========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF LEONARD W KING
  by Leonard W. King
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Leonard W. King,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 22

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 00.00. King, Leonard W. - Library
    2. 01. Code of Hammurabi
    3. 02.01. LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT
    4. 02.02.     Preface
    5. 02.03.     LECTURE I: EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME TRADITIONAL ORIGINS OF CIVILIZTION
    6. 02.04.     LECTURE II: DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION
    7. 02.05.     LECTURE III: CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM ...
    8. 02.06.     Appendixes
    9. 03.000. The Seven Tablets of Creation
   10. 03.001.     Preface
   11. 03.002.     CONTENTS
   12. 03.003.     INTRODUCTION
   13. 03.004.     The First Tablet
   14. 03.005.     The Second Tablet
   15. 03.006.     The Third Tablet
   16. 03.007.     The Fourth Tablet
   17. 03.008.     The Fifth Tablet
   18. 03.009.     The Sixth Tablet
   19. 03.010.     The Seventh Tablet
   20. 03.011.     Another Version of the Dragon-Myth
   21. 03.012.     A Reference to the Creation of the Cattle and the Beasts of the Field
   22. 03.013.     A reference to the Creation of the Moon and the Sun

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00.00. KING, LEONARD W. - LIBRARY
========================================================================

King, Leonard W. - Library King, Leonard W. - Code of Hammurabi Translated King,
Leonard W. - Legends of Babylonia and Egypt


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01. CODE OF HAMMURABI
========================================================================

HammurabiBack to Ancient History Sourcebook | Ancient History Sourcebook:

Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCE Commentary by Charles F. Horne, (1915) Commentary
by Claude Hermann Walter Johns, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed, 1910-
Text, Translated by L. W. King Charles F. Horne: The Code of Hammurabi:
Introduction

[Hammurabi] was the ruler who chiefly established the greatness of Babylon, the
world’s first metropolis. Many relics of Hammurabi’s reign ([1795-1750 BC]) have
been preserved, and today we can study this remarkable King....as a wise
law-giver in his celebrated code. . .

[B]y far the most remarkable of the Hammurabi records is his code of laws, the
earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire
body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know
what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument,
eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view. This noted
stone was found in the year 1901, not in Babylon, but in a city of the Persian
mountains, to which some later conqueror must have carried it in triumph. It
begins and ends with addresses to the gods.

Even a law code was in those days regarded as a subject for prayer, though the
prayers here are chiefly cursings of whoever shall neglect or destroy the law.
The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of
society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his
judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be
slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a
man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be
slain. If the owner’s son was killed, then the builder’s son is slain. We can
see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim
retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, but only of the
fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was allowed to cast himself
into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of swimming was unknown; for
if the current bore him to the shore alive he was declared innocent, if he
drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the justice of the ruling gods
was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, established in the minds of men.
Yet even with this earliest set of laws, as with most things Babylonian, we find
ourselves dealing with the end of things rather than the beginnings. Hammurabi’s
code was not really the earliest. The preceding sets of laws have disappeared,
but we have found several traces of them, and Hammurabi’s own code clearly
implies their existence. He is but reorganizing a legal system long established.

Claude Hermann Walter Johns:

BABYLONIAN LAW--The Code of Hammurabi. from the Eleventh Edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910-1911 The material for the study of Babylonian law
is singularly extensive without being exhaustive. The so-called "contracts,"
including a great variety of deeds, conveyances, bonds, receipts, accounts and,
most important of all, the actual legal decisions given by the judges in the law
courts, exist in thousands. Historical inscriptions, royal charters and
rescripts, despatches, private letters and the general literature afford welcome
supplementary information. Even grammatical and lexicographical works, intended
solely to facilitate the study of ancient literature, contain many extracts or
short sentences bearing on law and custom. The so-called "Sumerian Family Laws"
are thus preserved. The discovery of the now celebrated Code of Hammurabi
(hereinafter simply termed the Code) has, however, made a more systematic study
possible than could have resulted from the classification and interpretation of
the other material. Some fragments of a later code exist and have been
published; but there still remain many points upon which we have no evidence.
This material dates from the earliest times down to the commencement of our era.
The evidence upon a particular point may be very full at one period and almost
entirely lacking at another. The Code forms the backbone of the skeleton sketch
which is here reconstructed. The fragments of it which have been recovered from
Assur-bani-pal’s library at Nineveh and later Babylonian copies show that it was
studied, divided into chapters entitled Ninu ilu sirum from its opening words,
and recopied for fifteen hundred years or more. The greater part of It remained
in force, even through the Persian, Greek and Parthian conquests, which affected
private life in Babylonia very little, and it survived to influence Syro-Roman
and later Mahommedan law in Mesopotamia. The law and custom which preceded the
Code we shall call "early," that of the New Babylonian empire (as well as the
Persian, Greek, &c.) "late." The law in Assyria was derived from Babylonia but
conserved early features long after they had disappeared elsewhere. When the
Semitic tribes settled in the cities of Babylonia, their tribal custom passed
over into city law. The early history of the country is the story of a struggle
for supremacy between the cities. A metropolis demanded tribute and military
support from its subject cities but left their local cults and customs
unaffected. The city rights and usages were respected by kings and conquerors
alike. As late as the accession of Assur-bani-pal and Samas-sum-yukin we find
the Babylonians appealing to their city laws that groups of aliens to the number
of twenty at a time were free to enter the city, that foreign women once married
to Babylonian husbands could not be enslaved and that not even a dog that
entered the city could be put to death untried. The population of Babylonia was
of many races from early times and intercommunication between the cities was
incessant. Every city had a large number of resident aliens. This freedom of
intercourse must have tended to assimilate custom. It was, however, reserved for
the genius of Hammurabi to make Babylon his metropolis and weld together his
vast empire by a uniform system of law.

Almost all trace of tribal custom has already disappeared from the law of the
Code. It is state-law; - alike self-help, blood-feud, marriage by capture, are
absent; though family solidarity, district responsibility, ordeal, the lex
talionis, are primitive features that remain. The king is a benevolent autocrat,
easily accessible to all his subjects, both able and willing to protect the weak
against the highest-placed oppressor. The royal power, however, can only pardon
when private resentment is appeased. The judges are strictly supervised and
appeal is allowed. The whole land is covered with feudal holdings, masters of
the levy, police, &c. There is a regular postal system. The pax Babylonica is so
assured that private individuals do not hesitate to ride in their carriage from
Babylon to the coast of the Mediterranean. The position of women is free and
dignified. The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve
ancient law. It is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had
accumulated in the temple archives of each city vast stores of precedent in
ancient deeds and the records of judicial decisions, and that intercourse had
assimilated city custom. The universal habit of writing and perpetual recourse
to written contract even more modified primitive custom and ancient precedent.
Provided the parties could agree, the Code left them free to contract as a rule.
Their deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and
confirmed by an oath "by god and the king." It was publicly sealed and witnessed
by professional witnesses, as well as by collaterally interested parties. The
manner in which it was thus executed may have been sufficient security that its
stipulations were not impious or illegal. Custom or public opinion doubtless
secured that the parties would not agree to wrong. In case of dispute the judges
dealt first with the contract. They might not sustain it, but if the parties did
not dispute it, they were free to observe it. The judges’ decision might,
however, be appealed against. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of
future dispute the parties would abide by "the decision of the king." The Code
made known, in a vast number of cases, what that decision would be, and many
cases of appeal to the king were sent back to the judges with orders to decide
in accordance with it. The Code itself was carefully and logically arranged and
the order of its sections was conditioned by their subject-matter. Nevertheless
the order is not that of modern scientific treatises, and a somewhat different
order from both is most convenient for our purpose. The Code contemplates the
whole population as falling into three classes, the amelu, the muskinu and the
ardu. The amelu was a patrician, the man of family, whose birth, marriage and
death were registered, of ancestral estates and full civil rights. He had
aristocratic privileges and responsibilities, the right to exact retaliation for
corporal injuries, and liability to heavier punishment for crimes and
misdemeanours, higher fees and fines to pay. To this class belonged the king and
court, the higher officials, the professions and craftsmen. The term became in
time a mere courtesy title but originally carried with it standing. Already in
the Code, when status is not concerned, it is used to denote "any one." There
was no property qualification nor does the term appear to be racial. It is most
difficult to characterize the muskinu exactly. The term came in time to mean "a
beggar" and with that meaning has passed through Aramaic and Hebrew into many
modern languages; but though the Code does not regard him as necessarily poor,
he may have been landless. He was free, but had to accept monetary compensation
for corporal injuries, paid smaller fees and fines, even paid less offerings to
the gods. He inhabited a separate quarter of the city. There is no reason to
regard him as specially connected with the court, as a royal pensioner, nor as
forming the bulk of the population. The rarity of any reference to him in
contemporary documents makes further specification conjectural. The ardu was a
slave, his master’s chattel, and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire
property and even hold other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, paid his
doctor’s fees, but took all compensation paid for injury done to him. His master
usually found him a slave-girl as wife (the children were then born slaves),
often set him up in a house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual
rent of him. Otherwise he might marry a freewoman (the children were then free),
who might bring him a dower which his master could not touch, and at his death
one-half of his property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his
freedom by purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a
temple, or even adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu. Slaves were
recruited by purchase abroad, from captives taken in war and by freemen degraded
for debt or crime. A slave often ran away; if caught, the captor was bound to
restore him to his master, and the Code fixes a reward of two shekels which the
owner must pay the captor. It was about one-tenth of the average value. To
detain, harbour, &c., a slave was punished by death. So was an attempt to get
him to leave the city. A slave bore an identification mark, which could only be
removed by a surgical operation and which later consisted of his owner’s name
tattooed or branded on the arm. On the great estates in Assyria and its subject
provinces were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, or quondam
slaves, tied to the soil they cultivated and sold with the estate but capable of
possessing land and property of their own. There is little trace of serfs in
Babylonia, unless the muskinu be really a serf. The god of a city was originally
owner of its land, which encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable
land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the citizens were his tenants. The god
and his viceregent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were
content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service. One of the
earliest monuments records the purchase by a king of a large estate for his son,
paying a fair market price and adding a handsome honorarium to the many owners
in costly garments, plate, and precious articles of furniture. The Code
recognizes complete private ownership in land, but apparently extends the right
to hold land to votaries, merchants (and resident aliens?). But all land was
sold subject to its fixed charges. The king, however, could free land from these
charges by charter, which was a frequent way of rewarding those who deserved
well of the state. It is from these charters that we learn nearly all we know of
the obligations that lay upon land. The state demanded men for the army and the
corvee as well as dues in kind. A definite area was bound to find a bowman
together with his linked pikeman (who bore the shield for both) and to furnish
them with supplies for the campaign. This area was termed "a bow" as early as
the 8th century B.C., but the usage was much earlier. Later, a horseman was due
from certain areas. A man was only bound to serve so many (six?) times, but the
land had to find a man annually. The service was usually discharged by slaves
and serfs, but the amelu (and perhaps the muskenu) went to war. The "bows" were
grouped in tens and hundreds. The corvee was less regular. The letters of
Hammurabi often deal with claims to exemption. Religious officials and shepherds
in charge of flocks were exempt. Special liabilities lay upon riparian owners to
repair canals, bridges, quays, &c. The state claimed certain proportions of all
crops, stock, &c. The king’s messengers could commandeer any subject’s property,
giving a receipt. Further, every city had its own octroi duties, customs, ferry
dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to be, if he ever was,
owner of the land. He had his own royal estates, his private property and dues
from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments and official
residences. The Code regulates the feudal position of certain classes. They held
an estate from the king consisting of house, garden, field, stock and a salary,
on condition of personal service on the king’s errand.

They could not delegate the service on pain of death. When ordered abroad they
could nominate a son, if capable, to hold the benefice and carry on the duty. If
there was no son capable, the state put in a locum tenens, but granted one-third
to the wife to maintain herself and children. The benefice was inalienable,
could not be sold, pledged, exchanged, sublet, devised or diminished. Other land
was held of the state for rent. Ancestral estate was strictly tied to the
family. If a holder would sell, the family had the right of redemption and there
seems to have been no time-limit to its exercise. The temple occupied a most
important position. It received from its estates, from tithes and other fixed
dues, as well as from the sacrifices (a customary share) and other offerings of
the faithful, vast amounts of all sorts of naturalia; besides money and
permanent gifts. The larger temples had many officials and servants. Originally,
perhaps, each town clustered round one temple, and each head of a family had a
right to minister there and share its receipts. As the city grew, the right to
so many days a year at one or other shrine (or its "gate") descended in certain
families and became a species of property which could be pledged, rented or
shared within the family, but not alienated. In spite of all these demands,
however, the temples became great granaries and store-houses; as they also were
the city archives. The temple held its responsibilities. If a citizen was
captured by the enemy and could not ransom himself the temple of his city must
do so. To the temple came the poor farmer to borrow seed corn or supplies for
harvesters, &c.--advances which he repaid without interest. The king’s power
over the temple was not proprietary but administrative. He might borrow from it
but repaid like other borrowers. The tithe seems to have been the composition
for the rent due to the god for his land. It is not clear that all lands paid
tithe, perhaps only such as once had a special connexion with the temple. The
Code deals with a class of persons devoted to the service of a god, as vestals
or hierodules. The vestals were vowed to chastity, lived together in a great
nunnery, were forbidden to open or enter a tavern, and together with other
votaries had many privileges. The Code recognizes many ways of disposing of
property--sale, lease, barter, gift, dedication, deposit, loan, pledge, all of
which were matters of contract. Sale was the delivery of the purchase (in the
case of real estate symbolized by a staff, a key, or deed of conveyance) in
return for the purchase money, receipts being given for both. Credit, if given,
was treated as a debt, and secured as a loan by the seller to be repaid by the
buyer, fr which he gave a bond. The Code admits no claim unsubstantiated by
documents or the oath of witnesses. A buyer had to convince himself of the
seller’s title.

