{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2030/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2030","id":"gutenberg_2030","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2030","summary":null,"tags":["Babylonia -- Antiquities","Bible -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Bible. Old Testament -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Cosmogony, Babylonian","Creation","Deluge","Egypt","Egypt -- Antiquities","Mythology"],"text":"Produced by John Bickers; Dagny\n\n\n\n\n\nLEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\n\nBy Leonard W. King, M.A., Litt.D., F.S.A.\n\n\nAssistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British\nMuseum\n\nProfessor in the University of London King's College\n\n\nFirst Published 1918 by Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press.\n\n\nTHE BRITISH ACADEMY\n\nTHE SCHWEICH LECTURES 1916\n\n\n     PREPARER'S NOTE\n\n     This text was prepared from a 1920 edition of the book,\n     hence the references to dates after 1916 in some places.\n\n     Greek text has been transliterated within brackets \"{}\"\n     using an Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table.\n     Diacritical marks have been lost.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\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 when\nstudied against their contemporary background.\n\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 back\nto 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 the\nSemitic-Babylonian Versions at present known. But in matter the Sumerian\ntradition is more primitive than any of the Semitic versions. In spite\nof the fact that the text appears to have reached us in a magical\nsetting, and to some extent in epitomized form, this early document\nenables us to tap the stream of tradition at a point far above any at\nwhich approach has hitherto been possible.\n\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 his\nten Antediluvian kings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes. Moreover, the\nrecorded ages of Sumerian and Hebrew patriarchs are strangely alike.\nIt may be added that in Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo Stele has\nenabled us to verify, by a very similar comparison, the accuracy of\nManetho's sources for his prehistoric period, while at the same time\nit demonstrates the way in which possible inaccuracies in his system,\ndeduced from independent evidence, may have arisen in remote antiquity.\nIt is clear that both Hebrew and Hellenistic traditions were modelled on\nvery early lines.\n\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 Egypt,\nafter the conquests of Alexander had brought the Near East within the\nrange of their intimate acquaintance. The third body of tradition, that\nof the Hebrews, though unbacked by the prestige of secular achievement,\nhas, through incorporation in the canons of two great religious systems,\nacquired an authority which the others have not enjoyed. In re-examining\nthe sources of all three accounts, so far as they are affected by the\nnew discoveries, it will be of interest to observe how the same problems\nwere solved in antiquity by very different races, living under widely\ndivergent conditions, but within easy reach of one another. Their\nperiods of contact, ascertained in history or suggested by geographical\nconsiderations, will prompt the further question to what extent each\nbody of belief was evolved in independence of the others. The close\ncorrespondence that has long been recognized and is now confirmed\nbetween the Hebrew and the Semitic-Babylonian systems, as compared with\nthat of Egypt, naturally falls within the scope of our enquiry.\n\nExcavation has provided an extraordinarily full archaeological\ncommentary to the legends of Egypt and Babylon; and when I received the\ninvitation to deliver the Schweich Lectures for 1916, I was reminded of\nthe terms of the Bequest and was asked to emphasize the archaeological\nside of the subject. Such material illustration was also calculated to\nbring out, in a more vivid manner than was possible with purely literary\nevidence, the contrasts and parallels presented by Hebrew tradition.\nThanks to a special grant for photographs from the British Academy,\nI was enabled to illustrate by means of lantern slides many of the\nproblems discussed in the lectures; and it was originally intended that\nthe photographs then shown should appear as plates in this volume.\nBut in view of the continued and increasing shortage of paper, it\nwas afterwards felt to be only right that all illustrations should\nbe omitted. This very necessary decision has involved a recasting of\ncertain sections of the lectures as delivered, which in its turn has\nrendered possible a fuller treatment of the new literary evidence. To\nthe consequent shifting of interest is also due a transposition of names\nin the title. On their literary side, and in virtue of the intimacy of\ntheir relation to Hebrew tradition, the legends of Babylon must be given\nprecedence over those of Egypt.\n\nFor the delay in the appearance of the volume I must plead the pressure\nof other work, on subjects far removed from archaeological study\nand affording little time and few facilities for a continuance of\narchaeological 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.\n\nL. W. KING.\n\n\n\n\n\nLEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\n\nIN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I--EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME TRADITIONAL ORIGINS\nOF CIVILIZATION\n\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 have\nput aside our own interests and studies; and after the war we shall all\nhave a certain amount of leeway to make up in acquainting ourselves\nwith what has been going on in countries not yet involved in the great\nstruggle. Meanwhile the most we can do is to glance for a moment at any\ndiscovery of exceptional interest that may come to light.\n\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 some\nliterary texts, inscribed on tablets from Nippur, one of the oldest\nand most sacred cities of Babylonia. They are written in Sumerian, the\nlanguage spoken by the non-Semitic people whom the Semitic Babylonians\nconquered and displaced; and they include a very primitive version of\nthe Deluge story and Creation myth, and some texts which throw new light\non the age of Babylonian civilization and on the area within which it\nhad its rise. In them we have recovered some of the material from which\nBerossus derived his dynasty of Antediluvian kings, and we are thus\nenabled to test the accuracy of the Greek tradition by that of the\nSumerians themselves. So far then as Babylonia is concerned, these\ndocuments will necessitate a re-examination of more than one problem.\n\nThe myths and legends of ancient Egypt are also to some extent involved.\nThe trend of much recent anthropological research has been in the\ndirection of seeking a single place of origin for similar beliefs and\npractices, at least among races which were bound to one another by\npolitical or commercial ties. And we shall have occasion to test, by\nmeans of our new data, a recent theory of Egyptian influence. The Nile\nValley was, of course, one the great centres from which civilization\nradiated throughout the ancient East; and, even when direct contact\nis unproved, Egyptian literature may furnish instructive parallels and\ncontrasts in any study of Western Asiatic mythology. Moreover, by a\nstrange coincidence, there has also been published in Egypt since the\nbeginning of the war a record referring to the reigns of predynastic\nrulers in the Nile Valley. This, like some of the Nippur texts, takes us\nback to that dim period before the dawn of actual history, and, though\nthe information it affords is not detailed like theirs, it provides\nfresh confirmation of the general accuracy of Manetho's sources, and\nsuggests some interesting points for comparison.\n\nBut the people with whose traditions we are ultimately concerned are the\nHebrews. In the first series of Schweich Lectures, delivered in the year\n1908, the late Canon Driver showed how the literature of Assyria and\nBabylon had thrown light upon Hebrew traditions concerning the origin\nand early history of the world. The majority of the cuneiform documents,\non which he based his comparison, date from a period no earlier than the\nseventh century B.C., and yet it was clear that the texts themselves,\nin some form or other, must have descended from a remote antiquity. He\nconcluded his brief reference to the Creation and Deluge Tablets with\nthese words: \"The Babylonian narratives are both polytheistic, while\nthe corresponding biblical narratives (Gen. i and vi-xi) are made\nthe vehicle of a pure and exalted monotheism; but in spite of this\nfundamental difference, and also variations in detail, the resemblances\nare such as to leave no doubt that the Hebrew cosmogony and the Hebrew\nstory of the Deluge are both derived ultimately from the same original\nas the Babylonian narratives, only transformed by the magic touch of\nIsrael's religion, and infused by it with a new spirit.\"(1) Among the\nrecently published documents from Nippur we have at last recovered one\nat least of those primitive originals from which the Babylonian accounts\nwere derived, while others prove the existence of variant stories of the\nworld's origin 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 regard\nto the contents of those early chapters of Genesis.\n\n     (1) Driver, _Modern Research as illustrating the Bible_ (The\n     Schweich Lectures, 1908), p. 23.\n\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 the\nHebrew Bible. The object of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua is to\ndescribe in their origin the fundamental institutions of the national\nfaith and to trace from the earliest times the course of events which\nled to the Hebrew settlement in Palestine. Of this national history\nthe Book of Genesis forms the introductory section. Four centuries of\ncomplete silence lie between its close and the beginning of Exodus,\nwhere we enter on the history of a nation as contrasted with that of\na family.(1) While Exodus and the succeeding books contain national\ntraditions, Genesis is largely made up of individual biography. Chapters\nxii-l are concerned with the immediate ancestors of the Hebrew race,\nbeginning with Abram's migration into Canaan and closing with Joseph's\ndeath in Egypt. But the aim of the book is not confined to recounting\nthe ancestry of Israel. It seeks also to show her relation to other\npeoples in the world, and probing still deeper into the past it\ndescribes how the earth itself was prepared for man's habitation.\nThus the patriarchal biographies are preceded, in chapters i-xi, by an\naccount of the original of the world, the beginnings of civilization,\nand the distribution of the various races of mankind. It is, of course,\nwith certain parts of this first group of chapters that such striking\nparallels have long been recognized in the cuneiform texts.\n\n     (1) Cf., e.g., Skinner, _A Critical and Exegetical\n     Commentary on Genesis_ (1912), p. ii f.; Driver, _The Book\n     of Genesis_, 10th ed. (1916), pp. 1 ff.; Ryle, _The Book of\n     Genesis_ (1914), pp. x ff.\n\nIn approaching this particular body of Hebrew traditions, the necessity\nfor some caution will be apparent. It is not as though we were dealing\nwith the reported beliefs of a Malayan or Central Australian tribe. In\nsuch a case there would be no difficulty in applying a purely objective\ncriticism, without regard to ulterior consequences. But here our own\nfeelings are involved, having their roots deep in early associations.\nThe ground too is well trodden; and, had there been no new material to\ndiscuss, I think I should have preferred a less contentious theme. The\nnew material is my justification for the choice of subject, and also the\nfact that, whatever views we may hold, it will be necessary for us to\nassimilate it to them. I shall have no hesitation in giving you my own\nreading of the evidence; but at the same time it will be possible to\nindicate solutions which will probably appeal to those who view the\nsubject from more conservative standpoints. That side of the discussion\nmay well 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.\n\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 of\nAsia and Africa, flanked by the sea on one side and the desert on the\nother, a narrow causeway of highland and coastal plain connecting the\nvalleys of the Nile and the Euphrates.(1) For, except on the frontier of\nEgypt, desert and sea do not meet. Farther north the Arabian plateau is\nseparated from the Mediterranean by a double mountain chain, which runs\nsouth from the Taurus at varying elevations, and encloses in its lower\ncourse the remarkable depression of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and\nthe 'Arabah. The Judaean hills and the mountains of Moab are merely\nthe southward prolongation of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and their\nneighbourhood to the sea endows this narrow tract of habitable country\nwith its moisture and fertility. It thus formed the natural channel of\nintercourse between the two earliest centres of civilization, and was\nlater the battle-ground of their opposing empires.\n\n     (1) See G. A. Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy\n     Land_, pp. 5 ff., 45 ff., and Myres, _Dawn of History_, pp.\n     137 ff.; and cf. Hogarth, _The Nearer East_, pp. 65 ff., and\n     Reclus, _Nouvelle G\u00e9ographie universelle_, t. IX, pp. 685 ff.\n\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 its\nmost westerly point. Other through tracks in Palestine ran then as they\ndo to-day, by Beesheba and Hebron, or along the 'Arabah and west of the\nDead Sea, or through Edom and east of Jordan by the present Hajj route\nto Damascus. But the great highway from Egypt, the most westerly of\nthe trunk-roads through Palestine, was that mainly followed, with some\nvariant sections, by both caravans and armies, and was known by the\nHebrews in its southern course as the \"Way of the Philistines\" and\nfarther north as the \"Way of the East\".\n\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, they\ntoo have battled there when they held the southern country. Megiddo,\nwhich commands the main pass into the plain through the low Samaritan\nhills to the southeast of Carmel, was the site of Thothmes III's famous\nbattle against a Syrian confederation, and it inspired the writer of the\nApocalypse with his vision of an Armageddon of the future. But invading\narmies always followed the beaten track of caravans, and movements\nrepresented by the great campaigns were reflected in the daily passage\nof international commerce.\n\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 research\nin Palestine. Here again the explanation is mainly of a geographical\ncharacter. For though the plains and plateaus could be crossed by the\ntrunk-roads, the rest of the country is so broken up by mountain and\nvalley that it presented few facilities either to foreign penetration\nor to external control. The physical barriers to local intercourse,\nreinforced by striking differences in soil, altitude, and climate,\nwhile they precluded Syria herself from attaining national unity, always\ntended to protect her separate provinces, or \"kingdoms,\" from the\nfull effects of foreign aggression. One city-state could be traversed,\ndevastated, or annexed, without in the least degree affecting\nneighbouring areas. It is true that the population of Syria has always\nbeen predominantly Semitic, for she was on the fringe of the great\nbreeding-ground of the Semitic race and her landward boundary was open\nto the Arabian nomad. Indeed, in the whole course of her history the\nonly race that bade fair at one time to oust the Semite in Syria was the\nGreek. But the Greeks remained within the cities which they founded or\nrebuilt, and, as Robertson Smith pointed out, the death-rate in Eastern\ncities habitually exceeds the birth-rate; the urban population must be\nreinforced from the country if it is to be maintained, so that the type\nof population is ultimately determined by the blood of the peasantry.(1)\nHence after the Arab conquest the Greek elements in Syria and Palestine\ntended rapidly to disappear. The Moslem invasion was only the last of a\nseries of similar great inroads, which have followed one another since\nthe dawn of history, and during all that time absorption was continually\ntaking place from desert tribes that ranged the Syrian border. As we\nhave seen, the country of his adoption was such as to encourage\nthe Semitic nomad's particularism, which was inherent in his tribal\norganization. Thus the predominance of a single racial element in the\npopulation of Palestine and Syria did little to break down or overstep\nthe natural barriers and lines of cleavage.\n\n     (1) See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 12\n     f.; and cf. Smith, _Hist. Geogr._, p. 10 f.\n\nThese facts suffice to show why the influence of both Egypt and Babylon\nupon the various peoples and kingdoms of Palestine was only intensified\nat certain periods, when ambition for extended empire dictated the\nreduction of her provinces in detail. But in the long intervals,\nduring which there was no attempt to enforce political control, regular\nrelations were maintained along the lines of trade and barter. And in\nany estimate of the possible effect of foreign influence upon Hebrew\nthought, it is important to realize that some of the channels through\nwhich in later periods it may have acted had been flowing since the dawn\nof history, and even perhaps in prehistoric times. It is probable that\nSyria formed one of the links by which we may explain the Babylonian\nelements that are attested in prehistoric Egyptian culture.(1) But\nanother possible line of advance may have been by way of Arabia and\nacross the Red Sea into Upper Egypt.\n\n     (1) Cf. _Sumer and Akkad_, pp. 322 ff.; and for a full\n     discussion of the points of resemblance between the early\n     Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, see Sayce, _The\n     Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, chap. iv, pp.\n     101 ff.\n\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 falling\nin a thick mass upon the shoulder. On the other face of the handle is\ncarved a hunting scene, two hunters with dogs and desert animals\nbeing arranged around a central boss. But in the upper field is a very\nremarkable group, consisting of a personage struggling with two lions\narranged symmetrically. The rest of the composition is not very unlike\nother examples of prehistoric Egyptian carving in low relief, but here\nattitude, figure, and clothing are quite un-Egyptian. The hero wears\na sort of turban on his abundant hair, and a full and rounded beard\ndescends upon his breast. A long garment clothes him from the waist and\nfalls below the knees, his muscular calves ending in the claws of a bird\nof prey. There is nothing like this in prehistoric Egyptian art.\n\n     (1) See B\u00e9n\u00e9dite, \"Le couteau de Gebel al-'Arak\", in\n     _Foundation Eug\u00e8ne Piot, Mon. et. M\u00e9m._, XXII. i. (1916).\n\nPerhaps Monsieur B\u00e9n\u00e9dite is pressing his theme too far when he compares\nthe close-cropped warriors on the handle with the shaven Sumerians and\nElamites upon steles from Telloh and Susa, for their loin-girdles are\nAfrican and quite foreign to the Euphrates Valley. And his suggestion\nthat two of the boats, flat-bottomed and with high curved ends, seem\nonly to have navigated the Tigris and Euphrates,(1) will hardly command\nacceptance. But there is no doubt that the heroic personage upon the\nother face is represented in the familiar attitude of the Babylonian\nhero Gilgamesh struggling with lions, which formed so favourite a\nsubject upon early Sumerian and Babylonian seals. His garment is\nSumerian or Semitic rather than Egyptian, and the mixture of human and\nbird elements in the figure, though not precisely paralleled at\nthis early period, is not out of harmony with Mesopotamian or Susan\ntradition. His beard, too, is quite different from that of the Libyan\ndesert tribes which the early Egyptian kings adopted. Though the\ntreatment of the lions is suggestive of proto-Elamite rather than\nof early Babylonian models, the design itself is unmistakably of\nMesopotamian origin. This discovery intensifies the significance of\nother early parallels that have been noted between the civilizations of\nthe Euphrates and the Nile, but its evidence, so far as it goes, does\nnot point to Syria as the medium of prehistoric intercourse. Yet then,\nas later, there can have been no physical barrier to the use of the\nriver-route from Mesopotamia into Syria and of the tracks thence\nsouthward along the land-bridge to the Nile's delta.\n\n     (1) Op. cit., p. 32.\n\nIn the early historic periods we have definite evidence that the eastern\ncoast of the Levant exercised a strong fascination upon the rulers of\nboth Egypt and Babylonia. It may be admitted that Syria had little to\ngive in comparison to what she could borrow, but her local trade in wine\nand oil must have benefited by an increase in the through traffic which\nfollowed the working of copper in Cyprus and Sinai and of silver in\nthe Taurus. Moreover, in the cedar forests of Lebanon and the north\nshe possessed a product which was highly valued both in Egypt and\nthe treeless plains of Babylonia. The cedars procured by Sneferu from\nLebanon at the close of the IIIrd Dynasty were doubtless floated as\nrafts down the coast, and we may see in them evidence of a regular\ntraffic in timber. It has long been known that the early Babylonian\nking Sharru-kin, or Sargon of Akkad, had pressed up the Euphrates to the\nMediterranean, and we now have information that he too was fired by a\ndesire for precious wood and metal. One of the recently published Nippur\ninscriptions contains copies of a number of his texts, collected by\nan ancient scribe from his statues at Nippur, and from these we gather\nadditional details of his campaigns. We learn that after his complete\nsubjugation of Southern Babylonia he turned his attention to the west,\nand that Enlil gave him the lands \"from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea\",\ni.e. from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Fortunately this rather\nvague phrase, which survived in later tradition, is restated in greater\ndetail in one of the contemporary versions, which records that Enlil\n\"gave him the upper land, Mari, Iarmuti, and Ibla, as far as the Cedar\nForest and the Silver Mountains\".(1)\n\n     (1) See Poebel, _Historical Texts_ (Univ. of Penns. Mus.\n     Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, 1914), pp. 177 f., 222\n     ff.\n\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 this\ndistrict in the letters of Rib-Adda, governor of Byblos, we may infer\nthat it was a level district on the coast, capable of producing a\nconsiderable quantity of grain for export, and that it was under\nEgyptian control at the time of Amenophis IV. Hitherto its position has\nbeen conjecturally placed in the Nile Delta, but from Sargon's reference\nwe must probably seek it on the North Syrian or possibly the Cilician\ncoast. Perhaps, as Dr. Poebel suggests, it was the plain of Antioch,\nalong the lower course and at the mouth of the Orontes. But his further\nsuggestion that the term is used by Sargon for the whole stretch of\ncountry between the sea and the Euphrates is hardly probable. For\nthe geographical references need not be treated as exhaustive, but as\nconfined to the more important districts through which the expedition\npassed. The district of Ibla which is also mentioned by Nar\u00e2m-Sin and\nGudea, lay probably to the north of Iarmuti, perhaps on the southern\nslopes of Taurus. It, too, we may regard as a district of restricted\nextent rather than as a general geographical term for the extreme north\nof Syria.\n\n     (1) Thureau-Dangin, _Les inscriptions de Sumer de d'Akkad_,\n     p. 108 f., Statue B, col. v. 1. 28; Germ. ed., p. 68 f.\n\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 not\nwe identify the Khabiri with the Hebrews, the character of the latter's\nincursion is strikingly illustrated by some of the Tell el-Amarna\nletters. We see a nomad folk pressing in upon settled peoples and\ngaining a foothold here and there.(2)\n\n     (1) In some versions of his new records Sargon states that\n     \"5,400 men daily eat bread before him\" (see Poebel, op.\n     cit., p. 178); though the figure may be intended to convey\n     an idea of the size of Sargon's court, we may perhaps see in\n     it a not inaccurate estimate of the total strength of his\n     armed forces.\n\n     (2) See especially Professor Burney's forthcoming commentary\n     on Judges (passim), and his forthcoming Schweich Lectures\n     (now delivered, in 1917).\n\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 surroundings.\nThe same process had been going on, as we have seen, in Syria since the\ndawn of history, the Semitic nomad passing gradually through the stages\nof agricultural and village life into that of the city. The country\nfavoured the retention of tribal exclusiveness, but ultimate survival\ncould only be purchased at the cost of some amalgamation with their new\nneighbours. Below the surface of Hebrew history these two tendencies\nmay be traced in varying action and reaction. Some sections of the\nrace engaged readily in the social and commercial life of Canaanite\ncivilization with its rich inheritance from the past. Others, especially\nin the highlands of Judah and the south, at first succeeded in keeping\nthemselves remote from foreign influence. During the later periods of\nthe national life the country was again subjected, and in an intensified\ndegree, to those forces of political aggression from Mesopotamia and\nEgypt which we have already noted as operating in Canaan. But throughout\nthe settled Hebrew community as a whole the spark of desert fire was\nnot extinguished, and by kindling the zeal of the Prophets it eventually\naffected nearly all the white races of mankind.\n\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 assuming\nan interchange, not only of commercial products, but, in a minor degree,\nof ideas within areas geographically connected; and it is surely not\nderogatory to any Hebrew writer to suggest that he may have adopted, and\nused for his own purposes, conceptions current among his contemporaries.\nIn other words, the vehicle of religious ideas may well be of composite\norigin; and, in the course of our study of early Hebrew tradition, I\nsuggest that we hold ourselves justified in applying the comparative\nmethod to some at any rate of the ingredients which went to form the\nfinished product. The process is purely literary, but it finds an\nanalogy in the study of Semitic art, especially in the later periods.\nAnd I think it will make my meaning clearer if we consider for a moment\na few examples of sculpture produced by races of Semitic origin. I do\nnot suggest that we should regard the one process as in any way proving\nthe existence of the other. We should rather treat the comparison as\nillustrating in another medium the effect of forces which, it is clear,\nwere operative at various periods upon races of the same stock from\nwhich the Hebrews themselves were descended. In such material products\nthe eye at once detects the Semite's readiness to avail himself of\nforeign models. In some cases direct borrowing is obvious; in others, to\nadapt a metaphor from music, it is possible to trace extraneous _motifs_\nin the design.(2)\n\n     (1) \"New Archaeological Lights on the Origins of\n     Civilization in Europe,\" British Association, Newcastle-on-\n     Tyne, 1916.\n\n     (2) The necessary omission of plates, representing the\n     slides shown in the lectures, has involved a recasting of\n     most passages in which points of archaeological detail were\n     discussed; see Preface. But the following paragraphs have\n     been retained as the majority of the monuments referred to\n     are well known.\n\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 the\nSidonian 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 was\nsculptured in Egypt and transported to Sidon by sea. But the king's own\nengravers added the long Phoenician inscription, in which he adjures\nprinces and men not to open his resting-place since there are no jewels\ntherein, concluding with some potent curses against any violation of his\ntomb. One of the latter implores the holy gods to deliver such violators\nup \"to a mighty prince who shall rule over them\", and was probably\nsuggested by Alexander's recent occupation of Sidon in 332 B.C. after\nhis reduction and drastic punishment of Tyre. King Eshmun-'zar was not\nunique in his choice of burial in an Egyptian coffin, for he merely\nfollowed the example of his royal father, Tabn\u00eeth, \"priest of\n'Ashtart and king of the Sidonians\", whose sarcophagus, preserved at\nConstantinople, still bears in addition to his own epitaph that of\nits former occupant, a certain Egyptian general Penptah. But more\ninstructive than these borrowed memorials is a genuine example of\nPhoenician work, the stele set up by Yehaw-milk, king of Byblos, and\ndating from the fourth or fifth century B.C.(2) In the sculptured panel\nat the head of the stele the king is represented in the Persian dress of\nthe period standing in the presence of 'Ashtart or Astarte, his \"Lady,\nMistress of Byblos\". There is no doubt that the stele is of native\nworkmanship, but the influence of Egypt may be seen in the technique of\nthe carving, in the winged disk above the figures, and still more in the\nrepresentation of the goddess in her character as the Egyptian Hathor,\nwith disk and horns, vulture head-dress and papyrus-sceptre. The\ninscription records the dedication of an altar and shrine to the\ngoddess, and these too we may conjecture were fashioned on Egyptian\nlines.\n\n     (1) _Corp. Inscr. Semit._, I. i, tab. II.\n\n     (2) _C.I.S._, I. i, tab. I.\n\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\na patroness of love and fecundity, was also sometimes modelled on\nHathor.(1)\n\n     (1) See W. Max M\u00fcller, _Egyptological Researches_, I, p. 32\n     f., pl. 41, and S. A. Cook, _Religion of Ancient Palestine_,\n     pp. 83 ff.\n\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 the\nNile, close to the old Egyptian highway into Syria, a site which may be\nidentified with that of the biblical Tahpanhes and the Daphnae of the\nGreeks. Here it was that the Jewish fugitives, fleeing with Jeremiah\nafter the fall of Jerusalem, founded a Jewish colony beside a\nflourishing Phoenician and Aramaean settlement. One of the local gods of\nTahpanhes is represented on the Cairo monument, an Egyptian stele in the\nform of a naos with the winged solar disk upon its frieze. He stands\non the back of a lion and is clothed in Asiatic costume with the high\nSyrian tiara crowning his abundant hair. The Syrian workmanship is\nobvious, and the Syrian character of the cult may be recognized in such\ndetails as the small brazen fire-altar before the god, and the sacred\npillar which is being anointed by the officiating priest. But the god\nholds in his left hand a purely Egyptian sceptre and in his right an\nemblem as purely Babylonian, the weapon of Marduk and Gilgamesh which\nwas also wielded by early Sumerian kings.\n\n     (1) M\u00fcller, op. cit., p. 30 f., pl. 40. Numismatic evidence\n     exhibits a similar readiness on the part of local Syrian\n     cults to adopt the veneer of Hellenistic civilization while\n     retaining in great measure their own individuality; see\n     Hill, \"Some Palestinian Cults in the Graeco-Roman Age\", in\n     _Proceedings of the British Academy_, Vol. V (1912).\n\nThe Elephantine papyri have shown that the early Jews of the Diaspora,\nthough untrammeled by the orthodoxy of Jerusalem, maintained the purity\nof their local cult in the face of considerable difficulties. Hence the\ngravestones of their Aramaean contemporaries, which have been found in\nEgypt, can only be cited to illustrate the temptations to which they\nwere exposed.(1) Such was the memorial erected by Abseli to the memory\nof his parents, Abb\u00e2 and Ahatb\u00fb, in the fourth year of Xerxes, 481\nB.C.(2) They had evidently adopted the religion of Osiris, and were\nburied at Saqq\u00e2rah in accordance with the Egyptian rites. The upper\nscene engraved upon the stele represents Abb\u00e2 and his wife in the\npresence of Osiris, who is attended by Isis and Nephthys; and in the\nlower 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, prove\nthat the work is Aramaean throughout.(3)\n\n     (1) It may be admitted that the Greek platonized cult of\n     Isis and Osiris had its origin in the fusion of Greeks and\n     Egyptians which took place in Ptolemaic times (cf. Scott-\n     Moncrieff, _Paganism and Christianity in Egypt_, p. 33 f.).\n     But we may assume that already in the Persian period the\n     Osiris cult had begun to acquire a tinge of mysticism,\n     which, though it did not affect the mechanical reproduction\n     of the native texts, appealed to the Oriental mind as well\n     as to certain elements in Greek religion. Persian influence\n     probably prepared the way for the Platonic exegesis of the\n     Osiris and Isis legends which we find in Plutarch; and the\n     latter may have been in great measure a development, and\n     not, as is often assumed, a complete misunderstanding of the\n     later Egyptian cult.\n\n     (2) _C.I.S._, II. i, tab. XI, No. 122.\n\n     (3) A very similar monument is the Carpentras Stele\n     (_C.I.S._, II., i, tab. XIII, No. 141), commemorating Taba,\n     daughter of Tahapi, an Aramaean lady who was also a convert\n     to Osiris. It is rather later than that of Abb\u00e2 and his\n     wife, since the Aramaic characters are transitional from the\n     archaic to the square alphabet; see Driver, _Notes on the\n     Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_, pp. xviii ff., and\n     Cooke, _North Semitic Inscriptions_, p. 205 f. The Vatican\n     Stele (op. cit. tab. XIV. No. 142), which dates from the\n     fourth century, represents inferior work.\n\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\nlargely Aramaean. 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 Syrian\nprincipalities which resulted from this racial combination, but the\nAramaean element, thanks to continual reinforcement, was numerically\ndominant, and their art may legitimately be regarded as in great measure\na Semitic product. Fortunately we have recovered examples of sculpture\nwhich prove that tendencies already noted in the Persian period were\nat work, though in a minor degree, under the later Assyrian empire.\nThe discoveries made at Zenjirli, for example, illustrate the gradually\nincreasing effect of Assyrian influence upon the artistic output of a\nsmall North Syrian state.\n\n     (1) Cf. Bevan, _House of Seleucus_, Vol. I, pp. 5, 260 f.\n     The artistic influence of Mesopotamia was even more widely\n     spread than that of Egypt during the Persian period. This is\n     suggested, for example, by the famous lion-weight discovered\n     at Abydos in Mysia, the town on the Hellespont famed for the\n     loves of Hero and Leander. The letters of its Aramaic\n     inscription (_C.I.S._, II. i, tab. VII, No. 108) prove by\n     their form that it dates from the Persian period, and its\n     provenance is sufficiently attested. Its weight moreover\n     suggests that it was not merely a Babylonian or Persian\n     importation, but cast for local use, yet in design and\n     technique it is scarcely distinguishable from the best\n     Assyrian work of the seventh century.\n\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 or\njust within the Syrian district of Sam'al. The latter is first mentioned\nin the Assyrian inscriptions by Shalmaneser III, the son and successor\nof the great conqueror, Ashur-nasir-pal; and in the first half of the\neighth century, though within the radius of Assyrian influence, it was\nstill an independent kingdom. It is to this period that we must assign\nthe earliest of the inscribed monuments discovered at Zenjirli and\nits neighbourhood. At Gerjin, not far to the north-west, was found\nthe colossal statue of Hadad, chief god of the Aramaeans, which was\nfashioned and set up in his honour by Panammu I, son of Qaral and king\nof Ya'di.(1) In the long Aramaic inscription engraved upon the statue\nPanammu records the prosperity of his reign, which he ascribes to the\nsupport he has received from Hadad and his other gods, El, Reshef,\nRekub-el, and Shamash. He had evidently been left in peace by Assyria,\nand the monument he erected to his god is of Aramaean workmanship and\ndesign. But the influence of Assyria may be traced in Hadad's beard\nand in his horned head-dress, modelled on that worn by Babylonian and\nAssyrian gods as the symbol of divine power.\n\n     (1) See F. von Luschan, _Sendschirli_, I. (1893), pp. 49\n     ff., pl. vi; and cf. Cooke, _North Sem. Inscr._, pp. 159 ff.\n     The characters of the inscription on the statue are of the\n     same archaic type as those of the Moabite Stone, though\n     unlike them they are engraved in relief; so too are the\n     inscriptions of Panammu's later successor Bar-rekub (see\n     below). Gerjin was certainly in Ya'di, and Winckler's\n     suggestion that Zenjirli itself also lay in that district\n     but near the border of Sam'al may be provisionally accepted;\n     the occurrence of the names in the inscriptions can be\n     explained in more than one way (see Cooke, op. cit., p.\n     183).\n\nThe political changes introduced into Ya'di and Sam'al by\nTiglath-pileser 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, and\nas a reward for his loyalty, that Ya'di was united with the neighbouring\ndistrict of Sam'al. But Panammu's devotion to his foreign master led to\nhis death, for he died at the siege of Damascus, in 733 or 732 B.C., \"in\nthe camp, while following his lord, Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria\".\nHis kinsfolk and the whole camp bewailed him, and his body was sent\nback to Ya'di, where it was interred by his son, who set up an inscribed\nstatue to his memory. Bar-rekub followed in his father's footsteps, as\nhe leads us to infer in his palace-inscription found at Zenjirli: \"I\nran at the wheel of my lord, the king of Assyria, in the midst of mighty\nkings, possessors of silver and possessors of gold.\" It is not strange\ntherefore that his art should reflect Assyrian influence far more\nstrikingly than that of Panammu I. The figure of himself which he caused\nto be carved in relief on the left side of the palace-inscription is\nin the Assyrian style,(1) and so too is another of his reliefs from\nZenjirli. On the latter Bar-rekub is represented seated upon his throne\nwith eunuch and scribe in attendance, while in the field is the emblem\nof full moon and crescent, here ascribed to \"Ba'al of Harran\", the\nfamous centre of moon-worship in Northern Mesopotamia.(2)\n\n     (1) _Sendschirli_, IV (1911), pl. lxvii. Attitude and\n     treatment of robes are both Assyrian, and so is the\n     arrangement of divine symbols in the upper field, though\n     some of the latter are given under unfamiliar forms. The\n     king's close-fitting peaked cap was evidently the royal\n     headdress of Sam'al; see the royal figure on a smaller stele\n     of inferior design, op. cit., pl. lxvi.\n\n     (2) Op. cit. pp. 257, 346 ff., and pl. lx. The general style\n     of the sculpture and much of the detail are obviously\n     Assyrian. Assyrian influence is particularly noticeable in\n     Bar-rekub's throne; the details of its decoration are\n     precisely similar to those of an Assyrian bronze throne in\n     the British Museum. The full moon and crescent are not of\n     the familiar form, but are mounted on a standard with\n     tassels.\n\nThe detailed history and artistic development of Sam'al and Ya'di convey\na very vivid impression of the social and material effects upon the\nnative 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\nof Syrian 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\nthe reliefs 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 employment\nof basalt in place of limestone does not disguise the sculptor's debt\nto Assyria. But the design is entirely his own, and the combined dignity\nand homeliness of the composition are refreshingly superior to the\narrogant spirit and hard execution which mar so much Assyrian work. This\nexample is particularly instructive, as it shows how a borrowed art may\nbe developed in skilled hands and made to serve a purpose in complete\nharmony with its new environment.\n\n     (1) _Collection de Clercq_, t. II, pl. xxxvi. The stele is\n     sculptured in relief with the figure of a North Syrian god.\n     Here the winged disk is Egyptian, as well as the god's\n     helmet with uraeus, and his loin-cloth; his attitude and his\n     supporting lion are Hittite; and the lozenge-mountains, on\n     which the lion stands, and the technique of the carving are\n     Assyrian. But in spite of its composite character the design\n     is quite successful and not in the least incongruous.\n\n     (2) Hogarth, _Carchemish_, Pt. I (1914), pl. B. 7 f.\n\n     (3) Two of the older boys play at knuckle-bones, others whip\n     spinning-tops, and a little naked girl runs behind\n     supporting herself with a stick, on the head of which is\n     carved a bird. The procession is brought up by the queen-\n     mother, who carries the youngest baby and leads a pet lamb.\n\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 thought,\nwhen it relates that Solomon employed Tyrian craftsmen for work upon the\nTemple and its furniture; for Phoenician art was essentially Egyptian in\nits origin and general character. Even Eshmun-'zar's desire for burial\nin an Egyptian sarcophagus may be paralleled in Hebrew tradition of\na much earlier period, when, in the last verse of Genesis,(1) it is\nrecorded that Joseph died, \"and they embalmed him, and he was put in a\ncoffin in Egypt\". Since it formed the subject of prophetic denunciation,\nI refrain for the moment from citing the notorious adoption of Assyrian\ncustoms at certain periods of the later Judaean monarchy. The two\nrecords I have referred to will suffice, for we have in them cherished\ntraditions, of which the Hebrews themselves were proud, concerning the\nmost famous example of Hebrew religious architecture and the burial of\none of the patriarchs of the race. A similar readiness to make use of\nthe best available resources, even of foreign origin, may on analogy be\nregarded as at least possible in the composition of Hebrew literature.\n\n     (1) Gen. l. 26, assigned by critics to E.