being arranged around a central boss. But in the upper field\nis a very remarkable group, consisting of a personage struggling with\ntwo lions arranged symmetrically. The rest of the composition is not\nvery unlike other examples of prehistoric Egyptian carving in low\nrelief, but here attitude, figure, and clothing are quite un-Egyptian.\nThe hero wears a sort of turban on his abundant hair, and a full and\nrounded beard descends upon his breast. A long garment clothes him\nfrom the waist and falls below the knees, his muscular calves ending\nin the claws of a bird of prey. There is nothing like this in\nprehistoric Egyptian art.\n[1] See B\u00e9n\u00e9dite, \"Le couteau de Gebel al-`Arak\", in /Foundation\nEug\u00e8ne Piot, Mon. et. M\u00e9m./, XXII. i. (1916).\nPerhaps Monsieur B\u00e9n\u00e9dite is pressing his theme too far when he\ncompares the close-cropped warriors on the handle with the shaven\nSumerians and Elamites upon steles from Telloh and Susa, for their\nloin-girdles are African and quite foreign to the Euphrates Valley.\nAnd his suggestion that two of the boats, flat-bottomed and with high\ncurved ends, seem only to have navigated the Tigris and Euphrates,[1]\nwill hardly command acceptance. But there is no doubt that the heroic\npersonage upon the other face is represented in the familiar attitude\nof the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh struggling with lions, which formed\nso favourite a subject upon early Sumerian and Babylonian seals. His\ngarment is Sumerian or Semitic rather than Egyptian, and the mixture\nof human and bird elements in the figure, though not precisely\nparalleled at this early period, is not out of harmony with\nMesopotamian or Susan tradition. His beard, too, is quite different\nfrom that of the Libyan desert tribes which the early Egyptian kings\nadopted. Though the treatment of the lions is suggestive of proto-\nElamite rather than of early Babylonian models, the design itself is\nunmistakably of Mesopotamian origin. This discovery intensifies the\nsignificance of other early parallels that have been noted between the\ncivilizations of the Euphrates and the Nile, but its evidence, so far\nas it goes, does not point to Syria as the medium of prehistoric\nintercourse. Yet then, as later, there can have been no physical\nbarrier to the use of the river-route from Mesopotamia into Syria and\nof the tracks thence southward along the land-bridge to the Nile's\ndelta.\n[1] Op. cit., p. 32.\nIn the early historic periods we have definite evidence that the\neastern coast of the Levant exercised a strong fascination upon the\nrulers of both Egypt and Babylonia. It may be admitted that Syria had\nlittle to give in comparison to what she could borrow, but her local\ntrade in wine and oil must have benefited by an increase in the\nthrough traffic which followed the working of copper in Cyprus and\nSinai and of silver in the Taurus. Moreover, in the cedar forests of\nLebanon and the north she possessed a product which was highly valued\nboth in Egypt and the treeless plains of Babylonia. The cedars\nprocured by Sneferu from Lebanon at the close of the IIIrd Dynasty\nwere doubtless floated as rafts down the coast, and we may see in them\nevidence of a regular traffic in timber. It has long been known that\nthe early Babylonian king Sharru-kin, or Sargon of Akkad, had pressed\nup the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and we now have information\nthat he too was fired by a desire for precious wood and metal. One of\nthe recently published Nippur inscriptions contains copies of a number\nof his texts, collected by an ancient scribe from his statues at\nNippur, and from these we gather additional details of his campaigns.\nWe learn that after his complete subjugation of Southern Babylonia he\nturned his attention to the west, and that Enlil gave him the lands\n\"from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea\", i.e. from the Mediterranean to\nthe Persian Gulf. Fortunately this rather vague phrase, which survived\nin later tradition, is restated in greater detail in one of the\ncontemporary versions, which records that Enlil \"gave him the upper\nland, Mari, Iarmuti, and Ibla, as far as the Cedar Forest and the\nSilver Mountains\".[1]\n[1] See Poebel, /Historical Texts/ (Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab.\nSect., Vol. IV, No. 1, 1914), pp. 177 f., 222 ff.\nMari was a city on the middle Euphrates, but the name may here signify\nthe district of Mari which lay in the upper course of Sargon's march.\nNow we know that the later Sumerian monarch Gudea obtained his cedar\nbeams from the Amanus range, which he names /Amanum/ and describes as\nthe \"cedar mountains\".[1] Doubtless he felled his trees on the eastern\nslopes of the mountain. But we may infer from his texts that Sargon\nactually reached the coast, and his \"Cedar Forest\" may have lain\nfarther to the south, perhaps as far south as the Lebanon. The \"Silver\nMountains\" can only be identified with the Taurus, where silver mines\nwere worked in antiquity. The reference to Iarmuti is interesting, for\nit is clearly the same place as Iarimuta or Iarimmuta, of which we\nfind mention in the Tell el-Amarna letters. From the references to\nthis district in the letters of Rib-Adda, governor of Byblos, we may\ninfer that it was a level district on the coast, capable of producing\na considerable quantity of grain for export, and that it was under\nEgyptian control at the time of Amenophis IV. Hitherto its position\nhas been conjecturally placed in the Nile Delta, but from Sargon's\nreference we must probably seek it on the North Syrian or possibly the\nCilician coast. Perhaps, as Dr. Poebel suggests, it was the plain of\nAntioch, along the lower course and at the mouth of the Orontes. But\nhis further suggestion that the term is used by Sargon for the whole\nstretch of country between the sea and the Euphrates is hardly\nprobable. For the geographical references need not be treated as\nexhaustive, but as confined to the more important districts through\nwhich the expedition passed. The district of Ibla which is also\nmentioned by Nar\u00e2m-Sin and Gudea, lay probably to the north of\nIarmuti, perhaps on the southern slopes of Taurus. It, too, we may\nregard as a district of restricted extent rather than as a general\ngeographical term for the extreme north of Syria.\n[1] Thureau-Dangin, /Les inscriptions de Sumer de d'Akkad/, p. 108 f.,\nStatue B, col. v. 1. 28; Germ. ed., p. 68 f.\nIt is significant that Sargon does not allude to any battle when\ndescribing this expedition, nor does he claim to have devastated the\nwestern countries.[1] Indeed, most of these early expeditions to the\nwest appear to have been inspired by motives of commercial enterprise\nrather than of conquest. But increase of wealth was naturally followed\nby political expansion, and Egypt's dream of an Asiatic empire was\nrealized by Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty. The fact that Babylonian\nshould then have been adopted as the medium of official intercourse in\nSyria points to the closeness of the commercial ties which had already\nunited the Euphrates Valley with the west. Egyptian control had passed\nfrom Canaan at the time of the Hebrew settlement, which was indeed a\ncomparatively late episode in the early history of Syria. Whether or\nnot we identify the Khabiri with the Hebrews, the character of the\nlatter's incursion is strikingly illustrated by some of the Tell\nel-Amarna letters. We see a nomad folk pressing in upon settled\npeoples and gaining a foothold here and there.[2]\n[1] In some versions of his new records Sargon states that \"5,400 men\ndaily eat bread before him\" (see Poebel, op. cit., p. 178); though\nthe figure may be intended to convey an idea of the size of\nSargon's court, we may perhaps see in it a not inaccurate estimate\nof the total strength of his armed forces.\n[2] See especially Professor Burney's forthcoming commentary on Judges\n(passim), and his forthcoming Schweich Lectures (now delivered, in\n1917).\nThe great change from desert life consists in the adoption of\nagriculture, and when once that was made by the Hebrews any further\nadvance in economic development was dictated by their new\nsurroundings. The same process had been going on, as we have seen, in\nSyria since the dawn of history, the Semitic nomad passing gradually\nthrough the stages of agricultural and village life into that of the\ncity. The country favoured the retention of tribal exclusiveness, but\nultimate survival could only be purchased at the cost of some\namalgamation with their new neighbours. Below the surface of Hebrew\nhistory these two tendencies may be traced in varying action and\nreaction. Some sections of the race engaged readily in the social and\ncommercial life of Canaanite civilization with its rich inheritance\nfrom the past. Others, especially in the highlands of Judah and the\nsouth, at first succeeded in keeping themselves remote from foreign\ninfluence. During the later periods of the national life the country\nwas again subjected, and in an intensified degree, to those forces of\npolitical aggression from Mesopotamia and Egypt which we have already\nnoted as operating in Canaan. But throughout the settled Hebrew\ncommunity as a whole the spark of desert fire was not extinguished,\nand by kindling the zeal of the Prophets it eventually affected nearly\nall the white races of mankind.\nIn his Presidential Address before the British Association at\nNewcastle,[1] Sir Arthur Evans emphasized the part which recent\narchaeology has played in proving the continuity of human culture from\nthe most remote periods. He showed how gaps in our knowledge had been\nbridged, and he traced the part which each great race had taken in\nincreasing its inheritance. We have, in fact, ample grounds for\nassuming an interchange, not only of commercial products, but, in a\nminor degree, of ideas within areas geographically connected; and it\nis surely not derogatory to any Hebrew writer to suggest that he may\nhave adopted, and used for his own purposes, conceptions current among\nhis contemporaries. In other words, the vehicle of religious ideas may\nwell be of composite origin; and, in the course of our study of early\nHebrew tradition, I suggest that we hold ourselves justified in\napplying the comparative method to some at any rate of the ingredients\nwhich went to form the finished product. The process is purely\nliterary, but it finds an analogy in the study of Semitic art,\nespecially in the later periods. And I think it will make my meaning\nclearer if we consider for a moment a few examples of sculpture\nproduced by races of Semitic origin. I do not suggest that we should\nregard the one process as in any way proving the existence of the\nother. We should rather treat the comparison as illustrating in\nanother medium the effect of forces which, it is clear, were operative\nat various periods upon races of the same stock from which the Hebrews\nthemselves were descended. In such material products the eye at once\ndetects the Semite's readiness to avail himself of foreign models. In\nsome cases direct borrowing is obvious; in others, to adapt a metaphor\nfrom music, it is possible to trace extraneous /motifs/ in the\ndesign.[2]\n[1] \"New Archaeological Lights on the Origins of Civilization in\nEurope,\" British Association, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1916.\n[2] The necessary omission of plates, representing the slides shown in\nthe lectures, has involved a recasting of most passages in which\npoints of archaeological detail were discussed; see Preface. But\nthe following paragraphs have been retained as the majority of the\nmonuments referred to are well known.\nSome of the most famous monuments of Semitic art date from the Persian\nand Hellenistic periods, and if we glance at them in this connexion it\nis in order to illustrate during its most obvious phase a tendency of\nwhich the earlier effects are less pronounced. In the sarcophagus of\nthe Sidonian king Eshmu-`azar II, which is preserved in the Louvre,[1]\nwe have indeed a monument to which no Semitic sculptor can lay claim.\nWorkmanship and material are Egyptian, and there is no doubt that it\nwas sculptured in Egypt and transported to Sidon by sea. But the\nking's own engravers added the long Phoenician inscription, in which\nhe adjures princes and men not to open his resting-place since there\nare no jewels therein, concluding with some potent curses against any\nviolation of his tomb. One of the latter implores the holy gods to\ndeliver such violators up \"to a mighty prince who shall rule over\nthem\", and was probably suggested by Alexander's recent occupation of\nSidon in 332 B.C. after his reduction and drastic punishment of Tyre.\nKing Eshmun-`zar was not unique in his choice of burial in an Egyptian\ncoffin, for he merely followed the example of his royal father,\nTabn\u00eeth, \"priest of `Ashtart and king of the Sidonians\", whose\nsarcophagus, preserved at Constantinople, still bears in addition to\nhis own epitaph that of its former occupant, a certain Egyptian\ngeneral Penptah. But more instructive than these borrowed memorials is\na genuine example of Phoenician work, the stele set up by Yehaw-milk,\nking of Byblos, and dating from the fourth or fifth century B.C.[2] In\nthe sculptured panel at the head of the stele the king is represented\nin the Persian dress of the period standing in the presence of\n`Ashtart or Astarte, his \"Lady, Mistress of Byblos\". There is no doubt\nthat the stele is of native workmanship, but the influence of Egypt\nmay be seen in the technique of the carving, in the winged disk above\nthe figures, and still more in the representation of the goddess in\nher character as the Egyptian Hathor, with disk and horns, vulture\nhead-dress and papyrus-sceptre. The inscription records the dedication\nof an altar and shrine to the goddess, and these too we may conjecture\nwere fashioned on Egyptian lines.\n[1] /Corp. Inscr. Semit./, I. i, tab. II.\n[2] /C.I.S./, I. i, tab. I.\nThe representation of Semitic deities under Egyptian forms and with\nEgyptian attributes was encouraged by the introduction of their cults\ninto Egypt itself. In addition to Astarte of Byblos, Ba`al, Anath, and\nReshef were all borrowed from Syria in comparatively early times and\ngiven Egyptian characters. The conical Syrian helmet of Reshef, a god\nof war and thunder, gradually gave place to the white Egyptian crown,\nso that as Reshpu he was represented as a royal warrior; and Qadesh,\nanother form of Astarte, becoming popular with Egyptian women as a\npatroness of love and fecundity, was also sometimes modelled on\nHathor.[1]\n[1] See W. Max M\u00fcller, /Egyptological Researches/, I, p. 32 f., pl.\n41, and S. A. Cook, /Religion of Ancient Palestine/, pp. 83 ff.\nSemitic colonists on the Egyptian border were ever ready to adopt\nEgyptian symbolism in delineating the native gods to whom they owed\nallegiance, and a particularly striking example of this may be seen on\na stele of the Persian period preserved in the Cairo Museum.[1] It was\nfound at Tell Defenneh, on the right bank of the Pelusiac branch of\nthe Nile, close to the old Egyptian highway into Syria, a site which\nmay be identified with that of the biblical Tahpanhes and the Daphnae\nof the Greeks. Here it was that the Jewish fugitives, fleeing with\nJeremiah after the fall of Jerusalem, founded a Jewish colony beside a\nflourishing Phoenician and Aramaean settlement. One of the local gods\nof Tahpanhes is represented on the Cairo monument, an Egyptian stele\nin the form of a naos with the winged solar disk upon its frieze. He\nstands on the back of a lion and is clothed in Asiatic costume with\nthe high Syrian tiara crowning his abundant hair. The Syrian\nworkmanship is obvious, and the Syrian character of the cult may be\nrecognized in such details as the small brazen fire-altar before the\ngod, and the sacred pillar which is being anointed by the officiating\npriest. But the god holds in his left hand a purely Egyptian sceptre\nand in his right an emblem as purely Babylonian, the weapon of Marduk\nand Gilgamesh which was also wielded by early Sumerian kings.\n[1] M\u00fcller, op. cit., p. 30 f., pl. 40. Numismatic evidence exhibits a\nsimilar readiness on the part of local Syrian cults to adopt the\nveneer of Hellenistic civilization while retaining in great\nmeasure their own individuality; see Hill, \"Some Palestinian Cults\nin the Graeco-Roman Age\", in /Proceedings of the British Academy/,\nVol. V (1912).\nThe Elephantine papyri have shown that the early Jews of the Diaspora,\nthough untrammeled by the orthodoxy of Jerusalem, maintained the\npurity of their local cult in the face of considerable difficulties.\nHence the gravestones of their Aramaean contemporaries, which have\nbeen found in Egypt, can only be cited to illustrate the temptations\nto which they were exposed.[1] Such was the memorial erected by Abseli\nto the memory of his parents, Abb\u00e2 and Ahatb\u00fb, in the fourth year of\nXerxes, 481 B.C.[2] They had evidently adopted the religion of Osiris,\nand were buried at Saqq\u00e2rah in accordance with the Egyptian rites. The\nupper scene engraved upon the stele represents Abb\u00e2 and his wife in\nthe presence of Osiris, who is attended by Isis and Nephthys; and in\nthe lower panel is the funeral scene, in which all the mourners with\none exception are Asiatics. Certain details of the rites that are\nrepresented, and mistakes in the hieroglyphic version of the text,\nprove that the work is Aramaean throughout.[3]\n[1] It may be admitted that the Greek platonized cult of Isis and\nOsiris had its origin in the fusion of Greeks and Egyptians which\ntook place in Ptolemaic times (cf. Scott-Moncrieff, /Paganism and\nChristianity in Egypt/, p. 33 f.). But we may assume that already\nin the Persian period the Osiris cult had begun to acquire a tinge\nof mysticism, which, though it did not affect the mechanical\nreproduction of the native texts, appealed to the Oriental mind as\nwell as to certain elements in Greek religion. Persian influence\nprobably prepared the way for the Platonic exegesis of the Osiris\nand Isis legends which we find in Plutarch; and the latter may\nhave been in great measure a development, and not, as is often\nassumed, a complete misunderstanding of the later Egyptian cult.\n[2] /C.I.S./, II. i, tab. XI, No. 122.\n[3] A very similar monument is the Carpentras Stele (/C.I.S./, II., i,\ntab. XIII, No. 141), commemorating Taba, daughter of Tahapi, an\nAramaean lady who was also a convert to Osiris. It is rather later\nthan that of Abb\u00e2 and his wife, since the Aramaic characters are\ntransitional from the archaic to the square alphabet; see Driver,\n/Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel/, pp. xviii ff.,\nand Cooke, /North Semitic Inscriptions/, p. 205 f. The Vatican\nStele (op. cit. tab. XIV. No. 142), which dates from the fourth\ncentury, represents inferior work.\nIf our examples of Semitic art were confined to the Persian and later\nperiods, they could only be employed to throw light on their own\nepoch, when through communication had been organized, and there was\nconsequently a certain pooling of commercial and artistic products\nthroughout the empire.[1] It is true that under the Great King the\nvarious petty states and provinces were encouraged to manage their own\naffairs so long as they paid the required tribute, but their horizon\nnaturally expanded with increase of commerce and the necessity for\nservice in the king's armies. At this time Aramaic was the speech of\nSyria, and the population, especially in the cities, was still largely\nAramaean. As early as the thirteenth century sections of this\ninteresting Semitic race had begun to press into Northern Syria from\nthe middle Euphrates, and they absorbed not only the old Canaanite\npopulation but also the Hittite immigrants from Cappadocia. The latter\nindeed may for a time have furnished rulers to the vigorous North\nSyrian principalities which resulted from this racial combination, but\nthe Aramaean element, thanks to continual reinforcement, was\nnumerically dominant, and their art may legitimately be regarded as in\ngreat measure a Semitic product. Fortunately we have recovered\nexamples of sculpture which prove that tendencies already noted in the\nPersian period were at work, though in a minor degree, under the later\nAssyrian empire. The discoveries made at Zenjirli, for example,\nillustrate the gradually increasing effect of Assyrian influence upon\nthe artistic output of a small North Syrian state.\n[1] Cf. Bevan, /House of Seleucus/, Vol. I, pp. 5, 260 f. The artistic\ninfluence of Mesopotamia was even more widely spread than that of\nEgypt during the Persian period. This is suggested, for example,\nby the famous lion-weight discovered at Abydos in Mysia, the town\non the Hellespont famed for the loves of Hero and Leander. The\nletters of its Aramaic inscription (/C.I.S./, II. i, tab. VII, No.\n108) prove by their form that it dates from the Persian period,\nand its provenance is sufficiently attested. Its weight moreover\nsuggests that it was not merely a Babylonian or Persian\nimportation, but cast for local use, yet in design and technique\nit is scarcely distinguishable from the best Assyrian work of the\nseventh century.\nThis village in north-western Syria, on the road between Antioch and\nMar`ash, marks the site of a town which lay near the southern border\nor just within the Syrian district of Sam'al. The latter is first\nmentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions by Shalmaneser III, the son and\nsuccessor of the great conqueror, Ashur-nasir-pal; and in the first\nhalf of the eighth century, though within the radius of Assyrian\ninfluence, it was still an independent kingdom. It is to this period\nthat we must assign the earliest of the inscribed monuments discovered\nat Zenjirli and its neighbourhood. At Gerjin, not far to the north-\nwest, was found the colossal statue of Hadad, chief god of the\nAramaeans, which was fashioned and set up in his honour by Panammu I,\nson of Qaral and king of Ya'di.[1] In the long Aramaic inscription\nengraved upon the statue Panammu records the prosperity of his reign,\nwhich he ascribes to the support he has received from Hadad and his\nother gods, El, Reshef, Rekub-el, and Shamash. He had evidently been\nleft in peace by Assyria, and the monument he erected to his god is of\nAramaean workmanship and design. But the influence of Assyria may be\ntraced in Hadad's beard and in his horned head-dress, modelled on that\nworn by Babylonian and Assyrian gods as the symbol of divine power.\n[1] See F. von Luschan, /Sendschirli/, I. (1893), pp. 49 ff., pl. vi;\nand cf. Cooke, /North Sem. Inscr./, pp. 159 ff. The characters of\nthe inscription on the statue are of the same archaic type as\nthose of the Moabite Stone, though unlike them they are engraved\nin relief; so too are the inscriptions of Panammu's later\nsuccessor Bar-rekub (see below). Gerjin was certainly in Ya'di,\nand Winckler's suggestion that Zenjirli itself also lay in that\ndistrict but near the border of Sam'al may be provisionally\naccepted; the occurrence of the names in the inscriptions can be\nexplained in more than one way (see Cooke, op. cit., p. 183).\nThe political changes introduced into Ya'di and Sam'al by Tiglath-\npileser IV are reflected in the inscriptions and monuments of\nBar-rekub, a later king of the district. Internal strife had brought\ndisaster upon Ya'di and the throne had been secured by Panammu II, son\nof Bar-sur, whose claims received Assyrian support. In the words of\nhis son Bar-rekub, \"he laid hold of the skirt of his lord, the king of\nAssyria\", who was gracious to him; and it was probably at this time,\nand as a reward for his loyalty, that Ya'di was united with the\nneighbouring district of Sam'al. But Panammu's devotion to his foreign\nmaster led to his death, for he died at the siege of Damascus, in 733\nor 732 B.C., \"in the camp, while following his lord, Tiglath-pileser,\nking of Assyria\". His kinsfolk and the whole camp bewailed him, and\nhis body was sent back to Ya'di, where it was interred by his son, who\nset up an inscribed statue to his memory. Bar-rekub followed in his\nfather's footsteps, as he leads us to infer in his palace-inscription\nfound at Zenjirli: \"I ran at the wheel of my lord, the king of\nAssyria, in the midst of mighty kings, possessors of silver and\npossessors of gold.\" It is not strange therefore that his art should\nreflect Assyrian influence far more strikingly than that of Panammu I.\nThe figure of himself which he caused to be carved in relief on the\nleft side of the palace-inscription is in the Assyrian style,[1] and\nso too is another of his reliefs from Zenjirli. On the latter\nBar-rekub is represented seated upon his throne with eunuch and scribe\nin attendance, while in the field is the emblem of full moon and\ncrescent, here ascribed to \"Ba`al of Harran\", the famous centre of\nmoon-worship in Northern Mesopotamia.[2]\n[1] /Sendschirli/, IV (1911), pl. lxvii. Attitude and treatment of\nrobes are both Assyrian, and so is the arrangement of divine\nsymbols in the upper field, though some of the latter are given\nunder unfamiliar forms. The king's close-fitting peaked cap was\nevidently the royal headdress of Sam'al; see the royal figure on a\nsmaller stele of inferior design, op. cit., pl. lxvi.\n[2] Op. cit. pp. 257, 346 ff., and pl. lx. The general style of the\nsculpture and much of the detail are obviously Assyrian. Assyrian\ninfluence is particularly noticeable in Bar-rekub's throne; the\ndetails of its decoration are precisely similar to those of an\nAssyrian bronze throne in the British Museum. The full moon and\ncrescent are not of the familiar form, but are mounted on a\nstandard with tassels.\nThe detailed history and artistic development of Sam'al and Ya'di\nconvey a very vivid impression of the social and material effects upon\nthe native population of Syria, which followed the westward advance of\nAssyria in the eighth century. We realize not only the readiness of\none party in the state to defeat its rival with the help of Assyrian\nsupport, but also the manner in which the life and activities of the\nnation as a whole were unavoidably affected by their action. Other\nHittite-Aramaean and Phoenician monuments, as yet undocumented with\nliterary records, exhibit a strange but not unpleasing mixture of\nforeign /motifs/, such as we see on the stele from Amrith[1] in the\ninland district of Arvad. But perhaps the most remarkable example of\nSyrian art we possess is the king's gate recently discovered at\nCarchemish.[2] The presence of the hieroglyphic inscriptions points to\nthe survival of Hittite tradition, but the figures represented in the\nreliefs are of Aramaean, not Hittite, type. Here the king is seen\nleading his eldest son by the hand in some stately ceremonial, and\nranged in registers behind them are the younger members of the royal\nfamily, whose ages are indicated by their occupations.[3] The\nemployment of basalt in place of limestone does not disguise the\nsculptor's debt to Assyria. But the design is entirely his own, and\nthe combined dignity and homeliness of the composition are\nrefreshingly superior to the arrogant spirit and hard execution which\nmar so much Assyrian work. This example is particularly instructive,\nas it shows how a borrowed art may be developed in skilled hands and\nmade to serve a purpose in complete harmony with its new environment.\n[1] /Collection de Clercq/, t. II, pl. xxxvi. The stele is sculptured\nin relief with the figure of a North Syrian god. Here the winged\ndisk is Egyptian, as well as the god's helmet with uraeus, and his\nloin-cloth; his attitude and his supporting lion are Hittite; and\nthe lozenge-mountains, on which the lion stands, and the technique\nof the carving are Assyrian. But in spite of its composite\ncharacter the design is quite successful and not in the least\nincongruous.\n[2] Hogarth, /Carchemish/, Pt. I (1914), pl. B. 7 f.\n[3] Two of the older boys play at knuckle-bones, others whip spinning-\ntops, and a little naked girl runs behind supporting herself with\na stick, on the head of which is carved a bird. The procession is\nbrought up by the queen-mother, who carries the youngest baby and\nleads a pet lamb.\nSuch monuments surely illustrate the adaptability of the Semitic\ncraftsman among men of Phoenician and Aramaean strain. Excavation in\nPalestine has failed to furnish examples of Hebrew work. But Hebrew\ntradition itself justifies us in regarding this /trait/ as of more\ngeneral application, or at any rate as not repugnant to Hebrew\nthought, when it relates that Solomon employed Tyrian craftsmen for\nwork upon the Temple and its furniture; for Phoenician art was\nessentially Egyptian in its origin and general character. Even Eshmun-\n`zar's desire for burial in an Egyptian sarcophagus may be paralleled\nin Hebrew tradition of a much earlier period, when, in the last verse\nof Genesis,[1] it is recorded that Joseph died, \"and they embalmed\nhim, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt\". Since it formed the subject\nof prophetic denunciation, I refrain for the moment from citing the\nnotorious adoption of Assyrian customs at certain periods of the later\nJudaean monarchy. The two records I have referred to will suffice, for\nwe have in them cherished traditions, of which the Hebrews themselves\nwere proud, concerning the most famous example of Hebrew religious\narchitecture and the burial of one of the patriarchs of the race. A\nsimilar readiness to make use of the best available resources, even of\nforeign origin, may on analogy be regarded as at least possible in the\ncomposition of Hebrew literature.\n[1] Gen. l. 26, assigned by critics to E.\nWe shall see that the problems we have to face concern the possible\ninfluence of Babylon, rather than of Egypt, upon Hebrew tradition. And\none last example, drawn from the later period, will serve to\ndemonstrate how Babylonian influence penetrated the ancient world and\nhas even left some trace upon modern civilization. It is a fact,\nthough one perhaps not generally realized, that the twelve divisions\non the dials of our clocks and watches have a Babylonian, and\nultimately a Sumerian, ancestry. For why is it we divide the day into\ntwenty-four hours? We have a decimal system of reckoning, we count by\ntens; why then should we divide the day and night into twelve hours\neach, instead of into ten or some multiple of ten? The reason is that\nthe Babylonians divided the day into twelve double-hours; and the\nGreeks took over their ancient system of time-division along with\ntheir knowledge of astronomy and passed it on to us. So if we\nourselves, after more than two thousand years, are making use of an\nold custom from Babylon, it would not be surprising if the Hebrews, a\ncontemporary race, should have fallen under her influence even before\nthey were carried away as captives and settled forcibly upon her\nriver-banks.\nWe may pass on, then, to the site from which our new material has been\nobtained--the ancient city of Nippur, in central Babylonia. Though the\nplace has been deserted for at least nine hundred years, its ancient\nname still lingers on in local tradition, and to this day /Niffer/ or\n/Nuffar/ is the name the Arabs give the mounds which cover its\nextensive ruins. No modern town or village has been built upon them or\nin their immediate neighbourhood. The nearest considerable town is\nD\u00eew\u00e2n\u00eeyah, on the left bank of the Hillah branch of the Euphrates,\ntwenty miles to the south-west; but some four miles to the south of\nthe ruins is the village of S\u00fbq el-`Afej, on the eastern edge of the\n`Afej marshes, which begin to the south of Nippur and stretch away\nwestward. Protected by its swamps, the region contains a few primitive\nsettlements of the wild `Afej tribesmen, each a group of reed-huts\nclustering around the mud fort of its ruling sheikh. Their chief\nenemies are the Shamm\u00e2r, who dispute with them possession of the\npastures. In summer the marshes near the mounds are merely pools of\nwater connected by channels through the reed-beds, but in spring the\nflood-water converts them into a vast lagoon, and all that meets the\neye are a few small hamlets built on rising knolls above the water-\nlevel. Thus Nippur may be almost isolated during the floods, but the\nmounds are protected from the waters' encroachment by an outer ring of\nformer habitation which has slightly raised the level of the\nencircling area. The ruins of the city stand from thirty to seventy\nfeet above the plain, and in the north-eastern corner there rose,\nbefore the excavations, a conical mound, known by the Arabs as /Bint\nel-Em\u00eer/ or \"The Princess\". This prominent landmark represents the\ntemple-tower of Enlil's famous sanctuary, and even after excavation it\nis still the first object that the approaching traveller sees on the\nhorizon. When he has climbed its summit he enjoys an uninterrupted\nview over desert and swamp.\nThe cause of Nippur's present desolation is to be traced to the change\nin the bed of the Euphrates, which now lies far to the west. But in\nantiquity the stream flowed through the centre of the city, along the\ndry bed of the Shatt en-N\u00eel, which divides the mounds into an eastern\nand a western group. The latter covers the remains of the city proper\nand was occupied in part by the great business-houses and bazaars.\nHere more than thirty thousand contracts and accounts, dating from the\nfourth millennium to the fifth century B.C., were found in houses\nalong the former river-bank. In the eastern half of the city was\nEnlil's great temple Ekur, with its temple-tower Imkharsag rising in\nsuccessive stages beside it. The huge temple-enclosure contained not\nonly the sacrificial shrines, but also the priests' apartments, store-\nchambers, and temple-magazines. Outside its enclosing wall, to the\nsouth-west, a large triangular mound, christened \"Tablet Hill\" by the\nexcavators, yielded a further supply of records. In addition to\nbusiness-documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon and of the later\nAssyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian periods, between two and three\nthousand literary texts and fragments were discovered here, many of\nthem dating from the Sumerian period. And it is possible that some of\nthe early literary texts that have been published were obtained in\nother parts of the city.\nNo less than twenty-one different strata, representing separate\nperiods of occupation, have been noted by the American excavators at\nvarious levels within the Nippur mounds,[1] the earliest descending to\nvirgin soil some twenty feet below the present level of the\nsurrounding plain. The remote date of Nippur's foundation as a city\nand cult-centre is attested by the fact that the pavement laid by\nNar\u00e2m-Sin in the south-eastern temple-court lies thirty feet above\nvirgin soil, while only thirty-six feet of superimposed /d\u00e9bris/\nrepresent the succeeding millennia of occupation down to Sassanian and\nearly Arab times. In the period of the Hebrew captivity the city still\nranked as a great commercial market and as one of the most sacred\nrepositories of Babylonian religious tradition. We know that not far\noff was Tel-abib, the seat of one of the colonies of Jewish exiles,\nfor that lay \"by the river of Chebar\",[2] which we may identify with\nthe Kabaru Canal in Nippur's immediate neighbourhood. It was \"among\nthe captives by the river Chebar\" that Ezekiel lived and prophesied,\nand it was on Chebar's banks that he saw his first vision of the\nCherubim.[3] He and other of the Jewish exiles may perhaps have\nmingled with the motley crowd that once thronged the streets of\nNippur, and they may often have gazed on the huge temple-tower which\nrose above the city's flat roofs. We know that the later population of\nNippur itself included a considerable Jewish element, for the upper\nstrata of the mounds have yielded numerous clay bowls with Hebrew,\nMandaean, and Syriac magical inscriptions;[4] and not the least\ninteresting of the objects recovered was the wooden box of a Jewish\nscribe, containing his pen and ink-vessel and a little scrap of\ncrumbling parchment inscribed with a few Hebrew characters.[5]\n[1] See Hilprecht, /Explorations in Bible Lands/, pp. 289 ff., 540\nff.; and Fisher, /Excavations at Nippur/, Pt. I (1905), Pt. II\n(1906).\n[2] Ezek. iii. 15.\n[3] Ezek. i. 1, 3; iii. 23; and cf. x. 15, 20, 22, and xliii. 3.\n[4] See J. A. Montgomery, /Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur/,\n1913\n[5] Hilprecht, /Explorations/, p. 555 f.\nOf the many thousands of inscribed clay tablets which were found in\nthe course of the expeditions, some were kept at Constantinople, while\nothers were presented by the Sultan Abdul Hamid to the excavators, who\nhad them conveyed to America. Since that time a large number have been\npublished. The work was necessarily slow, for many of the texts were\nfound to be in an extremely bad state of preservation. So it happened\nthat a great number of the boxes containing tablets remained until\nrecently still packed up in the store-rooms of the Pennsylvania\nMuseum. But under the present energetic Director of the Museum, Dr. G.\nB. Gordon, the process of arranging and publishing the mass of\nliterary material has been \"speeded up\". A staff of skilled workmen\nhas been employed on the laborious task of cleaning the broken tablets\nand fitting the fragments together. At the same time the help of\nseveral Assyriologists was welcomed in the further task of running\nover and sorting the collections as they were prepared for study.\nProfessor Clay, Professor Barton, Dr. Langdon, Dr. Edward Chiera, and\nDr. Arno Poebel have all participated in the work. But the lion's\nshare has fallen to the last-named scholar, who was given leave of\nabsence by John Hopkins University in order to take up a temporary\nappointment at the Pennsylvania Museum. The result of his labours was\npublished by the Museum at the end of 1914.[1] The texts thus made\navailable for study are of very varied interest. A great body of them\nare grammatical and represent compilations made by Semitic scribes of\nthe period of Hammurabi's dynasty for their study of the old Sumerian\ntongue. Containing, as most of them do, Semitic renderings of the\nSumerian words and expressions collected, they are as great a help to\nus in our study of Sumerian language as they were to their compilers;\nin particular they have thrown much new light on the paradigms of the\ndemonstrative and personal pronouns and on Sumerian verbal forms. But\nliterary texts are also included in the recent publications.\n[1] Poebel, /Historical Texts/ and /Historical and Grammatical Texts/\n(Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, and Vol.\nV), Philadelphia, 1914.\nWhen the Pennsylvania Museum sent out its first expedition, lively\nhopes were entertained that the site selected would yield material of\ninterest from the biblical standpoint. The city of Nippur, as we have\nseen, was one of the most sacred and most ancient religious centres in\nthe country, and Enlil, its city-god, was the head of the Babylonian\npantheon. On such a site it seemed likely that we might find versions\nof the Babylonian legends which were current at the dawn of history\nbefore the city of Babylonia and its Semitic inhabitants came upon the\nscene. This expectation has proved to be not unfounded, for the\nliterary texts include the Sumerian Deluge Version and Creation myth\nto which I referred at the beginning of the lecture. Other texts of\nalmost equal interest consist of early though fragmentary lists of\nhistorical and semi-mythical rulers. They prove that Berossus and the\nlater Babylonians depended on material of quite early origin in\ncompiling their dynasties of semi-mythical kings. In them we obtain a\nglimpse of ages more remote than any on which excavation in Babylonia\nhas yet thrown light, and for the first time we have recovered genuine\nnative tradition of early date with regard to the cradle of Babylonian\nculture. Before we approach the Sumerian legends themselves, it will\nbe as well to-day to trace back in this tradition the gradual merging\nof history into legend and myth, comparing at the same time the\nancient Egyptian's picture of his own remote past. We will also\nascertain whether any new light is thrown by our inquiry upon Hebrew\ntraditions concerning the earliest history of the human race and the\norigins of civilization.\nIn the study of both Egyptian and Babylonian chronology there has been\na tendency of late years to reduce the very early dates that were\nformerly in fashion. But in Egypt, while the dynasties of Manetho have\nbeen telescoped in places, excavation has thrown light on predynastic\nperiods, and we can now trace the history of culture in the Nile\nValley back, through an unbroken sequence, to its neolithic stage.\nQuite recently, too, as I mentioned just now, a fresh literary record\nof these early predynastic periods has been recovered, on a fragment\nof the famous Palermo Stele, our most valuable monument for early\nEgyptian history and chronology. Egypt presents a striking contrast to\nBabylonia in the comparatively small number of written records which\nhave survived for the reconstruction of her history. We might well\nspare much of her religious literature, enshrined in endless temple-\ninscriptions and papyri, if we could but exchange it for some of the\nroyal annals of Egyptian Pharaohs. That historical records of this\ncharacter were compiled by the Egyptian scribes, and that they were as\ndetailed and precise in their information as those we have recovered\nfrom Assyrian sources, is clear from the few extracts from the annals\nof Thothmes III's wars which are engraved on the walls of the temple\nat Karnak.[1] As in Babylonia and Assyria, such records must have\nformed the foundation on which summaries of chronicles of past\nEgyptian history were based. In the Palermo Stele it is recognized\nthat we possess a primitive chronicle of this character.\n[1] See Breasted, /Ancient Records/, I, p. 4, II, pp. 163 ff.\nDrawn up as early as the Vth Dynasty, its historical summary proves\nthat from the beginning of the dynastic age onward a yearly record was\nkept of the most important achievements of the reigning Pharaoh. In\nthis fragmentary but invaluable epitome, recording in outline much of\nthe history of the Old Kingdom,[1] some interesting parallels have\nlong been noted with Babylonian usage. The early system of time-\nreckoning, for example, was the same in both countries, each year\nbeing given an official title from the chief event that occurred in\nit. And although in Babylonia we are still without material for\ntracing the process by which this cumbrous method gave place to that\nof reckoning by regnal years, the Palermo Stele demonstrates the way\nin which the latter system was evolved in Egypt. For the events from\nwhich the year was named came gradually to be confined to the fiscal\n\"numberings\" of cattle and land. And when these, which at first had\ntaken place at comparatively long intervals, had become annual events,\nthe numbered sequence of their occurrence corresponded precisely to\nthe years of the king's reign. On the stele, during the dynastic\nperiod, each regnal year is allotted its own space or rectangle,[2]\narranged in horizontal sequence below the name and titles of the\nruling king.\n[1] Op. cit., I, pp. 57 ff.\n[2] The spaces are not strictly rectangles, as each is divided\nvertically from the next by the Egyptian hieroglyph for \"year\".\nThe text, which is engraved on both sides of a great block of black\nbasalt, takes its name from the fact that the fragment hitherto known\nhas been preserved since 1877 at the Museum of Palermo. Five other\nfragments of the text have now been published, of which one\nundoubtedly belongs to the same monument as the Palermo fragment,\nwhile the others may represent parts of one or more duplicate copies\nof that famous text. One of the four Cairo fragments[1] was found by a\ndigger for /sebakh/ at Mitrah\u00eeneh (Memphis); the other three, which\nwere purchased from a dealer, are said to have come from Minieh, while\nthe fifth fragment, at University College, is also said to have come\nfrom Upper Egypt,[2] though it was purchased by Professor Petrie while\nat Memphis. These reports suggest that a number of duplicate copies\nwere engraved and set up in different Egyptian towns, and it is\npossible that the whole of the text may eventually be recovered. The\nchoice of basalt for the records was obviously dictated by a desire\nfor their preservation, but it has had the contrary effect; for the\nblocks of this hard and precious stone have been cut up and reused in\nlater times. The largest and most interesting of the new fragments has\nevidently been employed as a door-sill, with the result that its\nsurface is much rubbed and parts of its text are unfortunately almost\nundecipherable. We shall see that the earliest section of its record\nhas an important bearing on our knowledge of Egyptian predynastic\nhistory and on the traditions of that remote period which have come\ndown to us from the history of Manetho.