If he bought (or received on deposit) from a minor or a slave without power of
attorney, he would be executed as a thief. If the goods were stolen and the
rightful owner reclaimed them, he had to prove his purchase by producing the
seller and the deed of sale or witnesses to it. Otherwise he would be adjudged a
thief and die. If he proved his purchase, he had to give up the property but had
his remedy against the seller or, if he had died, could reclaim five-fold from
his estate. A man who bought a slave abroad, might find that he had been stolen
or captured from Babylonia, and he had to restore him to his former owner
without profit. If he bought property belonging to a feudal holding, or to a
ward in chancery, he had to return it and forfeit what he gave for it as well.
He could repudiate the purchase of a slave attacked by the bennu sickness within
the month (later, a hundred days), and had a female slave three days on
approval. A defect of title or undisclosed liability would invalidate the sale
at any time.

Landowners frequently cultivated their land themselves but might employ a
husbandman or let it. The husbandman was bound to carry out the proper
cultivation, raise an average crop and leave the field in good tilth. In case
the crop failed the Code fixed a statutory return. Land might be let at a fixed
rent when the Code enacted that accidental loss fell on the tenant. If let on
share-profit, the landlord and tenant shared the loss proportionately to their
stipulated share of profit. If the tenant paid his rent and left the land in
good tilth, the landlord could not interfere nor forbid subletting.

Waste land was let to reclaim, the tenant being rent-free for three years and
paying a stipulated rent in the fourth year. If the tenant neglected to reclaim
the land the Code enacted that he must hand it over in good tilth and fixed a
statutory rent. Gardens or plantations were let in the same ways and under the
same conditions; but for date-groves four years’ free tenure was allowed. The
metayer system was in vogue, especially on temple lands. The landlord found
land, labour, oxen for ploughing and working the watering-machines, carting,
threshing or other implements, seed corn, rations for the workmen and fodder for
the cattle. The tenant, or steward, usually had other land of his own. If he
stole the seed, rations or fodder, the Code enacted that his fingers should be
cut off. If he appropriated or sold the implements, impoverished or sublet the
cattle, he was heavily fined and in default of payment might be condemned to be
torn to pieces by the cattle on the field. Rent was as contracted.

Irrigation was indispensable. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dyke, or
left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage done to
his neighbours’ crops, or be sold with his family to pay the cost. The theft of
a watering-machine, water-bucket or other agricultural implement was heavily
fined.

Houses were let usually for the year, but also for longer terms, rent being paid
in advance, half-yearly. The contract generally specified that the house was in
good repair, and the tenant was bound to keep it so. The woodwork, including
doors and door frames, was removable, and the tenant might bring and take away
his own. The Code enacted that if the landlord would re-enter before the term
was up, he must remit a fair proportion of the rent. Land was leased for houses
or other buildings to be built upon it, the tenant being rent-free for eight or
ten years; after which the building came into the landlord’s possession.

Despite the multitude of slaves, hired labour was often needed, especially at
harvest. This was matter of contract, and the hirer, who usually paid in
advance, might demand a guarantee to fulfil the engagement. Cattle were hired
for ploughing, working the watering-machines, carting, threshing, etc. The Code
fixed a statutory wage for sowers, ox-drivers, field-labourers, and hire for
oxen, asses, &c.

There were many herds and flocks. The flocks were committed to a shepherd who
gave receipt for them and took them out to pasture. The Code fixed him a wage.
He was responsible for all care, must restore ox for ox, sheep for sheep, must
breed them satisfactorily. Any dishonest use of the flock had to be repaid
ten-fold, but loss by disease or wild beasts fell on the owner. The shepherd
made good all loss due to his neglect. If he let the flock feed on a field of
corn he had to pay damages four-fold; if he turned them into standing corn when
they ought to have been folded he paid twelve-fold. In commercial matters,
payment in kind was still common, though the contracts usually stipulate for
cash, naming the standard expected, that of Babylon, Larsa, Assyria, Carchemish,
&c. The Code enacted, however, that a debtor must be allowed to pay in produce
according to statutory scale. If a debtor had neither money nor crop, the
creditor-must not refuse goods.

Debt was secured on the person of the debtor. Distraint on a debtor’s corn was
forbidden by the Code; not only must the creditor give it back, but his illegal
action forfeited his claim altogether. An unwarranted seizure for debt was
fined, as was the distraint of a working ox. The debtor being seized for debt
could nominate as mancipium or hostage to work off the debt, his wife, a child,
or slave. The creditor could only hold a wife or child three years as mancipium.
If the mancipium died a natural death while in the creditor’s possession no
claim could lie against the latter; but if he was the cause of death by cruelty,
he had to give son for son, or pay for a slave. He could sell a slave-hostage,
unless she were a slave-girl who had borne her master children. She had to be
redeemed by her owner. The debtor could also pledge his property, and in
contracts often pledged a field house or crop. The Code enacted, however, that
the debtor should always take the crop himself and pay the creditor from it. If
the crop failed, payment was deferred and no interest could be charged for that
year. If the debtor did not cultivate the field himself he had to pay for the
cultivation, but if the cultivation was already finished he must harvest it
himself and pay his debt from the crop. If the cultivator did not get a crop
this would not cancel his contract. Pledges were often made where the intrinsic
value of the article was equivalent to the amount of the debt; but antichretic
pledge was more common, where the profit of the pledge was a set-off against the
interest of the debt. The whole property of the debtor might be pledged as
security for the payment of the debt, without any of it coming into the
enjoyment of the creditor. Personal guarantees were often given that the debtor
would repay or the guarantor become liable himself.

Trade was very extensive. A common way of doing business was for a merchant to
entrust goods or money to a travelling agent, who sought a market for his goods.
The caravans travelled far beyond the limits of the empire. The Code insisted
that the agent should inventory and give a receipt for all that he received. No
claim could be made for anything not so entered. Even if the agent made no
profit he was bound to return double what he had received, if he made poor
profit he had to make up the deficiency; but he was not responsible for loss by
robbery or extortion on his travels. On his return, the principal must give a
receipt for what was handed over to him. Any false entry or claim on the agent’s
part was penalised three-fold, on the principal’s part six-fold. In normal cases
profits were divided according to contract, usually equally. A considerable
amount of forwarding was done by the caravans. The carrier gave a receipt for
the consignment, took all responsibility and exacted a receipt on delivery. If
he defaulted he paid five-fold. He was usually paid in advance. Deposit,
especially warehousing of grain, was charged for at one-sixtieth. The
warehouseman took all risks, paid double for all shortage, but no claim could be
made unless be had given a properly witnessed receipt. Water traffic on the
Euphrates and canals was early very considerable. Ships, whose tonnage was
estimated at the amount of grain they could carry, were continually hired for
the a transport of all kinds of goods. The Code fixes the price for building and
insists on the builder’s giving a year’s guarantee of seaworthiness. It fixes
the hire of ship and of crew. The captain was responsible for the freight and
the ship; he had to replace all loss. Even if he refloated the ship he had to
pay a fine of half its value for sinking it. In the case of collision the boat
under way was responsible for damages to the boat at anchor. The Code also
regulated the liquor traffic, fixing a fair price for beer and forbidding the
connivance of the tavern-keeper (a female!) at disorderly conduct or treasonable
assembly, under pain of death. She was to hale the offenders to the palace,
which implied an efficient and accessible police system.

Payment through a banker or by written draft against deposit was frequent. Bonds
to pay were treated as negotiable. Interest a was rarely charged on advances by
the temple or wealthy land-owners for pressing needs, but this may have been
part of the metayer system. The borrowers may have been tenants. Interest was
charged at very high rates for overdue loans of this kind. Merchants (and even
temples in some cases) made ordinary business loans, charging from 20 to 30%.

Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be man
and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between the
relatives, the bride- groom’s father providing the bride-price, which with other
presents the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride’s father. This
bride-price was usually handed over by her father to the bride on her marriage,
and so came back into the bridegroom’s possession, along with her dowry, which
was her portion as a daughter. The bride-price varied much, according to the
position of the parties, but was in excess of that paid for a slave. The Code
enacted that if the father does not, after accepting a man’s presents, give him
his daughter, he, must return the presents doubled. Even if his decision was
brought about by libel on the part of the suitor’s friend this was done, and the
Code enacted that the faithless friend should not marry the girl. If a suitor
changed his mind, he forfeited the presents. The dowry might include real
estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It
remained the wife’s for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise
returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had
not been given to her, or return it, if it had. The marriage ceremony included
joining of hands and the utterance of some formula of acceptance on the part of
the bridegroom, as "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap,
thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will
give thee offspring." It must be performed by a freeman. The marriage contract,
without which the Code ruled that the woman was no wife, usually stated the
consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by
no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many conditions might be inserted: as
that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law, or to a first
wife. The married couple formed a unit as to external responsibility, especially
for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before
her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence
the Code allowed a proviso to be inserted in the marriage contract, that the
wife should not be seized for her husband’s prenuptial debts; but enacted that
then he was not responsible for her prenuptial debts, and, in any case, that
both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man
might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest
in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to
a favourite child, but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although
married she always remained a member of her father’s house--she is rarely named
wife of A, usually daughter of B, or mother of C.

Divorce was optional with the man, but he had to restore the dowry and, if the
wife had borne him children, she had the custody of them. He had then to assign
her the income of field, or garden, as well as goods, to maintain herself and
children until they grew up. She then shared equally with them in the allowance
(and apparently in his estate at his death) and was free to marry again. If she
had no children, he returned her the dowry and paid her a sum equivalent to the
bride-price, or a mina of silver, if there had been none. The latter is the
forfeit usually named in the contract for his repudiation of her.

If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept
the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave
in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an
action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a
judicial separation, taking with her her dowry. No other punishment fell on the
man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a bad wife, she was
drowned. If she were left without maintenance during her husband’s involuntary
absence, she could cohabit with another man, but must return to her husband if
he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father.
If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adultery. Wilful
desertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage, and if he came
back he had no claim on her property; possibly not on his own. As a widow, the
wife took her husband’s place in the family, living on in his house and bringing
up the children. She could only remarry with judicial consent, when the judge
was bound to inventory the deceased’s estate and hand it over to her and her new
husband in trust for the children. They could not alienate a single utensil. If
she did not remarry, she lived on in her husband’s house and took a child’s
share on the division of his estate, when the children had grown up. She still
retained her dowry and any settlement deeded to her by her husband. This
property came to her children. If she had remarried, all her children shared
equally in her dowry, but the first husband’s gift fell to his children or to
her selection among them, if so empowered.

Monogamy was the rule, and a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who
was no wife) to bear him children, who were reckoned hers. She remained mistress
of her maid and might degrade her to slavery again for insolence, but could not
sell her if she had borne her husband children. If the wife did this, the Code
did not allow the husband to take a concubine. If she would not, he could do so.
The concubine was a wife, though not of the same rank; the first wife had no
power over her. A concubine was a free woman, was often dowered for marriage and
her children were legitimate. She could only be divorced on the same conditions
as a wife. If a wife became a chronic invalid, the husband was bound to maintain
her in the home they bad made together, unless she preferred to take her dowry
and go back to her father’s house; but he was free to remarry. In all these
cases the children were legitimate and legal heirs.

There was, of course, no hindrance to a man having children by a slave girl.
These children were free, in any case, and their mother could not be sold,
though she might be pledged, and she was free on her master’s death. These
children could be legitimized by their father’s acknowledgment before witnesses,
and were often adopted. They then ranked equally in sharing their father’s
estate, but if not adopted, the wife’s children divided and took first choice.

Vestal virgins were not supposed to have children, yet they could and often did
marry. The Code contemplated that such a wife would give a husband a maid as
above. Free women might marry slaves and be dowered for the marriage. The
children were free, and at the slave’s death the wife took her dowry and half
what she and her husband had acquired in wedlock for self and children; the
master taking the other half as his slave’s heir. A father had control over his
children till their marriage. He had a right to their labour in return for their
keep. He might hire them out and receive their wages, pledge them for debt, even
sell them outright. Mothers had the same rights in the absence of the father;
even elder brothers when both parents were dead. A father had no claim on his
married children for support, but they retained a right to inherit on his death.
The daughter was not only in her father’s power to be given in marriage, but he
might dedicate her to the service of some god as a vestal or a hierodule; or
give her as a concubine. She had no choice in these matters, which were often
decided in her childhood. A grown-up daughter might wish to become a votary,
perhaps in preference to an uncongenial marriage, and it seems that her father
could not refuse her wish. In all these cases the father might dower her. If he
did not, on his death the brothers were bound to do so, giving her a full
child’s share if a wife, a concubine or a vestal, but one-third of a child’s
share if she were a hierodule or a Marduk priestess. The latter had the
privilege of exemption from state dues and absolute disposal of her property.
All other daughters had only a life interest in their dowry, which reverted to
their family, if childless, or went to their children if they had any. A father
might, however, execute a deed granting a daughter power to leave her property
to a favourite brother or sister. A daughter’s estate was usually managed for
her by her brothers, but if they did not satisfy her, she could appoint a
steward. If she married, her husband managed it. The son also appears to have
received his share on marriage, but did not always then leave his father’s
house; he might bring his wife there. This was usual in child marriages.

Adoption was very common, especially where the father (or mother) was childless
or had seen all his children grow up and marry away. The child was then adopted
to care for the parents’ old age. This was done by contract, which usually
specified what the parent had to leave and what maintenance was expected. The
real children, if any, were usually consenting parties to an arrangement which
cut off their expectations. They even, in some cases, found the estate for the
adopted child who was to relieve them of a care. If the adopted child failed to
carry out the filial duty the contract was annulled in the law courts. Slaves
were often adopted and if they proved unfilial were reduced to slavery again. A
craftsman often adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited by the son’s
labour. If he failed to teach his son the craft, that son could prosecute him
and get the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is not
clear that the apprentice had any filial relation. A man who adopted a son, and
afterwards married and had a family of his own, could dissolve the contract but
must give the adopted child one-third of a child’s share in goods, but no real
estate. That could only descend in the family to which he had ceased to belong.
Vestals frequently adopted daughters, usually other vestals, to care for their
old age.