\n\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 demonstrate\nhow Babylonian influence penetrated the ancient world and has even left\nsome trace upon modern civilization. It is a fact, though one perhaps\nnot generally realized, that the twelve divisions on the dials of\nour clocks and watches have a Babylonian, and ultimately a Sumerian,\nancestry. For why is it we divide the day into twenty-four hours? We\nhave a decimal system of reckoning, we count by tens; why then should we\ndivide the day and night into twelve hours each, instead of into ten or\nsome multiple of ten? The reason is that the Babylonians divided the day\ninto twelve double-hours; and the Greeks took over their ancient system\nof time-division along with their knowledge of astronomy and passed it\non to us. So if we ourselves, after more than two thousand years, are\nmaking use of an old custom from Babylon, it would not be surprising if\nthe Hebrews, a contemporary race, should have fallen under her influence\neven before they were carried away as captives and settled forcibly upon\nher river-banks.\n\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 extensive\nruins. No modern town or village has been built upon them or in their\nimmediate neighbourhood. The nearest considerable town is D\u00eew\u00e2n\u00eeyah, on\nthe left bank of the Hillah branch of the Euphrates, twenty miles to the\nsouth-west; but some four miles to the south of the ruins is the village\nof S\u00fbq el-'Afej, on the eastern edge of the 'Afej marshes, which begin\nto the south of Nippur and stretch away westward. Protected by its\nswamps, the region contains a few primitive settlements of the wild\n'Afej tribesmen, each a group of reed-huts clustering around the mud\nfort of its ruling sheikh. Their chief enemies are the Shamm\u00e2r, who\ndispute with them possession of the pastures. In summer the marshes near\nthe mounds are merely pools of water connected by channels through\nthe reed-beds, but in spring the flood-water converts them into a vast\nlagoon, and all that meets the eye are a few small hamlets built on\nrising knolls above the water-level. Thus Nippur may be almost isolated\nduring the floods, but the mounds are protected from the waters'\nencroachment by an outer ring of former habitation which has slightly\nraised the level of the encircling area. The ruins of the city stand\nfrom thirty to seventy feet above the plain, and in the north-eastern\ncorner there rose, before the excavations, a conical mound, known by\nthe Arabs as _Bint el-Em\u00eer_ or \"The Princess\". This prominent landmark\nrepresents the temple-tower of Enlil's famous sanctuary, and even after\nexcavation it is still the first object that the approaching traveller\nsees on the horizon. When he has climbed its summit he enjoys an\nuninterrupted view over desert and swamp.\n\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. Here\nmore than thirty thousand contracts and accounts, dating from the fourth\nmillennium to the fifth century B.C., were found in houses along the\nformer river-bank. In the eastern half of the city was Enlil's great\ntemple Ekur, with its temple-tower Imkharsag rising in successive stages\nbeside it. The huge temple-enclosure contained not only the sacrificial\nshrines, but also the priests' apartments, store-chambers, and\ntemple-magazines. Outside its enclosing wall, to the south-west, a large\ntriangular mound, christened \"Tablet Hill\" by the excavators, yielded\na further supply of records. In addition to business-documents of the\nFirst Dynasty of Babylon and of the later Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian,\nand Persian periods, between two and three thousand literary texts and\nfragments were discovered here, many of them dating from the Sumerian\nperiod. And it is possible that some of the early literary texts that\nhave been published were obtained in other parts of the city.\n\nNo less than twenty-one different strata, representing separate periods\nof occupation, have been noted by the American excavators at various\nlevels within the Nippur mounds,(1) the earliest descending to virgin\nsoil some twenty feet below the present level of the surrounding plain.\nThe remote date of Nippur's foundation as a city and cult-centre\nis attested by the fact that the pavement laid by Nar\u00e2m-Sin in the\nsouth-eastern temple-court lies thirty feet above virgin soil, while\nonly thirty-six feet of superimposed _d\u00e9bris_ represent the succeeding\nmillennia of occupation down to Sassanian and early Arab times. In\nthe period of the Hebrew captivity the city still ranked as a great\ncommercial market and as one of the most sacred repositories of\nBabylonian religious tradition. We know that not far off was Tel-abib,\nthe seat of one of the colonies of Jewish exiles, for that lay \"by the\nriver of Chebar\",(2) which we may identify with the Kabaru Canal in\nNippur's immediate neighbourhood. It was \"among the captives by the\nriver Chebar\" that Ezekiel lived and prophesied, and it was on Chebar's\nbanks that he saw his first vision of the Cherubim.(3) He and other of\nthe Jewish exiles may perhaps have mingled with the motley crowd that\nonce thronged the streets of Nippur, and they may often have gazed on\nthe huge temple-tower which rose above the city's flat roofs. We know\nthat the later population of Nippur itself included a considerable\nJewish element, for the upper strata of the mounds have yielded numerous\nclay bowls with Hebrew, Mandaean, and Syriac magical inscriptions;(4)\nand not the least interesting of the objects recovered was the wooden\nbox of a Jewish scribe, containing his pen and ink-vessel and a little\nscrap of crumbling parchment inscribed with a few Hebrew characters.(5)\n\n     (1) See Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, pp. 289\n     ff., 540 ff.; and Fisher, _Excavations at Nippur_, Pt. I\n     (1905), Pt. II (1906).\n\n     (2) Ezek. iii. 15.\n\n     (3) Ezek. i. 1, 3; iii. 23; and cf. x. 15, 20, 22, and\n     xliii. 3.\n\n     (4) See J. A. Montgomery, _Aramaic Incantation Texts from\n     Nippur_, 1913\n\n     (5) Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 555 f.\n\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 Museum.\nBut under the present energetic Director of the Museum, Dr. G. B.\nGordon, the process of arranging and publishing the mass of literary\nmaterial has been \"speeded up\". A staff of skilled workmen has been\nemployed on the laborious task of cleaning the broken tablets and\nfitting the fragments together. At the same time the help of several\nAssyriologists was welcomed in the further task of running over and\nsorting the collections as they were prepared for study. Professor Clay,\nProfessor Barton, Dr. Langdon, Dr. Edward Chiera, and Dr. Arno Poebel\nhave all participated in the work. But the lion's share has fallen to\nthe last-named scholar, who was given leave of absence by John\nHopkins University in order to take up a temporary appointment at the\nPennsylvania Museum. The result of his labours was published by the\nMuseum at the end of 1914.(1) The texts thus made available for study\nare of very varied interest. A great body of them are grammatical\nand represent compilations made by Semitic scribes of the period\nof Hammurabi's dynasty for their study of the old Sumerian tongue.\nContaining, as most of them do, Semitic renderings of the Sumerian words\nand expressions collected, they are as great a help to us in our study\nof Sumerian language as they were to their compilers; in particular they\nhave thrown much new light on the paradigms of the demonstrative and\npersonal pronouns and on Sumerian verbal forms. But literary texts are\nalso included in the recent publications.\n\n     (1) Poebel, _Historical Texts_ and _Historical and\n     Grammatical Texts_ (Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect.,\n     Vol. IV, No. 1, and Vol. V), Philadelphia, 1914.\n\nWhen the Pennsylvania Museum sent out its first expedition, lively hopes\nwere entertained that the site selected would yield material of interest\nfrom the biblical standpoint. The city of Nippur, as we have seen,\nwas 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 of\nthe Babylonian legends which were current at the dawn of history before\nthe city of Babylonia and its Semitic inhabitants came upon the scene.\nThis expectation has proved to be not unfounded, for the literary\ntexts include the Sumerian Deluge Version and Creation myth to which I\nreferred at the beginning of the lecture. Other texts of almost equal\ninterest consist of early though fragmentary lists of historical and\nsemi-mythical rulers. They prove that Berossus and the later Babylonians\ndepended on material of quite early origin in compiling their dynasties\nof semi-mythical kings. In them we obtain a glimpse of ages more remote\nthan any on which excavation in Babylonia has yet thrown light, and for\nthe first time we have recovered genuine native tradition of early date\nwith regard to the cradle of Babylonian culture. Before we approach the\nSumerian legends themselves, it will be as well to-day to trace back\nin this tradition the gradual merging of history into legend and myth,\ncomparing at the same time the ancient Egyptian's picture of his own\nremote past. We will also ascertain whether any new light is thrown by\nour inquiry upon Hebrew traditions concerning the earliest history of\nthe human race and the origins of civilization.\n\nIn the study of both Egyptian and Babylonian chronology there has been a\ntendency of late years to reduce the very early dates that were formerly\nin fashion. But in Egypt, while the dynasties of Manetho have been\ntelescoped in places, excavation has thrown light on predynastic\nperiods, and we can now trace the history of culture in the Nile Valley\nback, through an unbroken sequence, to its neolithic stage. Quite\nrecently, too, as I mentioned just now, a fresh literary record of\nthese early predynastic periods has been recovered, on a fragment of\nthe famous Palermo Stele, our most valuable monument for early Egyptian\nhistory and chronology. Egypt presents a striking contrast to Babylonia\nin the comparatively small number of written records which have survived\nfor the reconstruction of her history. We might well spare much of\nher religious literature, enshrined in endless temple-inscriptions and\npapyri, if we could but exchange it for some of the royal annals of\nEgyptian Pharaohs. That historical records of this character were\ncompiled by the Egyptian scribes, and that they were as detailed and\nprecise in their information as those we have recovered from Assyrian\nsources, is clear from the few extracts from the annals of Thothmes\nIII's wars which are engraved on the walls of the temple at Karnak.(1)\nAs in Babylonia and Assyria, such records must have formed the\nfoundation on which summaries of chronicles of past Egyptian history\nwere based. In the Palermo Stele it is recognized that we possess a\nprimitive chronicle of this character.\n\n     (1) See Breasted, _Ancient Records_, I, p. 4, II, pp. 163\n     ff.\n\nDrawn up as early as the Vth Dynasty, its historical summary proves that\nfrom the beginning of the dynastic age onward a yearly record was kept\nof the most important achievements of the reigning Pharaoh. In this\nfragmentary but invaluable epitome, recording in outline much of the\nhistory of the Old Kingdom,(1) some interesting parallels have long been\nnoted with Babylonian usage. The early system of time-reckoning, for\nexample, was the same in both countries, each year being given an\nofficial title from the chief event that occurred in it. And although in\nBabylonia we are still without material for tracing the process by which\nthis cumbrous method gave place to that of reckoning by regnal years,\nthe Palermo Stele demonstrates the way in which the latter system was\nevolved in Egypt. For the events from which the year was named came\ngradually to be confined to the fiscal \"numberings\" of cattle and land.\nAnd when these, which at first had taken place at comparatively long\nintervals, had become annual events, the numbered sequence of their\noccurrence corresponded precisely to the years of the king's reign. On\nthe stele, during the dynastic period, each regnal year is allotted its\nown space or rectangle,(2) arranged in horizontal sequence below the\nname and titles of the ruling king.\n\n(1) Op. cit., I, pp. 57 ff.\n\n(2) The spaces are not strictly rectangles, as each is divided\nvertically from the next by the Egyptian hieroglyph for \"year\".\n\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 undoubtedly\nbelongs to the same monument as the Palermo fragment, while the others\nmay represent parts of one or more duplicate copies of that famous text.\nOne of the four Cairo fragments(1) was found by a digger for _sebakh_\nat Mitrah\u00eeneh (Memphis); the other three, which were purchased from a\ndealer, are said to have come from Minieh, while the fifth fragment,\nat University College, is also said to have come from Upper Egypt,(2)\nthough it was purchased by Professor Petrie while at Memphis. These\nreports suggest that a number of duplicate copies were engraved and set\nup in different Egyptian towns, and it is possible that the whole of the\ntext may eventually be recovered. The choice of basalt for the records\nwas obviously dictated by a desire for their preservation, but it has\nhad the contrary effect; for the blocks of this hard and precious\nstone have been cut up and reused in later times. The largest and\nmost interesting of the new fragments has evidently been employed as a\ndoor-sill, with the result that its surface is much rubbed and parts of\nits text are unfortunately almost undecipherable. We shall see that the\nearliest section of its record has an important bearing on our knowledge\nof Egyptian predynastic history and on the traditions of that remote\nperiod which have come down to us from the history of Manetho.\n\n(1) See Gautier, _Le Mus\u00e9e \u00c9gyptien_, III (1915), pp. 29 ff., pl.\nxxiv ff., and Foucart, _Bulletin de l'Institut Fran\u00e7ais d'Arch\u00e9ologie\nOrientale_, XII, ii (1916), pp. 161 ff.; and cf. Gardiner, _Journ. of\nEgypt. Arch._, III, pp. 143 ff., and Petrie, _Ancient Egypt_, 1916, Pt.\nIII, pp. 114 ff.\n\n(2) Cf. Petrie, op. cit., pp. 115, 120.\n\nFrom the fragment of the stele preserved at Palermo we already knew that\nits record went back beyond the Ist Dynasty into predynastic times.\nFor part of the top band of the inscription, which is there preserved,\ncontains nine names borne by kings of Lower Egypt or the Delta, which,\nit had been conjectured, must follow the gods of Manetho and precede\nthe \"Worshippers of Horus\", the immediate predecessors of the Egyptian\ndynasties.(1) But of contemporary rulers of Upper Egypt we had hitherto\nno knowledge, since the supposed royal names discovered at Abydos and\nassigned to the time of the \"Worshippers of Horus\" are probably not\nroyal names at all.(2) With the possible exception of two very archaic\nslate palettes, the first historical memorials recovered from the\nsouth do not date from an earlier period than the beginning of the Ist\nDynasty. The largest of the Cairo fragments now helps us to fill in this\ngap in our knowledge.\n\n     (1) See Breasted, _Anc. Rec._, I, pp. 52, 57.\n\n     (2) Cf. Hall, _Ancient History of the Near East_, p. 99 f.\n\nOn the top of the new fragment(1) we meet the same band of rectangles as\nat Palermo,(2) but here their upper portions are broken away, and there\nonly remains at the base of each of them the outlined figure of a royal\npersonage, seated in the same attitude as those on the Palermo stone.\nThe remarkable fact about these figures is that, with the apparent\nexception of the third figure from the right,(3) each wears, not the\nCrown of the North, as at Palermo, but the Crown of the South. We have\nthen to do with kings of Upper Egypt, not the Delta, and it is no longer\npossible to suppose that the predynastic rulers of the Palermo Stele\nwere confined to those of Lower Egypt, as reflecting northern tradition.\nRulers of both halves of the country are represented, and Monsieur\nGautier has shown,(4) from data on the reverse of the inscription, that\nthe kings of the Delta were arranged on the original stone before the\nrulers of the south who are outlined upon our new fragment. Moreover, we\nhave now recovered definite proof that this band of the inscription is\nconcerned with predynastic Egyptian princes; for the cartouche of the\nking, whose years are enumerated in the second band immediately below\nthe kings of the south, reads Athet, a name we may with certainty\nidentify with Athothes, the second successor of Menes, founder of the\nIst Dynasty, which is already given under the form Ateth in the Abydos\nList of Kings.(5) It is thus quite certain that the first band of the\ninscription relates to the earlier periods before the two halves of the\ncountry were brought together under a single ruler.\n\n     (1) Cairo No. 1; see Gautier, _Mus. \u00c9gypt._, III, pl. xxiv\n     f.\n\n     (2) In this upper band the spaces are true rectangles, being\n     separated by vertical lines, not by the hieroglyph for\n     \"year\" as in the lower bands; and each rectangle is assigned\n     to a separate king, and not, as in the other bands, to a\n     year of a king's reign.\n\n     (3) The difference in the crown worn by this figure is\n     probably only apparent and not intentional; M. Foucart,\n     after a careful examination of the fragment, concludes that\n     it is due to subsequent damage or to an original defect in\n     the stone; cf. _Bulletin_, XII, ii, p. 162.\n\n     (4) Op. cit., p. 32 f.\n\n     (5) In Manetho's list he corresponds to {Kenkenos}, the\n     second successor of Menes according to both Africanus and\n     Eusebius, who assign the name Athothis to the second ruler\n     of the dynasty only, the Teta of the Abydos List. The form\n     Athothes is preserved by Eratosthenes for both of Menes'\n     immediate successors.\n\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 should\nhave, as we shall see, a striking parallel to early Sumerian tradition.\nBut in the first extant portions of the Palermo text we are already in\nthe realm of genuine tradition. The names preserved appear to be those\nof individuals, not of mythological creations, and we may assume that\ntheir owners really existed. For though the invention of writing had\nnot at that time been achieved, its place was probably taken by oral\ntradition. We know that with certain tribes of Africa at the present\nday, who possess no knowledge of writing, there are functionaries\ncharged with the duty of preserving tribal traditions, who transmit\norally to their successors a remembrance of past chiefs and some details\nof events that occurred centuries before.(1) The predynastic Egyptians\nmay well have adopted similar means for preserving a remembrance of\ntheir past history.\n\n     (1) M. Foucart illustrates this point by citing the case of\n     the Bushongos, who have in this way preserved a list of no\n     less than a hundred and twenty-one of their past kings; op.\n     cit., p. 182, and cf. Tordey and Joyce, \"Les Bushongos\", in\n     _Annales du Mus\u00e9e du Congo Belge_, s\u00e9r. III, t. II, fasc. i\n     (Brussels, 1911).\n\nMoreover, the new text furnishes fresh proof of the general accuracy of\nManetho, 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 contemporaneous\nrulers in parallel columns had not been evolved in antiquity, and\nwithout some such method of distinction contemporaneous rulers, when\nenumerated in a list, can only be registered consecutively. It would be\nnatural to assume that, before the unification of Egypt by the founder\nof the Ist Dynasty, the rulers of North and South were independent\nprinces, possessing no traditions of a united throne on which any claim\nto hegemony could be based. On the assumption that this was so, their\narrangement in a consecutive series would not have deceived their\nimmediate successors. But it would undoubtedly tend in course of time to\nobliterate the tradition of their true order, which even at the period\nof the Vth Dynasty may have been completely forgotten. Manetho would\nthus have introduced no strange or novel confusion; and this explanation\nwould of course apply to other sections of his system where the\ndynasties he enumerates appear to be too many for their period. But his\nreproduction of two lines of predynastic rulers, supported as it now is\nby the early evidence of the Palermo text, only serves to increase our\nconfidence in the general accuracy of his sources, while at the\nsame time it illustrates very effectively the way in which possible\ninaccuracies, deduced from independent data, may have arisen in quite\nearly times.\n\n     (1) Foucart, loc. cit.\n\nIn contrast to the dynasties of Manetho, those of Berossus are\nso imperfectly preserved that they have never formed the basis of\nBabylonian chronology.(1) But here too, in the chronological scheme,\na similar 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 known\nrulers was thrown into truer perspective, and such gaps as remained were\nbeing partially filled by later discoveries. Among the latter the most\nimportant find was that of an early list of kings, recently published by\nP\u00e8re Scheil(2) and subsequently purchased by the British Museum shortly\nbefore the war. This had helped us to fill in the gap between the famous\nSargon of Akkad and the later dynasties, but it did not carry us\nfar beyond Sargon's own time. Our archaeological evidence also comes\nsuddenly to an end. Thus the earliest picture we have hitherto obtained\nof the Sumerians has been that of a race employing an advanced system of\nwriting and possessed of a knowledge of metal. We have found, in short,\nabundant remains of a bronze-age culture, but no traces of preceding\nages of development such as meet us on early Egyptian sites. It was\na natural inference that the advent of the Sumerians in the Euphrates\nValley was sudden, and that they had brought their highly developed\nculture with them from some region of Central or Southern Asia.\n\n     (1) While the evidence of Herodotus is extraordinarily\n     valuable for the details he gives of the civilizations of\n     both Egypt and Babylonia, and is especially full in the case\n     of the former, it is of little practical use for the\n     chronology. In Egypt his report of the early history is\n     confused, and he hardly attempts one for Babylonia. It is\n     probable that on such subjects he sometimes misunderstood\n     his informants, the priests, whose traditions were more\n     accurately reproduced by the later native writers Manetho\n     and Berossus. For a detailed comparison of classical\n     authorities in relation to both countries, see Griffith in\n     Hogarth's _Authority and Archaeology_, pp. 161 ff.\n\n     (2) See _Comptes rendus_, 1911 (Oct.), pp. 606 ff., and\n     _Rev. d'Assyr._, IX (1912), p. 69.\n\nThe newly published Nippur documents will cause us to modify that view.\nThe lists of early kings were themselves drawn up under the Dynasty\nof N\u00eesin in the twenty-second century B.C., and they give us traces of\npossibly ten and at least eight other \"kingdoms\" before the earliest\ndynasty of the known lists.(1) One of their novel features is that they\ninclude summaries at the end, in which it is stated how often a city or\ndistrict enjoyed the privilege of being the seat of supreme authority\nin Babylonia. The earliest of their sections lie within the legendary\nperiod, and though in the third dynasty preserved we begin to note signs\nof a firmer historical tradition, the great break that then occurs in\nthe text is at present only bridged by titles of various \"kingdoms\"\nwhich the summaries give; a few even of these are missing and the\nrelative order of the rest is not assured. But in spite of their\nimperfect state of preservation, these documents are of great historical\nvalue and will furnish a framework for future chronological schemes.\nMeanwhile we may attribute to some of the later dynasties titles in\ncomplete agreement with Sumerian tradition. The dynasty of Ur-Engur, for\nexample, which preceded that of N\u00eesin, becomes, if we like, the Third\nDynasty of Ur. Another important fact which strikes us after a scrutiny\nof the early royal names recovered is that, while two or three are\nSemitic,(2) the great majority of those borne by the earliest rulers of\nKish, Erech, and Ur are as obviously Sumerian.\n\n     (1) See Poebel, _Historical Texts_, pp. 73 ff. and\n     _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, pl. ii-iv, Nos. 2-5. The\n     best preserved of the lists is No. 2; Nos. 3 and 4 are\n     comparatively small fragments; and of No. 5 the obverse only\n     is here published for the first time, the contents of the\n     reverse having been made known some years ago by Hilprecht\n     (cf. _Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological\n     Tablets_, p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47). The fragments belong to\n     separate copies of the Sumerian dynastic record, and it\n     happens that the extant portions of their text in some\n     places cover the same period and are duplicates of one\n     another.\n\n     (2) Cf., e.g., two of the earliest kings of Kish, Galumum\n     and Zugagib. The former is probably the Semitic-Babylonian\n     word _kalumum_, \"young animal, lamb,\" the latter\n     _zukak\u00eebum_, \"scorpion\"; cf. Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, p. 111.\n     The occurrence of these names points to Semitic infiltration\n     into Northern Babylonia since the dawn of history, a state\n     of things we should naturally expect. It is improbable that\n     on this point Sumerian tradition should have merely\n     reflected the conditions of a later period.\n\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 archaeological\nresearch to fill out the missing dynasties and to determine at what\npoints in the list their strictly historical basis disappears. Some,\nwhich are fortunately preserved near the beginning, bear on their face\ntheir legendary character. But for our purpose they are none the worse\nfor that.\n\nIn the first two dynasties, which had their seats at the cities of Kish\nand Erech, we see gods mingling with men upon the earth. Tammuz, the god\nof vegetation, for whose annual death Ezekiel saw women weeping beside\nthe Temple at Jerusalem, is here an earthly monarch. He appears to be\ndescribed as \"a hunter\", a phrase which recalls the death of Adonis in\nGreek mythology. According to our Sumerian text he reigned in Erech for\na hundred years.\n\nAnother attractive Babylonian legend is that of Etana, the prototype of\nIcarus 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 years.\n\n     (1) The Egyptian conception of the deceased Pharaoh\n     ascending to heaven as a falcon and becoming merged into the\n     sun, which first occurs in the Pyramid texts (see Gardiner\n     in Cumont's _\u00c9tudes Syriennes_, pp. 109 ff.), belongs to a\n     different range of ideas. But it may well have been combined\n     with the Etana tradition to produce the funerary eagle\n     employed so commonly in Roman Syria in representations of\n     the emperor's apotheosis (cf. Cumont, op. cit., pp. 37 ff.,\n     115).\n\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.\n\nTradition already told us that Erech was the native city of Gilgamesh,\nthe hero of the national epic, to whom his ancestor Ut-napishtim related\nthe story of the Flood. Gilgamesh too is in our list, as king of Erech\nfor 126 years.\n\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 correspondence\nto the system preserved from Berossus, which enumerates ten Antediluvian\nkings, the last of them Xisuthros, the hero of the Deluge. Indeed, for\nthe dynastic period, the agreement of these old Sumerian lists with the\nchronological system of Berossus is striking. The latter, according to\nSyncellus, gives 34,090 or 34,080 years as the total duration of the\nhistorical period, apart from his preceding mythical ages, while the\nfigure as preserved by Eusebius is 33,091 years.(1) The compiler of one\nof our new lists,(2) writing some 1,900 years earlier, reckons that the\ndynastic period in his day had lasted for 32,243 years. Of course all\nthese figures are mythical, and even at the time of the Sumerian Dynasty\nof N\u00eesin variant traditions were current with regard to the number of\nhistorical and semi-mythical kings of Babylonia and the duration of\ntheir rule. For the earlier writer of another of our lists,(3) separated\nfrom the one already quoted by an interval of only sixty-seven years,\ngives 28,876(4) years as the total duration of the dynasties at his\ntime. But in spite of these discrepancies, the general resemblance\npresented by the huge totals in the variant copies of the list to the\nalternative figures of Berossus, if we ignore his mythical period,\nis remarkable. They indicate a far closer correspondence of the Greek\ntradition with that of the early Sumerians themselves than was formerly\nsuspected.\n\n     (1) The figure 34,090 is that given by Syncellus (ed.\n     Dindorf, p. 147); but it is 34,080 in the equivalent which\n     is added in \"sars\", &c. The discrepancy is explained by some\n     as due to an intentional omission of the units in the second\n     reckoning; others would regard 34,080 as the correct figure\n     (cf. _Hist. of Bab._, p. 114 f.). The reading of ninety\n     against eighty is supported by the 33,091 of Eusebius\n     (_Chron. lib. pri._, ed. Schoene, col. 25).\n\n     (2) No. 4.\n\n     (3) No. 2.\n\n     (4) The figures are broken, but the reading given may be\n     accepted with some confidence; see Poebel, _Hist. Inscr._,\n     p. 103.\n\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 in\nthe second lecture, gives us a connected account of the world's history\ndown to that point. The Deluge hero is there a Sumerian king named\nZiusudu, ruling in one of the newly created cities of Babylonia and\nministering at the shrine of his city-god. He is continually given the\nroyal title, and the foundation of the Babylonian \"kingdom\" is treated\nas an essential part of Creation. We may therefore assume that an\nAntediluvian period existed in Sumerian tradition as in Berossus.(1) And\nI think Dr. Poebel is right in assuming that the Nippur copies of the\nDynastic List begin with the Post-diluvian period.(2)\n\n     (1) Of course it does not necessarily follow that the figure\n     assigned to the duration of the Antediluvian or mythical\n     period by the Sumerians would show so close a resemblance to\n     that of Berossus as we have already noted in their estimates\n     of the dynastic or historical period. But there is no need\n     to assume that Berossus' huge total of a hundred and twenty\n     \"sars\" (432,000 years) is entirely a product of Neo-\n     Babylonian speculation; the total 432,000 is explained as\n     representing ten months of a cosmic year, each month\n     consisting of twelve \"sars\", i.e. 12 x 3600 = 43,200 years.\n     The Sumerians themselves had no difficulty in picturing two\n     of their dynastic rulers as each reigning for two \"ners\"\n     (1,200 years), and it would not be unlikely that \"sars\" were\n     distributed among still earlier rulers; the numbers were\n     easily written. For the unequal distribution of his hundred\n     and twenty \"sars\" by Berossus among his ten Antediluvian\n     kings, see Appendix II.\n\n     (2) The exclusion of the Antediluvian period from the list\n     may perhaps be explained on the assumption that its compiler\n     confined his record to \"kingdoms\", and that the mythical\n     rulers who preceded them did not form a \"kingdom\" within his\n     definition of the term. In any case we have a clear\n     indication that an earlier period was included before the\n     true \"kingdoms\", or dynasties, in an Assyrian copy of the\n     list, a fragment of which is preserved in the British Museum\n     from the Library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh; see _Chron.\n     conc. Early Bab. Kings_ (Studies in East. Hist., II f.),\n     Vol. I, pp. 182 ff., Vol. II, pp. 48 ff., 143 f. There we\n     find traces of an extra column of text preceding that in\n     which the first Kingdom of Kish was recorded. It would seem\n     almost certain that this extra column was devoted to\n     Antediluvian kings. The only alternative explanation would\n     be that it was inscribed with the summaries which conclude\n     the Sumerian copies of our list. But later scribes do not so\n     transpose their material, and the proper place for summaries\n     is at the close, not at the beginning, of a list. In the\n     Assyrian copy the Dynastic List is brought up to date, and\n     extends down to the later Assyrian period. Formerly its\n     compiler could only be credited with incorporating\n     traditions of earlier times. But the correspondence of the\n     small fragment preserved of its Second Column with part of\n     the First Column of the Nippur texts (including the name of\n     \"Enmennunna\") proves that the Assyrian scribe reproduced an\n     actual copy of the Sumerian document.\n\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 coming\nto his conclusion he may have been influenced by what seems to me an\nundoubted correspondence between one of the rulers in our list and the\nsixth Antediluvian king of Berossus. I think few will be disposed to\ndispute the equation\n\n{Daonos poimon} = Etana, a shepherd.\n\nEach list preserves the hero's shepherd origin and the correspondence of\nthe names is very close, Daonos merely transposing the initial vowel\nof Etana.(2) That Berossus should have translated a Post-diluvian ruler\ninto the Antediluvian dynasty would not be at all surprising in view of\nthe absence of detailed correspondence between his later dynasties and\nthose we know actually occupied the Babylonian throne. Moreover, the\ninclusion of Babylon in his list of Antediluvian cities should make us\nhesitate to regard all the rulers he assigns to his earliest dynasty\nas necessarily retaining in his list their original order in Sumerian\ntradition. Thus we may with a clear conscience seek equations between\nthe names of Berossus' Antediluvian rulers and those preserved in the\nearly part of our Dynastic List, although we may regard the latter as\nequally Post-diluvian in Sumerian belief.\n\n     (1) See the brief statement he makes in the course of a\n     review of Dr. Poebel's volumes in the _American Journal of\n     Semitic Languages and Literature_, XXXI, April 1915, p. 225.\n     He does not compare any of the names, but he promises a\n     study of those preserved and a comparison of the list with\n     Berossus and with Gen. iv and v. It is possible that\n     Professor Barton has already fulfilled his promise of\n     further discussion, perhaps in his _Archaeology and the\n     Bible_, to the publication of which I have seen a reference\n     in another connexion (cf. _Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol.\n     XXXVI, p. 291); but I have not yet been able to obtain sight\n     of a copy.\n\n     (2) The variant form {Daos} is evidently a mere contraction,\n     and any claim it may have had to represent more closely the\n     original form of the name is to be disregarded in view of\n     our new equation.\n\nThis reflection, and the result already obtained, encourage us to accept\nthe following further equation, which is yielded by a renewed scrutiny\nof the lists:\n\n{'Ammenon} = Enmenunna.\n\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 doubling\nof the _m_ is faithfully preserved in the Greek. Precisely the same\ninitial component, _Enme_, occurs in the name Enmeduranki, borne by a\nmythical king of Sippar, who has long been recognized as the original\nof Berossus' seventh Antediluvian king, {Euedorakhos}.(1) There too\nthe original _n_ has been assimilated, but the Greek form retains no\ndoubling of the _m_ and points to its further weakening.\n\n     (1) Var. {Euedoreskhos}; the second half of the original\n     name, Enmeduranki, is more closely preserved in\n     _Edoranchus_, the form given by the Armenian translator of\n     Eusebius.\n\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\nmay regard 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. \"Workman\".\nThe fact that we should now have recovered the Sumerian original of\nthe name, which proves to have no connexion in form or meaning with the\npreviously suggested Semitic equivalent, tends to cast doubt on other\nSemitic equations proposed. Perhaps {'Amelon} or {'Amillaros} may after\nall not prove to be the equivalent of Am\u00ealu, \"Man\", nor {'Amempsinos}\nthat of Am\u00eal-Sin. Both may find their true equivalents in some of the\nmissing royal names at the head of the Sumerian Dynastic List. There too\nwe may provisionally seek {'Aloros}, the \"first king\", whose equation\nwith Aruru, the Babylonian mother-goddess, never appeared a very happy\nsuggestion.(1) The ingenious proposal,(2) on the other hand, that his\nsuccessor, {'Alaparos}, represents a miscopied {'Adaparos}, a Greek\nrendering of the name of Adapa, may still hold good in view of Etana's\npresence in the Sumerian dynastic record. Ut-napishtim's title,\nKhasisatra or Atrakhasis, \"the Very Wise\", still of course remains\nthe established equivalent of {Xisouthros}; but for {'Otiartes} (?\n{'Opartes}), a rival to Ubar-Tutu, Ut-napishtim's father, may perhaps\nappear. The new identifications do not of course dispose of the old\nones, except in the case of Umm\u00e2nu; but they open up a new line of\napproach and provide a fresh field for conjecture.(3) Semitic, and\npossibly contracted, originals are still possible for unidentified\nmythical kings of Berossus; but such equations will inspire greater\nconfidence, should we be able to establish Sumerian originals for the\nSemitic renderings, from new material already in hand or to be obtained\nin the future.\n\n     (1) Dr. Poebel (_Hist Inscr._, p. 42, n. 1) makes the\n     interesting suggestion that {'Aloros} may represent an\n     abbreviated and corrupt form of the name Lal-ur-alimma,\n     which has come down to us as that of an early and mythical\n     king of Nippur; see Rawlinson, _W.A.I._, IV, 60 (67), V, 47\n     and 44, and cf. _Sev. Tabl. of Creat._, Vol. I, p. 217, No.\n     32574, Rev., l. 2 f. It may be added that the sufferings\n     with which the latter is associated in the tradition are\n     perhaps such as might have attached themselves to the first\n     human ruler of the world; but the suggested equation, though\n     tempting by reason of the remote parallel it would thus\n     furnish to Adam's fate, can at present hardly be accepted in\n     view of the possibility that a closer equation to {'Aloros}\n     may be forthcoming.\n\n     (2) Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, Vol. XV (1893), p.\n     243.\n\n     (3) See further Appendix II.\n\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 document\nwith which we are dealing. From them it will be seen that the record\nis not a tabular list of names like the well-known King's Lists of the\nNeo-Babylonian period. It is cast in the form of an epitomized chronicle\nand gives under set formulae the length of each king's reign, and his\nfather's name in cases of direct succession to father or brother. Short\nphrases are also sometimes added, or inserted in the sentence referring\nto a king, in order to indicate his humble origin or the achievement\nwhich made his name famous in tradition. The head of the First Column\nof the text is wanting, and the first royal name that is completely\npreserved is that of Galumum, the ninth or tenth ruler of the earliest\n\"kingdom\", or dynasty, of Kish. The text then runs on connectedly for\nseveral lines:\n\n     Galumum ruled for nine hundred years.\n     Zugagib ruled for eight hundred and forty years.\n     Arpi, son of a man of the people, ruled for seven hundred and\n          twenty\n     years.\n     Etana, the shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued all lands,\n     ruled for six hundred and thirty-five years.(1)\n     Pili . . ., son of Etana, ruled for four hundred and ten years.\n     Enmenunna ruled for six hundred and eleven years.\n     Melamkish, son of Enmenunna, ruled for nine hundred years.\n     Barsalnunna, son of Enmenunna, ruled for twelve hundred years.\n     Mesza(. . .), son of Barsalnunna, ruled for (. . .) years.\n     (. . .), son of Barsalnunna, ruled for (. . .) years.\n\n     (1) Possibly 625 years.\n\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 also\nfortunately preserved which record the passing of the first hegemony\nof Kish to the \"Kingdom of Eanna\", the latter taking its name from\nthe famous temple of Anu and Ishtar in the old city of Erech. The text\ncontinues:\n\n     The kingdom of Kish passed to Eanna.\n\n     In Eanna, Meskingasher, son of the Sun-god, ruled as high\n     priest and king for three hundred and twenty-five years.\n     Meskingasher entered into(1) (. . .) and ascended to (. .\n     .).\n\n     Enmerkar, son of Meskingasher, the king of Erech who built\n     (. . .) with the people of Erech,(2) ruled as king for four\n     hundred and twenty years.\n\n     Lugalbanda, the shepherd, ruled for twelve hundred years.\n\n     Dumuzi,(3), the hunter(?), whose city was . . ., ruled for a\n     hundred years.\n\n     Gishbilgames,(4) whose father was A,(5) the high priest of\n     Kullab, ruled for one hundred and twenty-six(6) years.\n\n     (. . .)lugal, son of Gishbilgames, ruled for (. . .) years.\n\n     (1) The verb may also imply descent into.\n\n     (2) The phrase appears to have been imperfectly copied by\n     the scribe. As it stands the subordinate sentence reads \"the\n     king of Erech who built with the people of Erech\". Either\n     the object governed by the verb has been omitted, in which\n     case we might restore some such phrase as \"the city\"; or,\n     perhaps, by a slight transposition, we should read \"the king\n     who built Erech with the people of Erech\". In any case the\n     first building of the city of Erech, as distinguished from\n     its ancient cult-centre Eanna, appears to be recorded here\n     in the tradition. This is the first reference to Erech in\n     the text; and Enmerkar's father was high priest as well as\n     king.\n\n     (3) i.e. Tammuz.\n\n     (4) i.e. Gilgamesh.\n\n     (5) The name of the father of Gilgamesh is rather strangely\n     expressed by the single sign for the vowel _a_ and must\n     apparently be read as A. As there is a small break in the\n     text at the end of this line, Dr. Poebel not unnaturally\n     assumed that A was merely the first syllable of the name, of\n     which the end was wanting. But it has now been shown that\n     the complete name was A; see F\u00f6rtsch, _Orient. Lit.-Zeit._,\n     Vol. XVIII, No. 12 (Dec., 1915), col. 367 ff. The reading is\n     deduced from the following entry in an Assyrian explanatory\n     list of gods (_Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus._, Pt. XXIV, pl.\n     25, ll. 29-31): \"The god A, who is also equated to the god\n     Dubbisaguri (i.e. 'Scribe of Ur'), is the priest of Kullab;\n     his wife is the goddess Ninguesirka (i.e. 'Lady of the edge\n     of the street').\" A, the priest of Kullab and the husband of\n     a goddess, is clearly to be identified with A, the priest of\n     Kullab and father of Gilgamesh, for we know from the\n     Gilgamesh Epic that the hero's mother was the goddess\n     Ninsun. Whether Ninguesirka was a title of Ninsun, or\n     represents a variant tradition with regard to the parentage\n     of Gilgamesh on the mother's side, we have in any case\n     confirmation of his descent from priest and goddess. It was\n     natural that A should be subsequently deified. This was not\n     the case at the time our text was inscribed, as the name is\n     written without the divine determinative.