\n[1] See Gautier, /Le Mus\u00e9e \u00c9gyptien/, III (1915), pp. 29 ff., pl. xxiv\nff., and Foucart, /Bulletin de l'Institut Fran\u00e7ais d'Arch\u00e9ologie\nOrientale/, XII, ii (1916), pp. 161 ff.; and cf. Gardiner, /Journ.\nof Egypt. Arch./, III, pp. 143 ff., and Petrie, /Ancient Egypt/,\n1916, Pt. III, pp. 114 ff.\n[2] Cf. Petrie, op. cit., pp. 115, 120.\nFrom the fragment of the stele preserved at Palermo we already knew\nthat its record went back beyond the Ist Dynasty into predynastic\ntimes. For part of the top band of the inscription, which is there\npreserved, contains nine names borne by kings of Lower Egypt or the\nDelta, which, it had been conjectured, must follow the gods of Manetho\nand precede the \"Worshippers of Horus\", the immediate predecessors of\nthe Egyptian dynasties.[1] But of contemporary rulers of Upper Egypt\nwe had hitherto no knowledge, since the supposed royal names\ndiscovered at Abydos and assigned to the time of the \"Worshippers of\nHorus\" are probably not royal names at all.[2] With the possible\nexception of two very archaic slate palettes, the first historical\nmemorials recovered from the south do not date from an earlier period\nthan the beginning of the Ist Dynasty. The largest of the Cairo\nfragments now helps us to fill in this gap in our knowledge.\n[1] See Breasted, /Anc. Rec./, I, pp. 52, 57.\n[2] Cf. Hall, /Ancient History of the Near East/, p. 99 f.\nOn the top of the new fragment[1] we meet the same band of rectangles\nas at Palermo,[2] but here their upper portions are broken away, and\nthere only remains at the base of each of them the outlined figure of\na royal personage, seated in the same attitude as those on the Palermo\nstone. The remarkable fact about these figures is that, with the\napparent exception of the third figure from the right,[3] each wears,\nnot the Crown of the North, as at Palermo, but the Crown of the South.\nWe have then to do with kings of Upper Egypt, not the Delta, and it is\nno longer possible to suppose that the predynastic rulers of the\nPalermo Stele were confined to those of Lower Egypt, as reflecting\nnorthern tradition. Rulers of both halves of the country are\nrepresented, and Monsieur Gautier has shown,[4] from data on the\nreverse of the inscription, that the kings of the Delta were arranged\non the original stone before the rulers of the south who are outlined\nupon our new fragment. Moreover, we have now recovered definite proof\nthat this band of the inscription is concerned with predynastic\nEgyptian princes; for the cartouche of the king, whose years are\nenumerated in the second band immediately below the kings of the\nsouth, reads Athet, a name we may with certainty identify with\nAthothes, the second successor of Menes, founder of the Ist Dynasty,\nwhich is already given under the form Ateth in the Abydos List of\nKings.[5] It is thus quite certain that the first band of the\ninscription relates to the earlier periods before the two halves of\nthe country were brought together under a single ruler.\n[1] Cairo No. 1; see Gautier, /Mus. \u00c9gypt./, III, pl. xxiv f.\n[2] In this upper band the spaces are true rectangles, being separated\nby vertical lines, not by the hieroglyph for \"year\" as in the\nlower bands; and each rectangle is assigned to a separate king,\nand not, as in the other bands, to a year of a king's reign.\n[3] The difference in the crown worn by this figure is probably only\napparent and not intentional; M. Foucart, after a careful\nexamination of the fragment, concludes that it is due to\nsubsequent damage or to an original defect in the stone; cf.\n/Bulletin/, XII, ii, p. 162.\n[4] Op. cit., p. 32 f.\n[5] In Manetho's list he corresponds to {Kenkenos}, the second\nsuccessor of Menes according to both Africanus and Eusebius, who\nassign the name Athothis to the second ruler of the dynasty only,\nthe Teta of the Abydos List. The form Athothes is preserved by\nEratosthenes for both of Menes' immediate successors.\nThough the tradition of these remote times is here recorded on a\nmonument of the Vth Dynasty, there is no reason to doubt its general\naccuracy, or to suppose that we are dealing with purely mythological\npersonages. It is perhaps possible, as Monsieur Foucart suggests, that\nmissing portions of the text may have carried the record back through\npurely mythical periods to Ptah and the Creation. In that case we\nshould have, as we shall see, a striking parallel to early Sumerian\ntradition. But in the first extant portions of the Palermo text we are\nalready in the realm of genuine tradition. The names preserved appear\nto be those of individuals, not of mythological creations, and we may\nassume that their owners really existed. For though the invention of\nwriting had not at that time been achieved, its place was probably\ntaken by oral tradition. We know that with certain tribes of Africa at\nthe present day, who possess no knowledge of writing, there are\nfunctionaries charged with the duty of preserving tribal traditions,\nwho transmit orally to their successors a remembrance of past chiefs\nand some details of events that occurred centuries before.[1] The\npredynastic Egyptians may well have adopted similar means for\npreserving a remembrance of their past history.\n[1] M. Foucart illustrates this point by citing the case of the\nBushongos, who have in this way preserved a list of no less than a\nhundred and twenty-one of their past kings; op. cit., p. 182, and\ncf. Tordey and Joyce, \"Les Bushongos\", in /Annales du Mus\u00e9e du\nCongo Belge/, s\u00e9r. III, t. II, fasc. i (Brussels, 1911).\nMoreover, the new text furnishes fresh proof of the general accuracy\nof Manetho, even when dealing with traditions of this prehistoric age.\nOn the stele there is no definite indication that these two sets of\npredynastic kings were contemporaneous rulers of Lower and Upper Egypt\nrespectively; and since elsewhere the lists assign a single sovereign\nto each epoch, it has been suggested that we should regard them as\nsuccessive representatives of the legitimate kingdom.[1] Now Manetho,\nafter his dynasties of gods and demi-gods, states that thirty Memphite\nkings reigned for 1,790 years, and were followed by ten Thinite kings\nwhose reigns covered a period of 350 years. Neglecting the figures as\nobviously erroneous, we may well admit that the Greek historian here\nalludes to our two pre-Menite dynasties. But the fact that he should\nregard them as ruling consecutively does not preclude the other\nalternative. The modern convention of arranging lines of\ncontemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had not been evolved in\nantiquity, and without some such method of distinction contemporaneous\nrulers, when enumerated in a list, can only be registered\nconsecutively. It would be natural to assume that, before the\nunification of Egypt by the founder of the Ist Dynasty, the rulers of\nNorth and South were independent princes, possessing no traditions of\na united throne on which any claim to hegemony could be based. On the\nassumption that this was so, their arrangement in a consecutive series\nwould not have deceived their immediate successors. But it would\nundoubtedly tend in course of time to obliterate the tradition of\ntheir true order, which even at the period of the Vth Dynasty may have\nbeen completely forgotten. Manetho would thus have introduced no\nstrange or novel confusion; and this explanation would of course apply\nto other sections of his system where the dynasties he enumerates\nappear to be too many for their period. But his reproduction of two\nlines of predynastic rulers, supported as it now is by the early\nevidence of the Palermo text, only serves to increase our confidence\nin the general accuracy of his sources, while at the same time it\nillustrates very effectively the way in which possible inaccuracies,\ndeduced from independent data, may have arisen in quite early times.\n[1] Foucart, loc. cit.\nIn contrast to the dynasties of Manetho, those of Berossus are so\nimperfectly preserved that they have never formed the basis of\nBabylonian chronology.[1] But here too, in the chronological scheme, a\nsimilar process of reduction has taken place. Certain dynasties,\nrecovered from native sources and at one time regarded as consecutive,\nwere proved to have been contemporaneous; and archaeological evidence\nsuggested that some of the great gaps, so freely assumed in the royal\nsequence, had no right to be there. As a result, the succession of\nknown rulers was thrown into truer perspective, and such gaps as\nremained were being partially filled by later discoveries. Among the\nlatter the most important find was that of an early list of kings,\nrecently published by P\u00e8re Scheil[2] and subsequently purchased by the\nBritish Museum shortly before the war. This had helped us to fill in\nthe gap between the famous Sargon of Akkad and the later dynasties,\nbut it did not carry us far beyond Sargon's own time. Our\narchaeological evidence also comes suddenly to an end. Thus the\nearliest picture we have hitherto obtained of the Sumerians has been\nthat of a race employing an advanced system of writing and possessed\nof a knowledge of metal. We have found, in short, abundant remains of\na bronze-age culture, but no traces of preceding ages of development\nsuch as meet us on early Egyptian sites. It was a natural inference\nthat the advent of the Sumerians in the Euphrates Valley was sudden,\nand that they had brought their highly developed culture with them\nfrom some region of Central or Southern Asia.\n[1] While the evidence of Herodotus is extraordinarily valuable for\nthe details he gives of the civilizations of both Egypt and\nBabylonia, and is especially full in the case of the former, it is\nof little practical use for the chronology. In Egypt his report of\nthe early history is confused, and he hardly attempts one for\nBabylonia. It is probable that on such subjects he sometimes\nmisunderstood his informants, the priests, whose traditions were\nmore accurately reproduced by the later native writers Manetho and\nBerossus. For a detailed comparison of classical authorities in\nrelation to both countries, see Griffith in Hogarth's /Authority\nand Archaeology/, pp. 161 ff.\n[2] See /Comptes rendus/, 1911 (Oct.), pp. 606 ff., and /Rev.\nd'Assyr./, IX (1912), p. 69.\nThe newly published Nippur documents will cause us to modify that\nview. The lists of early kings were themselves drawn up under the\nDynasty of N\u00eesin in the twenty-second century B.C., and they give us\ntraces of possibly ten and at least eight other \"kingdoms\" before the\nearliest dynasty of the known lists.[1] One of their novel features is\nthat they include summaries at the end, in which it is stated how\noften a city or district enjoyed the privilege of being the seat of\nsupreme authority in Babylonia. The earliest of their sections lie\nwithin the legendary period, and though in the third dynasty preserved\nwe begin to note signs of a firmer historical tradition, the great\nbreak that then occurs in the text is at present only bridged by\ntitles of various \"kingdoms\" which the summaries give; a few even of\nthese are missing and the relative order of the rest is not assured.\nBut in spite of their imperfect state of preservation, these documents\nare of great historical value and will furnish a framework for future\nchronological schemes. Meanwhile we may attribute to some of the later\ndynasties titles in complete agreement with Sumerian tradition. The\ndynasty of Ur-Engur, for example, which preceded that of N\u00eesin,\nbecomes, if we like, the Third Dynasty of Ur. Another important fact\nwhich strikes us after a scrutiny of the early royal names recovered\nis that, while two or three are Semitic,[2] the great majority of\nthose borne by the earliest rulers of Kish, Erech, and Ur are as\nobviously Sumerian.\n[1] See Poebel, /Historical Texts/, pp. 73 ff. and /Historical and\nGrammatical Texts/, pl. ii-iv, Nos. 2-5. The best preserved of the\nlists is No. 2; Nos. 3 and 4 are comparatively small fragments;\nand of No. 5 the obverse only is here published for the first\ntime, the contents of the reverse having been made known some\nyears ago by Hilprecht (cf. /Mathematical, Metrological, and\nChronological Tablets/, p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47). The fragments\nbelong to separate copies of the Sumerian dynastic record, and it\nhappens that the extant portions of their text in some places\ncover the same period and are duplicates of one another.\n[2] Cf., e.g., two of the earliest kings of Kish, Galumum and Zugagib.\nThe former is probably the Semitic-Babylonian word /kalumum/,\n\"young animal, lamb,\" the latter /zukak\u00eebum/, \"scorpion\"; cf.\nPoebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 111. The occurrence of these names\npoints to Semitic infiltration into Northern Babylonia since the\ndawn of history, a state of things we should naturally expect. It\nis improbable that on this point Sumerian tradition should have\nmerely reflected the conditions of a later period.\nIt is clear that in native tradition, current among the Sumerians\nthemselves before the close of the third millennium, their race was\nregarded as in possession of Babylonia since the dawn of history. This\nat any rate proves that their advent was not sudden nor comparatively\nrecent, and it further suggests that Babylonia itself was the cradle\nof their civilization. It will be the province of future\narchaeological research to fill out the missing dynasties and to\ndetermine at what points in the list their strictly historical basis\ndisappears. Some, which are fortunately preserved near the beginning,\nbear on their face their legendary character. But for our purpose they\nare none the worse for that.\nIn the first two dynasties, which had their seats at the cities of\nKish and Erech, we see gods mingling with men upon the earth. Tammuz,\nthe god of vegetation, for whose annual death Ezekiel saw women\nweeping beside the Temple at Jerusalem, is here an earthly monarch. He\nappears to be described as \"a hunter\", a phrase which recalls the\ndeath of Adonis in Greek mythology. According to our Sumerian text he\nreigned in Erech for a hundred years.\nAnother attractive Babylonian legend is that of Etana, the prototype\nof Icarus and hero of the earliest dream of human flight.[1] Clinging\nto the pinions of his friend the Eagle he beheld the world and its\nencircling stream recede beneath him; and he flew through the gate of\nheaven, only to fall headlong back to earth. He is here duly entered\nin the list, where we read that \"Etana, the shepherd who ascended to\nheaven, who subdued all lands\", ruled in the city of Kish for 635\nyears.\n[1] The Egyptian conception of the deceased Pharaoh ascending to\nheaven as a falcon and becoming merged into the sun, which first\noccurs in the Pyramid texts (see Gardiner in Cumont's /\u00c9tudes\nSyriennes/, pp. 109 ff.), belongs to a different range of ideas.\nBut it may well have been combined with the Etana tradition to\nproduce the funerary eagle employed so commonly in Roman Syria in\nrepresentations of the emperor's apotheosis (cf. Cumont, op. cit.,\npp. 37 ff., 115).\nThe god Lugal-banda is another hero of legend. When the hearts of the\nother gods failed them, he alone recovered the Tablets of Fate, stolen\nby the bird-god Z\u00fb from Enlil's palace. He is here recorded to have\nreigned in Erech for 1,200 years.\nTradition already told us that Erech was the native city of Gilgamesh,\nthe hero of the national epic, to whom his ancestor Ut-napishtim\nrelated the story of the Flood. Gilgamesh too is in our list, as king\nof Erech for 126 years.\nWe have here in fact recovered traditions of Post-diluvian kings.\nUnfortunately our list goes no farther back than that, but it is\nprobable that in its original form it presented a general\ncorrespondence to the system preserved from Berossus, which enumerates\nten Antediluvian kings, the last of them Xisuthros, the hero of the\nDeluge. Indeed, for the dynastic period, the agreement of these old\nSumerian lists with the chronological system of Berossus is striking.\nThe latter, according to Syncellus, gives 34,090 or 34,080 years as\nthe total duration of the historical period, apart from his preceding\nmythical ages, while the figure as preserved by Eusebius is 33,091\nyears.[1] The compiler of one of our new lists,[2] writing some 1,900\nyears earlier, reckons that the dynastic period in his day had lasted\nfor 32,243 years. Of course all these figures are mythical, and even\nat the time of the Sumerian Dynasty of N\u00eesin variant traditions were\ncurrent with regard to the number of historical and semi-mythical\nkings of Babylonia and the duration of their rule. For the earlier\nwriter of another of our lists,[3] separated from the one already\nquoted by an interval of only sixty-seven years, gives 28,876[4] years\nas the total duration of the dynasties at his time. But in spite of\nthese discrepancies, the general resemblance presented by the huge\ntotals in the variant copies of the list to the alternative figures of\nBerossus, if we ignore his mythical period, is remarkable. They\nindicate a far closer correspondence of the Greek tradition with that\nof the early Sumerians themselves than was formerly suspected.\n[1] The figure 34,090 is that given by Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p.\n147); but it is 34,080 in the equivalent which is added in \"sars\",\n&c. The discrepancy is explained by some as due to an intentional\nomission of the units in the second reckoning; others would regard\n34,080 as the correct figure (cf. /Hist. of Bab./, p. 114 f.). The\nreading of ninety against eighty is supported by the 33,091 of\nEusebius (/Chron. lib. pri./, ed. Schoene, col. 25).\n[2] No. 4.\n[3] No. 2.\n[4] The figures are broken, but the reading given may be accepted with\nsome confidence; see Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 103.\nFurther proof of this correspondence may be seen in the fact that the\nnew Sumerian Version of the Deluge Story, which I propose to discuss\nin the second lecture, gives us a connected account of the world's\nhistory down to that point. The Deluge hero is there a Sumerian king\nnamed Ziusudu, ruling in one of the newly created cities of Babylonia\nand ministering at the shrine of his city-god. He is continually given\nthe royal title, and the foundation of the Babylonian \"kingdom\" is\ntreated as an essential part of Creation. We may therefore assume that\nan Antediluvian period existed in Sumerian tradition as in\nBerossus.[1] And I think Dr. Poebel is right in assuming that the\nNippur copies of the Dynastic List begin with the Post-diluvian\nperiod.[2]\n[1] Of course it does not necessarily follow that the figure assigned\nto the duration of the Antediluvian or mythical period by the\nSumerians would show so close a resemblance to that of Berossus as\nwe have already noted in their estimates of the dynastic or\nhistorical period. But there is no need to assume that Berossus'\nhuge total of a hundred and twenty \"sars\" (432,000 years) is\nentirely a product of Neo-Babylonian speculation; the total\n432,000 is explained as representing ten months of a cosmic year,\neach month consisting of twelve \"sars\", i.e. 12 x 3600 = 43,200\nyears. The Sumerians themselves had no difficulty in picturing two\nof their dynastic rulers as each reigning for two \"ners\" (1,200\nyears), and it would not be unlikely that \"sars\" were distributed\namong still earlier rulers; the numbers were easily written. For\nthe unequal distribution of his hundred and twenty \"sars\" by\nBerossus among his ten Antediluvian kings, see Appendix II.\n[2] The exclusion of the Antediluvian period from the list may perhaps\nbe explained on the assumption that its compiler confined his\nrecord to \"kingdoms\", and that the mythical rulers who preceded\nthem did not form a \"kingdom\" within his definition of the term.\nIn any case we have a clear indication that an earlier period was\nincluded before the true \"kingdoms\", or dynasties, in an Assyrian\ncopy of the list, a fragment of which is preserved in the British\nMuseum from the Library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh; see /Chron.\nconc. Early Bab. Kings/ (Studies in East. Hist., II f.), Vol. I,\npp. 182 ff., Vol. II, pp. 48 ff., 143 f. There we find traces of\nan extra column of text preceding that in which the first Kingdom\nof Kish was recorded. It would seem almost certain that this extra\ncolumn was devoted to Antediluvian kings. The only alternative\nexplanation would be that it was inscribed with the summaries\nwhich conclude the Sumerian copies of our list. But later scribes\ndo not so transpose their material, and the proper place for\nsummaries is at the close, not at the beginning, of a list. In the\nAssyrian copy the Dynastic List is brought up to date, and extends\ndown to the later Assyrian period. Formerly its compiler could\nonly be credited with incorporating traditions of earlier times.\nBut the correspondence of the small fragment preserved of its\nSecond Column with part of the First Column of the Nippur texts\n(including the name of \"Enmennunna\") proves that the Assyrian\nscribe reproduced an actual copy of the Sumerian document.\nThough Professor Barton, on the other hand, holds that the Dynastic\nList had no concern with the Deluge, his suggestion that the early\nnames preserved by it may have been the original source of Berossus'\nAntediluvian rulers[1] may yet be accepted in a modified form. In\ncoming to his conclusion he may have been influenced by what seems to\nme an undoubted correspondence between one of the rulers in our list\nand the sixth Antediluvian king of Berossus. I think few will be\ndisposed to dispute the equation\n{Daonos poimon} = Etana, a shepherd.\nEach list preserves the hero's shepherd origin and the correspondence\nof the names is very close, Daonos merely transposing the initial\nvowel of Etana.[2] That Berossus should have translated a Post-\ndiluvian ruler into the Antediluvian dynasty would not be at all\nsurprising in view of the absence of detailed correspondence between\nhis later dynasties and those we know actually occupied the Babylonian\nthrone. Moreover, the inclusion of Babylon in his list of Antediluvian\ncities should make us hesitate to regard all the rulers he assigns to\nhis earliest dynasty as necessarily retaining in his list their\noriginal order in Sumerian tradition. Thus we may with a clear\nconscience seek equations between the names of Berossus' Antediluvian\nrulers and those preserved in the early part of our Dynastic List,\nalthough we may regard the latter as equally Post-diluvian in Sumerian\nbelief.\n[1] See the brief statement he makes in the course of a review of Dr.\nPoebel's volumes in the /American Journal of Semitic Languages and\nLiterature/, XXXI, April 1915, p. 225. He does not compare any of\nthe names, but he promises a study of those preserved and a\ncomparison of the list with Berossus and with Gen. iv and v. It is\npossible that Professor Barton has already fulfilled his promise\nof further discussion, perhaps in his /Archaeology and the Bible/,\nto the publication of which I have seen a reference in another\nconnexion (cf. /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI, p. 291); but I\nhave not yet been able to obtain sight of a copy.\n[2] The variant form {Daos} is evidently a mere contraction, and any\nclaim it may have had to represent more closely the original form\nof the name is to be disregarded in view of our new equation.\nThis reflection, and the result already obtained, encourage us to\naccept the following further equation, which is yielded by a renewed\nscrutiny of the lists:\n{'Ammenon} = Enmenunna.\nHere Ammenon, the fourth of Berossus' Antediluvian kings, presents a\nwonderfully close transcription of the Sumerian name. The /n/ of the\nfirst syllable has been assimilated to the following consonant in\naccordance with a recognized law of euphony, and the resultant\ndoubling of the /m/ is faithfully preserved in the Greek. Precisely\nthe same initial component, /Enme/, occurs in the name Enmeduranki,\nborne by a mythical king of Sippar, who has long been recognized as\nthe original of Berossus' seventh Antediluvian king, {Euedorakhos}.[1]\nThere too the original /n/ has been assimilated, but the Greek form\nretains no doubling of the /m/ and points to its further weakening.\n[1] Var. {Euedoreskhos}; the second half of the original name,\nEnmeduranki, is more closely preserved in /Edoranchus/, the form\ngiven by the Armenian translator of Eusebius.\nI do not propose to detain you with a detailed discussion of Sumerian\nroyal names and their possible Greek equivalents. I will merely point\nout that the two suggested equations, which I venture to think we may\nregard as established, throw the study of Berossus' mythological\npersonages upon a new plane. No equivalent has hitherto been suggested\nfor {Daonos}; but {'Ammenon} has been confidently explained as the\nequivalent of a conjectured Babylonian original, Umm\u00e2nu, lit.\n\"Workman\". The fact that we should now have recovered the Sumerian\noriginal of the name, which proves to have no connexion in form or\nmeaning with the previously suggested Semitic equivalent, tends to\ncast doubt on other Semitic equations proposed. Perhaps {'Amelon} or\n{'Amillaros} may after all not prove to be the equivalent of Am\u00ealu,\n\"Man\", nor {'Amempsinos} that of Am\u00eal-Sin. Both may find their true\nequivalents in some of the missing royal names at the head of the\nSumerian Dynastic List. There too we may provisionally seek {'Aloros},\nthe \"first king\", whose equation with Aruru, the Babylonian mother-\ngoddess, never appeared a very happy suggestion.[1] The ingenious\nproposal,[2] on the other hand, that his successor, {'Alaparos},\nrepresents a miscopied {'Adaparos}, a Greek rendering of the name of\nAdapa, may still hold good in view of Etana's presence in the Sumerian\ndynastic record. Ut-napishtim's title, Khasisatra or Atrakhasis, \"the\nVery Wise\", still of course remains the established equivalent of\n{Xisouthros}; but for {'Otiartes} (? {'Opartes}), a rival to Ubar-\nTutu, Ut-napishtim's father, may perhaps appear. The new\nidentifications do not of course dispose of the old ones, except in\nthe case of Umm\u00e2nu; but they open up a new line of approach and\nprovide a fresh field for conjecture.[3] Semitic, and possibly\ncontracted, originals are still possible for unidentified mythical\nkings of Berossus; but such equations will inspire greater confidence,\nshould we be able to establish Sumerian originals for the Semitic\nrenderings, from new material already in hand or to be obtained in the\nfuture.\n[1] Dr. Poebel (/Hist Inscr./, p. 42, n. 1) makes the interesting\nsuggestion that {'Aloros} may represent an abbreviated and corrupt\nform of the name Lal-ur-alimma, which has come down to us as that\nof an early and mythical king of Nippur; see Rawlinson, /W.A.I./,\nIV, 60 (67), V, 47 and 44, and cf. /Sev. Tabl. of Creat./, Vol. I,\np. 217, No. 32574, Rev., l. 2 f. It may be added that the\nsufferings with which the latter is associated in the tradition\nare perhaps such as might have attached themselves to the first\nhuman ruler of the world; but the suggested equation, though\ntempting by reason of the remote parallel it would thus furnish to\nAdam's fate, can at present hardly be accepted in view of the\npossibility that a closer equation to {'Aloros} may be\nforthcoming.\n[2] Hommel, /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol. XV (1893), p. 243.\n[3] See further Appendix II.\nBut it is time I read you extracts from the earlier extant portions of\nthe Sumerian Dynastic List, in order to illustrate the class of\ndocument with which we are dealing. From them it will be seen that the\nrecord is not a tabular list of names like the well-known King's Lists\nof the Neo-Babylonian period. It is cast in the form of an epitomized\nchronicle and gives under set formulae the length of each king's\nreign, and his father's name in cases of direct succession to father\nor brother. Short phrases are also sometimes added, or inserted in the\nsentence referring to a king, in order to indicate his humble origin\nor the achievement which made his name famous in tradition. The head\nof the First Column of the text is wanting, and the first royal name\nthat is completely preserved is that of Galumum, the ninth or tenth\nruler of the earliest \"kingdom\", or dynasty, of Kish. The text then\nruns on connectedly for several lines:\nGalumum ruled for nine hundred years.\nZugagib ruled for eight hundred and forty years.\nArpi, son of a man of the people, ruled for seven hundred and twenty\nyears.\nEtana, the shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued all lands,\nruled for six hundred and thirty-five years.[1]\nPili . . ., son of Etana, ruled for four hundred and ten years.\nEnmenunna ruled for six hundred and eleven years.\nMelamkish, son of Enmenunna, ruled for nine hundred years.\nBarsalnunna, son of Enmenunna, ruled for twelve hundred years.\nMesza[. . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . .] years.\n[. . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . .] years.\n[1] Possibly 625 years.\nA small gap then occurs in the text, but we know that the last two\nrepresentatives of this dynasty of twenty-three kings are related to\nhave ruled for nine hundred years and six hundred and twenty-five\nyears respectively. In the Second Column of the text the lines are\nalso fortunately preserved which record the passing of the first\nhegemony of Kish to the \"Kingdom of Eanna\", the latter taking its name\nfrom the famous temple of Anu and Ishtar in the old city of Erech. The\ntext continues:\nThe kingdom of Kish passed to Eanna.\nIn Eanna, Meskingasher, son of the Sun-god, ruled as high priest and\nking for three hundred and twenty-five years. Meskingasher entered\ninto[1] [. . .] and ascended to [. . .].\nEnmerkar, son of Meskingasher, the king of Erech who built [. . .]\nwith the people of Erech,[2] ruled as king for four hundred and\ntwenty years.\nLugalbanda, the shepherd, ruled for twelve hundred years.\nDumuzi,[3], the hunter(?), whose city was . . ., ruled for a hundred\nyears.\nGishbilgames,[4] whose father was A,[5] the high priest of Kullab,\nruled for one hundred and twenty-six[6] years.\n[. . .]lugal, son of Gishbilgames, ruled for [. . .] years.\n[1] The verb may also imply descent into.\n[2] The phrase appears to have been imperfectly copied by the scribe.\nAs it stands the subordinate sentence reads \"the king of Erech who\nbuilt with the people of Erech\". Either the object governed by the\nverb has been omitted, in which case we might restore some such\nphrase as \"the city\"; or, perhaps, by a slight transposition, we\nshould read \"the king who built Erech with the people of Erech\".\nIn any case the first building of the city of Erech, as\ndistinguished from its ancient cult-centre Eanna, appears to be\nrecorded here in the tradition. This is the first reference to\nErech in the text; and Enmerkar's father was high priest as well\nas king.\n[3] i.e. Tammuz.\n[4] i.e. Gilgamesh.\n[5] The name of the father of Gilgamesh is rather strangely expressed\nby the single sign for the vowel /a/ and must apparently be read\nas A. As there is a small break in the text at the end of this\nline, Dr. Poebel not unnaturally assumed that A was merely the\nfirst syllable of the name, of which the end was wanting. But it\nhas now been shown that the complete name was A; see F\u00f6rtsch,\n/Orient. Lit.-Zeit./, Vol. XVIII, No. 12 (Dec., 1915), col. 367\nff. The reading is deduced from the following entry in an Assyrian\nexplanatory list of gods (/Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt.\nXXIV, pl. 25, ll. 29-31): \"The god A, who is also equated to the\ngod Dubbisaguri (i.e. 'Scribe of Ur'), is the priest of Kullab;\nhis wife is the goddess Ninguesirka (i.e. 'Lady of the edge of the\nstreet').\" A, the priest of Kullab and the husband of a goddess,\nis clearly to be identified with A, the priest of Kullab and\nfather of Gilgamesh, for we know from the Gilgamesh Epic that the\nhero's mother was the goddess Ninsun. Whether Ninguesirka was a\ntitle of Ninsun, or represents a variant tradition with regard to\nthe parentage of Gilgamesh on the mother's side, we have in any\ncase confirmation of his descent from priest and goddess. It was\nnatural that A should be subsequently deified. This was not the\ncase at the time our text was inscribed, as the name is written\nwithout the divine determinative.\n[6] Possibly 186 years.\nThis group of early kings of Erech is of exceptional interest. Apart\nfrom its inclusion of Gilgamesh and the gods Tammuz and Lugalbanda,\nits record of Meskingasher's reign possibly refers to one of the lost\nlegends of Erech. Like him Melchizedek, who comes to us in a chapter\nof Genesis reflecting the troubled times of Babylon's First\nDynasty,[1] was priest as well as king.[2] Tradition appears to have\ncredited Meskingasher's son and successor, Enmerkar, with the building\nof Erech as a city around the first settlement Eanna, which had\nalready given its name to the \"kingdom\". If so, Sumerian tradition\nconfirms the assumption of modern research that the great cities of\nBabylonia arose around the still more ancient cult-centres of the\nland. We shall have occasion to revert to the traditions here recorded\nconcerning the parentage of Meskingasher, the founder of this line of\nkings, and that of its most famous member, Gilgamesh. Meanwhile we may\nnote that the closing rulers of the \"Kingdom of Eanna\" are wanting.\nWhen the text is again preserved, we read of the hegemony passing from\nErech to Ur and thence to Awan:\nThe k[ingdom of Erech[3] passed to] Ur.\nIn Ur Mesannipada became king and ruled for eighty years.\nMeskiagunna, son of Mesannipada, ruled for thirty years.\nElu[. . .] ruled for twenty-five years.\nBalu[. . .] ruled for thirty-six years.\nFour kings (thus) ruled for a hundred and seventy-one years.\nThe kingdom of Ur passed to Awan.\nIn Awan . . .\n[1] Cf. /Hist. of Bab./, p. 159 f.\n[2] Gen. xiv. 18.\n[3] The restoration of Erech here, in place of Eanna, is based on the\nabsence of the latter name in the summary; after the building of\nErech by Enmerkar, the kingdom was probably reckoned as that of\nErech.\nWith the \"Kingdom of Ur\" we appear to be approaching a firmer\nhistorical tradition, for the reigns of its rulers are recorded in\ndecades, not hundreds of years. But we find in the summary, which\nconcludes the main copy of our Dynastic List, that the kingdom of\nAwan, though it consisted of but three rulers, is credited with a\ntotal duration of three hundred and fifty-six years, implying that we\nare not yet out of the legendary stratum. Since Awan is proved by\nnewly published historical inscriptions from Nippur to have been an\nimportant deity of Elam at the time of the Dynasty of Akkad,[1] we\ngather that the \"Kingdom of Awan\" represented in Sumerian tradition\nthe first occasion on which the country passed for a time under\nElamite rule. At this point a great gap occurs in the text, and when\nthe detailed dynastic succession in Babylonia is again assured, we\nhave passed definitely from the realm of myth and legend into that of\nhistory.[2]\n[1] Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 128.\n[2] See further, Appendix II.\nWhat new light, then, do these old Sumerian records throw on Hebrew\ntraditions concerning the early ages of mankind? I think it will be\nadmitted that there is something strangely familiar about some of\nthose Sumerian extracts I read just now. We seem to hear in them the\nfaint echo of another narrative, like them but not quite the same.\nAnd all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years;\nand he died.\nAnd Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enosh: and Seth\nlived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and\nbegat sons and daughters: and all the days of Seth were nine\nhundred and twelve years: and he died.\n. . . and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years:\nand he died.\n. . . and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years: and\nhe died.\n. . . and all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety and\nfive years: and he died.\n. . . and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two\nyears: and he died.\n. . . and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five\nyears: and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took\nhim.\n. . . and all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and\nnine years: and he died.\n. . . and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and\nseven years: and he died.\nAnd Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and\nJapheth.\nThroughout these extracts from \"the book of the generations of\nAdam\",[1] Galumum's nine hundred years[2] seem to run almost like a\nrefrain; and Methuselah's great age, the recognized symbol for\nlongevity, is even exceeded by two of the Sumerian patriarchs. The\nnames in the two lists are not the same,[3] but in both we are moving\nin the same atmosphere and along similar lines of thought. Though each\nlist adheres to its own set formulae, it estimates the length of human\nlife in the early ages of the world on much the same gigantic scale as\nthe other. Our Sumerian records are not quite so formal in their\nstructure as the Hebrew narrative, but the short notes which here and\nthere relieve their stiff monotony may be paralleled in the Cainite\ngenealogy of the preceding chapter in Genesis.[4] There Cain's city-\nbuilding, for example, may pair with that of Enmerkar; and though our\nnew records may afford no precise equivalents to Jabal's patronage of\nnomad life, or to the invention of music and metal-working ascribed to\nJubal and Tubal-cain, these too are quite in the spirit of Sumerian\nand Babylonian tradition, in their attempt to picture the beginnings\nof civilization. Thus Enmeduranki, the prototype of the seventh\nAntediluvian patriarch of Berossus, was traditionally revered as the\nfirst exponent of divination.[5] It is in the chronological and\ngeneral setting, rather than in the Hebrew names and details, that an\necho seems here to reach us from Sumer through Babylon.\n[1] Gen. v. 1 ff. (P).\n[2] The same length of reign is credited to Melamkish and to one and\nperhaps two other rulers of that first Sumerian \"kingdom\".\n[3] The possibility of the Babylonian origin of some of the Hebrew\nnames in this geneaology and its Cainite parallel has long been\ncanvassed; and considerable ingenuity has been expended in\nobtaining equations between Hebrew names and those of the\nAntediluvian kings of Berossus by tracing a common meaning for\neach suggested pair. It is unfortunate that our new identification\nof {'Ammenon} with the Sumerian /Enmenunna/ should dispose of one\nof the best parallels obtained, viz. {'Ammenon} = Bab. /umm\u00e2nu/,\n\"workman\" || Cain, Kenan = \"smith\". Another satisfactory pair\nsuggested is {'Amelon} = Bab. /am\u00ealu/, \"man\" || Enosh = \"man\"; but\nthe resemblance of the former to /am\u00ealu/ may prove to be\nfortuitous, in view of the possibility of descent from a quite\ndifferent Sumerian original. The alternative may perhaps have to\nbe faced that the Hebrew parallels to Sumerian and Babylonian\ntraditions are here confined to chronological structure and\ngeneral contents, and do not extend to Hebrew renderings of\nBabylonian names. It may be added that such correspondence between\npersonal names in different languages is not very significant by\nitself. The name of Zugagib of Kish, for example, is paralleled by\nthe title borne by one of the earliest kings of the Ist Dynasty of\nEgypt, Narmer, whose carved slate palettes have been found at\nKierakonpolis; he too was known as \"the Scorpion.\"\n[4] Gen. iv. 17 ff. (J).\n[5] It may be noted that an account of the origin of divination is\nincluded in his description of the descendents of Noah by the\nwriter of the Biblical Antiquities of Philo, a product of the same\nschool as the Fourth Book of Esdras and the Apocalypse of Baruch;\nsee James, /The Biblical Antiquities of Philo/, p. 86.\nI may add that a parallel is provided by the new Sumerian records to\nthe circumstances preceding the birth of the Nephilim at the beginning\nof the sixth chapter of Genesis.[1] For in them also great prowess or\ndistinction is ascribed to the progeny of human and divine unions. We\nhave already noted that, according to the traditions the records\nembody, the Sumerians looked back to a time when gods lived upon the\nearth with men, and we have seen such deities as Tammuz and Lugalbanda\nfiguring as rulers of cities in the dynastic sequence. As in later\nperiods, their names are there preceded by the determinative for\ndivinity. But more significant still is the fact that we read of two\nSumerian heroes, also rulers of cities, who were divine on the\nfather's or mother's side but not on both. Meskingasher is entered in\nthe list as \"son of the Sun-god\",[2] and no divine parentage is\nrecorded on the mother's side. On the other hand, the human father of\nGilgamesh is described as the high priest of Kullab, and we know from\nother sources that his mother was the goddess Ninsun.[3] That this is\nnot a fanciful interpretation is proved by a passage in the Gilgamesh\nEpic itself,[4] in which its hero is described as two-thirds god and\none-third man. We again find ourselves back in the same stratum of\ntradition with which the Hebrew narratives have made us so familiar.\n[1] Gen. vi. 1-4 (J).\n[2] The phrase recalls the familiar Egyptian royal designation \"son of\nthe Sun,\" and it is possible that we may connect with this same\nidea the Palermo Stele's inclusion of the mother's and omission of\nthe father's name in its record of the early dynastic Pharaohs.\nThis suggestion does not exclude the possibility of the prevalence\nof matrilineal (and perhaps originally also of matrilocal and\nmatripotestal) conditions among the earliest inhabitants of Egypt.\nIndeed the early existence of some form of mother-right may have\noriginated, and would certainly have encouraged, the growth of a\ntradition of solar parentage for the head of the state.\n[3] Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 124 f.\n[4] Tablet I, Col. ii, l. 1; and cf. Tablet IX, Col. ii. l. 16.\nWhat light then does our new material throw upon traditional origins\nof civilization? We have seen that in Egypt a new fragment of the\nPalermo Stele has confirmed in a remarkable way the tradition of the\npredynastic period which was incorporated in his history by Manetho.\nIt has long been recognized that in Babylonia the sources of Berossus\nmust have been refracted by the political atmosphere of that country\nduring the preceding nineteen hundred years. This inference our new\nmaterial supports; but when due allowance has been made for a\nresulting disturbance of vision, the Sumerian origin of the remainder\nof his evidence is notably confirmed. Two of his ten Antediluvian\nkings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes, and we shall see that two of\nhis three Antediluvian cities find their place among the five of\nprimitive Sumerian belief. It is clear that in Babylonia, as in Egypt,\nthe local traditions of the dawn of history, current in the\nHellenistic period, were modelled on very early lines. Both countries\nwere the seats of ancient civilizations, and it is natural that each\nshould stage its picture of beginnings upon its own soil and embellish\nit with local colouring.\nIt is a tribute to the historical accuracy of Hebrew tradition to\nrecognize that it never represented Palestine as the cradle of the\nhuman race. It looked to the East rather than to the South for\nevidence of man's earliest history and first progress in the arts of\nlife. And it is in the East, in the soil of Babylonia, that we may\nlegitimately seek material in which to verify the sources of that\ntraditional belief.\nThe new parallels I have to-day attempted to trace between some of the\nHebrew traditions, preserved in Gen. iv-vi, and those of the early\nSumerians, as presented by their great Dynastic List, are essentially\ngeneral in character and do not apply to details of narrative or to\nproper names. If they stood alone, we should still have to consider\nwhether they are such as to suggest cultural influence or independent\norigin. But fortunately they do not exhaust the evidence we have\nlately recovered from the site of Nippur, and we will postpone\nformulating our conclusions with regard to them until the whole field\nhas been surveyed. From the biblical standpoint by far the most\nvaluable of our new documents is one that incorporates a Sumerian\nversion of the Deluge story. We shall see that it presents a variant\nand more primitive picture of that great catastrophe than those of the\nBabylonian and Hebrew versions. And what is of even greater interest,\nit connects the narrative of the Flood with that of Creation, and\nsupplies a brief but intermediate account of the Antediluvian period.