Adoption had to be with consent of the real parents, who usually executed a deed
making over the child, who thus ceased to have any claim upon them. But vestals,
hierodules, certain palace officials and slaves had no rights over their
children and could raise no obstacle. Foundlings and illegitimate children had
no parents to object. If the adopted child discovered his true parents and
wanted to return to them, his eye or tongue was torn out. An adopted child was a
full heir, the contract might even assign him the position of eldest son.
Usually he was residuary legatee.

All legitimate children shared equally in the father’s estate at his death,
reservation being made of a bride-price for an unmarried son, dower for a
daughter or property deeded to favourite children by the father. There was no
birthright attaching to the position of eldest son, but he usually acted as
executor and after considering what each had already received equalized the
shares. He even made grants in excess to the others from his own share. When
there were two mothers, the two families shared equally in the father’s estate
until later times when the first family took two-thirds. Daughters, in the
absence of sons, had sons’ rights. Children also shared their own mother’s
property, but had no share in that of a stepmother. A father could disinherit a
son in early times without restriction, but the Code insisted upon judicial
consent and that only for repeated unfilial conduct. In early times the son who
denied his father had his front hair shorn, a slave-mark put on him, and could
be sold as a slave; while if he denied his mother he had his front hair shorn,
was driven round the city as an example and expelled his home, but not degraded
to slavery.

Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning, but if the
husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the
paramour. For incest with his own mother, both were burned to death; with a
stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with
a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son’s betrothed, he was fined. A wife
who for her lover’s sake procured her husband’s death was gibbeted. A betrothed
girl, seduced by her prospective father-in-law, took her dowry and returned to
her family, and was free to marry as she chose. In the criminal law the ruling
principle was the lex talionis. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb was
the penalty for assault upon an amelu. A sort of symbolic retaliation was the
punishment of the offending member, seen in the cutting off the hand that struck
a father or stole a trust; in cutting off the breast of a wet-nurse who
substituted a changeling for the child entrusted to her; in the loss of the
tongue that denied father or mother (in the Elamite contracts the same penalty
was inflicted for perjury); in the loss of the eye that pried into forbidden
secrets. The loss of the surgeon’s hand that caused loss of life or limb or the
brander’s hand that obliterated a slave’s identification mark, are very similar.
The slave, who struck a freeman or denied his master, lost an ear, the organ of
hearing and symbol of obedience. To bring another into danger of death by false
accusation was punished by death. To cause loss of liberty or property by false
witness was punished by the penalty the perjurer sought to bring upon another.
The death penalty was freely awarded for theft and other crimes regarded as
coming under that head, for theft involving entrance of palace or temple
treasury, for illegal purchase from minor or slave, for selling stolen goods or
receiving the same, for common theft in the open (in default of multiple
restoration) or receiving the same, for false claim to goods, for kidnapping,
for assisting or harbouring fugitive slaves, for detaining or appropriating
same, for brigandage, for fraudulent sale of drink, for disorderly conduct of
tavern, for delegation of personal service, for misappropriating the levy, for
oppression of feudal holders, for causing death of a householder by bad
building. The manner of death is not specified in these cases. This death
penalty was also fixed for such conduct as placed another in danger of death. A
specified form of death penalty occurs in the following cases:-gibbeting (on the
spot where crime was committed) for burglary, later also for encroaching on the
king’s highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring husband’s
death; burning for incest with own mother, for vestal entering or opening
tavern, for theft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape of
betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as wife, seduction of daughter-in-law. A
curious extension of the talio is the death of creditor’s son for his father’s
having caused the death of debtor’s son as mancipium; of builder’s son for his
father’s causing the death of house-owner’s son by building the house badly; the
death of a man’s daughter because her father caused the death of another man’s
daughter. The contracts naturally do not concern such criminal cases as the
above, as a rule, but marriage contracts do specify death by strangling,
drowning, precipitation from a tower or pinnacle of the temple or by the iron
sword for a wife’s repudiation of her husband. We are quite without evidence as
to the executive in all these cases.

Exile was inflicted for incest with a daughter; disinheritance for incest with a
stepmother or for repeated unfilial conduct. Sixty strokes of an ox-hide scourge
were awarded for a brutal assault on a superior, both being amelu. Branding
(perhaps the equivalent of degradation to slavery) was the penalty for slander
of a married woman or vestal. Deprivation of office in perpetuity fell upon the
corrupt judge. Enslavement befell the extravagant wife and unfilial children.
Imprisonment was common, but is not recognized by the Code. The commonest of all
penalties was a fine. This is awarded by the Code for corporal injuries to a
muskinu or slave (paid to his master); for damages done to property, for breach
of contract. The restoration of goods appropriated, illegally bought or damaged
by neglect, was usually accompanied by a fine, giving it the form of multiple
restoration. This might be double, treble, fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, tenfold,
twelvefold, even thirtyfold, according to the enormity of the offence. The Code
recognized the importance of intention. A man who killed another in a quarrel
must swear he did not do so intentionally, and was then only fined according to
the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the penalty of
murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused that we can hardly
doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led to injury and
was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the doctor’s fees. A
brander, induced to remove a slave’s identification mark, could swear to his
ignorance and was free. The owner of an ox which gored a man on the street was
only responsible for damages if, the ox was known by him to be vicious, even if
it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural death under the creditor’s
hand, the creditor was scot free. In ordinary cases responsibility was not
demanded for accident or for more than proper care. Poverty excused bigamy on
the part of a deserted wife. On the other hand carelessness and neglect were
severely punished, as in the case of the unskilful physician, if it led to loss
of life or limb his hands were cut off, a slave had to be replaced, the loss of
his eye paid for to half his value; a veterinary surgeon who caused the death of
an ox or ass paid quarter value; a builder, whose careless workmanship caused
death, lost his life or paid for it by the death of his child, replaced slave or
goods, and in any case had to rebuild the house or make good any damages due to
defective building and repair the defect as well. The boat-builder had to make
good any defect of construction or damage due to it for a year’s warranty.

Throughout the Code respect is paid to status.

Suspicion was not enough. The criminal must be taken in the act, e.g. the
adulterer, ravisher, &c. A man could not be convicted of theft unless the goods
were found in his possession. In the case of a lawsuit the plaintiff preferred
his own plea. There is no trace of professional advocates, but the plea had to
be in writing and the notary doubtless assisted in the drafting of it. The judge
saw the plea, called the other parties before him and sent for the witnesses. If
these were not at hand he might adjourn the case for their production,
specifying a time up to six months. Guarantees might be entered into to produce
the witnesses on a fixed day. The more important cases, especially those
involving life and death, were tried by a bench of judges. With the judges were
associated a body of elders, who shared in the decision, but whose exact
function is not yet clear. Agreements, declarations and non-contentious cases
are usually witnessed by one judge and twelve elders.

Parties and witnesses were put on oath. The penalty for the false witness was
usually that which would have been awarded the convicted criminal. In matters
beyond the knowledge of men, as the guilt or innocence of an alleged wizard or a
suspected wife, the ordeal by water was used. The accused jumped into the sacred
river, and the innocent swam while the guilty drowned. The accused could clear
himself by oath where his own knowledge was alone available. The plaintiff could
swear to his loss by brigands, as to goods claimed, the price paid for a slave
purchased abroad or the sum due to him. But great stress was laid on the
production of written evidence. It was a serious thing to lose a document. The
judges might be satisfied of its existence and terms by the evidence of the
witnesses to it, and then issue an order that whenever found it should be given
up. Contracts annulled were ordered to be broken. The court might go a journey
to view the property and even take with them the sacred symbols on which oath
was made. The decision given was embodied in writing, sealed and witnessed by
the judges, the elders, witnesses and a scribe. Women might act in all these
capacities. The parties swore an oath, embodied in the document, to observe its
stipulations. Each took a copy and one was held by the scribe to be stored in
the archives.

Appeal to the king was allowed and is well attested. The judges at Babylon seem
to have formed a superior court to those of provincial towns, but a defendant
might elect to answer the charge before the local court and refuse to plead at
Babylon.

Finally, it may be noted that many immoral acts, such as the use of false
weights, lying, &c., which could not be brought into court, are severely
denounced in the Omen Tablets as likely to bring the offender into "the hand of
God" as opposed to "the hand of the king."

Bibliography.

Contracts in general: Oppert and Menant, Documents juridiques de l’Assyrie et de
la Chaldee (Paris, 1877); J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Aus dem Babylonischen
Rechtsleben (Leipzig, 1890 ff.); F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Vertrage (Berlin,
1890), Keilinschrifiliche Actenstucke (Berlin, 1889); Br. Meissner, Beitrage zur
altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893); F. E. Peiser, "Texte juristischen
und geschaftlichen Inhalts," vol. iv. of Schrader’s Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek (Berlin, 1896); C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents relating
to the Transfer of Property (3 vols., Cambridge, 1898); H. Radau, Early
Babylonian History (New York, 1900); C. H. W. Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian
Laws, Contracts and Letters (Edinburgh, 1904). For editions of texts and the
innumerable articles in scientific journals see the bibliographies and
references in the above works. "The Code of Hammurabi," Editio princeps, by V.
Scheil in tome iv. of the Textes Elamites-Semitiques of the Memoires de la
delegation en Perse (Paris, 1902); H. Winckler, "Die Gesetze Hammurabis Konigs
von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr." Der alte Orient, iv. Jahrgang, Heft 4; D. H.
Muller, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (Vienna, 1903); J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser,
Hammurabis Gesetz (Leipzig, 1904); R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, King, of
Babylon about 2250 B.C. (Chicago, 1904); S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the
Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903).

Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, M.A. Litt.D.

Master of St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Lecturer in Assyriology, Queens’
College, Cambridge, and King’s College, London. Author of Assyrian Deeds and
Documents of the 7th Century B.C.; The Oldest Code of Laws; Babylonian and
Assyrian Laws; Contracts and Letters; etc.

HAMMURABI’S CODE OF LAWS (circa 1780 B.C.) Translated by L. W. King When Anu the
Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed
the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of
righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi,
they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded
an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of
heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted
prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to
destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the
weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and
enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching
Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished
Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the
world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord
who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who
enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the
white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of
Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar
great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed
E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who
brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and
perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the
scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting
king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of
Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of
Nana, managed the temple of Harsag-kalama; the grave of the enemy, whose help
brought about the victory; who increased the power of Cuthah; made all glorious
in E-shidlam, the black steer, who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who
rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable for
E-zida; the divine king of the city; the White, Wise; who broadened the fields
of Dilbat, who heaped up the harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom
come scepter and crown, with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who
fixed the temple bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu; the
provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash and Girsu, who
provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of Ningirsu; who captured
the enemy, the Elect of the oracle who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who
rejoiced the heart of Anunit; the pure prince, whose prayer is accepted by Adad;
who satisfied the heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the
vessels for worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of
Adab; the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible
warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and brought
abundance to the temple of Shidlam; the White, Potent, who penetrated the secret
cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of Malka from misfortune, and fixed
their home fast in wealth; who established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and
Dam-gal-nun-na, who made his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of
the city, who subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal to the sway of
Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and Tutul; the sublime
prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who presents holy meals to the
divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its inhabitants in their need, provided a
portion for them in Babylon in peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the
slaves; whose deeds find favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the
temple of Dumash in the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by
law; who gave back to the city of Ashur its protecting god; who let the name of
Ishtar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself before
the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of Sin-muballit; the
royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun of Babylon, whose rays shed
light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the four quarters of
the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I. When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give
the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . ,
and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

CODE OF LAWS

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it,
then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river
and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take
possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty,
and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to
death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house
that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not
prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put
to death.

4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive
the fine that the action produces.

5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing;
if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault,
then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be
publicly removed from the judge’s bench, and never again shall he sit there to
render judgement.

6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to
death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to
death.

7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or
a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or
anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put
to death.

8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong
to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they
belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has
nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the
person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I
paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring
witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who
sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall
bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their
testimony--both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the
witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to
be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his
property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the
merchant.

10. If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom
he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the
buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost
article.

11. If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an
evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.

12. If the witnesses be not at hand, then shall the judge set a limit, at the
expiration of six months. If his witnesses have not appeared within the six
months, he is an evil-doer, and shall bear the fine of the pending case.
[editor’s note: there is no 13th law in the code, 13 being considered and
unlucky and evil number] 14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall
be put to death.

15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female
slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the
court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of
the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring
them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of
silver.

18. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring
him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be
returned to his master.

19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be
put to death.

20. If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear to the
owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.

21. If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to
death before that hole and be buried.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to
death.

23. If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath
the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and . . . on whose ground and
territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.

24. If persons are stolen, then shall the community and . . . pay one mina of
silver to their relatives.

25. If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his
eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the
master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.

26. If a chieftain or a man (common soldier), who has been ordered to go upon
the king’s highway for war does not go, but hires a mercenary, if he withholds
the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to death, and he who
represented him shall take possession of his house.

27. If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king (captured in
battle), and if his fields and garden be given to another and he take
possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field and garden shall be
returned to him, he shall take it over again.

28. If a chieftain or a man be caught in the misfortune of a king, if his son is
able to enter into possession, then the field and garden shall be given to him,
he shall take over the fee of his father.

29. If his son is still young, and can not take possession, a third of the field
and garden shall be given to his mother, and she shall bring him up.

30. If a chieftain or a man leave his house, garden, and field and hires it out,
and some one else takes possession of his house, garden, and field and uses it
for three years: if the first owner return and claims his house, garden, and
field, it shall not be given to him, but he who has taken possession of it and
used it shall continue to use it.

31. If he hire it out for one year and then return, the house, garden, and field
shall be given back to him, and he shall take it over again.

32. If a chieftain or a man is captured on the "Way of the King" (in war), and a
merchant buy him free, and bring him back to his place; if he have the means in
his house to buy his freedom, he shall buy himself free: if he have nothing in
his house with which to buy himself free, he shall be bought free by the temple
of his community; if there be nothing in the temple with which to buy him free,
the court shall buy his freedom. His field, garden, and house shall not be given
for the purchase of his freedom.