\n\n     (6) Possibly 186 years.\n\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 of\nGenesis reflecting the troubled times of Babylon's First Dynasty,(1)\nwas priest as well as king.(2) Tradition appears to have credited\nMeskingasher's son and successor, Enmerkar, with the building of Erech\nas a city around the first settlement Eanna, which had already given its\nname to the \"kingdom\". If so, Sumerian tradition confirms the assumption\nof modern research that the great cities of Babylonia arose around the\nstill more ancient cult-centres of the land. We shall have occasion\nto revert to the traditions here recorded concerning the parentage of\nMeskingasher, the founder of this line of kings, and that of its most\nfamous member, Gilgamesh. Meanwhile we may note that the closing rulers\nof the \"Kingdom of Eanna\" are wanting. When the text is again preserved,\nwe read of the hegemony passing from Erech to Ur and thence to Awan:\n\n     The k(ingdom of Erech(3) passed to) Ur.\n     In Ur Mesannipada became king and ruled for eighty years.\n     Meskiagunna, son of Mesannipada, ruled for thirty years.\n     Elu(. . .) ruled for twenty-five years.\n     Balu(. . .) ruled for thirty-six years.\n     Four kings (thus) ruled for a hundred and seventy-one years.\n     The kingdom of Ur passed to Awan.\n     In Awan . . .\n\n     (1) Cf. _Hist. of Bab._, p. 159 f.\n\n     (2) Gen. xiv. 18.\n\n     (3) The restoration of Erech here, in place of Eanna, is\n     based on the absence of the latter name in the summary;\n     after the building of Erech by Enmerkar, the kingdom was\n     probably reckoned as that of Erech.\n\nWith the \"Kingdom of Ur\" we appear to be approaching a firmer historical\ntradition, for the reigns of its rulers are recorded in decades, not\nhundreds of years. But we find in the summary, which concludes the main\ncopy of our Dynastic List, that the kingdom of Awan, though it consisted\nof but three rulers, is credited with a total duration of three hundred\nand fifty-six years, implying that we are not yet out of the legendary\nstratum. Since Awan is proved by newly published historical inscriptions\nfrom Nippur to have been an important deity of Elam at the time of the\nDynasty of Akkad,(1) we gather that the \"Kingdom of Awan\" represented in\nSumerian tradition the first occasion on which the country passed for a\ntime under Elamite rule. At this point a great gap occurs in the text,\nand when the detailed dynastic succession in Babylonia is again assured,\nwe have passed definitely from the realm of myth and legend into that of\nhistory.(2)\n\n     (1) Poebel, _Hist. Inscr._, p. 128.\n\n     (2) See further, Appendix II.\n\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 those\nSumerian extracts I read just now. We seem to hear in them the faint\necho of another narrative, like them but not quite the same.\n\n     And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and\n     thirty years; and he died.\n\n     And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enosh:\n     and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven\n     years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of\n     Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.\n\n     . . . and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five\n     years: and he died.\n\n     . . . and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten\n     years: and he died. . . . and all the days of Mahalalel were\n     eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.\n\n     . . . and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and\n     two years: and he died.\n\n     . . . and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and\n     five years: and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for\n     God took him.\n\n     . . . and all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty\n     and nine years: and he died.\n\n     . . . and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy\n     and seven years: and he died.\n\n     And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem,\n     Ham, and Japheth.\n\nThroughout these extracts from \"the book of the generations of Adam\",(1)\nGalumum's nine hundred years(2) seem to run almost like a refrain; and\nMethuselah's great age, the recognized symbol for longevity, is even\nexceeded by two of the Sumerian patriarchs. The names in the two lists\nare not the same,(3) but in both we are moving in the same atmosphere\nand along similar lines of thought. Though each list adheres to its own\nset formulae, it estimates the length of human life in the early ages\nof the world on much the same gigantic scale as the other. Our Sumerian\nrecords are not quite so formal in their structure as the Hebrew\nnarrative, but the short notes which here and there relieve their stiff\nmonotony may be paralleled in the Cainite genealogy of the preceding\nchapter in Genesis.(4) There Cain's city-building, for example, may pair\nwith that of Enmerkar; and though our new records may afford no precise\nequivalents to Jabal's patronage of nomad life, or to the invention of\nmusic and metal-working ascribed to Jubal and Tubal-cain, these too\nare quite in the spirit of Sumerian and Babylonian tradition, in their\nattempt to picture the beginnings of civilization. Thus Enmeduranki,\nthe prototype of the seventh Antediluvian patriarch of Berossus, was\ntraditionally revered as the first exponent of divination.(5) It is in\nthe chronological and general setting, rather than in the Hebrew names\nand details, that an echo seems here to reach us from Sumer through\nBabylon.\n\n     (1) Gen. v. 1 ff. (P).\n\n     (2) The same length of reign is credited to Melamkish and to\n     one and perhaps two other rulers of that first Sumerian\n     \"kingdom\".\n\n     (3) The possibility of the Babylonian origin of some of the\n     Hebrew names in this geneaology and its Cainite parallel has\n     long been canvassed; and considerable ingenuity has been\n     expended in obtaining equations between Hebrew names and\n     those of the Antediluvian kings of Berossus by tracing a\n     common meaning for each suggested pair. It is unfortunate\n     that our new identification of {'Ammenon} with the Sumerian\n     _Enmenunna_ should dispose of one of the best parallels\n     obtained, viz. {'Ammenon} = Bab. _umm\u00e2nu_, \"workman\" ||\n     Cain, Kenan = \"smith\". Another satisfactory pair suggested\n     is {'Amelon} = Bab. _am\u00ealu_, \"man\" || Enosh = \"man\"; but the\n     resemblance of the former to _am\u00ealu_ may prove to be\n     fortuitous, in view of the possibility of descent from a\n     quite different Sumerian original. The alternative may\n     perhaps have to be faced that the Hebrew parallels to\n     Sumerian and Babylonian traditions are here confined to\n     chronological structure and general contents, and do not\n     extend to Hebrew renderings of Babylonian names. It may be\n     added that such correspondence between personal names in\n     different languages is not very significant by itself. The\n     name of Zugagib of Kish, for example, is paralleled by the\n     title borne by one of the earliest kings of the Ist Dynasty\n     of Egypt, Narmer, whose carved slate palettes have been\n     found at Kierakonpolis; he too was known as \"the Scorpion.\"\n\n     (4) Gen. iv. 17 ff. (J).\n\n     (5) It may be noted that an account of the origin of\n     divination is included in his description of the descendents\n     of Noah by the writer of the Biblical Antiquities of Philo,\n     a product of the same school as the Fourth Book of Esdras\n     and the Apocalypse of Baruch; see James, _The Biblical\n     Antiquities of Philo_, p. 86.\n\nI may add that a parallel is provided by the new Sumerian records to the\ncircumstances 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 embody,\nthe Sumerians looked back to a time when gods lived upon the earth with\nmen, and we have seen such deities as Tammuz and Lugalbanda figuring as\nrulers of cities in the dynastic sequence. As in later periods, their\nnames are there preceded by the determinative for divinity. But more\nsignificant still is the fact that we read of two Sumerian heroes, also\nrulers of cities, who were divine on the father's or mother's side\nbut not on both. Meskingasher is entered in the list as \"son of the\nSun-god\",(2) and no divine parentage is recorded on the mother's side.\nOn the other hand, the human father of Gilgamesh is described as the\nhigh priest of Kullab, and we know from other sources that his mother\nwas the goddess Ninsun.(3) That this is not a fanciful interpretation is\nproved by a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic itself,(4) in which its\nhero is described as two-thirds god and one-third man. We again find\nourselves back in the same stratum of tradition with which the Hebrew\nnarratives have made us so familiar.\n\n     (1) Gen. vi. 1-4 (J).\n\n     (2) The phrase recalls the familiar Egyptian royal\n     designation \"son of the Sun,\" and it is possible that we may\n     connect with this same idea the Palermo Stele's inclusion of\n     the mother's and omission of the father's name in its record\n     of the early dynastic Pharaohs. This suggestion does not\n     exclude the possibility of the prevalence of matrilineal\n     (and perhaps originally also of matrilocal and\n     matripotestal) conditions among the earliest inhabitants of\n     Egypt. Indeed the early existence of some form of mother-\n     right may have originated, and would certainly have\n     encouraged, the growth of a tradition of solar parentage for\n     the head of the state.\n\n     (3) Poebel, _Hist. Inscr._, p. 124 f.\n\n     (4) Tablet I, Col. ii, l. 1; and cf. Tablet IX, Col. ii. l.\n     16.\n\nWhat light then does our new material throw upon traditional origins of\ncivilization? We have seen that in Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo\nStele has confirmed in a remarkable way the tradition of the predynastic\nperiod which was incorporated in his history by Manetho. It has long\nbeen recognized that in Babylonia the sources of Berossus must have\nbeen refracted by the political atmosphere of that country during\nthe preceding nineteen hundred years. This inference our new material\nsupports; but when due allowance has been made for a resulting\ndisturbance of vision, the Sumerian origin of the remainder of his\nevidence is notably confirmed. Two of his ten Antediluvian kings rejoin\ntheir Sumerian prototypes, and we shall see that two of his three\nAntediluvian cities find their place among the five of primitive\nSumerian belief. It is clear that in Babylonia, as in Egypt, the local\ntraditions of the dawn of history, current in the Hellenistic period,\nwere modelled on very early lines. Both countries were the seats of\nancient civilizations, and it is natural that each should stage its\npicture of beginnings upon its own soil and embellish it with local\ncolouring.\n\nIt is a tribute to the historical accuracy of Hebrew tradition to\nrecognize that it never represented Palestine as the cradle of the human\nrace. It looked to the East rather than to the South for evidence of\nman's earliest history and first progress in the arts of life. And it\nis in the East, in the soil of Babylonia, that we may legitimately seek\nmaterial in which to verify the sources of that traditional belief.\n\nThe new parallels I have to-day attempted to trace between some of\nthe Hebrew 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 lately\nrecovered from the site of Nippur, and we will postpone formulating our\nconclusions with regard to them until the whole field has been surveyed.\nFrom the biblical standpoint by far the most valuable of our new\ndocuments is one that incorporates a Sumerian version of the Deluge\nstory. We shall see that it presents a variant and more primitive\npicture of that great catastrophe than those of the Babylonian and\nHebrew versions. And what is of even greater interest, it connects the\nnarrative of the Flood with that of Creation, and supplies a brief but\nintermediate account of the Antediluvian period. How then are we to\nexplain this striking literary resemblance to the structure of the\nnarrative in Genesis, a resemblance that is completely wanting in the\nBabylonian versions? But that is a problem we must reserve for the next\nlecture.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II -- DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION\n\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 both\nin the Nile Valley and along the lower Euphrates. On the strength of\nthe latter discovery we noted the possibility that future excavation in\nBabylonia would lay bare stages of primitive culture similar to those\nwe have already recovered in Egyptian soil. Meanwhile the documents from\nNippur had shown us what the early Sumerians themselves believed about\ntheir own origin, and we traced in their tradition the gradual blending\nof history with legend and myth. We saw that the new Dynastic List\ntook us back in the legendary sequence at least to the beginning of\nthe Post-diluvian period. Now one of the newly published literary texts\nfills in the gap beyond, for it gives us a Sumerian account of the\nhistory of the world from the Creation to the Deluge, at about which\npoint, as we saw, the extant portions of the Dynastic List take up the\nstory. I propose to devote my lecture to-day to this early version of\nthe Flood and to the effect of its discovery upon some current theories.\n\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 adventures\nof the Old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh. Towards the end of this composite\ntale, Gilgamesh, desiring immortality, crosses the Waters of Death in\norder to beg the secret from his ancestor Ut-napishtim, who in the past\nhad escaped the Deluge and had been granted immortality by the gods. The\nEleventh Tablet, or Book, of the epic contains the account of the\nDeluge which Ut-napishtim related to his kinsman Gilgamesh. The close\ncorrespondence of this Babylonian story with that contained in Genesis\nis recognized by every one and need not detain us. You will remember\nthat in some passages the accounts tally even in minute details, such,\nfor example, as the device of sending out birds to test the abatement of\nthe waters. It is true that in the Babylonian version a dove, a swallow,\nand a raven are sent forth in that order, instead of a raven and the\ndove three times. But such slight discrepancies only emphasize the\ngeneral resemblance of the narratives.\n\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 it.\nThanks to this fact, any one by a careful examination of the narrative\ncan disentangle the two versions for himself. He will find each gives a\nconsistent story. One of them appears to be simpler and more primitive\nthan the other, and I will refer to them as the earlier and the later\nHebrew Versions.(1) The Babylonian text in the Epic of Gilgamesh\ncontains several peculiarities of each of the Hebrew versions, though\nthe points of resemblance are more detailed in the earlier of the two.\n\n     (1) In the combined account in Gen. vi. 5-ix. 17, if the\n     following passages be marked in the margin or underlined,\n     and then read consecutively, it will be seen that they give\n     a consistent and almost complete account of the Deluge: Gen.\n     vi. 9-22; vii. 6, 11, 13-16 (down to \"as God commanded\n     him\"), 17 (to \"upon the earth\"), 18-21, 24; viii. 1, 2 (to\n     \"were stopped\"), 3 (from \"and after\")-5, 13 (to \"from off\n     the earth\"), 14-19; and ix. 1-17. The marked passages\n     represent the \"later Hebrew Version.\" If the remaining\n     passages be then read consecutively, they will be seen to\n     give a different version of the same events, though not so\n     completely preserved as the other; these passages\n     substantially represent the \"earlier Hebrew Version\". In\n     commentaries on the Hebrew text they are, of course, usually\n     referred to under the convenient symbols J and P,\n     representing respectively the earlier and the later\n     versions. For further details, see any of the modern\n     commentaries on Genesis, e.g. Driver, _Book of Genesis_, pp.\n     85 ff.; Skinner, _Genesis_, pp. 147 ff.; Ryle, _Genesis_, p.\n     96 f.\n\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 now,\npossessed two early fragments of the Deluge narrative, proving that the\nstory was known to the Semitic inhabitants of the country at the time of\nHammurabi's dynasty.(1) Our newly discovered text from Nippur was\nalso written at about that period, probably before 2100 B.C. But the\ncomposition itself, apart from the tablet on which it is inscribed, must\ngo back very much earlier than that. For instead of being composed\nin Semitic Babylonian, the text is in Sumerian, the language of the\nearliest known inhabitants of Babylonia, whom the Semites eventually\ndisplaced. This people, it is now recognized, were the originators\nof the Babylonian civilization, and we saw in the first lecture that,\naccording to their own traditions, they had occupied that country since\nthe dawn of history.\n\n     (1) The earlier of the two fragments is dated in the\n     eleventh year of Ammizaduga, the tenth king of Hammurabi's\n     dynasty, i.e. in 1967 B.C.; it was published by Scheil,\n     _Recueil de travaux_, Vol. XX, pp. 55 ff. Here the Deluge\n     story does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, but is\n     recounted in the second tablet of a different work; its hero\n     bears the name Atrakhasis, as in the variant version of the\n     Deluge from the Nineveh library. The other and smaller\n     fragment, which must be dated by its script, was published\n     by Hilprecht (_Babylonian Expedition_, series D, Vol. V,\n     Fasc. 1, pp. 33 ff.), who assigned it to about the same\n     period; but it is probably of a considerably later date. The\n     most convenient translations of the legends that were known\n     before the publication of the Nippur texts are those given\n     by Rogers, _Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament_\n     (Oxford, 1912), and Dhorme, _Choix de textes religieux\n     Assyro-Babyloniens_ (Paris, 1907).\n\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 succeeded\nin dominating the settled race; and in the process they in turn became\ncivilized. They learnt and adopted the cuneiform writing, they took over\nthe Sumerian literature. Towards the close of the third millennium, when\nour tablet was written, the Sumerians as a race had almost ceased\nto exist. They had been absorbed in the Semitic population and their\nlanguage was no longer the general language of the country. But their\nancient literature and sacred texts were carefully preserved and\ncontinued to be studied by the Semitic priests and scribes. So the fact\nthat the tablet is written in the old Sumerian tongue proves that the\nstory it tells had come down from a very much earlier period. This\ninference is not affected by certain small differences in idiom\nwhich its language presents when compared with that of Sumerian\nbuilding-inscriptions. Such would naturally occur in the course of\ntransmission, especially in a text which, as we shall see, had been\nemployed for a practical purpose after being subjected to a process of\nreduction to suit it to its new setting.\n\nWhen we turn to the text itself, it will be obvious that the story also\nis very primitive. But before doing so we will inquire whether this\nvery early version is likely to cast any light on the origin of Deluge\nstories such as are often met with in other parts of the world. Our\ninquiry will have an interest apart from the question itself, as it\nwill illustrate the views of two divergent schools among students of\nprimitive literature and tradition. According to one of these views,\nin its most extreme form, the tales which early or primitive man tells\nabout his gods and the origin of the world he sees around him are never\nto be regarded as simple stories, but are to be consistently interpreted\nas symbolizing natural phenomena. It is, of course, quite certain that,\nboth in Egypt and Babylonia, mythology in later periods received a\nstrong astrological colouring; and it is equally clear that some legends\nderive their origin from nature myths. But the theory in the hands\nof its more enthusiastic adherents goes further than that. For them\na complete absence of astrological colouring is no deterrent from an\nastrological interpretation; and, where such colouring does occur, the\npossibility of later embellishment is discounted, and it is treated\nwithout further proof as the base on which the original story rests. One\nsuch interpretation of the Deluge narrative in Babylonia, particularly\nfavoured by recent German writers, would regard it as reflecting the\npassage of the Sun through a portion of the ecliptic. It is assumed\nthat the primitive Babylonians were aware that in the course of ages\nthe spring equinox must traverse the southern or watery region of the\nzodiac. This, on their system, signified a submergence of the whole\nuniverse in water, and the Deluge myth would symbolize the safe passage\nof the vernal Sun-god through that part of the ecliptic. But we need not\nspend time over that view, as its underlying conception is undoubtedly\nquite a late development of Babylonian astrology.\n\nMore attractive is the simpler astrological theory that the voyage of\nany Deluge hero in his boat or ark represents the daily journey of\nthe Sun-god across the heavenly ocean, a conception which is so often\nrepresented in Egyptian sculpture and painting. It used to be assumed by\nholders of the theory that this idea of the Sun as \"the god in the boat\"\nwas common among primitive races, and that that would account for the\nwidespread occurrence of Deluge-stories among scattered races of\nthe world. But this view has recently undergone some modification in\naccordance with the general trend of other lines of research. In recent\nyears there has been an increased readiness among archaeologists\nto recognize evidence of contact between the great civilizations of\nantiquity. This has been particularly the case in the area of the\nEastern Mediterranean; but the possibility has also been mooted of\nthe early use of land-routes running from the Near East to Central and\nSouthern Asia. The discovery in Chinese Turkestan, to the east of the\nCaspian, of a prehistoric culture resembling that of Elam has now been\nfollowed by the finding of similar remains by Sir Aurel Stein in the\ncourse of the journey from which he has lately returned.(1) They were\ndiscovered in an old basin of the Helmand River in Persian Seistan,\nwhere they had been laid bare by wind-erosion. But more interesting\nstill, and an incentive to further exploration in that region, is\nanother of his discoveries last year, also made near the Afghan border.\nAt two sites in the Helmand Delta, well above the level of inundation,\nhe came across fragments of pottery inscribed in early Aramaic\ncharacters,(2) though, for obvious reasons, he has left them with\nall his other collections in India. This unexpected find, by the\nway, suggests for our problem possibilities of wide transmission in\ncomparatively early times.\n\n     (1) See his \"Expedition in Central Asia\", in _The\n     Geographical Journal_, Vol. XLVII (Jan.-June, 1916), pp. 358\n     ff.\n\n     (2) Op. cit., p. 363.\n\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 given\nrise to similar expedients and explanations, it is urged that man is\nan imitative animal and that inventive genius is far from common.(1)\nConsequently the wide dispersion of many beliefs and practices, which\nused generally to be explained as due to the similar and independent\nworking of the human mind under like conditions, is now often\nprovisionally registered as evidence of migratory movement or of\ncultural drift. Much good work has recently been done in tabulating\nthe occurrence of many customs and beliefs, in order to ascertain their\nlines of distribution. Workers are as yet in the collecting stage, and\nit is hardly necessary to say that explanatory theories are still to\nbe regarded as purely tentative and provisional. At the meetings of\nthe British Association during the last few years, the most breezy\ndiscussions in the Anthropological Section have undoubtedly centred\naround this subject. There are several works in the field, but the most\ncomprehensive theory as yet put forward is one that concerns us, as it\nhas given a new lease of life to the old solar interpretation of the\nDeluge story.\n\n     (1) See, e.g. Marett, _Anthropology_ (2nd ed., 1914), Chap.\n     iv, \"Environment,\" pp. 122 ff.; and for earlier tendencies,\n     particularly in the sphere of mythological exegesis, see S.\n     Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes et Religions_, t. IV (1912), pp. 1\n     ff.\n\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 borne\nthe title of \"Horus\" as the lineal descendant of the great Sun-god of\nEdfu, and the rise of Ra in the Vth Dynasty, through the priesthood of\nHeliopolis, was confirmed in the solar theology of the Middle Kingdom.\nThus it was that other deities assumed a solar character as forms of Ra.\nAmen, the local god of Thebes, becomes Amen-Ra with the political rise\nof his city, and even the old Crocodile-god, Sebek, soars into the sky\nas Sebek-Ra. The only other movement in the religion of ancient Egypt,\ncomparable in importance to this solar development, was the popular cult\nof Osiris as God of the Dead, and with it the official religion had to\ncome to terms. Horus is reborn as the posthumous son of Osiris, and Ra\ngladdens his abode during his nightly journey through the Underworld.\nThe theory with which we are concerned suggests that this dominant trait\nin Egyptian religion passed, with other elements of culture, beyond the\nbounds of the Nile Valley and influenced the practice and beliefs of\ndistant races.\n\nThis suggestion has been gradually elaborated by its author, Professor\nElliot Smith, who has devoted much attention to the anatomical study of\nEgyptian mummification. Beginning with a scrutiny of megalithic building\nand sun-worship,(1) he has subsequently deduced, from evidence of common\ndistribution, the existence of a culture-complex, including in addition\nto these two elements the varied practices of tattooing, circumcision,\near-piercing, that quaint custom known as couvade, head-deformation, and\nthe prevalence of serpent-cults, myths of petrifaction and the Deluge,\nand finally of mummification. The last ingredient was added after an\nexamination of Papuan mummies had disclosed their apparent resemblance\nin points of detail to Egyptian mummies of the XXIst Dynasty. As a\nresult he assumes the existence of an early cultural movement, for which\nthe descriptive title \"heliolithic\" has been coined.(2) Starting with\nEgypt as its centre, one of the principal lines of its advance is\nsaid to have lain through Syria and Mesopotamia and thence along the\ncoastlands of Asia to the Far East. The method of distribution and the\nsuggested part played by the Phoenicians have been already criticized\nsufficiently. But in a modified form the theory has found considerable\nsupport, especially among ethnologists interested in Indonesia. I do\nnot propose to examine in detail the evidence for or against it. It will\nsuffice to note that the Deluge story and its alleged Egyptian origin in\nsolar worship form one of the prominent strands in its composition.\n\n     (1) Cf. Elliot Smith, _The Ancient Egyptians_, 1911.\n\n     (2) See in particular his monograph \"On the significance of\n     the Geographical Distribution of the Practice of\n     Mummification\" in the _Memoirs of the Manchester Literary\n     and Philosophical Society_, 1915.\n\nOne weakness of this particular strand is that the Egyptians themselves\npossessed no tradition of the Deluge. Indeed the annual inundation\nof 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 Hapi\nis represented as no fierce warrior or monster. He is given a woman's\nbreasts as a sign of his fecundity. The nearest Egyptian parallel to\nthe Deluge story is the \"Legend of the Destruction of Mankind\", which\nis engraved on the walls of a chamber in the tomb of Seti I.(1) The late\nSir Gaston Maspero indeed called it \"a dry deluge myth\", but his paradox\nwas intended to emphasize the difference as much as the parallelism\npresented. It is true that in the Egyptian myth the Sun-god causes\nmankind to be slain because of their impiety, and he eventually pardons\nthe survivors. The narrative thus betrays undoubted parallelism to\nthe Babylonian and Hebrew stories, so far as concerns the attempted\nannihilation of mankind by the offended god, but there the resemblance\nends. For water has no part in man's destruction, and the essential\nelement of a Deluge story is thus absent.(2) Our new Sumerian document,\non the other hand, contains what is by far the earliest example yet\nrecovered of a genuine Deluge tale; and we may thus use it incidentally\nto test this theory of Egyptian influence, and also to ascertain whether\nit furnishes any positive evidence on the origin of Deluge stories in\ngeneral.\n\n     (1) It was first published by Monsieur Naville, _Tranc. Soc.\n     Bibl. Arch._, IV (1874), pp. 1 ff. The myth may be most\n     conveniently studied in Dr. Budge's edition in _Egyptian\n     Literature_, Vol. I, \"Legends of the Gods\" (1912), pp. 14\n     ff., where the hieroglyphic text and translation are printed\n     on opposite pages; cf. the summary, op. cit., pp. xxiii ff.,\n     where the principal literature is also cited. See also his\n     _Gods of the Egyptians_, Vol. I, chap. xii, pp. 388 ff.\n\n     (2) The undoubted points of resemblance, as well as the\n     equally striking points of divergence, presented by the\n     Egyptian myth when compared with the Babylonian and Hebrew\n     stories of a Deluge may be briefly indicated. The impiety of\n     men in complaining of the age of Ra finds a parallel in the\n     wickedness of man upon the earth (J) and the corruption of\n     all flesh (P) of the Hebrew Versions. The summoning by Ra of\n     the great Heliopolitan cosmic gods in council, including his\n     personified Eye, the primaeval pair Shu and Tefnut, Keb the\n     god of the earth and his consort Nut the sky-goddess, and Nu\n     the primaeval water-god and originally Nut's male\n     counterpart, is paralleled by the _puhur il\u00e2ni_, or\n     \"assembly of the gods\", in the Babylonian Version (see Gilg.\n     Epic. XI. l. 120 f., and cf. ll. 10 ff.); and they meet in\n     \"the Great House\", or Sun-temple at Heliopolis, as the\n     Babylonian gods deliberate in Shuruppak. Egyptian,\n     Babylonian, and Hebrew narratives all agree in the divine\n     determination to destroy mankind and in man's ultimate\n     survival. But the close of the Egyptian story diverges into\n     another sphere. The slaughter of men by the Eye of Ra in the\n     form of the goddess Hathor, who during the night wades in\n     their blood, is suggestive of Africa; and so too is her\n     drinking of men's blood mixed with the narcotic mandrake and\n     with seven thousand vessels of beer, with the result that\n     through drunkenness she ceased from slaughter. The latter\n     part of the narrative is directly connected with the cult-\n     ritual and beer-drinking at the Festivals of Hathor and Ra;\n     but the destruction of men by slaughter in place of drowning\n     appears to belong to the original myth. Indeed, the only\n     suggestion of a Deluge story is suggested by the presence of\n     Nu, the primaeval water-god, at Ra's council, and that is\n     explicable on other grounds. In any case the points of\n     resemblance presented by the earlier part of the Egyptian\n     myth to Semitic Deluge stories are general, not detailed;\n     and though they may possibly be due to reflection from Asia,\n     they are not such as to suggest an Egyptian origin for\n     Deluge myths.\n\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 1912\nthat its contents were identified, when the several fragments of which\nit was composed were assembled and put together. It is a large document,\ncontaining six columns of writing, three on each side; but unfortunately\nonly the lower half has been recovered, so that considerable gaps occur\nin the text.(1) The sharp edges of the broken surface, however, suggest\nthat it was damaged after removal from the soil, and the possibility\nremains that some of the missing fragments may yet be recovered either\nat Pennsylvania or in the Museum at Constantinople. As it is not dated,\nits age must be determined mainly by the character of its script. A\nclose examination of the writing suggests that it can hardly have been\ninscribed as late as the Kassite Dynasty, since two or three signs\nexhibit more archaic forms than occur on any tablets of that period;(2)\nand such linguistic corruptions as have been noted in its text may\nwell be accounted for by the process of decay which must have already\naffected the Sumerian language at the time of the later kings of Nisin.\nMoreover, the tablet bears a close resemblance to one of the newly\npublished copies of the Sumerian Dynastic List from Nippur;(3) for both\nare of the same shape and composed of the same reddish-brown clay, and\nboth show the same peculiarities of writing. The two tablets in fact\nappear to have been written by the same hand, and as that copy of the\nDynastic List was probably drawn up before the latter half of the First\nDynasty of Babylon, we may assign the same approximate date for the\nwriting of our text. This of course only fixes a lower limit for the age\nof the myth which it enshrines.\n\n     (1) The breadth of the tablet is 5 5/8 in., and it\n     originally measured about 7 in. in length from top to\n     bottom; but only about one-third of its inscribed surface is\n     preserved.\n\n     (2) Cf. Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, pp. 66 ff.\n\n     (3) No. 5.\n\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 the\nlines and the blank spaces frequently left between the sign-groups being\ndue to the rhythmical character of the text. The style of the poetry\nmay be simple and abrupt, but it exhibits a familiar feature of both\nSemitic-Babylonian and Hebrew poetry, in its constant employment of\npartial repetition or paraphrase in parallel lines. The story it tells\nis very primitive and in many respects unlike the Babylonian Versions\nof the Deluge which we already possess. Perhaps its most striking\npeculiarity is the setting of the story, which opens with a record of\nthe creation of man and animals, goes on to tell how the first cities\nwere built, and ends with a version of the Deluge, which is thus\nrecounted in its relation to the Sumerian history of the world. This\nliterary connexion between the Creation and Deluge narratives is of\nunusual interest, in view of the age of our text. In the Babylonian\nVersions hitherto known they are included in separate epics with\nquite different contexts. Here they are recounted together in a single\ndocument, much as they probably were in the history of Berossus and as\nwe find them in the present form of the Book of Genesis. This fact will\nopen up some interesting problems when we attempt to trace the literary\ndescent of the tradition.\n\nBut one important point about the text should be emphasized at once,\nsince it will affect our understanding of some very obscure passages, of\nwhich no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The assumption has\nhitherto been made that the text is an epic pure and simple. It is quite\ntrue that the greater part of it is a myth, recounted as a narrative in\npoetical form, but there appear to me to be clear indications that\nthe myth was really embedded in an incantation. If this was so, the\nmythological portion was recited for a magical purpose, with the object\nof invoking the aid of the chief deities whose actions in the past are\nthere described, and of increasing by that means the potency of the\nspell.(1) In the third lecture I propose to treat in more detail the\nemployment and significance of myth in magic, and we shall have occasion\nto refer to other instances, Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian, in\nwhich a myth has reached us in a magical setting.\n\n     (1) It will be seen that the subject-matter of any myth\n     treated in this way has a close connexion with the object\n     for which the incantation was performed.\n\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 that\nhypothesis. 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\na re-examination of the tablet establish this reading of the word,\nwe should have definite proof of the suggested magical setting of the\nnarrative. But even if we assume its absence, that would not invalidate\nthe arguments that can be adduced in favour of recognizing the existence\nof a magical element, for they are based on internal evidence and enable\nus to explain certain features which are inexplicable on Dr. Poebel's\nhypothesis. Moreover, we shall later on examine another of the\nnewly published Sumerian compositions from Nippur, which is not only\nsemi-epical in character, but is of precisely the same shape, script,\nand period as our text, and is very probably a tablet of the same\nseries. There also the opening signs of the text are wanting, but far\nmore of its contents are preserved and they present unmistakable traces\nof magical use. Its evidence, as that of a parallel text, may therefore\nbe cited in support of the present contention. It may be added that in\nSumerian magical compositions of this early period, of which we have\nnot yet recovered many quite obvious examples, it is possible that\nthe prefix \"Incantation\" was not so invariable as in the later magical\nliterature.\n\n     (1) Cf. Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, p. 63, and _Hist. and Gram.\n     Texts_, pl. i. In the photographic reproduction of the edges\n     of the tablet given in the latter volume, pl. lxxxix, the\n     traces of the sign suggest the reading EN (= Sem. _\u009aiptu_,\n     \"incantation\"). But the sign may very possibly be read AN.\n     In the latter case we may read, in the traces of the two\n     sign-groups at the beginning of the text, the names of both\n     Anu and Enlil, who appear so frequently as the two presiding\n     deities in the myth.\n\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. This\ndifference in the relative positions of the textual fragments recovered\nis due to the fact that Sumerian scribes, like their later Babylonian\nand Assyrian imitators, when they had finished writing the obverse of\na tablet, turned it over from bottom to top--not, as we should turn a\nsheet of paper, from right to left. But in spite of the lacunae, the\nsequence of events related in the mythological narrative may be followed\nwithout difficulty, since the main outline of the story is already\nfamiliar enough from the versions of the Semitic-Babylonian scribes and\nof Berossus. Some uncertainties naturally remain as to what exactly was\nincluded in the missing portions of the tablet; but the more important\nepisodes are fortunately recounted in the extant fragments, and these\nsuffice for a definition of the distinctive character of the Sumerian\nVersion. In view of its literary importance it may be advisable to\nattempt a somewhat detailed discussion of its contents, column by\ncolumn;(1) and the analysis may be most conveniently divided into\nnumbered sections, each of which refers to one of the six columns of the\ntablet. The description of the First Column will serve to establish\nthe general character of the text. Through the analysis of the tablet\nparallels and contrasts will be noted with the Babylonian and Hebrew\nVersions. It will then be possible to summarise, on a surer foundation,\nthe literary history of the traditions, and finally to estimate the\neffect of our new evidence upon current theories as to the origin and\nwide dispersion of Deluge stories.\n\n     (1) In the lecture as delivered the contents of each column\n     were necessarily summarized rather briefly, and conclusions\n     were given without discussion of the evidence.\n\nThe following headings, under which the six numbered sections may be\narranged, indicate the contents of each column and show at a glance the\nmain features of the Sumerian Version:\n\n\nI. Introduction to the Myth, and account of Creation.\n\nII. The Antediluvian Cities.\n\nIII. The Council of the Gods, and Ziusudu's piety.\n\nIV. The Dream-Warning.\n\nV. The Deluge, the Escape of the Great Boat, and the Sacrifice to the\nSun-god.\n\nVI. The Propitiation of the Angry Gods, and Ziusudu's Immortality.\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION TO THE MYTH, AND ACCOUNT OF CREATION\n\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 destruction\nof mankind, but the context is broken; the lines in question begin:\n\n     \"As for my human race, from (_or_ in) its destruction will I\n     cause it to be (. . .),\n\n     For Nintu my creatures (. . .) will I (. . .).\"\n\nFrom the reference to \"my human race\" it is clear that the speaker is a\ncreating deity; and since the expression is exactly parallel to the term\n\"my people\" used by Ishtar, or B\u00ealit-ili, \"the Lady of the gods\", in the\nBabylonian Version of the Deluge story when she bewails the destruction\nof mankind, Dr. Poebel assigns the speech to Ninkharsagga, or Nintu,(1)\nthe goddess who later in the column is associated with Anu, Enlil, and\nEnki in man's creation. But the mention of Nintu in her own speech\nis hardly consistent with that supposition,(2) if we assume with Dr.\nPoebel, as we are probably justified in doing, that the title Nintu\nis employed here and elsewhere in the narrative merely as a synonym of\nNinkharsagga.(3) It appears to me far more probable that one of the two\nsupreme gods, Anu or Enlil, is the speaker,(4) and additional grounds\nwill be cited later in support of this view. It is indeed possible, in\nspite of the verbs and suffixes in the singular, that the speech is to\nbe assigned to both Anu and Enlil, for in the last column, as we shall\nsee, we find verb in the singular following references to both these\ndeities. In any case one of the two chief gods may be regarded as\nspeaking and acting on behalf of both, though it may be that the\ninclusion of the second name in the narrative was not original but\nsimply due to a combination of variant traditions. Such a conflate use\nof Anu-Enlil would present a striking parallel to the Hebrew combination\nYahweh-Elohim, though of course in the case of the former pair the\nsubsequent stage of identification was never attained. But the evidence\nfurnished by the text is not conclusive, and it is preferable here and\nelsewhere in the narrative to regard either Anu or Enlil as speaking and\nacting both on his own behalf and as the other's representative.\n\n     (1) Op. cit., p. 21 f.; and cf. Jastrow, _Hebrew and\n     Babylonian Traditions_, p. 336.