\nHow then are we to explain this striking literary resemblance to the\nstructure of the narrative in Genesis, a resemblance that is\ncompletely wanting in the Babylonian versions? But that is a problem\nwe must reserve for the next lecture.\nLECTURE II\nDELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION\nIn the first lecture we saw how, both in Babylonia and Egypt, recent\ndiscoveries had thrown light upon periods regarded as prehistoric, and\nhow we had lately recovered traditions concerning very early rulers\nboth in the Nile Valley and along the lower Euphrates. On the strength\nof the latter discovery we noted the possibility that future\nexcavation in Babylonia would lay bare stages of primitive culture\nsimilar to those we have already recovered in Egyptian soil. Meanwhile\nthe documents from Nippur had shown us what the early Sumerians\nthemselves believed about their own origin, and we traced in their\ntradition the gradual blending of history with legend and myth. We saw\nthat the new Dynastic List took us back in the legendary sequence at\nleast to the beginning of the Post-diluvian period. Now one of the\nnewly published literary texts fills in the gap beyond, for it gives\nus a Sumerian account of the history of the world from the Creation to\nthe Deluge, at about which point, as we saw, the extant portions of\nthe Dynastic List take up the story. I propose to devote my lecture\nto-day to this early version of the Flood and to the effect of its\ndiscovery upon some current theories.\nThe Babylonian account of the Deluge, which was discovered by George\nSmith in 1872 on tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh, is, as you\nknow, embedded in a long epic of twelve Books recounting the\nadventures of the Old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh. Towards the end of\nthis composite tale, Gilgamesh, desiring immortality, crosses the\nWaters of Death in order to beg the secret from his ancestor\nUt-napishtim, who in the past had escaped the Deluge and had been\ngranted immortality by the gods. The Eleventh Tablet, or Book, of the\nepic contains the account of the Deluge which Ut-napishtim related to\nhis kinsman Gilgamesh. The close correspondence of this Babylonian\nstory with that contained in Genesis is recognized by every one and\nneed not detain us. You will remember that in some passages the\naccounts tally even in minute details, such, for example, as the\ndevice of sending out birds to test the abatement of the waters. It is\ntrue that in the Babylonian version a dove, a swallow, and a raven are\nsent forth in that order, instead of a raven and the dove three times.\nBut such slight discrepancies only emphasize the general resemblance\nof the narratives.\nIn any comparison it is usually admitted that two accounts have been\ncombined in the Hebrew narrative. I should like to point out that this\nassumption may be made by any one, whatever his views may be with\nregard to the textual problems of the Hebrew Bible and the traditional\nauthorship of the Pentateuch. And for our purpose at the moment it is\nimmaterial whether we identify the compiler of these Hebrew narratives\nwith Moses himself, or with some later Jewish historian whose name has\nnot come down to us. Whoever he was, he has scrupulously preserved his\ntwo texts and, even when they differ, he has given each as he found\nit. Thanks to this fact, any one by a careful examination of the\nnarrative can disentangle the two versions for himself. He will find\neach gives a consistent story. One of them appears to be simpler and\nmore primitive than the other, and I will refer to them as the earlier\nand the later Hebrew Versions.[1] The Babylonian text in the Epic of\nGilgamesh contains several peculiarities of each of the Hebrew\nversions, though the points of resemblance are more detailed in the\nearlier of the two.\n[1] In the combined account in Gen. vi. 5-ix. 17, if the following\npassages be marked in the margin or underlined, and then read\nconsecutively, it will be seen that they give a consistent and\nalmost complete account of the Deluge: Gen. vi. 9-22; vii. 6, 11,\n13-16 (down to \"as God commanded him\"), 17 (to \"upon the earth\"),\n18-21, 24; viii. 1, 2 (to \"were stopped\"), 3 (from \"and after\")-5,\n13 (to \"from off the earth\"), 14-19; and ix. 1-17. The marked\npassages represent the \"later Hebrew Version.\" If the remaining\npassages be then read consecutively, they will be seen to give a\ndifferent version of the same events, though not so completely\npreserved as the other; these passages substantially represent the\n\"earlier Hebrew Version\". In commentaries on the Hebrew text they\nare, of course, usually referred to under the convenient symbols J\nand P, representing respectively the earlier and the later\nversions. For further details, see any of the modern commentaries\non Genesis, e.g. Driver, /Book of Genesis/, pp. 85 ff.; Skinner,\n/Genesis/, pp. 147 ff.; Ryle, /Genesis/, p. 96 f.\nNow the tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh inscribed with the\nGilgamesh Epic do not date from an earlier period than the seventh\ncentury B.C. But archaeological evidence has long shown that the\ntraditions themselves were current during all periods of Babylonian\nhistory; for Gilgamesh and his half-human friend Enkidu were favourite\nsubjects for the seal-engraver, whether he lived in Sumerian times or\nunder the Achaemenian kings of Persia. We have also, for some years\nnow, possessed two early fragments of the Deluge narrative, proving\nthat the story was known to the Semitic inhabitants of the country at\nthe time of Hammurabi's dynasty.[1] Our newly discovered text from\nNippur was also written at about that period, probably before 2100\nB.C. But the composition itself, apart from the tablet on which it is\ninscribed, must go back very much earlier than that. For instead of\nbeing composed in Semitic Babylonian, the text is in Sumerian, the\nlanguage of the earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia, whom the\nSemites eventually displaced. This people, it is now recognized, were\nthe originators of the Babylonian civilization, and we saw in the\nfirst lecture that, according to their own traditions, they had\noccupied that country since the dawn of history.\n[1] The earlier of the two fragments is dated in the eleventh year of\nAmmizaduga, the tenth king of Hammurabi's dynasty, i.e. in 1967\nB.C.; it was published by Scheil, /Recueil de travaux/, Vol. XX,\npp. 55 ff. Here the Deluge story does not form part of the\nGilgamesh Epic, but is recounted in the second tablet of a\ndifferent work; its hero bears the name Atrakhasis, as in the\nvariant version of the Deluge from the Nineveh library. The other\nand smaller fragment, which must be dated by its script, was\npublished by Hilprecht (/Babylonian Expedition/, series D, Vol. V,\nFasc. 1, pp. 33 ff.), who assigned it to about the same period;\nbut it is probably of a considerably later date. The most\nconvenient translations of the legends that were known before the\npublication of the Nippur texts are those given by Rogers,\n/Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament/ (Oxford, 1912), and\nDhorme, /Choix de textes religieux Assyro-Babyloniens/ (Paris,\n1907).\nThe Semites as a ruling race came later, though the occurrence of\nSemitic names in the Sumerian Dynastic List suggests very early\ninfiltration from Arabia. After a long struggle the immigrants\nsucceeded in dominating the settled race; and in the process they in\nturn became civilized. They learnt and adopted the cuneiform writing,\nthey took over the Sumerian literature. Towards the close of the third\nmillennium, when our tablet was written, the Sumerians as a race had\nalmost ceased to exist. They had been absorbed in the Semitic\npopulation and their language was no longer the general language of\nthe country. But their ancient literature and sacred texts were\ncarefully preserved and continued to be studied by the Semitic priests\nand scribes. So the fact that the tablet is written in the old\nSumerian tongue proves that the story it tells had come down from a\nvery much earlier period. This inference is not affected by certain\nsmall differences in idiom which its language presents when compared\nwith that of Sumerian building-inscriptions. Such would naturally\noccur in the course of transmission, especially in a text which, as we\nshall see, had been employed for a practical purpose after being\nsubjected to a process of reduction to suit it to its new setting.\nWhen we turn to the text itself, it will be obvious that the story\nalso is very primitive. But before doing so we will inquire whether\nthis very early version is likely to cast any light on the origin of\nDeluge stories such as are often met with in other parts of the world.\nOur inquiry will have an interest apart from the question itself, as\nit will illustrate the views of two divergent schools among students\nof primitive literature and tradition. According to one of these\nviews, in its most extreme form, the tales which early or primitive\nman tells about his gods and the origin of the world he sees around\nhim are never to be regarded as simple stories, but are to be\nconsistently interpreted as symbolizing natural phenomena. It is, of\ncourse, quite certain that, both in Egypt and Babylonia, mythology in\nlater periods received a strong astrological colouring; and it is\nequally clear that some legends derive their origin from nature myths.\nBut the theory in the hands of its more enthusiastic adherents goes\nfurther than that. For them a complete absence of astrological\ncolouring is no deterrent from an astrological interpretation; and,\nwhere such colouring does occur, the possibility of later\nembellishment is discounted, and it is treated without further proof\nas the base on which the original story rests. One such interpretation\nof the Deluge narrative in Babylonia, particularly favoured by recent\nGerman writers, would regard it as reflecting the passage of the Sun\nthrough a portion of the ecliptic. It is assumed that the primitive\nBabylonians were aware that in the course of ages the spring equinox\nmust traverse the southern or watery region of the zodiac. This, on\ntheir system, signified a submergence of the whole universe in water,\nand the Deluge myth would symbolize the safe passage of the vernal\nSun-god through that part of the ecliptic. But we need not spend time\nover that view, as its underlying conception is undoubtedly quite a\nlate development of Babylonian astrology.\nMore attractive is the simpler astrological theory that the voyage of\nany Deluge hero in his boat or ark represents the daily journey of the\nSun-god across the heavenly ocean, a conception which is so often\nrepresented in Egyptian sculpture and painting. It used to be assumed\nby holders of the theory that this idea of the Sun as \"the god in the\nboat\" was common among primitive races, and that that would account\nfor the widespread occurrence of Deluge-stories among scattered races\nof the world. But this view has recently undergone some modification\nin accordance with the general trend of other lines of research. In\nrecent years there has been an increased readiness among\narchaeologists to recognize evidence of contact between the great\ncivilizations of antiquity. This has been particularly the case in the\narea of the Eastern Mediterranean; but the possibility has also been\nmooted of the early use of land-routes running from the Near East to\nCentral and Southern Asia. The discovery in Chinese Turkestan, to the\neast of the Caspian, of a prehistoric culture resembling that of Elam\nhas now been followed by the finding of similar remains by Sir Aurel\nStein in the course of the journey from which he has lately\nreturned.[1] They were discovered in an old basin of the Helmand River\nin Persian Seistan, where they had been laid bare by wind-erosion. But\nmore interesting still, and an incentive to further exploration in\nthat region, is another of his discoveries last year, also made near\nthe Afghan border. At two sites in the Helmand Delta, well above the\nlevel of inundation, he came across fragments of pottery inscribed in\nearly Aramaic characters,[2] though, for obvious reasons, he has left\nthem with all his other collections in India. This unexpected find, by\nthe way, suggests for our problem possibilities of wide transmission\nin comparatively early times.\n[1] See his \"Expedition in Central Asia\", in /The Geographical\nJournal/, Vol. XLVII (Jan.-June, 1916), pp. 358 ff.\n[2] Op. cit., p. 363.\nThe synthetic tendency among archaeologists has been reflected in\nanthropological research, which has begun to question the separate and\nindependent origin, not only of the more useful arts and crafts, but\nalso of many primitive customs and beliefs. It is suggested that too\nmuch stress has been laid on environment; and, though it is readily\nadmitted that similar needs and experiences may in some cases have\ngiven rise to similar expedients and explanations, it is urged that\nman is an imitative animal and that inventive genius is far from\ncommon.[1] Consequently the wide dispersion of many beliefs and\npractices, which used generally to be explained as due to the similar\nand independent working of the human mind under like conditions, is\nnow often provisionally registered as evidence of migratory movement\nor of cultural drift. Much good work has recently been done in\ntabulating the occurrence of many customs and beliefs, in order to\nascertain their lines of distribution. Workers are as yet in the\ncollecting stage, and it is hardly necessary to say that explanatory\ntheories are still to be regarded as purely tentative and provisional.\nAt the meetings of the British Association during the last few years,\nthe most breezy discussions in the Anthropological Section have\nundoubtedly centred around this subject. There are several works in\nthe field, but the most comprehensive theory as yet put forward is one\nthat concerns us, as it has given a new lease of life to the old solar\ninterpretation of the Deluge story.\n[1] See, e.g. Marett, /Anthropology/ (2nd ed., 1914), Chap. iv,\n\"Environment,\" pp. 122 ff.; and for earlier tendencies,\nparticularly in the sphere of mythological exegesis, see S.\nReinach, /Cultes, Mythes et Religions/, t. IV (1912), pp. 1 ff.\nIn a land such as Egypt, where there is little rain and the sky is\nalways clear, the sun in its splendour tended from the earliest period\nto dominate the national consciousness. As intercourse increased along\nthe Nile Valley, centres of Sun-worship ceased to be merely local, and\nthe political rise of a city determined the fortunes of its cult. From\nthe proto-dynastic period onward, the \"King of the two Lands\" had\nborne the title of \"Horus\" as the lineal descendant of the great Sun-\ngod of Edfu, and the rise of Ra in the Vth Dynasty, through the\npriesthood of Heliopolis, was confirmed in the solar theology of the\nMiddle Kingdom. Thus it was that other deities assumed a solar\ncharacter as forms of Ra. Amen, the local god of Thebes, becomes\nAmen-Ra with the political rise of his city, and even the old\nCrocodile-god, Sebek, soars into the sky as Sebek-Ra. The only other\nmovement in the religion of ancient Egypt, comparable in importance to\nthis solar development, was the popular cult of Osiris as God of the\nDead, and with it the official religion had to come to terms. Horus is\nreborn as the posthumous son of Osiris, and Ra gladdens his abode\nduring his nightly journey through the Underworld. The theory with\nwhich we are concerned suggests that this dominant trait in Egyptian\nreligion passed, with other elements of culture, beyond the bounds of\nthe Nile Valley and influenced the practice and beliefs of distant\nraces.\nThis suggestion has been gradually elaborated by its author, Professor\nElliot Smith, who has devoted much attention to the anatomical study\nof Egyptian mummification. Beginning with a scrutiny of megalithic\nbuilding and sun-worship,[1] he has subsequently deduced, from\nevidence of common distribution, the existence of a culture-complex,\nincluding in addition to these two elements the varied practices of\ntattooing, circumcision, ear-piercing, that quaint custom known as\ncouvade, head-deformation, and the prevalence of serpent-cults, myths\nof petrifaction and the Deluge, and finally of mummification. The last\ningredient was added after an examination of Papuan mummies had\ndisclosed their apparent resemblance in points of detail to Egyptian\nmummies of the XXIst Dynasty. As a result he assumes the existence of\nan early cultural movement, for which the descriptive title\n\"heliolithic\" has been coined.[2] Starting with Egypt as its centre,\none of the principal lines of its advance is said to have lain through\nSyria and Mesopotamia and thence along the coastlands of Asia to the\nFar East. The method of distribution and the suggested part played by\nthe Phoenicians have been already criticized sufficiently. But in a\nmodified form the theory has found considerable support, especially\namong ethnologists interested in Indonesia. I do not propose to\nexamine in detail the evidence for or against it. It will suffice to\nnote that the Deluge story and its alleged Egyptian origin in solar\nworship form one of the prominent strands in its composition.\n[1] Cf. Elliot Smith, /The Ancient Egyptians/, 1911.\n[2] See in particular his monograph \"On the significance of the\nGeographical Distribution of the Practice of Mummification\" in the\n/Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society/,\n1915.\nOne weakness of this particular strand is that the Egyptians\nthemselves possessed no tradition of the Deluge. Indeed the annual\ninundation of the Nile is not such as would give rise to a legend of\nworld-destruction; and in this respect it presents a striking contrast\nto the Tigris and Euphrates. The ancient Egyptian's conception of his\nown gentle river is reflected in the form he gave the Nile-god, for\nHapi is represented as no fierce warrior or monster. He is given a\nwoman's breasts as a sign of his fecundity. The nearest Egyptian\nparallel to the Deluge story is the \"Legend of the Destruction of\nMankind\", which is engraved on the walls of a chamber in the tomb of\nSeti I.[1] The late Sir Gaston Maspero indeed called it \"a dry deluge\nmyth\", but his paradox was intended to emphasize the difference as\nmuch as the parallelism presented. It is true that in the Egyptian\nmyth the Sun-god causes mankind to be slain because of their impiety,\nand he eventually pardons the survivors. The narrative thus betrays\nundoubted parallelism to the Babylonian and Hebrew stories, so far as\nconcerns the attempted annihilation of mankind by the offended god,\nbut there the resemblance ends. For water has no part in man's\ndestruction, and the essential element of a Deluge story is thus\nabsent.[2] Our new Sumerian document, on the other hand, contains what\nis by far the earliest example yet recovered of a genuine Deluge tale;\nand we may thus use it incidentally to test this theory of Egyptian\ninfluence, and also to ascertain whether it furnishes any positive\nevidence on the origin of Deluge stories in general.\n[1] It was first published by Monsieur Naville, /Tranc. Soc. Bibl.\nArch./, IV (1874), pp. 1 ff. The myth may be most conveniently\nstudied in Dr. Budge's edition in /Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I,\n\"Legends of the Gods\" (1912), pp. 14 ff., where the hieroglyphic\ntext and translation are printed on opposite pages; cf. the\nsummary, op. cit., pp. xxiii ff., where the principal literature\nis also cited. See also his /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, chap.\nxii, pp. 388 ff.\n[2] The undoubted points of resemblance, as well as the equally\nstriking points of divergence, presented by the Egyptian myth when\ncompared with the Babylonian and Hebrew stories of a Deluge may be\nbriefly indicated. The impiety of men in complaining of the age of\nRa finds a parallel in the wickedness of man upon the earth (J)\nand the corruption of all flesh (P) of the Hebrew Versions. The\nsummoning by Ra of the great Heliopolitan cosmic gods in council,\nincluding his personified Eye, the primaeval pair Shu and Tefnut,\nKeb the god of the earth and his consort Nut the sky-goddess, and\nNu the primaeval water-god and originally Nut's male counterpart,\nis paralleled by the /puhur il\u00e2ni/, or \"assembly of the gods\", in\nthe Babylonian Version (see Gilg. Epic. XI. l. 120 f., and cf. ll.\n10 ff.); and they meet in \"the Great House\", or Sun-temple at\nHeliopolis, as the Babylonian gods deliberate in Shuruppak.\nEgyptian, Babylonian, and Hebrew narratives all agree in the\ndivine determination to destroy mankind and in man's ultimate\nsurvival. But the close of the Egyptian story diverges into\nanother sphere. The slaughter of men by the Eye of Ra in the form\nof the goddess Hathor, who during the night wades in their blood,\nis suggestive of Africa; and so too is her drinking of men's blood\nmixed with the narcotic mandrake and with seven thousand vessels\nof beer, with the result that through drunkenness she ceased from\nslaughter. The latter part of the narrative is directly connected\nwith the cult-ritual and beer-drinking at the Festivals of Hathor\nand Ra; but the destruction of men by slaughter in place of\ndrowning appears to belong to the original myth. Indeed, the only\nsuggestion of a Deluge story is suggested by the presence of Nu,\nthe primaeval water-god, at Ra's council, and that is explicable\non other grounds. In any case the points of resemblance presented\nby the earlier part of the Egyptian myth to Semitic Deluge stories\nare general, not detailed; and though they may possibly be due to\nreflection from Asia, they are not such as to suggest an Egyptian\norigin for Deluge myths.\nThe tablet on which our new version of the Deluge is inscribed was\nexcavated at Nippur during the third Babylonian expedition sent out by\nthe University of Pennsylvania; but it was not until the summer of\n1912 that its contents were identified, when the several fragments of\nwhich it was composed were assembled and put together. It is a large\ndocument, containing six columns of writing, three on each side; but\nunfortunately only the lower half has been recovered, so that\nconsiderable gaps occur in the text.[1] The sharp edges of the broken\nsurface, however, suggest that it was damaged after removal from the\nsoil, and the possibility remains that some of the missing fragments\nmay yet be recovered either at Pennsylvania or in the Museum at\nConstantinople. As it is not dated, its age must be determined mainly\nby the character of its script. A close examination of the writing\nsuggests that it can hardly have been inscribed as late as the Kassite\nDynasty, since two or three signs exhibit more archaic forms than\noccur on any tablets of that period;[2] and such linguistic\ncorruptions as have been noted in its text may well be accounted for\nby the process of decay which must have already affected the Sumerian\nlanguage at the time of the later kings of Nisin. Moreover, the tablet\nbears a close resemblance to one of the newly published copies of the\nSumerian Dynastic List from Nippur;[3] for both are of the same shape\nand composed of the same reddish-brown clay, and both show the same\npeculiarities of writing. The two tablets in fact appear to have been\nwritten by the same hand, and as that copy of the Dynastic List was\nprobably drawn up before the latter half of the First Dynasty of\nBabylon, we may assign the same approximate date for the writing of\nour text. This of course only fixes a lower limit for the age of the\nmyth which it enshrines.\n[1] The breadth of the tablet is 5 5/8 in., and it originally measured\nabout 7 in. in length from top to bottom; but only about one-third\nof its inscribed surface is preserved.\n[2] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, pp. 66 ff.\n[3] No. 5.\nThat the composition is in the form of a poem may be seen at a glance\nfrom the external appearance of the tablet, the division of many of\nthe lines and the blank spaces frequently left between the sign-groups\nbeing due to the rhythmical character of the text. The style of the\npoetry may be simple and abrupt, but it exhibits a familiar feature of\nboth Semitic-Babylonian and Hebrew poetry, in its constant employment\nof partial repetition or paraphrase in parallel lines. The story it\ntells is very primitive and in many respects unlike the Babylonian\nVersions of the Deluge which we already possess. Perhaps its most\nstriking peculiarity is the setting of the story, which opens with a\nrecord of the creation of man and animals, goes on to tell how the\nfirst cities were built, and ends with a version of the Deluge, which\nis thus recounted in its relation to the Sumerian history of the\nworld. This literary connexion between the Creation and Deluge\nnarratives is of unusual interest, in view of the age of our text. In\nthe Babylonian Versions hitherto known they are included in separate\nepics with quite different contexts. Here they are recounted together\nin a single document, much as they probably were in the history of\nBerossus and as we find them in the present form of the Book of\nGenesis. This fact will open up some interesting problems when we\nattempt to trace the literary descent of the tradition.\nBut one important point about the text should be emphasized at once,\nsince it will affect our understanding of some very obscure passages,\nof which no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The\nassumption has hitherto been made that the text is an epic pure and\nsimple. It is quite true that the greater part of it is a myth,\nrecounted as a narrative in poetical form. but there appear to me to\nbe clear indications that the myth was really embedded in an\nincantation. If this was so, the mythological portion was recited for\na magical purpose, with the object of invoking the aid of the chief\ndeities whose actions in the past are there described, and of\nincreasing by that means the potency of the spell.[1] In the third\nlecture I propose to treat in more detail the employment and\nsignificance of myth in magic, and we shall have occasion to refer to\nother instances, Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian, in which a myth\nhas reached us in a magical setting.\n[1] It will be seen that the subject-matter of any myth treated in\nthis way has a close connexion with the object for which the\nincantation was performed.\nIn the present case the inference of magical use is drawn from certain\npassages in the text itself, which appear to be explicable only on\nthat hypothesis. In magical compositions of the later period intended\nfor recitation, the sign for \"Incantation\" is usually prefixed.\nUnfortunately the beginning of our text is wanting; but its opening\nwords are given in the colophon, or title, which is engraved on the\nleft-hand edge of the tablet, and it is possible that the traces of\nthe first sign there are to be read as EN, \"Incantation\".[1] Should a\nre-examination of the tablet establish this reading of the word, we\nshould have definite proof of the suggested magical setting of the\nnarrative. But even if we assume its absence, that would not\ninvalidate the arguments that can be adduced in favour of recognizing\nthe existence of a magical element, for they are based on internal\nevidence and enable us to explain certain features which are\ninexplicable on Dr. Poebel's hypothesis. Moreover, we shall later on\nexamine another of the newly published Sumerian compositions from\nNippur, which is not only semi-epical in character, but is of\nprecisely the same shape, script, and period as our text, and is very\nprobably a tablet of the same series. There also the opening signs of\nthe text are wanting, but far more of its contents are preserved and\nthey present unmistakable traces of magical use. Its evidence, as that\nof a parallel text, may therefore be cited in support of the present\ncontention. It may be added that in Sumerian magical compositions of\nthis early period, of which we have not yet recovered many quite\nobvious examples, it is possible that the prefix \"Incantation\" was not\nso invariable as in the later magical literature.\n[1] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 63, and /Hist. and Gram. Texts/, pl.\ni. In the photographic reproduction of the edges of the tablet\ngiven in the latter volume, pl. lxxxix, the traces of the sign\nsuggest the reading EN (= Sem. /\u0161iptu/, \"incantation\"). But the\nsign may very possibly be read AN. In the latter case we may read,\nin the traces of the two sign-groups at the beginning of the text,\nthe names of both Anu and Enlil, who appear so frequently as the\ntwo presiding deities in the myth.\nIt has already been remarked that only the lower half of our tablet\nhas been recovered, and that consequently a number of gaps occur in\nthe text. On the obverse the upper portion of each of the first three\ncolumns is missing, while of the remaining three columns, which are\ninscribed upon the reverse, the upper portions only are preserved.\nThis difference in the relative positions of the textual fragments\nrecovered is due to the fact that Sumerian scribes, like their later\nBabylonian and Assyrian imitators, when they had finished writing the\nobverse of a tablet, turned it over from bottom to top--not, as we\nshould turn a sheet of paper, from right to left. But in spite of the\nlacunae, the sequence of events related in the mythological narrative\nmay be followed without difficulty, since the main outline of the\nstory is already familiar enough from the versions of the Semitic-\nBabylonian scribes and of Berossus. Some uncertainties naturally\nremain as to what exactly was included in the missing portions of the\ntablet; but the more important episodes are fortunately recounted in\nthe extant fragments, and these suffice for a definition of the\ndistinctive character of the Sumerian Version. In view of its literary\nimportance it may be advisable to attempt a somewhat detailed\ndiscussion of its contents, column by column;[1] and the analysis may\nbe most conveniently divided into numbered sections, each of which\nrefers to one of the six columns of the tablet. The description of the\nFirst Column will serve to establish the general character of the\ntext. Through the analysis of the tablet parallels and contrasts will\nbe noted with the Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. It will then be\npossible to summarise, on a surer foundation, the literary history of\nthe traditions, and finally to estimate the effect of our new evidence\nupon current theories as to the origin and wide dispersion of Deluge\nstories.\n[1] In the lecture as delivered the contents of each column were\nnecessarily summarized rather briefly, and conclusions were given\nwithout discussion of the evidence.\nThe following headings, under which the six numbered sections may be\narranged, indicate the contents of each column and show at a glance\nthe main features of the Sumerian Version:\nI. Introduction to the Myth, and account of Creation.\nII. The Antediluvian Cities.\nIII. The Council of the Gods, and Ziusudu's piety.\nIV. The Dream-Warning.\nV. The Deluge, the Escape of the Great Boat, and the Sacrifice to\nthe Sun-god.\nVI. The Propitiation of the Angry Gods, and Ziusudu's Immortality.\nI. INTRODUCTION TO THE MYTH, AND ACCOUNT OF CREATION\nThe beginning of the text is wanting, and the earliest lines preserved\nof the First Column open with the closing sentences of a speech,\nprobably by the chief of the four creating deities, who are later on\nreferred to by name. In it there is a reference to a future\ndestruction of mankind, but the context is broken; the lines in\nquestion begin:\n\"As for my human race, from (/or/ in) its destruction will I cause\nit to be [. . .],\nFor Nintu my creatures [. . .] will I [. . .].\"\nFrom the reference to \"my human race\" it is clear that the speaker is\na creating deity; and since the expression is exactly parallel to the\nterm \"my people\" used by Ishtar, or B\u00ealit-ili, \"the Lady of the gods\",\nin the Babylonian Version of the Deluge story when she bewails the\ndestruction of mankind, Dr. Poebel assigns the speech to Ninkharsagga,\nor Nintu,[1] the goddess who later in the column is associated with\nAnu, Enlil, and Enki in man's creation. But the mention of Nintu in\nher own speech is hardly consistent with that supposition,[2] if we\nassume with Dr. Poebel, as we are probably justified in doing, that\nthe title Nintu is employed here and elsewhere in the narrative merely\nas a synonym of Ninkharsagga.[3] It appears to me far more probable\nthat one of the two supreme gods, Anu or Enlil, is the speaker,[4] and\nadditional grounds will be cited later in support of this view. It is\nindeed possible, in spite of the verbs and suffixes in the singular,\nthat the speech is to be assigned to both Anu and Enlil, for in the\nlast column, as we shall see, we find verb in the singular following\nreferences to both these deities. In any case one of the two chief\ngods may be regarded as speaking and acting on behalf of both, though\nit may be that the inclusion of the second name in the narrative was\nnot original but simply due to a combination of variant traditions.\nSuch a conflate use of Anu-Enlil would present a striking parallel to\nthe Hebrew combination Yahweh-Elohim, though of course in the case of\nthe former pair the subsequent stage of identification was never\nattained. But the evidence furnished by the text is not conclusive,\nand it is preferable here and elsewhere in the narrative to regard\neither Anu or Enlil as speaking and acting both on his own behalf and\nas the other's representative.\n[1] Op. cit., p. 21 f.; and cf. Jastrow, /Hebrew and Babylonian\nTraditions/, p. 336.\n[2] It necessitates the taking of (/dingir/) /Nin-tu-ra/ as a\ngenitive, not a dative, and the very awkward rendering \"my,\nNintu's, creations\".\n[3] Another of the recently published Sumerian mythological\ncompositions from Nippur includes a number of myths in which Enki\nis associated first with Ninella, referred to also as Nintu, \"the\nGoddess of Birth\", then with Ninshar, referred to also as\nNinkurra, and finally with Ninkharsagga. This text exhibits the\nprocess by which separate traditions with regard to goddesses\noriginally distinct were combined together, with the result that\ntheir heroines were subsequently often identified with one\nanother. There the myths that have not been subjected to a very\nsevere process of editing, and in consequence the welding is not\nso complete as in the Sumerian Version of the Deluge.\n[4] If Enlil's name should prove to be the first word of the\ncomposition, we should naturally regard him as the speaker here\nand as the protagonist of the gods throughout the text, a /r\u00f4le/\nhe also plays in the Semitic-Babylonian Version.\nThis reference to the Deluge, which occurs so early in the text,\nsuggests the probability that the account of the Creation and of the\nfounding of Antediluvian cities, included in the first two columns, is\nto be taken merely as summarizing the events that led up to the\nDeluge. And an almost certain proof of this may be seen in the opening\nwords of the composition, which are preserved in its colophon or title\non the left-hand edge of the tablet. We have already noted that the\nfirst two words are there to be read, either as the prefix\n\"Incantation\" followed by the name \"Enlil\", or as the two divine names\n\"Anu (and) Enlil\". Now the signs which follow the traces of Enlil's\nname are quite certain; they represent \"Ziusudu\", which, as we shall\nsee in the Third Column, is the name of the Deluge hero in our\nSumerian Version. He is thus mentioned in the opening words of the\ntext, in some relation to one or both of the two chief gods of the\nsubsequent narrative. But the natural place for his first introduction\ninto the story is in the Third Column, where it is related that \"at\nthat time Ziusudu, the king\" did so-and-so. The prominence given him\nat the beginning of the text, at nearly a column's interval before the\nlines which record the creation of man, is sufficient proof that the\nDeluge story is the writer's main interest, and that preceding\nepisodes are merely introductory to it.\nWhat subject then may we conjecture was treated in the missing lines\nof this column, which precede the account of Creation and close with\nthe speech of the chief creating deity? Now the Deluge narrative\npractically ends with the last lines of the tablet that are preserved,\nand the lower half of the Sixth Column is entirely wanting. We shall\nsee reason to believe that the missing end of the tablet was not left\nblank and uninscribed, but contained an incantation, the magical\nefficacy of which was ensured by the preceding recitation of the\nDeluge myth. If that were so, it would be natural enough that the text\nshould open with its main subject. The cause of the catastrophe and\nthe reason for man's rescue from it might well be referred to by one\nof the creating deities in virtue of the analogy these aspects of the\nmyth would present to the circumstances for which the incantation was\ndesigned. A brief account of the Creation and of Antediluvian history\nwould then form a natural transition to the narrative of the Deluge\nitself. And even if the text contained no incantation, the narrative\nmay well have been introduced in the manner suggested, since this\nexplanation in any case fits in with what is still preserved of the\nFirst Column. For after his reference to the destruction of mankind,\nthe deity proceeds to fix the chief duty of man, either as a\npreliminary to his creation, or as a reassertion of that duty after\nhis rescue from destruction by the Flood. It is noteworthy that this\nduty consists in the building of temples to the gods \"in a clean\nspot\", that is to say \"in hallowed places\". The passage may be given\nin full, including the two opening lines already discussed:\n\"As for my human race, from (/or/ in) its destruction will I cause\nit to be [. . .],\nFor Nintu my creatures [. . .] will I [. . .].\nThe people will I cause to . . . in their settlements,\nCities . . . shall (man) build, in there protection will I cause him\nto rest,\nThat he may lay the brick of our houses in a clean spot,\nThat in a clean spot he may establish our . . . !\"\nIn the reason here given for man's creation, or for his rescue from\nthe Flood, we have an interesting parallel to the Sixth Tablet of the\nSemitic-Babylonian Creation Series. At the opening of that tablet\nMarduk, in response to \"the word of the gods\", is urged by his heart\nto devise a cunning plan which he imparts to Ea, namely the creation\nof man from his own divine blood and from bone which he will fashion.\nAnd the reason he gives for his proposal is precisely that which, as\nwe have seen, prompted the Sumerian deity to create or preserve the\nhuman race. For Marduk continues:\n\"I will create man who shall inhabit [. . .],\nThat the service of the gods may be established and that their\nshrines may be built.\"[1]\n[1] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.\nWe shall see later, from the remainder of Marduk's speech, that the\nSemitic Version has been elaborated at this point in order to\nreconcile it with other ingredients in its narrative, which were\nentirely absent from the simpler Sumerian tradition. It will suffice\nhere to note that, in both, the reason given for man's existence is\nthe same, namely, that the gods themselves may have worshippers.[1]\nThe conception is in full agreement with early Sumerian thought, and\nreflects the theocratic constitution of the earliest Sumerian\ncommunities. The idea was naturally not repugnant to the Semites, and\nit need not surprise us to find the very words of the principal\nSumerian Creator put into the mouth of Marduk, the city-god of\nBabylon.\n[1] It may be added that this is also the reason given for man's\ncreation in the introduction to a text which celebrates the\nfounding or rebuilding of a temple.\nThe deity's speech perhaps comes to an end with the declaration of his\npurpose in creating mankind or in sanctioning their survival of the\nDeluge; and the following three lines appear to relate his\nestablishment of the divine laws in accordance with which his\nintention was carried out. The passage includes a refrain, which is\nrepeated in the Second Column:\nThe sublime decrees he made perfect for it.\nIt may probably be assumed that the refrain is employed in relation to\nthe same deity in both passages. In the Second Column it precedes the\nfoundation of the Babylonian kingdom and the building of the\nAntediluvian cities. In that passage there can be little doubt that\nthe subject of the verb is the chief Sumerian deity, and we are\ntherefore the more inclined to assign to him also the opening speech\nof the First Column, rather than to regard it as spoken by the\nSumerian goddess whose share in the creation would justify her in\nclaiming mankind as her own. In the last four lines of the column we\nhave a brief record of the Creation itself. It was carried out by the\nthree greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil and Enki,\nwith the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga; the passage reads:\nWhen Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga\nCreated the blackheaded (i.e. mankind),\nThe /niggil(ma)/ of the earth they caused the earth to produce(?),\nThe animals, the four-legged creatures of the field, they artfully\ncalled into existence.\nThe interpretation of the third line is obscure, but there is no doubt\nthat it records the creation of something which is represented as\nhaving taken place between the creation of mankind and that of\nanimals. This object, which is written as /nig-gil/ or /nig-gil-ma/,\nis referred to again in the Sixth Column, where the Sumerian hero of\nthe Deluge assigns to it the honorific title, \"Preserver of the Seed\nof Mankind\". It must therefore have played an important part in man's\npreservation from the Flood; and the subsequent bestowal of the title\nmay be paralleled in the early Semitic Deluge fragment from Nippur,\nwhere the boat in which Ut-napishtim escapes is assigned the very\nsimilar title \"Preserver of Life\".[1] But /niggilma/ is not the word\nused in the Sumerian Version of Ziusudu's boat, and I am inclined to\nsuggest a meaning for it in connexion with the magical element in the\ntext, of the existence of which there is other evidence. On that\nassumption, the prominence given to its creation may be paralleled in\nthe introduction to a later magical text, which described, probably in\nconnexion with an incantation, the creation of two small creatures,\none white and one black, by Nin-igi-azag, \"The Lord of Clear Vision\",\none of the titles borne by Enki or Ea. The time of their creation is\nindicated as after that of \"cattle, beasts of the field and creatures\nof the city\", and the composition opens in a way which is very like\nthe opening of the present passage in our text.[2] In neither text is\nthere any idea of giving a complete account of the creation of the\nworld, only so much of the original myth being included in each case\nas suffices for the writer's purpose. Here we may assume that the\ncreation of mankind and of animals is recorded because they were to be\nsaved from the Flood, and that of the /niggilma/ because of the part\nit played in ensuring their survival.\n[1] See Hilprecht, /Babylonian Expedition/, Series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1,\nplate, Rev., l. 8; the photographic reproduction clearly shows, as\nDr. Poebel suggests (/Hist. Texts/, p. 61 n 3), that the line\nshould read: /[(isu)elippu] \u0161i-i lu (isu)ma-gur-gur-ma \u0161um-\u0161a lu\nna-si-rat na-pi\u0161-tim/, \"That ship shall be a /magurgurru/ (giant\nboat), and its name shall be 'Preserver of Life' (lit. 'She that\npreserves life').\"\n[2] See /Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff. The text\nopens with the words \"When the gods in their assembly had made\n[the world], and had created the heavens, and had formed the\nearth, and had brought living creatures into being . . .\", the\nlines forming an introduction to the special act of creation with\nwhich the composition was concerned.\nThe discussion of the meaning of /niggilma/ may best be postponed till\nthe Sixth Column, where we find other references to the word.\nMeanwhile it may be noted that in the present passage the creation of\nman precedes that of animals, as it did in the earlier Hebrew Version\nof Creation, and probably also in the Babylonian version, though not\nin the later Hebrew Version. It may be added that in another Sumerian\naccount of the Creation[1] the same order, of man before animals, is\nfollowed.\n[1] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, p. 134 f.; but the text has been\nsubjected to editing, and some of its episodes are obviously\ndisplaced.