33. If a . . . or a . . . enter himself as withdrawn from the "Way of the King,"
and send a mercenary as substitute, but withdraw him, then the . . . or . . .
shall be put to death.

34. If a . . . or a . . . harm the property of a captain, injure the captain, or
take away from the captain a gift presented to him by the king, then the . . .
or . . . shall be put to death.

35. If any one buy the cattle or sheep which the king has given to chieftains
from him, he loses his money.

36. The field, garden, and house of a chieftain, of a man, or of one subject to
quit-rent, can not be sold.

37. If any one buy the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one
subject to quit-rent, his contract tablet of sale shall be broken (declared
invalid) and he loses his money. The field, garden, and house return to their
owners.

38. A chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent can not assign his tenure of
field, house, and garden to his wife or daughter, nor can he assign it for a
debt.

39. He may, however, assign a field, garden, or house which he has bought, and
holds as property, to his wife or daughter or give it for debt. . He may sell
field, garden, and house to a merchant (royal agents) or to any other public
official, the buyer holding field, house, and garden for its usufruct.

41. If any one fence in the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one
subject to quit-rent, furnishing the palings therefor; if the chieftain, man, or
one subject to quit-rent return to field, garden, and house, the palings which
were given to him become his property.

42. If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it
must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just
as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field.

43. If he do not till the field, but let it lie fallow, he shall give grain like
his neighbor’s to the owner of the field, and the field which he let lie fallow
he must plow and sow and return to its owner.

44. If any one take over a waste-lying field to make it arable, but is lazy, and
does not make it arable, he shall plow the fallow field in the fourth year,
harrow it and till it, and give it back to its owner, and for each ten gan (a
measure of area) ten gur of grain shall be paid.

45. If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive the rent
of his field, but bad weather come and destroy the harvest, the injury falls
upon the tiller of the soil.

46. If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on half or
third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be divided
proportionately between the tiller and the owner.

47. If the tiller, because he did not succeed in the first year, has had the
soil tilled by others, the owner may raise no objection; the field has been
cultivated and he receives the harvest according to agreement.

48. If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the
harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need
not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no
rent for this year.

49. If any one take money from a merchant, and give the merchant a field
tillable for corn or sesame and order him to plant corn or sesame in the field,
and to harvest the crop; if the cultivator plant corn or sesame in the field, at
the harvest the corn or sesame that is in the field shall belong to the owner of
the field and he shall pay corn as rent, for the money he received from the
merchant, and the livelihood of the cultivator shall he give to the merchant.

50. If he give a cultivated corn-field or a cultivated sesame-field, the corn or
sesame in the field shall belong to the owner of the field, and he shall return
the money to the merchant as rent.

51. If he have no money to repay, then he shall pay in corn or sesame in place
of the money as rent for what he received from the merchant, according to the
royal tariff.

52. If the cultivator do not plant corn or sesame in the field, the debtor’s
contract is not weakened.

53. If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so
keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in
whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the
corn which he has caused to be ruined.

54. If he be not able to replace the corn, then he and his possessions shall be
divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.

55. If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the
water flood the field of his neighbor, then he shall pay his neighbor corn for
his loss.

56. If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his
neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.

57. If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without
the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze,
then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had
pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay
to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.

58. If after the flocks have left the pasture and been shut up in the common
fold at the city gate, any shepherd let them into a field and they graze there,
this shepherd shall take possession of the field which he has allowed to be
grazed on, and at the harvest he must pay sixty gur of corn for every ten gan.

59. If any man, without the knowledge of the owner of a garden, fell a tree in a
garden he shall pay half a mina in money.

60. If any one give over a field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden,
if he work at it, and care for it for four years, in the fifth year the owner
and the gardener shall divide it, the owner taking his part in charge.

61. If the gardener has not completed the planting of the field, leaving one
part unused, this shall be assigned to him as his.

62. If he do not plant the field that was given over to him as a garden, if it
be arable land (for corn or sesame) the gardener shall pay the owner the produce
of the field for the years that he let it lie fallow, according to the product
of neighboring fields, put the field in arable condition and return it to its
owner.

63. If he transform waste land into arable fields and return it to its owner,
the latter shall pay him for one year ten gur for ten gan.

64. If any one hand over his garden to a gardener to work, the gardener shall
pay to its owner two-thirds of the produce of the garden, for so long as he has
it in possession, and the other third shall he keep.

65. If the gardener do not work in the garden and the product fall off, the
gardener shall pay in proportion to other neighboring gardens. [Here a portion
of the text is missing, apparently comprising thirty-four paragraphs.]

100. . . . interest for the money, as much as he has received, he shall give a
note therefor, and on the day, when they settle, pay to the merchant.

101. If there are no mercantile arrangements in the place whither he went, he
shall leave the entire amount of money which he received with the broker to give
to the merchant.

102. If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and
the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes, he shall make good the
capital to the merchant.

103. If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had,
the broker shall swear by God and be free of obligation.

104. If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to
transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the
merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt form the merchant for the
money that he gives the merchant.

105. If the agent is careless, and does not take a receipt for the money which
he gave the merchant, he can not consider the unreceipted money as his own.

106. If the agent accept money from the merchant, but have a quarrel with the
merchant (denying the receipt), then shall the merchant swear before God and
witnesses that he has given this money to the agent, and the agent shall pay him
three times the sum.

107. If the merchant cheat the agent, in that as the latter has returned to him
all that had been given him, but the merchant denies the receipt of what had
been returned to him, then shall this agent convict the merchant before God and
the judges, and if he still deny receiving what the agent had given him shall
pay six times the sum to the agent.

108. If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross
weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less
than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water.

109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these
conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper
shall be put to death.

110. If a "sister of a god" open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then
shall this woman be burned to death.

111. If an inn-keeper furnish sixty ka of usakani-drink to . . . she shall
receive fifty ka of corn at the harvest.

112. If any one be on a journey and entrust silver, gold, precious stones, or
any movable property to another, and wish to recover it from him; if the latter
do not bring all of the property to the appointed place, but appropriate it to
his own use, then shall this man, who did not bring the property to hand it
over, be convicted, and he shall pay fivefold for all that had been entrusted to
him.

113. If any one have consignment of corn or money, and he take from the granary
or box without the knowledge of the owner, then shall he who took corn without
the knowledge of the owner out of the granary or money out of the box be legally
convicted, and repay the corn he has taken. And he shall lose whatever
commission was paid to him, or due him.

114. If a man have no claim on another for corn and money, and try to demand it
by force, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver in every case.

115. If any one have a claim for corn or money upon another and imprison him; if
the prisoner die in prison a natural death, the case shall go no further.

116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the
prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man,
the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay
one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he
shall forfeit.

117. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his
son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work
for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and
in the fourth year they shall be set free.

118. If he give a male or female slave away for forced labor, and the merchant
sublease them, or sell them for money, no objection can be raised.

119. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid servant who
has borne him children, for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall
be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and she shall be freed.

120. If any one store corn for safe keeping in another person’s house, and any
harm happen to the corn in storage, or if the owner of the house open the
granary and take some of the corn, or if especially he deny that the corn was
stored in his house: then the owner of the corn shall claim his corn before God
(on oath), and the owner of the house shall pay its owner for all of the corn
that he took.

121. If any one store corn in another man’s house he shall pay him storage at
the rate of one gur for every five ka of corn per year.

122. If any one give another silver, gold, or anything else to keep, he shall
show everything to some witness, draw up a contract, and then hand it over for
safe keeping.

123. If he turn it over for safe keeping without witness or contract, and if he
to whom it was given deny it, then he has no legitimate claim.

124. If any one deliver silver, gold, or anything else to another for safe
keeping, before a witness, but he deny it, he shall be brought before a judge,
and all that he has denied he shall pay in full.

125. If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there,
either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other
man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place,
shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge. But the
owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it
away from the thief.

126. If any one who has not lost his goods state that they have been lost, and
make false claims: if he claim his goods and amount of injury before God, even
though he has not lost them, he shall be fully compensated for all his loss
claimed. (I.e., the oath is all that is needed.)

127. If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of
any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his
brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.) 128. If a man take
a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.

129. If a man’s wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both
shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and
the king his slaves.

130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has
never known a man, and still lives in her father’s house, and sleep with her and
be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

131. If a man bring a charge against one’s wife, but she is not surprised with
another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man’s wife about another man, but she is
not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her
husband.

133. If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house,
but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife
did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially
condemned and thrown into the water.

134. If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if
then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless.

135. If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house
and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband
return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the
children follow their father.

136. If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another
house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from
his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from
his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and
a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her
children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given
to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then
marry the man of her heart.

138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he
shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought
from her father’s house, and let her go.

139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift
of release.

140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

141. If a man’s wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into
debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially
convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives
her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her,
and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband’s house.

142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to
me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and
there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt
attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father’s
house.

143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house,
neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.

144. If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and
she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not
be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

145. If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take
another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this
second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.

146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she
bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she
has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep
her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

147. If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for
money.

148. If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to
take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has been attacked by
disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her
so long as she lives.

149. If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband’s house, then he shall
compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her father’s house,
and she may go.

150. If a man give his wife a field, garden, and house and a deed therefor, if
then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may
bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his
brothers.

151. If a woman who lived in a man’s house made an agreement with her husband,
that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefor: if that man,
before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman
for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man’s house, had contracted a
debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefor.

152. If after the woman had entered the man’s house, both contracted a debt,
both must pay the merchant.

153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her
husband and the other man’s wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled. 154.
If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the
place (exiled).

155. If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her,
but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be
bound and cast into the water (drowned).

156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if
then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for
all that she brought out of her father’s house. She may marry the man of her
heart.

157. If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall
be burned.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne
children, he shall be driven out of his father’s house.

159. If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law’s house, and
has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says to his
father-in-law: "I do not want your daughter," the girl’s father may keep all
that he had brought.

160. If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and pay the
"purchase price" (for his wife): if then the father of the girl say: "I will not
give you my daughter," he shall give him back all that he brought with him.

161. If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law’s house and pay the
"purchase price," if then his friend slander him, and his father-in-law say to
the young husband: "You shall not marry my daughter," the he shall give back to
him undiminished all that he had brought with him; but his wife shall not be
married to the friend.

162. If a man marry a woman, and she bear sons to him; if then this woman die,
then shall her father have no claim on her dowry; this belongs to her sons.

163. If a man marry a woman and she bear him no sons; if then this woman die, if
the "purchase price" which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is
repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it
belongs to her father’s house.

164. If his father-in-law do not pay back to him the amount of the "purchase
price" he may subtract the amount of the "Purchase price" from the dowry, and
then pay the remainder to her father’s house.

165. If a man give to one of his sons whom he prefers a field, garden, and
house, and a deed therefor: if later the father die, and the brothers divide the
estate, then they shall first give him the present of his father, and he shall
accept it; and the rest of the paternal property shall they divide.

166. If a man take wives for his son, but take no wife for his minor son, and if
then he die: if the sons divide the estate, they shall set aside besides his
portion the money for the "purchase price" for the minor brother who had taken
no wife as yet, and secure a wife for him.

167. If a man marry a wife and she bear him children: if this wife die and he
then take another wife and she bear him children: if then the father die, the
sons must not partition the estate according to the mothers, they shall divide
the dowries of their mothers only in this way; the paternal estate they shall
divide equally with one another.

168. If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before the
judge: "I want to put my son out," then the judge shall examine into his
reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be rightfully
put out, the father shall not put him out.

169. If he be guilty of a grave fault, which should rightfully deprive him of
the filial relationship, the father shall forgive him the first time; but if he
be guilty of a grave fault a second time the father may deprive his son of all
filial relation.

170. If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and
the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has
borne: "My sons," and he count them with the sons of his wife; if then the
father die, then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the
paternal property in common. The son of the wife is to partition and choose.

171. If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the
maid-servant: "My sons," and then the father dies, then the sons of the
maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the
maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to
enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father),
and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry,
or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so
long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she
leaves shall belong to her children.

172. If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and
she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one
child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall
examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave
her husband’s house. If the woman desire to leave the house, she must leave to
her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her
father’s house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.

173. If this woman bear sons to her second husband, in the place to which she
went, and then die, her earlier and later sons shall divide the dowry between
them.

174. If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first husband
shall have the dowry.

175. If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free
man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to
enslave the children of the free.

176. If, however, a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry a man’s
daughter, and after he marries her she bring a dowry from a father’s house, if
then they both enjoy it and found a household, and accumulate means, if then the
slave die, then she who was free born may take her dowry, and all that her
husband and she had earned; she shall divide them into two parts, one-half the
master for the slave shall take, and the other half shall the free-born woman
take for her children. If the free-born woman had no gift she shall take all
that her husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master
of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her children.

177. If a widow, whose children are not grown, wishes to enter another house
(remarry), she shall not enter it without the knowledge of the judge. If she
enter another house the judge shall examine the state of the house of her first
husband. Then the house of her first husband shall be entrusted to the second
husband and the woman herself as managers. And a record must be made thereof.
She shall keep the house in order, bring up the children, and not sell the
house-hold utensils. He who buys the utensils of the children of a widow shall
lose his money, and the goods shall return to their owners.

178. If a "devoted woman" or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry
and a deed therefor, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath
it as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of
disposal; if then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field and
garden, and give her corn, oil, and milk according to her portion, and satisfy
her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil, and milk according to her share,
then her field and garden shall support her. She shall have the usufruct of
field and garden and all that her father gave her so long as she lives, but she
can not sell or assign it to others. Her position of inheritance belongs to her
brothers.

179. If a "sister of a god," or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father,
and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as
she pleases, and give her complete disposition thereof: if then her father die,
then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can
raise no claim thereto.

180. If a father give a present to his daughter--either marriageable or a
prostitute (unmarriageable)--and then die, then she is to receive a portion as a
child from the paternal estate, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her
estate belongs to her brothers.