\n\n     (2) It necessitates the taking of (_dingir_) _Nin-tu-ra_ as\n     a genitive, not a dative, and the very awkward rendering\n     \"my, Nintu's, creations\".\n\n     (3) Another of the recently published Sumerian mythological\n     compositions from Nippur includes a number of myths in which\n     Enki is associated first with Ninella, referred to also as\n     Nintu, \"the Goddess of Birth\", then with Ninshar, referred\n     to also as Ninkurra, and finally with Ninkharsagga. This\n     text exhibits the process by which separate traditions with\n     regard to goddesses originally distinct were combined\n     together, with the result that their heroines were\n     subsequently often identified with one another. There the\n     myths that have not been subjected to a very severe process\n     of editing, and in consequence the welding is not so\n     complete as in the Sumerian Version of the Deluge.\n\n     (4) If Enlil's name should prove to be the first word of the\n     composition, we should naturally regard him as the speaker\n     here and as the protagonist of the gods throughout the text,\n     a _r\u00f4le_ he also plays in the Semitic-Babylonian Version.\n\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 Deluge.\nAnd an almost certain proof of this may be seen in the opening words\nof the composition, which are preserved in its colophon or title on the\nleft-hand edge of the tablet. We have already noted that the first two\nwords are there to be read, either as the prefix \"Incantation\" followed\nby the name \"Enlil\", or as the two divine names \"Anu (and) Enlil\". Now\nthe signs which follow the traces of Enlil's name are quite certain;\nthey represent \"Ziusudu\", which, as we shall see in the Third Column,\nis the name of the Deluge hero in our Sumerian Version. He is thus\nmentioned in the opening words of the text, in some relation to one or\nboth of the two chief gods of the subsequent narrative. But the natural\nplace for his first introduction into the story is in the Third Column,\nwhere it is related that \"at that time Ziusudu, the king\" did so-and-so.\nThe prominence given him at the beginning of the text, at nearly a\ncolumn's interval before the lines which record the creation of man, is\nsufficient proof that the Deluge story is the writer's main interest,\nand that preceding episodes are merely introductory to it.\n\nWhat subject then may we conjecture was treated in the missing lines of\nthis column, which precede the account of Creation and close with the\nspeech of the chief creating deity? Now the Deluge narrative practically\nends with the last lines of the tablet that are preserved, and the lower\nhalf of the Sixth Column is entirely wanting. We shall see reason\nto believe that the missing end of the tablet was not left blank and\nuninscribed, but contained an incantation, the magical efficacy of which\nwas ensured by the preceding recitation of the Deluge myth. If that were\nso, it would be natural enough that the text should open with its main\nsubject. The cause of the catastrophe and the reason for man's rescue\nfrom it might well be referred to by one of the creating deities in\nvirtue of the analogy these aspects of the myth would present to the\ncircumstances for which the incantation was designed. A brief account\nof the Creation and of Antediluvian history would then form a natural\ntransition to the narrative of the Deluge itself. And even if the text\ncontained no incantation, the narrative may well have been introduced\nin the manner suggested, since this explanation in any case fits in with\nwhat is still preserved of the First Column. For after his reference to\nthe destruction of mankind, the deity proceeds to fix the chief duty\nof man, either as a preliminary to his creation, or as a reassertion\nof that duty after his rescue from destruction by the Flood. It is\nnoteworthy that this duty consists in the building of temples to the\ngods \"in a clean spot\", that is to say \"in hallowed places\". The passage\nmay be given in full, including the two opening lines already discussed:\n\n     \"As for my human race, from (_or_ in) its destruction will I\n     cause it to be (. . .), For Nintu my creatures (. . .) will\n     I (. . .).\n\n     The people will I cause to . . . in their settlements,\n\n     Cities . . . shall (man) build, in there protection will I\n     cause him to rest,\n\n     That he may lay the brick of our houses in a clean spot,\n\n     That in a clean spot he may establish our . . . !\"\n\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\nthe Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series. At the opening of that tablet\nMarduk, in response to \"the word of the gods\", is urged by his heart to\ndevise a cunning plan which he imparts to Ea, namely the creation of man\nfrom his own divine blood and from bone which he will fashion. And the\nreason he gives for his proposal is precisely that which, as we have\nseen, prompted the Sumerian deity to create or preserve the human race.\nFor Marduk continues:\n\n     \"I will create man who shall inhabit (. . .),\n\n     That the service of the gods may be established and that\n     their shrines may be built.\"(1)\n\n     (1) See _The Seven Tablets of Creation_, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.\n\nWe shall see later, from the remainder of Marduk's speech, that the\nSemitic Version has been elaborated at this point in order to reconcile\nit with other ingredients in its narrative, which were entirely absent\nfrom the simpler Sumerian tradition. It will suffice here to note that,\nin both, the reason given for man's existence is the same, namely, that\nthe gods themselves may have worshippers.(1) The conception is in full\nagreement with early Sumerian thought, and reflects the theocratic\nconstitution of the earliest Sumerian communities. The idea was\nnaturally not repugnant to the Semites, and it need not surprise us to\nfind the very words of the principal Sumerian Creator put into the mouth\nof Marduk, the city-god of Babylon.\n\n     (1) It may be added that this is also the reason given for\n     man's creation in the introduction to a text which\n     celebrates the founding or rebuilding of a temple.\n\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 establishment\nof the divine laws in accordance with which his intention was carried\nout. The passage includes a refrain, which is repeated in the Second\nColumn:\n\n     The sublime decrees he made perfect for it.\n\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\nthe foundation of the Babylonian kingdom and the building of the\nAntediluvian cities. In that passage there can be little doubt that the\nsubject of the verb is the chief Sumerian deity, and we are therefore\nthe more inclined to assign to him also the opening speech of the First\nColumn, rather than to regard it as spoken by the Sumerian goddess whose\nshare in the creation would justify her in claiming mankind as her\nown. In the last four lines of the column we have a brief record of the\nCreation itself. It was carried out by the three greatest gods of the\nSumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil and Enki, with the help of the goddess\nNinkharsagga; the passage reads:\n\n     When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga\n     Created the blackheaded (i.e. mankind),\n     The _niggil(ma)_ of the earth they caused the earth to\n     produce(?),\n     The animals, the four-legged creatures of the field, they\n     artfully called into existence.\n\nThe interpretation of the third line is obscure, but there is no doubt\nthat it records the creation of something which is represented as having\ntaken place between the creation of mankind and that of animals. This\nobject, which is written as _nig-gil_ or _nig-gil-ma_, is referred to\nagain in the Sixth Column, where the Sumerian hero of the Deluge assigns\nto it the honorific title, \"Preserver of the Seed of Mankind\". It must\ntherefore have played an important part in man's preservation from the\nFlood; and the subsequent bestowal of the title may be paralleled in\nthe early Semitic Deluge fragment from Nippur, where the boat in which\nUt-napishtim escapes is assigned the very similar title \"Preserver of\nLife\".(1) But _niggilma_ is not the word used in the Sumerian Version\nof Ziusudu's boat, and I am inclined to suggest a meaning for it in\nconnexion with the magical element in the text, of the existence of\nwhich there is other evidence. On that assumption, the prominence given\nto its creation may be paralleled in the introduction to a later magical\ntext, which described, probably in connexion with an incantation,\nthe creation of two small creatures, one white and one black, by\nNin-igi-azag, \"The Lord of Clear Vision\", one of the titles borne by\nEnki or Ea. The time of their creation is indicated as after that\nof \"cattle, beasts of the field and creatures of the city\", and the\ncomposition opens in a way which is very like the opening of the present\npassage in our text.(2) In neither text is there any idea of giving\na complete account of the creation of the world, only so much of the\noriginal myth being included in each case as suffices for the writer's\npurpose. Here we may assume that the creation of mankind and of animals\nis recorded because they were to be saved from the Flood, and that of\nthe _niggilma_ because of the part it played in ensuring their survival.\n\n     (1) See Hilprecht, _Babylonian Expedition_, Series D, Vol.\n     V, Fasc. 1, plate, Rev., l. 8; the photographic reproduction\n     clearly shows, as Dr. Poebel suggests (_Hist. Texts_, p. 61\n     n 3), that the line should read: _((isu)elippu) \u009ai-i lu\n     (isu)ma-gur-gur-ma \u009aum-\u009aa lu na-si-rat na-pi\u009a-tim_, \"That\n     ship shall be a _magurgurru_ (giant boat), and its name\n     shall be 'Preserver of Life' (lit. 'She that preserves\n     life').\"\n\n     (2) See _Seven Tablets of Creation_, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff. The\n     text opens with the words \"When the gods in their assembly\n     had made (the world), and had created the heavens, and had\n     formed the earth, and had brought living creatures into\n     being . . .\", the lines forming an introduction to the\n     special act of creation with which the composition was\n     concerned.\n\nThe discussion of the meaning of _niggilma_ may best be postponed till\nthe Sixth Column, where we find other references to the word. Meanwhile\nit may be noted that in the present passage the creation of man precedes\nthat of animals, as it did in the earlier Hebrew Version of Creation,\nand probably also in the Babylonian version, though not in the later\nHebrew Version. It may be added that in another Sumerian account of the\nCreation(1) the same order, of man before animals, is followed.\n\n     (1) Cf. _Sev. Tabl._, Vol. I, p. 134 f.; but the text has\n     been subjected to editing, and some of its episodes are\n     obviously displaced.\n\n\n\n\nII. THE ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES\n\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 a\ndeity, in which he proclaims an act he is about to perform. Here we may\nassume with some confidence that the speaker is Anu or Enlil, preferably\nthe latter, since it would be natural to ascribe the political\nconstitution of Babylonia, the foundation of which is foreshadowed, to\nthe head of the Sumerian pantheon. It would appear that a beginning had\nalready been made in the establishment of \"the kingdom\", and, before\nproceeding to his further work of founding the Antediluvian cities, he\nfollows the example of the speaker in the First Column of the text and\nlays down the divine enactments by which his purpose was accomplished.\nThe same refrain is repeated:\n\n     The sub(lime decrees) he made perfect for it.\n\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\n     (In clean place)s he founded (five) cit(ies).\n\n     And after he had called their names and they had been\n     allotted to divine rulers(?),--\n\n     The . . . of these cities, Eridu, he gave to the leader, Nu-\n     dimmud,\n\n     Secondly, to Nugira(?) he gave Bad-. . .,(1)\n\n     Thirdly, Larak he gave to Pabilkharsag,\n\n     Fourthly, Sippar he gave to the hero, the Sun-god,\n\n     Fifthly, Shuruppak he gave to \"the God of Shuruppak\",--\n\n     After he had called the names of these cities, and they had\n     been allotted to divine rulers(?),\n\n     (1) In Semitic-Babylonian the first component of this city-\n     name would read \"D\u00fbr\".\n\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\n     (1) The precise meaning of the sign-group here provisionally\n     rendered \"divine ruler\" is not yet ascertained.\n\nAs the first of the series of five cities of Eridu, the seat of Nudimmud\nor Enki, who was the third of the creating deities, it has been urged\nthat the upper part of the Second Column must have included an account\nof the founding of Erech, the city of Anu, and of Nippur, Enlil's\ncity.(1) But the numbered sequence of the cities would be difficult to\nreconcile with the earlier creation of other cities in the text, and\nthe mention of Eridu as the first city to be created would be quite\nin accord with its great age and peculiarly sacred character as a\ncult-centre. Moreover the evidence of the Sumerian Dynastic List is\ndefinitely against any claim of Erech to Antediluvian existence. For\nwhen the hegemony passed from the first Post-diluvian \"kingdom\" to the\nsecond, it went not to Erech but to the shrine Eanna, which gave its\nname to the second \"kingdom\"; and the city itself was apparently not\nfounded before the reign of Enmerkar, the second occupant of the throne,\nwho is the first to be given the title \"King of Erech\". This conclusion\nwith regard to Erech incidentally disposes of the arguments for Nippur's\nAntediluvian rank in primitive Sumerian tradition, which have been\nfounded on the order of the cities mentioned at the beginning of the\nlater Sumerian myth of Creation.(2) The evidence we thus obtain that the\nearly Sumerians themselves regarded Eridu as the first city in the world\nto be created, increases the hope that future excavation at Abu Shahrain\nmay reveal Sumerian remains of periods which, from an archaeological\nstandpoint, must still be regarded as prehistoric.\n\n     (1) Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 41.\n\n     (2) The city of Nippur does not occur among the first four\n     \"kingdoms\" of the Sumerian Dynastic List; but we may\n     probably assume that it was the seat of at least one early\n     \"kingdom\", in consequence of which Enlil, its city-god,\n     attained his later pre-eminent rank in the Sumerian\n     pantheon.\n\nIt is noteworthy that no human rulers are mentioned in connexion with\nEridu and the other four Antediluvian cities; and Ziusudu, the hero\nof the story, is apparently the only mortal whose name occurred in\nour text. 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\nthe representative 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.\n\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\nwas the seat of the eighth and ninth of his Antediluvian kings. In\ncommercial documents of the Persian period, which have been found during\nthe excavations at Nippur, Larak is described as lying \"on the bank of\nthe old Tigris\", a phrase which must be taken as referring to the Shatt\nel-Hai, in view of the situation of Lagash and other early cities\nupon it or in its immediate neighbourhood. The site of the city should\nperhaps be sought on the upper course of the stream, where it tends\nto approach Nippur. It would thus have lain in the neighbourhood of\nBism\u00e2ya, the site of Adab. Like Adab, Lagash, Shuruppak, and other early\nSumerian cities, it was probably destroyed and deserted at a very early\nperiod, though it was reoccupied under its old name in Neo-Babylonian or\nPersian times. Its early disappearance from Babylonian history perhaps\nin part accounts for our own unfamiliarity with Pabilkharsag, its\ncity-god, unless we may regard the name as a variant from of Pabilsag;\nbut it is hardly likely that the two should be identified.\n\n     (1) The site of Adab, now marked by the mounds of Bism\u00e2ya,\n     was partially excavated by an expedition sent out in 1903 by\n     the University of Chicago, and has provided valuable\n     material for the study of the earliest Sumerian period; see\n     _Reports of the Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund_\n     (Babylonian Section of the University of Chicago), and\n     Banks, _Bismya_ (1912). On grounds of antiquity alone we\n     might perhaps have expected its inclusion in the myth.\n\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, sixth,\nand seventh of his Antediluvian kings all came, was the city of Sippar\nin Northern Babylonia. For the seventh of these rulers, {Euedorakhos},\nis clearly Enmeduranki, the mythical king of Sippar, who in Babylonian\ntradition was regarded as the founder of divination. In a fragmentary\ncomposition that has come down to us he is described, not only as king\nof Sippar, but as \"beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki\", the three creating\ngods of our text; and it is there recounted how the patron deities of\ndivination, Shamash and Adad, themselves taught him to practise their\nart.(1) Moreover, Berossus directly implies the existence of Sippar\nbefore the Deluge, for in the summary of his version that has been\npreserved Xisuthros, under divine instruction, buries the sacred\nwritings concerning the origin of the world in \"Sispara\", the city\nof the Sun-god, so that after the Deluge they might be dug up and\ntransmitted to mankind. Ebabbar, the great Sun-temple, was at Sippar,\nand it is to the Sun-god that the city is naturally allotted in the new\nSumerian Version.\n\n     (1) Cf. Zimmern, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Relig._,\n     pp. 116 ff.\n\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\nis natural 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, in\nview 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 in\nconnexion with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not recorded, but as\nhis father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that city as his\nin the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only Antediluvian cities\naccording to Berossus were Babylon and Sippar, and the influence of\nBabylonian theology, of which we here have evidence, would be sufficient\nto account for a disturbance of the original traditions. At the same\ntime it is not excluded that Larak was also the scene of the Deluge in\nour text, though, as we have noted, the position of Shuruppak at the\nclose of the Sumerian list points to it as the more probable of the two.\nIt may be added that we cannot yet read the name of the deity to whom\nShuruppak was allotted, but as it is expressed by the city's name\npreceded by the divine determinative, the rendering \"the God of\nShuruppak\" will meanwhile serve.\n\n     (1) See _Hist. of Sum. and Akk._, pp. 24 ff.\n\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 its\nlogical order, must have occurred in the upper portion of the column.\nThe fact that in the later Sumerian account their creation is related\nbetween that of mankind and the building of Nippur and Erech cannot be\ncited in support of this suggestion, in view of the absence of those\ncities from our text and of the process of editing to which the later\nversion has been subjected, with a consequent disarrangement of its\nepisodes.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS, AND ZIUSUDU'S PIETY\n\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 \"her\npeople\". That this decision has been decreed by the gods in council is\nclear from a passage in the Fourth Column, where it is stated that the\nsending of a flood to destroy mankind was \"the word of the assembly (of\nthe gods)\". The first lines preserved in the present column describe the\neffect of the decision on the various gods concerned and their action at\nthe close of the council.\n\nIn the lines which described the Council of the Gods, broken references\nto \"the people\" and \"a flood\" are preserved, after which the text\ncontinues:\n\n     At that time Nintu (. . .) like a (. . .),\n     The holy Innanna lament(ed) on account of her people.\n     Enki in his own heart (held) counsel;\n     Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga (. . .).\n     The gods of heaven and earth in(voked) the name of Anu and Enlil.\n\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 first\ntwo lines quoted with a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic where Ishtar is\ndescribed as lamenting the destruction of mankind.(1) This will be seen\nmore clearly by printing the two couplets in parallel columns:\n\n     SUMERIAN VERSION                  SEMITIC VERSION\n\n     At that time Nintu (. . .)       Ishtar cried aloud like a woman\n     like a (. . .),                     in travail,\n     The holy Innanna lament(ed)      B\u00ealit-ili lamented with a loud\n     on account of her people.           voice.\n\n     (1) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 117 f.\n\nThe expression B\u00ealit-ili, \"the Lady of the Gods\", is attested as a title\nborne both by the Semitic goddess Ishtar and by the Sumerian goddess\nNintu or Ninkharsagga. In the passage in the Babylonian Version, \"the\nLady of the Gods\" has always been treated as a synonym of Ishtar, the\nsecond half of the couplet being regarded as a restatement of the first,\naccording to a recognized law of Babylonian poetry. We may probably\nassume that this interpretation is correct, and we may conclude by\nanalogy that \"the holy Innanna\" in the second half of the Sumerian\ncouplet is there merely employed as a synonym of Nintu.(1) When the\nSumerian myth was recast in accordance with Semitic ideas, the _r\u00f4le_ of\ncreatress of mankind, which had been played by the old Sumerian goddess\nNinkharsagga or Nintu, was naturally transferred to the Semitic Ishtar.\nAnd as Innanna was one of Ishtar's designations, it was possible to make\nthe change by a simple transcription of the lines, the name Nintu being\nreplaced by the synonymous title B\u00ealit-ili, which was also shared by\nIshtar. Difficulties are at once introduced if we assume with Dr.\nPoebel that in each version two separate goddesses are represented as\nlamenting, Nintu or B\u00ealit-ili and Innanna or Ishtar. For Innanna as\na separate goddess had no share in the Sumerian Creation, and the\nreference to \"her people\" is there only applicable to Nintu. Dr. Poebel\nhas to assume that the Sumerian names should be reversed in order to\nrestore them to their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian\nVersion has preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary. In\nthe Semitic 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 her\nname in the later version is thus obvious, and we have already noted how\nsimply this was effected.\n\n     (1) Cf. also Jastrow, _Hebr. and Bab. Trad._, p. 336.\n\n     (2) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.\n\nAnother feature in which the two versions differ is that in the Sumerian\ntext the lamentation of the goddess precedes the sending of the Deluge,\nwhile in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual advent of the\nstorm. Since our text is not completely preserved, it is just possible\nthat the couplet was repeated at the end of the Fourth Column after\nmankind's destruction had taken place. But a further apparent difference\nhas been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the goddess at once\ndeplores the divine decision, it is clear from Ishtar's words in the\nGilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods she had at any rate\nconcurred in it.(1) On the other hand, in B\u00ealit-ili's later speech in\nthe Epic, after Ut-napishtim's sacrifice upon the mountain, she appears\nto subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.(2) The passages in the\nGilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory, for they can be interpreted\nas implying that, while Enlil forced his will upon the other gods\nagainst B\u00ealit-ili's protest, the goddess at first reproached herself\nwith her concurrence, and later stigmatized Enlil as the real author of\nthe catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does not appear, as has been\nsuggested, to betray traces of two variant traditions which have been\nskilfully combined, though it may perhaps exhibit an expansion of the\nSumerian story. On the other hand, most of the apparent discrepancies\nbetween the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions disappear, on the\nrecognition that our text gives in many passages only an epitome of the\noriginal Sumerian Version.\n\n     (1) Cf. l. 121 f., \"Since I commanded evil in the assembly\n     of the gods, (and) commanded battle for the destruction of\n     my people\".\n\n     (2) Cf. ll. 165 ff., \"Ye gods that are here! So long as I\n     forget not the (jewels of) lapis lazuli upon my neck, I will\n     keep these days in my memory, never will I forget them! Let\n     the gods come to the offering, but let not Enlil come to the\n     offering, since he took not counsel but sent the deluge and\n     surrendered my people to destruction.\"\n\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 destruction.\nSince the verb in the following line is wanting, we do not know what\naction is there recorded of the four creating deities; but the fact that\nthe gods of heaven and earth invoked the name of Anu and Enlil suggests\nthat it was their will which had been forced upon the other gods. We\nshall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil are the ultimate rulers\nof both gods and men.\n\nThe narrative then introduces the human hero of the Deluge story:\n\n     At that time Ziusudu, the king, . . . priest of the god (. . .),\n\n     Made a very great . . ., (. . .).\n\n     In humility he prostrates himself, in reverence (. . .),\n\n     Daily he stands in attendance (. . .).\n\n     A dream,(1) such as had not been before, comes forth(2) . . .\n          (. . .),\n\n     By the Name of Heaven and Earth he conjures (. . .).\n\n     (1) The word may also be rendered \"dreams\".\n\n     (2) For this rendering of the verb _e-de_, for which Dr.\n     Poebel does not hazard a translation, see Rawlinson,\n     _W.A.I._, IV, pl. 26, l. 24 f.(a), _nu-e-de_ = Sem. _la us-\n     su-u_ (Pres.); and cf. Br\u00fcnnow, _Classified List_, p. 327.\n     An alternative rendering \"is created\" is also possible, and\n     would give equally good sense; cf. _nu-e-de_ = Sem. _la \u009au-\n     pu-u_, _W.A.I._, IV, pl. 2, l. 5 (a), and Br\u00fcnnow, op. cit.,\n     p. 328.\n\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 or\nexplanatory list of words.(1) We there find \"Ut-napishte\" given as the\nequivalent of the Sumerian \"Zisuda\", evidently an abbreviated form of\nthe 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 rendered\n\"He who lengthened the day of life\" or \"He who made life long of\ndays\",(3) which in the Semitic form is abbreviated by the omission of\nthe verb. The reference is probably to the immortality bestowed upon\nZiusudu 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\n     (1) Cf. _Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus._, Pt. XVIII, pl. 30,\n     l. 9 (a).\n\n     (2) The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebel\n     as Ziugiddu, but there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern's\n     suggestion, based on the form Zisuda, that the third\n     syllable of the name should be read as _su_. On a fragment\n     of another Nippur text, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the name\n     as _Zi-u-sud-du_ (cf. Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec.,\n     Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90, pl. iv a); the presence of the\n     phonetic complement _du_ may be cited in favour of this\n     reading, but it does not appear to be supported by the\n     photographic reproductions of the name in the Sumerian\n     Deluge Version given by Dr. Poebel (_Hist. and Gramm.\n     Texts_, pl. lxxxviii f.). It may be added that, on either\n     alternative, the meaning of the name is the same.\n\n     (3) The meaning of the Sumerian element _u_ in the name,\n     rendered as _utu_ in the Semitic form, is rather obscure,\n     and Dr. Poebel left it unexplained. It is very probable, as\n     suggested by Dr. Langdon (cf. _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._,\n     XXXVI, 1914, p. 190), that we should connect it with the\n     Semitic _uddu_; in that case, in place of \"breath\", the\n     rending he suggests, I should be inclined to render it here\n     as \"day\", for _uddu_ as the meaning \"dawn\" and the sign UD\n     is employed both for _urru_, \"day-light\", and _\u00fbmu_, \"day\".\n\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 have\nbeen possible to determine definitely Ziusudu's city, and incidentally\nthe scene of the Deluge in the Sumerian Version, by the name of the\ndeity in whose service he acted as priest. We have already noted some\ngrounds for believing that his city may have been Shuruppak, as in the\nBabylonian Version; and if that were so, the divine name reads as \"the\nGod of Shurrupak\" should probably be restored at the end of the line.(1)\n\n     (1) The remains that are preserved of the determinative,\n     which is not combined with the sign EN, proves that Enki's\n     name is not to be restored. Hence Ziusudu was not priest of\n     Enki, and his city was probably not Eridu, the seat of his\n     divine friend and counsellor, and the first of the\n     Antediluvian cities. Sufficient reason for Enki's\n     intervention on Ziusudu's behalf is furnished by the fact\n     that, as God of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposed\n     method of man's destruction. His rivalry of Enlil, the God\n     of the Earth, is implied in the Babylonian Version (cf.\n     Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-42), and in the Sumerian Version this\n     would naturally extend to Anu, the God of Heaven.\n\nThe employment of the royal title by itself accords with the tradition\nfrom Berossus that before the Deluge, as in later periods, the land was\ngoverned by a succession of supreme rulers, and that the hero of the\nDeluge 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 in\nthe guise of an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal\npower. On this point Berossus evidently preserves the original Sumerian\ntraditions, while the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-Babylonian\nnarrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of supreme Antediluvian\nrulers is of course merely a reflection from the historical period,\nwhen the hegemony in Babylonia was contested among the city-states. The\ngrowth of the tradition may have been encouraged by the early use of\n_lugal_, \"king\", which, though always a term of secular character, was\nnot very sharply distinguished from that of _patesi_ and other religious\ntitles, until, in accordance with political development, it was required\nto connote a wider dominion. In Sumer, at the time of the composition\nof our text, Ziusudu was still only one in a long line of Babylonian\nrulers, mainly historical but gradually receding into the realms of\nlegend and myth. At the time of the later Semites there had been more\nthan one complete break in the tradition and the historical setting\nof the old story had become dim. The fact that Hebrew tradition should\nrange itself in this matter with Babylon rather than with Sumer is\nimportant as a clue in tracing the literary history of our texts.\n\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 to\na temple or some other structure of a sacred character. Its foundation\nmay have been recorded as striking evidence of his devotion to his god;\nor, since the verb in this sentence depends on the words \"at that time\"\nin the preceding line, we may perhaps regard his action as directly\nconnected with the revelation to be made to him. His personal piety\nis then described: daily he occupied himself in his god's service,\nprostrating himself in humility and constant in his attendance at the\nshrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), \"such as had not been before\",\nappears to him and he seems to be further described as conjuring \"by\nthe Name of Heaven and Earth\"; but as the ends of all these lines are\nbroken, the exact connexion of the phrases is not quite certain.\n\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 employed\nlater in the term for the \"huge boat\", _(gish)ma-gur-gur_, in which\nZiusudu rode out the storm. There was, of course, even at this early\nperiod a natural tendency to picture on a superhuman scale the lives and\ndeeds of remote predecessors, a tendency which increased in later times\nand led, as we shall see, to the elaboration of extravagant detail.\n\nIt is difficult not to associate the reference to a dream, or possibly\nto dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki reveals the purpose\nof the gods. For the later versions prepare us for a reference to\na dream. If we take the line as describing Ziusudu's practice of\ndream-divination in general, \"such as had not been before\", he may have\nbeen represented as the first diviner of dreams, as Enmeduranki was held\nto be the first practitioner of divination in general. But it seems to\nme more probable that the reference is to a particular dream, by means\nof which he obtained knowledge of the gods' intentions. On the rendering\nof this passage depends our interpretation of the whole of the Fourth\nColumn, where the point will be further discussed. Meanwhile it may be\nnoted that the conjuring \"by the Name of Heaven and Earth\", which we may\nassume is ascribed to Ziusudu, gains in significance if we may regard\nthe setting of the myth as a magical incantation, an inference in\nsupport of which we shall note further evidence. For we are furnished\nat once with the grounds for its magical employment. If Ziusudu, through\nconjuring by the Name of Heaven and earth, could profit by the warning\nsent him and so escape the impending fate of mankind, the application of\nsuch a myth to the special needs of a Sumerian in peril or distress will\nbe obvious. For should he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and Earth,\nhe might look for a similar deliverance; and his recital of the myth\nitself would tend to clinch the magical effect of his own incantation.\n\nThe description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnishing us with\na close parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew Versions. For in the\nGilgamesh Epic and in Berossus this feature of the story is completely\nabsent. We are there given no reason why Ut-napishtim was selected by\nEa, nor Xisuthros by Kronos. For all that those versions tell us, the\nfavour of each deity might have been conferred arbitrarily, and not in\nrecognition of, or in response to, any particular quality or action\non the part of its recipient. The Sumerian Version now restores the\noriginal setting of the story and incidentally proves that, in this\nparticular, the Hebrew Versions have not embroidered a simpler narrative\nfor the purpose of edification, but have faithfully reproduced an\noriginal strand of the tradition.\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE DREAM-WARNING\n\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 is\nhere warned that a flood is to be sent \"to destroy the seed of mankind\";\nthe doubt that exists concerns the manner in which the warning is\nconveyed. In the first line of the column, after a reference to \"the\ngods\", a building seems to be mentioned, and Ziusudu, standing beside\nit, apparently hears a voice, which bids him take his stand beside\na wall and then conveys to him the warning of the coming flood. The\ndestruction of mankind had been decreed in \"the assembly (of the gods)\"\nand would be carried out by the commands of Anu and Enlil. Before the\ntext breaks off we again have a reference to the \"kingdom\" and \"its\nrule\", a further trace of the close association of the Deluge with the\ndynastic succession in the early traditions of Sumer.\n\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 his\nwarning to Ut-napishtim. The warnings, as given in the two versions, are\nprinted below in parallel columns for comparison.(1) The Gilgamesh Epic,\nafter relating how the great gods in Shuruppak had decided to send a\ndeluge, continues as follows in the right-hand column:\n\n     SUMERIAN VERSION                    SEMITIC VERSION\n\n     For (. . .) . . . the gods a        Nin-igi-azag,(2) the god Ea,\n     . . . (. . .);                      sat with them,\n     Ziusudu standing at its side        And he repeated their word to\n     heard (. . .):                      the house of reeds:\n     \"At the wall on my left side take   \"Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall,\n     thy stand and (. . .),               wall!\n     At the wall I will speak a word     O reed-hut, hear! O wall,\n     to thee (. . .).                    understand!\n     O my devout one . . . (. . .),      Thou man of Shuruppak, son of\n     Ubar-Tutu,\n     By our hand(?) a flood(3) . . .     Pull down thy house, build a\n     (. . .) will be (sent).             ship,\n     To destroy the seed of mankind      Leave thy possessions, take\n     (. . .)                             heed for thy life,\n     Is the decision, the word of the    Abandon thy property, and save\n     assembly(4) (of the gods)           thy life.\n     The commands of Anu (and)           And bring living seed of every\n     En(lil . . .)                       kind into the ship.\n     Its kingdom, its rule (. . .)       As for the ship, which thou\n     shalt build,\n     To his (. . .)\"                     Of which the measurements\n     shall be carefully measured,\n     (. . .)                             Its breadth and length shall\n     correspond.\n     (. . .)                             In the deep shalt thou immerse\n     it.\"\n\n     (1) Col. IV, ll. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic,\n     XI, ll. 19-31.\n\n     (2) Nin-igi-azag, \"The Lord of Clear Vision\", a title borne\n     by Enki, or Ea, as God of Wisdom.\n\n     (3) The Sumerian term _amaru_, here used for the flood and\n     rendered as \"rain-storm\" by Dr. Poebel, is explained in a\n     later syllabary as the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian\n     word _ab\u00fbbu_ (cf. Meissner, _S.A.I._, No. 8909), the term\n     employed for the flood both in the early Semitic version of\n     the Atrakhasis story dated in Ammizaduga's reign and in the\n     Gilgamesh Epic. The word _ab\u00fbbu_ is often conventionally\n     rendered \"deluge\", but should be more accurately translated\n     \"flood\". It is true that the tempests of the Sumerian\n     Version probably imply rain; and in the Gilgamesh Epic heavy\n     rain in the evening begins the flood and is followed at dawn\n     by a thunderstorm and hurricane. But in itself the term\n     _ab\u00fbbu_ implies flood, which could take place through a rise\n     of the rivers unaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annual\n     rainfall in Babylonia to-day is on an average only about 8\n     in., and there have been years in succession when the total\n     rainfall has not exceeded 4 in.; and yet the _ab\u00fbbu_ is not\n     a thing of the past.\n\n     (4) The word here rendered \"assembly\" is the Semitic loan-\n     word _buhrum_, in Babylonian _puhrum_, the term employed for\n     the \"assembly\" of the gods both in the Babylonian Creation\n     Series and in the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment in the\n     Sumerian Version, in place of its Sumerian equivalent\n     _ukkin_, is an interesting example of Semitic influence. Its\n     occurrence does not necessarily imply the existence of a\n     recognized Semitic Version at the period our text was\n     inscribed. The substitution of _buhrum_ for _ukkin_ in the\n     text may well date from the period of Hammurabi, when we may\n     assume that the increased importance of the city-council was\n     reflected in the general adoption of the Semitic term (cf.\n     Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, p. 53).\n\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 his\naction 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\nthe Sumerian Version the close of the warning, in which the ship was\nprobably referred to, and the lines prescribing how Ziusudu carried out\nthe divine instructions are not preserved.\n\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 as\nspeaking to Ut-napishtim himself. But in a later passage in the Epic,\nwhen Ea seeks to excuse his action to Enlil, he says that the gods'\ndecision was revealed to Atrakhasis through a dream.(1) Dr. Poebel\nrightly compares the direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in the passage\nquoted above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu receives in the\nSumerian Version. But he would have us divorce the direct warning from\nthe dream-warning, and he concludes that no less than three different\nversions of the story have been worked together in the Gilgamesh Epic.\nIn the first, corresponding to that in our text, Ea communicates the\ngods' decision directly to Ut-napishtim; in the second he sends a dream\nfrom which Atrakhasis, \"the Very Wise one\", guesses the impending peril;\nwhile in the third he relates the plan to a wall, taking care that\nUt-napishtim overhears him.(2) The version of Berossus, that Kronos\nhimself appears to Xisuthros in a dream and warns him, is rejected by\nDr. Poebel, who remarks that here the \"original significance of the\ndream has already been obliterated\". Consequently there seems to him to\nbe \"no logical connexion\" between the dreams or dream mentioned at the\nclose of the Third Column and the communication of the plan of the gods\nat the beginning of the Fourth Column of our text.(3)\n\n     (1) Cf. l. 195 f.; \"I did not divulge the decision of the\n     great gods. I caused Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thus\n     he heard the decision of the gods.\"\n\n     (2) Cf. Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, p. 51 f. With the god's\n     apparent subterfuge in the third of these supposed versions\n     Sir James Frazer (_Ancient Stories of a Great Flood_, p. 15)\n     not inaptly compares the well-known story of King Midas's\n     servant, who, unable to keep the secret of the king's\n     deformity to himself, whispered it into a hole in the\n     ground, with the result that the reeds which grew up there\n     by their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the world\n     (Ovid, _Metamorphoses_, xi, 174 ff.).\n\n     (3) Op. cit., p. 51; cf. also Jastrow, _Heb. and Bab.\n     Trad._, p. 346.