\nII. THE ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES\nAs we saw was the case with the First Column of the text, the earliest\npart preserved of the Second Column contains the close of a speech by\na deity, in which he proclaims an act he is about to perform. Here we\nmay assume with some confidence that the speaker is Anu or Enlil,\npreferably the latter, since it would be natural to ascribe the\npolitical constitution of Babylonia, the foundation of which is\nforeshadowed, to the head of the Sumerian pantheon. It would appear\nthat a beginning had already been made in the establishment of \"the\nkingdom\", and, before proceeding to his further work of founding the\nAntediluvian cities, he follows the example of the speaker in the\nFirst Column of the text and lays down the divine enactments by which\nhis purpose was accomplished. The same refrain is repeated:\nThe sub[lime decrees] he made perfect for it.\nThe text then relates the founding by the god of five cities, probably\n\"in clean places\", that is to say on hallowed ground. He calls each by\nits name and assigns it to its own divine patron or city-god:\n[In clean place]s he founded [five] cit[ies].\nAnd after he had called their names and they had been allotted to\ndivine rulers(?),--\nThe . . . of these cities, Eridu, he gave to the leader, Nu-dimmud,\nSecondly, to Nugira(?) he gave Bad-. . .,[1]\nThirdly, Larak he gave to Pabilkharsag,\nFourthly, Sippar he gave to the hero, the Sun-god,\nFifthly, Shuruppak he gave to \"the God of Shuruppak\",--\nAfter he had called the names of these cities, and they had been\nallotted to divine rulers(?),\n[1] In Semitic-Babylonian the first component of this city-name would\nread \"D\u00fbr\".\nThe completion of the sentence, in the last two lines of the column,\ncannot be rendered with any certainty, but the passage appears to have\nrelated the creation of small rivers and pools. It will be noted that\nthe lines which contain the names of the five cities and their patron\ngods[1] form a long explanatory parenthesis, the preceding line being\nrepeated after their enumeration.\n[1] The precise meaning of the sign-group here provisionally rendered\n\"divine ruler\" is not yet ascertained.\nAs the first of the series of five cities of Eridu, the seat of\nNudimmud or Enki, who was the third of the creating deities, it has\nbeen urged that the upper part of the Second Column must have included\nan account of the founding of Erech, the city of Anu, and of Nippur,\nEnlil's city.[1] But the numbered sequence of the cities would be\ndifficult to reconcile with the earlier creation of other cities in\nthe text, and the mention of Eridu as the first city to be created\nwould be quite in accord with its great age and peculiarly sacred\ncharacter as a cult-centre. Moreover the evidence of the Sumerian\nDynastic List is definitely against any claim of Erech to Antediluvian\nexistence. For when the hegemony passed from the first Post-diluvian\n\"kingdom\" to the second, it went not to Erech but to the shrine Eanna,\nwhich gave its name to the second \"kingdom\"; and the city itself was\napparently not founded before the reign of Enmerkar, the second\noccupant of the throne, who is the first to be given the title \"King\nof Erech\". This conclusion with regard to Erech incidentally disposes\nof the arguments for Nippur's Antediluvian rank in primitive Sumerian\ntradition, which have been founded on the order of the cities\nmentioned at the beginning of the later Sumerian myth of Creation.[2]\nThe evidence we thus obtain that the early Sumerians themselves\nregarded Eridu as the first city in the world to be created, increases\nthe hope that future excavation at Abu Shahrain may reveal Sumerian\nremains of periods which, from an archaeological standpoint, must\nstill be regarded as prehistoric.\n[1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 41.\n[2] The city of Nippur does not occur among the first four \"kingdoms\"\nof the Sumerian Dynastic List; but we may probably assume that it\nwas the seat of at least one early \"kingdom\", in consequence of\nwhich Enlil, its city-god, attained his later pre-eminent rank in\nthe Sumerian pantheon.\nIt is noteworthy that no human rulers are mentioned in connexion with\nEridu and the other four Antediluvian cities; and Ziusudu, the hero of\nthe story, is apparently the only mortal whose name occurred in our\ntext. But its author's principal subject is the Deluge, and the\npreceding history of the world is clearly not given in detail, but is\nmerely summarized. In view of the obviously abbreviated form of the\nnarrative, of which we have already noted striking evidence in its\naccount of the Creation, we may conclude that in the fuller form of\nthe tradition the cities were also assigned human rulers, each one the\nrepresentative of his city-god. These would correspond to the\nAntediluvian dynasty of Berossus, the last member of which was\nXisuthros, the later counterpart of Ziusudu.\nIn support of the exclusion of Nippur and Erech from the myth, it will\nbe noted that the second city in the list is not Adab,[1] which was\nprobably the principal seat of the goddess Ninkharsagga, the fourth of\nthe creating deities. The names of both deity and city in that line\nare strange to us. Larak, the third city in the series, is of greater\ninterest, for it is clearly Larankha, which according to Berossus was\nthe seat of the eighth and ninth of his Antediluvian kings. In\ncommercial documents of the Persian period, which have been found\nduring the excavations at Nippur, Larak is described as lying \"on the\nbank of the old Tigris\", a phrase which must be taken as referring to\nthe Shatt el-Hai, in view of the situation of Lagash and other early\ncities upon it or in its immediate neighbourhood. The site of the city\nshould perhaps be sought on the upper course of the stream, where it\ntends to approach Nippur. It would thus have lain in the neighbourhood\nof Bism\u00e2ya, the site of Adab. Like Adab, Lagash, Shuruppak, and other\nearly Sumerian cities, it was probably destroyed and deserted at a\nvery early period, though it was reoccupied under its old name in Neo-\nBabylonian or Persian times. Its early disappearance from Babylonian\nhistory perhaps in part accounts for our own unfamiliarity with\nPabilkharsag, its city-god, unless we may regard the name as a variant\nfrom of Pabilsag; but it is hardly likely that the two should be\nidentified.\n[1] The site of Adab, now marked by the mounds of Bism\u00e2ya, was\npartially excavated by an expedition sent out in 1903 by the\nUniversity of Chicago, and has provided valuable material for the\nstudy of the earliest Sumerian period; see /Reports of the\nExpedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund/ (Babylonian Section\nof the University of Chicago), and Banks, /Bismya/ (1912). On\ngrounds of antiquity alone we might perhaps have expected its\ninclusion in the myth.\nIn Sibbar, the fourth of the Antediluvian cities in our series, we\nagain have a parallel to Berossus. it has long been recognized that\nPantibiblon, or Pantibiblia, from which the third, fourth, fifth,\nsixth, and seventh of his Antediluvian kings all came, was the city of\nSippar in Northern Babylonia. For the seventh of these rulers,\n{Euedorakhos}, is clearly Enmeduranki, the mythical king of Sippar,\nwho in Babylonian tradition was regarded as the founder of divination.\nIn a fragmentary composition that has come down to us he is described,\nnot only as king of Sippar, but as \"beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki\",\nthe three creating gods of our text; and it is there recounted how the\npatron deities of divination, Shamash and Adad, themselves taught him\nto practise their art.[1] Moreover, Berossus directly implies the\nexistence of Sippar before the Deluge, for in the summary of his\nversion that has been preserved Xisuthros, under divine instruction,\nburies the sacred writings concerning the origin of the world in\n\"Sispara\", the city of the Sun-god, so that after the Deluge they\nmight be dug up and transmitted to mankind. Ebabbar, the great\nSun-temple, was at Sippar, and it is to the Sun-god that the city is\nnaturally allotted in the new Sumerian Version.\n[1] Cf. Zimmern, /Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Relig./, pp. 116 ff.\nThe last of the five Antediluvian cities in our list is Shuruppak, in\nwhich dwelt Ut-napishtim, the hero of the Babylonian version of the\nDeluge. Its site has been identified with the mounds of F\u00e2ra, in the\nneighbourhood of the Shatt el-K\u00e2r, the former bed of the Euphrates;\nand the excavations that were conducted there in 1902 have been most\nproductive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian\nculture.[1] Since our text is concerned mainly with the Deluge, it is\nnatural to assume that the foundation of the city from which the\nDeluge-hero came would be recorded last, in order to lead up to the\ncentral episode of the text. The city of Ziusudu, the hero of the\nSumerian story, is unfortunately not given in the Third Column, but,\nin view of Shuruppak's place in the list of Antediluvian cities, it is\nnot improbable that on this point the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions\nagreed. In the Gilgamesh Epic Shuruppak is the only Antediluvian city\nreferred to, while in the Hebrew accounts no city at all is mentioned\nin connexion with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not recorded,\nbut as his father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that city\nas his in the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only Antediluvian\ncities according to Berossus were Babylon and Sippar, and the\ninfluence of Babylonian theology, of which we here have evidence,\nwould be sufficient to account for a disturbance of the original\ntraditions. At the same time it is not excluded that Larak was also\nthe scene of the Deluge in our text, though, as we have noted, the\nposition of Shuruppak at the close of the Sumerian list points to it\nas the more probable of the two. It may be added that we cannot yet\nread the name of the deity to whom Shuruppak was allotted, but as it\nis expressed by the city's name preceded by the divine determinative,\nthe rendering \"the God of Shuruppak\" will meanwhile serve.\n[1] See /Hist. of Sum. and Akk./, pp. 24 ff.\nThe creation of small rivers and pools, which seems to have followed\nthe foundation of the five sacred cities, is best explained on the\nassumption that they were intended for the supply of water to the\ncities and to the temples of their five patron gods. The creation of\nthe Euphrates and the Tigris, if recorded in our text at all, or in\nits logical order, must have occurred in the upper portion of the\ncolumn. The fact that in the later Sumerian account their creation is\nrelated between that of mankind and the building of Nippur and Erech\ncannot be cited in support of this suggestion, in view of the absence\nof those cities from our text and of the process of editing to which\nthe later version has been subjected, with a consequent disarrangement\nof its episodes.\nIII. THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS, AND ZIUSUDU'S PIETY\nFrom the lower part of the Third Column, where its text is first\npreserved, it is clear that the gods had already decided to send a\nDeluge, for the goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga, here referred to also\nas \"the holy Innanna\", wails aloud for the intended destruction of\n\"her people\". That this decision has been decreed by the gods in\ncouncil is clear from a passage in the Fourth Column, where it is\nstated that the sending of a flood to destroy mankind was \"the word of\nthe assembly [of the gods]\". The first lines preserved in the present\ncolumn describe the effect of the decision on the various gods\nconcerned and their action at the close of the council.\nIn the lines which described the Council of the Gods, broken\nreferences to \"the people\" and \"a flood\" are preserved, after which\nthe text continues:\nAt that time Nintu [. . .] like a [. . .],\nThe holy Innanna lament[ed] on account of her people.\nEnki in his own heart [held] counsel;\nAnu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga [. . .].\nThe gods of heaven and earth in[voked] the name of Anu and Enlil.\nIt is unfortunate that the ends of all the lines in this column are\nwanting, but enough remains to show a close correspondence of the\nfirst two lines quoted with a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic where\nIshtar is described as lamenting the destruction of mankind.[1] This\nwill be seen more clearly by printing the two couplets in parallel\ncolumns:\nSUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\nAt that time Nintu [. . .] like Ishtar cried aloud like a woman\na [. . .], in travail,\nThe holy Innanna lament[ed] on B\u00ealit-ili lamented with a loud\naccount of her people. voice.\n[1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 117 f.\nThe expression B\u00ealit-ili, \"the Lady of the Gods\", is attested as a\ntitle borne both by the Semitic goddess Ishtar and by the Sumerian\ngoddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga. In the passage in the Babylonian\nVersion, \"the Lady of the Gods\" has always been treated as a synonym\nof Ishtar, the second half of the couplet being regarded as a\nrestatement of the first, according to a recognized law of Babylonian\npoetry. We may probably assume that this interpretation is correct,\nand we may conclude by analogy that \"the holy Innanna\" in the second\nhalf of the Sumerian couplet is there merely employed as a synonym of\nNintu.[1] When the Sumerian myth was recast in accordance with Semitic\nideas, the /r\u00f4le/ of creatress of mankind, which had been played by\nthe old Sumerian goddess Ninkharsagga or Nintu, was naturally\ntransferred to the Semitic Ishtar. And as Innanna was one of Ishtar's\ndesignations, it was possible to make the change by a simple\ntranscription of the lines, the name Nintu being replaced by the\nsynonymous title B\u00ealit-ili, which was also shared by Ishtar.\nDifficulties are at once introduced if we assume with Dr. Poebel that\nin each version two separate goddesses are represented as lamenting,\nNintu or B\u00ealit-ili and Innanna or Ishtar. For Innanna as a separate\ngoddess had no share in the Sumerian Creation, and the reference to\n\"her people\" is there only applicable to Nintu. Dr. Poebel has to\nassume that the Sumerian names should be reversed in order to restore\nthem to their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian Version\nhas preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary. In the\nSemitic Version Ishtar definitely displaces Nintu as the mother of\nmen, as is proved by a later passage in her speech where she refers to\nher own bearing of mankind.[2] The necessity for the substitution of\nher name in the later version is thus obvious, and we have already\nnoted how simply this was effected.\n[1] Cf. also Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 336.\n[2] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.\nAnother feature in which the two versions differ is that in the\nSumerian text the lamentation of the goddess precedes the sending of\nthe Deluge, while in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual\nadvent of the storm. Since our text is not completely preserved, it is\njust possible that the couplet was repeated at the end of the Fourth\nColumn after mankind's destruction had taken place. But a further\napparent difference has been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the\ngoddess at once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from\nIshtar's words in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods\nshe had at any rate concurred in it.[1] On the other hand, in B\u00ealit-\nili's later speech in the Epic, after Ut-napishtim's sacrifice upon\nthe mountain, she appears to subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.[2]\nThe passages in the Gilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory, for\nthey can be interpreted as implying that, while Enlil forced his will\nupon the other gods against B\u00ealit-ili's protest, the goddess at first\nreproached herself with her concurrence, and later stigmatized Enlil\nas the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does\nnot appear, as has been suggested, to betray traces of two variant\ntraditions which have been skilfully combined, though it may perhaps\nexhibit an expansion of the Sumerian story. On the other hand, most of\nthe apparent discrepancies between the Sumerian and Babylonian\nVersions disappear, on the recognition that our text gives in many\npassages only an epitome of the original Sumerian Version.\n[1] Cf. l. 121 f., \"Since I commanded evil in the assembly of the\ngods, (and) commanded battle for the destruction of my people\".\n[2] Cf. ll. 165 ff., \"Ye gods that are here! So long as I forget not\nthe (jewels of) lapis lazuli upon my neck, I will keep these days\nin my memory, never will I forget them! Let the gods come to the\noffering, but let not Enlil come to the offering, since he took\nnot counsel but sent the deluge and surrendered my people to\ndestruction.\"\nThe lament of the goddess is followed by a brief account of the action\ntaken by the other chief figures in the drama. Enki holds counsel with\nhis own heart, evidently devising the project, which he afterwards\ncarried into effect, of preserving the seed of mankind from\ndestruction. Since the verb in the following line is wanting, we do\nnot know what action is there recorded of the four creating deities;\nbut the fact that the gods of heaven and earth invoked the name of Anu\nand Enlil suggests that it was their will which had been forced upon\nthe other gods. We shall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil\nare the ultimate rulers of both gods and men.\nThe narrative then introduces the human hero of the Deluge story:\nAt that time Ziusudu, the king, . . . priest of the god [. . .],\nMade a very great . . ., [. . .].\nIn humility he prostrates himself, in reverence [. . .],\nDaily he stands in attendance [. . .].\nA dream,[1] such as had not been before, comes forth[2] . . . [. . .],\nBy the Name of Heaven and Earth he conjures [. . .].\n[1] The word may also be rendered \"dreams\".\n[2] For this rendering of the verb /e-de/, for which Dr. Poebel does\nnot hazard a translation, see Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, IV, pl. 26, l.\n24 f.(a), /nu-e-de/ = Sem. /la us-su-u/ (Pres.); and cf. Br\u00fcnnow,\n/Classified List/, p. 327. An alternative rendering \"is created\"\nis also possible, and would give equally good sense; cf. /nu-e-de/\n= Sem. /la \u0161u-pu-u/, /W.A.I./, IV, pl. 2, l. 5 (a), and Br\u00fcnnow,\nop. cit., p. 328.\nThe name of the hero, Ziusudu, is the fuller Sumerian equivalent of\nUt-napishtim (or Uta-napishtim), the abbreviated Semitic form which we\nfind in the Gilgamesh Epic. For not only are the first two elements of\nthe Sumerian name identical with those of the Semitic Ut-napishtim,\nbut the names themselves are equated in a later Babylonian syllabary\nor explanatory list of words.[1] We there find \"Ut-napishte\" given as\nthe equivalent of the Sumerian \"Zisuda\", evidently an abbreviated form\nof the name Ziusudu;[2] and it is significant that the names occur in\nthe syllabary between those of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, evidently in\nconsequence of the association of the Deluge story by the Babylonians\nwith their national epic of Gilgamesh. The name Ziusudu may be\nrendered \"He who lengthened the day of life\" or \"He who made life long\nof days\",[3] which in the Semitic form is abbreviated by the omission\nof the verb. The reference is probably to the immortality bestowed\nupon Ziusudu at the close of the story, and not to the prolongation of\nmankind's existence in which he was instrumental. It is scarcely\nnecessary to add that the name has no linguistic connexion with the\nHebrew name Noah, to which it also presents no parallel in meaning.\n[1] Cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XVIII, pl. 30, l. 9 (a).\n[2] The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebel as\nZiugiddu, but there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern's\nsuggestion, based on the form Zisuda, that the third syllable of\nthe name should be read as /su/. On a fragment of another Nippur\ntext, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the name as /Zi-u-sud-du/ (cf.\nUniv. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90, pl.\niv a); the presence of the phonetic complement /du/ may be cited\nin favour of this reading, but it does not appear to be supported\nby the photographic reproductions of the name in the Sumerian\nDeluge Version given by Dr. Poebel (/Hist. and Gramm. Texts/, pl.\nlxxxviii f.). It may be added that, on either alternative, the\nmeaning of the name is the same.\n[3] The meaning of the Sumerian element /u/ in the name, rendered as\n/utu/ in the Semitic form, is rather obscure, and Dr. Poebel left\nit unexplained. It is very probable, as suggested by Dr. Langdon\n(cf. /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, XXXVI, 1914, p. 190), that we\nshould connect it with the Semitic /uddu/; in that case, in place\nof \"breath\", the rending he suggests, I should be inclined to\nrender it here as \"day\", for /uddu/ as the meaning \"dawn\" and the\nsign UD is employed both for /urru/, \"day-light\", and /\u00fbmu/,\n\"day\".\nIt is an interesting fact that Ziusudu should be described simply as\n\"the king\", without any indication of the city or area he ruled; and\nin three of the five other passages in the text in which his name is\nmentioned it is followed by the same title without qualification. In\nmost cases Berossus tells us the cities from which his Antediluvian\nrulers came; and if the end of the line had been preserved it might\nhave been possible to determine definitely Ziusudu's city, and\nincidentally the scene of the Deluge in the Sumerian Version, by the\nname of the deity in whose service he acted as priest. We have already\nnoted some grounds for believing that his city may have been\nShuruppak, as in the Babylonian Version; and if that were so, the\ndivine name reads as \"the God of Shurrupak\" should probably be\nrestored at the end of the line.[1]\n[1] The remains that are preserved of the determinative, which is not\ncombined with the sign EN, proves that Enki's name is not to be\nrestored. Hence Ziusudu was not priest of Enki, and his city was\nprobably not Eridu, the seat of his divine friend and counsellor,\nand the first of the Antediluvian cities. Sufficient reason for\nEnki's intervention on Ziusudu's behalf is furnished by the fact\nthat, as God of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposed method\nof man's destruction. His rivalry of Enlil, the God of the Earth,\nis implied in the Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-\n42), and in the Sumerian Version this would naturally extend to\nAnu, the God of Heaven.\nThe employment of the royal title by itself accords with the tradition\nfrom Berossus that before the Deluge, as in later periods, the land\nwas governed by a succession of supreme rulers, and that the hero of\nthe Deluge was the last of them. In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other\nhand, Ut-napishtim is given no royal nor any other title. He is merely\nreferred to as a \"man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu\", and he appears\nin the guise of an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal\npower. On this point Berossus evidently preserves the original\nSumerian traditions, while the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-\nBabylonian narrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of supreme\nAntediluvian rulers is of course merely a reflection from the\nhistorical period, when the hegemony in Babylonia was contested among\nthe city-states. The growth of the tradition may have been encouraged\nby the early use of /lugal/, \"king\", which, though always a term of\nsecular character, was not very sharply distinguished from that of\n/patesi/ and other religious titles, until, in accordance with\npolitical development, it was required to connote a wider dominion. In\nSumer, at the time of the composition of our text, Ziusudu was still\nonly one in a long line of Babylonian rulers, mainly historical but\ngradually receding into the realms of legend and myth. At the time of\nthe later Semites there had been more than one complete break in the\ntradition and the historical setting of the old story had become dim.\nThe fact that Hebrew tradition should range itself in this matter with\nBabylon rather than with Sumer is important as a clue in tracing the\nliterary history of our texts.\nThe rest of the column may be taken as descriptive of Ziusudu's\nactivities. One line records his making of some very great object or\nthe erection of a huge building;[1] and since the following lines are\nconcerned solely with religious activities, the reference is possibly\nto a temple or some other structure of a sacred character. Its\nfoundation may have been recorded as striking evidence of his devotion\nto his god; or, since the verb in this sentence depends on the words\n\"at that time\" in the preceding line, we may perhaps regard his action\nas directly connected with the revelation to be made to him. His\npersonal piety is then described: daily he occupied himself in his\ngod's service, prostrating himself in humility and constant in his\nattendance at the shrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), \"such as had\nnot been before\", appears to him and he seems to be further described\nas conjuring \"by the Name of Heaven and Earth\"; but as the ends of all\nthese lines are broken, the exact connexion of the phrases is not\nquite certain.\n[1] The element /gur-gur/, \"very large\" or \"huge\", which occurs in the\nname of this great object or building, /an-sag-gur-gur/, is\nemployed later in the term for the \"huge boat\", /(gish)ma-gur-\ngur/, in which Ziusudu rode out the storm. There was, of course,\neven at this early period a natural tendency to picture on a\nsuperhuman scale the lives and deeds of remote predecessors, a\ntendency which increased in later times and led, as we shall see,\nto the elaboration of extravagant detail.\nIt is difficult not to associate the reference to a dream, or possibly\nto dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki reveals the\npurpose of the gods. For the later versions prepare us for a reference\nto a dream. If we take the line as describing Ziusudu's practice of\ndream-divination in general, \"such as had not been before\", he may\nhave been represented as the first diviner of dreams, as Enmeduranki\nwas held to be the first practitioner of divination in general. But it\nseems to me more probable that the reference is to a particular dream,\nby means of which he obtained knowledge of the gods' intentions. On\nthe rendering of this passage depends our interpretation of the whole\nof the Fourth Column, where the point will be further discussed.\nMeanwhile it may be noted that the conjuring \"by the Name of Heaven\nand Earth\", which we may assume is ascribed to Ziusudu, gains in\nsignificance if we may regard the setting of the myth as a magical\nincantation, an inference in support of which we shall note further\nevidence. For we are furnished at once with the grounds for its\nmagical employment. If Ziusudu, through conjuring by the Name of\nHeaven and earth, could profit by the warning sent him and so escape\nthe impending fate of mankind, the application of such a myth to the\nspecial needs of a Sumerian in peril or distress will be obvious. For\nshould he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and Earth, he might look\nfor a similar deliverance; and his recital of the myth itself would\ntend to clinch the magical effect of his own incantation.\nThe description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnishing us\nwith a close parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew Versions. For\nin the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus this feature of the story is\ncompletely absent. We are there given no reason why Ut-napishtim was\nselected by Ea, nor Xisuthros by Kronos. For all that those versions\ntell us, the favour of each deity might have been conferred\narbitrarily, and not in recognition of, or in response to, any\nparticular quality or action on the part of its recipient. The\nSumerian Version now restores the original setting of the story and\nincidentally proves that, in this particular, the Hebrew Versions have\nnot embroidered a simpler narrative for the purpose of edification,\nbut have faithfully reproduced an original strand of the tradition.\nIV. THE DREAM-WARNING\nThe top of the Fourth Column of the text follows immediately on the\nclose of the Third Column, so that at this one point we have no great\ngap between the columns. But unfortunately the ends of all the lines\nin both columns are wanting, and the exact content of some phrases\npreserved and their relation to each other are consequently doubtful.\nThis materially affects the interpretation of the passage as a whole,\nbut the main thread of the narrative may be readily followed. Ziusudu\nis here warned that a flood is to be sent \"to destroy the seed of\nmankind\"; the doubt that exists concerns the manner in which the\nwarning is conveyed. In the first line of the column, after a\nreference to \"the gods\", a building seems to be mentioned, and\nZiusudu, standing beside it, apparently hears a voice, which bids him\ntake his stand beside a wall and then conveys to him the warning of\nthe coming flood. The destruction of mankind had been decreed in \"the\nassembly [of the gods]\" and would be carried out by the commands of\nAnu and Enlil. Before the text breaks off we again have a reference to\nthe \"kingdom\" and \"its rule\", a further trace of the close association\nof the Deluge with the dynastic succession in the early traditions of\nSumer.\nIn the opening words of the warning to Ziusudu, with its prominent\nrepetition of the word \"wall\", we must evidently trace some connexion\nwith the puzzling words of Ea in the Gilgamesh Epic, when he begins\nhis warning to Ut-napishtim. The warnings, as given in the two\nversions, are printed below in parallel columns for comparison.[1] The\nGilgamesh Epic, after relating how the great gods in Shuruppak had\ndecided to send a deluge, continues as follows in the right-hand\ncolumn:\nSUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\nFor [. . .] . . . the gods a Nin-igi-azag,[2] the god Ea,\n. . . [. . .]; sat with them,\nZiusudu standing at its side And he repeated their word to\nheard [. . .]: the house of reeds:\n\"At the wall on my left side take \"Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall,\nthy stand and [. . .], wall!\nAt the wall I will speak a word O reed-hut, hear! O wall,\nto thee [. . .]. understand!\nO my devout one . . . [. . .], Thou man of Shuruppak, son of\nUbar-Tutu,\nBy our hand(?) a flood[3] . . . Pull down thy house, build a\n[. . .] will be [sent]. ship,\nTo destroy the seed of mankind Leave thy possessions, take\n[. . .] heed for thy life,\nIs the decision, the word of the Abandon thy property, and save\nassembly[4] [of the gods] thy life.\nThe commands of Anu (and) And bring living seed of every\nEn[lil . . .] kind into the ship.\nIts kingdom, its rule [. . .] As for the ship, which thou\nshalt build,\nTo his [. . .]\" Of which the measurements\nshall be carefully measured,\n[. . .] Its breadth and length shall\ncorrespond.\n[. . .] In the deep shalt thou immerse\nit.\"\n[1] Col. IV, ll. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll.\n19-31.\n[2] Nin-igi-azag, \"The Lord of Clear Vision\", a title borne by Enki,\nor Ea, as God of Wisdom.\n[3] The Sumerian term /amaru/, here used for the flood and rendered as\n\"rain-storm\" by Dr. Poebel, is explained in a later syllabary as\nthe equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian word /ab\u00fbbu/ (cf.\nMeissner, /S.A.I./, No. 8909), the term employed for the flood\nboth in the early Semitic version of the Atrakhasis story dated in\nAmmizaduga's reign and in the Gilgamesh Epic. The word /ab\u00fbbu/ is\noften conventionally rendered \"deluge\", but should be more\naccurately translated \"flood\". It is true that the tempests of the\nSumerian Version probably imply rain; and in the Gilgamesh Epic\nheavy rain in the evening begins the flood and is followed at dawn\nby a thunderstorm and hurricane. But in itself the term /ab\u00fbbu/\nimplies flood, which could take place through a rise of the rivers\nunaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annual rainfall in\nBabylonia to-day is on an average only about 8 in., and there have\nbeen years in succession when the total rainfall has not exceeded\n4 in.; and yet the /ab\u00fbbu/ is not a thing of the past.\n[4] The word here rendered \"assembly\" is the Semitic loan-word\n/buhrum/, in Babylonian /puhrum/, the term employed for the\n\"assembly\" of the gods both in the Babylonian Creation Series and\nin the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment in the Sumerian Version, in\nplace of its Sumerian equivalent /ukkin/, is an interesting\nexample of Semitic influence. Its occurrence does not necessarily\nimply the existence of a recognized Semitic Version at the period\nour text was inscribed. The substitution of /buhrum/ for /ukkin/\nin the text may well date from the period of Hammurabi, when we\nmay assume that the increased importance of the city-council was\nreflected in the general adoption of the Semitic term (cf. Poebel,\n/Hist. Texts/, p. 53).\nIn the Semitic Version Ut-napishtim, who tells the story in the first\nperson, then says that he \"understood\", and that, after assuring Ea\nthat he would carry out his commands, he asked how he was to explain\nhis action to \"the city, the people, and the elders\"; and the god told\nhim what to say. Then follows an account of the building of the ship,\nintroduced by the words \"As soon as the dawn began to break\". In the\nSumerian Version the close of the warning, in which the ship was\nprobably referred to, and the lines prescribing how Ziusudu carried\nout the divine instructions are not preserved.\nIt will be seen that in the passage quoted from the Semitic Version\nthere is no direct mention of a dream; the god is represented at first\nas addressing his words to a \"house of reeds\" and a \"wall\", and then\nas speaking to Ut-napishtim himself. But in a later passage in the\nEpic, when Ea seeks to excuse his action to Enlil, he says that the\ngods' decision was revealed to Atrakhasis through a dream.[1] Dr.\nPoebel rightly compares the direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in\nthe passage quoted above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu\nreceives in the Sumerian Version. But he would have us divorce the\ndirect warning from the dream-warning, and he concludes that no less\nthan three different versions of the story have been worked together\nin the Gilgamesh Epic. In the first, corresponding to that in our\ntext, Ea communicates the gods' decision directly to Ut-napishtim; in\nthe second he sends a dream from which Atrakhasis, \"the Very Wise\none\", guesses the impending peril; while in the third he relates the\nplan to a wall, taking care that Ut-napishtim overhears him.[2] The\nversion of Berossus, that Kronos himself appears to Xisuthros in a\ndream and warns him, is rejected by Dr. Poebel, who remarks that here\nthe \"original significance of the dream has already been obliterated\".\nConsequently there seems to him to be \"no logical connexion\" between\nthe dreams or dream mentioned at the close of the Third Column and the\ncommunication of the plan of the gods at the beginning of the Fourth\nColumn of our text.[3]\n[1] Cf. l. 195 f.; \"I did not divulge the decision of the great gods.\nI caused Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thus he heard the\ndecision of the gods.\"\n[2] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 51 f. With the god's apparent\nsubterfuge in the third of these supposed versions Sir James\nFrazer (/Ancient Stories of a Great Flood/, p. 15) not inaptly\ncompares the well-known story of King Midas's servant, who, unable\nto keep the secret of the king's deformity to himself, whispered\nit into a hole in the ground, with the result that the reeds which\ngrew up there by their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the\nworld (Ovid, /Metamorphoses/, xi, 174 ff.).\n[3] Op. cit., p. 51; cf. also Jastrow, /Heb. and Bab. Trad./, p. 346.\nSo far from Berossus having missed the original significance of the\nnarrative he relates, I think it can be shown that he reproduces very\naccurately the sense of our Sumerian text; and that the apparent\ndiscrepancies in the Semitic Version, and the puzzling references to a\nwall in both it and the Sumerian Version, are capable of a simple\nexplanation. There appears to me no justification for splitting the\nSemitic narrative into the several versions suggested, since the\nassumption that the direct warning and the dream-warning must be\ndistinguished is really based on a misunderstanding of the character\nof Sumerian dreams by which important decisions of the gods in council\nwere communicated to mankind. We fortunately possess an instructive\nSumerian parallel to our passage. In it the will of the gods is\nrevealed in a dream, which is not only described in full but is\nfurnished with a detailed interpretation; and as it seems to clear up\nour difficulties, it may be well to summarize its main features.\nThe occasion of the dream in this case was not a coming deluge but a\ngreat dearth of water in the rivers, in consequence of which the crops\nhad suffered and the country was threatened with famine. This occurred\nin the reign of Gudea, patesi of Lagash, who lived some centuries\nbefore our Sumerian document was inscribed. In his own inscription[1]\nhe tells us that he was at a loss to know by what means he might\nrestore prosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream; and\nit was in consequence of the dream that he eventually erected one of\nthe most sumptuously appointed of Sumerian temples and thereby\nrestored his land to prosperity. Before recounting his dream he\ndescribes how the gods themselves took counsel. On the day in which\ndestinies were fixed in heaven and earth, Enlil, the chief of the\ngods, and Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash, held converse; and Enlil,\nturning to Ningirsu, described the sad condition of Southern\nBabylonia, and remarked that \"the decrees of the temple Eninn\u00fb should\nbe made glorious in heaven and upon earth\", or, in other words, that\nNingirsu's city-temple must be rebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not\ncommunicate his orders directly to Gudea, but conveyed the will of the\ngods to him by means of a dream.\n[1] See Thureau-Dangin, /Les inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad/, Cyl.\nA, pp. 134 ff., Germ. ed., pp. 88 ff.; and cf. King and Hall, /Eg.\nand West. Asia/, pp. 196 ff.\nIt will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation to that\nin the Deluge story. A conference of the gods has been held; a\ndecision has been taken by the greatest god, Enlil; and, in\nconsequence, another deity is anxious to inform a Sumerian ruler of\nthat decision. The only difference is that here Enlil desires the\ncommunication to be made, while in the Deluge story it is made without\nhis knowledge, and obviously against his wishes. So the fact that\nNingirsu does not communicate directly with the patesi, but conveys\nhis message by means of a dream, is particularly instructive. For here\nthere can be no question of any subterfuge in the method employed,\nsince Enlil was a consenting party.\nThe story goes on to relate that, while the patesi slept, a vision of\nthe night came to him, and he beheld a man whose stature was so great\nthat it equalled the heavens and the earth. By the diadem he wore upon\nhis head Gudea knew that the figure must be a god. Beside the god was\nthe divine eagle, the emblem of Lagash; his feet rested upon the\nwhirlwind, and a lion crouched upon his right hand and upon his left.\nThe figure spoke to the patesi, but he did not understand the meaning\nof the words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose from the\nearth; and he beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure reed, and she\ncarried also a tablet on which was a star of the heavens, and she\nseemed to take counsel with herself. While Gudea was gazing, he seemed\nto see a second man, who was like a warrior; and he carried a slab of\nlapis lazuli, on which he drew out the plan of a temple. Before the\npatesi himself it seemed that a fair cushion was placed, and upon the\ncushion was set a mould, and within the mould was a brick. And on the\nright hand the patesi beheld an ass that lay upon the ground. Such was\nthe dream of Gudea, and he was troubled because he could not interpret\nit.[1]\n[1] The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalyptic visions\nof a later period is interesting, as evidence of the latter's\nremote ancestry, and of the development in the use of primitive\nmaterial to suit a completely changed political outlook. But those\nare points which do not concern our problem.\nTo cut the long story short, Gudea decided to seek the help of Nin\u00e2,\n\"the child of Eridu\", who, as daughter of Enki, the God of Wisdom,\ncould divine all the mysteries of the gods. But first of all by\nsacrifices and libations he secured the mediation of his own city-god\nand goddess, Ningirsu and Gatumdug; and then, repairing to Nin\u00e2's\ntemple, he recounted to her the details of his vision. When the patesi\nhad finished, the goddess addressed him and said she would explain to\nhim the meaning of his dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand\nthat she spoke through the mouth of her chief priest. And this was the\ninterpretation of the dream. The man whose stature was so great, and\nwhose head was that of a god, was the god Ningirsu, and the words\nwhich he uttered were an order to the patesi to rebuild the temple\nEninn\u00fb. The Sun which rose from the earth was the god Ningishzida, for\nlike the Sun he goes forth from the earth. The maiden who held the\npure reed and carried the tablet with the star was the goddess Nisaba;\nthe star was the pure star of the temple's construction, which she\nproclaimed. The second man, who was like a warrior, was the god Nibub;\nand the plan of the temple which he drew was the plan of Eninn\u00fb; and\nthe ass that lay upon the ground was the patesi himself.[1]\n[1] The symbolism of the ass, as a beast of burden, was applicable to\nthe patesi in his task of carrying out the building of the temple.\nThe essential feature of the vision is that the god himself appeared\nto the sleeper and delivered his message in words. That is precisely\nthe manner in which Kronos warned Xisuthros of the coming Deluge in\nthe version of Berossus; while in the Gilgamesh Epic the apparent\ncontradiction between the direct warning and the dream-warning at once\ndisappears. It is true that Gudea states that he did not understand\nthe meaning of the god's message, and so required an interpretation;\nbut he was equally at a loss as to the identity of the god who gave\nit, although Ningirsu was his own city-god and was accompanied by his\nown familiar city-emblem. We may thus assume that the god's words, as\nwords, were equally intelligible to Gudea. But as they were uttered in\na dream, it was necessary that the patesi, in view of his country's\nperil, should have divine assurance that they implied no other\nmeaning. And in his case such assurance was the more essential, in\nview of the symbolism attaching to the other features of his vision.\nThat this is sound reasoning is proved by a second vision vouchsafed\nto Gudea by Ningirsu. For the patesi, though he began to prepare for\nthe building of the temple, was not content even with Nin\u00e2's\nassurance. He offered a prayer to Ningirsu himself, saying that he\nwished to build the temple, but had received no sign that this was the\nwill of the god; and he prayed for a sign. Then, as the patesi lay\nstretched upon the ground, the god again appeared to him and gave him\ndetailed instructions, adding that he would grant the sign for which\nhe asked. The sign was that he should feel his side touched as by a\nflame,[1] and thereby he should know that he was the man chosen by\nNingirsu to carry out his commands. Here it is the sign which confirms\nthe apparent meaning of the god's words. And Gudea was at last content\nand built the temple.[2]\n[1] Cyl. A., col. xii, l. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 150\nf., Germ. ed., p. 102 f. The word translated \"side\" may also be\nrendered as \"hand\"; but \"side\" is the more probable rendering of\nthe two. The touching of Gudea's side (or hand) presents an\ninteresting resemblance to the touching of Jacob's thigh by the\ndivine wrestler at Peniel in Gen. xxxii. 