181. If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give her no
present: if then the father die, she shall receive the third of a child’s
portion from the inheritance of her father’s house, and enjoy its usufruct so
long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

182. If a father devote his daughter as a wife of Mardi of Babylon (as in 181),
and give her no present, nor a deed; if then her father die, then shall she
receive one-third of her portion as a child of her father’s house from her
brothers, but Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.

183. If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband, and a
deed; if then her father die, she shall receive no portion from the paternal
estate.

184. If a man do not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no
husband; if then her father die, her brother shall give her a dowry according to
her father’s wealth and secure a husband for her.

185. If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this grown son
can not be demanded back again.

186. If a man adopt a son, and if after he has taken him he injure his foster
father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his father’s house.

187. The son of a paramour in the palace service, or of a prostitute, can not be
demanded back.

188. If an artizan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his craft, he
can not be demanded back.

189. If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to his
father’s house.

190. If a man does not maintain a child that he has adopted as a son and reared
with his other children, then his adopted son may return to his father’s house.

191. If a man, who had adopted a son and reared him, founded a household, and
had children, wish to put this adopted son out, then this son shall not simply
go his way. His adoptive father shall give him of his wealth one-third of a
child’s portion, and then he may go. He shall not give him of the field, garden,
and house.

192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or
mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.

193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father’s house, and
desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father’s house,
then shall his eye be put out.

194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the
nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall
convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father
and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye
for an eye ] 197. If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.

198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he
shall pay one gold mina.

199. If he put out the eye of a man’s slave, or break the bone of a man’s slave,
he shall pay one-half of its value.

200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
[ A tooth for a tooth ] 201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall
pay one-third of a gold mina.

202. If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall
receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public.

203. If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank,
he shall pay one gold mina.

204. If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten
shekels in money.

205. If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall
be cut off.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall
swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.

207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the
deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he
shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

211. If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five
shekels in money.

212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.

213. If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he shall
pay two shekels in money.

214. If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

215. If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it,
or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye,
he shall receive ten shekels in money.

216. If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.

217. If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician two
shekels.

218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill
him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands
shall be cut off.

219. If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill
him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.

220. If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his eye, he
shall pay half his value.

221. If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man, the
patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money.

222. If he were a freed man he shall pay three shekels.

223. If he were a slave his owner shall pay the physician two shekels.

224. If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and
cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee.

225. If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall
pay the owner one-fourth of its value.

226. If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave
on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off.

227. If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale with
the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his house. The
barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall be guiltless.

228. If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall give him
a fee of two shekels in money for each sar of surface.

229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly,
and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall
be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to
death.

231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the
owner of the house.

232. If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined,
and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it
fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.

233. If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet
completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls
solid from his own means.

234. If a shipbuilder build a boat of sixty gur for a man, he shall pay him a
fee of two shekels in money.

235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if
during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder
shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The
tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.

236. If a man rent his boat to a sailor, and the sailor is careless, and the
boat is wrecked or goes aground, the sailor shall give the owner of the boat
another boat as compensation.

237. If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn, clothing,
oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for fitting it: if the sailor
is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its contents ruined, then the sailor shall
compensate for the boat which was wrecked and all in it that he ruined.

238. If a sailor wreck any one’s ship, but saves it, he shall pay the half of
its value in money.

239. If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.

240. If a merchantman run against a ferryboat, and wreck it, the master of the
ship that was wrecked shall seek justice before God; the master of the
merchantman, which wrecked the ferryboat, must compensate the owner for the boat
and all that he ruined.

241. If any one impresses an ox for forced labor, he shall pay one-third of a
mina in money.

242. If any one hire oxen for a year, he shall pay four gur of corn for
plow-oxen.

243. As rent of herd cattle he shall pay three gur of corn to the owner.

244. If any one hire an ox or an ass, and a lion kill it in the field, the loss
is upon its owner.

245. If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall
compensate the owner, oxen for oxen.

246. If a man hire an ox, and he break its leg or cut the ligament of its neck,
he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox.

247. If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half
of its value.

248. If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt
its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money.

249. If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who hired it
shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.

250. If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it, and kill
it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the hirer).

251. If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not
bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill
him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.

252. If he kill a man’s slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

253. If any one agree with another to tend his field, give him seed, entrust a
yoke of oxen to him, and bind him to cultivate the field, if he steal the corn
or plants, and take them for himself, his hands shall be hewn off.

254. If he take the seed-corn for himself, and do not use the yoke of oxen, he
shall compensate him for the amount of the seed-corn.

255. If he sublet the man’s yoke of oxen or steal the seed-corn, planting
nothing in the field, he shall be convicted, and for each one hundred gan he
shall pay sixty gur of corn.

256. If his community will not pay for him, then he shall be placed in that
field with the cattle (at work).

257. If any one hire a field laborer, he shall pay him eight gur of corn per
year.

258. If any one hire an ox-driver, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.

259. If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in
money to its owner.

260. If any one steal a shadduf (used to draw water from the river or canal) or
a plow, he shall pay three shekels in money.

261. If any one hire a herdsman for cattle or sheep, he shall pay him eight gur
of corn per annum.

262. If any one, a cow or a sheep . . .

263. If he kill the cattle or sheep that were given to him, he shall compensate
the owner with cattle for cattle and sheep for sheep.

264. If a herdsman, to whom cattle or sheep have been entrusted for watching
over, and who has received his wages as agreed upon, and is satisfied, diminish
the number of the cattle or sheep, or make the increase by birth less, he shall
make good the increase or profit which was lost in the terms of settlement.

265. If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been entrusted, be guilty
of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or sell them for money,
then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten times the loss.

266. If the animal be killed in the stable by God ( an accident), or if a lion
kill it, the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner
bears the accident in the stable.

267. If the herdsman overlook something, and an accident happen in the stable,
then the herdsman is at fault for the accident which he has caused in the
stable, and he must compensate the owner for the cattle or sheep.

268. If any one hire an ox for threshing, the amount of the hire is twenty ka of
corn.

269. If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty ka of corn.

270. If he hire a young animal for threshing, the hire is ten ka of corn.

271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred and eighty
ka of corn per day.

272. If any one hire a cart alone, he shall pay forty ka of corn per day.

273. If any one hire a day laborer, he shall pay him from the New Year until the
fifth month (April to August, when days are long and the work hard) six gerahs
in money per day; from the sixth month to the end of the year he shall give him
five gerahs per day.

274. If any one hire a skilled artizan, he shall pay as wages of the . . . five
gerahs, as wages of the potter five gerahs, of a tailor five gerahs, of . . .
gerahs, . . . of a ropemaker four gerahs, of . . .. gerahs, of a mason . . .
gerahs per day.

275. If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per day.

276. If he hire a freight-boat, he shall pay two and one-half gerahs per day.

277. If any one hire a ship of sixty gur, he shall pay one-sixth of a shekel in
money as its hire per day.

278. If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the
benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive
the money which he had paid.

279. If any one by a male or female slave, and a third party claim it, the
seller is liable for the claim.

280. If while in a foreign country a man buy a male or female slave belonging to
another of his own country; if when he return home the owner of the male or
female slave recognize it: if the male or female slave be a native of the
country, he shall give them back without any money.

281. If they are from another country, the buyer shall declare the amount of
money paid therefor to the merchant, and keep the male or female slave.

282. If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him
his master shall cut off his ear. THE EPILOGUE

LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law,
and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I
have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom
Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful
abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon
them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the
keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I
have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth,
brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their
homes; a disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me, I am the
salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is
spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer
and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have
I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect
the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high
their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and
earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal
all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone,
before the image of me, as king of righteousness. The king who ruleth among the
kings of the cities am I. My words are well considered; there is no wisdom like
unto mine. By the command of Shamash, the great judge of heaven and earth, let
righteousness go forth in the land: by the order of Marduk, my lord, let no
destruction befall my monument. In E-Sagil, which I love, let my name be ever
repeated; let the oppressed, who has a case at law, come and stand before this
my image as king of righteousness; let him read the inscription, and understand
my precious words: the inscription will explain his case to him; he will find
out what is just, and his heart will be glad, so that he will say:

"Hammurabi is a ruler, who is as a father to his subjects, who holds the words
of Marduk in reverence, who has achieved conquest for Marduk over the north and
south, who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord, who has bestowed benefits for
ever and ever on his subjects, and has established order in the land." When he
reads the record, let him pray with full heart to Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit,
my lady; and then shall the protecting deities and the gods, who frequent
E-Sagil, graciously grant the desires daily presented before Marduk, my lord,
and Zarpanit, my lady. In future time, through all coming generations, let the
king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have
written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have
given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a
ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the
words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of
the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this
inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to
them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this
land, and grant prosperity to his subjects. Hammurabi, the king of
righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are
well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to
humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words,
which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor
corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king’s
reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in
righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I
have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse
of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my
monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses
commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or
commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods,
who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his
scepter, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose command
can not be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his
hand can not control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation
blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years
of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may
he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion
of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory
from the land. May Belit, the great Mother, whose command is potent in E-Kur
(the Babylonian Olympus), the Mistress, who harkens graciously to my petitions,
in the seat of judgment and decision (where Bel fixes destiny), turn his affairs
evil before Bel, and put the devastation of his land, the destruction of his
subjects, the pouring out of his life like water into the mouth of King Bel. May
Ea, the great ruler, whose fated decrees come to pass, the thinker of the gods,
the omniscient, who maketh long the days of my life, withdraw understanding and
wisdom from him, lead him to forgetfulness, shut up his rivers at their sources,
and not allow corn or sustenance for man to grow in his land. May Shamash, the
great Judge of heaven and earth, who supporteth all means of livelihood, Lord of
life-courage, shatter his dominion, annul his law, destroy his way, make vain
the march of his troops, send him in his visions forecasts of the uprooting of
the foundations of his throne and of the destruction of his land. May the
condemnation of Shamash overtake him forthwith; may he be deprived of water
above among the living, and his spirit below in the earth. May Sin (the
Moon-god), the Lord of Heaven, the divine father, whose crescent gives light
among the gods, take away the crown and regal throne from him; may he put upon
him heavy guilt, great decay, that nothing may be lower than he. May he destine
him as fated, days, months and years of dominion filled with sighing and tears,
increase of the burden of dominion, a life that is like unto death. May Adad,
the lord of fruitfulness, ruler of heaven and earth, my helper, withhold from
him rain from heaven, and the flood of water from the springs, destroying his
land by famine and want; may he rage mightily over his city, and make his land
into flood-hills (heaps of ruined cities). May Zamama, the great warrior, the
first-born son of E-Kur, who goeth at my right hand, shatter his weapons on the
field of battle, turn day into night for him, and let his foe triumph over him.
May Ishtar, the goddess of fighting and war, who unfetters my weapons, my
gracious protecting spirit, who loveth my dominion, curse his kingdom in her
angry heart; in her great wrath, change his grace into evil, and shatter his
weapons on the place of fighting and war. May she create disorder and sedition
for him, strike down his warriors, that the earth may drink their blood, and
throw down the piles of corpses of his warriors on the field; may she not grant
him a life of mercy, deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and imprison him
in the land of his enemies. May Nergal, the might among the gods, whose contest
is irresistible, who grants me victory, in his great might burn up his subjects
like a slender reedstalk, cut off his limbs with his mighty weapons, and shatter
him like an earthen image. May Nin-tu, the sublime mistress of the lands, the
fruitful mother, deny him a son, vouchsafe him no name, give him no successor
among men. May Nin-karak, the daughter of Anu, who adjudges grace to me, cause
to come upon his members in E-kur high fever, severe wounds, that can not be
healed, whose nature the physician does not understand, which he can not treat
with dressing, which, like the bite of death, can not be removed, until they
have sapped away his life. May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the
great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse and evil
upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the Sun temple of
Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects, and his
troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that can not be
altered, and may they come upon him forthwith. THE END Translated by L. W. King
This document originates from the Internet, via World Wide Web, at
<gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/11/>


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02.01. LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT
========================================================================

LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION BY LEONARD W. KING,
M.A., LITT.D., F.S.A.

Assistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum
Professor in the University of London King’s College THE SCHWEICH LECTURES

1916


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 02.02.     PREFACE
========================================================================

PREPARER’S NOTE This text was prepared from a 1920 edition of the book, hence
the references to dates after 1916 in some places.

Greek text has been transliterated within brackets "{}" using an Oxford English
Dictionary alphabet table. Diacritical marks have been lost.

PREFACE In these lectures an attempt is made, not so much to restate familiar
facts, as to accommodate them to new and supplementary evidence which has been
published in America since the outbreak of the war. But even without the excuse
of recent discovery, no apology would be needed for any comparison or contrast
of Hebrew tradition with the mythological and legendary beliefs of Babylon and
Egypt. Hebrew achievements in the sphere of religion and ethics are only thrown
into stronger relief when studied against their contemporary background. The
bulk of our new material is furnished by some early texts, written towards the
close of the third millennium B.C. They incorporate traditions which extend in
unbroken outline from their own period into the remote ages of the past, and
claim to trace the history of man back to his creation. They represent the early
national traditions of the Sumerian people, who preceded the Semites as the
ruling race in Babylonia; and incidentally they necessitate a revision of
current views with regard to the cradle of Babylonian civilization. The most
remarkable of the new documents is one which relates in poetical narrative an
account of the Creation, of Antediluvian history, and of the Deluge. It thus
exhibits a close resemblance in structure to the corresponding Hebrew
traditions, a resemblance that is not shared by the Semitic-Babylonian Versions
at present known. But in matter the Sumerian tradition is more primitive than
any of the Semitic versions. In spite of the fact that the text appears to have
reached us in a magical setting, and to some extent in epitomized form, this
early document enables us to tap the stream of tradition at a point far above
any at which approach has hitherto been possible.