\n\nSo far from Berossus having missed the original significance of the\nnarrative he relates, I think it can be shown that he reproduces\nvery accurately the sense of our Sumerian text; and that the apparent\ndiscrepancies in the Semitic Version, and the puzzling references to\na wall 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 of\nSumerian dreams by which important decisions of the gods in council were\ncommunicated to mankind. We fortunately possess an instructive Sumerian\nparallel to our passage. In it the will of the gods is revealed in\na dream, which is not only described in full but is furnished with a\ndetailed interpretation; and as it seems to clear up our difficulties,\nit may be well to summarize its main features.\n\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 before\nour Sumerian document was inscribed. In his own inscription(1) he\ntells us that he was at a loss to know by what means he might restore\nprosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream; and it was\nin consequence of the dream that he eventually erected one of the most\nsumptuously appointed of Sumerian temples and thereby restored his land\nto prosperity. Before recounting his dream he describes how the gods\nthemselves took counsel. On the day in which destinies were fixed\nin heaven and earth, Enlil, the chief of the gods, and Ningirsu, the\ncity-god of Lagash, held converse; and Enlil, turning to Ningirsu,\ndescribed the sad condition of Southern Babylonia, and remarked that\n\"the decrees of the temple Eninn\u00fb should be made glorious in heaven and\nupon earth\", or, in other words, that Ningirsu's city-temple must be\nrebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not communicate his orders directly to\nGudea, but conveyed the will of the gods to him by means of a dream.\n\n     (1) See Thureau-Dangin, _Les inscriptions de Sumer et\n     d'Akkad_, Cyl. A, pp. 134 ff., Germ. ed., pp. 88 ff.; and\n     cf. King and Hall, _Eg. and West. Asia_, pp. 196 ff.\n\nIt will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation to that in\nthe Deluge story. A conference of the gods has been held; a decision\nhas been taken by the greatest god, Enlil; and, in consequence, another\ndeity is anxious to inform a Sumerian ruler of that decision. The only\ndifference is that here Enlil desires the communication to be made,\nwhile in the Deluge story it is made without his knowledge, and\nobviously against his wishes. So the fact that Ningirsu does not\ncommunicate directly with the patesi, but conveys his message by means\nof a dream, is particularly instructive. For here there can be no\nquestion of any subterfuge in the method employed, since Enlil was a\nconsenting party.\n\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\nwas the 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 of\nthe words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose from the earth; and\nhe beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure reed, and she carried also\na tablet on which was a star of the heavens, and she seemed to take\ncounsel with herself. While Gudea was gazing, he seemed to see a second\nman, who was like a warrior; and he carried a slab of lapis lazuli, on\nwhich he drew out the plan of a temple. Before the patesi himself it\nseemed that a fair cushion was placed, and upon the cushion was set\na mould, and within the mould was a brick. And on the right hand the\npatesi beheld an ass that lay upon the ground. Such was the dream of\nGudea, and he was troubled because he could not interpret it.(1)\n\n     (1) The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalyptic\n     visions of a later period is interesting, as evidence of the\n     latter's remote ancestry, and of the development in the use\n     of primitive material to suit a completely changed political\n     outlook. But those are points which do not concern our\n     problem.\n\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, could\ndivine all the mysteries of the gods. But first of all by sacrifices\nand libations he secured the mediation of his own city-god and goddess,\nNingirsu and Gatumdug; and then, repairing to Nin\u00e2's temple, he\nrecounted to her the details of his vision. When the patesi had\nfinished, the goddess addressed him and said she would explain to him\nthe meaning of his dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand that\nshe 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 which\nhe uttered were an order to the patesi to rebuild the temple Eninn\u00fb. The\nSun which rose from the earth was the god Ningishzida, for like the\nSun he goes forth from the earth. The maiden who held the pure reed and\ncarried the tablet with the star was the goddess Nisaba; the star was\nthe pure star of the temple's construction, which she proclaimed. The\nsecond man, who was like a warrior, was the god Nibub; and the plan of\nthe temple which he drew was the plan of Eninn\u00fb; and the ass that lay\nupon the ground was the patesi himself.(1)\n\n     (1) The symbolism of the ass, as a beast of burden, was\n     applicable to the patesi in his task of carrying out the\n     building of the temple.\n\nThe essential feature of the vision is that the god himself appeared to\nthe sleeper and delivered his message in words. That is precisely the\nmanner 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 the\nmeaning of the god's message, and so required an interpretation; but\nhe was equally at a loss as to the identity of the god who gave it,\nalthough Ningirsu was his own city-god and was accompanied by his own\nfamiliar city-emblem. We may thus assume that the god's words, as words,\nwere equally intelligible to Gudea. But as they were uttered in a dream,\nit was necessary that the patesi, in view of his country's peril, should\nhave divine assurance that they implied no other meaning. And in his\ncase such assurance was the more essential, in view of the symbolism\nattaching to the other features of his vision. That this is sound\nreasoning is proved by a second vision vouchsafed to Gudea by Ningirsu.\nFor the patesi, though he began to prepare for the building of the\ntemple, was not content even with Nin\u00e2's assurance. He offered a prayer\nto Ningirsu himself, saying that he wished to build the temple, but had\nreceived no sign that this was the will of the god; and he prayed for a\nsign. Then, as the patesi lay stretched upon the ground, the god again\nappeared to him and gave him detailed instructions, adding that he would\ngrant the sign for which he asked. The sign was that he should feel his\nside touched as by a flame,(1) and thereby he should know that he was\nthe man chosen by Ningirsu to carry out his commands. Here it is the\nsign which confirms the apparent meaning of the god's words. And Gudea\nwas at last content and built the temple.(2)\n\n     (1) Cyl. A., col. xii, l. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op.\n     cit., p. 150 f., Germ. ed., p. 102 f. The word translated\n     \"side\" may also be rendered as \"hand\"; but \"side\" is the\n     more probable rendering of the two. The touching of Gudea's\n     side (or hand) presents an interesting resemblance to the\n     touching of Jacob's thigh by the divine wrestler at Peniel\n     in Gen. xxxii. 24 ff. (J or JE). Given a belief in the\n     constant presence of the unseen and its frequent\n     manifestation, such a story as that of Peniel might well\n     arise from an unexplained injury to the sciatic muscle,\n     while more than one ailment of the heart or liver might\n     perhaps suggest the touch of a beckoning god. There is of\n     course no connexion between the Sumerian and Hebrew stories\n     beyond their common background. It may be added that those\n     critics who would reverse the _r\u00f4les_ of Jacob and the\n     wrestler miss the point of the Hebrew story.\n\n     (2) Even so, before starting on the work, he took the\n     further precautions of ascertaining that the omens were\n     favourable and of purifying his city from all malign\n     influence.\n\nWe may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge we\nhave traced a logical connexion between the direct warning to Ziusudu in\nthe Fourth Column of the text and the reference to a dream in the broken\nlines at the close of the Third Column. As in the Gilgamesh Epic and\nin Berossus, here too the god's warning is conveyed in a dream; and\nthe accompanying reference to conjuring by the Name of Heaven and Earth\nprobably represents the means by which Ziusudu was enabled to verify its\napparent meaning. The assurance which Gudea obtained through the priest\nof Nin\u00e2 and the sign, the priest-king Ziusudu secured by his own act,\nin virtue of his piety and practice of divination. And his employment of\nthe particular class of incantation referred to, that which conjures by\nthe Name of Heaven and Earth, is singularly appropriate to the context.\nFor by its use he was enabled to test the meaning of Enki's words, which\nrelated to the intentions of Anu and Enlil, the gods respectively of\nHeaven and of Earth. The symbolical setting of Gudea's vision also finds\na parallel in the reed-house and wall of the Deluge story, though in the\nlatter case we have not the benefit of interpretation by a goddess. In\nthe Sumerian Version the wall is merely part of the vision and does\nnot receive a direct address from the god. That appears as a later\ndevelopment in the Semitic Version, and it may perhaps have suggested\nthe excuse, put in that version into the mouth of Ea, that he had not\ndirectly revealed the decision of the gods.(1)\n\n     (1) In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazer\n     between the reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, now\n     regarded as a medium of communication, and the whispering\n     reeds of the Midas story would still hold good.\n\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 warning\nwas implied; and the text does indicate that the warning took place at\nnight, for Gilgamesh proceeds to carry out the divine instructions at\nthe break of day. The direct warning of the Hebrew Versions, on the\nother hand, does not carry this implication, since according to Hebrew\nideas direct speech, as well as vision, was included among the methods\nby which the divine will could be conveyed to man.\n\n\n\n\nV. THE FLOOD, THE ESCAPE OF THE GREAT BOAT, AND THE SACRIFICE TO THE\nSUN-GOD\n\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 itself.\nThe column begins:\n\n     All the mighty wind-storms together blew,\n     The flood . . . raged.\n     When for seven days, for seven nights,\n     The flood had overwhelmed the land\n     When the wind-storm had driven the great boat over the mighty\n     waters,\n     The Sun-god came forth, shedding light over heaven and earth.\n     Ziusudu opened the opening of the great boat;\n     The light of the hero, the Sun-god, (he) causes to enter into the\n     interior(?) of the great boat.\n     Ziusudu, the king,\n     Bows himself down before the Sun-god;\n     The king sacrifices an ox, a sheep he slaughters(?).\n\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 the\neleven 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 close\nthe resemblances are, and at the same time to draw a comparison between\nthe Sumerian and Babylonian Versions of this part of the story and the\ncorresponding Hebrew accounts.\n\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 the\nruler of the darkness at eventide sent a heavy rain. Ut-napishtim saw\nits beginning, but fearing to watch the storm, he entered the interior\nof the ship by Ea's instructions, closed the door, and handed over the\ndirection of the vessel to the pilot Puzur-Amurri. Later a thunder-storm\nand hurricane added their terrors to the deluge. For at early dawn a\nblack cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-god thundering in\nits midst, and his heralds, Nab\u00fb and Sharru, flying over mountain and\nplain. Nergal tore away the ship's anchor, while Ninib directed the\nstorm; the Anunnaki carried their lightning-torches and lit up the\nland with their brightness; the whirlwind of the Storm-god reached the\nheavens, and all light was turned into darkness. The storm raged the\nwhole day, covering mountain and people with water.(2) No man beheld his\nfellow; the gods themselves were afraid, so that they retreated into\nthe highest heaven, where they crouched down, cowering like dogs. Then\nfollows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference has already been\nmade, the goddess reproaching herself for the part she had taken in the\ndestruction of her people. This section of the Semitic narrative closes\nwith the picture of the gods weeping with her, sitting bowed down with\ntheir lips pressed together.\n\n     (1) Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 90 ff.\n\n     (2) In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign of\n     Ammizaduga, Col. I, l. 5, contains a reference to the \"cry\"\n     of men when Adad the Storm-god, slays them with his flood.\n\nIt is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion of its\nFourth 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 actually\nbegins the account. However that may be, and in spite of the poetic\nimagery of the Semitic Babylonian narrative, the general character of\nthe catastrophe is the same in both versions.\n\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)\n\n     SUMERIAN VERSION                    SEMITIC VERSION\n\n     When for seven days, for seven   For six days and nights\n     nights,\n     The flood had overwhelmed the    The wind blew, the flood, the\n     land,                            tempest overwhelmed the land.\n     When the wind-storm had driven   When the seventh day drew near,\n     the great boat over the          the tempest, the flood, ceased\n     mighty waters,                   from the battle\n     In which it had fought like a\n     host.\n     The Sun-god came forth shedding  Then the sea rested and was\n     light over heaven and earth.     still, and the wind-storm, the\n     flood, ceased.\n\n     (3) Col. V, ll. 3-6 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI,\n     ll. 128-32.\n\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 and\nseven nights, in the Semitic-Babylonian Version it lasts only six days\nand nights, ceasing at dawn on the seventh day. The difference, however,\nis immaterial when we compare these estimates with those of the Hebrew\nVersions, the older of which speaks of forty days' rain, while the later\nversion represents the Flood as rising for no less than a hundred and\nfifty days.\n\nThe close parallel between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions is not,\nhowever, confined to subject-matter, but here, even extends to some\nof 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 text\nis the same word, though partly expressed by variant characters, which\noccurs in the early Semitic fragment of the Deluge story from Nippur.(1)\nIn the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, the ordinary ideogram for\n\"vessel\" or \"ship\"(2) is employed, though the great size of the vessel\nis there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew Version, by\ndetailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian and Semitic verbs,\nwhich are employed in the parallel passages quoted above for the\n\"overwhelming\" of the land, are given as synonyms in a late syllabary,\nwhile in another explanatory text the Sumerian verb is explained as\napplying to the destructive action of a flood.(3) Such close linguistic\nparallels are instructive as furnishing additional proof, if it were\nneeded, of the dependence of the Semitic-Babylonian and Assyrian\nVersions upon Sumerian originals.\n\n     (1) The Sumerian word is _(gish)ma-gur-gur_, corresponding\n     to the term written in the early Semitic fragment, l. 8, as\n     _(isu)ma-gur-gur_, which is probably to be read under its\n     Semitized form _magurgurru_. In l. 6 of that fragment the\n     vessel is referred to under the synonymous expression\n     _(isu)elippu ra-be-tu_, \"a great ship\".\n\n     (2) i.e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word,\n     read in Semitic Babylonian as _elippu_, \"ship\"; when\n     employed in the early Semitic fragment it is qualified by\n     the adj. _ra-be-tu_, \"great\". There is no justification for\n     assuming, with Prof. Hilbrecht, that a measurement of the\n     vessel was given in l. 7 of the early Semitic fragment.\n\n     (3) The Sumerian verb _ur_, which is employed in l. 2 of the\n     Fifth Column in the expression _ba-an-da-ab-ur-ur_,\n     translated as \"raged\", occurs again in l. 4 in the phrase\n     _kalam-ma ba-ur-ra_, \"had overwhelmed the land\". That we are\n     justified in regarding the latter phrase as the original of\n     the Semitic _i-sap-pan m\u00e2ta_ (Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 129) is\n     proved by the equation Sum. _ur-ur_ = Sem. _sa-pa-nu_\n     (Rawlinson, _W.A.I._, Vol. V, pl. 42, l. 54 c) and by the\n     explanation Sum. _ur-ur_ = Sem. _\u009aa-ba-tu \u009aa a-bu-bi_, i.e.\n     \"_ur-ur_ = to smite, of a flood\" (_Cun. Texts_, Pt. XII, pl.\n     50, Obv., l. 23); cf. Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, p. 54, n. 1.\n\nIt may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of the text, in\norder to inquire what kind of boat it was in which Ziusudu escaped the\nFlood. 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\nmodern \"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 are\nto be the same;(2) and a later passage gives ten _gar_ for the height of\nits sides and ten _gar_ for the breadth of its deck.(3) This description\nhas been taken to imply a square box-like structure, which, in order to\nbe seaworthy, must be placed on a conjectured hull.\n\n     (1) Cf., e.g., Jastrow, _Hebr. and Bab. Trad._, p. 329.\n\n     (2) Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 28-30.\n\n     (3) L. 58 f. The _gar_ contained twelve cubits, so that the\n     vessel would have measured 120 cubits each way; taking the\n     Babylonian cubit, on the basis of Gudea's scale, at 495 mm.\n     (cf. Thureau-Dangin, _Journal Asiatique_, Dix. S\u00e9r., t.\n     XIII, 1909, pp. 79 ff., 97), this would give a length,\n     breadth, and height of nearly 195 ft.\n\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, would\nprovide an admirable model for the gigantic vessel in which Ut-napishtim\nrode out the Deluge. \"Without either stem or stern, quite round like a\nshield\"--so Herodotus described the _kuffah_ of his day;2() so, too, is\nit represented on Assyrian slabs from Nineveh, where we see it employed\nfor the transport of heavy building material;(3) its form and structure\nindeed suggest a prehistoric origin. The _kuffah_ is one of those\nexamples of perfect adjustment to conditions of use which cannot be\nimproved. Any one who has travelled in one of these craft will agree\nthat their storage capacity is immense, for their circular form and\nsteeply curved side allow every inch of space to be utilized. It is\nalmost impossible to upset them, and their only disadvantage is lack\nof speed. For their guidance all that is required is a steersman with a\npaddle, as indicated in the Epic. It is true that the larger kuffah of\nto-day tends to increase in diameter as compared to height, but\nthat detail might well be ignored in picturing the monster vessel\nof Ut-napishtim. Its seven horizontal stages and their nine lateral\ndivisions would have been structurally sound in supporting the vessel's\nsides; and the selection of the latter uneven number, though prompted\ndoubtless by its sacred character, is only suitable to a circular craft\nin which the interior walls would radiate from the centre. The use of\npitch and bitumen for smearing the vessel inside and out, though unusual\neven in Mesopotamian shipbuilding, is precisely the method employed in\nthe _kuffah's_ construction.\n\n     (1) Arab. _kuffah_, pl. _kufaf_; in addition to its common\n     use for the Baghdad coracle, the word is also employed for a\n     large basket.\n\n     (2) Herodotus, I, 194.\n\n     (3) The _kuffah_ is formed of wicker-work coated with\n     bitumen. Some of those represented on the Nineveh sculptures\n     appear to be covered with skins; and Herodotus (I, 94)\n     states that \"the boats which come down the river to Babylon\n     are circular and made of skins.\" But his further description\n     shows that he is here referred to the _kelek_ or skin-raft,\n     with which he has combined a description of the _kuffah_.\n     The late Sir Henry Rawlinson has never seen or heard of a\n     skin-covered _kuffah_ on either the Tigris or Euphrates, and\n     there can be little doubt that bitumen was employed for\n     their construction in antiquity, as it is to-day. These\n     craft are often large enough to carry five or six horses and\n     a dozen men.\n\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 _kuffah_\ntype, though smaller and without its successor's elaborate internal\nstructure. The gradual development of the huge coracle into a ship would\nhave been encouraged by the Semitic use of the term \"ship\" to describe\nit; and the attempt to retain something of its original proportions\nresulted in producing the unwieldy ark of later tradition.(1)\n\n     (1) The description of the ark is not preserved from the\n     earlier Hebrew Version (J), but the latter Hebrew Version\n     (P), while increasing the length of the vessel, has\n     considerably reduced its height and breadth. Its\n     measurements are there given (Gen. vi. 15) as 300 cubits in\n     length, 50 cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in height;\n     taking the ordinary Hebrew cubit at about 18 in., this would\n     give a length of about 450 ft., a breadth of about 75 ft.,\n     and a height of about 45 ft. The interior stories are\n     necessarily reduced to three. The vessel in Berossus\n     measures five stadia by two, and thus had a length of over\n     three thousand feet and a breadth of more than twelve\n     hundred.\n\nWe will now return to the text and resume the comparison we were making\nbetween it and the Gilgamesh Epic. In the latter no direct reference\nis made to the appearance of the Sun-god after the storm, nor is\nUt-napishtim represented as praying to him. But the sequence of events\nin the Sumerian Version is very natural, and on that account alone,\napart from other reasons, it may be held to represent the original\nform of the story. For the Sun-god would naturally reappear after the\ndarkness of the storm had passed, and it would be equally natural that\nZiusudu should address himself to the great light-god. Moreover, the\nGilgamesh Epic still retains traces of the Sumerian Version, as will be\nseen from a comparison of their narratives,(1) the Semitic Version being\nquoted from the point where the hurricane ceased and the sea became\nstill.\n\n     (1) Col. V, ll. 7-11 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI,\n     ll. 133-9.\n\n     SUMERIAN VERSION                    SEMITIC VERSION\n\n     When I looked at the storm, the\n     uproar had ceased,\n     And all mankind was turned into\n     clay;\n     In place of fields there was a\n     swamp.\n     Ziusudu opened the opening of     I opened the opening (lit.\n     the great boat;                     \"hole\"), and daylight fell\n     upon my countenance.\n     The light of the hero, the Sun-\n     god, (he) causes to enter into\n     the interior(?) of the great\n     boat.\n     Ziusudu, the king,\n     Bows himself down before the      I bowed myself down and sat down\n     Sun-god;                            weeping;\n     The king sacrifices an ox, a      Over my countenance flowed my\n     sheep he slaughters(?).             tears.\n     I gazed upon the quarters (of\n     the world)--all(?) was sea.\n\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 become\nmerely prostration in token of grief.\n\nBoth in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus the sacrifice offered by the\nDeluge hero to the gods follows the episode of the birds, and it takes\nplace on the top of the mountain after the landing from the vessel. It\nis hardly probable that two sacrifices were recounted in the Sumerian\nVersion, one to the Sun-god in the boat and another on the mountain\nafter landing; and if we are right in identifying Ziusudu's recorded\nsacrifice with that of Ut-napishtim and Xisuthros, it would seem that,\naccording to the Sumerian Version, no birds were sent out to test the\nabatement of the waters. This conclusion cannot be regarded as quite\ncertain, inasmuch as the greater part of the Fifth Column is waning. We\nhave, moreover, already seen reason to believe that the account on our\ntablet is epitomized, and that consequently the omission of any episode\nfrom our text does not necessarily imply its absence from the original\nSumerian Version which it follows. But here at least it is clear that\nnothing can have been omitted between the opening of the light-hole and\nthe sacrifice, for the one act is the natural sequence of the other. On\nthe whole it seems preferable to assume that we have recovered a simpler\nform of the story.\n\nAs the storm itself is described in a few phrases, so the cessation\nof the 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 some\nvariant account. Under its amended form the narrative leads naturally up\nto the landing on the mountain and the sacrifice of thanksgiving to\nthe gods. In the Sumerian Version, on the other hand, Ziusudu regards\nhimself as saved when he sees the Sun shining; he needs no further tests\nto assure himself that the danger is over, and his sacrifice too is one\nof gratitude for his escape. The disappearance of the Sun-god from the\nSemitic Version was thus a necessity, to avoid an anti-climax; and the\nhero's attitude of worship had obviously to be translated into one of\ngrief. An indication that the sacrifice was originally represented as\nhaving taken place on board the boat may be seen in the lines of\nthe Gilgamesh Epic which recount how Enlil, after acquiescing in\nUt-napishtim's survival of the Flood, went up into the ship and led\nhim forth by the hand, although, in the preceding lines, he had already\nlanded and had sacrificed upon the mountain. The two passages are hardly\nconsistent as they stand, but they find a simple explanation of we\nregard the second of them as an unaltered survival from an earlier form\nof the story.\n\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 to\nthe Sumerian Version. But whether we may draw any conclusion from this\napparent grouping of our authorities will be best dealt with when we\nhave concluded our survey of the new evidence.\n\nAs we have seen, the text of the Fifth Column breaks off with Ziusudu's\nsacrifice to the Sun-god, after he had opened a light-hole in the boat\nand had seen by the god's beams that the storm was over. The missing\nportion of the Fifth Column must have included at least some account of\nthe abatement of the waters, the stranding of the boat, and the\nmanner in which Anu and Enlil became apprised of Ziusudu's escape, and\nconsequently of the failure of their intention to annihilate mankind.\nFor in the Sixth Column of the text we find these two deities reconciled\nto Ziusudu and bestowing immortality upon him, as Enlil bestows\nimmortality upon Ut-napishtim at the close of the Semitic Version. In\nthe latter account, after the vessel had grounded on Mount Nisir and\nUt-napishtim had tested the abatement of the waters by means of the\nbirds, he brings all out from the ship and offers his libation and\nsacrifice upon the mountain, heaping up reed, cedar-wood, and myrtle\nbeneath his seven sacrificial vessels. And it was by this act on his\npart that the gods first had knowledge of his escape. For they smelt\nthe sweet savour of the sacrifice, and \"gathered like flies over the\nsacrificer\".(1)\n\n     (1) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 162.\n\nIt is possible in our text that Ziusudu's sacrifice in the boat was also\nthe means by which the gods became acquainted with his survival; and\nit seems obvious that the Sun-god, to whom it was offered, should have\ncontinued 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 the\ngods, and, asking who has escaped, exclaims that no man must live in the\ndestruction. Thereupon Ninib accuses Ea, who by his pleading succeeds in\nturning Enlil's purpose. He bids Enlil visit the sinner with his sin and\nlay his transgression on the transgressor; Enlil should not again send a\ndeluge to destroy the whole of mankind, but should be content with less\nwholesale destruction, such as that wrought by wild beasts, famine, and\nplague. Finally he confesses that it was he who warned Ziusudu of the\ngods' decision by sending him a dream. Enlil thereupon changes his\nintention, and going up into the ship, leads Ut-napishtim forth.\nThough Ea's intervention finds, of course, no parallel in either Hebrew\nversion, the subject-matter of his speech is reflected in both. In the\nearlier Hebrew Version Yahweh smells the sweet savour of Noah's burnt\noffering and says in his heart he will no more destroy every living\ncreature as he had done; while in the later Hebrew Version Elohim,\nafter remembering Noah and causing the waters to abate, establishes his\ncovenant to the same effect, and, as a sign of the covenant, sets his\nbow in the clouds.\n\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\na lower 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 the\ndivine intention from the beginning. But the Sumerian Version introduces\nthe element of magic as the means by which man can bend the will of the\ngods to his own ends. How far the details of the Sumerian myth at this\npoint resembled that of the Gilgamesh Epic it is impossible to say, but\nthe general course of the story must have been the same. In the latter\nEnlil's anger is appeased, in the former that of Anu and Enlil; and it\nis legitimate to suppose that Enki, like Ea, was Ziusudu's principal\nsupporter, in view of the part he had already taken in ensuring his\nescape.\n\n     (1) Cf. Ezek. xviii, passim, esp. xviii. 20.\n\n\n\n\nVI. THE PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY GODS, AND ZIUSUDU'S IMMORTALITY\n\nThe presence of the puzzling lines, with which the Sixth Column of\nour text opens, was not explained by Dr. Poebel; indeed, they would be\ndifficult to reconcile with his assumption that our text is an epic pure\nand simple. But if, as is suggested above, we are dealing with a myth in\nmagical employment, they are quite capable of explanation. The problem\nthese lines present will best be stated by giving a translation of\nthe extant portion of the column, where they will be seen with their\nimmediate context in relation to what follows them:\n\n     \"By the Soul of Heaven, by the soul of Earth, shall ye conjure him,\n     That with you he may . . . !\n     Anu and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth, shall ye\n     conjure,\n     And with you will he . . . !\n\n     \"The _niggilma_ of the ground springs forth in abundance(?)!\"\n     Ziusudu, the king,\n     Before Anu and Enlil bows himself down.\n     Life like (that of) a god he gives to him,\n     An eternal soul like (that of) a god he creates for him.\n     At that time Ziusudu, the king,\n     The name of the _niggilma_ (named) \"Preserver of the Seed of\n     Mankind\".\n\n     In a . . . land,(1) the land(1) of Dilmun(?), they caused him to\n     dwell.\n\n     (1) Possibly to be translated \"mountain\". The rendering of\n     the proper name as that of Dilmun is very uncertain. For the\n     probable identification of Dilmun with the island of Bahrein\n     in the Persian Gulf, cf. Rawlinson, _Journ. Roy. As. Soc._,\n     1880, pp. 20 ff.; and see further, Meissner, _Orient. Lit-\n     Zeit._, XX. No. 7, col. 201 ff.\n\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 secure\ntheir support or approval. Now Anu and Enlil are the two great gods\nwho had determined on mankind's destruction, and whose wrath at his own\nescape from death Ziusudu must placate. It is an obvious inference that\nconjuring \"by the Soul of Heaven\" and \"by the Soul of Earth\" is either\nthe method by which Ziusudu has already succeeded in appeasing their\nanger, or the means by which he is here enjoined to attain that end.\nAgainst the latter alternative it is to be noted that the god is\naddressing more than one person; and, further, at Ziusudu is evidently\nalready pardoned, for, so far from following the deity's advice,\nhe immediately prostrates himself before Anu and Enlil and receives\nimmortality. We may conjecture that at the close of the Fifth Column\nZiusudu had already performed the invocation and thereby had appeased\nthe divine wrath; and that the lines at the beginning of the Sixth\nColumn point the moral of the story by enjoining on Ziusudu and his\ndescendants, in other words on mankind, the advisability of employing\nthis powerful incantation at their need. The speaker may perhaps\nhave been one of Ziusudu's divine helpers--the Sun-god to whom he had\nsacrificed, or Enki who had saved him from the Flood. But it seems to me\nmore probable that the words are uttered by Anu and Enlil themselves.(1)\nFor thereby they would be represented as giving their own sanction\nto the formula, and as guaranteeing its magical efficacy. That the\nincantation, as addressed to Anu and Enlil, would be appropriate is\nobvious, since each would be magically approached through his own sphere\nof control.\n\n     (1) One of them may have been the speaker on behalf of both.\n\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 the\nreference to the dream or dreams. There, as we saw, we might possibly\nexplain the passage as illustrating one aspect of Ziusudu's piety:\nhe may have been represented as continually practising this class of\ndivination, and in that case it would be natural enough that in the\nfinal crisis of the story he should have propitiated the gods he\nconjured by the same means. Or, as a more probable alternative, it was\nsuggested that we might connect the line with Enki's warning, and assume\nthat Ziusudu interpreted the dream-revelation of Anu and Enlil's purpose\nby means of the magical incantation which was peculiarly associated with\nthem. On either alternative the phrase fits into the story itself, and\nthere is no need to suppose that the narrative is interrupted, either\nin the Third or in the Sixth Column, by an address to the hearers of the\nmyth, urging them to make the invocation on their own behalf.\n\nOn the other hand, it seems improbable that the lines in question formed\npart of the original myth; they may have been inserted to weld the myth\nmore closely to the magic. Both incantation and epic may have originally\nexisted independently, and, if so, their combination would have been\nsuggested by their contents. For while the former is addressed to Anu\nand Enlil, in the latter these same gods play the dominant parts: they\nare the two chief creators, it is they who send the Flood, and it is\ntheir anger that must be appeased. If once combined, the further step\nof making the incantation the actual means by which Ziusudu achieved\nhis own rescue and immortality would be a natural development. It may be\nadded that the words would have been an equally appropriate addition if\nthe incantation had not existed independently, but had been suggested\nby, and developed from, the myth.\n\nIn the third and eleventh lines of the column we have further references\nto the mysterious object, the creation of which appears to have been\nrecorded in the First Column of the text between man's creation and\nthat of animals. The second sign of the group composing its name was not\nrecognized by Dr. Poebel, but it is quite clearly written in two of the\npassages, and has been correctly identified by Professor Barton.(1)\nThe Sumerian word is, in fact, to be read _nig-gil-ma_,(2) which, when\npreceded by the determinative for \"pot\", \"jar\", or \"bowl\", is given in\na later syllabary as the equivalent of the Semitic word _mashkhalu_.\nEvidence that the word _mashkhalu_ was actually employed to denote a jar\nor vessel of some sort is furnished by one of the Tel el-Amarna letters\nwhich refers to \"one silver _mashkhalu_\" and \"one (or two) stone\n_mashkhalu_\".(3) In our text the determinative is absent, and it is\npossible that the word is used in another sense. Professor Barton, in\nboth passages in the Sixth Column, gives it the meaning \"curse\"; he\ninterprets the lines as referring to the removal of a curse from the\nearth after the Flood, and he compares Gen. viii. 21, where Yahweh\ndeclares he will not again \"curse the ground for man's sake\". But this\ntranslation ignores the occurrence of the word in the First Column,\nwhere the creation of the _niggilma_ is apparently recorded; and his\nrendering \"the seed that was cursed\" in l. 11 is not supported by the\nphotographic reproduction of the text, which suggests that the first\nsign in the line is not that for \"seed\", but is the sign for \"name\", as\ncorrectly read by Dr. Poebel. In that passage the _niggilma_ appears to\nbe given by Ziusudu the name \"Preserver of the Seed of Mankind\", which\nwe have already compared to the title bestowed on Uta-napishtim's ship,\n\"Preserver of Life\". Like the ship, it must have played an important\npart in man's preservation, which would account not only for the\nhonorific title but for the special record of its creation.\n\n     (1) See _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. XXXI,\n     April 1915, p. 226.\n\n     (2) It is written _nig-gil_ in the First Column.\n\n     (3) See Winckler, _El-Amarna_, pl. 35 f., No. 28, Obv., Col.\n     II, l. 45, Rev., Col. I, l. 63, and Knudtzon, _El-Am. Taf._,\n     pp. 112, 122; the vessels were presents from Amenophis IV to\n     Burnaburiash.\n\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\nthe invocation \"by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth\". But\nthe accompanying 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 and\nbore a title descriptive of its peculiar virtue of transforming old age\nto youth. Should this suggestion prove to be correct, the three passages\nmentioning the _niggilma_ must be classed with those in which the\ninvocation is referred to, as ensuring the sanction of the myth to\nfurther elements in the magic. In accordance with this view, the fifth\nline in the Sixth Column is probably to be included in the divine\nspeech, where a reference to the object employed in the ritual would not\nbe out of place. But it is to be hoped that light will be thrown on\nthis puzzling word by further study, and perhaps by new fragments of\nthe text; meanwhile it would be hazardous to suggest a more definite\nrendering.\n\n     (1) The references to \"the ground\", or \"the earth\", also\n     tend to connect it peculiarly with Enlil. Enlil's close\n     association with the earth, which is, of course,\n     independently attested, is explicitly referred to in the\n     Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-42).\n     Suggested reflections of this idea have long been traced in\n     the Hebrew Versions; cf. Gen. viii. 21 (J), where Yahweh\n     says he will not again curse the ground, and Gen. ix. 13\n     (P), where Elohim speaks of his covenant \"between me and the\n     earth\".\n\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 cause\nhim to dwell in a land, or mountain, the name of which may perhaps be\nread as Dilmun. The close parallelism between this portion of the text\nand the end of the myth in the Gilgamesh Epic will be seen from the\nfollowing extracts,(2) the magical portions being omitted from the\nSumerian Version:\n\n     (1) It will also be noted that with this line the text again\n     falls naturally into couplets.\n\n     (2) Col. VI, ll. 6-9 and 12 are there compared with Gilg.\n     Epic, XI, ll. 198-205.\n\n     SUMERIAN VERSION                    SEMITIC VERSION\n\n     Then Enlil went up into the\n     ship;\n     Ziusudu, the king,                  He took me by the hand and led\n     me forth.\n     Before Anu and Enlil bows himself   He brought out my wife and\n     down.                               caused her to bow down at my\n     side;\n     He touched our brows, standing\n     between us and blessing us:\n     Life like (that of) a god he        \"Formerly was Ut-napishtim of\n     gives to him.                       mankind,\n     An eternal soul like (that of) a    But now let Ut-napishtim be\n     god he creates for him.             like the gods, even us!\n     And let Ut-napishtim dwell afar\n     off at the mouth of the\n     rivers!\"\n     In a . . . land, the land of(1)     Then they took me and afar off,\n     Dilmun(?), they caused him to       at the mouth of the rivers,\n     dwell.                              they caused me to dwell.\n\n     (1) Or, \"On a mountain, the mountain of\", &c.\n\nThe Sumerian Version thus apparently concludes with the familiar ending\nof the legend which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus,\nthough it here occurs in an abbreviated form and with some variations in\ndetail. In all three versions the prostration of the Deluge hero before\nthe god is followed by the bestowal of immortality upon him, a fate\nwhich, according to Berossus, he shared with his wife, his daughter, and\nthe steersman. The Gilgamesh Epic perhaps implies that Ut-napishtim's\nwife shared in his immortality, but the Sumerian Version mentions\nZiusudu alone. In the Gilgamesh Epic Ut-napishtim is settled by the gods\nat the mouth of the rivers, that is to say at the head of the Persian\nGulf, while according to a possible rendering of the Sumerian Version he\nis made to dwell on Dilmun, an island in the Gulf itself. The fact that\nGilgamesh in the Epic has to cross the sea to reach Ut-napishtim may be\ncited in favour of the reading \"Dilmun\"; and the description of the sea\nas \"the Waters of Death\", if it implies more than the great danger\nof their passage, was probably a later development associated with\nUt-napishtim's immortality. It may be added that in neither Hebrew\nversion do we find any parallel to the concluding details of the\noriginal story, the Hebrew narratives being brought to an end with the\nblessing of Noah and the divine promise to, or covenant with, mankind.\n\n\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, so\nfar as concerns the Deluge, is in essentials the same as that we already\nfind in the Gilgamesh Epic. It is true that this earlier version has\nreached us in a magical setting, and to some extent in an abbreviated\nform. In the next lecture I shall have occasion to refer to another\nearly mythological text from Nippur, which was thought by its first\ninterpreter to include a second Sumerian Version of the Deluge legend.\nThat suggestion has not been substantiated, though we shall see that\nthe contents of the document are of a very interesting character. But\nin view of the discussion that has taken place in the United States\nover the interpretation of the second text, and of the doubts that have\nsubsequently been expressed in some quarters as to the recent discovery\nof any new form of the Deluge legend, it may be well to formulate\nbriefly the proof that in the inscription published by Dr. Poebel an\nearly Sumerian Version of the Deluge story has actually been recovered.