24 ff. (J or JE). Given a\nbelief in the constant presence of the unseen and its frequent\nmanifestation, such a story as that of Peniel might well arise\nfrom an unexplained injury to the sciatic muscle, while more than\none ailment of the heart or liver might perhaps suggest the touch\nof a beckoning god. There is of course no connexion between the\nSumerian and Hebrew stories beyond their common background. It may\nbe added that those critics who would reverse the /r\u00f4les/ of Jacob\nand the wrestler miss the point of the Hebrew story.\n[2] Even so, before starting on the work, he took the further\nprecautions of ascertaining that the omens were favourable and of\npurifying his city from all malign influence.\nWe may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge\nwe have traced a logical connexion between the direct warning to\nZiusudu in the Fourth Column of the text and the reference to a dream\nin the broken lines at the close of the Third Column. As in the\nGilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, here too the god's warning is conveyed\nin a dream; and the accompanying reference to conjuring by the Name of\nHeaven and Earth probably represents the means by which Ziusudu was\nenabled to verify its apparent meaning. The assurance which Gudea\nobtained through the priest of Nin\u00e2 and the sign, the priest-king\nZiusudu secured by his own act, in virtue of his piety and practice of\ndivination. And his employment of the particular class of incantation\nreferred to, that which conjures by the Name of Heaven and Earth, is\nsingularly appropriate to the context. For by its use he was enabled\nto test the meaning of Enki's words, which related to the intentions\nof Anu and Enlil, the gods respectively of Heaven and of Earth. The\nsymbolical setting of Gudea's vision also finds a parallel in the\nreed-house and wall of the Deluge story, though in the latter case we\nhave not the benefit of interpretation by a goddess. In the Sumerian\nVersion the wall is merely part of the vision and does not receive a\ndirect address from the god. That appears as a later development in\nthe Semitic Version, and it may perhaps have suggested the excuse, put\nin that version into the mouth of Ea, that he had not directly\nrevealed the decision of the gods.[1]\n[1] In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazer between\nthe reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, now regarded as a\nmedium of communication, and the whispering reeds of the Midas\nstory would still hold good.\nThe omission of any reference to a dream before the warning in the\nGilgamesh Epic may be accounted for on the assumption that readers of\nthe poem would naturally suppose that the usual method of divine\nwarning was implied; and the text does indicate that the warning took\nplace at night, for Gilgamesh proceeds to carry out the divine\ninstructions at the break of day. The direct warning of the Hebrew\nVersions, on the other hand, does not carry this implication, since\naccording to Hebrew ideas direct speech, as well as vision, was\nincluded among the methods by which the divine will could be conveyed\nto man.\nV. THE FLOOD, THE ESCAPE OF THE GREAT BOAT,\nAND THE SACRIFICE TO THE SUN-GOD\nThe missing portion of the Fourth Column must have described Ziusudu's\nbuilding of his great boat in order to escape the Deluge, for at the\nbeginning of the Fifth Column we are in the middle of the Deluge\nitself. The column begins:\nAll the mighty wind-storms together blew,\nThe flood . . . raged.\nWhen for seven days, for seven nights,\nThe flood had overwhelmed the land\nWhen the wind-storm had driven the great boat over the mighty\nwaters,\nThe Sun-god came forth, shedding light over heaven and earth.\nZiusudu opened the opening of the great boat;\nThe light of the hero, the Sun-god, (he) causes to enter into the\ninterior(?) of the great boat.\nZiusudu, the king,\nBows himself down before the Sun-god;\nThe king sacrifices an ox, a sheep he slaughters(?).\nThe connected text of the column then breaks off, only a sign or two\nremaining of the following half-dozen lines. It will be seen that in\nthe eleven lines that are preserved we have several close parallels to\nthe Babylonian Version and some equally striking differences. While\nattempting to define the latter, it will be well to point out how\nclose the resemblances are, and at the same time to draw a comparison\nbetween the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions of this part of the story\nand the corresponding Hebrew accounts.\nHere, as in the Babylonian Version, the Flood is accompanied by\nhurricanes of wind, though in the latter the description is worked up\nin considerable detail. We there read[1] that at the appointed time\nthe ruler of the darkness at eventide sent a heavy rain. Ut-napishtim\nsaw its beginning, but fearing to watch the storm, he entered the\ninterior of the ship by Ea's instructions, closed the door, and handed\nover the direction of the vessel to the pilot Puzur-Amurri. Later a\nthunder-storm and hurricane added their terrors to the deluge. For at\nearly dawn a black cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-god\nthundering in its midst, and his heralds, Nab\u00fb and Sharru, flying over\nmountain and plain. Nergal tore away the ship's anchor, while Ninib\ndirected the storm; the Anunnaki carried their lightning-torches and\nlit up the land with their brightness; the whirlwind of the Storm-god\nreached the heavens, and all light was turned into darkness. The storm\nraged the whole day, covering mountain and people with water.[2] No\nman beheld his fellow; the gods themselves were afraid, so that they\nretreated into the highest heaven, where they crouched down, cowering\nlike dogs. Then follows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference\nhas already been made, the goddess reproaching herself for the part\nshe had taken in the destruction of her people. This section of the\nSemitic narrative closes with the picture of the gods weeping with\nher, sitting bowed down with their lips pressed together.\n[1] Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 90 ff.\n[2] In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign of Ammizaduga, Col.\nI, l. 5, contains a reference to the \"cry\" of men when Adad the\nStorm-god, slays them with his flood.\nIt is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion of\nits Fourth Column, contained some account of Ziusudu's entry into his\nboat; and this may have been preceded, as in the Gilgamesh Epic, by a\nreference to \"the living seed of every kind\", or at any rate to \"the\nfour-legged creatures of the field\", and to his personal possessions,\nwith which we may assume he had previously loaded it. But in the Fifth\nColumn we have no mention of the pilot or of any other companions who\nmay have accompanied the king; and we shall see that the Sixth Column\ncontains no reference to Ziusudu's wife. The description of the storm\nmay have begun with the closing lines of the Fourth Column, though it\nis also quite possible that the first line of the Fifth Column\nactually begins the account. However that may be, and in spite of the\npoetic imagery of the Semitic Babylonian narrative, the general\ncharacter of the catastrophe is the same in both versions.\nWe find an equally close parallel, between the Sumerian and Babylonian\naccounts, in the duration of the storm which accompanied the Flood, as\nwill be seen by printing the two versions together:[3]\nSUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\nWhen for seven days, for seven For six days and nights\nnights,\nThe flood had overwhelmed the The wind blew, the flood, the\nland, tempest overwhelmed the land.\nWhen the wind-storm had driven When the seventh day drew near,\nthe great boat over the the tempest, the flood, ceased\nmighty waters, from the battle\nIn which it had fought like a\nhost.\nThe Sun-god came forth shedding Then the sea rested and was\nlight over heaven and earth. still, and the wind-storm, the\nflood, ceased.\n[3] Col. V, ll. 3-6 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 128-32.\nThe two narratives do not precisely agree as to the duration of the\nstorm, for while in the Sumerian account the storm lasts seven days\nand seven nights, in the Semitic-Babylonian Version it lasts only six\ndays and nights, ceasing at dawn on the seventh day. The difference,\nhowever, is immaterial when we compare these estimates with those of\nthe Hebrew Versions, the older of which speaks of forty days' rain,\nwhile the later version represents the Flood as rising for no less\nthan a hundred and fifty days.\nThe close parallel between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions is\nnot, however, confined to subject-matter, but here, even extends to\nsome of the words and phrases employed. It has already been noted that\nthe Sumerian term employed for \"flood\" or \"deluge\" is the attested\nequivalent of the Semitic word; and it may now be added that the word\nwhich may be rendered \"great boat\" or \"great ship\" in the Sumerian\ntext is the same word, though partly expressed by variant characters,\nwhich occurs in the early Semitic fragment of the Deluge story from\nNippur.[1] In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, the ordinary\nideogram for \"vessel\" or \"ship\"[2] is employed, though the great size\nof the vessel is there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew\nVersion, by detailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian and Semitic\nverbs, which are employed in the parallel passages quoted above for\nthe \"overwhelming\" of the land, are given as synonyms in a late\nsyllabary, while in another explanatory text the Sumerian verb is\nexplained as applying to the destructive action of a flood.[3] Such\nclose linguistic parallels are instructive as furnishing additional\nproof, if it were needed, of the dependence of the Semitic-Babylonian\nand Assyrian Versions upon Sumerian originals.\n[1] The Sumerian word is /(gish)ma-gur-gur/, corresponding to the term\nwritten in the early Semitic fragment, l. 8, as /(isu)ma-gur-gur/,\nwhich is probably to be read under its Semitized form\n/magurgurru/. In l. 6 of that fragment the vessel is referred to\nunder the synonymous expression /(isu)elippu ra-be-tu/, \"a great\nship\".\n[2] i.e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word, read in\nSemitic Babylonian as /elippu/, \"ship\"; when employed in the early\nSemitic fragment it is qualified by the adj. /ra-be-tu/, \"great\".\nThere is no justification for assuming, with Prof. Hilbrecht, that\na measurement of the vessel was given in l. 7 of the early Semitic\nfragment.\n[3] The Sumerian verb /ur/, which is employed in l. 2 of the Fifth\nColumn in the expression /ba-an-da-ab-ur-ur/, translated as\n\"raged\", occurs again in l. 4 in the phrase /kalam-ma ba-ur-ra/,\n\"had overwhelmed the land\". That we are justified in regarding the\nlatter phrase as the original of the Semitic /i-sap-pan m\u00e2ta/\n(Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 129) is proved by the equation Sum. /ur-ur/ =\nSem. /sa-pa-nu/ (Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, Vol. V, pl. 42, l. 54 c) and\nby the explanation Sum. /ur-ur/ = Sem. /\u0161a-ba-tu \u0161a a-bu-bi/, i.e.\n\"/ur-ur/ = to smite, of a flood\" (/Cun. Texts, Pt. XII, pl. 50,\nObv., l. 23); cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 54, n. 1.\nIt may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of the text,\nin order to inquire what kind of boat it was in which Ziusudu escaped\nthe Flood. It is only called \"a great boat\" or \"a great ship\" in the\ntext, and this term, as we have noted, was taken over, semitized, and\nliterally translated in an early Semitic-Babylonian Version. But the\nGilgamesh Epic, representing the later Semitic-Babylonian Version,\nsupplies fuller details, which have not, however, been satisfactorily\nexplained. Either the obvious meaning of the description and figures\nthere given has been ignored, or the measurements have been applied to\na central structure placed upon a hull, much on the lines of a modern\n\"house-boat\" or the conventional Noah's ark.[1] For the latter\ninterpretation the text itself affords no justification. The statement\nis definitely made that the length and breadth of the vessel itself\nare to be the same;[2] and a later passage gives ten /gar/ for the\nheight of its sides and ten /gar/ for the breadth of its deck.[3] This\ndescription has been taken to imply a square box-like structure,\nwhich, in order to be seaworthy, must be placed on a conjectured hull.\n[1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 329.\n[2] Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 28-30.\n[3] L. 58 f. The /gar/ contained twelve cubits, so that the vessel\nwould have measured 120 cubits each way; taking the Babylonian\ncubit, on the basis of Gudea's scale, at 495 mm. (cf. Thureau-\nDangin, /Journal Asiatique/, Dix. S\u00e9r., t. XIII, 1909, pp. 79 ff.,\n97), this would give a length, breadth, and height of nearly 195\nft.\nI do not think it has been noted in this connexion that a vessel,\napproximately with the relative proportions of that described in the\nGilgamesh Epic, is in constant use to-day on the lower Tigris and\nEuphrates. A /kuffah/,[1] the familiar pitched coracle of Baghdad,\nwould provide an admirable model for the gigantic vessel in which\nUt-napishtim rode out the Deluge. \"Without either stem or stern, quite\nround like a shield\"--so Herodotus described the /kuffah/ of his\nday;2[] so, too, is it represented on Assyrian slabs from Nineveh,\nwhere we see it employed for the transport of heavy building\nmaterial;[3] its form and structure indeed suggest a prehistoric\norigin. The /kuffah/ is one of those examples of perfect adjustment to\nconditions of use which cannot be improved. Any one who has travelled\nin one of these craft will agree that their storage capacity is\nimmense, for their circular form and steeply curved side allow every\ninch of space to be utilized. It is almost impossible to upset them,\nand their only disadvantage is lack of speed. For their guidance all\nthat is required is a steersman with a paddle, as indicated in the\nEpic. It is true that the larger kuffah of to-day tends to increase in\ndiameter as compared to height, but that detail might well be ignored\nin picturing the monster vessel of Ut-napishtim. Its seven horizontal\nstages and their nine lateral divisions would have been structurally\nsound in supporting the vessel's sides; and the selection of the\nlatter uneven number, though prompted doubtless by its sacred\ncharacter, is only suitable to a circular craft in which the interior\nwalls would radiate from the centre. The use of pitch and bitumen for\nsmearing the vessel inside and out, though unusual even in\nMesopotamian shipbuilding, is precisely the method employed in the\n/kuffah's/ construction.\n[1] Arab. /kuffah/, pl. /kufaf/; in addition to its common use for the\nBaghdad coracle, the word is also employed for a large basket.\n[2] Herodotus, I, 194.\n[3] The /kuffah/ is formed of wicker-work coated with bitumen. Some of\nthose represented on the Nineveh sculptures appear to be covered with\nskins; and Herodotus (I, 94) states that \"the boats which come down\nthe river to Babylon are circular and made of skins.\" But his further\ndescription shows that he is here referred to the /kelek/ or\nskin-raft, with which he has combined a description of the /kuffah/.\nThe late Sir Henry Rawlinson has never seen or heard of a skin-covered\n/kuffah/ on either the Tigris or Euphrates, and there can be little\ndoubt that bitumen was employed for their construction in antiquity,\nas it is to-day. These craft are often large enough to carry five or\nsix horses and a dozen men.\nWe have no detailed description of Ziusudu's \"great boat\", beyond the\nfact that it was covered in and had an opening, or light-hole, which\ncould be closed. But the form of Ut-napishtim's vessel was no doubt\ntraditional, and we may picture that of Ziusudu as also of the\n/kuffah/ type, though smaller and without its successor's elaborate\ninternal structure. The gradual development of the huge coracle into a\nship would have been encouraged by the Semitic use of the term \"ship\"\nto describe it; and the attempt to retain something of its original\nproportions resulted in producing the unwieldy ark of later\ntradition.[1]\n[1] The description of the ark is not preserved from the earlier\nHebrew Version (J), but the latter Hebrew Version (P), while\nincreasing the length of the vessel, has considerably reduced its\nheight and breadth. Its measurements are there given (Gen. vi. 15)\nas 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in\nheight; taking the ordinary Hebrew cubit at about 18 in., this\nwould give a length of about 450 ft., a breadth of about 75 ft.,\nand a height of about 45 ft. The interior stories are necessarily\nreduced to three. The vessel in Berossus measures five stadia by\ntwo, and thus had a length of over three thousand feet and a\nbreadth of more than twelve hundred.\nWe will now return to the text and resume the comparison we were\nmaking between it and the Gilgamesh Epic. In the latter no direct\nreference is made to the appearance of the Sun-god after the storm,\nnor is Ut-napishtim represented as praying to him. But the sequence of\nevents in the Sumerian Version is very natural, and on that account\nalone, apart from other reasons, it may be held to represent the\noriginal form of the story. For the Sun-god would naturally reappear\nafter the darkness of the storm had passed, and it would be equally\nnatural that Ziusudu should address himself to the great light-god.\nMoreover, the Gilgamesh Epic still retains traces of the Sumerian\nVersion, as will be seen from a comparison of their narratives,[1] the\nSemitic Version being quoted from the point where the hurricane ceased\nand the sea became still.\n[1] Col. V, ll. 7-11 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 133-9.\nSUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\nWhen I looked at the storm, the\nuproar had ceased,\nAnd all mankind was turned into\nclay;\nIn place of fields there was a\nswamp.\nZiusudu opened the opening of I opened the opening (lit.\nthe great boat; \"hole\"), and daylight fell\nupon my countenance.\nThe light of the hero, the Sun-\ngod, (he) causes to enter into\nthe interior(?) of the great\nboat.\nZiusudu, the king,\nBows himself down before the I bowed myself down and sat down\nSun-god; weeping;\nThe king sacrifices an ox, a Over my countenance flowed my\nsheep he slaughters(?). tears.\nI gazed upon the quarters (of\nthe world)--all(?) was sea.\nIt will be seen that in the Semitic Version the beams of the Sun-god\nhave been reduced to \"daylight\", and Ziusudu's act of worship has\nbecome merely prostration in token of grief.\nBoth in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus the sacrifice offered by\nthe Deluge hero to the gods follows the episode of the birds, and it\ntakes place on the top of the mountain after the landing from the\nvessel. It is hardly probable that two sacrifices were recounted in\nthe Sumerian Version, one to the Sun-god in the boat and another on\nthe mountain after landing; and if we are right in identifying\nZiusudu's recorded sacrifice with that of Ut-napishtim and Xisuthros,\nit would seem that, according to the Sumerian Version, no birds were\nsent out to test the abatement of the waters. This conclusion cannot\nbe regarded as quite certain, inasmuch as the greater part of the\nFifth Column is waning. We have, moreover, already seen reason to\nbelieve that the account on our tablet is epitomized, and that\nconsequently the omission of any episode from our text does not\nnecessarily imply its absence from the original Sumerian Version which\nit follows. But here at least it is clear that nothing can have been\nomitted between the opening of the light-hole and the sacrifice, for\nthe one act is the natural sequence of the other. On the whole it\nseems preferable to assume that we have recovered a simpler form of\nthe story.\nAs the storm itself is described in a few phrases, so the cessation of\nthe flood may have been dismissed with equal brevity; the gradual\nabatement of the waters, as attested by the dove, the swallow, and the\nraven, may well be due to later elaboration or to combination with\nsome variant account. Under its amended form the narrative leads\nnaturally up to the landing on the mountain and the sacrifice of\nthanksgiving to the gods. In the Sumerian Version, on the other hand,\nZiusudu regards himself as saved when he sees the Sun shining; he\nneeds no further tests to assure himself that the danger is over, and\nhis sacrifice too is one of gratitude for his escape. The\ndisappearance of the Sun-god from the Semitic Version was thus a\nnecessity, to avoid an anti-climax; and the hero's attitude of worship\nhad obviously to be translated into one of grief. An indication that\nthe sacrifice was originally represented as having taken place on\nboard the boat may be seen in the lines of the Gilgamesh Epic which\nrecount how Enlil, after acquiescing in Ut-napishtim's survival of the\nFlood, went up into the ship and led him forth by the hand, although,\nin the preceding lines, he had already landed and had sacrificed upon\nthe mountain. The two passages are hardly consistent as they stand,\nbut they find a simple explanation of we regard the second of them as\nan unaltered survival from an earlier form of the story.\nIf the above line of reasoning be sound, it follows that, while the\nearlier Hebrew Version closely resembles the Gilgamesh Epic, the later\nHebrew Version, by its omission of the birds, would offer a parallel\nto the Sumerian Version. But whether we may draw any conclusion from\nthis apparent grouping of our authorities will be best dealt with when\nwe have concluded our survey of the new evidence.\nAs we have seen, the text of the Fifth Column breaks off with\nZiusudu's sacrifice to the Sun-god, after he had opened a light-hole\nin the boat and had seen by the god's beams that the storm was over.\nThe missing portion of the Fifth Column must have included at least\nsome account of the abatement of the waters, the stranding of the\nboat, and the manner in which Anu and Enlil became apprised of\nZiusudu's escape, and consequently of the failure of their intention\nto annihilate mankind. For in the Sixth Column of the text we find\nthese two deities reconciled to Ziusudu and bestowing immortality upon\nhim, as Enlil bestows immortality upon Ut-napishtim at the close of\nthe Semitic Version. In the latter account, after the vessel had\ngrounded on Mount Nisir and Ut-napishtim had tested the abatement of\nthe waters by means of the birds, he brings all out from the ship and\noffers his libation and sacrifice upon the mountain, heaping up reed,\ncedar-wood, and myrtle beneath his seven sacrificial vessels. And it\nwas by this act on his part that the gods first had knowledge of his\nescape. For they smelt the sweet savour of the sacrifice, and\n\"gathered like flies over the sacrificer\".[1]\n[1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 162.\nIt is possible in our text that Ziusudu's sacrifice in the boat was\nalso the means by which the gods became acquainted with his survival;\nand it seems obvious that the Sun-god, to whom it was offered, should\nhave continued to play some part in the narrative, perhaps by assisting\nZiusudu in propitiating Anu and Enlil. In the Semitic-Babylonian\nVersion, the first deity to approach the sacrifice is B\u00ealit-ili or\nIshtar, who is indignant with Enlil for what he has done. When Enlil\nhimself approaches and sees the ship he is filled with anger against\nthe gods, and, asking who has escaped, exclaims that no man must live\nin the destruction. Thereupon Ninib accuses Ea, who by his pleading\nsucceeds in turning Enlil's purpose. He bids Enlil visit the sinner\nwith his sin and lay his transgression on the transgressor; Enlil\nshould not again send a deluge to destroy the whole of mankind, but\nshould be content with less wholesale destruction, such as that\nwrought by wild beasts, famine, and plague. Finally he confesses that\nit was he who warned Ziusudu of the gods' decision by sending him a\ndream. Enlil thereupon changes his intention, and going up into the\nship, leads Ut-napishtim forth. Though Ea's intervention finds, of\ncourse, no parallel in either Hebrew version, the subject-matter of\nhis speech is reflected in both. In the earlier Hebrew Version Yahweh\nsmells the sweet savour of Noah's burnt offering and says in his heart\nhe will no more destroy every living creature as he had done; while in\nthe later Hebrew Version Elohim, after remembering Noah and causing\nthe waters to abate, establishes his covenant to the same effect, and,\nas a sign of the covenant, sets his bow in the clouds.\nIn its treatment of the climax of the story we shall see that the\nSumerian Version, at any rate in the form it has reached us, is on a\nlower ethical level than the Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. Ea's\nargument that the sinner should bear his own sin and the transgressor\nhis own transgression in some measure forestalls that of Ezekiel;[1]\nand both the Hebrew Versions represent the saving of Noah as part of\nthe divine intention from the beginning. But the Sumerian Version\nintroduces the element of magic as the means by which man can bend the\nwill of the gods to his own ends. How far the details of the Sumerian\nmyth at this point resembled that of the Gilgamesh Epic it is\nimpossible to say, but the general course of the story must have been\nthe same. In the latter Enlil's anger is appeased, in the former that\nof Anu and Enlil; and it is legitimate to suppose that Enki, like Ea,\nwas Ziusudu's principal supporter, in view of the part he had already\ntaken in ensuring his escape.\n[1] Cf. Ezek. xviii, passim, esp. xviii. 20.\nVI. THE PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY GODS,\nAND ZIUSUDU'S IMMORTALITY\nThe presence of the puzzling lines, with which the Sixth Column of our\ntext opens, was not explained by Dr. Poebel; indeed, they would be\ndifficult to reconcile with his assumption that our text is an epic\npure and simple. But if, as is suggested above, we are dealing with a\nmyth in magical employment, they are quite capable of explanation. The\nproblem these lines present will best be stated by giving a\ntranslation of the extant portion of the column, where they will be\nseen with their immediate context in relation to what follows them:\n\"By the Soul of Heaven, by the soul of Earth, shall ye conjure him,\nThat with you he may . . . !\nAnu and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth, shall ye\nconjure,\nAnd with you will he . . . !\n\"The /niggilma/ of the ground springs forth in abundance(?)!\"\nZiusudu, the king,\nBefore Anu and Enlil bows himself down.\nLife like (that of) a god he gives to him,\nAn eternal soul like (that of) a god he creates for him.\nAt that time Ziusudu, the king,\nThe name of the /niggilma/ (named) \"Preserver of the Seed of\nMankind\".\nIn a . . . land,[1] the land[1] of Dilmun(?), they caused him to\ndwell.\n[1] Possibly to be translated \"mountain\". The rendering of the proper\nname as that of Dilmun is very uncertain. For the probable\nidentification of Dilmun with the island of Bahrein in the Persian\nGulf, cf. Rawlinson, /Journ. Roy. As. Soc./, 1880, pp. 20 ff.; and\nsee further, Meissner, /Orient. Lit-Zeit./, XX. No. 7, col. 201\nff.\nThe first two lines of the column are probably part of the speech of\nsome deity, who urges the necessity of invoking or conjuring Anu and\nEnlil \"by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth\", in order to\nsecure their support or approval. Now Anu and Enlil are the two great\ngods who had determined on mankind's destruction, and whose wrath at\nhis own escape from death Ziusudu must placate. It is an obvious\ninference that conjuring \"by the Soul of Heaven\" and \"by the Soul of\nEarth\" is either the method by which Ziusudu has already succeeded in\nappeasing their anger, or the means by which he is here enjoined to\nattain that end. Against the latter alternative it is to be noted that\nthe god is addressing more than one person; and, further, at Ziusudu\nis evidently already pardoned, for, so far from following the deity's\nadvice, he immediately prostrates himself before Anu and Enlil and\nreceives immortality. We may conjecture that at the close of the Fifth\nColumn Ziusudu had already performed the invocation and thereby had\nappeased the divine wrath; and that the lines at the beginning of the\nSixth Column point the moral of the story by enjoining on Ziusudu and\nhis descendants, in other words on mankind, the advisability of\nemploying this powerful incantation at their need. The speaker may\nperhaps have been one of Ziusudu's divine helpers--the Sun-god to whom\nhe had sacrificed, or Enki who had saved him from the Flood. But it\nseems to me more probable that the words are uttered by Anu and Enlil\nthemselves.[1] For thereby they would be represented as giving their\nown sanction to the formula, and as guaranteeing its magical efficacy.\nThat the incantation, as addressed to Anu and Enlil, would be\nappropriate is obvious, since each would be magically approached\nthrough his own sphere of control.\n[1] One of them may have been the speaker on behalf of both.\nIt is significant that at another critical point of the story we have\nalready met with a reference to conjuring \"by the Name of Heaven and\nEarth\", the phrase occurring at the close of the Third Column after\nthe reference to the dream or dreams. There, as we saw, we might\npossibly explain the passage as illustrating one aspect of Ziusudu's\npiety: he may have been represented as continually practising this\nclass of divination, and in that case it would be natural enough that\nin the final crisis of the story he should have propitiated the gods\nhe conjured by the same means. Or, as a more probable alternative, it\nwas suggested that we might connect the line with Enki's warning, and\nassume that Ziusudu interpreted the dream-revelation of Anu and\nEnlil's purpose by means of the magical incantation which was\npeculiarly associated with them. On either alternative the phrase fits\ninto the story itself, and there is no need to suppose that the\nnarrative is interrupted, either in the Third or in the Sixth Column,\nby an address to the hearers of the myth, urging them to make the\ninvocation on their own behalf.\nOn the other hand, it seems improbable that the lines in question\nformed part of the original myth; they may have been inserted to weld\nthe myth more closely to the magic. Both incantation and epic may have\noriginally existed independently, and, if so, their combination would\nhave been suggested by their contents. For while the former is\naddressed to Anu and Enlil, in the latter these same gods play the\ndominant parts: they are the two chief creators, it is they who send\nthe Flood, and it is their anger that must be appeased. If once\ncombined, the further step of making the incantation the actual means\nby which Ziusudu achieved his own rescue and immortality would be a\nnatural development. It may be added that the words would have been an\nequally appropriate addition if the incantation had not existed\nindependently, but had been suggested by, and developed from, the\nmyth.\nIn the third and eleventh lines of the column we have further\nreferences to the mysterious object, the creation of which appears to\nhave been recorded in the First Column of the text between man's\ncreation and that of animals. The second sign of the group composing\nits name was not recognized by Dr. Poebel, but it is quite clearly\nwritten in two of the passages, and has been correctly identified by\nProfessor Barton.[1] The Sumerian word is, in fact, to be read /nig-\ngil-ma/,[2] which, when preceded by the determinative for \"pot\",\n\"jar\", or \"bowl\", is given in a later syllabary as the equivalent of\nthe Semitic word /mashkhalu/. Evidence that the word /mashkhalu/ was\nactually employed to denote a jar or vessel of some sort is furnished\nby one of the Tel el-Amarna letters which refers to \"one silver\n/mashkhalu/\" and \"one (or two) stone /mashkhalu/\".[3] In our text the\ndeterminative is absent, and it is possible that the word is used in\nanother sense. Professor Barton, in both passages in the Sixth Column,\ngives it the meaning \"curse\"; he interprets the lines as referring to\nthe removal of a curse from the earth after the Flood, and he compares\nGen. viii. 21, where Yahweh declares he will not again \"curse the\nground for man's sake\". But this translation ignores the occurrence of\nthe word in the First Column, where the creation of the /niggilma/ is\napparently recorded; and his rendering \"the seed that was cursed\" in\nl. 11 is not supported by the photographic reproduction of the text,\nwhich suggests that the first sign in the line is not that for \"seed\",\nbut is the sign for \"name\", as correctly read by Dr. Poebel. In that\npassage the /niggilma/ appears to be given by Ziusudu the name\n\"Preserver of the Seed of Mankind\", which we have already compared to\nthe title bestowed on Uta-napishtim's ship, \"Preserver of Life\". Like\nthe ship, it must have played an important part in man's preservation,\nwhich would account not only for the honorific title but for the\nspecial record of its creation.\n[1] See /American Journal of Semitic Languages/, Vol. XXXI, April\n1915, p. 226.\n[2] It is written /nig-gil/ in the First Column.\n[3] See Winckler, /El-Amarna/, pl. 35 f., No. 28, Obv., Col. II, l.\n45, Rev., Col. I, l. 63, and Knudtzon, /El-Am. Taf./, pp. 112,\n122; the vessels were presents from Amenophis IV to Burnaburiash.\nIt we may connect the word with the magical colouring of the myth, we\nmight perhaps retain its known meaning, \"jar\" or \"bowl\", and regard it\nas employed in the magical ceremony which must have formed part of the\ninvocation \"by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth\". But the\naccompanying references to the ground, to its production from the\nground, and to its springing up, if the phrases may be so rendered,\nsuggest rather some kind of plant;[1] and this, from its employment in\nmagical rites, may also have given its name to a bowl or vessel which\nheld it. A very similar plant was that found and lost by Gilgamesh,\nafter his sojourn with Ut-napishtim; it too had potent magical power\nand bore a title descriptive of its peculiar virtue of transforming\nold age to youth. Should this suggestion prove to be correct, the\nthree passages mentioning the /niggilma/ must be classed with those in\nwhich the invocation is referred to, as ensuring the sanction of the\nmyth to further elements in the magic. In accordance with this view,\nthe fifth line in the Sixth Column is probably to be included in the\ndivine speech, where a reference to the object employed in the ritual\nwould not be out of place. But it is to be hoped that light will be\nthrown on this puzzling word by further study, and perhaps by new\nfragments of the text; meanwhile it would be hazardous to suggest a\nmore definite rendering.\n[1] The references to \"the ground\", or \"the earth\", also tend to\nconnect it peculiarly with Enlil. Enlil's close association with\nthe earth, which is, of course, independently attested, is\nexplicitly referred to in the Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic.\nXI, ll. 39-42). Suggested reflections of this idea have long been\ntraced in the Hebrew Versions; cf. Gen. viii. 21 (J), where Yahweh\nsays he will not again curse the ground, and Gen. ix. 13 (P),\nwhere Elohim speaks of his covenant \"between me and the earth\".\nWith the sixth line of the column it is clear that the original\nnarrative of the myth is resumed.[1] Ziusudu, the king, prostrates\nhimself before Anu and Enlil, who bestow immortality upon him and\ncause him to dwell in a land, or mountain, the name of which may\nperhaps be read as Dilmun. The close parallelism between this portion\nof the text and the end of the myth in the Gilgamesh Epic will be seen\nfrom the following extracts,[2] the magical portions being omitted\nfrom the Sumerian Version:\n[1] It will also be noted that with this line the text again falls\nnaturally into couplets.\n[2] Col. VI, ll. 6-9 and 12 are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI,\nll. 198-205.\nSUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\nThen Enlil went up into the\nship;\nZiusudu, the king, He took me by the hand and led\nme forth.\nBefore Anu and Enlil bows himself He brought out my wife and\ndown. caused her to bow down at my\nside;\nHe touched our brows, standing\nbetween us and blessing us:\nLife like (that of) a god he \"Formerly was Ut-napishtim of\ngives to him. mankind,\nAn eternal soul like (that of) a But now let Ut-napishtim be like\ngod he creates for him. the gods, even us!\nAnd let Ut-napishtim dwell afar\noff at the mouth of the\nrivers!\"\nIn a . . . land, the land of[1] Then they took me and afar off,\nDilmun(?), they caused him to at the mouth of the rivers,\ndwell. they caused me to dwell.\n[1] Or, \"On a mountain, the mountain of\", &c.\nThe Sumerian Version thus apparently concludes with the familiar\nending of the legend which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic and in\nBerossus, though it here occurs in an abbreviated form and with some\nvariations in detail. In all three versions the prostration of the\nDeluge hero before the god is followed by the bestowal of immortality\nupon him, a fate which, according to Berossus, he shared with his\nwife, his daughter, and the steersman. The Gilgamesh Epic perhaps\nimplies that Ut-napishtim's wife shared in his immortality, but the\nSumerian Version mentions Ziusudu alone. In the Gilgamesh Epic\nUt-napishtim is settled by the gods at the mouth of the rivers, that\nis to say at the head of the Persian Gulf, while according to a\npossible rendering of the Sumerian Version he is made to dwell on\nDilmun, an island in the Gulf itself. The fact that Gilgamesh in the\nEpic has to cross the sea to reach Ut-napishtim may be cited in favour\nof the reading \"Dilmun\"; and the description of the sea as \"the Waters\nof Death\", if it implies more than the great danger of their passage,\nwas probably a later development associated with Ut-napishtim's\nimmortality. It may be added that in neither Hebrew version do we find\nany parallel to the concluding details of the original story, the\nHebrew narratives being brought to an end with the blessing of Noah\nand the divine promise to, or covenant with, mankind.\nSuch then are the contents of our Sumerian document, and from the\ndetails which have been given it will have been seen that its story,\nso far as concerns the Deluge, is in essentials the same as that we\nalready find in the Gilgamesh Epic. It is true that this earlier\nversion has reached us in a magical setting, and to some extent in an\nabbreviated form. In the next lecture I shall have occasion to refer\nto another early mythological text from Nippur, which was thought by\nits first interpreter to include a second Sumerian Version of the\nDeluge legend. That suggestion has not been substantiated, though we\nshall see that the contents of the document are of a very interesting\ncharacter. But in view of the discussion that has taken place in the\nUnited States over the interpretation of the second text, and of the\ndoubts that have subsequently been expressed in some quarters as to\nthe recent discovery of any new form of the Deluge legend, it may be\nwell to formulate briefly the proof that in the inscription published\nby Dr. Poebel an early Sumerian Version of the Deluge story has\nactually been recovered. Any one who has followed the detailed\nanalysis of the new text which has been attempted in the preceding\nparagraphs will, I venture to think, agree that the following\nconclusions may be drawn:\n(i) The points of general resemblance presented by the narrative to\nthat in the Gilgamesh Epic are sufficiently close in themselves to\nshow that we are dealing with a Sumerian Version of that story. And\nthis conclusion is further supported (a) by the occurrence throughout\nthe text of the attested Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic word,\nemployed in the Babylonian Versions, for the \"Flood\" or \"Deluge\", and\n(b) by the use of precisely the same term for the hero's \"great boat\",\nwhich is already familiar to us from an early Babylonian Version.\n(ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of the\nSumerian legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the one version\nwas ultimately derived from the other. And this conclusion in its turn\nis confirmed (a) by the identity in meaning of the Sumerian and\nBabylonian names for the Deluge hero, which are actually found equated\nin a late explanatory text, and (b) by small points of difference in\nthe Babylonian form of the story which correspond to later political\nand religious developments and suggest the work of Semitic redactors.\nThe cumulative effect of such general and detailed evidence is\noverwhelming, and we may dismiss all doubts as to the validity of Dr.\nPoebel's claim. We have indeed recovered a very early, and in some of\nits features a very primitive, form of the Deluge narrative which till\nnow has reached us only in Semitic and Greek renderings; and the\nstream of tradition has been tapped at a point far above any at which\nwe have hitherto approached it. What evidence, we may ask, does this\nearly Sumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and literary\nhistory of the Hebrew Versions?\nThe general dependence of the biblical Versions upon the Babylonian\nlegend as a whole has long been recognized, and needs no further\ndemonstration; and it has already been observed that the parallelisms\nwith the version in the Gilgamesh Epic are on the whole more detailed\nand striking in the earlier than in the later Hebrew Version.[1] In\nthe course of our analysis of the Sumerian text its more striking\npoints of agreement or divergence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions,\nwere noted under the different sections of its narrative. It was also\nobvious that, in many features in which the Hebrew Versions differ\nfrom the Gilgamesh Epic, the latter finds Sumerian support. These\nfacts confirm the conclusion, which we should naturally base on\ngrounds of historical probability, that while the Semitic-Babylonian\nVersions were derived from Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were equally\nclearly derived from Babylon. But there are one or two pieces of\nevidence which are apparently at variance with this conclusion, and\nthese call for some explanation.\n[1] For details see especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 177 ff.\nNot too much significance should be attached to the apparent omission\nof the episode of the birds from the Sumerian narrative, in which it\nwould agree with the later as against the earlier Hebrew Version; for,\napart from its epitomized character, there is so much missing from the\ntext that the absence of this episode cannot be regarded as\nestablished with certainty. And in any case it could be balanced by\nthe Sumerian order of Creation of men before animals, which agrees\nwith the earlier Hebrew Version against the later. But there is one\nvery striking point in which our new Sumerian text agrees with both\nthe Hebrew Versions as against the Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus; and\nthat is in the character of Ziusudu, which presents so close a\nparallel to the piety of Noah. As we have already seen, the latter is\ndue to no Hebrew idealization of the story, but represents a genuine\nstrand of the original tradition, which is completely absent from the\nBabylonian Versions. But the Babylonian Versions are the media through\nwhich it has generally been assumed that the tradition of the Deluge\nreached the Hebrews. What explanation have we of this fact?\nThis grouping of Sumerian and Hebrew authorities, against the extant\nsources from Babylon, is emphasized by the general framework of the\nSumerian story. For the literary connexion which we have in Genesis\nbetween the Creation and the Deluge narratives has hitherto found no\nparallel in the cuneiform texts. In Babylon and Assyria the myth of\nCreation and the Deluge legend have been divorced. From the one a\ncomplete epic has been evolved in accordance with the tenets of\nBabylonian theology, the Creation myth being combined in the process\nwith other myths of a somewhat analogous character. The Deluge legend\nhas survived as an isolated story in more than one setting, the\nprincipal Semitic Version being recounted to the national hero\nGilgamesh, towards the close of the composite epic of his adventures\nwhich grew up around the nucleus of his name. It is one of the chief\nsurprises of the newly discovered Sumerian Version that the Hebrew\nconnexion of the narratives is seen to be on the lines of very\nprimitive tradition. Noah's reputation for piety does not stand alone.