Though the resemblance of early Sumerian tradition to that of the Hebrews is
striking, it furnishes a still closer parallel to the summaries preserved from
the history of Berossus. The huge figures incorporated in the latter’s
chronological scheme are no longer to be treated as a product of Neo-Babylonian
speculation; they reappear in their original surroundings in another of these
early documents, the Sumerian Dynastic List. The sources of Berossus had
inevitably been semitized by Babylon; but two of his three Antediluvian cities
find their place among the five of primitive Sumerian belief, and two of his ten
Antediluvian kings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes. Moreover, the recorded ages
of Sumerian and Hebrew patriarchs are strangely alike. It may be added that in
Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo Stele has enabled us to verify, by a very
similar comparison, the accuracy of Manetho’s sources for his prehistoric
period, while at the same time it demonstrates the way in which possible
inaccuracies in his system, deduced from independent evidence, may have arisen
in remote antiquity. It is clear that both Hebrew and Hellenistic traditions
were modelled on very early lines.

Thus our new material enables us to check the age, and in some measure the
accuracy, of the traditions concerning the dawn of history which the Greeks
reproduced from native sources, both in Babylonia and Egypt, after the conquests
of Alexander had brought the Near East within the range of their intimate
acquaintance. The third body of tradition, that of the Hebrews, though unbacked
by the prestige of secular achievement, has, through incorporation in the canons
of two great religious systems, acquired an authority which the others have not
enjoyed. In re-examining the sources of all three accounts, so far as they are
affected by the new discoveries, it will be of interest to observe how the same
problems were solved in antiquity by very different races, living under widely
divergent conditions, but within easy reach of one another. Their periods of
contact, ascertained in history or suggested by geographical considerations,
will prompt the further question to what extent each body of belief was evolved
in independence of the others. The close correspondence that has long been
recognized and is now confirmed between the Hebrew and the Semitic-Babylonian
systems, as compared with that of Egypt, naturally falls within the scope of our
enquiry.

Excavation has provided an extraordinarily full archaeological commentary to the
legends of Egypt and Babylon; and when I received the invitation to deliver the
Schweich Lectures for 1916, I was reminded of the terms of the Bequest and was
asked to emphasize the archaeological side of the subject. Such material
illustration was also calculated to bring out, in a more vivid manner than was
possible with purely literary evidence, the contrasts and parallels presented by
Hebrew tradition. Thanks to a special grant for photographs from the British
Academy, I was enabled to illustrate by means of lantern slides many of the
problems discussed in the lectures; and it was originally intended that the
photographs then shown should appear as plates in this volume. But in view of
the continued and increasing shortage of paper, it was afterwards felt to be
only right that all illustrations should be omitted. This very necessary
decision has involved a recasting of certain sections of the lectures as
delivered, which in its turn has rendered possible a fuller treatment of the new
literary evidence. To the consequent shifting of interest is also due a
transposition of names in the title. On their literary side, and in virtue of
the intimacy of their relation to Hebrew tradition, the legends of Babylon must
be given precedence over those of Egypt. For the delay in the appearance of the
volume I must plead the pressure of other work, on subjects far removed from
archaeological study and affording little time and few facilities for a
continuance of archaeological and textual research. It is hoped that the
insertion of references throughout, and the more detailed discussion of problems
suggested by our new literary material, may incline the reader to add his
indulgence to that already extended to me by the British Academy.

L. W. KING.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 02.03.     LECTURE I: EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME TRADITIONAL ORIGINS OF CIVILIZTION
========================================================================

LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION

LECTURE I EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME TRADITIONAL ORIGINS OF
CIVILIZATION At the present moment most of us have little time or thought to
spare for subjects not connected directly or indirectly with the war. We have
put aside our own interests and studies; and after the war we shall all have a
certain amount of leeway to make up in acquainting ourselves with what has been
going on in countries not yet involved in the great struggle. Meanwhile the most
we can do is to glance for a moment at any discovery of exceptional interest
that may come to light. The main object of these lectures will be to examine
certain Hebrew traditions in the light of new evidence which has been published
in America since the outbreak of the war. The evidence is furnished by some
literary texts, inscribed on tablets from Nippur, one of the oldest and most
sacred cities of Babylonia. They are written in Sumerian, the language spoken by
the non-Semitic people whom the Semitic Babylonians conquered and displaced; and
they include a very primitive version of the Deluge story and Creation myth, and
some texts which throw new light on the age of Babylonian civilization and on
the area within which it had its rise. In them we have recovered some of the
material from which Berossus derived his dynasty of Antediluvian kings, and we
are thus enabled to test the accuracy of the Greek tradition by that of the
Sumerians themselves. So far then as Babylonia is concerned, these documents
will necessitate a re-examination of more than one problem. The myths and
legends of ancient Egypt are also to some extent involved. The trend of much
recent anthropological research has been in the direction of seeking a single
place of origin for similar beliefs and practices, at least among races which
were bound to one another by political or commercial ties. And we shall have
occasion to test, by means of our new data, a recent theory of Egyptian
influence. The Nile Valley was, of course, one the great centres from which
civilization radiated throughout the ancient East; and, even when direct contact
is unproved, Egyptian literature may furnish instructive parallels and contrasts
in any study of Western Asiatic mythology. Moreover, by a strange coincidence,
there has also been published in Egypt since the beginning of the war a record
referring to the reigns of predynastic rulers in the Nile Valley. This, like
some of the Nippur texts, takes us back to that dim period before the dawn of
actual history, and, though the information it affords is not detailed like
theirs, it provides fresh confirmation of the general accuracy of Manetho’s
sources, and suggests some interesting points for comparison. But the people
with whose traditions we are ultimately concerned are the Hebrews. In the first
series of Schweich Lectures, delivered in the year 1908, the late Canon Driver
showed how the literature of Assyria and Babylon had thrown light upon Hebrew
traditions concerning the origin and early history of the world. The majority of
the cuneiform documents, on which he based his comparison, date from a period no
earlier than the seventh century B.C., and yet it was clear that the texts
themselves, in some form or other, must have descended from a remote antiquity.
He concluded his brief reference to the Creation and Deluge Tablets with these
words: "The Babylonian narratives are both polytheistic, while the corresponding
biblical narratives (Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 6:1-22, Genesis 7:1-24, Genesis
8:1-22, Genesis 9:1-29, Genesis 10:1-32, Genesis 11:1-32) are made the vehicle
of a pure and exalted monotheism; but in spite of this fundamental difference,
and also variations in detail, the resemblances are such as to leave no doubt
that the Hebrew cosmogony and the Hebrew story of the Deluge are both derived
ultimately from the same original as the Babylonian narratives, only transformed
by the magic touch of Israel’s religion, and infused by it with a new
spirit."[1] Among the recently published documents from Nippur we have at last
recovered one at least of those primitive originals from which the Babylonian
accounts were derived, while others prove the existence of variant stories of
the world’s origin and early history which have not survived in the later
cuneiform texts. In some of these early Sumerian records we may trace a faint
but remarkable parallel with the Hebrew traditions of man’s history between his
Creation and the Flood. It will be our task, then, to examine the relations
which the Hebrew narratives bear both to the early Sumerian and to the later
Babylonian Versions, and to ascertain how far the new discoveries support or
modify current views with regard to the contents of those early chapters of
Genesis.

[1] Driver, /Modern Research as illustrating the Bible/ (The Schweich Lectures,
1908), p. 23.

I need not remind you that Genesis is the book of Hebrew origins, and that its
contents mark it off to some extent from the other books of the Hebrew Bible.
The object of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua is to describe in their
origin the fundamental institutions of the national faith and to trace from the
earliest times the course of events which led to the Hebrew settlement in
Palestine. Of this national history the Book of Genesis forms the introductory
section. Four centuries of complete silence lie between its close and the
beginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history of a nation as contrasted
with that of a family.[1] While Exodus and the succeeding books contain national
traditions, Genesis is largely made up of individual biography. Genesis 12:1-20,
Genesis 13:1-18, Genesis 14:1-24, Genesis 15:1-21, Genesis 16:1-16, Genesis
17:1-27, Genesis 18:1-33, Genesis 19:1-38, Genesis 20:1-18, Genesis 21:1-34,
Genesis 22:1-24, Genesis 23:1-20, Genesis 24:1-67, Genesis 25:1-34, Genesis
26:1-35, Genesis 27:1-46, Genesis 28:1-22, Genesis 29:1-35, Genesis 30:1-43,
Genesis 31:1-55, Genesis 32:1-32, Genesis 33:1-20, Genesis 34:1-31, Genesis
35:1-29, Genesis 36:1-43, Genesis 37:1-36, Genesis 38:1-30, Genesis 39:1-23,
Genesis 40:1-23, Genesis 41:1-57, Genesis 42:1-38, Genesis 43:1-34, Genesis
44:1-34, Genesis 45:1-28, Genesis 46:1-34, Genesis 47:1-31, Genesis 48:1-22,
Genesis 49:1-33, Genesis 50:1-26 are concerned with the immediate ancestors of
the Hebrew race, beginning with Abram’s migration into Canaan and closing with
Joseph’s death in Egypt. But the aim of the book is not confined to recounting
the ancestry of Israel. It seeks also to show her relation to other peoples in
the world, and probing still deeper into the past it describes how the earth
itself was prepared for man’s habitation. Thus the patriarchal biographies are
preceded, in Genesis 1:1-31, Genesis 2:1-25, Genesis 3:1-24, Genesis 4:1-26,
Genesis 5:1-32, Genesis 6:1-22, Genesis 7:1-24, Genesis 8:1-22, Genesis 9:1-29,
by an account of the original of the world, the beginnings of civilization, and
the distribution of the various races of mankind. It is, of course, with certain
parts of this first group of chapters that such striking parallels have long
been recognized in the cuneiform texts.

[1] Cf., e.g., Skinner, /A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis/
(1912), p. ii f.; Driver, /The Book of Genesis/, 10th ed. (1916), pp. 1 ff.;
Ryle, /The Book of Genesis/ (1914), pp. x ff. In approaching this particular
body of Hebrew traditions, the necessity for some caution will be apparent. It
is not as though we were dealing with the reported beliefs of a Malayan or
Central Australian tribe. In such a case there would be no difficulty in
applying a purely objective criticism, without regard to ulterior consequences.
But here our own feelings are involved, having their roots deep in early
associations. The ground too is well trodden; and, had there been no new
material to discuss, I think I should have preferred a less contentious theme.
The new material is my justification for the choice of subject, and also the
fact that, whatever views we may hold, it will be necessary for us to assimilate
it to them. I shall have no hesitation in giving you my own reading of the
evidence; but at the same time it will be possible to indicate solutions which
will probably appeal to those who view the subject from more conservative
standpoints. That side of the discussion may well be postponed until after the
examination of the new evidence in detail. And first of all it will be advisable
to clear up some general aspects of the problem, and to define the limits within
which our criticism may be applied.

It must be admitted that both Egypt and Babylon bear a bad name in Hebrew
tradition. Both are synonymous with captivity, the symbols of suffering endured
at the beginning and at the close of the national life. And during the struggle
against Assyrian aggression, the disappointment at the failure of expected help
is reflected in prophecies of the period. These great crises in Hebrew history
have tended to obscure in the national memory the part which both Babylon and
Egypt may have played in moulding the civilization of the smaller nations with
whom they came in contact. To such influence the races of Syria were, by
geographical position, peculiarly subject. The country has often been compared
to a bridge between the two great continents of Asia and Africa, flanked by the
sea on one side and the desert on the other, a narrow causeway of highland and
coastal plain connecting the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates.[1] For,
except on the frontier of Egypt, desert and sea do not meet. Farther north the
Arabian plateau is separated from the Mediterranean by a double mountain chain,
which runs south from the Taurus at varying elevations, and encloses in its
lower course the remarkable depression of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and
the `Arabah. The Judaean hills and the mountains of Moab are merely the
southward prolongation of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and their neighbourhood
to the sea endows this narrow tract of habitable country with its moisture and
fertility. It thus formed the natural channel of intercourse between the two
earliest centres of civilization, and was later the battleground of their
opposing empires.

[1] See G. A. Smith, /Historical Geography of the Holy Land/, pp. 5 ff., 45 ff.,
and Myres, /Dawn of History/, pp. 137 ff.; and cf. Hogarth, /The Nearer East/,
pp. 65 ff., and Reclus, /Nouvelle Géographie universelle/, t. IX, pp. 685 ff.
The great trunk-roads of through communication run north and south, across the
eastern plateaus of the Haurân and Moab, and along the coastal plains. The old
highway from Egypt, which left the Delta at Pelusium, at first follows the
coast, then trends eastward across the plain of Esdraelon, which breaks the
coastal range, and passing under Hermon runs northward through Damascus and
reaches the Euphrates at its most westerly point. Other through tracks in
Palestine ran then as they do to-day, by Beesheba and Hebron, or along the
`Arabah and west of the Dead Sea, or through Edom and east of Jordan by the
present Hajj route to Damascus. But the great highway from Egypt, the most
westerly of the trunk-roads through Palestine, was that mainly followed, with
some variant sections, by both caravans and armies, and was known by the Hebrews
in its southern course as the "Way of the Philistines" and farther north as the
"Way of the East". The plain of Esraelon, where the road first trends eastward,
has been the battle-ground for most invaders of Palestine from the north, and
though Egyptian armies often fought in the southern coastal plain, they too have
battled there when they held the southern country. Megiddo, which commands the
main pass into the plain through the low Samaritan hills to the southeast of
Carmel, was the site of Thothmes III’s famous battle against a Syrian
confederation, and it inspired the writer of the Apocalypse with his vision of
an Armageddon of the future. But invading armies always followed the beaten
track of caravans, and movements represented by the great campaigns were
reflected in the daily passage of international commerce. With so much through
traffic continually passing within her borders, it may be matter for surprise
that far more striking evidence of its cultural effect should not have been
revealed by archaeological research in Palestine. Here again the explanation is
mainly of a geographical character. For though the plains and plateaus could be
crossed by the trunk-roads, the rest of the country is so broken up by mountain
and valley that it presented few facilities either to foreign penetration or to
external control. The physical barriers to local intercourse, reinforced by
striking differences in soil, altitude, and climate, while they precluded Syria
herself from attaining national unity, always tended to protect her separate
provinces, or "kingdoms," from the full effects of foreign aggression. One
city-state could be traversed, devastated, or annexed, without in the least
degree affecting neighbouring areas. It is true that the population of Syria has
always been predominantly Semitic, for she was on the fringe of the great
breeding-ground of the Semitic race and her landward boundary was open to the
Arabian nomad. Indeed, in the whole course of her history the only race that
bade fair at one time to oust the Semite in Syria was the Greek. But the Greeks
remained within the cities which they founded or rebuilt, and, as Robertson
Smith pointed out, the death-rate in Eastern cities habitually exceeds the
birth- rate; the urban population must be reinforced from the country if it is
to be maintained, so that the type of population is ultimately determined by the
blood of the peasantry.[1] Hence after the Arab conquest the Greek elements in
Syria and Palestine tended rapidly to disappear. The Moslem invasion was only
the last of a series of similar great inroads, which have followed one another
since the dawn of history, and during all that time absorption was continually
taking place from desert tribes that ranged the Syrian border. As we have seen,
the country of his adoption was such as to encourage the Semitic nomad’s
particularism, which was inherent in his tribal organization. Thus the
predominance of a single racial element in the population of Palestine and Syria
did little to break down or overstep the natural barriers and lines of cleavage.