\nAny one who has followed the detailed analysis of the new text which\nhas been attempted in the preceding paragraphs will, I venture to think,\nagree that the following conclusions may be drawn:\n\n(i) The points of general resemblance presented by the narrative to that\nin the Gilgamesh Epic are sufficiently close in themselves to show\nthat we are dealing with a Sumerian Version of that story. And this\nconclusion is further supported (a) by the occurrence throughout the\ntext of the attested Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic word, employed\nin the Babylonian Versions, for the \"Flood\" or \"Deluge\", and (b) by the\nuse of precisely the same term for the hero's \"great boat\", which is\nalready familiar to us from an early Babylonian Version.\n\n(ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of the\nSumerian legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the one version was\nultimately derived from the other. And this conclusion in its turn is\nconfirmed (a) by the identity in meaning of the Sumerian and Babylonian\nnames for the Deluge hero, which are actually found equated in a\nlate explanatory text, and (b) by small points of difference in the\nBabylonian form of the story which correspond to later political and\nreligious developments and suggest the work of Semitic redactors.\n\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 stream\nof tradition has been tapped at a point far above any at which we have\nhitherto approached it. What evidence, we may ask, does this early\nSumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and literary history of\nthe Hebrew Versions?\n\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 the\ncourse of our analysis of the Sumerian text its more striking points of\nagreement or divergence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions, were noted\nunder the different sections of its narrative. It was also obvious that,\nin many features in which the Hebrew Versions differ from the Gilgamesh\nEpic, the latter finds Sumerian support. These facts confirm the\nconclusion, which we should naturally base on grounds of historical\nprobability, that while the Semitic-Babylonian Versions were derived\nfrom Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were equally clearly derived from\nBabylon. But there are one or two pieces of evidence which are\napparently at variance with this conclusion, and these call for some\nexplanation.\n\n     (1) For details see especially Skinner, _Genesis_, pp. 177\n     ff.\n\nNot too much significance should be attached to the apparent omission of\nthe episode of the birds from the Sumerian narrative, in which it would\nagree with the later as against the earlier Hebrew Version; for, apart\nfrom its epitomized character, there is so much missing from the text\nthat the absence of this episode cannot be regarded as established with\ncertainty. And in any case it could be balanced by the Sumerian order\nof Creation of men before animals, which agrees with the earlier Hebrew\nVersion against the later. But there is one very striking point in which\nour new Sumerian text agrees with both the Hebrew Versions as against\nthe Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus; and that is in the character of\nZiusudu, which presents so close a parallel to the piety of Noah. As we\nhave already seen, the latter is due to no Hebrew idealization of the\nstory, but represents a genuine strand of the original tradition, which\nis completely absent from the Babylonian Versions. But the Babylonian\nVersions are the media through which it has generally been assumed that\nthe tradition of the Deluge reached the Hebrews. What explanation have\nwe of this fact?\n\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\na complete 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 primitive\ntradition. Noah's reputation for piety does not stand alone. His line of\ndescent from Adam, and the thread of narrative connecting the creation\nof the world with its partial destruction by the Deluge, already appear\nin Sumerian form at a time when the city of Babylon itself had\nnot secured its later power. How then are we to account for this\ncorrespondence of Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on points completely\nwanting in our intermediate authorities, from which, however, other\nevidence suggests that the Hebrew narratives were derived?\n\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 Pentateuch\nmay be inclined to see in this correspondence of Hebrew and Sumerian\nideas a confirmation of their own hypothesis. But it should be pointed\nout at once that this is not an inevitable deduction from the evidence.\nIndeed, it is directly contradicted by the rest of the evidence we have\nsummarized, while it would leave completely unexplained some significant\nfeatures of the problem. It is true that certain important details of\nthe Sumerian tradition, while not affecting Babylon and Assyria,\nhave left their stamp upon the Hebrew narratives; but that is not an\nexhaustive statement of the case. For we have also seen that a more\ncomplete survival of Sumerian tradition has taken place in the\nhistory of Berossus. There we traced the same general framework of the\nnarratives, with a far closer correspondence in detail. The kingly rank\nof Ziusudu is in complete harmony with the Berossian conception of\na series of supreme Antediluvian rulers, and the names of two of the\nAntediluvian cites are among those of their newly recovered Sumerian\nprototypes. There can thus be no suggestion that the Greek reproductions\nof the Sumerian tradition were in their turn due to Hebrew influence. On\nthe contrary we have in them a parallel case of survival in a far more\ncomplete form.\n\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 would\nbe nothing to surprise us, when we recall the careful preservation\nand study of ancient Sumerian religious texts by the later Semitic\npriesthood of the country. Each ancient cult-centre in Babylonia\ncontinued to cling to its own local traditions, and the Sumerian desire\nfor their preservation, which was inherited by their Semitic guardians,\nwas in great measure unaffected by political occurrences elsewhere.\nHence it was that Ashur-bani-pal, when forming his library at Nineveh,\nwas able to draw upon so rich a store of the more ancient literary texts\nof Babylonia. The Sumerian Version of the Deluge and of Antediluvian\nhistory may well have survived in a less epitomized form than that\nin which we have recovered it; and, like other ancient texts, it was\nprobably provided with a Semitic translation. Indeed its literary study\nand reproduction may have continued without interruption in Babylon\nitself. But even if Sumerian tradition died out in the capital under\nthe influence of the Babylonian priesthood, its re-introduction may\nwell have taken place in Neo-Babylonian times. Perhaps the antiquarian\nresearches of Nabonidus were characteristic of his period; and in any\ncase the collection of his country's gods into the capital must have\nbeen accompanied by a renewed interest in the more ancient versions\nof the past with which their cults were peculiarly associated. In\nthe extant summary from Berossus we may possibly see evidence of a\nsubsequent attempt to combine with these more ancient traditions the\ncontinued religious dominance of Marduk and of Babylon.\n\nOur conclusion, that the Sumerian form of the tradition did not die out,\nleaves the question as to the periods during which Babylonian influence\nmay have acted upon Hebrew tradition in great measure unaffected; and\nwe may therefore postpone its further consideration to the next lecture.\nTo-day the only question that remains to be considered concerns the\neffect of our new evidence upon the wider problem of Deluge stories as\na whole. What light does it throw on the general character of Deluge\nstories and their suggested Egyptian origin?\n\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\nis inherent in the story, the appearance of the Sun after the storm\nfollowing the natural sequence of events and furnishing assurance to the\nking 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 is\nin complete harmony with its Babylonian setting.\n\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 is\nits river-water, but the conditions of its use are very different, and\nin Mesopotamia it becomes a curse when out of control. In both countries\nthe river-water must be used for maturing the crops. But while the rains\nof Abyssinia cause the Nile to rise between August and October, thus\nsecuring both summer and winter crops, the melting snows of Armenia and\nthe Taurus flood the Mesopotamian rivers between March and May. In Egypt\nthe Nile flood is gentle; it is never abrupt, and the river gives ample\nwarning of its rise and fall. It contains just enough sediment to enrich\nthe land without choking the canals; and the water, after filling its\nhistoric basins, may when necessary be discharged into the falling river\nin November. Thus Egypt receives a full and regular supply of water, and\nthere is no difficulty in disposing of any surplus. The growth in such a\ncountry of a legend of world-wide destruction by flood is inconceivable.\n\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 be\ndetained artificially, if it is to be of use during the burning months\nof July, August, and September, when the rivers are at their lowest.\nMoreover, heavy rain in April and a warm south wind melting the snow in\nthe hills may bring down such floods that the channels cannot contain\nthem; the dams are then breached and the country is laid waste. Here\nthere is first too much water and then too little.\n\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 country\nthey must be employed again, of course with the increased efficiency of\nmodern apparatus.(2) But while the Babylonians succeeded in controlling\nthe Euphrates, the Tigris was never really tamed,(3) and whenever it\nburst its right bank the southern plains were devastated. We could not\nhave more suitable soil for the growth of a Deluge story.\n\n     (1) Baghdad, though 300 miles by crow-fly from the sea and\n     500 by river, is only 120 ft. above sea-level.\n\n     (2) The Babylonians controlled the Euphrates, and at the\n     same time provided against its time of \"low supply\", by\n     escapes into two depressions in the western desert to the\n     NW. of Babylon, known to-day as the Habb\u00e2n\u00eeyah and Abu D\u00ees\n     depressions, which lie S. of the modern town of Ram\u00e2di and\n     N. of Kerbela. That these depressions were actually used as\n     reservoirs in antiquity is proved by the presence along\n     their edges of thick beds of Euphrates shells. In addition\n     to canals and escapes, the Babylonian system included well-\n     constructed dikes protected by brushwood. By cutting an\n     eight-mile channel through a low hill between the Habb\u00e2n\u00eeyah\n     and Abu D\u00ees depressions and by building a short dam 50 ft.\n     high across the latter's narrow outlet, Sir William\n     Willcocks estimates that a reservoir could be obtained\n     holding eighteen milliards of tons of water. See his work\n     _The Irrigations of Mesopotamia_ (E. and F. N. Spon, 1911),\n     _Geographical Journal_, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug., 1912), pp. 129\n     ff., and the articles in _The Near East_ cited on p. 97, n.\n     1, and p. 98, n. 2. Sir William Willcocks's volume and\n     subsequent papers form the best introduction to the study of\n     Babylonian Deluge tradition on its material side.\n\n     (3) Their works carried out on the Tigris were effective for\n     irrigation; but the Babylonians never succeeded in\n     controlling its floods as they did those of the Euphrates. A\n     massive earthen dam, the remains of which are still known as\n     \"Nimrod's Dam\", was thrown across the Tigris above the point\n     where it entered its delta; this served to turn the river\n     over hard conglomerate rock and kept it at a high level so\n     that it could irrigate the country on both banks. Above the\n     dam were the heads of the later Nahrw\u00e2n Canal, a great\n     stream 400 ft. wide and 17 ft. deep, which supplied the\n     country east of the river. The N\u00e2r Sharri or \"King's Canal\",\n     the Nahar Malkha of the Greeks and the Nahr el-Malik of the\n     Arabs, protected the right bank of the Tigris by its own\n     high artificial banks, which can still be traced for\n     hundreds of miles; but it took its supply from the Euphrates\n     at Sippar, where the ground is some 25 ft. higher than on\n     the Tigris. The Tigris usually flooded its left bank; it was\n     the right bank which was protected, and a breach here meant\n     disaster. Cf. Willcocks, op. cit., and _The Near East_,\n     Sept. 29, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 282), p. 522.\n\nIt was only by constant and unremitting attention that disaster from\nflood could be averted; and the difficulties of the problem were and are\nincreased by the fact that the flood-water of the Mesopotamian rivers\ncontains five times as much sediment as the Nile. In fact, one of\nthe most pressing of the problems the Sumerian and early Babylonian\nengineers had to solve was the keeping of the canals free from silt.(1)\nWhat the floods, if left unchecked, may do in Mesopotamia, is well\nillustrated by the decay of the ancient canal-system, which has been\nthe immediate cause of the country's present state of sordid desolation.\nThat the decay was gradual was not the fault of the rivers, but was\ndue to the sound principles on which the old system of control had been\nevolved through many centuries of labour. At the time of the Moslem\nconquest the system had already begun to fail. In the fifth century\nthere had been bad floods; but worse came in A.D. 629, when both rivers\nburst their banks and played havoc with the dikes and embankments. It\nis related that the Sassanian king Parwiz, the contemporary of Mohammed,\ncrucified in one day forty canal-workers at a certain breach, and yet\nwas unable to master the flood.(2) All repairs were suspended during the\nanarchy of the Moslem invasion. As a consequence the Tigris left its\nold bed for the Shatt el-Hai at K\u00fbt, and pouring its own and its\ntributaries' waters into the Euphrates formed the Great Euphrates Swamp,\ntwo hundred miles long and fifty broad. But even then what was left of\nthe old system was sufficient to support the splendour of the Eastern\nCaliphate.\n\n     (1) Cf. _Letters of Hammurabi_, Vol. III, pp. xxxvi ff.; it\n     was the duty of every village or town upon the banks of the\n     main canals in Babylonia to keep its own section clear of\n     silt, and of course it was also responsible for its own\n     smaller irrigation-channels. While the invention of the\n     system of basin-irrigation was practically forced on Egypt,\n     the extraordinary fertility of Babylonia was won in the\n     teeth of nature by the system of perennial irrigation, or\n     irrigation all the year round. In Babylonia the water was\n     led into small fields of two or three acres, while the Nile\n     valley was irrigated in great basins each containing some\n     thirty to forty thousand acres. The Babylonian method gives\n     far more profitable results, and Sir William Willcocks\n     points out that Egypt to-day is gradually abandoning its own\n     system and adopting that of its ancient rival; see _The Near\n     East_, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 521.\n\n     (2) See Le Strange, _The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate_, p.\n     27.\n\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 Shatt\nel-Hai shrank, and much of the Great Swamp dried up into the desert\nit is to-day.(1) Things became worse during the centuries of Turkish\nmisrule. But the silting up of the Hillah, or main, branch of the\nEuphrates about 1865, and the transference of a great part of its stream\ninto the Hind\u00eeyah Canal, caused even the Turks to take action. They\nconstructed the old Hind\u00eeyah Barrage in 1890, but it gave way in 1903\nand the state of things was even worse than before; for the Hillah\nbranch then dried entirely.(2)\n\n     (1) This illustrates the damage the Tigris itself is capable\n     of inflicting on the country. It may be added that Sir\n     William Willcocks proposes to control the Tigris floods by\n     an escape into the Tharth\u00e2r depression, a great salt pan at\n     the tail of Wadi Tharth\u00e2r, which lies 14 ft. below sea level\n     and is 200 ft. lower than the flood-level of the Tigris some\n     thirty-two miles away. The escape would leave the Tigris to\n     the S. of S\u00e2marra, the proposed Beled Barrage being built\n     below it and up-stream of \"Nimrod's Dam\". The Tharth\u00e2r\n     escape would drain into the Euphrates, and the latter's\n     Habb\u00e2n\u00eeyah escape would receive any surplus water from the\n     Tigris, a second barrage being thrown across the Euphrates\n     up-stream of Fall\u00fbjah, where there is an outcrop of\n     limestone near the head of the Sakhlaw\u00eeyah Canal. The\n     Tharth\u00e2r depression, besides disposing of the Tigris flood-\n     water, would thus probably feed the Euphrates; and a second\n     barrage on the Tigris, to be built at K\u00fbt, would supply\n     water to the Shatt el-Hai. When the country is freed from\n     danger of flood, the Baghdad Railway could be run through\n     the cultivated land instead of through the eastern desert;\n     see Willcocks, _The Near East_, Oct. 6, 1916 (Vol. XI, No.\n     283), p. 545 f.\n\n     (2) It was then that Sir William Willcocks designed the new\n     Hind\u00eeyah Barrage, which was completed in 1913. The Hind\u00eeyah\n     branch, to-day the main stream of the Euphrates, is the old\n     low-lying Pallacopas Canal, which branched westward above\n     Babylon and discharged its waters into the western marshes.\n     In antiquity the head of this branch had to be opened in\n     high floods and then closed again immediately after the\n     flood to keep the main stream full past Babylon, which\n     entailed the employment of an enormous number of men.\n     Alexander the Great's first work in Babylonia was cutting a\n     new head for the Pallacopas in solid ground, for hitherto it\n     had been in sandy soil; and it was while reclaiming the\n     marshes farther down-stream that he contracted the fever\n     that killed him.\n\nFrom this brief sketch of progressive disaster during the later\nhistorical period, the inevitable effect of neglected silt and flood, it\nwill be gathered that the two great rivers of Mesopotamia present a very\nstrong contrast to the Nile. For during the same period of misgovernment\nand neglect in Egypt the Nile did not turn its valley and delta into\na desert. On the Tigris and Euphrates, during ages when the earliest\ndwellers on their banks were struggling to make effective their first\nefforts at control, the waters must often have regained the upper hand.\nUnder such conditions the story of a great flood in the past would not\nbe likely to die out in the future; the tradition would tend to gather\nillustrative detail suggested by later experience. Our new text\nreveals the Deluge tradition in Mesopotamia at an early stage of\nits development, and incidentally shows us that there is no need to\npostulate for its origin any convulsion of nature or even a series of\nseismic shocks accompanied by cyclone in the Persian Gulf.\n\nIf this had been the only version of the story that had come down to us,\nwe should hardly have regarded it as a record of world-wide catastrophe.\nIt is true the gods' intention is to destroy mankind, but the scene\nthroughout is laid in Southern Babylonia. After seven days' storm,\nthe Sun comes out, and the vessel with the pious priest-king and his\ndomestic animals on board grounds, apparently still in Babylonia, and\nnot on any distant mountain, such as Mt. Nisir or the great mass of\nArarat in Armenia. These are obviously details which tellers of the\nstory have added as it passed down to later generations. When it\nwas carried still farther afield, into the area of the Eastern\nMediterranean, it was again adapted to local conditions. Thus\nApollodorus makes Deucalion land upon Parnassus,(1) and the\npseudo-Lucian relates how he founded the temple of Derketo at Hierapolis\nin Syria beside the hole in the earth which swallowed up the Flood.(2)\nTo the Sumerians who first told the story, the great Flood appeared to\nhave destroyed mankind, for Southern Babylonia was for them the\nworld. Later peoples who heard it have fitted the story to their own\ngeographical horizon, and in all good faith and by a purely logical\nprocess the mountain-tops are represented as submerged, and the ship,\nor ark, or chest, is made to come to ground on the highest peak known to\nthe story-teller and his hearers. But in its early Sumerian form it is\njust a simple tradition of some great inundation, which overwhelmed\nthe plain of Southern Babylonia and was peculiarly disastrous in its\neffects. And so its memory survived in the picture of Ziusudu's solitary\ncoracle upon the face of the waters, which, seen through the mists of\nthe Deluge tradition, has given us the Noah's ark of our nursery days.\n\n     (1) Hesiod is our earliest authority for the Deucalion Flood\n     story. For its probable Babylonian origin, cf. Farnell,\n     _Greece and Babylon_ (1911), p. 184.\n\n     (2) _De Syria dea_, 12 f.\n\nThus the Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek Deluge stories resolve\nthemselves, not into a nature myth, but into an early legend, which has\nthe basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley. And it is probable\nthat we may explain after a similar fashion the occurrence of tales of\na like character at least in some other parts of the world. Among races\ndwelling in low-lying or well-watered districts it would be surprising\nif we did not find independent stories of past floods from which few\ninhabitants of the land escaped. It is only in hilly countries such\nas Palestine, where for the great part of the year water is scarce and\nprecious, that we are forced to deduce borrowing; and there is no doubt\nthat both the Babylonian and the biblical stories have been responsible\nfor some at any rate of the scattered tales. But there is no need\nto adopt the theory of a single source for all of them, whether in\nBabylonia or, still less, in Egypt.(1)\n\n     (1) This argument is taken from an article I published in\n     Professor Headlam's _Church Quarterly Review_, Jan., 1916,\n     pp. 280 ff., containing an account of Dr. Poebel's\n     discovery.\n\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\n     (1) Sir J. G. Frazer, _Ancient Stories of a Great Flood_\n     (the Huxley Memorial Lecture, 1916), Roy. Anthrop. Inst.,\n     1916.\n\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\nany rate, 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\nhe pointed out, they would be instances, not of genuine historical\ntraditions, but of what Sir James Tyler calls \"observation myths\".\nA third 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.\n\nThis valuable theory thus opens up a third possibility for our analysis.\nIt may also, of course, be used in combination, if in any particular\ninstance we have reason to believe that transmission, in some vague\nform, may already have taken place. And it would with all deference\nsuggest the possibility that, in view of other evidence, this may have\noccurred in the case of the Greek traditions. With regard to the theory\nitself we may confidently expect that further examples will be found in\nits illustration and support. Meanwhile in the new Sumerian Version I\nthink we may conclude that we have recovered beyond any doubt the\norigin of the Babylonian and Hebrew traditions and of the large group of\nstories to which they in their turn have given rise.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III -- CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM OF\nBABYLONIAN PARALLELS IN HEBREW TRADITION\n\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 Egyptian\nand Babylonian religious systems, we saw grounds for regarding the\nastrological tinge of much ancient mythology as a later embellishment\nand not as primitive material. And so far as our new version of the\nDeluge story was concerned, it resolved itself into a legend, which had\na basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley. It will be obvious\nthat the same class of explanation cannot be applied to narratives of\nthe Creation of the World. For there we are dealing, not with legends,\nbut with myths, that is, stories exclusively about the gods. But where\nan examination of their earlier forms is possible, it would seem to\nshow that many of these tales also, in their origin, are not to be\ninterpreted as nature myths, and that none arose as mere reflections of\nthe solar system. In their more primitive and simpler aspects they\nseem in many cases to have been suggested by very human and terrestrial\nexperience. To-day we will examine the Egyptian, Sumerian, and\nBabylonian myths of Creation, and, after we have noted the more striking\nfeatures of our new material, we will consider the problem of foreign\ninfluences upon Hebrew traditions concerning the origin and early\nhistory of the world.\n\nIn Egypt, as until recently in Babylonia, we have to depend for our\nknowledge of Creation myths on documents of a comparatively late period.\nMoreover, Egyptian religious literature as a whole is textually corrupt,\nand in consequence it is often difficult to determine the original\nsignificance of its allusions. Thanks to the funerary inscriptions and\nthat great body of magical formulae and ritual known as \"The Chapters\nof Coming forth by Day\", we are very fully informed on the Egyptian\ndoctrines as to the future state of the dead. The Egyptian's intense\ninterest in his own remote future, amounting almost to an obsession, may\nperhaps in part account for the comparatively meagre space in the extant\nliterature which is occupied by myths relating solely to the past. And\nit is significant that the one cycle of myth, of which we are fully\ninformed in its latest stage of development, should be that which gave\nits sanction to the hope of a future existence for man. The fact that\nHerodotus, though he claims a knowledge of the sufferings or \"Mysteries\"\nof Osiris, should deliberately refrain from describing them or from\neven uttering the name,(1) suggests that in his time at any rate some\nsections of the mythology had begun to acquire an esoteric character.\nThere is no doubt that at all periods myth played an important part in\nthe ritual of feast-days. But mythological references in the earlier\ntexts are often obscure; and the late form in which a few of the stories\nhave come to us is obviously artificial. The tradition, for example,\nwhich relates how mankind came from the tears which issued from Ra's eye\nundoubtedly arose from a play upon words.\n\n     (1) Herodotus, II, 171.\n\nOn the other hand, traces of myth, scattered in the religious literature\nof Egypt, may perhaps in some measure betray their relative age by the\nconceptions of the universe which underlie them. The Egyptian idea that\nthe sky was a heavenly ocean, which is not unlike conceptions current\namong the Semitic Babylonians and Hebrews, presupposes some thought and\nreflection. In Egypt it may well have been evolved from the probably\nearlier but analogous idea of the river in heaven, which the Sun\ntraversed daily in his boats. Such a river was clearly suggested by the\nNile; and its world-embracing character is reminiscent of a time when\nthrough communication was regularly established, at least as far south\nas Elephantine. Possibly in an earlier period the long narrow valley, or\neven a section of it, may have suggested the figure of a man lying prone\nupon his back. Such was Keb, the Earth-god, whose counterpart in the\nsky was the goddess Nut, her feet and hands resting at the limits of\nthe world and her curved body forming the vault of heaven. Perhaps still\nmore primitive, and dating from a pastoral age, may be the notion that\nthe sky was a great cow, her body, speckled with stars, alone visible\nfrom the earth beneath. Reference has already been made to the dominant\ninfluence of the Sun in Egyptian religion, and it is not surprising\nthat he should so often appear as the first of created beings. His orb\nitself, or later the god in youthful human form, might be pictured as\nemerging from a lotus on the primaeval waters, or from a marsh-bird's\negg, a conception 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\nhave been 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 the\nuniverse it is difficult to determine how far the poetical imagery of\nlater periods has transformed the original myths which may lie behind\nthem.\n\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 is\npictured as a potter moulding the world-egg. A short poem by a priest of\nPtah, which has come down to us from that period, exhibits an attempt to\ndevelop this idea on philosophical lines.(1) Its author represents\nall gods and living creatures as proceeding directly from the mind and\nthought of Ptah. But this movement, which was more notably reflected in\nAkhenaton's religious revolution, died out in political disaster, and\nthe original materialistic interpretation of the myths was restored with\nthe cult of Amen. How materialistic this could be is well illustrated\nby two earlier members of the XVIIIth Dynasty, who have left us vivid\nrepresentations of the potter's wheel employed in the process of man's\ncreation. When the famous Hatshepsut, after the return of her expedition\nto Punt in the ninth year of her young consort Thothmes III, decided to\nbuild her temple at Deir el-Bahari in the necropolis of Western Thebes,\nshe sought to emphasize her claim to the throne of Egypt by recording\nher own divine origin upon its walls. We have already noted the\nEgyptians' belief in the solar parentage of their legitimate rulers,\na myth that goes back at least to the Old Kingdom and may have had its\norigin in prehistoric times. With the rise of Thebes, Amen inherited the\nprerogatives of Ra; and so Hatshepsut seeks to show, on the north side\nof the retaining wall of her temple's Upper Platform, that she was the\ndaughter of Amen himself, \"the great God, Lord of the sky, Lord of\nthe Thrones of the Two Lands, who resides at Thebes\". The myth was no\ninvention of her own, for obviously it must have followed traditional\nlines, and though it is only employed to exhibit the divine creation of\na single personage, it as obviously reflects the procedure and methods\nof a general Creation myth.\n\n     (1) See Breasted, _Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache_,\n     XXXIX, pp. 39 ff., and _History of Egypt_, pp. 356 ff.\n\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 render\nthe detailed interpretation of the myth quite certain.(1) Here, as in a\ngeneral Creation myth, Amen's first act is to summon the great gods\nin council, in order to announce to them the future birth of the great\nprincess. Of the twelve gods who attend, the first is Menthu, a form of\nthe Sun-god and closely associated with Amen.(2) But the second deity\nis Atum, the great god of Heliopolis, and he is followed by his cycle of\ndeities--Shu, \"the son of Ra\"; Tefnut, \"the Lady of the sky\"; Keb,\n\"the Father of the Gods\"; Nut, \"the Mother of the Gods\"; Osiris, Isis,\nNephthys, Set, Horus, and Hathor. We are here in the presence of cosmic\ndeities, as befits a projected act of creation. The subsequent scenes\nexhibit the Egyptian's literal interpretation of the myth, which\nnecessitates the god's bodily presence and personal participation.\nThoth mentions to Amen the name of queen Aahmes as the future mother of\nHatshepsut, and we later see Amen himself, in the form of her husband,\nAa-kheperka-Ra (Thothmes I), sitting with Aahmes and giving her the\nAnkh, or sign of Life, which she receives in her hand and inhales\nthrough her nostrils.(3) God and queen are seated on thrones above a\ncouch, and are supported by two goddesses. After leaving the queen, Amen\ncalls on Khnum or Khnemu, the flat-horned ram-god, who in texts of\nall periods is referred to as the \"builder\" of gods and men;(4) and he\ninstructs him to create the body of his future daughter and that of her\n_Ka_, or \"double\", which would be united to her from birth.\n\n     (1) See Naville, _Deir el-Bahari_, Pt. II, pp. 12 ff.,\n     plates xlvi ff.\n\n     (2) See Budge, _Gods of the Egyptians_, Vol. II, pp. 23 ff.\n     His chief cult-centre was Hermonthis, but here as elsewhere\n     he is given his usual title \"Lord of Thebes\".\n\n     (3) Pl. xlvii. Similar scenes are presented in the \"birth-\n     temples\" at Denderah, Edfu, Philae, Esneh, and Luxor; see\n     Naville, op. cit., p. 14.\n\n     (4) Cf. Budge, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 50.\n\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 be\nrepresented as a man, and so both the children are boys.(2) As yet they\nare lifeless, but the symbol of Life will be held to their nostrils\nby Heqet, the divine Potter's wife, whose frog-head typifies birth and\nfertility. When Amenophis III copied Hatshepsut's sculptures for his own\nseries at Luxor, he assigned this duty to the greater goddess Hathor,\nperhaps the most powerful of the cosmic goddesses and the mother of the\nworld. The subsequent scenes at Deir el-Bahari include the leading of\nqueen Aahmes by Khnum and Heqet to the birth-chamber; the great birth\nscene where the queen is attended by the goddesses Nephthys and Isis, a\nnumber of divine nurses and midwives holding several of the \"doubles\"\nof the baby, and favourable genii, in human form or with the heads of\ncrocodiles, jackals, and hawks, representing the four cardinal points\nand all bearing the gift of life; the presentation of the young child\nby the goddess Hathor to Amen, who is well pleased at the sight of his\ndaughter; and the divine suckling of Hatshepsut and her \"doubles\". But\nthese episodes do not concern us, as of course they merely reflect the\nprocedure following a royal birth. But Khnum's part in the princess's\norigin stands on a different plane, for it illustrates the Egyptian myth\nof Creation by the divine Potter, who may take the form of either Khnum\nor Ptah. Monsieur Naville points out the extraordinary resemblance in\ndetail which Hatshepsut's myth of divine paternity bears to the Greek\nlegend of 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\n     (1) This detail is not clearly preserved at Deir el-Bahari;\n     but it is quite clear in the scene on the west wall of the\n     \"Birth-room\" in the Temple at Luxor, which Amenophis III\n     evidently copied from that of Hatshepsut.\n\n     (2) In the similar scene at Luxor, where the future\n     Amenophis III is represented on the Creator's wheel, the\n     sculptor has distinguished the human child from its\n     spiritual \"double\" by the quaint device of putting its\n     finger in its mouth.\n\n     (3) See Naville, op. cit., p. 12.\n\n     (4) Cf., e.g., Herodotus, II, 43.\n\nThe only complete Egyptian Creation myth yet recovered is preserved in\na late papyrus in the British Museum, which was published some years ago\nby Dr. Budge.(1) It occurs under two separate versions embedded in \"The\nBook of the Overthrowing of Apep, the Enemy of Ra\". Here Ra, who utters\nthe myth under his late title of Neb-er-tcher, \"Lord to the utmost\nlimit\", is self-created as Khepera from Nu, the primaeval water; and\nthen follow successive generations of divine pairs, male and female,\nsuch as we find at the beginning of the Semitic-Babylonian Creation\nSeries.(2) Though the papyrus was written as late as the year 311 B.C.,\nthe myth is undoubtedly early. For the first two divine pairs Shu and\nTefnut, Keb and Nut, and four of the latter pairs' five children, Osiris\nand Isis, Set and Nephthys, form with the Sun-god himself the Greater\nEnnead of Heliopolis, which exerted so wide an influence on Egyptian\nreligious speculation. The Ennead combined the older solar elements with\nthe cult of Osiris, and this is indicated in the myth by a break in the\nsuccessive generations, Nut bringing forth at a single birth the five\nchief gods of the Osiris cycle, Osiris himself and his son Horus, with\nSet, Isis, and Nephthys. Thus we may see in the myth an early example of\nthat religious syncretism which is so characteristic of later Egyptian\nbelief.\n\n     (1) See _Archaeologia_, Vol. LII (1891). Dr. Budge published\n     a new edition of the whole papyrus in _Egyptian Hieratic\n     Papyri in the British Museum_ (1910), and the two versions\n     of the Creation myth are given together in his _Gods of the\n     Egyptians_, Vol. I (1904), Chap. VIII, pp. 308 ff., and more\n     recently in his _Egyptian Literature_, Vol. I, \"Legends of\n     the Gods\" (1912), pp. 2 ff. An account of the papyrus is\n     included in the Introduction to \"Legends of the Gods\", pp.\n     xiii ff.\n\n     (2) In _Gods of the Egyptians_, Vol. I, Chap. VII, pp. 288\n     ff., Dr. Budge gives a detailed comparison of the Egyptian\n     pairs of primaeval deities with the very similar couples of\n     the Babylonian myth.\n\nThe only parallel this Egyptian myth of Creation presents to the Hebrew\ncosmogony is in its picture of the primaeval water, corresponding to\nthe watery chaos of Genesis i. But the resemblance is of a very general\ncharacter, and includes no etymological equivalence such as we find\nwhen we compare the Hebrew account with the principal Semitic-Babylonian\nCreation narrative.(1) The application of the Ankh, the Egyptian sign\nfor Life, to the nostrils of a newly-created being is no true parallel\nto the breathing into man's nostrils of the breath of life in the\nearlier Hebrew Version,(2) except in the sense that each process was\nsuggested by our common human anatomy. We should naturally expect to\nfind some Hebrew parallel to the Egyptian idea of Creation as the work\nof a potter with his clay, for that figure appears in most ancient\nmythologies. The Hebrews indeed used the conception as a metaphor\nor parable,(3) and it also underlies their earlier picture of man's\ncreation. I have not touched on the grosser Egyptian conceptions\nconcerning the origin of the universe, which we may probably connect\nwith African ideas; but those I have referred to will serve to\ndemonstrate the complete absence of any feature that presents a detailed\nresemblance of the Hebrew tradition.\n\n     (1) For the wide diffusion, in the myths of remote peoples,\n     of a vague theory that would trace all created things to a\n     watery origin, see Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, p. 180.\n\n     (2) Gen. ii. 7 (J).\n\n     (3) Cf., e.g., Isaiah xxix. 16, xlv. 9; and Jeremiah xviii.\n     2f.\n\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\nto the latter's continued political ascendancy, succeeded in winning a\ndominant place in the national literature. This is the version in which\nso many points of resemblance to the first chapter of Genesis have long\nbeen recognized, especially in the succession of creative acts and their\nrelative order. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version the creation of the\nworld is represented as the result of conflict, the emergence of order\nout of chaos, a result that is only attained by the personal triumph\nof the Creator. But this underlying dualism does not appear in the more\nprimitive Sumerian Version we have now recovered. It will be remembered\nthat in the second lecture I gave some account of the myth, which occurs\nin an epitomized form as an introduction to the Sumerian Version of\nthe Deluge, the two narratives being recorded in the same document and\nconnected with one another by a description of the Antediluvian cities.\nWe there saw that Creation is ascribed to the three greatest gods of\nthe Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil, and Enki, assisted by the goddess\nNinkharsagga.\n\nIt is significant that in the Sumerian version no less than four deities\nare represented as taking part in the Creation. For in this we may see\nsome indication of the period to which its composition must be assigned.\nTheir association in the text suggests that the claims of local gods\nhad already begun to compete with one another as a result of political\ncombination between the cities of their cults. To the same general\nperiod we must also assign the compilation of the Sumerian Dynastic\nrecord, for that presupposes the existence of a supreme ruler among\nthe Sumerian city-states. This form of political constitution must\nundoubtedly have been the result of a long process of development,\nand the fact that its existence should be regarded as dating from the\nCreation of the world indicates a comparatively developed stage of the\ntradition. But behind the combination of cities and their gods we may\nconjecturally trace anterior stages of development, when each local\ndeity and his human representative seemed to their own adherents the\nsole objects for worship and allegiance. And even after the demands of\nother centres had been conceded, no deity ever quite gave up his local\nclaims.\n\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 borrowed\nfrom Enlil of Nippur; and in the Atrakhasis legend Enlil himself appears\nas the ultimate ruler of the world and the other gods figure as \"his\nsons\". Anu, who heads the list and plays with Enlil the leading part\nin the Sumerian narrative, was clearly his chief rival. And though\nwe possess no detailed account of Anu's creative work, the persistent\nascription to him of the creation of heaven, and his familiar title,\n\"the Father of the Gods\", suggest that he once possessed a corresponding\nbody of myth in Eanna, his temple at Erech. Enki, the third of the\ncreating gods, was naturally credited, as God of Wisdom, with\nspecial creative activities, and fortunately in his case we have some\nindependent evidence of the varied forms these could assume.\n\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-place.\nThen taking from it a piece of clay(2) he proceeded to create the\nBrick-god, and reeds and forests for the supply of building material.\nFrom the same clay he continued to form other deities and materials,\nincluding the Carpenter-god; the Smith-god; Arazu, a patron deity\nof building; and mountains and seas for all that they produced; the\nGoldsmith-god, the Stone-cutter-god, and kindred deities, together with\ntheir rich products for offerings; the Grain-deities, Ashnan and Lakhar;\nSiris, a Wine-god; Ningishzida and Ninsar, a Garden-god, for the sake of\nthe rich offerings they could make; and a deity described as \"the\nHigh priest of the great gods,\" to lay down necessary ordinances and\ncommands. Then he created \"the King\", for the equipment probably of a\nparticular temple, and finally men, that they might practise the cult in\nthe temple so elaborately prepared.\n\n     (1) See Weissbach, _Babylonische Miscellen_, pp. 32 ff.\n\n     (2) One of the titles of Enki was \"the Potter\"; cf. _Cun.\n     Texts_ in the Brit. Mus., Pt. XXIV, pl. 14 f., ll. 41, 43.\n\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\nin all 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 are\nmentioned as would have been required for the building and adornment of\nthe temple and for the provision of its offerings and cult. But even so\nits mythological background is instructive. For while Anu's creation of\nheaven is postulated as the necessary precedent of Enki's activities,\nthe latter creates the Deep, vegetation, mountains, seas, and mankind.