\nHis line of descent from Adam, and the thread of narrative connecting\nthe creation of the world with its partial destruction by the Deluge,\nalready appear in Sumerian form at a time when the city of Babylon\nitself had not secured its later power. How then are we to account for\nthis correspondence of Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on points\ncompletely wanting in our intermediate authorities, from which,\nhowever, other evidence suggests that the Hebrew narratives were\nderived?\nAt the risk of anticipating some of the conclusions to be drawn in the\nnext lecture, it may be well to define an answer now. It is possible\nthat those who still accept the traditional authorship of the\nPentateuch may be inclined to see in this correspondence of Hebrew and\nSumerian ideas a confirmation of their own hypothesis. But it should\nbe pointed out at once that this is not an inevitable deduction from\nthe evidence. Indeed, it is directly contradicted by the rest of the\nevidence we have summarized, while it would leave completely\nunexplained some significant features of the problem. It is true that\ncertain important details of the Sumerian tradition, while not\naffecting Babylon and Assyria, have left their stamp upon the Hebrew\nnarratives; but that is not an exhaustive statement of the case. For\nwe have also seen that a more complete survival of Sumerian tradition\nhas taken place in the history of Berossus. There we traced the same\ngeneral framework of the narratives, with a far closer correspondence\nin detail. The kingly rank of Ziusudu is in complete harmony with the\nBerossian conception of a series of supreme Antediluvian rulers, and\nthe names of two of the Antediluvian cites are among those of their\nnewly recovered Sumerian prototypes. There can thus be no suggestion\nthat the Greek reproductions of the Sumerian tradition were in their\nturn due to Hebrew influence. On the contrary we have in them a\nparallel case of survival in a far more complete form.\nThe inference we may obviously draw is that the Sumerian narrative\ncontinued in existence, in a literary form that closely resembled the\noriginal version, into the later historical periods. In this there\nwould be nothing to surprise us, when we recall the careful\npreservation and study of ancient Sumerian religious texts by the\nlater Semitic priesthood of the country. Each ancient cult-centre in\nBabylonia continued to cling to its own local traditions, and the\nSumerian desire for their preservation, which was inherited by their\nSemitic guardians, was in great measure unaffected by political\noccurrences elsewhere. Hence it was that Ashur-bani-pal, when forming\nhis library at Nineveh, was able to draw upon so rich a store of the\nmore ancient literary texts of Babylonia. The Sumerian Version of the\nDeluge and of Antediluvian history may well have survived in a less\nepitomized form than that in which we have recovered it; and, like\nother ancient texts, it was probably provided with a Semitic\ntranslation. Indeed its literary study and reproduction may have\ncontinued without interruption in Babylon itself. But even if Sumerian\ntradition died out in the capital under the influence of the\nBabylonian priesthood, its re-introduction may well have taken place\nin Neo-Babylonian times. Perhaps the antiquarian researches of\nNabonidus were characteristic of his period; and in any case the\ncollection of his country's gods into the capital must have been\naccompanied by a renewed interest in the more ancient versions of the\npast with which their cults were peculiarly associated. In the extant\nsummary from Berossus we may possibly see evidence of a subsequent\nattempt to combine with these more ancient traditions the continued\nreligious dominance of Marduk and of Babylon.\nOur conclusion, that the Sumerian form of the tradition did not die\nout, leaves the question as to the periods during which Babylonian\ninfluence may have acted upon Hebrew tradition in great measure\nunaffected; and we may therefore postpone its further consideration to\nthe next lecture. To-day the only question that remains to be\nconsidered concerns the effect of our new evidence upon the wider\nproblem of Deluge stories as a whole. What light does it throw on the\ngeneral character of Deluge stories and their suggested Egyptian\norigin?\nOne thing that strikes me forcibly in reading this early text is the\ncomplete absence of any trace or indication of astrological /motif/.\nIt is true that Ziusudu sacrifices to the Sun-god; but the episode is\ninherent in the story, the appearance of the Sun after the storm\nfollowing the natural sequence of events and furnishing assurance to\nthe king of his eventual survival. To identify the worshipper with his\ngod and to transfer Ziusudu's material craft to the heavens is surely\nwithout justification from the simple narrative. We have here no\nprototype of Ra sailing the heavenly ocean. And the destructive flood\nitself is not only of an equally material and mundane character, but\nis in complete harmony with its Babylonian setting.\nIn the matter of floods the Tigris and Euphrates present a striking\ncontrast to the Nile. It is true that the life-blood of each country\nis its river-water, but the conditions of its use are very different,\nand in Mesopotamia it becomes a curse when out of control. In both\ncountries the river-water must be used for maturing the crops. But\nwhile the rains of Abyssinia cause the Nile to rise between August and\nOctober, thus securing both summer and winter crops, the melting snows\nof Armenia and the Taurus flood the Mesopotamian rivers between March\nand May. In Egypt the Nile flood is gentle; it is never abrupt, and\nthe river gives ample warning of its rise and fall. It contains just\nenough sediment to enrich the land without choking the canals; and the\nwater, after filling its historic basins, may when necessary be\ndischarged into the falling river in November. Thus Egypt receives a\nfull and regular supply of water, and there is no difficulty in\ndisposing of any surplus. The growth in such a country of a legend of\nworld-wide destruction by flood is inconceivable.\nIn Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the floods, which come too late for\nthe winter crops, are followed by the rainless summer months; and not\nonly must the flood-water be controlled, but some portion of it must\nbe detained artificially, if it is to be of use during the burning\nmonths of July, August, and September, when the rivers are at their\nlowest. Moreover, heavy rain in April and a warm south wind melting\nthe snow in the hills may bring down such floods that the channels\ncannot contain them; the dams are then breached and the country is\nlaid waste. Here there is first too much water and then too little.\nThe great danger from flood in Babylonia, both in its range of action\nand in its destructive effect, is due to the strangely flat character\nof the Tigris and Euphrates delta.[1] Hence after a severe breach in\nthe Tigris or Euphrates, the river after inundating the country may\nmake itself a new channel miles away from the old one. To mitigate the\ndanger, the floods may be dealt with in two ways--by a multiplication\nof canals to spread the water, and by providing escapes for it into\ndepressions in the surrounding desert, which in their turn become\ncentres of fertility. Both methods were employed in antiquity; and it\nmay be added that in any scheme for the future prosperity of the\ncountry they must be employed again, of course with the increased\nefficiency of modern apparatus.[2] But while the Babylonians succeeded\nin controlling the Euphrates, the Tigris was never really tamed,[3]\nand whenever it burst its right bank the southern plains were\ndevastated. We could not have more suitable soil for the growth of a\nDeluge story.\n[1] Baghdad, though 300 miles by crow-fly from the sea and 500 by\nriver, is only 120 ft. above sea-level.\n[2] The Babylonians controlled the Euphrates, and at the same time\nprovided against its time of \"low supply\", by escapes into two\ndepressions in the western desert to the NW. of Babylon, known\nto-day as the Habb\u00e2n\u00eeyah and Abu D\u00ees depressions, which lie S. of\nthe modern town of Ram\u00e2di and N. of Kerbela. That these\ndepressions were actually used as reservoirs in antiquity is\nproved by the presence along their edges of thick beds of\nEuphrates shells. In addition to canals and escapes, the\nBabylonian system included well-constructed dikes protected by\nbrushwood. By cutting an eight-mile channel through a low hill\nbetween the Habb\u00e2n\u00eeyah and Abu D\u00ees depressions and by building a\nshort dam 50 ft. high across the latter's narrow outlet, Sir\nWilliam Willcocks estimates that a reservoir could be obtained\nholding eighteen milliards of tons of water. See his work /The\nIrrigations of Mesopotamia/ (E. and F. N. Spon, 1911),\n/Geographical Journal/, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug., 1912), pp. 129 ff.,\nand the articles in /The Near East/ cited on p. 97, n. 1, and p.\n98, n. 2. Sir William Willcocks's volume and subsequent papers\nform the best introduction to the study of Babylonian Deluge\ntradition on its material side.\n[3] Their works carried out on the Tigris were effective for\nirrigation; but the Babylonians never succeeded in controlling its\nfloods as they did those of the Euphrates. A massive earthen dam,\nthe remains of which are still known as \"Nimrod's Dam\", was thrown\nacross the Tigris above the point where it entered its delta; this\nserved to turn the river over hard conglomerate rock and kept it\nat a high level so that it could irrigate the country on both\nbanks. Above the dam were the heads of the later Nahrw\u00e2n Canal, a\ngreat stream 400 ft. wide and 17 ft. deep, which supplied the\ncountry east of the river. The N\u00e2r Sharri or \"King's Canal\", the\nNahar Malkha of the Greeks and the Nahr el-Malik of the Arabs,\nprotected the right bank of the Tigris by its own high artificial\nbanks, which can still be traced for hundreds of miles; but it\ntook its supply from the Euphrates at Sippar, where the ground is\nsome 25 ft. higher than on the Tigris. The Tigris usually flooded\nits left bank; it was the right bank which was protected, and a\nbreach here meant disaster. Cf. Willcocks, op. cit., and /The Near\nEast/, Sept. 29, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 282), p. 522.\nIt was only by constant and unremitting attention that disaster from\nflood could be averted; and the difficulties of the problem were and\nare increased by the fact that the flood-water of the Mesopotamian\nrivers contains five times as much sediment as the Nile. In fact, one\nof the most pressing of the problems the Sumerian and early Babylonian\nengineers had to solve was the keeping of the canals free from\nsilt.[1] What the floods, if left unchecked, may do in Mesopotamia, is\nwell illustrated by the decay of the ancient canal-system, which has\nbeen the immediate cause of the country's present state of sordid\ndesolation. That the decay was gradual was not the fault of the\nrivers, but was due to the sound principles on which the old system of\ncontrol had been evolved through many centuries of labour. At the time\nof the Moslem conquest the system had already begun to fail. In the\nfifth century there had been bad floods; but worse came in A.D. 629,\nwhen both rivers burst their banks and played havoc with the dikes and\nembankments. It is related that the Sassanian king Parwiz, the\ncontemporary of Mohammed, crucified in one day forty canal-workers at\na certain breach, and yet was unable to master the flood.[2] All\nrepairs were suspended during the anarchy of the Moslem invasion. As a\nconsequence the Tigris left its old bed for the Shatt el-Hai at K\u00fbt,\nand pouring its own and its tributaries' waters into the Euphrates\nformed the Great Euphrates Swamp, two hundred miles long and fifty\nbroad. But even then what was left of the old system was sufficient to\nsupport the splendour of the Eastern Caliphate.\n[1] Cf. /Letters of Hammurabi/, Vol. III, pp. xxxvi ff.; it was the\nduty of every village or town upon the banks of the main canals in\nBabylonia to keep its own section clear of silt, and of course it\nwas also responsible for its own smaller irrigation-channels.\nWhile the invention of the system of basin-irrigation was\npractically forced on Egypt, the extraordinary fertility of\nBabylonia was won in the teeth of nature by the system of\nperennial irrigation, or irrigation all the year round. In\nBabylonia the water was led into small fields of two or three\nacres, while the Nile valley was irrigated in great basins each\ncontaining some thirty to forty thousand acres. The Babylonian\nmethod gives far more profitable results, and Sir William\nWillcocks points out that Egypt to-day is gradually abandoning its\nown system and adopting that of its ancient rival; see /The Near\nEast/, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 521.\n[2] See Le Strange, /The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate/, p. 27.\nThe second great blow to the system followed the Mongol conquest, when\nthe Nahrw\u00e2n Canal, to the east of the Tigris, had its head swept away\nby flood and the area it had irrigated became desert. Then, in about\nthe fifteenth century, the Tigris returned to its old course; the\nShatt el-Hai shrank, and much of the Great Swamp dried up into the\ndesert it is to-day.[1] Things became worse during the centuries of\nTurkish misrule. But the silting up of the Hillah, or main, branch of\nthe Euphrates about 1865, and the transference of a great part of its\nstream into the Hind\u00eeyah Canal, caused even the Turks to take action.\nThey constructed the old Hind\u00eeyah Barrage in 1890, but it gave way in\n1903 and the state of things was even worse than before; for the\nHillah branch then dried entirely.[2]\n[1] This illustrates the damage the Tigris itself is capable of\ninflicting on the country. It may be added that Sir William\nWillcocks proposes to control the Tigris floods by an escape into\nthe Tharth\u00e2r depression, a great salt pan at the tail of Wadi\nTharth\u00e2r, which lies 14 ft. below sea level and is 200 ft. lower\nthan the flood-level of the Tigris some thirty-two miles away. The\nescape would leave the Tigris to the S. of S\u00e2marra, the proposed\nBeled Barrage being built below it and up-stream of \"Nimrod's\nDam\". The Tharth\u00e2r escape would drain into the Euphrates, and the\nlatter's Habb\u00e2n\u00eeyah escape would receive any surplus water from\nthe Tigris, a second barrage being thrown across the Euphrates up-\nstream of Fall\u00fbjah, where there is an outcrop of limestone near\nthe head of the Sakhlaw\u00eeyah Canal. The Tharth\u00e2r depression,\nbesides disposing of the Tigris flood-water, would thus probably\nfeed the Euphrates; and a second barrage on the Tigris, to be\nbuilt at K\u00fbt, would supply water to the Shatt el-Hai. When the\ncountry is freed from danger of flood, the Baghdad Railway could\nbe run through the cultivated land instead of through the eastern\ndesert; see Willcocks, /The Near East/, Oct. 6, 1916 (Vol. XI, No.\n283), p. 545 f.\n[2] It was then that Sir William Willcocks designed the new Hind\u00eeyah\nBarrage, which was completed in 1913. The Hind\u00eeyah branch, to-day\nthe main stream of the Euphrates, is the old low-lying Pallacopas\nCanal, which branched westward above Babylon and discharged its\nwaters into the western marshes. In antiquity the head of this\nbranch had to be opened in high floods and then closed again\nimmediately after the flood to keep the main stream full past\nBabylon, which entailed the employment of an enormous number of\nmen. Alexander the Great's first work in Babylonia was cutting a\nnew head for the Pallacopas in solid ground, for hitherto it had\nbeen in sandy soil; and it was while reclaiming the marshes\nfarther down-stream that he contracted the fever that killed him.\nFrom this brief sketch of progressive disaster during the later\nhistorical period, the inevitable effect of neglected silt and flood,\nit will be gathered that the two great rivers of Mesopotamia present a\nvery strong contrast to the Nile. For during the same period of\nmisgovernment and neglect in Egypt the Nile did not turn its valley\nand delta into a desert. On the Tigris and Euphrates, during ages when\nthe earliest dwellers on their banks were struggling to make effective\ntheir first efforts at control, the waters must often have regained\nthe upper hand. Under such conditions the story of a great flood in\nthe past would not be likely to die out in the future; the tradition\nwould tend to gather illustrative detail suggested by later\nexperience. Our new text reveals the Deluge tradition in Mesopotamia\nat an early stage of its development, and incidentally shows us that\nthere is no need to postulate for its origin any convulsion of nature\nor even a series of seismic shocks accompanied by cyclone in the\nPersian Gulf.\nIf this had been the only version of the story that had come down to\nus, we should hardly have regarded it as a record of world-wide\ncatastrophe. It is true the gods' intention is to destroy mankind, but\nthe scene throughout is laid in Southern Babylonia. After seven days'\nstorm, the Sun comes out, and the vessel with the pious priest-king\nand his domestic animals on board grounds, apparently still in\nBabylonia, and not on any distant mountain, such as Mt. Nisir or the\ngreat mass of Ararat in Armenia. These are obviously details which\ntellers of the story have added as it passed down to later\ngenerations. When it was carried still farther afield, into the area\nof the Eastern Mediterranean, it was again adapted to local\nconditions. Thus Apollodorus makes Deucalion land upon Parnassus,[1]\nand the pseudo-Lucian relates how he founded the temple of Derketo at\nHierapolis in Syria beside the hole in the earth which swallowed up\nthe Flood.[2] To the Sumerians who first told the story, the great\nFlood appeared to have destroyed mankind, for Southern Babylonia was\nfor them the world. Later peoples who heard it have fitted the story\nto their own geographical horizon, and in all good faith and by a\npurely logical process the mountain-tops are represented as submerged,\nand the ship, or ark, or chest, is made to come to ground on the\nhighest peak known to the story-teller and his hearers. But in its\nearly Sumerian form it is just a simple tradition of some great\ninundation, which overwhelmed the plain of Southern Babylonia and was\npeculiarly disastrous in its effects. And so its memory survived in\nthe picture of Ziusudu's solitary coracle upon the face of the waters,\nwhich, seen through the mists of the Deluge tradition, has given us\nthe Noah's ark of our nursery days.\n[1] Hesiod is our earliest authority for the Deucalion Flood story.\nFor its probable Babylonian origin, cf. Farnell, /Greece and\nBabylon/ (1911), p. 184.\n[2] /De Syria dea/, 12 f.\nThus the Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek Deluge stories resolve\nthemselves, not into a nature myth, but into an early legend, which\nhas the basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley. And it is\nprobable that we may explain after a similar fashion the occurrence of\ntales of a like character at least in some other parts of the world.\nAmong races dwelling in low-lying or well-watered districts it would\nbe surprising if we did not find independent stories of past floods\nfrom which few inhabitants of the land escaped. It is only in hilly\ncountries such as Palestine, where for the great part of the year\nwater is scarce and precious, that we are forced to deduce borrowing;\nand there is no doubt that both the Babylonian and the biblical\nstories have been responsible for some at any rate of the scattered\ntales. But there is no need to adopt the theory of a single source for\nall of them, whether in Babylonia or, still less, in Egypt.[1]\n[1] This argument is taken from an article I published in Professor\nHeadlam's /Church Quarterly Review/, Jan., 1916, pp. 280 ff.,\ncontaining an account of Dr. Poebel's discovery.\nI should like to add, with regard to this reading of our new evidence,\nthat I am very glad to know Sir James Frazer holds a very similar\nopinion. For, as you are doubtless all aware, Sir James is at present\ncollecting Flood stories from all over the world, and is supplementing\nfrom a wider range the collections already made by Lenormant, Andree,\nWinternitz, and Gerland. When his work is complete it will be possible\nto conjecture with far greater confidence how particular traditions or\ngroups of tradition arose, and to what extent transmission has taken\nplace. Meanwhile, in his recent Huxley Memorial Lecture,[1] he has\nsuggested a third possibility as to the way Deluge stories may have\narisen.\n[1] Sir J. G. Frazer, /Ancient Stories of a Great Flood/ (the Huxley\nMemorial Lecture, 1916), Roy. Anthrop. Inst., 1916.\nStated briefly, it is that a Deluge story may arise as a popular\nexplanation of some striking natural feature in a country, although to\nthe scientific eye the feature in question is due to causes other than\ncatastrophic flood. And he worked out the suggestion in the case of\nthe Greek traditions of a great deluge, associated with the names of\nDeucalion and Dardanus. Deucalion's deluge, in its later forms at any\nrate, is obviously coloured by Semitic tradition; but both Greek\nstories, in their origin, Sir James Frazer would trace to local\nconditions--the one suggested by the Gorge of Tempe in Thessaly, the\nother explaining the existence of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. As he\npointed out, they would be instances, not of genuine historical\ntraditions, but of what Sir James Tyler calls \"observation myths\". A\nthird story of a great flood, regarded in Greek tradition as the\nearliest of the three, he would explain by an extraordinary inundation\nof the Copaic Lake in Boeotia, which to this day is liable to great\nfluctuations of level. His new theory applies only to the other two\ntraditions. For in them no historical kernel is presupposed, though\ngradual erosion by water is not excluded as a cause of the surface\nfeatures which may have suggested the myths.\nThis valuable theory thus opens up a third possibility for our\nanalysis. It may also, of course, be used in combination, if in any\nparticular instance we have reason to believe that transmission, in\nsome vague form, may already have taken place. And it would with all\ndeference suggest the possibility that, in view of other evidence,\nthis may have occurred in the case of the Greek traditions. With\nregard to the theory itself we may confidently expect that further\nexamples will be found in its illustration and support. Meanwhile in\nthe new Sumerian Version I think we may conclude that we have\nrecovered beyond any doubt the origin of the Babylonian and Hebrew\ntraditions and of the large group of stories to which they in their\nturn have given rise.\nLECTURE III\nCREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM OF\nBABYLONIAN PARALLELS IN HEBREW TRADITION\nIn our discussion of the new Sumerian version of the Deluge story we\ncame to the conclusion that it gave no support to any theory which\nwould trace all such tales to a single origin, whether in Egypt or in\nBabylonia. In spite of strong astrological elements in both the\nEgyptian and Babylonian religious systems, we saw grounds for\nregarding the astrological tinge of much ancient mythology as a later\nembellishment and not as primitive material. And so far as our new\nversion of the Deluge story was concerned, it resolved itself into a\nlegend, which had a basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley.\nIt will be obvious that the same class of explanation cannot be\napplied to narratives of the Creation of the World. For there we are\ndealing, not with legends, but with myths, that is, stories\nexclusively about the gods. But where an examination of their earlier\nforms is possible, it would seem to show that many of these tales\nalso, in their origin, are not to be interpreted as nature myths, and\nthat none arose as mere reflections of the solar system. In their more\nprimitive and simpler aspects they seem in many cases to have been\nsuggested by very human and terrestrial experience. To-day we will\nexamine the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Babylonian myths of Creation, and,\nafter we have noted the more striking features of our new material, we\nwill consider the problem of foreign influences upon Hebrew traditions\nconcerning the origin and early history of the world.\nIn Egypt, as until recently in Babylonia, we have to depend for our\nknowledge of Creation myths on documents of a comparatively late\nperiod. Moreover, Egyptian religious literature as a whole is\ntextually corrupt, and in consequence it is often difficult to\ndetermine the original significance of its allusions. Thanks to the\nfunerary inscriptions and that great body of magical formulae and\nritual known as \"The Chapters of Coming forth by Day\", we are very\nfully informed on the Egyptian doctrines as to the future state of the\ndead. The Egyptian's intense interest in his own remote future,\namounting almost to an obsession, may perhaps in part account for the\ncomparatively meagre space in the extant literature which is occupied\nby myths relating solely to the past. And it is significant that the\none cycle of myth, of which we are fully informed in its latest stage\nof development, should be that which gave its sanction to the hope of\na future existence for man. The fact that Herodotus, though he claims\na knowledge of the sufferings or \"Mysteries\" of Osiris, should\ndeliberately refrain from describing them or from even uttering the\nname,[1] suggests that in his time at any rate some sections of the\nmythology had begun to acquire an esoteric character. There is no\ndoubt that at all periods myth played an important part in the ritual\nof feast-days. But mythological references in the earlier texts are\noften obscure; and the late form in which a few of the stories have\ncome to us is obviously artificial. The tradition, for example, which\nrelates how mankind came from the tears which issued from Ra's eye\nundoubtedly arose from a play upon words.\n[1] Herodotus, II, 171.\nOn the other hand, traces of myth, scattered in the religious\nliterature of Egypt, may perhaps in some measure betray their relative\nage by the conceptions of the universe which underlie them. The\nEgyptian idea that the sky was a heavenly ocean, which is not unlike\nconceptions current among the Semitic Babylonians and Hebrews,\npresupposes some thought and reflection. In Egypt it may well have\nbeen evolved from the probably earlier but analogous idea of the river\nin heaven, which the Sun traversed daily in his boats. Such a river\nwas clearly suggested by the Nile; and its world-embracing character\nis reminiscent of a time when through communication was regularly\nestablished, at least as far south as Elephantine. Possibly in an\nearlier period the long narrow valley, or even a section of it, may\nhave suggested the figure of a man lying prone upon his back. Such was\nKeb, the Earth-god, whose counterpart in the sky was the goddess Nut,\nher feet and hands resting at the limits of the world and her curved\nbody forming the vault of heaven. Perhaps still more primitive, and\ndating from a pastoral age, may be the notion that the sky was a great\ncow, her body, speckled with stars, alone visible from the earth\nbeneath. Reference has already been made to the dominant influence of\nthe Sun in Egyptian religion, and it is not surprising that he should\nso often appear as the first of created beings. His orb itself, or\nlater the god in youthful human form, might be pictured as emerging\nfrom a lotus on the primaeval waters, or from a marsh-bird's egg, a\nconception which influenced the later Phoenician cosmogeny. The\nScarabaeus, or great dung-feeding beetle of Egypt, rolling the ball\nbefore it in which it lays its eggs, is an obvious theme for the early\nmyth-maker. And it was natural that the Beetle of Khepera should have\nbeen identified with the Sun at his rising, as the Hawk of Ra\nrepresented his noonday flight, and the aged form of Attun his setting\nin the west. But in all these varied conceptions and explanations of\nthe universe it is difficult to determine how far the poetical imagery\nof later periods has transformed the original myths which may lie\nbehind them.\nAs the Egyptian Creator the claims of Ra, the Sun-god of Heliopolis,\nearly superseded those of other deities. On the other hand, Ptah of\nMemphis, who for long ages had been merely the god of architects and\ncraftsmen, became under the Empire the architect of the universe and\nis pictured as a potter moulding the world-egg. A short poem by a\npriest of Ptah, which has come down to us from that period, exhibits\nan attempt to develop this idea on philosophical lines.[1] Its author\nrepresents all gods and living creatures as proceeding directly from\nthe mind and thought of Ptah. But this movement, which was more\nnotably reflected in Akhenaton's religious revolution, died out in\npolitical disaster, and the original materialistic interpretation of\nthe myths was restored with the cult of Amen. How materialistic this\ncould be is well illustrated by two earlier members of the XVIIIth\nDynasty, who have left us vivid representations of the potter's wheel\nemployed in the process of man's creation. When the famous Hatshepsut,\nafter the return of her expedition to Punt in the ninth year of her\nyoung consort Thothmes III, decided to build her temple at Deir\nel-Bahari in the necropolis of Western Thebes, she sought to emphasize\nher claim to the throne of Egypt by recording her own divine origin\nupon its walls. We have already noted the Egyptians' belief in the\nsolar parentage of their legitimate rulers, a myth that goes back at\nleast to the Old Kingdom and may have had its origin in prehistoric\ntimes. With the rise of Thebes, Amen inherited the prerogatives of Ra;\nand so Hatshepsut seeks to show, on the north side of the retaining\nwall of her temple's Upper Platform, that she was the daughter of Amen\nhimself, \"the great God, Lord of the sky, Lord of the Thrones of the\nTwo Lands, who resides at Thebes\". The myth was no invention of her\nown, for obviously it must have followed traditional lines, and though\nit is only employed to exhibit the divine creation of a single\npersonage, it as obviously reflects the procedure and methods of a\ngeneral Creation myth.\n[1] See Breasted, /Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache/, XXXIX, pp. 39\nff., and /History of Egypt/, pp. 356 ff.\nThis series of sculptures shared the deliberate mutilation that all\nher records suffered at the hands of Thothmes III after her death, but\nenough of the scenes and their accompanying text has survived to\nrender the detailed interpretation of the myth quite certain.[1] Here,\nas in a general Creation myth, Amen's first act is to summon the great\ngods in council, in order to announce to them the future birth of the\ngreat princess. Of the twelve gods who attend, the first is Menthu, a\nform of the Sun-god and closely associated with Amen.[2] But the\nsecond deity is Atum, the great god of Heliopolis, and he is followed\nby his cycle of deities--Shu, \"the son of Ra\"; Tefnut, \"the Lady of\nthe sky\"; Keb, \"the Father of the Gods\"; Nut, \"the Mother of the\nGods\"; Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Set, Horus, and Hathor. We are here in\nthe presence of cosmic deities, as befits a projected act of creation.\nThe subsequent scenes exhibit the Egyptian's literal interpretation of\nthe myth, which necessitates the god's bodily presence and personal\nparticipation. Thoth mentions to Amen the name of queen Aahmes as the\nfuture mother of Hatshepsut, and we later see Amen himself, in the\nform of her husband, Aa-kheperka-Ra (Thothmes I), sitting with Aahmes\nand giving her the Ankh, or sign of Life, which she receives in her\nhand and inhales through her nostrils.[3] God and queen are seated on\nthrones above a couch, and are supported by two goddesses. After\nleaving the queen, Amen calls on Khnum or Khnemu, the flat-horned ram-\ngod, who in texts of all periods is referred to as the \"builder\" of\ngods and men;[4] and he instructs him to create the body of his future\ndaughter and that of her /Ka/, or \"double\", which would be united to\nher from birth.\n[1] See Naville, /Deir el-Bahari/, Pt. II, pp. 12 ff., plates xlvi ff.\n[2] See Budge, /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. II, pp. 23 ff. His chief\ncult-centre was Hermonthis, but here as elsewhere he is given his\nusual title \"Lord of Thebes\".\n[3] Pl. xlvii. Similar scenes are presented in the \"birth-temples\" at\nDenderah, Edfu, Philae, Esneh, and Luxor; see Naville, op. cit.,\np. 14.\n[4] Cf. Budge, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 50.\nThe scene in the series, which is of greatest interest in the present\nconnexion, is that representing Khnum at his work of creation. He is\nseated before a potter's wheel which he works with his foot,[1] and on\nthe revolving table he is fashioning two children with his hands, the\nbaby princess and her \"double\". It was always Hatshepsut's desire to\nbe represented as a man, and so both the children are boys.[2] As yet\nthey are lifeless, but the symbol of Life will be held to their\nnostrils by Heqet, the divine Potter's wife, whose frog-head typifies\nbirth and fertility. When Amenophis III copied Hatshepsut's sculptures\nfor his own series at Luxor, he assigned this duty to the greater\ngoddess Hathor, perhaps the most powerful of the cosmic goddesses and\nthe mother of the world. The subsequent scenes at Deir el-Bahari\ninclude the leading of queen Aahmes by Khnum and Heqet to the birth-\nchamber; the great birth scene where the queen is attended by the\ngoddesses Nephthys and Isis, a number of divine nurses and midwives\nholding several of the \"doubles\" of the baby, and favourable genii, in\nhuman form or with the heads of crocodiles, jackals, and hawks,\nrepresenting the four cardinal points and all bearing the gift of\nlife; the presentation of the young child by the goddess Hathor to\nAmen, who is well pleased at the sight of his daughter; and the divine\nsuckling of Hatshepsut and her \"doubles\". But these episodes do not\nconcern us, as of course they merely reflect the procedure following a\nroyal birth. But Khnum's part in the princess's origin stands on a\ndifferent plane, for it illustrates the Egyptian myth of Creation by\nthe divine Potter, who may take the form of either Khnum or Ptah.\nMonsieur Naville points out the extraordinary resemblance in detail\nwhich Hatshepsut's myth of divine paternity bears to the Greek legend\nof Zeus and Alkmene, where the god takes the form of Amphitryon,\nAlkmene's husband, exactly as Amen appears to the queen;[3] and it may\nbe added that the Egyptian origin of the Greek story was traditionally\nrecognized in the ancestry ascribed to the human couple.[4]\n[1] This detail is not clearly preserved at Deir el-Bahari; but it is\nquite clear in the scene on the west wall of the \"Birth-room\" in\nthe Temple at Luxor, which Amenophis III evidently copied from\nthat of Hatshepsut.\n[2] In the similar scene at Luxor, where the future Amenophis III is\nrepresented on the Creator's wheel, the sculptor has distinguished\nthe human child from its spiritual \"double\" by the quaint device\nof putting its finger in its mouth.\n[3] See Naville, op. cit., p. 12.\n[4] Cf., e.g., Herodotus, II, 43.\nThe only complete Egyptian Creation myth yet recovered is preserved in\na late papyrus in the British Museum, which was published some years\nago by Dr. Budge.[1] It occurs under two separate versions embedded in\n\"The Book of the Overthrowing of Apep, the Enemy of Ra\". Here Ra, who\nutters the myth under his late title of Neb-er-tcher, \"Lord to the\nutmost limit\", is self-created as Khepera from Nu, the primaeval\nwater; and then follow successive generations of divine pairs, male\nand female, such as we find at the beginning of the Semitic-Babylonian\nCreation Series.[2] Though the papyrus was written as late as the year\n311 B.C., the myth is undoubtedly early. For the first two divine\npairs Shu and Tefnut, Keb and Nut, and four of the latter pairs' five\nchildren, Osiris and Isis, Set and Nephthys, form with the Sun-god\nhimself the Greater Ennead of Heliopolis, which exerted so wide an\ninfluence on Egyptian religious speculation. The Ennead combined the\nolder solar elements with the cult of Osiris, and this is indicated in\nthe myth by a break in the successive generations, Nut bringing forth\nat a single birth the five chief gods of the Osiris cycle, Osiris\nhimself and his son Horus, with Set, Isis, and Nephthys. Thus we may\nsee in the myth an early example of that religious syncretism which is\nso characteristic of later Egyptian belief.\n[1] See /Archaeologia/, Vol. LII (1891). Dr. Budge published a new\nedition of the whole papyrus in /Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the\nBritish Museum/ (1910), and the two versions of the Creation myth\nare given together in his /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I (1904),\nChap. VIII, pp. 308 ff., and more recently in his /Egyptian\nLiterature/, Vol. I, \"Legends of the Gods\" (1912), pp. 2 ff. An\naccount of the papyrus is included in the Introduction to \"Legends\nof the Gods\", pp. xiii ff.\n[2] In /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, Chap. VII, pp. 288 ff., Dr.\nBudge gives a detailed comparison of the Egyptian pairs of\nprimaeval deities with the very similar couples of the Babylonian\nmyth.\nThe only parallel this Egyptian myth of Creation presents to the\nHebrew cosmogony is in its picture of the primaeval water,\ncorresponding to the watery chaos of Genesis i. But the resemblance is\nof a very general character, and includes no etymological equivalence\nsuch as we find when we compare the Hebrew account with the principal\nSemitic-Babylonian Creation narrative.[1] The application of the Ankh,\nthe Egyptian sign for Life, to the nostrils of a newly-created being\nis no true parallel to the breathing into man's nostrils of the breath\nof life in the earlier Hebrew Version,[2] except in the sense that\neach process was suggested by our common human anatomy. We should\nnaturally expect to find some Hebrew parallel to the Egyptian idea of\nCreation as the work of a potter with his clay, for that figure\nappears in most ancient mythologies. The Hebrews indeed used the\nconception as a metaphor or parable,[3] and it also underlies their\nearlier picture of man's creation. I have not touched on the grosser\nEgyptian conceptions concerning the origin of the universe, which we\nmay probably connect with African ideas; but those I have referred to\nwill serve to demonstrate the complete absence of any feature that\npresents a detailed resemblance of the Hebrew tradition.\n[1] For the wide diffusion, in the myths of remote peoples, of a vague\ntheory that would trace all created things to a watery origin, see\nFarnell, /Greece and Babylon/, p. 180.\n[2] Gen. ii. 7 (J).\n[3] Cf., e.g., Isaiah xxix. 16, xlv. 9; and Jeremiah xviii. 2f.\nWhen we turn to Babylonia, we find there also evidence of conflicting\nideas, the product of different and to some extent competing religious\ncentres. But in contrast to the rather confused condition of Egyptian\nmythology, the Semitic Creation myth of the city of Babylon, thanks to\nthe latter's continued political ascendancy, succeeded in winning a\ndominant place in the national literature. This is the version in\nwhich so many points of resemblance to the first chapter of Genesis\nhave long been recognized, especially in the succession of creative\nacts and their relative order. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version the\ncreation of the world is represented as the result of conflict, the\nemergence of order out of chaos, a result that is only attained by the\npersonal triumph of the Creator. But this underlying dualism does not\nappear in the more primitive Sumerian Version we have now recovered.\nIt will be remembered that in the second lecture I gave some account\nof the myth, which occurs in an epitomized form as an introduction to\nthe Sumerian Version of the Deluge, the two narratives being recorded\nin the same document and connected with one another by a description\nof the Antediluvian cities. We there saw that Creation is ascribed to\nthe three greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil, and\nEnki, assisted by the goddess Ninkharsagga.\nIt is significant that in the Sumerian version no less than four\ndeities are represented as taking part in the Creation. For in this we\nmay see some indication of the period to which its composition must be\nassigned. Their association in the text suggests that the claims of\nlocal gods had already begun to compete with one another as a result\nof political combination between the cities of their cults. To the\nsame general period we must also assign the compilation of the\nSumerian Dynastic record, for that presupposes the existence of a\nsupreme ruler among the Sumerian city-states. This form of political\nconstitution must undoubtedly have been the result of a long process\nof development, and the fact that its existence should be regarded as\ndating from the Creation of the world indicates a comparatively\ndeveloped stage of the tradition. But behind the combination of cities\nand their gods we may conjecturally trace anterior stages of\ndevelopment, when each local deity and his human representative seemed\nto their own adherents the sole objects for worship and allegiance.\nAnd even after the demands of other centres had been conceded, no\ndeity ever quite gave up his local claims.\nEnlil, the second of the four Sumerian creating deities, eventually\nousted his rivals. It has indeed long been recognized that the /r\u00f4le/\nplayed by Marduk in the Babylonian Version of Creation had been\nborrowed from Enlil of Nippur; and in the Atrakhasis legend Enlil\nhimself appears as the ultimate ruler of the world and the other gods\nfigure as \"his sons\". Anu, who heads the list and plays with Enlil the\nleading part in the Sumerian narrative, was clearly his chief rival.\nAnd though we possess no detailed account of Anu's creative work, the\npersistent ascription to him of the creation of heaven, and his\nfamiliar title, \"the Father of the Gods\", suggest that he once\npossessed a corresponding body of myth in Eanna, his temple at Erech.\nEnki, the third of the creating gods, was naturally credited, as God\nof Wisdom, with special creative activities, and fortunately in his\ncase we have some independent evidence of the varied forms these could\nassume.\nAccording to one tradition that has come down to us,[1] after Anu had\nmade the heavens, Enki created Aps\u00fb or the Deep, his own dwelling-\nplace. Then taking from it a piece of clay[2] he proceeded to create\nthe Brick-god, and reeds and forests for the supply of building\nmaterial. From the same clay he continued to form other deities and\nmaterials, including the Carpenter-god; the Smith-god; Arazu, a patron\ndeity of building; and mountains and seas for all that they produced;\nthe Goldsmith-god, the Stone-cutter-god, and kindred deities, together\nwith their rich products for offerings; the Grain-deities, Ashnan and\nLakhar; Siris, a Wine-god; Ningishzida and Ninsar, a Garden-god, for\nthe sake of the rich offerings they could make; and a deity described\nas \"the High priest of the great gods,\" to lay down necessary\nordinances and commands. Then he created \"the King\", for the equipment\nprobably of a particular temple, and finally men, that they might\npractise the cult in the temple so elaborately prepared.\n[1] See Weissbach, /Babylonische Miscellen/, pp. 32 ff.\n[2] One of the titles of Enki was \"the Potter\"; cf. /Cun. Texts in the\nBrit. Mus., Pt. XXIV, pl. 14 f., ll. 41, 43.\nIt will be seen from this summary of Enki's creative activities, that\nthe text from which it is taken is not a general Creation myth, but in\nall probability the introductory paragraph of a composition which\ncelebrated the building or restoration of a particular temple; and the\nlatter's foundation is represented, on henotheistic lines, as the main\nobject of creation. Composed with that special purpose, its narrative\nis not to be regarded as an exhaustive account of the creation of the\nworld. The incidents are eclective, and only such gods and materials\nare mentioned as would have been required for the building and\nadornment of the temple and for the provision of its offerings and\ncult. But even so its mythological background is instructive. For\nwhile Anu's creation of heaven is postulated as the necessary\nprecedent of Enki's activities, the latter creates the Deep,\nvegetation, mountains, seas, and mankind. Moreover, in his character\nas God of Wisdom, he is not only the teacher but the creator of those\ndeities who were patrons of man's own constructive work. From such\nevidence we may infer that in his temple at Eridu, now covered by the\nmounds of Abu Shahrain in the extreme south of Babylonia, and regarded\nin early Sumerian tradition as the first city in the world, Enki\nhimself was once celebrated as the sole creator of the universe.