[1] See Robertson Smith, /Religion of the Semites/, p. 12 f.; and cf. Smith,
/Hist. Geogr./, p. 10 f.

These facts suffice to show why the influence of both Egypt and Babylon upon the
various peoples and kingdoms of Palestine was only intensified at certain
periods, when ambition for extended empire dictated the reduction of her
provinces in detail. But in the long intervals, during which there was no
attempt to enforce political control, regular relations were maintained along
the lines of trade and barter. And in any estimate of the possible effect of
foreign influence upon Hebrew thought, it is important to realize that some of
the channels through which in later periods it may have acted had been flowing
since the dawn of history, and even perhaps in prehistoric times. It is probable
that Syria formed one of the links by which we may explain the Babylonian
elements that are attested in prehistoric Egyptian culture.[1] But another
possible line of advance may have been by way of Arabia and across the Red Sea
into Upper Egypt.

[1] Cf. /Sumer and Akkad/, pp. 322 ff.; and for a full discussion of the points
of resemblance between the early Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, see
Sayce, /The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions/, chap. iv, pp. 101 ff.
The latter line of contact is suggested by an interesting piece of evidence that
has recently been obtained. A prehistoric flint knife, with a handle carved from
the tooth of a hippopotamus, has been purchased lately by the Louvre,[1] and is
said to have been found at Gebel el-`Arak near Naga` Hamâdi, which lies on the
Nile not far below Koptos, where an ancient caravan-track leads by Wâdi Hammâmât
to the Red Sea. On one side of the handle is a battle-scene including some
remarkable representations of ancient boats. All the warriors are nude with the
exception of a loin girdle, but, while one set of combatants have shaven heads
or short hair, the others have abundant locks falling in a thick mass upon the
shoulder. On the other face of the handle is carved a hunting scene, two hunters
with dogs and desert animals being arranged around a central boss. But in the
upper field is a very remarkable group, consisting of a personage struggling
with two lions arranged symmetrically. The rest of the composition is not very
unlike other examples of prehistoric Egyptian carving in low relief, but here
attitude, figure, and clothing are quite un-Egyptian. The hero wears a sort of
turban on his abundant hair, and a full and rounded beard descends upon his
breast. A long garment clothes him from the waist and falls below the knees, his
muscular calves ending in the claws of a bird of prey. There is nothing like
this in prehistoric Egyptian art.

[1] See Bénédite, "Le couteau de Gebel al-`Arak", in /Foundation Eugène Piot,
Mon. et. Mém./, XXII. i. (1916).

Perhaps Monsieur Bénédite is pressing his theme too far when he compares the
close-cropped warriors on the handle with the shaven Sumerians and Elamites upon
steles from Telloh and Susa, for their loin-girdles are African and quite
foreign to the Euphrates Valley. And his suggestion that two of the boats,
flat-bottomed and with high curved ends, seem only to have navigated the Tigris
and Euphrates,[1] will hardly command acceptance. But there is no doubt that the
heroic personage upon the other face is represented in the familiar attitude of
the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh struggling with lions, which formed so favourite a
subject upon early Sumerian and Babylonian seals. His garment is Sumerian or
Semitic rather than Egyptian, and the mixture of human and bird elements in the
figure, though not precisely paralleled at this early period, is not out of
harmony with Mesopotamian or Susan tradition. His beard, too, is quite different
from that of the Libyan desert tribes which the early Egyptian kings adopted.
Though the treatment of the lions is suggestive of proto-Elamite rather than of
early Babylonian models, the design itself is unmistakably of Mesopotamian
origin. This discovery intensifies the significance of other early parallels
that have been noted between the civilizations of the Euphrates and the Nile,
but its evidence, so far as it goes, does not point to Syria as the medium of
prehistoric intercourse. Yet then, as later, there can have been no physical
barrier to the use of the river-route from Mesopotamia into Syria and of the
tracks thence southward along the land-bridge to the Nile’s delta.

[1] Op. cit., p. 32. In the early historic periods we have definite evidence
that the eastern coast of the Levant exercised a strong fascination upon the
rulers of both Egypt and Babylonia. It may be admitted that Syria had little to
give in comparison to what she could borrow, but her local trade in wine and oil
must have benefited by an increase in the through traffic which followed the
working of copper in Cyprus and Sinai and of silver in the Taurus. Moreover, in
the cedar forests of Lebanon and the north she possessed a product which was
highly valued both in Egypt and the treeless plains of Babylonia. The cedars
procured by Sneferu from Lebanon at the close of the IIIrd Dynasty were
doubtless floated as rafts down the coast, and we may see in them evidence of a
regular traffic in timber. It has long been known that the early Babylonian king
Sharru-kin, or Sargon of Akkad, had pressed up the Euphrates to the
Mediterranean, and we now have information that he too was fired by a desire for
precious wood and metal. One of the recently published Nippur inscriptions
contains copies of a number of his texts, collected by an ancient scribe from
his statues at Nippur, and from these we gather additional details of his
campaigns. We learn that after his complete subjugation of Southern Babylonia he
turned his attention to the west, and that Enlil gave him the lands "from the
Upper Sea to the Lower Sea", i.e. from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.
Fortunately this rather vague phrase, which survived in later tradition, is
restated in greater detail in one of the contemporary versions, which records
that Enlil "gave him the upper land, Mari, Iarmuti, and Ibla, as far as the
Cedar Forest and the Silver Mountains".[1] [1] See Poebel, /Historical Texts/
(Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, 1914), pp. 177 f., 222
ff.

Mari was a city on the middle Euphrates, but the name may here signify the
district of Mari which lay in the upper course of Sargon’s march. Now we know
that the later Sumerian monarch Gudea obtained his cedar beams from the Amanus
range, which he names /Amanum/ and describes as the "cedar mountains".[1]
Doubtless he felled his trees on the eastern slopes of the mountain. But we may
infer from his texts that Sargon actually reached the coast, and his "Cedar
Forest" may have lain farther to the south, perhaps as far south as the Lebanon.
The "Silver Mountains" can only be identified with the Taurus, where silver
mines were worked in antiquity. The reference to Iarmuti is interesting, for it
is clearly the same place as Iarimuta or Iarimmuta, of which we find mention in
the Tell el-Amarna letters. From the references to this district in the letters
of Rib-Adda, governor of Byblos, we may infer that it was a level district on
the coast, capable of producing a considerable quantity of grain for export, and
that it was under Egyptian control at the time of Amenophis IV. Hitherto its
position has been conjecturally placed in the Nile Delta, but from Sargon’s
reference we must probably seek it on the North Syrian or possibly the

Cilician coast. Perhaps, as Dr. Poebel suggests, it was the plain of Antioch,
along the lower course and at the mouth of the Orontes. But his further
suggestion that the term is used by Sargon for the whole stretch of country
between the sea and the Euphrates is hardly probable. For the geographical
references need not be treated as exhaustive, but as confined to the more
important districts through which the expedition passed. The district of Ibla
which is also mentioned by Narâm-Sin and Gudea, lay probably to the north of
Iarmuti, perhaps on the southern slopes of Taurus. It, too, we may regard as a
district of restricted extent rather than as a general geographical term for the
extreme north of Syria.

[1] Thureau-Dangin, /Les inscriptions de Sumer de d’Akkad/, p. 108 f., Statue B,
col. v. 1. 28; Germ. ed., p. 68 f.

It is significant that Sargon does not allude to any battle when describing this
expedition, nor does he claim to have devastated the western countries.[1]
Indeed, most of these early expeditions to the west appear to have been inspired
by motives of commercial enterprise rather than of conquest. But increase of
wealth was naturally followed by political expansion, and Egypt’s dream of an
Asiatic empire was realized by Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty. The fact that
Babylonian should then have been adopted as the medium of official intercourse
in Syria points to the closeness of the commercial ties which had already united
the Euphrates Valley with the west. Egyptian control had passed from Canaan at
the time of the Hebrew settlement, which was indeed a comparatively late episode
in the early history of Syria. Whether or not we identify the Khabiri with the
Hebrews, the character of the latter’s incursion is strikingly illustrated by
some of the Tell el-Amarna letters. We see a nomad folk pressing in upon settled
peoples and gaining a foothold here and there.[2]

[1] In some versions of his new records Sargon states that "5,400 men daily eat
bread before him" (see Poebel, op. cit., p. 178); though the figure may be
intended to convey an idea of the size of Sargon’s court, we may perhaps see in
it a not inaccurate estimate of the total strength of his armed forces.

[2] See especially Professor Burney’s forthcoming commentary on Judges (passim),
and his forthcoming Schweich Lectures (now delivered, in 1917). The great change
from desert life consists in the adoption of agriculture, and when once that was
made by the Hebrews any further advance in economic development was dictated by
their new surroundings. The same process had been going on, as we have seen, in
Syria since the dawn of history, the Semitic nomad passing gradually through the
stages of agricultural and village life into that of the city. The country
favoured the retention of tribal exclusiveness, but ultimate survival could only
be purchased at the cost of some amalgamation with their new neighbours. Below
the surface of Hebrew history these two tendencies may be traced in varying
action and reaction. Some sections of the race engaged readily in the social and
commercial life of Canaanite civilization with its rich inheritance from the
past. Others, especially in the highlands of Judah and the south, at first
succeeded in keeping themselves remote from foreign influence. During the later
periods of the national life the country was again subjected, and in an
intensified degree, to those forces of political aggression from Mesopotamia and
Egypt which we have already noted as operating in Canaan. But throughout the
settled Hebrew community as a whole the spark of desert fire was not
extinguished, and by kindling the zeal of the Prophets it eventually affected
nearly all the white races of mankind. In his Presidential Address before the
British Association at Newcastle,[1] Sir Arthur Evans emphasized the part which
recent archaeology has played in proving the continuity of human culture from
the most remote periods. He showed how gaps in our knowledge had been bridged,
and he traced the part which each great race had taken in increasing its
inheritance. We have, in fact, ample grounds for assuming an interchange, not
only of commercial products, but, in a minor degree, of ideas within areas
geographically connected; and it is surely not derogatory to any Hebrew writer
to suggest that he may have adopted, and used for his own purposes, conceptions
current among his contemporaries. In other words, the vehicle of religious ideas
may well be of composite origin; and, in the course of our study of early Hebrew
tradition, I suggest that we hold ourselves justified in applying the
comparative method to some at any rate of the ingredients which went to form the
finished product. The process is purely literary, but it finds an analogy in the
study of Semitic art, especially in the later periods. And I think it will make
my meaning clearer if we consider for a moment a few examples of sculpture
produced by races of Semitic origin. I do not suggest that we should regard the
one process as in any way proving the existence of the other. We should rather
treat the comparison as illustrating in another medium the effect of forces
which, it is clear, were operative at various periods upon races of the same
stock from which the Hebrews themselves were descended. In such material
products the eye at once detects the Semite’s readiness to avail himself of
foreign models. In some cases direct borrowing is obvious; in others, to adapt a
metaphor from music, it is possible to trace extraneous /motifs/ in the
design.[2]

[1] "New Archaeological Lights on the Origins of Civilization in Europe,"
British Association, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1916.

[2] The necessary omission of plates, representing the slides shown in the
lectures, has involved a recasting of most passages in which points of
archaeological detail were discussed; see Preface. But the following paragraphs
have been retained as the majority of the monuments referred to are well known.

Some of the most famous monuments of Semitic art date from the Persian and
Hellenistic periods, and if we glance at them in this connexion it is in order
to illustrate during its most obvious phase a tendency of which the earlier
effects are less pronounced. In the sarcophagus of the Sidonian king Eshmu-`azar
II, which is preserved in the Louvre,[1] we have indeed a monument to which no
Semitic sculptor can lay claim. Workmanship and material are Egyptian, and there
is no doubt that it was sculptured in Egypt and transported to Sidon by sea. But
the king’s own engravers added the long Phoenician inscription, in which he
adjures princes and men not to open his resting-place since there are no jewels
therein, concluding with some potent curses against any violation of his tomb.
One of the latter implores the holy gods to deliver such violators up "to a
mighty prince who shall rule over them", and was probably suggested by
Alexander’s recent occupation of Sidon in 332 B.C. after his reduction and
drastic punishment of Tyre. King Eshmun-`zar was not unique in his choice of
burial in an Egyptian coffin, for he merely followed the example of his royal
father, Tabnîth, "priest of `Ashtart and king of the Sidonians", whose
sarcophagus, preserved at Constantinople, still bears in addition to his own
epitaph that of its former occupant, a certain Egyptian general Penptah. But
more instructive than these borrowed memorials is a genuine example of
Phoenician work, the stele set up by Yehaw-milk, king of Byblos, and dating from
the fourth or fifth century B.C.[2] In the sculptured panel at the head of the
stele the king is represented in the Persian dress of the period standing in the
presence of `Ashtart or Astarte, his "Lady, Mistress of Byblos". There is no
doubt that the stele is of native workmanship, but the influence of Egypt may be
seen in the technique of the carving, in the winged disk above the figures, and
still more in the representation of the goddess in her character as the Egyptian
Hathor, with disk and horns, vulture head-dress and papyrus-sceptre. The
inscription records the dedication of an altar and shrine to the goddess, and
these too we may conjecture were fashioned on Egyptian lines.