\nMoreover, in his character as God of Wisdom, he is not only the\nteacher but the creator of those deities who were patrons of man's own\nconstructive work. From such evidence we may infer that in his temple at\nEridu, now covered by the mounds of Abu Shahrain in the extreme south of\nBabylonia, and regarded in early Sumerian tradition as the first city in\nthe world, Enki himself was once celebrated as the sole creator of the\nuniverse.\n\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 universe,\nrepresenting respectively heaven, earth, and the watery abyss, but\nthey later shared the heavenly sphere between them. It is in their\nastrological character that we find them again in creative activity,\nthough without the co-operation of any goddess, when they appear as\ncreators of the great light-gods and as founders of time divisions, the\nday and the month. This Sumerian myth, though it reaches us only in an\nextract or summary in a Neo-Babylonian schoolboy's exercise,(1) may well\ndate from a comparatively early period, but probably from a time when\nthe \"Ways\" of Anu, Enlil, and Enki had already been fixed in heaven and\ntheir later astrological characters had crystallized.\n\n     (1) See _The Seven Tablets of Creation_, Vol. I, pp. 124 ff.\n     The tablet gives extracts from two very similar Sumerian and\n     Semitic texts. In both of them Anu, Enlil, and Enki appear\n     as creators \"through their sure counsel\". In the Sumerian\n     extract they create the Moon and ordain its monthly course,\n     while in the Semitic text, after establishing heaven and\n     earth, they create in addition to the New Moon the bright\n     Day, so that \"men beheld the Sun-god in the Gate of his\n     going forth\".\n\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 goddess\nAruru, in co-operation with Marduk, might be credited with the creation\nof the human race,(1) as she might also be pictured creating on her own\ninitiative an individual hero such as Enkidu of the Gilgamesh Epic. The\n_r\u00f4le_ of mother of mankind was also shared, as we have seen, by the\nSemitic Ishtar. And though the old Sumerian goddess, Ninkharsagga, the\n\"Lady of the Mountains\", appears in our Sumerian text for the first time\nin the character of creatress, some of the titles we know she enjoyed,\nunder her synonyms in the great God List of Babylonia, already reflected\nher cosmic activities.(2) For she was known as\n\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\n     (1) Op. cit., p. 134 f.\n\n     (2) Cf. _Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus._, Pt. XXIV, pl. 12,\n     ll. 32, 26, 27, 25, 24, 23, and Poebel, _Hist. Texts_, p.\n     34.\n\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 fully\nwith the part she here plays in the Sumerian Creation myth. Eannatum and\nGudea of Lagash both place her immediately after Anu and Enlil, giving\nher precedence over Enki; and even in the Kassite Kudurru inscriptions\nof the thirteenth and twelfth centuries, where she is referred to, she\ntakes rank after Enki and before the other gods. In Sumer she was known\nas \"the Mother of the Gods\", and she was credited with the power\nof transferring the kingdom and royal insignia from one king to his\nsuccessor.\n\n     (1) See especially, Poebel, op. cit., pp. 24 ff.\n\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, Enlil's\nfemale counterpart. The early clay figurines found at Nippur and on\nother sites, representing a goddess suckling a child and clasping one of\nher breasts, may well be regarded as representing Ninkharsagga and not\nNinlil. Her sanctuaries were at Kesh and Adab, both in the south, and\nthis fact sufficiently explains her comparative want of influence in\nAkkad, where the Semitic Ishtar took her place. She does indeed appear\nin the north during the Sargonic period under her own name, though later\nshe survives in her synonyms of Ninmakh, \"the Sublime Lady\", and Nintu,\n\"the Lady of Child-bearing\". It is under the latter title that Hammurabi\nrefers to her in his Code of Laws, where she is tenth in a series\nof eleven deities. But as Goddess of Birth she retained only a pale\nreflection of her original cosmic character, and her functions were\ngradually specialized.(1)\n\n     (1) Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under\n     one of her later synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr.\n     Poebel suggests, with the Mylitta of Herodotus.\n\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 illustrates\na well-known principle in the development of myth, the reconciliation\nof the rival claims of deities, whose cults, once isolated, had been\nbrought from political causes into contact with each other. In this\naspect myth is the medium through which a working pantheon is evolved.\nNaturally all the deities concerned cannot continue to play their\noriginal parts in detail. In the Babylonian Epic of Creation, where\na single deity, and not a very prominent one, was to be raised to\npre-eminent rank, the problem was simple enough. He could retain his own\nqualities and achievements while borrowing those of any former rival. In\nthe Sumerian text we have the result of a far more delicate process of\nadjustment, and it is possible that the brevity of the text is here not\nentirely due to compression of a longer narrative, but may in part\nbe regarded as evidence of early combination. As a result of the\nassociation of several competing deities in the work of creation, a\ntendency may be traced to avoid discrimination between rival claims.\nThus it is that the assembled gods, the pantheon as a whole, are\nregarded as collectively responsible for the creation of the universe.\nIt may be added that this use of _il\u00e2ni_, \"the gods\", forms an\ninteresting linguistic parallel to the plural of the Hebrew divine title\nElohim.\n\nIt will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the account of\nCreation is not given in full, only such episodes being included as were\ndirectly related to the Deluge story. No doubt the selection of men and\nanimals was suggested by their subsequent rescue from the Flood; and\nemphasis was purposely laid on the creation of the _niggilma_ because of\nthe part it played in securing mankind's survival. Even so, we noted one\nstriking parallel between the Sumerian Version and that of the Semitic\nBabylonians, in the reason both give for man's creation. But in the\nformer there is no attempt to explain how the universe itself had come\ninto being, and the existence of the earth is presupposed at the moment\nwhen Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninkharsagga undertake the creation of man.\nThe Semitic-Babylonian Version, on the other hand, is mainly occupied\nwith events that led up to the acts of creation, and it concerns our\nproblem to inquire how far those episodes were of Semitic and how far of\nSumerian origin. A further question arises as to whether some strands\nof the narrative may not at one time have existed in Sumerian form\nindependently of the Creation myth.\n\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 that\nversion as a whole, needs some qualification. The composite nature of\nthe poem has long been recognized, and an analysis of the text has shown\nthat no less than five principal strands have been combined for its\nformation. These consist of (i) The Birth of the Gods; (ii) The Legend\nof Ea and Aps\u00fb; (iii) The principal Dragon Myth; (iv) The actual account\nof Creation; and (v) the Hymn to Marduk under his fifty titles.(2) The\nAssyrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which considerable portions of\nits text are restored, quote throughout a Sumerian original, and explain\nit word for word by the phrases of the Semitic Version;(3) so that for\none out of the Seven Tablets a Semitic origin is at once disproved.\nMoreover, the majority of the fifty titles, even in the forms in which\nthey have reached us in the Semitic text, are demonstrably Sumerian, and\nsince many of them celebrate details of their owner's creative work, a\nSumerian original for other parts of the version is implied. Enlil and\nEa are both represented as bestowing their own names upon Marduk,(4)\nand we may assume that many of the fifty titles were originally borne by\nEnlil as a Sumerian Creator.(5) Thus some portions of the actual account\nof Creation were probably derived from a Sumerian original in which\n\"Father Enlil\" figured as the hero.\n\n     (1) Cf., e.g., Jastrow, _Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol.\n     XXXVI (1916), p. 279.\n\n     (2) See _The Seven Tablets of Creation_, Vol. I, pp. lxvi\n     ff.; and cf. Skinner, _Genesis_, pp. 43 ff.\n\n     (3) Cf. _Sev. Tabl._, Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.\n\n     (4) Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff.\n\n     (5) The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed\n     for Enlil's name.\n\nFor what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves responsible?\nIt seems to me that, in the \"Seven Tablets\", we may credit them with\nconsiderable ingenuity in the combination of existing myths, but\nnot with their invention. The whole poem in its present form is\na glorification 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 of\nkeeping 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 older\ncult-centres in the country. Hence they chose and combined the more\nimportant existing myths, only making such alterations as would fit\nthem to their new hero. Babylon herself had won her position by her own\nexertions; and it would be a natural idea to give Marduk his opportunity\nof becoming Creator of the world as the result of successful conflict.\nA combination of the Dragon myth with the myth of Creation would have\nadmirably served their purpose; and this is what we find in the Semitic\npoem. But even that combination may not have been their own invention;\nfor, though, as we shall see, the idea of conflict had no part in the\nearlier forms of the Sumerian Creation myth, its combination with the\nDragon _motif_ may have characterized the local Sumerian Version\nof Nippur. How mechanical was the Babylonian redactors' method of\nglorifying Marduk is seen in their use of the description of Tiamat\nand her monster brood, whom Marduk is made to conquer. To impress the\nhearers of the poem with his prowess, this is repeated at length no less\nthan four times, one god carrying the news of her revolt to another.\n\nDirect proof of the manner in which the later redactors have been\nobliged to modify the original Sumerian Creation myth, in consequence of\ntheir incorporation of other elements, may be seen in the Sixth Tablet\nof the poem, where Marduk states the reason for man's creation. In the\nsecond lecture we noted how the very words of the principal Sumerian\nCreator were put into Marduk's mouth; but the rest of the Semitic god's\nspeech finds no equivalent in the Sumerian Version and was evidently\ninserted in order to reconcile the narrative with its later ingredients.\nThis will best be seen by printing the two passages in parallel\ncolumns:(1)\n\n     (1) The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in\n     the lower part of the First Column, is here compared with\n     the Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series, Tablet VI, ll. 6-10\n     (see _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.). The comparison is\n     justified whether we regard the Sumerian speech as a direct\n     preliminary to man's creation, or as a reassertion of his\n     duty after his rescue from destruction by the Flood.\n\n     SUMERIAN VERSION                    SEMITIC VERSION\n\n     \"The people will I cause to . . .  \"I will make man, that man may\n     in their settlements,               (. . .).\n     Cities . . . shall (man) build,    I will create man who shall\n     in their protection will I cause    inhabit (. . .),\n     him to rest,\n     That he may lay the brick of our   That the service of the gods may\n     house in a clean spot,              be established, and that\n     (their) shrines (may be\n     built).\n     That in a clean spot he may        But I will alter the ways of the\n     establish our . . . !\"             gods, and I will change (their\n     paths);\n     Together shall they be\n     oppressed, and unto evil shall\n     (they . . .)!\"\n\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; he\nrefers to \"our houses\", or temples, that shall be established. But in\nthe later version divine conflict has been introduced, and the future\nhead of the pantheon has conquered and humiliated the revolting deities.\nTheir \"ways\" must therefore be altered before they are fit to receive\nthe worship which was accorded them by right in the simpler Sumerian\ntradition. In spite of the epitomized character of the Sumerian\nVersion, a comparison of these passages suggests very forcibly that the\nSemitic-Babylonian myth of Creation is based upon a simpler Sumerian\nstory, which has been elaborated to reconcile it with the Dragon myth.\n\nThe Semitic poem itself also supplies evidence of the independent\nexistence of the Dragon myth apart from the process of Creation, for the\nstory of Ea and Aps\u00fb, which it incorporates, is merely the local Dragon\nmyth of Eridu. Its inclusion in the story is again simply a tribute to\nMarduk; for though Ea, now become Marduk's father, could conquer Aps\u00fb,\nhe was afraid of Tiamat, \"and turned back\".(1) The original Eridu myth\nno doubt represented Enki as conquering the watery Abyss, which became\nhis home; but there is nothing to connect this tradition with his\nearly creative activities. We have long possessed part of another local\nversion of the Dragon myth, which describes the conquest of a dragon by\nsome deity other than Marduk; and the fight is there described as taking\nplace, not before Creation, but at a time when men existed and cities\nhad been built.(2) Men and gods were equally terrified at the monster's\nappearance, and it was to deliver the land from his clutches that one\nof the gods went out and slew him. Tradition delighted to dwell on the\ndragon's enormous size and terrible appearance. In this version he is\ndescribed as fifty _b\u00earu_(3) in length and one in height; his mouth\nmeasured six cubits and the circuit of his ears twelve; he dragged\nhimself along in the water, which he lashed with his tail; and, when\nslain, his blood flowed for three years, three months, a day and a\nnight. From this description we can see he was given the body of an\nenormous serpent.(4)\n\n     (1) Tabl. III, l. 53, &c. In the story of Bel and the\n     Dragon, the third of the apocryphal additions to Daniel, we\n     have direct evidence of the late survival of the Dragon\n     _motif_ apart from any trace of the Creation myth; in this\n     connexion see Charles, _Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha_, Vol.\n     I (1913), p. 653 f.\n\n     (2) See _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, pp. 116 ff., lxviii f. The\n     text is preserved on an Assyrian tablet made for the library\n     of Ashur-bani-pal.\n\n     (3) The _b\u00earu_ was the space that could be covered in two\n     hours' travelling.\n\n     (4) The Babylonian Dragon has progeny in the later\n     apocalyptic literature, where we find very similar\n     descriptions of the creatures' size. Among them we may\n     perhaps include the dragon in the Apocalypse of Baruch, who,\n     according to the Slavonic Version, apparently every day\n     drinks a cubit's depth from the sea, and yet the sea does\n     not sink because of the three hundred and sixty rivers that\n     flow into it (cf. James, \"Apocrypha Anecdota\", Second\n     Series, in Armitage Robinson's _Texts and Studies_, V, No.\n     1, pp. lix ff.). But Egypt's Dragon _motif_ was even more\n     prolific, and the _Pistis Sophia_ undoubtedly suggested\n     descriptions of the Serpent, especially in connexion with\n     Hades.\n\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 in\nit the dragon is not entirely of serpent form, but is a true dragon with\nlegs. Like the one just described, he is a male monster. The description\noccurs as part of a myth, of which the text is so badly preserved that\nonly the contents of one column can be made out with any certainty. In\nit a god, whose name is wanting, announces the presence of the dragon:\n\"In the water he lies and I (. . .)!\" Thereupon a second god cries\nsuccessively to Aruru, the mother-goddess, and to Pallil, another deity,\nfor help in his predicament. And then follows the description of the\ndragon:\n\n     In the sea was the Serpent cre(ated).\n     Sixty _b\u00earu_ is his length;\n     Thirty _b\u00earu_ high is his he(ad).(2)\n     For half (a _b\u00earu_) each stretches the surface of his ey(es);(3)\n     For twenty _b\u00earu_ go (his feet).(4)\n     He devours fish, the creatures (of the sea),\n     He devours birds, the creatures (of the heaven),\n     He devours wild asses, the creatures (of the field),\n     He devours men,(5) to the peoples (he . . .).\n\n     (1) For the text, see Ebeling, _Assurtexte_ I, No. 6; it is\n     translated by him in _Orient. Lit.-Zeit._, Vol. XIX, No. 4\n     (April, 1916).\n\n     (2) The line reads: _30 b\u00earu \u009aa-ka-a ri-(\u009aa-a-\u009au)_. Dr.\n     Ebeling renders _ri-\u009aa-a_ as \"heads\" (K\u00f6pfe), implying that\n     the dragon had more than one head. It may be pointed out\n     that, if we could accept this translation, we should have an\n     interesting parallel to the description of some of the\n     primaeval monsters, preserved from Berossus, as {soma men\n     ekhontas en, kephalas de duo}. But the common word for\n     \"head\" is _kakkadu_, and there can be little doubt that\n     _r\u00ee\u009a\u00e2_ is here used in its ordinary sense of \"head, summit,\n     top\" when applied to a high building.\n\n     (3) The line reads: _a-na 1/2 ta-am la-bu-na li-bit \u00ean(a-\n     \u009au)_. Dr. Ebeling translates, \"auf je eine H\u00e4lfte ist ein\n     Ziegel (ihrer) Auge(n) gelegt\". But _libittu_ is clearly\n     used here, not with its ordinary meaning of \"brick\", which\n     yields a strange rendering, but in its special sense, when\n     applied to large buildings, of \"foundation, floor-space,\n     area\", i.e. \"surface\". Dr. Ebeling reads _\u00ean\u00e2-\u009au_ at the end\n     of the line, but the sign is broken; perhaps the traces may\n     prove to be those of _uzn\u00e2 \u009au_, \"his ears\", in which case\n     _li-bit uz(n\u00e2-\u009au)_ might be rendered either as \"surface of\n     his ears\", or as \"base (lit. foundation) of his ears\".\n\n     (4) i.e. the length of his pace was twenty _b\u00earu_.\n\n     (5) Lit. \"the black-headed\".\n\nThe text here breaks off, at the moment when Pallil, whose help against\nthe dragon had been invoked, begins to speak. Let us hope we shall\nrecover the continuation of the narrative and learn what became of this\ncarnivorous monster.\n\nThere are ample grounds, then, for assuming the independent existence of\nthe Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the versions recovered\nhave come to us in Semitic form, there is no doubt that the myth itself\nexisted among the Sumerians. The dragon _motif_ is constantly recurring\nin descriptions of Sumerian temple-decoration, and the twin dragons\nof Ningishzida on Gudea's libation-vase, carved in green steatite and\ninlaid with shell, are a notable product of Sumerian art.(1) The very\nnames borne by Tiamat's brood of monsters in the \"Seven Tablets\" are\nstamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent, and Kingu, whom she\nappointed as her champion in place of Aps\u00fb, is equally Sumerian. It\nwould be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not evolved a Dragon\nmyth,(2) for the Dragon combat is the most obvious of nature myths and\nis found in most mythologies of Europe and the Near East. The trailing\nstorm-clouds suggest his serpent form, his fiery tongue is seen in the\nforked lightning, and, though he may darken the world for a time,\nthe Sun-god will always be victorious. In Egypt the myth of \"the\nOverthrowing of Apep, the enemy of Ra\" presents a close parallel to that\nof Tiamat;(3) but of all Eastern mythologies that of the Chinese\nhas inspired in art the most beautiful treatment of the Dragon, who,\nhowever, under his varied forms was for them essentially beneficent.\nDoubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions of the Dragon\ncombat, both before and after their arrival on the Euphrates, but the\nparticular version which the priests of Babylon wove into their epic is\nnot one of them.\n\n     (1) See E. de Sarzec, _D\u00e9couvertes en Chald\u00e9e_, pl. xliv,\n     Fig. 2, and Heuzey, _Catalogue des antiquit\u00e9s chald\u00e9ennes_,\n     p. 281.\n\n     (2) In his very interesting study of \"Sumerian and Akkadian\n     Views of Beginnings\", contributed to the _Journ. of the\n     Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 274 ff., Professor\n     Jastrow suggests that the Dragon combat in the Semitic-\n     Babylonian Creation poem is of Semitic not Sumerian origin.\n     He does not examine the evidence of the poem itself in\n     detail, but bases the suggestion mainly on the two\n     hypotheses, that the Dragon combat of the poem was suggested\n     by the winter storms and floods of the Euphrates Valley, and\n     that the Sumerians came from a mountain region where water\n     was not plentiful. If we grant both assumptions, the\n     suggested conclusion does not seem to me necessarily to\n     follow, in view of the evidence we now possess as to the\n     remote date of the Sumerian settlement in the Euphrates\n     Valley. Some evidence may still be held to point to a\n     mountain home for the proto-Sumerians, such as the name of\n     their early goddess Ninkharsagga, \"the Lady of the\n     Mountains\". But, as we must now regard Babylonia itself as\n     the cradle of their civilization, other data tend to lose\n     something of their apparent significance. It is true that\n     the same Sumerian sign means \"land\" and \"mountain\"; but it\n     may have been difficult to obtain an intelligible profile\n     for \"land\" without adopting a mountain form. Such a name as\n     Ekur, the \"Mountain House\" of Nippur, may perhaps indicate\n     size, not origin; and Enki's association with metal-working\n     may be merely due to his character as God of Wisdom, and is\n     not appropriate solely \"to a god whose home is in the\n     mountains where metals are found\" (op. cit., p. 295). It\n     should be added that Professor Jastrow's theory of the\n     Dragon combat is bound up with his view of the origin of an\n     interesting Sumerian \"myth of beginnings\", to which\n     reference is made later.\n\n     (3) Cf. Budge, _Gods of the Egyptians_, Vol. I, pp. 324 ff.\n     The inclusion of the two versions of the Egyptian Creation\n     myth, recording the Birth of the Gods in the \"Book of\n     Overthrowing Apep\", does not present a very close parallel\n     to the combination of Creation and Dragon myths in the\n     Semitic-Babylonian poem, for in the Egyptian work the two\n     myths are not really combined, the Creation Versions being\n     inserted in the middle of the spells against Apep, without\n     any attempt at assimilation (see Budge, _Egyptian\n     Literature_, Vol. I, p. xvi).\n\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 which\nour discussion started. For if this too should prove to be Sumerian, it\nwould help to fill in the gap in our Sumerian Creation myth, and might\nfurnish us with some idea of the Sumerian view of \"beginnings\", which\npreceded the acts of creation by the great gods. It will be remembered\nthat the poem opens with the description of a time when heaven and earth\ndid not exist, no field or marsh even had been created, and the universe\nconsisted only of the primaeval water-gods, Aps\u00fb, Mummu, and Tiamat,\nwhose waters were mingled together. Then follows the successive\ngeneration of two pairs of deities, Lakhmu and Lakhamu, and Anshar and\nKishar, long ages separating the two generations from each other and\nfrom the birth of the great gods which subsequently takes place. In\nthe summary of the myth which is given by Damascius(1) the names of the\nvarious deities accurately correspond to those in the opening lines of\nthe poem; but he makes some notable additions, as will be seen from the\nfollowing table:\n\n     DAMASCUS                            \"SEVEN TABLETS\" I\n\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\n     (1) _Quaestiones de primis principiis_, cap. 125; ed. Kopp,\n     p. 384.\n\n     (2) Emended from the reading {Dakhen kai Dakhon} of the\n     text.\n\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 Enlil,\nthe original of {'Illinos}. It is just possible that his name occurred\nat the end of one of the broken lines, and, if so, we should have a\ncomplete parallel to Damascius. But the traces are not in favour of the\nrestoration;(1) and the omission of Enlil's name from this part of\nthe poem may be readily explained as a further tribute to Marduk, who\ndefinitely usurps his place throughout the subsequent narrative. Anu and\nEa had both to be mentioned because of the parts they play in the Epic,\nbut Enlil's only recorded appearance is in the final assembly of the\ngods, where he bestows his own name \"the Lord of the World\"(2) upon\nMarduk. The evidence of Damascius suggests that Enlil's name was here\nretained, between those of Anu and Ea, in other versions of the poem.\nBut the occurrence of the name in any version is in itself evidence\nof the antiquity of this strand of the narrative. It is a legitimate\ninference that the myth of the Birth of the Gods goes back to a time at\nleast before the rise of Babylon, and is presumably of Sumerian origin.\n\n     (1) Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time\n     at the beginning of a line, and the three lines following\n     the reference to Nudimmud are entirely occupied with\n     descriptions of his wisdom and power. It is also probable\n     that the three preceding lines (ll. 14-16), all of which\n     refer to Anu by name, were entirely occupied with his\n     description. But it is only in ll. 13-16 that any reference\n     to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of\n     their second halves do not suggestion the restoration.\n\n     (2) Cf. Tabl. VII, . 116.\n\nFurther evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu, Enlil, and Ea\n(i.e. Enki), who are here created together, are the three great gods of\nthe Sumerian Version of Creation; it is they who create mankind with the\nhelp of the goddess Ninkharsagga, and in the fuller version of that myth\nwe should naturally expect to find some account of their own origin. The\nreference in Damascius to Marduk ({Belos}) as the son of Ea and Damkina\n({Dauke}) is also of interest in this connexion, as it exhibits a\ngoddess in close connexion with one of the three great gods, much as\nwe find Ninkharsagga associated with them in the Sumerian Version.(1)\nBefore leaving the names, it may be added that, of the primaeval\ndeities, Anshar and Kishar are obviously Sumerian in form.\n\n     (1) Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki; and\n     Ninkharsagga is associated with Enki, as his consort, in\n     another Sumerian myth.\n\nIt may be noted that the character of Aps\u00fb and Tiamat in this portion of\nthe poem(1) is quite at variance with their later actions. Their revolt\nat the ordered \"way\" of the gods was a necessary preliminary to the\nincorporation 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 imply\nthat the gods were created \"in the midst of (heaven)\", but I think the\nfollowing rendering, in connexion with ll. 1-5, gives better sense:\n\n     When in the height heaven was not named,\n     And the earth beneath did not bear a name,\n     And the primaeval Aps\u00fb who begat them,(3)\n     And Mummu, and Tiamat who bore them(3) all,--\n     Their waters were mingled together,\n     . . .\n     . . .\n     . . .\n     Then were created the gods in the midst of (their waters),(4)\n     Lakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being . . .\n\n     (1) Tabl. I, ll. 1-21.\n\n     (2) We may perhaps see a survival of Tiamat's original\n     character in her control of the Tablets of Fate. The poem\n     does not represent her as seizing them in any successful\n     fight; they appear to be already hers to bestow on Kingu,\n     though in the later mythology they are \"not his by right\"\n     (cf. Tabl. I, ll. 137 ff., and Tabl. IV, l. 121).\n\n     (3) i.e. the gods.\n\n     (4) The ninth line is preserved only on a Neo-Babylonian\n     duplicate (_Seven Tablets_, Vol. II, pl. i). I suggested the\n     restoration _ki-rib \u009a(a-ma-mi)_, \"in the midst of heaven\",\n     as possible, since the traces of the first sign in the last\n     word of the line seemed to be those of the Neo-Babylonian\n     form of _\u009aa_. The restoration appeared at the time not\n     altogether satisfactory in view of the first line of the\n     poem, and it could only be justified by supposing that\n     _\u009aam\u00e2mu_, or \"heaven\", was already vaguely conceived as in\n     existence (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3, n. 14). But the traces of\n     the sign, as I have given them (op. cit., Vol. II, pl. i),\n     may also possibly be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of the\n     sign _me_; and I would now restore the end of the line in\n     the Neo-Babylonian tablet as _ki-rib m(e-e-\u009au-nu)_, \"in the\n     midst of (their waters)\", corresponding to the form _mu-u-\n     \u009au-nu_ in l. 5 of this duplicate. In the Assyrian Version\n     _m\u00e9(pl)-\u009au-nu_ would be read in both lines. It will be\n     possible to verify the new reading, by a re-examination of\n     the traces on the tablet, when the British Museum\n     collections again become available for study after the war.\n\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\nthe summary from Berossus, who, in explaining the myth, refers to the\nBabylonian belief that the universe consisted at first of moisture\nin which 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 in\nthe Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the combination of\nthe Dragon myth with that of Creation, a combination that in Egypt\nwould never have been justified by the gentle Nile. From a study of some\naspects of the names at the beginning of the Babylonian poem we have\nalready seen reason to suspect that its version of the Birth of the Gods\ngoes back to Sumerian times, and it is pertinent to ask whether we have\nany further evidence that in Sumerian belief water was the origin of all\nthings.\n\n     (1) {ugrou gar ontos tou pantos kai zoon en auto\n     gegennemenon (toionde) ktl}. His creatures of the primaeval\n     water were killed by the light; and terrestrial animals were\n     then created which could bear (i.e. breathe and exist in)\n     the air.\n\nFor many years we have possessed a Sumerian myth of Creation, which has\ncome to us on a late Babylonian tablet as the introductory section of\nan incantation. It is provided with a Semitic translation, and to judge\nfrom its record of the building of Babylon and Egasila, Marduk's temple,\nand its identification of Marduk himself with the Creator, it has\nclearly undergone some editing at the hands of the Babylonian priests.\nMoreover, the occurrence of various episodes out of their logical order,\nand the fact that the text records twice over the creation of swamps and\nmarshes, reeds and trees or forests, animals and cities, indicate that\ntwo Sumerian myths have been combined. Thus we have no guarantee that\nthe other cities referred to by name in the text, Nippur, Erech, and\nEridu, are mentioned in any significant connexion with each other.(1) Of\nthe actual cause of Creation the text appears to give two versions also,\none in its present form impersonal, and the other carried out by a\ngod. But these two accounts are quite unlike the authorized version\nof Babylon, and we may confidently regard them as representing genuine\nSumerian myths. The text resembles other early accounts of Creation by\nintroducing its narrative with a series of negative statements, which\nserve to indicate the preceding non-existence of the world, as will be\nseen from the following extract:(2)\n\n     No city had been created, no creature had been made,\n     Nippur had not been created, Ekur had not been built,\n     Erech had not been created, Eanna had not been built,\n     Aps\u00fb had not been created, Eridu had not been built,\n     Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had not\n     been created.\n     All lands(3) were sea.\n     At the time when a channel (was formed) in the midst of the sea,\n     Then was Eridu created, Esagila built, etc.\n\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\nthe text.(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-area.\nNo doubt the phrase was elaborated in the original myth, and it is\npossible that what appears to be a second version of Creation later on\nin 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. To\nthe following couplet, which describes Gilimma's method of creation,\nis appended a further extract from a later portion of the text, there\nevidently displaced, giving additional details of the Creator's work:\n\n     Gilimma bound reeds in the face of the waters,\n     He 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\n     (1) The composite nature of the text is discussed by\n     Professor Jastrow in his _Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions_,\n     pp. 89 ff.; and in his paper in the _Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._,\n     Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 279 ff.; he has analysed it into two\n     main versions, which he suggests originated in Eridu and\n     Nippur respectively. The evidence of the text does not\n     appear to me to support the view that any reference to a\n     watery chaos preceding Creation must necessarily be of\n     Semitic origin. For the literature of the text (first\n     published by Pinches, _Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc._, Vol. XXIII,\n     pp. 393 ff.), see _Sev. Tabl._, Vol. I, p. 130.\n\n     (2) Obv., ll. 5-12.\n\n     (3) Sum. _nigin-kur-kur-ra-ge_, Sem. _nap-har ma-ta-a-tu_,\n     lit. \"all lands\", i.e. Sumerian and Babylonian expressions\n     for \"the world\".\n\n     (4) Sum. _a-ab-ba_, \"sea\", is here rendered by _t\u00e2mtum_, not\n     by its personified equivalent Tiamat.\n\n     (5) The suggestion has been made that _amu_, the word in the\n     Semitic version here translated \"reeds\", should be connected\n     with _ammatu_, the word used for \"earth\" or \"dry land\" in\n     the Babylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, l. 2, and given\n     some such meaning as \"expanse\". The couplet is thus\n     explained to mean that the god made an expanse on the face\n     of the waters, and then poured out dust \"on the expanse\".\n     But the Semitic version in l. 18 reads _itti ami_, \"beside\n     the _a._\", not _ina ami_, \"on the _a._\"; and in any case\n     there does not seem much significance in the act of pouring\n     out specially created dust on or beside land already formed.\n     The Sumerian word translated by _amu_ is written _gi-dir_,\n     with the element _gi_, \"reed\", in l. 17, and though in the\n     following line it is written under its variant form _a-dir_\n     without _gi_, the equation _gi-a-dir_ = _amu_ is elsewhere\n     attested (cf. Delitzsch, _Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, p. 77). In favour\n     of regarding _amu_ as some sort of reed, here used\n     collectively, it may be pointed out that the Sumerian verb\n     in l. 17 is _ke\u009ada_, \"to bind\", accurately rendered by\n     _raka\u009au_ in the Semitic version. Assuming that l. 34 belongs\n     to the same account, the creation of reeds in general beside\n     trees, after dry land is formed, would not of course be at\n     variance with the god's use of some sort of reed in his\n     first act of creation. He creates the reed-bundles, as he\n     creates the soil, both of which go to form the first dike;\n     the reed-beds, like the other vegetation, spring up from the\n     ground when it appears.\n\n     (6) The Semitic version here reads \"the lord Marduk\"; the\n     corresponding name in the Sumerian text is not preserved.\n\n     (7) The line is restored from l. 2 o the obverse of the\n     text.\n\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 until\nthe god created land out of the waters by the only practical method that\nwas possible in Mesopotamia.\n\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 Mesopotamian\nseason of \"low water\". The underlying idea is suggestive of a period\nwhen some progress in systematic irrigation had already been made, and\nthe filling of the dry canals and subsequent irrigation of the parched\nground by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but eagerly desired.\nThe myth is only one of several that have been combined to form the\nintroductory sections of an incantation; but in all of them Enki, the\ngod of the deep water, plays the leading part, though associated with\ndifferent consorts.(1) The incantation is directed against various\ndiseases, and the recitation of the closing mythical section was\nevidently intended to enlist the aid of special gods in combating them.\nThe creation of these deities is recited under set formulae in a sort of\nrefrain, and the divine name assigned to each bears a magical connexion\nwith the sickness he or she is intended to dispel.(2)\n\n     (1) See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect.,\n     Vol. X, No. 1 (1915), pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; _Journ. Amer.\n     Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 140 ff.; cf. Prince,\n     _Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow,\n     _Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 122 ff., and in\n     particular his detailed study of the text in _Amer. Journ.\n     Semit. Lang._, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ff. Dr. Langdon's first\n     description of the text, in _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, Vol.\n     XXXVI (1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively\n     small fragment only; and on his completion of the text from\n     other fragments in Pennsylvania. Professor Sayce at once\n     realized that the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth\n     could not be sustained (cf. _Expos. Times_, Nov., 1915, pp.\n     88 ff.). He, Professor Prince, and Professor Jastrow\n     independently showed that the action of Enki in the myth in\n     sending water on the land was not punitive but beneficent;\n     and the preceding section, in which animals are described as\n     not performing their usual activities, was shown\n     independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to\n     have reference, not to their different nature in an ideal\n     existence in Paradise, but, on familiar lines, to their non-\n     existence in a desolate land. It may be added that Professor\n     Barton and Dr. Peters agree generally with Professor Prince\n     and Professor Jastrow in their interpretation of the text,\n     which excludes the suggested biblical parallels; and I\n     understand from Dr. Langdon that he very rightly recognizes\n     that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a subject for\n     congratulation that the discussion has materially increased\n     our knowledge of this difficult composition.\n\n     (2) Cf. Col. VI, ll. 24 ff.; thus _Ab_-u was created for the\n     sickness of the cow (_ab_); Nin-_tul_ for that of the flock\n     (u-_tul_); Nin-_ka_-u-tu and Nin-_ka_-si for that of the\n     mouth (_ka_); Na-zi for that of the _na-zi_ (meaning\n     uncertain); _Da zi_-ma for that of the _da-zi_ (meaning\n     uncertain); Nin-_til_ for that of _til_ (life); the name of\n     the eighth and last deity is imperfectly preserved.\n\nWe have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic, which\nwas common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its employment\nagainst disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice to cite\na well-known magical cure for the toothache which was adopted in\nBabylon.(1) There toothache was believed to be caused by the gnawing of\na worm in the gum, and a myth was used in the incantation to relieve\nit. The worm's origin is traced from Anu, the god of heaven, through\na descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the earth, rivers,\ncanals and marshes are represented as each giving rise to the next in\norder, until finally the marshes produce the worm. The myth then relates\nhow the worm, on being offered tempting food by Ea in answer to her\nprayer, asked to be allowed to drink the blood of the teeth, and the\nincantation closes by invoking the curse of Ea because of the worm's\nmisguided choice. It is clear that power over the worm was obtained by a\nrecital of her creation and of her subsequent ingratitude, which led to\nher present occupation and the curse under which she laboured. When the\nmyth and invocation had been recited three times over the proper mixture\nof beer, a plant, and oil, and the mixture had been applied to the\noffending tooth, the worm would fall under the spell of the curse and\nthe patient would at once gain relief. The example is instructive,\nas the connexion of ideas is quite clear. In the Nippur document the\nrecital of the creation of the eight deities evidently ensured their\npresence, and a demonstration of the mystic bond between their names\nand the corresponding diseases rendered the working of their powers\neffective. Our knowledge of a good many other myths is due solely to\ntheir magical employment.\n\n     (1) See Thompson, _Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia_,\n     Vol. II, pp. 160 ff.; for a number of other examples, see\n     Jastrow, _J.A.O.S._, Vol. XXXVI, p. 279, n. 7.\n\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 the\ncharacter of each. As Professor Jastrow has pointed out, the passage\nforcibly recalls the story from Berossus, concerning the mythical\ncreature Oannes, who came up from the Erythraean Sea, where it borders\nupon Babylonia, to instruct mankind in all things, including \"seeds and\nthe gathering of fruits\".(1) But the only part of the text that concerns\nus here is the introductory section, where the life-giving flood, by\nwhich the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured as following the union\nof the water-deities, Enki and Ninella.(2) Professor Jastrow is right in\nemphasizing the complete absence of any conflict in this Sumerian\nmyth of beginnings; but, as with the other Sumerian Versions we have\nexamined, it seems to me there is no need to seek its origin elsewhere\nthan in the Euphrates Valley.