\nThe combination of the three gods Anu, Enlil, and Enki, is persistent\nin the tradition; for not only were they the great gods of the\nuniverse, representing respectively heaven, earth, and the watery\nabyss, but they later shared the heavenly sphere between them. It is\nin their astrological character that we find them again in creative\nactivity, though without the co-operation of any goddess, when they\nappear as creators of the great light-gods and as founders of time\ndivisions, the day and the month. This Sumerian myth, though it\nreaches us only in an extract or summary in a Neo-Babylonian\nschoolboy's exercise,[1] may well date from a comparatively early\nperiod, but probably from a time when the \"Ways\" of Anu, Enlil, and\nEnki had already been fixed in heaven and their later astrological\ncharacters had crystallized.\n[1] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 124 ff. The\ntablet gives extracts from two very similar Sumerian and Semitic\ntexts. In both of them Anu, Enlil, and Enki appear as creators\n\"through their sure counsel\". In the Sumerian extract they create\nthe Moon and ordain its monthly course, while in the Semitic text,\nafter establishing heaven and earth, they create in addition to\nthe New Moon the bright Day, so that \"men beheld the Sun-god in\nthe Gate of his going forth\".\nThe idea that a goddess should take part with a god in man's creation\nis already a familiar feature of Babylonian mythology. Thus the\ngoddess Aruru, in co-operation with Marduk, might be credited with the\ncreation of the human race,[1] as she might also be pictured creating\non her own initiative an individual hero such as Enkidu of the\nGilgamesh Epic. The /r\u00f4le/ of mother of mankind was also shared, as we\nhave seen, by the Semitic Ishtar. And though the old Sumerian goddess,\nNinkharsagga, the \"Lady of the Mountains\", appears in our Sumerian\ntext for the first time in the character of creatress, some of the\ntitles we know she enjoyed, under her synonyms in the great God List\nof Babylonia, already reflected her cosmic activities.[2] For she was\nknown as\n\"The Builder of that which has Breath\",\n\"The Carpenter of Mankind\",\n\"The Carpenter of the Heart\",\n\"The Coppersmith of the Gods\",\n\"The Coppersmith of the Land\", and\n\"The Lady Potter\".\n[1] Op. cit., p. 134 f.\n[2] Cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XXIV, pl. 12, ll. 32, 26,\n27, 25, 24, 23, and Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 34.\nIn the myth we are not told her method of creation, but from the above\ntitles it is clear that in her own cycle of tradition Ninkhasagga was\nconceived as fashioning men not only from clay but also from wood, and\nperhaps as employing metal for the manufacture of her other works of\ncreation. Moreover, in the great God List, where she is referred to\nunder her title Makh, Ninkhasagga is associated with Anu, Enlil, and\nEnki; she there appears, with her dependent deities, after Enlil and\nbefore Enki. We thus have definite proof that her association with the\nthree chief Sumerian gods was widely recognized in the early Sumerian\nperiod and dictated her position in the classified pantheon of\nBabylonia. Apart from this evidence, the important rank assigned her\nin the historical and legal records and in votive inscriptions,[1]\nespecially in the early period and in Southern Babylonia, accords\nfully with the part she here plays in the Sumerian Creation myth.\nEannatum and Gudea of Lagash both place her immediately after Anu and\nEnlil, giving her precedence over Enki; and even in the Kassite\nKudurru inscriptions of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries, where\nshe is referred to, she takes rank after Enki and before the other\ngods. In Sumer she was known as \"the Mother of the Gods\", and she was\ncredited with the power of transferring the kingdom and royal insignia\nfrom one king to his successor.\n[1] See especially, Poebel, op. cit., pp. 24 ff.\nHer supreme position as a goddess is attested by the relative\ninsignificance of her husband Dunpae, whom she completely overshadows,\nin which respect she presents a contrast to the goddess Ninlil,\nEnlil's female counterpart. The early clay figurines found at Nippur\nand on other sites, representing a goddess suckling a child and\nclasping one of her breasts, may well be regarded as representing\nNinkharsagga and not Ninlil. Her sanctuaries were at Kesh and Adab,\nboth in the south, and this fact sufficiently explains her comparative\nwant of influence in Akkad, where the Semitic Ishtar took her place.\nShe does indeed appear in the north during the Sargonic period under\nher own name, though later she survives in her synonyms of Ninmakh,\n\"the Sublime Lady\", and Nintu, \"the Lady of Child-bearing\". It is\nunder the latter title that Hammurabi refers to her in his Code of\nLaws, where she is tenth in a series of eleven deities. But as Goddess\nof Birth she retained only a pale reflection of her original cosmic\ncharacter, and her functions were gradually specialized.[1]\n[1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under one of her\nlater synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr. Poebel suggests,\nwith the Mylitta of Herodotus.\nFrom a consideration of their characters, as revealed by independent\nsources of evidence, we thus obtain the reason for the co-operation of\nfour deities in the Sumerian Creation. In fact the new text\nillustrates a well-known principle in the development of myth, the\nreconciliation of the rival claims of deities, whose cults, once\nisolated, had been brought from political causes into contact with\neach other. In this aspect myth is the medium through which a working\npantheon is evolved. Naturally all the deities concerned cannot\ncontinue to play their original parts in detail. In the Babylonian\nEpic of Creation, where a single deity, and not a very prominent one,\nwas to be raised to pre-eminent rank, the problem was simple enough.\nHe could retain his own qualities and achievements while borrowing\nthose of any former rival. In the Sumerian text we have the result of\na far more delicate process of adjustment, and it is possible that the\nbrevity of the text is here not entirely due to compression of a\nlonger narrative, but may in part be regarded as evidence of early\ncombination. As a result of the association of several competing\ndeities in the work of creation, a tendency may be traced to avoid\ndiscrimination between rival claims. Thus it is that the assembled\ngods, the pantheon as a whole, are regarded as collectively\nresponsible for the creation of the universe. It may be added that\nthis use of /il\u00e2ni/, \"the gods\", forms an interesting linguistic\nparallel to the plural of the Hebrew divine title Elohim.\nIt will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the account of\nCreation is not given in full, only such episodes being included as\nwere directly related to the Deluge story. No doubt the selection of\nmen and animals was suggested by their subsequent rescue from the\nFlood; and emphasis was purposely laid on the creation of the\n/niggilma/ because of the part it played in securing mankind's\nsurvival. Even so, we noted one striking parallel between the Sumerian\nVersion and that of the Semitic Babylonians, in the reason both give\nfor man's creation. But in the former there is no attempt to explain\nhow the universe itself had come into being, and the existence of the\nearth is presupposed at the moment when Anu, Enlil, Enki, and\nNinkharsagga undertake the creation of man. The Semitic-Babylonian\nVersion, on the other hand, is mainly occupied with events that led up\nto the acts of creation, and it concerns our problem to inquire how\nfar those episodes were of Semitic and how far of Sumerian origin. A\nfurther question arises as to whether some strands of the narrative\nmay not at one time have existed in Sumerian form independently of the\nCreation myth.\nThe statement is sometimes made that there is no reason to assume a\nSumerian original for the Semitic-Babylonian Version, as recorded on\n\"the Seven Tablets of Creation\";[1] and this remark, though true of\nthat version as a whole, needs some qualification. The composite\nnature of the poem has long been recognized, and an analysis of the\ntext has shown that no less than five principal strands have been\ncombined for its formation. These consist of (i) The Birth of the\nGods; (ii) The Legend of Ea and Aps\u00fb; (iii) The principal Dragon Myth;\n(iv) The actual account of Creation; and (v) the Hymn to Marduk under\nhis fifty titles.[2] The Assyrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which\nconsiderable portions of its text are restored, quote throughout a\nSumerian original, and explain it word for word by the phrases of the\nSemitic Version;[3] so that for one out of the Seven Tablets a Semitic\norigin is at once disproved. Moreover, the majority of the fifty\ntitles, even in the forms in which they have reached us in the Semitic\ntext, are demonstrably Sumerian, and since many of them celebrate\ndetails of their owner's creative work, a Sumerian original for other\nparts of the version is implied. Enlil and Ea are both represented as\nbestowing their own names upon Marduk,[4] and we may assume that many\nof the fifty titles were originally borne by Enlil as a Sumerian\nCreator.[5] Thus some portions of the actual account of Creation were\nprobably derived from a Sumerian original in which \"Father Enlil\"\nfigured as the hero.\n[1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI\n(1916), p. 279.\n[2] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. lxvi ff.; and cf.\nSkinner, /Genesis/, pp. 43 ff.\n[3] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.\n[4] Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff.\n[5] The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed for Enlil's\nname.\nFor what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves responsible? It\nseems to me that, in the \"Seven Tablets\", we may credit them with\nconsiderable ingenuity in the combination of existing myths, but not\nwith their invention. The whole poem in its present form is a\nglorification of Marduk, the god of Babylon, who is to be given\npre-eminent rank among the gods to correspond with the political\nposition recently attained by his city. It would have been quite out\nof keeping with the national thought to make a break in the tradition,\nand such a course would not have served the purpose of the Babylonian\npriesthood, which was to obtain recognition of their claims by the\nolder cult-centres in the country. Hence they chose and combined the\nmore important existing myths, only making such alterations as would\nfit them to their new hero. Babylon herself had won her position by\nher own exertions; and it would be a natural idea to give Marduk his\nopportunity of becoming Creator of the world as the result of\nsuccessful conflict. A combination of the Dragon myth with the myth of\nCreation would have admirably served their purpose; and this is what\nwe find in the Semitic poem. But even that combination may not have\nbeen their own invention; for, though, as we shall see, the idea of\nconflict had no part in the earlier forms of the Sumerian Creation\nmyth, its combination with the Dragon /motif/ may have characterized\nthe local Sumerian Version of Nippur. How mechanical was the\nBabylonian redactors' method of glorifying Marduk is seen in their use\nof the description of Tiamat and her monster brood, whom Marduk is\nmade to conquer. To impress the hearers of the poem with his prowess,\nthis is repeated at length no less than four times, one god carrying\nthe news of her revolt to another.\nDirect proof of the manner in which the later redactors have been\nobliged to modify the original Sumerian Creation myth, in consequence\nof their incorporation of other elements, may be seen in the Sixth\nTablet of the poem, where Marduk states the reason for man's creation.\nIn the second lecture we noted how the very words of the principal\nSumerian Creator were put into Marduk's mouth; but the rest of the\nSemitic god's speech finds no equivalent in the Sumerian Version and\nwas evidently inserted in order to reconcile the narrative with its\nlater ingredients. This will best be seen by printing the two passages\nin parallel columns:[1]\n[1] The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in the lower\npart of the First Column, is here compared with the Semitic-\nBabylonian Creation Series, Tablet VI, ll. 6-10 (see /Seven\nTablets/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.). The comparison is justified whether\nwe regard the Sumerian speech as a direct preliminary to man's\ncreation, or as a reassertion of his duty after his rescue from\ndestruction by the Flood.\nSUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\n\"The people will I cause to . . . \"I will make man, that man may\nin their settlements, [. . .].\nCities . . . shall (man) build, I will create man who shall\nin their protection will I cause inhabit [. . .],\nhim to rest,\nThat he may lay the brick of our That the service of the gods may\nhouse in a clean spot, be established, and that\n[their] shrines [may be\nbuilt].\nThat in a clean spot he may But I will alter the ways of the\nestablish our . . . !\" gods, and I will change [their\npaths];\nTogether shall they be\noppressed, and unto evil shall\n[they . . .]!\"\nThe welding of incongruous elements is very apparent in the Semitic\nVersion. For the statement that man will be created in order that the\ngods may have worshippers is at once followed by the announcement that\nthe gods themselves must be punished and their \"ways\" changed. In the\nSumerian Version the gods are united and all are naturally regarded as\nworthy of man's worship. The Sumerian Creator makes no distinctions;\nhe refers to \"our houses\", or temples, that shall be established. But\nin the later version divine conflict has been introduced, and the\nfuture head of the pantheon has conquered and humiliated the revolting\ndeities. Their \"ways\" must therefore be altered before they are fit to\nreceive the worship which was accorded them by right in the simpler\nSumerian tradition. In spite of the epitomized character of the\nSumerian Version, a comparison of these passages suggests very\nforcibly that the Semitic-Babylonian myth of Creation is based upon a\nsimpler Sumerian story, which has been elaborated to reconcile it with\nthe Dragon myth.\nThe Semitic poem itself also supplies evidence of the independent\nexistence of the Dragon myth apart from the process of Creation, for\nthe story of Ea and Aps\u00fb, which it incorporates, is merely the local\nDragon myth of Eridu. Its inclusion in the story is again simply a\ntribute to Marduk; for though Ea, now become Marduk's father, could\nconquer Aps\u00fb, he was afraid of Tiamat, \"and turned back\".[1] The\noriginal Eridu myth no doubt represented Enki as conquering the watery\nAbyss, which became his home; but there is nothing to connect this\ntradition with his early creative activities. We have long possessed\npart of another local version of the Dragon myth, which describes the\nconquest of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk; and the fight is\nthere described as taking place, not before Creation, but at a time\nwhen men existed and cities had been built.[2] Men and gods were\nequally terrified at the monster's appearance, and it was to deliver\nthe land from his clutches that one of the gods went out and slew him.\nTradition delighted to dwell on the dragon's enormous size and\nterrible appearance. In this version he is described as fifty\n/b\u00earu/[3] in length and one in height; his mouth measured six cubits\nand the circuit of his ears twelve; he dragged himself along in the\nwater, which he lashed with his tail; and, when slain, his blood\nflowed for three years, three months, a day and a night. From this\ndescription we can see he was given the body of an enormous\nserpent.[4]\n[1] Tabl. III, l. 53, &c. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, the\nthird of the apocryphal additions to Daniel, we have direct\nevidence of the late survival of the Dragon /motif/ apart from any\ntrace of the Creation myth; in this connexion see Charles,\n/Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha/, Vol. I (1913), p. 653 f.\n[2] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. 116 ff., lxviii f. The text is\npreserved on an Assyrian tablet made for the library of Ashur-\nbani-pal.\n[3] The /b\u00earu/ was the space that could be covered in two hours'\ntravelling.\n[4] The Babylonian Dragon has progeny in the later apocalyptic\nliterature, where we find very similar descriptions of the\ncreatures' size. Among them we may perhaps include the dragon in\nthe Apocalypse of Baruch, who, according to the Slavonic Version,\napparently every day drinks a cubit's depth from the sea, and yet\nthe sea does not sink because of the three hundred and sixty\nrivers that flow into it (cf. James, \"Apocrypha Anecdota\", Second\nSeries, in Armitage Robinson's /Texts and Studies/, V, No. 1, pp.\nlix ff.). But Egypt's Dragon /motif/ was even more prolific, and\nthe /Pistis Sophia/ undoubtedly suggested descriptions of the\nSerpent, especially in connexion with Hades.\nA further version of the Dragon myth has now been identified on one of\nthe tablets recovered during the recent excavations at Ashur,[1] and\nin it the dragon is not entirely of serpent form, but is a true dragon\nwith legs. Like the one just described, he is a male monster. The\ndescription occurs as part of a myth, of which the text is so badly\npreserved that only the contents of one column can be made out with\nany certainty. In it a god, whose name is wanting, announces the\npresence of the dragon: \"In the water he lies and I [. . .]!\"\nThereupon a second god cries successively to Aruru, the mother-\ngoddess, and to Pallil, another deity, for help in his predicament.\nAnd then follows the description of the dragon:\nIn the sea was the Serpent cre[ated].\nSixty /b\u00earu/ is his length;\nThirty /b\u00earu/ high is his he[ad].[2]\nFor half (a /b\u00earu/) each stretches the surface of his ey[es];[3]\nFor twenty /b\u00earu/ go [his feet].[4]\nHe devours fish, the creatures [of the sea],\nHe devours birds, the creatures [of the heaven],\nHe devours wild asses, the creatures [of the field],\nHe devours men,[5] to the peoples [he . . .].\n[1] For the text, see Ebeling, /Assurtexte/ I, No. 6; it is translated\nby him in /Orient. Lit.-Zeit./, Vol. XIX, No. 4 (April, 1916).\n[2] The line reads: /30 b\u00earu \u0161a-ka-a ri-[\u0161a-a-\u0161u]/. Dr. Ebeling\nrenders /ri-\u0161a-a/ as \"heads\" (K\u00f6pfe), implying that the dragon had\nmore than one head. It may be pointed out that, if we could accept\nthis translation, we should have an interesting parallel to the\ndescription of some of the primaeval monsters, preserved from\nBerossus, as {soma men ekhontas en, kephalas de duo}. But the\ncommon word for \"head\" is /kakkadu/, and there can be little doubt\nthat /r\u00ee\u0161\u00e2/ is here used in its ordinary sense of \"head, summit,\ntop\" when applied to a high building.\n[3] The line reads: /a-na 1/2 ta-am la-bu-na li-bit \u00ean[a-\u0161u]/. Dr.\nEbeling translates, \"auf je eine H\u00e4lfte ist ein Ziegel [ihrer]\nAuge[n] gelegt\". But /libittu/ is clearly used here, not with its\nordinary meaning of \"brick\", which yields a strange rendering, but\nin its special sense, when applied to large buildings, of\n\"foundation, floor-space, area\", i.e. \"surface\". Dr. Ebeling reads\n/\u00ean\u00e2-\u0161u/ at the end of the line, but the sign is broken; perhaps\nthe traces may prove to be those of /uzn\u00e2 \u0161u/, \"his ears\", in\nwhich case /li-bit uz[n\u00e2-\u0161u]/ might be rendered either as \"surface\nof his ears\", or as \"base (lit. foundation) of his ears\".\n[4] i.e. the length of his pace was twenty /b\u00earu/.\n[5] Lit. \"the black-headed\".\nThe text here breaks off, at the moment when Pallil, whose help\nagainst the dragon had been invoked, begins to speak. Let us hope we\nshall recover the continuation of the narrative and learn what became\nof this carnivorous monster.\nThere are ample grounds, then, for assuming the independent existence\nof the Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the versions recovered\nhave come to us in Semitic form, there is no doubt that the myth\nitself existed among the Sumerians. The dragon /motif/ is constantly\nrecurring in descriptions of Sumerian temple-decoration, and the twin\ndragons of Ningishzida on Gudea's libation-vase, carved in green\nsteatite and inlaid with shell, are a notable product of Sumerian\nart.[1] The very names borne by Tiamat's brood of monsters in the\n\"Seven Tablets\" are stamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent,\nand Kingu, whom she appointed as her champion in place of Aps\u00fb, is\nequally Sumerian. It would be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not\nevolved a Dragon myth,[2] for the Dragon combat is the most obvious of\nnature myths and is found in most mythologies of Europe and the Near\nEast. The trailing storm-clouds suggest his serpent form, his fiery\ntongue is seen in the forked lightning, and, though he may darken the\nworld for a time, the Sun-god will always be victorious. In Egypt the\nmyth of \"the Overthrowing of Apep, the enemy of Ra\" presents a close\nparallel to that of Tiamat;[3] but of all Eastern mythologies that of\nthe Chinese has inspired in art the most beautiful treatment of the\nDragon, who, however, under his varied forms was for them essentially\nbeneficent. Doubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions\nof the Dragon combat, both before and after their arrival on the\nEuphrates, but the particular version which the priests of Babylon\nwove into their epic is not one of them.\n[1] See E. de Sarzec, /D\u00e9couvertes en Chald\u00e9e/, pl. xliv, Fig. 2, and\nHeuzey, /Catalogue des antiquit\u00e9s chald\u00e9ennes/, p. 281.\n[2] In his very interesting study of \"Sumerian and Akkadian Views of\nBeginnings\", contributed to the /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./,\nVol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 274 ff., Professor Jastrow suggests that\nthe Dragon combat in the Semitic-Babylonian Creation poem is of\nSemitic not Sumerian origin. He does not examine the evidence of\nthe poem itself in detail, but bases the suggestion mainly on the\ntwo hypotheses, that the Dragon combat of the poem was suggested\nby the winter storms and floods of the Euphrates Valley, and that\nthe Sumerians came from a mountain region where water was not\nplentiful. If we grant both assumptions, the suggested conclusion\ndoes not seem to me necessarily to follow, in view of the evidence\nwe now possess as to the remote date of the Sumerian settlement in\nthe Euphrates Valley. Some evidence may still be held to point to\na mountain home for the proto-Sumerians, such as the name of their\nearly goddess Ninkharsagga, \"the Lady of the Mountains\". But, as\nwe must now regard Babylonia itself as the cradle of their\ncivilization, other data tend to lose something of their apparent\nsignificance. It is true that the same Sumerian sign means \"land\"\nand \"mountain\"; but it may have been difficult to obtain an\nintelligible profile for \"land\" without adopting a mountain form.\nSuch a name as Ekur, the \"Mountain House\" of Nippur, may perhaps\nindicate size, not origin; and Enki's association with metal-\nworking may be merely due to his character as God of Wisdom, and\nis not appropriate solely \"to a god whose home is in the mountains\nwhere metals are found\" (op. cit., p. 295). It should be added\nthat Professor Jastrow's theory of the Dragon combat is bound up\nwith his view of the origin of an interesting Sumerian \"myth of\nbeginnings\", to which reference is made later.\n[3] Cf. Budge, /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, pp. 324 ff. The\ninclusion of the two versions of the Egyptian Creation myth,\nrecording the Birth of the Gods in the \"Book of Overthrowing\nApep\", does not present a very close parallel to the combination\nof Creation and Dragon myths in the Semitic-Babylonian poem, for\nin the Egyptian work the two myths are not really combined, the\nCreation Versions being inserted in the middle of the spells\nagainst Apep, without any attempt at assimilation (see Budge,\n/Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I, p. xvi).\nWe have thus traced four out of the five strands which form the\nSemitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to a Sumerian ancestry. And we now\ncome back to the first of the strands, the Birth of the Gods, from\nwhich our discussion started. For if this too should prove to be\nSumerian, it would help to fill in the gap in our Sumerian Creation\nmyth, and might furnish us with some idea of the Sumerian view of\n\"beginnings\", which preceded the acts of creation by the great gods.\nIt will be remembered that the poem opens with the description of a\ntime when heaven and earth did not exist, no field or marsh even had\nbeen created, and the universe consisted only of the primaeval water-\ngods, Aps\u00fb, Mummu, and Tiamat, whose waters were mingled together.\nThen follows the successive generation of two pairs of deities, Lakhmu\nand Lakhamu, and Anshar and Kishar, long ages separating the two\ngenerations from each other and from the birth of the great gods which\nsubsequently takes place. In the summary of the myth which is given by\nDamascius[1] the names of the various deities accurately correspond to\nthose in the opening lines of the poem; but he makes some notable\nadditions, as will be seen from the following table:\nDAMASCUS \"SEVEN TABLETS\" I\n{'Apason---Tauthe} Aps\u00fb---Tiamat\n|\n{Moumis} Mummu\n{Lakhos---Lakhe}[2] Lakhmu---Lakhamu\n{'Assoros---Kissare} Anshar---Kishar\n{'Anos, 'Illinos, 'Aos} Anu, [ ], Nudimmud (= Ea)\n{'Aos---Dauke}\n|\n{Belos}\n[1] /Quaestiones de primis principiis/, cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 384.\n[2] Emended from the reading {Dakhen kai Dakhon} of the text.\nIn the passage of the poem which describes the birth of the great gods\nafter the last pair of primaeval deities, mention is duly made of Anu\nand Nudimmud (the latter a title of Ea), corresponding to the {'Anos}\nand {'Aos} of Damascius; and there appears to be no reference to\nEnlil, the original of {'Illinos}. It is just possible that his name\noccurred at the end of one of the broken lines, and, if so, we should\nhave a complete parallel to Damascius. But the traces are not in\nfavour of the restoration;[1] and the omission of Enlil's name from\nthis part of the poem may be readily explained as a further tribute to\nMarduk, who definitely usurps his place throughout the subsequent\nnarrative. Anu and Ea had both to be mentioned because of the parts\nthey play in the Epic, but Enlil's only recorded appearance is in the\nfinal assembly of the gods, where he bestows his own name \"the Lord of\nthe World\"[2] upon Marduk. The evidence of Damascius suggests that\nEnlil's name was here retained, between those of Anu and Ea, in other\nversions of the poem. But the occurrence of the name in any version is\nin itself evidence of the antiquity of this strand of the narrative.\nIt is a legitimate inference that the myth of the Birth of the Gods\ngoes back to a time at least before the rise of Babylon, and is\npresumably of Sumerian origin.\n[1] Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time at the\nbeginning of a line, and the three lines following the reference\nto Nudimmud are entirely occupied with descriptions of his wisdom\nand power. It is also probable that the three preceding lines (ll.\n14-16), all of which refer to Anu by name, were entirely occupied\nwith his description. But it is only in ll. 13-16 that any\nreference to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of\ntheir second halves do not suggestion the restoration.\n[2] Cf. Tabl. VII, . 116.\nFurther evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu, Enlil, and\nEa (i.e. Enki), who are here created together, are the three great\ngods of the Sumerian Version of Creation; it is they who create\nmankind with the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga, and in the fuller\nversion of that myth we should naturally expect to find some account\nof their own origin. The reference in Damascius to Marduk ({Belos}) as\nthe son of Ea and Damkina ({Dauke}) is also of interest in this\nconnexion, as it exhibits a goddess in close connexion with one of the\nthree great gods, much as we find Ninkharsagga associated with them in\nthe Sumerian Version.[1] Before leaving the names, it may be added\nthat, of the primaeval deities, Anshar and Kishar are obviously\nSumerian in form.\n[1] Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki; and Ninkharsagga is\nassociated with Enki, as his consort, in another Sumerian myth.\nIt may be noted that the character of Aps\u00fb and Tiamat in this portion\nof the poem[1] is quite at variance with their later actions. Their\nrevolt at the ordered \"way\" of the gods was a necessary preliminary to\nthe incorporation of the Dragon myths, in which Ea and Marduk are the\nheroes. Here they appear as entirely beneficent gods of the primaeval\nwater, undisturbed by storms, in whose quiet depths the equally\nbeneficent deities Lakhmu and Lakhamu, Anshar and Kishar, were\ngenerated.[2] This interpretation, by the way, suggests a more\nsatisfactory restoration for the close of the ninth line of the poem\nthan any that has yet been proposed. That line is usually taken to\nimply that the gods were created \"in the midst of [heaven]\", but I\nthink the following rendering, in connexion with ll. 1-5, gives better\nsense:\nWhen in the height heaven was not named,\nAnd the earth beneath did not bear a name,\nAnd the primaeval Aps\u00fb who begat them,[3]\nAnd Mummu, and Tiamat who bore them[3] all,--\nTheir waters were mingled together,\n. . .\n. . .\n. . .\nThen were created the gods in the midst of [their waters],[4]\nLakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being . . .\n[1] Tabl. I, ll. 1-21.\n[2] We may perhaps see a survival of Tiamat's original character in\nher control of the Tablets of Fate. The poem does not represent\nher as seizing them in any successful fight; they appear to be\nalready hers to bestow on Kingu, though in the later mythology\nthey are \"not his by right\" (cf. Tabl. I, ll. 137 ff., and Tabl.\nIV, l. 121).\n[3] i.e. the gods.\n[4] The ninth line is preserved only on a Neo-Babylonian duplicate\n(/Seven Tablets/, Vol. II, pl. i). I suggested the restoration\n/ki-rib \u0161[a-ma-mi]/, \"in the midst of heaven\", as possible, since\nthe traces of the first sign in the last word of the line seemed\nto be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of /\u0161a/. The restoration\nappeared at the time not altogether satisfactory in view of the\nfirst line of the poem, and it could only be justified by\nsupposing that /\u0161am\u00e2mu/, or \"heaven\", was already vaguely\nconceived as in existence (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3, n. 14). But the\ntraces of the sign, as I have given them (op. cit., Vol. II, pl.\ni), may also possibly be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of the\nsign /me/; and I would now restore the end of the line in the Neo-\nBabylonian tablet as /ki-rib m[e-e-\u0161u-nu]/, \"in the midst of\n[their waters]\", corresponding to the form /mu-u-\u0161u-nu/ in l. 5 of\nthis duplicate. In the Assyrian Version /m\u00e9(pl)-\u0161u-nu/ would be\nread in both lines. It will be possible to verify the new reading,\nby a re-examination of the traces on the tablet, when the British\nMuseum collections again become available for study after the war.\nIf the ninth line of the poem be restored as suggested, its account of\nthe Birth of the Gods will be found to correspond accurately with the\nsummary from Berossus, who, in explaining the myth, refers to the\nBabylonian belief that the universe consisted at first of moisture in\nwhich living creatures, such as he had already described, were\ngenerated.[1] The primaeval waters are originally the source of life,\nnot of destruction, and it is in them that the gods are born, as in\nEgyptian mythology; there Nu, the primaeval water-god from whom Ra was\nself-created, never ceased to be the Sun-god's supporter. The change\nin the Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the\ncombination of the Dragon myth with that of Creation, a combination\nthat in Egypt would never have been justified by the gentle Nile. From\na study of some aspects of the names at the beginning of the\nBabylonian poem we have already seen reason to suspect that its\nversion of the Birth of the Gods goes back to Sumerian times, and it\nis pertinent to ask whether we have any further evidence that in\nSumerian belief water was the origin of all things.\n[1] {ugrou gar ontos tou pantos kai zoon en auto gegennemenon\n[toionde] ktl}. His creatures of the primaeval water were killed\nby the light; and terrestrial animals were then created which\ncould bear (i.e. breathe and exist in) the air.\nFor many years we have possessed a Sumerian myth of Creation, which\nhas come to us on a late Babylonian tablet as the introductory section\nof an incantation. It is provided with a Semitic translation, and to\njudge from its record of the building of Babylon and Egasila, Marduk's\ntemple, and its identification of Marduk himself with the Creator, it\nhas clearly undergone some editing at the hands of the Babylonian\npriests. Moreover, the occurrence of various episodes out of their\nlogical order, and the fact that the text records twice over the\ncreation of swamps and marshes, reeds and trees or forests, animals\nand cities, indicate that two Sumerian myths have been combined. Thus\nwe have no guarantee that the other cities referred to by name in the\ntext, Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, are mentioned in any significant\nconnexion with each other.[1] Of the actual cause of Creation the text\nappears to give two versions also, one in its present form impersonal,\nand the other carried out by a god. But these two accounts are quite\nunlike the authorized version of Babylon, and we may confidently\nregard them as representing genuine Sumerian myths. The text resembles\nother early accounts of Creation by introducing its narrative with a\nseries of negative statements, which serve to indicate the preceding\nnon-existence of the world, as will be seen from the following\nextract:[2]\nNo city had been created, no creature had been made,\nNippur had not been created, Ekur had not been built,\nErech had not been created, Eanna had not been built,\nAps\u00fb had not been created, Eridu had not been built,\nOf the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had not\nbeen created.\nAll lands[3] were sea.\nAt the time when a channel (was formed) in the midst of the sea,\nThen was Eridu created, Esagila built, etc.\nHere we have the definite statement that before Creation all the world\nwas sea. And it is important to note that the primaeval water is not\npersonified; the ordinary Sumerian word for \"sea\" is employed, which\nthe Semitic translator has faithfully rendered in his version of the\ntext.[4] The reference to a channel in the sea, as the cause of\nCreation, seems at first sight a little obscure; but the word implies\na \"drain\" or \"water-channel\", not a current of the sea itself, and the\nreference may be explained as suggested by the drainage of a flood-\narea. No doubt the phrase was elaborated in the original myth, and it\nis possible that what appears to be a second version of Creation later\non in the text is really part of the more detailed narrative of the\nfirst myth. There the Creator himself is named. He is the Sumerian god\nGilimma, and in the Semitic translation Marduk's name is substituted.\nTo the following couplet, which describes Gilimma's method of\ncreation, is appended a further extract from a later portion of the\ntext, there evidently displaced, giving additional details of the\nCreator's work:\nGilimma bound reeds in the face of the waters,\nHe formed soil and poured it out beside the reeds.[5]\n[He][6] filled in a dike by the side of the sea,\n[He . . .] a swamp, he formed a marsh.\n[. . .], he brought into existence,\n[Reeds he form]ed,[7] trees he created.\n[1] The composite nature of the text is discussed by Professor Jastrow\nin his /Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions/, pp. 89 ff.; and in his\npaper in the /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 279\nff.; he has analysed it into two main versions, which he suggests\noriginated in Eridu and Nippur respectively. The evidence of the\ntext does not appear to me to support the view that any reference\nto a watery chaos preceding Creation must necessarily be of\nSemitic origin. For the literature of the text (first published by\nPinches, /Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc./, Vol. XXIII, pp. 393 ff.), see\n/Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, p. 130.\n[2] Obv., ll. 5-12.\n[3] Sum. /nigin-kur-kur-ra-ge/, Sem. /nap-har ma-ta-a-tu/, lit. \"all\nlands\", i.e. Sumerian and Babylonian expressions for \"the world\".\n[4] Sum. /a-ab-ba/, \"sea\", is here rendered by /t\u00e2mtum/, not by its\npersonified equivalent Tiamat.\n[5] The suggestion has been made that /amu/, the word in the Semitic\nversion here translated \"reeds\", should be connected with\n/ammatu/, the word used for \"earth\" or \"dry land\" in the\nBabylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, l. 2, and given some such\nmeaning as \"expanse\". The couplet is thus explained to mean that\nthe god made an expanse on the face of the waters, and then poured\nout dust \"on the expanse\". But the Semitic version in l. 18 reads\n/itti ami/, \"beside the /a./\", not /ina ami/, \"on the /a./\"; and\nin any case there does not seem much significance in the act of\npouring out specially created dust on or beside land already\nformed. The Sumerian word translated by /amu/ is written /gi-dir/,\nwith the element /gi/, \"reed\", in l. 17, and though in the\nfollowing line it is written under its variant form /a-dir/\nwithout /gi/, the equation /gi-a-dir/ = /amu/ is elsewhere\nattested (cf. Delitzsch, /Handw\u00f6rterbuch/, p. 77). In favour of\nregarding /amu/ as some sort of reed, here used collectively, it\nmay be pointed out that the Sumerian verb in l. 17 is /ke\u0161da/, \"to\nbind\", accurately rendered by /raka\u0161u/ in the Semitic version.\nAssuming that l. 34 belongs to the same account, the creation of\nreeds in general beside trees, after dry land is formed, would not\nof course be at variance with the god's use of some sort of reed\nin his first act of creation. He creates the reed-bundles, as he\ncreates the soil, both of which go to form the first dike; the\nreed-beds, like the other vegetation, spring up from the ground\nwhen it appears.\n[6] The Semitic version here reads \"the lord Marduk\"; the\ncorresponding name in the Sumerian text is not preserved.\n[7] The line is restored from l. 2 o the obverse of the text.\nHere the Sumerian Creator is pictured as forming dry land from the\nprimaeval water in much the same way as the early cultivator in the\nEuphrates Valley procured the rich fields for his crops. The existence\nof the earth is here not really presupposed. All the world was sea\nuntil the god created land out of the waters by the only practical\nmethod that was possible in Mesopotamia.\nIn another Sumerian myth, which has been recovered on one of the early\ntablets from Nippur, we have a rather different picture of beginnings.\nFor there, though water is the source of life, the existence of the\nland is presupposed. But it is bare and desolate, as in the\nMesopotamian season of \"low water\". The underlying idea is suggestive\nof a period when some progress in systematic irrigation had already\nbeen made, and the filling of the dry canals and subsequent irrigation\nof the parched ground by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but\neagerly desired. The myth is only one of several that have been\ncombined to form the introductory sections of an incantation; but in\nall of them Enki, the god of the deep water, plays the leading part,\nthough associated with different consorts.[1] The incantation is\ndirected against various diseases, and the recitation of the closing\nmythical section was evidently intended to enlist the aid of special\ngods in combating them. The creation of these deities is recited under\nset formulae in a sort of refrain, and the divine name assigned to\neach bears a magical connexion with the sickness he or she is intended\nto dispel.[2]\n[1] See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. X, No. 1\n(1915), pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI\n(1916), pp. 140 ff.; cf. Prince, /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol.\nXXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow, /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI,\npp. 122 ff., and in particular his detailed study of the text in\n/Amer. Journ. Semit. Lang./, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ff. Dr. Langdon's\nfirst description of the text, in /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol.\nXXXVI (1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively small\nfragment only; and on his completion of the text from other\nfragments in Pennsylvania. Professor Sayce at once realized that\nthe preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth could not be sustained\n(cf. /Expos. Times/, Nov., 1915, pp. 88 ff.). He, Professor\nPrince, and Professor Jastrow independently showed that the action\nof Enki in the myth in sending water on the land was not punitive\nbut beneficent; and the preceding section, in which animals are\ndescribed as not performing their usual activities, was shown\nindependently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to have\nreference, not to their different nature in an ideal existence in\nParadise, but, on familiar lines, to their non-existence in a\ndesolate land. It may be added that Professor Barton and Dr. Peters\nagree generally with Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow in\ntheir interpretation of the text, which excludes the suggested\nbiblical parallels; and I understand from Dr. Langdon that he very\nrightly recognizes that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a\nsubject for congratulation that the discussion has materially\nincreased our knowledge of this difficult composition.\n[2] Cf. Col. VI, ll. 24 ff.; thus /Ab/-u was created for the sickness\nof the cow (/ab/); Nin-/tul/ for that of the flock (u-/tul/); Nin-\n/ka/-u-tu and Nin-/ka/-si for that of the mouth (/ka/); Na-zi for\nthat of the /na-zi/ (meaning uncertain); /Da zi/-ma for that of\nthe /da-zi/ (meaning uncertain); Nin-/til/ for that of /til/\n(life); the name of the eighth and last deity is imperfectly\npreserved.\nWe have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic,\nwhich was common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its\nemployment against disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice\nto cite a well-known magical cure for the toothache which was adopted\nin Babylon.[1] There toothache was believed to be caused by the\ngnawing of a worm in the gum, and a myth was used in the incantation\nto relieve it. The worm's origin is traced from Anu, the god of\nheaven, through a descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the\nearth, rivers, canals and marshes are represented as each giving rise\nto the next in order, until finally the marshes produce the worm. The\nmyth then relates how the worm, on being offered tempting food by Ea\nin answer to her prayer, asked to be allowed to drink the blood of the\nteeth, and the incantation closes by invoking the curse of Ea because\nof the worm's misguided choice. It is clear that power over the worm\nwas obtained by a recital of her creation and of her subsequent\ningratitude, which led to her present occupation and the curse under\nwhich she laboured. When the myth and invocation had been recited\nthree times over the proper mixture of beer, a plant, and oil, and the\nmixture had been applied to the offending tooth, the worm would fall\nunder the spell of the curse and the patient would at once gain\nrelief. The example is instructive, as the connexion of ideas is quite\nclear. In the Nippur document the recital of the creation of the eight\ndeities evidently ensured their presence, and a demonstration of the\nmystic bond between their names and the corresponding diseases\nrendered the working of their powers effective. Our knowledge of a\ngood many other myths is due solely to their magical employment.