\n\n     (1) Cf. Jastrow, _J.A.O.S._, Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and\n     _A.J.S.L._, Vol. XXXIII, p. 134 f. It may be added that the\n     divine naming of the plants also presents a faint parallel\n     to the naming of the beasts and birds by man himself in Gen.\n     ii. 19 f.\n\n     (2) Professor Jastrow (_A.J.S.L._, Vol. XXXIII, p. 115)\n     compares similar myths collected by Sir James Frazer (_Magic\n     Art_, Vol. II, chap. xi and chap. xii, \u00a7 2). He also notes\n     the parallel the irrigation myth presents to the mist (or\n     flood) of the earlier Hebrew Version (Gen. ii. 5 f). But\n     Enki, like Ea, was no rain-god; he had his dwellings in the\n     Euphrates and the Deep.\n\nEven in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation had been\nsuperseded by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never ceased to be regarded\nas the source of life and the creator of all things. And this is\nwell brought out in the following introductory lines of a Semitic\nincantation, of which we possess two Neo-Babylonian copies:(1)\n\n     O thou River, who didst create all things,\n     When the great gods dug thee out,\n     They set prosperity upon thy banks,\n     Within thee Ea, King of the Deep, created his dwelling.\n     The Flood they sent not before thou wert!\n\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 with\nits destructive power. The reappearance of the fertile soil, after the\nreceding inundation, doubtless suggested the idea of creation out of\nwater, and the stream's slow but automatic fall would furnish a model\nfor the age-long evolution of primaeval deities. When a god's active and\nartificial creation of the earth must be portrayed, it would have been\nnatural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the Creator working as\nhe himself would work when he reclaimed a field from flood. We are thus\nshown the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling reed-bundles in the water and\nheaping up soil beside them, till the ground within his dikes dries off\nand produces luxuriant vegetation. But here there is a hint of struggle\nin the process, and we perceive in it the myth-redactor's opportunity\nto weave in the Dragon _motif_. No such excuse is afforded by the other\nSumerian myth, which pictures the life-producing inundation as the gift\nof the two deities of the Deep and the product of their union.\n\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 deity\nmust be made to appear, not only as Creator, but also as the champion\nof his divine allies and the conqueror of other gods, it was inevitable\nthat the myths attaching to the waters under their two aspects should be\ncombined. This may already have taken place at Nippur, when Enlil\nbecame the head of the pantheon; but the existence of his myth is\nconjectural.(1) In a later age we can trace the process in the light of\nhistory and of existing texts. There Marduk, identified wholly as the\nSun-god, conquers the once featureless primaeval water, which in the\nprocess of redaction has now become the Dragon of flood and storm.\n\n     (1) The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is\n     emphasized in Tablet VII of the Babylonian poem of Creation.\n     It is significant that his first title, Asara, should be\n     interpreted as \"Bestower of planting\", \"Founder of sowing\",\n     \"Creator of grain and plants\", \"He who caused the green herb\n     to spring up\" (cf. _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, p. 92 f.). These\n     opening phrases, by which the god is hailed, strike the key-\n     note of the whole composition. It is true that, as Sukh-kur,\n     he is \"Destroyer of the foe\"; but the great majority of the\n     titles and their Semitic glosses refer to creative\n     activities, not to the Dragon myth.\n\nThus the dualism which is so characteristic a feature of the\nSemitic-Babylonian system, though absent from the earliest Sumerian\nideas of Creation, was inherent in the nature of the local rivers, whose\nvaried aspects gave rise to or coloured separate myths. Its presence\nin the later 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\nbe expected 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.\n\nWe have thus been able to trace the various strands of the\nSemitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins; and in the\nsecond lecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with regard to\nthe Semitic-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 reproduced\nby Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same arrangement in Genesis\ndid not therefore prove that the Hebrew accounts go back directly to\nearly Sumerian originals. In fact, the structural resemblance presented\nby Genesis can only be regarded as an additional proof that the\nSumerian originals continued to be studied and translated by the Semitic\npriesthood, although they had long been superseded officially by their\nlater descendants, the Semitic epics. A detailed comparison of the\nCreation and Deluge narratives in the various versions at once discloses\nthe fact that the connexion between those of the Semitic Babylonians\nand the Hebrews is far closer and more striking than that which can be\ntraced when the latter are placed beside the Sumerian originals. We may\ntherefore regard it as certain that the Hebrews derived their knowledge\nof Sumerian tradition, not directly from the Sumerians themselves, but\nthrough Semitic channels from Babylon.\n\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 gain\nin significance through our newly acquired knowledge of early Sumerian\nbeliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem, one is\nstruck more by the differences than by the parallels; but that is due\nto the polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention when\ncompared with the severe and dignified monotheism of the Hebrew writer.\nAnd if allowance be made for the change in theological standpoint, the\nmaterial points of resemblance are seen to be very marked. The outline\nor general course of events is the same. In both we have an abyss of\nwaters at the beginning denoted by almost the same Semitic word, the\nHebrew _teh\u00f4m_, translated \"the deep\" in Gen. i. 2, being the equivalent\nof the Semitic-Babylonian _Tiamat_, the monster of storm and flood who\npresents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian primaeval water.(2) The\nsecond act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative is that of a \"firmament\",\nwhich divided the waters under it from those above.(3) But this, as we\nhave seen, has no parallel in the early Sumerian conception until it was\ncombined with the Dragon combat in the form in which we find it in the\nBabylonian poem. There the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from\none half of her he constructs a covering or dome for heaven, that is to\nsay a \"firmament\", to keep her upper waters in place. These will suffice\nas text passages, since they serve to point out quite clearly the\nSemitic source to which all the other detailed points of Hebrew\nresemblance may be traced.\n\n     (1) See _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner,\n     _Genesis_, pp. 45 ff.\n\n     (2) The invariable use of the Hebrew word _teh\u00f4m_ without\n     the article, except in two passages in the plural, proves\n     that it is a proper name (cf. Skinner, op. cit., p. 17); and\n     its correspondence with _Tiamat_ makes the resemblance of\n     the versions far more significant than if their parallelism\n     were confined solely to ideas.\n\n     (3) Gen. i. 6-8.\n\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) As\nto the general character of the Flood, there is no direct reference to\nrain in the Sumerian Version, though its presence is probably implied in\nthe storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been increased\nto forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which would be\nsuitable to a country where local rain was the sole cause of flood. But\nthe later Hebrew writer's addition of \"the fountains of the deep\" to\n\"the windows of heaven\" certainly suggests a more intimate knowledge of\nMesopotamia, where some contributary cause other than local rain must be\nsought for the sudden and overwhelming catastrophes of which the rivers\nare capable.\n\n     (1) For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented\n     by the Hebrew Versions J and P to the account in the\n     Gilgamesh Epic, see Skinner, op. cit., p. 177 f.; Driver,\n     _Genesis_, p. 106 f.; and Gordon, _Early Traditions of\n     Genesis_ (1907), pp. 38 ff.\n\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.\n\nWe come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did\nthe Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian ideas? The tendency of the\npurely literary school of critics has been to explain the process by the\ndirect use of Babylonian documents wholly within exilic times. If the\nCreation and Deluge narratives stood alone, a case might perhaps be made\nout for confining Babylonian influence to this late period. It is\ntrue that during the Captivity the Jews were directly exposed to\nsuch influence. They had the life and civilization of their captors\nimmediately before their eyes, and it would have been only natural\nfor the more learned among the Hebrew scribes and priests to interest\nthemselves in the ancient literature of their new home. And any previous\nfamiliarity with the myths of Babylonia would undoubtedly have been\nincreased by actual residence in the country. We may perhaps see\na result of such acquaintance with Babylonian literature, after\nJehoiachin's deportation, in an interesting literary parallel that has\nbeen pointed out between Ezek. xiv. 12-20 and a speech in the Babylonian\naccount of the Deluge in the Gilgamesh Epic, XI, ii. 180-194.(1) The\npassage in Ezekiel occurs within chaps. i-xxiv, which correspond to\nthe prophet's first period and consist in the main of his utterances in\nexile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in fact, the introduction\nto the prophet's announcement of the coming of \"four sore judgements\nupon Jerusalem\", from which there \"shall be left a remnant that shall\nbe carried forth\".(2) But in consequence, here and there, of traces of a\nlater point of view, it is generally admitted that many of the chapters\nin this section may have been considerably amplified and altered by\nEzekiel himself in the course of writing. And if we may regard the\nliterary parallel that has been pointed out as anything more than\nfortuitous, it is open to us to assume that chap. xiv may have been\nworked up by Ezekiel many years after his prophetic call at Tel-abib.\n\n     (1) See Daiches, \"Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the\n     Deluge\", in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, April 1905. It\n     has of course long been recognized that Ezekiel, in\n     announcing the punishment of the king of Egypt in xxxii. 2\n     ff., uses imagery which strongly recalls the Babylonian\n     Creation myth. For he compares Pharaoh to a sea-monster over\n     whom Yahweh will throw his net (as Marduk had thrown his\n     over Tiamat); cf. Loisy, _Les mythes babyloniens et les\n     premiers chaptires de la Gen\u00e8se_ (1901), p. 87.\n\n     (2) Ezek. xiv. 21 f.\n\nIn the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already sent the Flood\nand had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon remonstrates\nwith him, and he urges that in future the sinner only should be made to\nsuffer for his sin; and, instead of again causing a flood, let there be\ndiscrimination in the divine punishments sent on men or lands. While\nthe flood made the escape of the deserving impossible, other forms of\npunishment would affect the guilty only. In Ezekiel the subject is the\nsame, but the point of view is different. The land the prophet has in\nhis mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah, and his desire is to explain\nwhy it will suffer although not all its inhabitants deserved to share\nits fate. The discrimination, which Ea urges, Ezekiel asserts will be\nmade; but the sinner must bear his own sin, and the righteous, however\neminent, can only save themselves by their righteousness. The general\nprinciple propounded in the Epic is here applied to a special case.\nBut the parallelism between the passages lies not only in the general\nprinciple but also in the literary setting. This will best be brought\nout by printing the passages in parallel columns.\n\n     Gilg. Epic, XI, 180-194             Ezek. xiv. 12-20\n\n     Ea opened his mouth and spake,      And the word of the Lord came\n     He said to the warrior Enlil;         unto me, saying,\n     Thou director of the gods! O        Son of man, when a land sinneth\n     warrior!                            against me by committing a\n     Why didst thou not take counsel       trespass, and I stretch out\n     but didst cause a flood?            mine hand upon it, and break\n     On the transgressor lay his           the staff of the bread\n     transgression!                      thereof, and send _famine_\n     Be merciful, so that (all) be not     upon it, and cut off from it\n     destroyed! Have patience, so        man and beast; though these\n     that (all) be not (cut off)!        three men, Noah, Daniel, and\n     Instead of causing a flood,           Job, were in it, they should\n     Let _lions_(1) come and diminish      deliver but their own souls by\n       mankind!                            their righteousness, saith the\n     Instead of causing a flood,           Lord God.\n     Let _leopards_(1) come and          If I cause _noisome beasts_ to\n     diminish mankind!                   pass through the land, and\n     Instead of causing a flood,           they spoil it, so that it be\n     Let _famine_ be caused and let it     desolate, that no man may pass\n     smite the land!                     through because of the beasts;\n     Instead of causing a flood,           though these three men were in\n     Let the _Plague-god_ come and         it, as I live, saith the Lord\n     (slay) mankind!                     God, they shall deliver\n     neither sons nor daughters;\n     they only shall be delivered,\n     but the land shall be\n     desolate.\n     Or if I bring a _sword_ upon\n     that land, and say, Sword, go\n     through the land; so that I\n     cut off from it man and beast;\n     though these three men were in\n     it, as I live, saith the Lord\n     God, they shall deliver\n     neither sons nor daughters,\n     but they only shall be\n     delivered themselves.\n     Or if I send a _pestilence_ into\n     that land, and pour out my\n     fury upon it in blood, to cut\n     off from it man and beast;\n     though Noah, Daniel, and Job,\n     were in it, as I live, saith\n     the Lord God, they shall\n     deliver neither son nor\n     daughter; they shall but\n     deliver their own souls by\n     their righteousness.\n\n     (1) Both Babylonian words are in the singular, but probably\n     used collectively, as is the case with their Hebrew\n     equivalent in Ezek. xiv. 15.\n\nIt will be seen that, of the four kinds of divine punishment mentioned,\nthree accurately correspond in both compositions. Famine and pestilence\noccur in both, while the lions and leopards of the Epic find an\nequivalent in \"noisome beasts\". The sword is not referred to in the\nEpic, but as this had already threatened Jerusalem at the time of the\nprophecy's utterance its inclusion by Ezekiel was inevitable. Moreover,\nthe fact that Noah should be named in the refrain, as the first of the\nthree proverbial examples of righteousness, shows that Ezekiel had the\nDeluge in his mind, and increases the significance of the underlying\nparallel between his argument and that of the Babylonian poet.(1) It may\nbe added that Ezekiel has thrown his prophecy into poetical form, and\nthe metre of the two passages in the Babylonian and Hebrew is, as Dr.\nDaiches points out, not dissimilar.\n\n     (1) This suggestion is in some measure confirmed by the\n     _Biblical Antiquities of Philo_, ascribed by Dr. James to\n     the closing years of the first century A.D.; for its writer,\n     in his account of the Flood, has actually used Ezek. xiv. 12\n     ff. in order to elaborate the divine speech in Gen. viii. 21\n     f. This will be seen from the following extract, in which\n     the passage interpolated between verses 21 and 22 of Gen.\n     viii is enclosed within brackets: \"And God said: I will not\n     again curse the earth for man's sake, for the guise of man's\n     heart hath left off (sic) from his youth. And therefore I\n     will not again destroy together all living as I have done.\n     (But it shall be, when the dwellers upon earth have sinned,\n     I will judge them by _famine_ or by the _sword_ or by fire\n     or by _pestilence_ (lit. death), and there shall be\n     earthquakes, and they shall be scattered into places not\n     inhabited (or, the places of their habitation shall be\n     scattered). But I will not again spoil the earth with the\n     water of a flood, and) in all the days of the earth seed\n     time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and autumn, day and\n     night shall not cease . . .\"; see James, _The Biblical\n     Antiquities of Philo_, p. 81, iii. 9. Here wild beasts are\n     omitted, and fire, earthquakes, and exile are added; but\n     famine, sword, and pestilence are prominent, and the whole\n     passage is clearly suggested by Ezekiel. As a result of the\n     combination, we have in the _Biblical Antiquities_ a\n     complete parallel to the passage in the Gilgamesh Epic.\n\nIt may of course be urged that wild beasts, famine, and pestilence are\nsuch obvious forms of divine punishment that their enumeration by\nboth writers is merely due to chance. But the parallelism should be\nconsidered with the other possible points of connexion, namely, the fact\nthat each writer is dealing with discrimination in divine punishments\nof a wholesale character, and that while the one is inspired by the\nBabylonian tradition of the Flood, the other takes the hero of the\nHebrew Flood story as the first of his selected types of righteousness.\nIt is possible that Ezekiel may have heard the Babylonian Version\nrecited after his arrival on the Chebar. And assuming that some form of\nthe story had long been a cherished tradition of the Hebrews themselves,\nwe could understand his intense interest in finding it confirmed by the\nBabylonians, who would show him where their Flood had taken place. To\na man of his temperament, the one passage in the Babylonian poem that\nwould have made a special appeal would have been that quoted above,\nwhere the poet urges that divine vengeance should be combined with\nmercy, and that all, righteous and wicked alike, should not again be\ndestroyed. A problem continually in Ezekiel's thoughts was this very\nquestion of wholesale divine punishment, as exemplified in the case of\nJudah; and it would not have been unlikely that the literary structure\nof the Babylonian extract may have influenced the form in which he\nembodied his own conclusions.\n\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 part.(1)\nThus Babylonian parallels may be cited for many features in the story\nof Paradise,(2) though no equivalent of the story itself has been\nrecovered. In the legend of Adapa, for example, wisdom and immortality\nare the prerogative of the gods, and the winning of immortality by man\nis bound up with eating the Food of Life and drinking the Water of\nLife; here too man is left with the gift of wisdom, but immortality is\nwithheld. And the association of winged guardians with the Sacred Tree\nin Babylonian art is at least suggestive of the Cherubim and the Tree\nof Life. The very side of Eden has now been identified in Southern\nBabylonia by means of an old boundary-stone acquired by the British\nMuseum a year or two ago.(3)\n\n     (1) See Loisy, _Les mythes babyloniens_, pp. 10 ff., and cf.\n     S. Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes et Religions_, t. II, pp. 386\n     ff.\n\n     (2) Cf. especially Skinner, _Genesis_, pp. 90 ff. For the\n     latest discussion of the Serpent and the Tree of Life,\n     suggested by Dr. Skinner's summary of the evidence, see\n     Frazer in _Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway_\n     (1913), pp. 413 ff.\n\n     (3) See _Babylonian Boundary Stones in the British Museum_\n     (1912), pp. 76 ff., and cf. _Geographical Journal_, Vol. XL,\n     No. 2 (Aug., 1912), p. 147. For the latest review of the\n     evidence relating to the site of Paradise, see Boissier, \"La\n     situation du paradis terrestre\", in _Le Globe_, t. LV,\n     M\u00e9moires (Geneva, 1916).\n\nBut I need not now detain you by going over this familiar ground. Such\npossible echoes from Babylon seem to suggest pre-exilic influence rather\nthan late borrowing, and they surely justify us in inquiring to what\nperiods of direct or indirect contact, earlier than the Captivity, the\nresemblances between Hebrew and Babylonian ideas may be traced. One\npoint, which we may regard as definitely settled by our new material, is\nthat these stories of the Creation and of the early history of the\nworld were not of Semitic origin. It is no longer possible to regard\nthe Hebrew and Babylonian Versions as descended from common Semitic\noriginals. For we have now recovered some of those originals, and they\nare not Semitic but Sumerian. The question thus resolves itself into an\ninquiry as to periods during which the Hebrews may have come into direct\nor indirect contact with Babylonia.\n\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 586\nB.C., the date of the fall of Jerusalem; and in this last period there\nare two reigns of special importance in this connexion, those of Ahaz\n(734-720 B.C.) and Manasseh (693-638 B.C.).\n\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 retention\nof the traditional view seems to me a far preferable attitude to any\nelaborate attempt at rationalizing it. It is admitted that Arabia was\nthe cradle of the Semitic race; and the most natural line of advance\nfrom Arabia to Aram and thence to Palestine would be up the Euphrates\nValley. Some writers therefore assume that nomad tribes, personified\nin the traditional figure of Abraham, may have camped for a time in\nthe neighbourhood of Ur and Babylon; and that they may have carried\nthe Babylonian stories with them in their wanderings, and continued to\npreserve them during their long subsequent history. But, even granting\nthat such nomads would have taken any interest in traditions of settled\nfolk, this view hardly commends itself. For stories received from\nforeign sources become more and more transformed in the course of\ncenturies.(1) The vivid Babylonian colouring of the Genesis narratives\ncannot be reconciled with this explanation of their source.\n\n     (1) This objection would not of course apply to M. Naville's\n     suggested solution, that cuneiform tablets formed the medium\n     of transmission. But its author himself adds that he does\n     not deny its conjectural character; see _The Text of the Old\n     Testament_ (Schweich Lectures, 1915), p. 32.\n\nA far greater number of writers hold that it was after their arrival in\nPalestine that the Hebrew patriarchs came into contact with Babylonian\nculture. It is true that from an early period Syria was the scene of\nBabylonian invasions, and in the first lecture we noted some newly\nrecovered evidence upon this point. Moreover, the dynasty to which\nHammurabi belonged came originally from the north-eastern border of\nCanaan and Hammurabi himself exercised authority in the west. Thus a\nplausible case could be made out by exponents of this theory, especially\nas many parallels were noted between the Mosaic legislation and that\ncontained in Hammurabi's Code. But it is now generally recognized that\nthe features common to both the Hebrew and the Babylonian legal systems\nmay be paralleled to-day in the Semitic East and elsewhere,(1) and\ncannot therefore be cited as evidence of cultural contact. Thus the\nhypothesis that the Hebrew patriarchs were subjects of Babylon in\nPalestine is not required as an explanation of the facts; and our first\nperiod still stands or falls by the question of the Mosaic authorship of\nthe Pentateuch, which must be decided on quite other grounds. Those who\ndo not accept the traditional view will probably be content to rule this\nfirst period out.\n\n     (1) See Cook, _The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi_,\n     p. 281 f.; Driver, _Genesis_, p. xxxvi f.; and cf. Johns,\n     _The Laws of Babylonia and the Laws of the Hebrew Peoples_\n     (Schweich Lectures, 1912), pp. 50 ff.\n\nDuring the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan, the Hebrews\ncame into contact with a people who had used the Babylonian language as\nthe common medium of communication throughout the Near East. It is an\ninteresting fact that among the numerous letters found at Tell el-Amarna\nwere two texts of quite a different character. These were legends, both\nin the form of school exercises, which had been written out for practice\nin the Babylonian tongue. One of them was the legend of Adapa, in which\nwe noted just now a distant resemblance to the Hebrew story of Paradise.\nIt seems to me we are here standing on rather firmer ground; and\nprovisionally we might place the beginning of our process after the time\nof Hebrew contact with the Canaanites.\n\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 the\ninvitation of Ahaz of Judah, Tiglath-Pileser IV definitely intervened\nin the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help against the allied\narmies of Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish war. Tiglath-pileser\nthrew his forces against Damascus and Israel, and Ahaz became his\nvassal.(1) To this period, when Ahaz, like Panammu II, \"ran at the\nwheel of his lord, the king of Assyria\", we may ascribe the first marked\ninvasion of Assyrian influence over Judah. Traces of it may be seen in\nthe altar which Ahaz caused to be erected in Jerusalem after the pattern\nof the Assyrian altar at Damascus.(2) We saw in the first lecture, in\nthe monuments we have recovered of Panammu I and of Bar-rekub, how the\nlife of another small Syrian state was inevitably changed and thrown\ninto new channels by the presence of Tiglath-pileser and his armies in\nthe West.\n\n     (1) 2 Kings xvi. 7 ff.\n\n     (2) 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.\n\nHezekiah's resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence on Judah\nfor a time. But it was intensified under his son Manasseh, when Judah\nagain became tributary to Assyria, and in the house of the Lord altars\nwere built to all the host of heaven.(1) Towards the close of his long\nreign Manasseh himself was summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to Babylon.(2) So\nwhen in the year 586 B.C. the Jewish exiles came to Babylon they could\nnot have found in its mythology an entirely new and unfamiliar subject.\nThey must have recognized several of its stories as akin to those they\nhad assimilated and now regarded as their own. And this would naturally\nhave inclined them to further study and comparison.\n\n     (1) 2 Kings xxi. 5.\n\n     (2) Cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.\n\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.\n\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\nwas readily 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 civilization\nshould have failed to impress the Hebrew mind, which, on the other hand,\nwas so responsive to those of Babylon?\n\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 think\nthere is a wider and in that sense a better answer than that.\n\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 parallels\nto Egyptian religious belief and practice have been traced among races\nof the Sudan and East Africa. These are perhaps in part to be explained\nas the result of contact and cultural inheritance. But at the same time\nthey are evidence of an African, but non-Negroid, substratum in the\nreligion of ancient Egypt. In spite of his proto-Semitic strain, the\nancient Egyptian himself never became a Semite. The Nile Valley, at\nany rate until the Moslem conquest, was stronger than its invaders; it\nreceived and moulded them to its own ideal. This quality was shared in\nsome degree by the Euphrates Valley. But Babylonia was not endowed with\nEgypt's isolation; she was always open on the south and west to the\nArabian nomad, who at a far earlier period sealed her Semitic type.\n\nTo such racial division and affinity I think we may confidently trace\nthe influence exerted by Egypt and Babylon respectively upon Hebrew\ntradition.\n\n\n\n\n                                 APPENDIX I\n\n           COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-BABYLONIAN,\n               HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS OF CREATION,\n                    ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE DELUGE\n\n      N.B.--Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are in upper-case.\n\n   Sumerian 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\n   First Creation from     Primaeval water-                                  (Primaeval water-        and heaven              and void; darkness\n    primaeval water         gods: Aps\u00fb-Tiamat,                              gods: {'Apason-        No plant or herb         on face of _teh\u00f4m_,\n    without conflict;       Mummu                                           Tauthe}, {Moumis}      Ground watered by        the primaeval water\n    cf. Later Sum. Ver.    Generation of:                                    Generation of:           mist (or flood)        Divine spirit moving\n                            Lakhmu-Lakhamu                                  {Lakhos-Lakhe}          (cf. Sumerian           (hovering, brooding)\n                            Anshar-Kishar                                   {'Assoros-Kissare}      irrigation myth of      upon face of waters\n                                                                                                      Creation)\n\n   The great gods:         Birth of great gods:                            Birth of great gods:\n     ANU, ENLIL, ENKI,      ANU, Nudimmud (=EA)                             {'Anos, 'Illinos,\n     and Ninkharsagga,     Aps\u00fb and Tiamat                                  'Aos, 'Aois-Lauke,\n     creating deities       revolt                                          Belos)\n                           Conquest of Tiamat                              Conquest of {'Omorka},                          Creation of light\n                            by Marduk as Sun-                               or {Thamte}, by\n                            god                                             {Belos}\n                           Creation of covering                            Creation of heaven and                          Creation of firmament,\n                            for heaven from                                 earth from two halves                           or heaven, to divide\n                            half of Tiamat's                                of body of Thamte                               waters; followed by\n                            body, to keep her                                                                               emergence of land\n                            waters in place                                                                                Creation of vegetation\n                           Creation of luminaries                          Creation of luminaries                          Creation of luminaries\n                           (Creation of                                     (probable order)                               Creation of animals\n                            vegetation)\n\n   REASON FOR MAN'S        REASON FOR MAN'S\n    CREATION: worship of    CREATION: worship of\n    gods                    gods\n   Creation of MAN         Creation of MAN from                            Creation of MAN from    Creation of MAN from    Creation of MAN in\n                            Creator's blood and                             Creator's blood and     dust and Creator's      image of Creator, to\n                            from bone                                       from earth              breath of life          have dominion\n   Creation of ANIMALS     (Creation of animals)                           Creation of ANIMALS     Creation of vegetation\n                           Hymn on Seventh Tablet                           able to bear the air    ANIMALS, and woman     Rest on Seventh Day\n\n   Creation of KINGDOM                                                     10 Antediluvian KINGS   The line of Cain        Antediluvian\n   5 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES:                          Antediluvian city:      3 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES:  The Nephilim (cf.        patriarchs (cf.\n    Eridu, Bad.., LARAK,                            SHURUPPAK               Babylon, SIPPAR,        Sumerian Dynastic       Sumerian Dynastic\n    SIPPAR, SHURUPPAK                                                       LARANKHA                List)                   List)\n\n   Gods decree MANKIND'S                           Gods decree flood,                              Destruction of MAN      Destruction of all\n    destruction by flood,                           goddess ISHTAR                                  decreed, because of     flesh decreed, because\n    NINTU protesting                                protesting                                      his wickedness          of its corruption\n\n   ZIUSUDU, hero of                                UT-NAPISHTIM, hero      {Xisouthros}            Noah, hero of Deluge    Noah, hero of Deluge\n    Deluge, KING and                                of Deluge               (=Khasisatra), hero\n    priest                                                                  of Deluge, KING\n\n   Ziusudu's PIETY                                                                                 Noah's FAVOUR           Noah's RIGHTEOUSNESS\n\n   WARNING of Ziusudu by                           WARNING of Ut-nap-      WARNING of Xisuthros                            WARNING of Noah, and\n    Enki in DREAM                                   ishtim by Ea in DREAM   by Kronos in DREAM                              instructions for ark\n\n   Ziusudu's vessel a                              SHIP: 120x120x120       Size of SHIP: 5x2       Instructions to enter   Size of ARK: 300x50x30\n    HUGE SHIP                                       cubits; 7 stories; 9    stadia                  ark                     cubits; 3 stories\n                                                    divisions\n\n                                                   All kinds of animals    All kinds of animals    7(x2) clean, 2 unclean  2 of all animals\n\n   Flood and STORM for 7                           FLOOD from heavy rain   FLOOD                   FLOOD from rain for 40  FLOOD; founts. of deep\n    days                                            and STORM for 6 days                            days                    and rain, 150 days\n\n                                                   Ship on Mt. Nisir                                                        Ark on Ararat\n\n                                                   Abatement of waters     Abatement of waters     Abatement of waters     Abatement of waters\n                                                    tested by birds         tested by birds         tested by birds         through drying wind\n\n   SACRIFICE to Sun-god                            SACRIFICE with sweet    SACRIFICE to gods,      SACRIFICE with sweet    Landing from ark (after\n     in ship                                        savour on mountain      after landing and       savour after landing    year (+10 days))\n                                                                            paying adoration to\n                                                                            EARTH\n\n   Anu 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\n   IMMORTALITY of Ziusudu                           ishtim and his wife     pilot                   the GROUND              by flood; bow as sign\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                             APPENDIX II\n\n                THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND\n                      THE SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST\n\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 in\nupper-case.(1) The established equations to other names are in normal\ncase, while those for which we should possibly seek other equivalents\nare enclosed within brackets.(2) Aruru has not been included as a\npossible equivalent for {'Aloros}.(3)\n\n      1. {'Aloros}\n      2. {'Alaparos (? 'Adaparos)}, _Alaporus_, _Alapaurus_      (Adapa)\n      3. {'Amelon, 'Amillaros}, _Almelon_                        (Am\u00ealu)\n      4. {'Ammenon}                                              ENMENUNNA\n      5. {Megalaros, Megalanos}, _Amegalarus_\n      6. {Daonos, Daos}                                          ETANA\n      7. {Euedorakhos, Euedoreskhos}, _Edoranchus_               Enmeduranki\n      8. {'Amemphinos}, _Amemphsinus_                            (Am\u00eal-Sin)\n      9. {'Otiartes (? 'Opartes)}                                (Ubar-Tutu)\n     10. {Xisouthros, Sisouthros, Sisithros}                     Khasisatra, Atrakhasis(4)\n\n\n     (1) For the royal names of Berossus, see _Euseb. chron. lib.\n     pri._, ed. Schoene, cols. 7 f., 31 ff. The latinized\n     variants correspond to forms in the Armenian translation of\n     Eusebius.\n\n     (2) For the principal discussions of equivalents, see\n     Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, Vol. XV (1893), pp. 243\n     ff., and _Die altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte\n     Testament_ (1902), pp. 23 ff.; Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften\n     und das Alte Testament_, 3rd ed. (1902), pp. 531 ff.; and\n     cf. Lenormant, _Les origines de l'histoire_, I (1880), pp.\n     214 ff. See also Driver, _Genesis_, 10th ed. (1916), p. 80\n     f.; Skinner, _Genesis_, p. 137 f.; Ball, _Genesis_, p. 50;\n     and Gordon, _Early Traditions of Genesis_, pp. 46 ff.\n\n     (3) There is a suggested equation of Lal-ur-alimma with\n     {'Aloros}.\n\n     (4) The hundred and twenty \"sars\", or 432,000 years assigned\n     by Berossus for the duration of the Antediluvian dynasty,\n     are distributed as follows among the ten kings; the numbers\n     are given below first in \"sars\", followed by their\n     equivalents in years within brackets: 1. Ten \"sars\"\n     (36,000); 2. Three (10,800); 3. Thirteen (46,800); 4. Twelve\n     (43,200); 5. Eighteen (64,800); 6. Ten (36,000); 7. Eighteen\n     (64,800); 8. Ten (36,000); 9. Eight (28,800); 10. Eighteen\n     (64,800).\n\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\".\n\n\n                                KINGDOM OF KISH\n                 (23 kings; 18,000 + x years, 3 months, 3 days)\n\n     . . .(1)\n      8. (. . .)                             900(?) years\n      9. Galumum, Kalumum                    900      \"\n     10. Zugagib, Zugakib                    830      \"\n     11. Arpi, Arpiu, Arbum                  720      \"\n     12. Etana(2)                            635 (or 625) years\n     13. Pili . . .(3)                       410 years\n     14. Enmenunna, Enmennunna(4)            611   \"\n     15. Melamkish                           900   \"\n     16. Barsalnunna                       1,200   \"\n     17. Mesza(. . .)                     (. . .)  \"\n     . . .(5)\n     22. . . .                               900 years\n     23. . . .                               625   \"\n\n                          KINGDOM OF EANNA (ERECH)(6)\n                      (About 10-12 kings; 2,171 + x years)\n\n      1. Meskingasher                        325 years\n      2. Enmerkar                            420   \"\n      3. Lugalbanda(7)                     1,200   \"\n      4. Dumuzi(8) (i.e. Tammuz)             100   \"\n      5. Gishbilgames(9) (i.e. Gilgamesh)    126 (or 186) years\n      6. (. . .)lugal                     (. . .) years\n     . . .(10)\n\n                                 KINGDOM OF UR\n                              (4 kings; 171 years)\n\n      1. Mesannipada                          80 years\n      2. Meskiagnunna                         30   \"\n      3. Elu(. . .)                           25   \"\n      4. Balu(. . .)                          36   \"\n\n                                KINGDOM OF AWAN\n                              (3 kings; 356 years)\n     . . .(11)\n\n\n     (1) Gap of seven, or possibly eight, names.\n\n     (2) The name Etana is written in the lists with and without\n     the determinative for \"god\".\n\n     (3) The reading of the last sign in the name is unknown. A\n     variant form of the name possibly begins with Bali.\n\n     (4) This form is given on a fragment of a late Assyrian copy\n     of the list; cf. _Studies in Eastern History_, Vol. III, p.\n     143.\n\n     (5) Gap of four, or possibly three, names.\n\n     (6) Eanna was the great temple of Erech. In the Second\n     Column of the list \"the kingdom\" is recorded to have passed\n     from Kish to Eanna, but the latter name does not occur in\n     the summary.\n\n     (7) The name Lugalbanda is written in the lists with and\n     without the determinative for \"god\".\n\n     (8) The name Dumuzi is written in the list with the\n     determinative for \"god\".\n\n     (9) The name Gishbilgames is written in the list with the\n     determinative for \"god\".\n\n     (10) Gap of about four, five, or six kings.\n\n     (11) Wanting.\n\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 duration,\na second Kingdom of Ur containing four kings and lasting for a hundred\nand eight years, and another kingdom, the name of which is not\npreserved, consisting of only one king who ruled for seven years. The\ndynastic succession only again becomes assured with the opening of the\nDynastic chronicle published by P\u00e8re Scheil and recently acquired by the\nBritish Museum. It will be noted that with the Kingdom of Ur the\nseparate reigns last for decades and not hundreds of years each, so that\nwe here seem to approach genuine tradition, though the Kingdom of Awan\nmakes a partial reversion to myth so far as its duration is concerned.\nThe two suggested equations with Antediluvian kings of Berossus both\noccur in the earliest Kingdom of Kish and lie well within the Sumerian\nmythical period. The second of the rulers concerned, Enmenunna\n(Ammenon), is placed in Sumerian tradition several thousand years before\nthe reputed succession of the gods Lugalbanda and Tammuz and of the\nnational hero Gilgamesh to the throne of Erech. In the first lecture\nsome remarkable points of general resemblance have already been pointed\nout between Hebrew and Sumerian traditions of these early ages of the\nworld.","title":"Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":64474}