\n[1] See Thompson, /Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia/, Vol. II, pp.\n160 ff.; for a number of other examples, see Jastrow, /J.A.O.S./,\nVol. XXXVI, p. 279, n. 7.\nPerhaps the most interesting section of the new text is one in which\ndivine instructions are given in the use of plants, the fruit or roots\nof which may be eaten. Here Usm\u00fb, a messenger from Enki, God of the\nDeep, names eight such plants by Enki's orders, thereby determining\nthe character of each. As Professor Jastrow has pointed out, the\npassage forcibly recalls the story from Berossus, concerning the\nmythical creature Oannes, who came up from the Erythraean Sea, where\nit borders upon Babylonia, to instruct mankind in all things,\nincluding \"seeds and the gathering of fruits\".[1] But the only part of\nthe text that concerns us here is the introductory section, where the\nlife-giving flood, by which the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured\nas following the union of the water-deities, Enki and Ninella.[2]\nProfessor Jastrow is right in emphasizing the complete absence of any\nconflict in this Sumerian myth of beginnings; but, as with the other\nSumerian Versions we have examined, it seems to me there is no need to\nseek its origin elsewhere than in the Euphrates Valley.\n[1] Cf. Jastrow, /J.A.O.S./, Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and /A.J.S.L./, Vol.\nXXXIII, p. 134 f. It may be added that the divine naming of the\nplants also presents a faint parallel to the naming of the beasts\nand birds by man himself in Gen. ii. 19 f.\n[2] Professor Jastrow (/A.J.S.L./, Vol. XXXIII, p. 115) compares\nsimilar myths collected by Sir James Frazer (/Magic Art/, Vol. II,\nchap. xi and chap. xii, \u00a7 2). He also notes the parallel the\nirrigation myth presents to the mist (or flood) of the earlier\nHebrew Version (Gen. ii. 5 f). But Enki, like Ea, was no rain-god;\nhe had his dwellings in the Euphrates and the Deep.\nEven in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation had been\nsuperseded by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never ceased to be\nregarded as the source of life and the creator of all things. And this\nis well brought out in the following introductory lines of a Semitic\nincantation, of which we possess two Neo-Babylonian copies:[1]\nO thou River, who didst create all things,\nWhen the great gods dug thee out,\nThey set prosperity upon thy banks,\nWithin thee Ea, King of the Deep, created his dwelling.\nThe Flood they sent not before thou wert!\nHere the river as creator is sharply distinguished from the Flood; and\nwe may conclude that the water of the Euphrates Valley impressed the\nearly Sumerians, as later the Semites, with its creative as well as\nwith its destructive power. The reappearance of the fertile soil,\nafter the receding inundation, doubtless suggested the idea of\ncreation out of water, and the stream's slow but automatic fall would\nfurnish a model for the age-long evolution of primaeval deities. When\na god's active and artificial creation of the earth must be portrayed,\nit would have been natural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the\nCreator working as he himself would work when he reclaimed a field\nfrom flood. We are thus shown the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling\nreed-bundles in the water and heaping up soil beside them, till the\nground within his dikes dries off and produces luxuriant vegetation.\nBut here there is a hint of struggle in the process, and we perceive\nin it the myth-redactor's opportunity to weave in the Dragon /motif/.\nNo such excuse is afforded by the other Sumerian myth, which pictures\nthe life-producing inundation as the gift of the two deities of the\nDeep and the product of their union.\nBut in their other aspect the rivers of Mesopotamia could be terrible;\nand the Dragon /motif/ itself, on the Tigris and Euphrates, drew its\nimagery as much from flood as from storm. When therefore a single\ndeity must be made to appear, not only as Creator, but also as the\nchampion of his divine allies and the conqueror of other gods, it was\ninevitable that the myths attaching to the waters under their two\naspects should be combined. This may already have taken place at\nNippur, when Enlil became the head of the pantheon; but the existence\nof his myth is conjectural.[1] In a later age we can trace the process\nin the light of history and of existing texts. There Marduk,\nidentified wholly as the Sun-god, conquers the once featureless\nprimaeval water, which in the process of redaction has now become the\nDragon of flood and storm.\n[1] The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is emphasized in\nTablet VII of the Babylonian poem of Creation. It is significant\nthat his first title, Asara, should be interpreted as \"Bestower of\nplanting\", \"Founder of sowing\", \"Creator of grain and plants\", \"He\nwho caused the green herb to spring up\" (cf. /Seven Tablets/, Vol.\nI, p. 92 f.). These opening phrases, by which the god is hailed,\nstrike the key-note of the whole composition. It is true that, as\nSukh-kur, he is \"Destroyer of the foe\"; but the great majority of\nthe titles and their Semitic glosses refer to creative activities,\nnot to the Dragon myth.\nThus the dualism which is so characteristic a feature of the Semitic-\nBabylonian system, though absent from the earliest Sumerian ideas of\nCreation, was inherent in the nature of the local rivers, whose varied\naspects gave rise to or coloured separate myths. Its presence in the\nlater mythology may be traced as a reflection of political\ndevelopment, at first probably among the warring cities of Sumer, but\ncertainly later in the Semitic triumph at Babylon. It was but to be\nexpected that the conqueror, whether Sumerian or Semite, should\nrepresent his own god's victory as the establishment of order out of\nchaos. But this would be particularly in harmony with the character of\nthe Semitic Babylonians of the First Dynasty, whose genius for method\nand organization produced alike Hammurabi's Code of Laws and the\nstraight streets of the capital.\nWe have thus been able to trace the various strands of the Semitic-\nBabylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins; and in the second\nlecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with regard to the\nSemitic-Babylonian Version of the Deluge preserved in the Epic of\nGilgamesh. We there saw that the literary structure of the Sumerian\nVersion, in which Creation and Deluge are combined, must have survived\nunder some form into the Neo-Babylonian period, since it was\nreproduced by Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same\narrangement in Genesis did not therefore prove that the Hebrew\naccounts go back directly to early Sumerian originals. In fact, the\nstructural resemblance presented by Genesis can only be regarded as an\nadditional proof that the Sumerian originals continued to be studied\nand translated by the Semitic priesthood, although they had long been\nsuperseded officially by their later descendants, the Semitic epics. A\ndetailed comparison of the Creation and Deluge narratives in the\nvarious versions at once discloses the fact that the connexion between\nthose of the Semitic Babylonians and the Hebrews is far closer and\nmore striking than that which can be traced when the latter are placed\nbeside the Sumerian originals. We may therefore regard it as certain\nthat the Hebrews derived their knowledge of Sumerian tradition, not\ndirectly from the Sumerians themselves, but through Semitic channels\nfrom Babylon.\nIt will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points of\nresemblance that are admitted to exist between the Hebrew account of\nCreation in the first chapter of Genesis and that preserved in the\n\"Seven Tablets\".[1] It will suffice to emphasize two of them, which\ngain in significance through our newly acquired knowledge of early\nSumerian beliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem,\none is struck more by the differences than by the parallels; but that\nis due to the polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention\nwhen compared with the severe and dignified monotheism of the Hebrew\nwriter. And if allowance be made for the change in theological\nstandpoint, the material points of resemblance are seen to be very\nmarked. The outline or general course of events is the same. In both\nwe have an abyss of waters at the beginning denoted by almost the same\nSemitic word, the Hebrew /teh\u00f4m/, translated \"the deep\" in Gen. i. 2,\nbeing the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian /Tiamat/, the monster\nof storm and flood who presents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian\nprimaeval water.[2] The second act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative\nis that of a \"firmament\", which divided the waters under it from those\nabove.[3] But this, as we have seen, has no parallel in the early\nSumerian conception until it was combined with the Dragon combat in\nthe form in which we find it in the Babylonian poem. There the body of\nTiamat is divided by Marduk, and from one half of her he constructs a\ncovering or dome for heaven, that is to say a \"firmament\", to keep her\nupper waters in place. These will suffice as text passages, since they\nserve to point out quite clearly the Semitic source to which all the\nother detailed points of Hebrew resemblance may be traced.\n[1] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner,\n/Genesis/, pp. 45 ff.\n[2] The invariable use of the Hebrew word /teh\u00f4m/ without the article,\nexcept in two passages in the plural, proves that it is a proper\nname (cf. Skinner, op. cit., p. 17); and its correspondence with\n/Tiamat/ makes the resemblance of the versions far more\nsignificant than if their parallelism were confined solely to\nideas.\n[3] Gen. i. 6-8.\nIn the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a demonstration is\nnot possible, since we have no similar criterion to apply. And on one\npoint, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve an original Sumerian\nstrand of the narrative that was not woven into the Gilgamesh Epic,\nwhere there is no parallel to the piety of Noah. But from the detailed\ndescription that was given in the second lecture, it will have been\nnoted that the Sumerian account is on the whole far simpler and more\nprimitive than the other versions. It is only in the Babylonian Epic,\nfor example, that the later Hebrew writer finds material from which to\nconstruct the ark, while the sweet savour of Ut-napishtim's sacrifice,\nand possibly his sending forth of the birds, though reproduced in the\nearlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the Sumerian account.[1]\nAs to the general character of the Flood, there is no direct reference\nto rain in the Sumerian Version, though its presence is probably\nimplied in the storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been\nincreased to forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which\nwould be suitable to a country where local rain was the sole cause of\nflood. But the later Hebrew writer's addition of \"the fountains of the\ndeep\" to \"the windows of heaven\" certainly suggests a more intimate\nknowledge of Mesopotamia, where some contributary cause other than\nlocal rain must be sought for the sudden and overwhelming catastrophes\nof which the rivers are capable.\n[1] For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented by the\nHebrew Versions J and P to the account in the Gilgamesh Epic, see\nSkinner, op. cit., p. 177 f.; Driver, /Genesis/, p. 106 f.; and\nGordon, /Early Traditions of Genesis/ (1907), pp. 38 ff.\nThus, viewed from a purely literary standpoint, we are now enabled to\ntrace back to a primitive age the ancestry of the traditions, which,\nunder a very different aspect, eventually found their way into Hebrew\nliterature. And in the process we may note the changes they underwent\nas they passed from one race to another. The result of such literary\nanalysis and comparison, so far from discrediting the narratives in\nGenesis, throws into still stronger relief the moral grandeur of the\nHebrew text.\nWe come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did\nthe Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian ideas? The tendency of\nthe purely literary school of critics has been to explain the process\nby the direct use of Babylonian documents wholly within exilic times.\nIf the Creation and Deluge narratives stood alone, a case might\nperhaps be made out for confining Babylonian influence to this late\nperiod. It is true that during the Captivity the Jews were directly\nexposed to such influence. They had the life and civilization of their\ncaptors immediately before their eyes, and it would have been only\nnatural for the more learned among the Hebrew scribes and priests to\ninterest themselves in the ancient literature of their new home. And\nany previous familiarity with the myths of Babylonia would undoubtedly\nhave been increased by actual residence in the country. We may perhaps\nsee a result of such acquaintance with Babylonian literature, after\nJehoiachin's deportation,, in an interesting literary parallel that\nhas been pointed out between Ezek. xiv. 12-20 and a speech in the\nBabylonian account of the Deluge in the Gilgamesh Epic, XI, ll. 180-\n194.[1] The passage in Ezekiel occurs within chaps. i-xxiv, which\ncorrespond to the prophet's first period and consist in the main of\nhis utterances in exile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in\nfact, the introduction to the prophet's announcement of the coming of\n\"four sore judgements upon Jerusalem\", from which there \"shall be left\na remnant that shall be carried forth\".[2] But in consequence, here\nand there, of traces of a later point of view, it is generally\nadmitted that many of the chapters in this section may have been\nconsiderably amplified and altered by Ezekiel himself in the course of\nwriting. And if we may regard the literary parallel that has been\npointed out as anything more than fortuitous, it is open to us to\nassume that chap. xiv may have been worked up by Ezekiel many years\nafter his prophetic call at Tel-abib.\n[1] See Daiches, \"Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the Deluge\",\nin the /Jewish Quarterly Review/, April 1905. It has of course\nlong been recognized that Ezekiel, in announcing the punishment of\nthe king of Egypt in xxxii. 2 ff., uses imagery which strongly\nrecalls the Babylonian Creation myth. For he compares Pharaoh to a\nsea-monster over whom Yahweh will throw his net (as Marduk had\nthrown his over Tiamat); cf. Loisy, /Les mythes babyloniens et les\npremiers chaptires de la Gen\u00e8se/ (1901), p. 87.\n[2] Ezek. xiv. 21 f.\nIn the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already sent the\nFlood and had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon\nremonstrates with him, and he urges that in future the sinner only\nshould be made to suffer for his sin; and, instead of again causing a\nflood, let there be discrimination in the divine punishments sent on\nmen or lands. While the flood made the escape of the deserving\nimpossible, other forms of punishment would affect the guilty only. In\nEzekiel the subject is the same, but the point of view is different.\nThe land the prophet has in his mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah,\nand his desire is to explain why it will suffer although not all its\ninhabitants deserved to share its fate. The discrimination, which Ea\nurges, Ezekiel asserts will be made; but the sinner must bear his own\nsin, and the righteous, however eminent, can only save themselves by\ntheir righteousness. The general principle propounded in the Epic is\nhere applied to a special case. But the parallelism between the\npassages lies not only in the general principle but also in the\nliterary setting. This will best be brought out by printing the\npassages in parallel columns.\nGilg. Epic, XI, 180-194 Ezek. xiv. 12-20\nEa opened his mouth and spake, And the word of the Lord came\nHe said to the warrior Enlil; unto me, saying,\nThou director of the gods! O Son of man, when a land sinneth\nwarrior! against me by committing a\nWhy didst thou not take counsel trespass, and I stretch out\nbut didst cause a flood? mine hand upon it, and break\nOn the transgressor lay his the staff of the bread\ntransgression! thereof, and send /famine/\nBe merciful, so that (all) be not upon it, and cut off from it\ndestroyed! Have patience, so man and beast; though these\nthat (all) be not [cut off]! three men, Noah, Daniel, and\nInstead of causing a flood, Job, were in it, they should\nLet /lions/[1] come and diminish deliver but their own souls by\nmankind! their righteousness, saith the\nInstead of causing a flood, Lord God.\nLet /leopards/[1] come and If I cause /noisome beasts/ to\ndiminish mankind! pass through the land, and\nInstead of causing a flood, they spoil it, so that it be\nLet /famine/ be caused and let it desolate, that no man may pass\nsmite the land! through because of the beasts;\nInstead of causing a flood, though these three men were in\nLet the /Plague-god/ come and it, as I live, saith the Lord\n[slay] mankind! God, they shall deliver\nneither sons nor daughters;\nthey only shall be delivered,\nbut the land shall be\ndesolate.\nOr if I bring a /sword/ upon\nthat land, and say, Sword, go\nthrough the land; so that I\ncut off from it man and beast;\nthough these three men were in\nit, as I live, saith the Lord\nGod, they shall deliver\nneither sons nor daughters,\nbut they only shall be\ndelivered themselves.\nOr if I send a /pestilence/ into\nthat land, and pour out my\nfury upon it in blood, to cut\noff from it man and beast;\nthough Noah, Daniel, and Job,\nwere in it, as I live, saith\nthe Lord God, they shall\ndeliver neither son nor\ndaughter; they shall but\ndeliver their own souls by\ntheir righteousness.\n[1] Both Babylonian words are in the singular, but probably used\ncollectively, as is the case with their Hebrew equivalent in Ezek.\nxiv. 15.\nIt will be seen that, of the four kinds of divine punishment\nmentioned, three accurately correspond in both compositions. Famine\nand pestilence occur in both, while the lions and leopards of the Epic\nfind an equivalent in \"noisome beasts\". The sword is not referred to\nin the Epic, but as this had already threatened Jerusalem at the time\nof the prophecy's utterance its inclusion by Ezekiel was inevitable.\nMoreover, the fact that Noah should be named in the refrain, as the\nfirst of the three proverbial examples of righteousness, shows that\nEzekiel had the Deluge in his mind, and increases the significance of\nthe underlying parallel between his argument and that of the\nBabylonian poet.[1] It may be added that Ezekiel has thrown his\nprophecy into poetical form, and the metre of the two passages in the\nBabylonian and Hebrew is, as Dr. Daiches points out, not dissimilar.\n[1] This suggestion is in some measure confirmed by the /Biblical\nAntiquities of Philo/, ascribed by Dr. James to the closing years\nof the first century A.D.; for its writer, in his account of the\nFlood, has actually used Ezek. xiv. 12 ff. in order to elaborate\nthe divine speech in Gen. viii. 21 f. This will be seen from the\nfollowing extract, in which the passage interpolated between\nverses 21 and 22 of Gen. viii is enclosed within brackets: \"And\nGod said: I will not again curse the earth for man's sake, for the\nguise of man's heart hath left off (sic) from his youth. And\ntherefore I will not again destroy together all living as I have\ndone. [But it shall be, when the dwellers upon earth have sinned,\nI will judge them by /famine/ or by the /sword/ or by fire or by\n/pestilence/ (lit. death), and there shall be earthquakes, and\nthey shall be scattered into places not inhabited (or, the places\nof their habitation shall be scattered). But I will not again\nspoil the earth with the water of a flood, and] in all the days of\nthe earth seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and autumn,\nday and night shall not cease . . .\"; see James, /The Biblical\nAntiquities of Philo/, p. 81, iii. 9. Here wild beasts are\nomitted, and fire, earthquakes, and exile are added; but famine,\nsword, and pestilence are prominent, and the whole passage is\nclearly suggested by Ezekiel. As a result of the combination, we\nhave in the /Biblical Antiquities/ a complete parallel to the\npassage in the Gilgamesh Epic.\nIt may of course be urged that wild beasts, famine, and pestilence are\nsuch obvious forms of divine punishment that their enumeration by both\nwriters is merely due to chance. But the parallelism should be\nconsidered with the other possible points of connexion, namely, the\nfact that each writer is dealing with discrimination in divine\npunishments of a wholesale character, and that while the one is\ninspired by the Babylonian tradition of the Flood, the other takes the\nhero of the Hebrew Flood story as the first of his selected types of\nrighteousness. It is possible that Ezekiel may have heard the\nBabylonian Version recited after his arrival on the Chebar. And\nassuming that some form of the story had long been a cherished\ntradition of the Hebrews themselves, we could understand his intense\ninterest in finding it confirmed by the Babylonians, who would show\nhim where their Flood had taken place. To a man of his temperament,\nthe one passage in the Babylonian poem that would have made a special\nappeal would have been that quoted above, where the poet urges that\ndivine vengeance should be combined with mercy, and that all,\nrighteous and wicked alike, should not again be destroyed. A problem\ncontinually in Ezekiel's thoughts was this very question of wholesale\ndivine punishment, as exemplified in the case of Judah; and it would\nnot have been unlikely that the literary structure of the Babylonian\nextract may have influenced the form in which he embodied his own\nconclusions.\nBut even if we regard this suggestion as unproved or improbable,\nEzekiel's reference to Noah surely presupposes that at least some\nversion of the Flood story was familiar to the Hebrews before the\nCaptivity. And this conclusion is confirmed by other Babylonian\nparallels in the early chapters of Genesis, in which oral tradition\nrather than documentary borrowing must have played the leading\npart.[1] Thus Babylonian parallels may be cited for many features in\nthe story of Paradise,[2] though no equivalent of the story itself has\nbeen recovered. In the legend of Adapa, for example, wisdom and\nimmortality are the prerogative of the gods, and the winning of\nimmortality by man is bound up with eating the Food of Life and\ndrinking the Water of Life; here too man is left with the gift of\nwisdom, but immortality is withheld. And the association of winged\nguardians with the Sacred Tree in Babylonian art is at least\nsuggestive of the Cherubim and the Tree of Life. The very side of Eden\nhas now been identified in Southern Babylonia by means of an old\nboundary-stone acquired by the British Museum a year or two ago.[3]\n[1] See Loisy, /Les mythes babyloniens/, pp. 10 ff., and cf. S.\nReinach, /Cultes, Mythes et Religions/, t. II, pp. 386 ff.\n[2] Cf. especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 90 ff. For the latest\ndiscussion of the Serpent and the Tree of Life, suggested by Dr.\nSkinner's summary of the evidence, see Frazer in /Essays and\nStudies presented to William Ridgeway/ (1913), pp. 413 ff.\n[3] See /Babylonian Boundary Stones in the British Museum/ (1912), pp.\n76 ff., and cf. /Geographical Journal/, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug.,\n1912), p. 147. For the latest review of the evidence relating to\nthe site of Paradise, see Boissier, \"La situation du paradis\nterrestre\", in /Le Globe/, t. LV, M\u00e9moires (Geneva, 1916).\nBut I need not now detain you by going over this familiar ground. Such\npossible echoes from Babylon seem to suggest pre-exilic influence\nrather than late borrowing, and they surely justify us in inquiring to\nwhat periods of direct or indirect contact, earlier than the\nCaptivity, the resemblances between Hebrew and Babylonian ideas may be\ntraced. One point, which we may regard as definitely settled by our\nnew material, is that these stories of the Creation and of the early\nhistory of the world were not of Semitic origin. It is no longer\npossible to regard the Hebrew and Babylonian Versions as descended\nfrom common Semitic originals. For we have now recovered some of those\noriginals, and they are not Semitic but Sumerian. The question thus\nresolves itself into an inquiry as to periods during which the Hebrews\nmay have come into direct or indirect contact with Babylonia.\nThere are three pre-exilic periods at which it has been suggested the\nHebrews, or the ancestors of the race, may have acquired a knowledge\nof Babylonian traditions. The earliest of these is the age of the\npatriarchs, the traditional ancestors of the Hebrew nation. The second\nperiod is that of the settlement in Canaan, which we may put from 1200\nB.C. to the establishment of David's kingdom at about 1000 B.C. The\nthird period is that of the later Judaean monarch, from 734 B.C. to\n586 B.C., the date of the fall of Jerusalem; and in this last period\nthere are two reigns of special importance in this connexion, those of\nAhaz (734-720 B.C.) and Manasseh (693-638 B.C.).\nWith regard to the earliest of these periods, those who support the\nMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may quite consistently assume that\nAbraham heard the legends in Ur of the Chaldees. And a simple\nretention of the traditional view seems to me a far preferable\nattitude to any elaborate attempt at rationalizing it. It is admitted\nthat Arabia was the cradle of the Semitic race; and the most natural\nline of advance from Arabia to Aram and thence to Palestine would be\nup the Euphrates Valley. Some writers therefore assume that nomad\ntribes, personified in the traditional figure of Abraham, may have\ncamped for a time in the neighbourhood of Ur and Babylon; and that\nthey may have carried the Babylonian stories with them in their\nwanderings, and continued to preserve them during their long\nsubsequent history. But, even granting that such nomads would have\ntaken any interest in traditions of settled folk, this view hardly\ncommends itself. For stories received from foreign sources become more\nand more transformed in the course of centuries.[1] The vivid\nBabylonian colouring of the Genesis narratives cannot be reconciled\nwith this explanation of their source.\n[1] This objection would not of course apply to M. Naville's suggested\nsolution, that cuneiform tablets formed the medium of\ntransmission. But its author himself adds that he does not deny\nits conjectural character; see /The Text of the Old Testament/\n(Schweich Lectures, 1915), p. 32.\nA far greater number of writers hold that it was after their arrival\nin Palestine that the Hebrew patriarchs came into contact with\nBabylonian culture. It is true that from an early period Syria was the\nscene of Babylonian invasions, and in the first lecture we noted some\nnewly recovered evidence upon this point. Moreover, the dynasty to\nwhich Hammurabi belonged came originally from the north-eastern border\nof Canaan and Hammurabi himself exercised authority in the west. Thus\na plausible case could be made out by exponents of this theory,\nespecially as many parallels were noted between the Mosaic legislation\nand that contained in Hammurabi's Code. But it is now generally\nrecognized that the features common to both the Hebrew and the\nBabylonian legal systems may be paralleled to-day in the Semitic East\nand elsewhere,[1] and cannot therefore be cited as evidence of\ncultural contact. Thus the hypothesis that the Hebrew patriarchs were\nsubjects of Babylon in Palestine is not required as an explanation of\nthe facts; and our first period still stands or falls by the question\nof the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which must be decided on\nquite other grounds. Those who do not accept the traditional view will\nprobably be content to rule this first period out.\n[1] See Cook, /The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi/, p. 281\nf.; Driver, /Genesis/, p. xxxvi f.; and cf. Johns, \"The Laws of\nBabylonia and the Laws of the Hebrew Peoples/ (Schweich Lectures,\n1912), pp. 50 ff.\nDuring the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan, the\nHebrews came into contact with a people who had used the Babylonian\nlanguage as the common medium of communication throughout the Near\nEast. It is an interesting fact that among the numerous letters found\nat Tell el-Amarna were two texts of quite a different character. These\nwere legends, both in the form of school exercises, which had been\nwritten out for practice in the Babylonian tongue. One of them was the\nlegend of Adapa, in which we noted just now a distant resemblance to\nthe Hebrew story of Paradise. It seems to me we are here standing on\nrather firmer ground; and provisionally we might place the beginning\nof our process after the time of Hebrew contact with the Canaanites.\nUnder the earlier Hebrew monarchy there was no fresh influx of\nBabylonian culture into Palestine. That does not occur till our last\nmain period, the later Judaean monarchy, when, in consequence of the\nwestward advance of Assyria, the civilization of Babylon was once more\ncarried among the petty Syrian states. Israel was first drawn into the\ncircle of Assyrian influence, when Arab fought as the ally of Benhadad\nof Damascus at the battle of Karkar in 854 B.C.; and from that date\nonward the nation was menaced by the invading power. In 734 B.C., at\nthe invitation of Ahaz of Judah, Tiglath-Pileser IV definitely\nintervened in the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help\nagainst the allied armies of Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish\nwar. Tiglath-pileser threw his forces against Damascus and Israel, and\nAhaz became his vassal.[1] To this period, when Ahaz, like Panammu II,\n\"ran at the wheel of his lord, the king of Assyria\", we may ascribe\nthe first marked invasion of Assyrian influence over Judah. Traces of\nit may be seen in the altar which Ahaz caused to be erected in\nJerusalem after the pattern of the Assyrian altar at Damascus.[2] We\nsaw in the first lecture, in the monuments we have recovered of\nPanammu I and of Bar-rekub, how the life of another small Syrian state\nwas inevitably changed and thrown into new channels by the presence of\nTiglath-pileser and his armies in the West.\n[1] 2 Kings xvi. 7 ff.\n[2] 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.\nHezekiah's resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence on\nJudah for a time. But it was intensified under his son Manasseh, when\nJudah again became tributary to Assyria, and in the house of the Lord\naltars were built to all the host of heaven.[1] Towards the close of\nhis long reign Manasseh himself was summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to\nBabylon.[2] So when in the year 586 B.C. the Jewish exiles came to\nBabylon they could not have found in its mythology an entirely new and\nunfamiliar subject. They must have recognized several of its stories\nas akin to those they had assimilated and now regarded as their own.\nAnd this would naturally have inclined them to further study and\ncomparison.\n[1] 2 Kings xxi. 5.\n[2] Cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.\nThe answer I have outlined to this problem is the one that appears to\nme most probable, but I do not suggest that it is the only possible\none that can be given. What I do suggest is that the Hebrews must have\ngained some acquaintance with the legends of Babylon in pre-exilic\ntimes. And it depends on our reading of the evidence into which of the\nthree main periods the beginning of the process may be traced.\nSo much, then, for the influence of Babylon. We have seen that no\nsimilar problem arises with regard to the legends of Egypt. At first\nsight this may seem strange, for Egypt lay nearer than Babylon to\nPalestine, and political and commercial intercourse was at least as\nclose. We have already noted how Egypt influenced Semitic art, and how\nshe offered an ideal, on the material side of her existence, which was\nreadily adopted by her smaller neighbours. Moreover, the Joseph\ntraditions in Genesis give a remarkably accurate picture of ancient\nEgyptian life; and even the Egyptian proper names embedded in that\nnarrative may be paralleled with native Egyptian names than that to\nwhich the traditions refer. Why then is it that the actual myths and\nlegends of Egypt concerning the origin of the world and its\ncivilization should have failed to impress the Hebrew mind, which, on\nthe other hand, was so responsive to those of Babylon?\nOne obvious answer would be, that it was Nebuchadnezzar II, and not\nNecho, who carried the Jews captive. And we may readily admit that the\nCaptivity must have tended to perpetuate and intensify the effects of\nany Babylonian influence that may have previously been felt. But I\nthink there is a wider and in that sense a better answer than that.\nI do not propose to embark at this late hour on what ethnologists know\nas the \"Hamitic\" problem. But it is a fact that many striking\nparallels to Egyptian religious belief and practice have been traced\namong races of the Sudan and East Africa. These are perhaps in part to\nbe explained as the result of contact and cultural inheritance. But at\nthe same time they are evidence of an African, but non-Negroid,\nsubstratum in the religion of ancient Egypt. In spite of his proto-\nSemitic strain, the ancient Egyptian himself never became a Semite.\nThe Nile Valley, at any rate until the Moslem conquest, was stronger\nthan its invaders; it received and moulded them to its own ideal. This\nquality was shared in some degree by the Euphrates Valley. But\nBabylonia was not endowed with Egypt's isolation; she was always open\non the south and west to the Arabian nomad, who at a far earlier\nperiod sealed her Semitic type.\nTo such racial division and affinity I think we may confidently trace\nthe influence exerted by Egypt and Babylon respectively upon Hebrew\ntradition.\nAPPENDIX I\nCOMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-BABYLONIAN,\nHELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS OF CREATION,\nANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE DELUGE\nN.B.--Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are in upper-case.\nSumerian Version. Seven Tablets Gilgamesh Epic, XI Berossus['Damscius] Earlier Heb. (J) Later Heb. (P)\n[No heaven or earth No heaven or earth Darkness and water Creation of earth Earth without form\nFirst Creation from Primaeval water- [Primaeval water- and heaven and void; darkness\nprimaeval water gods: Aps\u00fb-Tiamat, gods: {'Apason- No plant or herb on face of /teh\u00f4m/,\nwithout conflict; Mummu Tauthe}, {Moumis} Ground watered by the primaeval water\ncf. Later Sum. Ver. Generation of: Generation of: mist (or flood) Divine spirit moving\nLakhmu-Lakhamu {Lakhos-Lakhe} [cf. Sumerian (hovering, brooding)\nAnshar-Kishar {'Assoros-Kissare} irrigation myth of upon face of waters\nCreation]\nThe great gods: Birth of great gods: Birth of great gods:\nANU, ENLIL, ENKI, ANU, Nudimmud (=EA) {'Anos, 'Illinos,\nand Ninkharsagga, Aps\u00fb and Tiamat 'Aos, 'Aois-Lauke,\ncreating deities revolt Belos]\nConquest of Tiamat Conquest of {'Omorka}, Creation of light\nby Marduk as Sun- or {Thamte}, by\ngod {Belos}\nCreation of covering Creation of heaven and Creation of firmament,\nfor heaven from earth from two halves or heaven, to divide\nhalf of Tiamat's of body of Thamte waters; followed by\nbody, to keep her emergence of land\nwaters in place Creation of vegetation\nCreation of luminaries Creation of luminaries Creation of luminaries\n[Creation of (probable order) Creation of animals\nvegetation]\nREASON FOR MAN'S REASON FOR MAN'S\nCREATION: worship of CREATION: worship of\ngods gods\nCreation of MAN Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN in\nCreator's blood and Creator's blood and dust and Creator's image of Creator, to\nfrom bone from earth breath of life have dominion\nCreation of ANIMALS [Creation of animals] Creation of ANIMALS Creation of vegetation\nHymn on Seventh Tablet able to bear the air ANIMALS, and woman Rest on Seventh Day\nCreation of KINGDOM 10 Antediluvian KINGS The line of Cain Antediluvian\n5 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: Antediluvian city: 3 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: The Nephilim [cf. patriarchs [cf.\nEridu, Bad.., LARAK, SHURUPPAK Babylon, SIPPAR, Sumerian Dynastic Sumerian Dynastic\nSIPPAR, SHURUPPAK LARANKHA List] List]\nGods decree MANKIND'S Gods decree flood, Destruction of MAN Destruction of all\ndestruction by flood, goddess ISHTAR decreed, because of flesh decreed, because\nNINTU protesting protesting his wickedness of its corruption\nZIUSUDU, hero of UT-NAPISHTIM, hero {Xisouthros} Noah, hero of Deluge Noah, hero of Deluge\nDeluge, KING and of Deluge (=Khasisatra), hero\npriest of Deluge, KING\nZiusudu's PIETY Noah's FAVOUR Noah's RIGHTEOUSNESS\nWARNING of Ziusudu by WARNING of Ut-nap- WARNING of Xisuthros WARNING of Noah, and\nEnki in DREAM ishtim by Ea in DREAM by Kronos in DREAM instructions for ark\nZiusudu's vessel a SHIP: 120x120x120 Size of SHIP: 5x2 Instructions to enter Size of ARK: 300x50x30\nHUGE SHIP cubits; 7 stories; 9 stadia ark cubits; 3 stories\ndivisions\nAll kinds of animals All kinds of animals 7(x2) clean, 2 unclean 2 of all animals\nFlood and STORM for 7 FLOOD from heavy rain FLOOD FLOOD from rain for 40 FLOOD; founts. of deep\ndays and STORM for 6 days days and rain, 150 days\nShip on Mt. Nisir Ark on Ararat\nAbatement of waters Abatement of waters Abatement of waters Abatement of waters\ntested by birds tested by birds tested by birds through drying wind\nSACRIFICE to Sun-god SACRIFICE with sweet SACRIFICE to gods, SACRIFICE with sweet Landing from ark [after\nin ship savour on mountain after landing and savour after landing year (+10 days)]\npaying adoration to\nEARTH\nAnu and Enlil appeased Ea's protest to ENLIL APOTHEOSIS of X., Divine promise to Noah Divine covenant not\n[by \"Heaven and Earth\"] IMMORTALITY of Ut-nap- wife, daughter, and not again to curse again to destroy EARTH\nIMMORTALITY of Ziusudu ishtim and his wife pilot the GROUND by flood; bow as sign\nAPPENDIX II\nTHE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND\nTHE SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST\nIt may be of assistance to the reader to repeat in tabular form the\nequivalents to the mythical kings of Berossus which are briefly\ndiscussed in Lecture I. In the following table the two new equations,\nobtained from the earliest section of the Sumerian Dynastic List, are\nin upper-case.[1] The established equations to other names are in\nnormal case, while those for which we should possibly seek other\nequivalents are enclosed within brackets.[2] Aruru has not been\nincluded as a possible equivalent for {'Aloros}.[3]\n1. {'Aloros}\n2. {'Alaparos [? 'Adaparos]}, /Alaporus/, /Alapaurus/ [Adapa]\n3. {'Amelon, 'Amillaros}, /Almelon/ [Am\u00ealu]\n4. {'Ammenon} ENMENUNNA\n5. {Megalaros, Megalanos}, /Amegalarus/\n6. {Daonos, Daos} ETANA\n7. {Euedorakhos, Euedoreskhos}, /Edoranchus/ Enmeduranki\n8. {'Amemphinos}, /Amemphsinus/ [Am\u00eal-Sin]\n9. {'Otiartes [? 'Opartes]} [Ubar-Tutu]\n10. {Xisouthros, Sisouthros, Sisithros} Khasisatra, Atrakhasis[4]\n[1] For the royal names of Berossus, see /Euseb. chron. lib. pri./,\ned. Schoene, cols. 7 f., 31 ff. The latinized variants correspond\nto forms in the Armenian translation of Eusebius.\n[2] For the principal discussions of equivalents, see Hommel, /Proc.\nSoc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol. XV (1893), pp. 243 ff., and /Die\naltorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte Testament/ (1902), pp. 23\nff.; Zimmern, /Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament/, 3rd\ned. (1902), pp. 531 ff.; and cf. Lenormant, /Les origines de\nl'histoire/, I (1880), pp. 214 ff. See also Driver, /Genesis/,\n10th ed. (1916), p. 80 f.; Skinner, /Genesis/, p. 137 f.; Ball,\n/Genesis/, p. 50; and Gordon, /Early Traditions of Genesis/, pp.\n46 ff.\n[3] There is a suggested equation of Lal-ur-alimma with {'Aloros}.\n[4] The hundred and twenty \"sars\", or 432,000 years assigned by\nBerossus for the duration of the Antediluvian dynasty, are\ndistributed as follows among the ten kings; the numbers are given\nbelow first in \"sars\", followed by their equivalents in years\nwithin brackets: 1. Ten \"sars\" (36,000); 2. Three (10,800); 3.\nThirteen (46,800); 4. Twelve (43,200); 5. Eighteen (64,800); 6.\nTen (36,000); 7. Eighteen (64,800); 8. Ten (36,000); 9. Eight\n(28,800); 10. Eighteen (64,800).\nFor comparison with Berossus it may be useful to abstract from the\nSumerian Dynastic List the royal names occurring in the earliest\nextant dynasties. They are given below with variant forms from\nduplicate copies of the list, and against each is added the number of\nyears its owner is recorded to have ruled. The figures giving the\ntotal duration of each dynasty, either in the summaries or under the\nseparate reigns, are sometimes not completely preserved; in such cases\nan x is added to the total of the figures still legible. Except in\nthose cases referred to in the foot-notes, all the names are written\nin the Sumerian lists without the determinative for \"god\".\nKINGDOM OF KISH\n(23 kings; 18,000 + x years, 3 months, 3 days)\n. . .[1]\n8. [. . .] 900(?) years\n9. Galumum, Kalumum 900 \"\n10. Zugagib, Zugakib 830 \"\n11. Arpi, Arpiu, Arbum 720 \"\n12. Etana[2] 635 (or 625) years\n13. Pili . . .[3] 410 years\n14. Enmenunna, Enmennunna[4] 611 \"\n15. Melamkish 900 \"\n16. Barsalnunna 1,200 \"\n17. Mesza[. . .] [. . .] \"\n. . .[5]\n22. . . . 900 years\n23. . . . 625 \"\nKINGDOM OF EANNA (ERECH)[6]\n(About 10-12 kings; 2,171 + x years)\n1. Meskingasher 325 years\n2. Enmerkar 420 \"\n3. Lugalbanda[7] 1,200 \"\n4. Dumuzi[8] (i.e. Tammuz) 100 \"\n5. Gishbilgames[9] (i.e. Gilgamesh) 126 (or 186) years\n6. [. . .]lugal [. . .] years\n. . .[10]\nKINGDOM OF UR\n(4 kings; 171 years)\n1. Mesannipada 80 years\n2. Meskiagnunna 30 \"\n3. Elu[. . .] 25 \"\n4. Balu[. . .] 36 \"\nKINGDOM OF AWAN\n(3 kings; 356 years)\n. . .[11]\n[1] Gap of seven, or possibly eight, names.\n[2] The name Etana is written in the lists with and without the\ndeterminative for \"god\".\n[3] The reading of the last sign in the name is unknown. A variant\nform of the name possibly begins with Bali.\n[4] This form is given on a fragment of a late Assyrian copy of the\nlist; cf. /Studies in Eastern History/, Vol. III, p. 143.\n[5] Gap of four, or possibly three, names.\n[6] Eanna was the great temple of Erech. In the Second Column of the\nlist \"the kingdom\" is recorded to have passed from Kish to Eanna,\nbut the latter name does not occur in the summary.\n[7] The name Lugalbanda is written in the lists with and without the\ndeterminative for \"god\".\n[8] The name Dumuzi is written in the list with the determinative for\n\"god\".\n[9] The name Gishbilgames is written in the list with the\ndeterminative for \"god\".\n[10] Gap of about four, five, or six kings.\n[11] Wanting.\nAt this point a great gap occurs in our principal list. The names of\nsome of the missing \"kingdoms\" may be inferred from the summaries, but\ntheir relative order is uncertain. Of two of them we know the\nduration, a second Kingdom of Ur containing four kings and lasting for\na hundred and eight years, and another kingdom, the name of which is\nnot preserved, consisting of only one king who ruled for seven years.\nThe dynastic succession only again becomes assured with the opening of\nthe Dynastic chronicle published by P\u00e8re Scheil and recently acquired\nby the British Museum. It will be noted that with the Kingdom of Ur\nthe separate reigns last for decades and not hundreds of years each,\nso that we here seem to approach genuine tradition, though the Kingdom\nof Awan makes a partial reversion to myth so far as its duration is\nconcerned. The two suggested equations with Antediluvian kings of\nBerossus both occur in the earliest Kingdom of Kish and lie well\nwithin the Sumerian mythical period. The second of the rulers\nconcerned, Enmenunna (Ammenon), is placed in Sumerian tradition\nseveral thousand years before the reputed succession of the gods\nLugalbanda and Tammuz and of the national hero Gilgamesh to the throne\nof Erech. In the first lecture some remarkable points of general\nresemblance have already been pointed out between Hebrew and Sumerian\ntraditions of these early ages of the world.\nEnd of the Project Gutenberg Etext of LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT","title":"Legends of Babylonia and Egypt","type":"page"}