[1] /Corp. Inscr. Semit./, I. i, tab. II.

[2] /C.I.S./, I. i, tab. I. The representation of Semitic deities under Egyptian
forms and with Egyptian attributes was encouraged by the introduction of their
cults into Egypt itself. In addition to Astarte of Byblos, Ba`al, Anath, and
Reshef were all borrowed from Syria in comparatively early times and given
Egyptian characters. The conical Syrian helmet of Reshef, a god of war and
thunder, gradually gave place to the white Egyptian crown, so that as Reshpu he
was represented as a royal warrior; and Qadesh, another form of Astarte,
becoming popular with Egyptian women as a patroness of love and fecundity, was
also sometimes modelled on Hathor.[1]

[1] See W. Max Müller, /Egyptological Researches/, I, p. 32 f., pl. 41, and S.
A. Cook, /Religion of Ancient Palestine/, pp. 83 ff.

Semitic colonists on the Egyptian border were ever ready to adopt Egyptian
symbolism in delineating the native gods to whom they owed allegiance, and a
particularly striking example of this may be seen on a stele of the Persian
period preserved in the Cairo Museum.[1] It was found at Tell Defenneh, on the
right bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, close to the old Egyptian highway
into Syria, a site which may be identified with that of the biblical Tahpanhes
and the Daphnae of the Greeks. Here it was that the Jewish fugitives, fleeing
with Jeremiah after the fall of Jerusalem, founded a Jewish colony beside a
flourishing Phoenician and Aramaean settlement. One of the local gods of
Tahpanhes is represented on the Cairo monument, an Egyptian stele in the form of
a naos with the winged solar disk upon its frieze. He stands on the back of a
lion and is clothed in Asiatic costume with the high Syrian tiara crowning his
abundant hair. The Syrian workmanship is obvious, and the Syrian character of
the cult may be recognized in such details as the small brazen fire-altar before
the god, and the sacred pillar which is being anointed by the officiating
priest. But the god holds in his left hand a purely Egyptian sceptre and in his
right an emblem as purely Babylonian, the weapon of Marduk and Gilgamesh which
was also wielded by early Sumerian kings.

[1] Müller, op. cit., p. 30 f., pl. 40. Numismatic evidence exhibits a similar
readiness on the part of local Syrian cults to adopt the veneer of Hellenistic
civilization while retaining in great measure their own individuality; see Hill,
"Some Palestinian Cults in the Graeco-Roman Age", in /Proceedings of the British
Academy/, Vol. V (1912). The Elephantine papyri have shown that the early Jews
of the Diaspora, though untrammeled by the orthodoxy of Jerusalem, maintained
the purity of their local cult in the face of considerable difficulties. Hence
the gravestones of their Aramaean contemporaries, which have been found in
Egypt, can only be cited to illustrate the temptations to which they were
exposed.[1] Such was the memorial erected by Abseli to the memory of his
parents, Abbâ and Ahatbû, in the fourth year of Xerxes, 481 B.C.[2] They had
evidently adopted the religion of Osiris, and were buried at Saqqârah in
accordance with the Egyptian rites. The upper scene engraved upon the stele
represents Abbâ and his wife in the presence of Osiris, who is attended by Isis
and Nephthys; and in the lower panel is the funeral scene, in which all the
mourners with one exception are Asiatics. Certain details of the rites that are
represented, and mistakes in the hieroglyphic version of the text, prove that
the work is Aramaean throughout.[3]

[1] It may be admitted that the Greek platonized cult of Isis and Osiris had its
origin in the fusion of Greeks and Egyptians which took place in Ptolemaic times
(cf. Scott-Moncrieff, /Paganism and Christianity in Egypt/, p. 33 f.). But we
may assume that already in the Persian period the Osiris cult had begun to
acquire a tinge of mysticism, which, though it did not affect the mechanical
reproduction of the native texts, appealed to the Oriental mind as well as to
certain elements in Greek religion. Persian influence probably prepared the way
for the Platonic exegesis of the Osiris and Isis legends which we find in
Plutarch; and the latter may have been in great measure a development, and not,
as is often assumed, a complete misunderstanding of the later Egyptian cult.

[2] /C.I.S./, II. i, tab. XI, No. 122.

[3] A very similar monument is the Carpentras Stele (/C.I.S./, II., i, tab.
XIII, No. 141), commemorating Taba, daughter of Tahapi, an Aramaean lady who was
also a convert to Osiris. It is rather later than that of Abbâ and his wife,
since the Aramaic characters are transitional from the archaic to the square
alphabet; see Driver, /Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel/, pp.
xviii ff., and Cooke, /North Semitic Inscriptions/, p. 205 f. The Vatican Stele
(op. cit. tab. XIV. No. 142), which dates from the fourth century, represents
inferior work.

If our examples of Semitic art were confined to the Persian and later periods,
they could only be employed to throw light on their own epoch, when through
communication had been organized, and there was consequently a certain pooling
of commercial and artistic products throughout the empire.[1] It is true that
under the Great King the various petty states and provinces were encouraged to
manage their own affairs so long as they paid the required tribute, but their
horizon naturally expanded with increase of commerce and the necessity for
service in the king’s armies. At this time Aramaic was the speech of Syria, and
the population, especially in the cities, was still largely Aramaean. As early
as the thirteenth century sections of this interesting Semitic race had begun to
press into Northern Syria from the middle Euphrates, and they absorbed not only
the old Canaanite population but also the Hittite immigrants from Cappadocia.
The latter indeed may for a time have furnished rulers to the vigorous North
Syrian principalities which resulted from this racial combination, but the
Aramaean element, thanks to continual reinforcement, was numerically dominant,
and their art may legitimately be regarded as in great measure a Semitic
product. Fortunately we have recovered examples of sculpture which prove that
tendencies already noted in the Persian period were at work, though in a minor
degree, under the later

Assyrian empire. The discoveries made at Zenjirli, for example, illustrate the
gradually increasing effect of Assyrian influence upon the artistic output of a
small North Syrian state.

[1] Cf. Bevan, /House of Seleucus/, Vol. I, pp. 5, 260 f. The artistic influence
of Mesopotamia was even more widely spread than that of Egypt during the Persian
period. This is suggested, for example, by the famous lion-weight discovered at
Abydos in Mysia, the town on the Hellespont famed for the loves of Hero and
Leander. The letters of its Aramaic inscription (/C.I.S./, II. i, tab. VII, No.
108) prove by their form that it dates from the Persian period, and its
provenance is sufficiently attested. Its weight moreover suggests that it was
not merely a Babylonian or Persian importation, but cast for local use, yet in
design and technique it is scarcely distinguishable from the best Assyrian work
of the seventh century. This village in north-western Syria, on the road between
Antioch and Mar`ash, marks the site of a town which lay near the southern border
or just within the Syrian district of Sam’al. The latter is first mentioned in
the Assyrian inscriptions by Shalmaneser III, the son and successor of the great
conqueror, Ashur-nasir-pal; and in the first half of the eighth century, though
within the radius of Assyrian influence, it was still an independent kingdom. It
is to this period that we must assign the earliest of the inscribed monuments
discovered at Zenjirli and its neighbourhood. At Gerjin, not far to the
north-west, was found the colossal statue of Hadad, chief god of the Aramaeans,
which was fashioned and set up in his honour by Panammu I, son of Qaral and king
of Ya’di.[1] In the long Aramaic inscription engraved upon the statue Panammu
records the prosperity of his reign, which he ascribes to the support he has
received from Hadad and his other gods, El, Reshef, Rekub-el, and Shamash. He
had evidently been left in peace by Assyria, and the monument he erected to his
god is of

Aramaean workmanship and design. But the influence of Assyria may be traced in
Hadad’s beard and in his horned head-dress, modelled on that worn by Babylonian
and Assyrian gods as the symbol of divine power.

[1] See F. von Luschan, /Sendschirli/, I. (1893), pp. 49 ff., pl. vi; and cf.
Cooke, /North Sem. Inscr./, pp. 159 ff. The characters of the inscription on the
statue are of the same archaic type as those of the Moabite Stone, though unlike
them they are engraved in relief; so too are the inscriptions of Panammu’s later
successor Bar-rekub (see below). Gerjin was certainly in Ya’di, and Winckler’s
suggestion that Zenjirli itself also lay in that district but near the border of
Sam’al may be provisionally accepted; the occurrence of the names in the
inscriptions can be explained in more than one way (see Cooke, op. cit., p.
183). The political changes introduced into Ya’di and Sam’al by Tiglath-pileser
IV are reflected in the inscriptions and monuments of Bar-rekub, a later king of
the district. Internal strife had brought disaster upon Ya’di and the throne had
been secured by Panammu II, son of Bar-sur, whose claims received Assyrian
support. In the words of his son Bar-rekub, "he laid hold of the skirt of his
lord, the king of Assyria", who was gracious to him; and it was probably at this
time, and as a reward for his loyalty, that Ya’di was united with the
neighbouring district of Sam’al. But Panammu’s devotion to his foreign master
led to his death, for he died at the siege of Damascus, in 733 or 732 B.C., "in
the camp, while following his lord, Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria". His
kinsfolk and the whole camp bewailed him, and his body was sent back to Ya’di,
where it was interred by his son, who set up an inscribed statue to his memory.
Bar-rekub followed in his father’s footsteps, as he leads us to infer in his
palace-inscription found at Zenjirli: "I ran at the wheel of my lord, the king
of Assyria, in the midst of mighty kings, possessors of silver and possessors of
gold." It is not strange therefore that his art should reflect Assyrian
influence far more strikingly than that of Panammu I. The figure of himself
which he caused to be carved in relief on the left side of the
palace-inscription is in the Assyrian style,[1] and so too is another of his
reliefs from Zenjirli. On the latter Bar-rekub is represented seated upon his
throne with eunuch and scribe in attendance, while in the field is the emblem of
full moon and crescent, here ascribed to "Ba`al of Harran", the famous centre of
moon-worship in Northern Mesopotamia.[2]

[1] /Sendschirli/, IV (1911), pl. lxvii. Attitude and treatment of robes are
both Assyrian, and so is the arrangement of divine symbols in the upper field,
though some of the latter are given under unfamiliar forms. The king’s
close-fitting peaked cap was evidently the royal headdress of Sam’al; see the
royal figure on a smaller stele of inferior design, op. cit., pl. lxvi.

[2] Op. cit. pp. 257, 346 ff., and pl. lx. The general style of the sculpture
and much of the detail are obviously Assyrian. Assyrian influence is
particularly noticeable in Bar-rekub’s throne; the details of its decoration are
precisely similar to those of an Assyrian bronze throne in the British Museum.
The full moon and crescent are not of the familiar form, but are mounted on a
standard with tassels. The detailed history and artistic development of Sam’al
and Ya’di convey a very vivid impression of the social and material effects upon
the native population of Syria, which followed the westward advance of Assyria
in the eighth century. We realize not only the readiness of one party in the
state to defeat its rival with the help of Assyrian support, but also the manner
in which the life and activities of the nation as a whole were unavoidably
affected by their action. Other Hittite-Aramaean and Phoenician monuments, as
yet undocumented with literary records, exhibit a strange but not unpleasing
mixture of foreign /motifs/, such as we see on the stele from Amrith[1] in the
inland district of Arvad. But perhaps the most remarkable example of Syrian art
we possess is the king’s gate recently discovered at Carchemish.[2] The presence
of the hieroglyphic inscriptions points to the survival of Hittite tradition,
but the figures represented in the reliefs are of Aramaean, not Hittite, type.
Here the king is seen leading his eldest son by the hand in some stately
ceremonial, and ranged in registers behind them are the younger members of the
royal family, whose ages are indicated by their occupations.[3] The employment
of basalt in place of limestone does not disguise the sculptor’s debt to
Assyria. But the design is entirely his own, and the combined dignity and
homeliness of the composition are refreshingly superior to the arrogant spirit
and hard execution which mar so much Assyrian work. This example is particularly
instructive, as it shows how a borrowed art may be developed in skilled hands
and made to serve a purpose in complete harmony with its new environment.

[1] /Collection de Clercq/, t. II, pl. xxxvi. The stele is sculptured in relief
with the figure of a North Syrian god. Here the winged disk is Egyptian, as well
as the god’s helmet with uraeus, and his loin-cloth; his attitude and his
supporting lion are Hittite; and the lozenge-mountains, on which the lion
stands, and the technique of the carving are Assyrian. But in spite of its
composite character the design is quite successful and not in the least
incongruous.

[2] Hogarth, /Carchemish/, Pt. I (1914), pl. B. 7 f.

[3] Two of the older boys play at knuckle-bones, others whip spinning-tops, and
a little naked girl runs behind supporting herself with a stick, on the head of
which is carved a bird. The procession is brought up by the queen-mother, who
carries the youngest baby and leads a pet lamb.

Such monuments surely illustrate the adaptability of the Semitic craftsman among
men of Phoenician and Aramaean strain. Excavation in Palestine has failed to
furnish examples of Hebrew work. But Hebrew tradition itself justifies us in
regarding this /trait/ as of more general application, or at any rate as not
repugnant to Hebrew thought, when it relates that Solomon employed Tyrian
craftsmen for work upon the Temple and its furniture; for Phoenician art was
essentially Egyptian in its origin and general character. Even Eshmun-`zar’s
desire for burial in an Egyptian sarcophagus may be paralleled in Hebrew
tradition of a much earlier period, when, in Genesis 50:26,[1] it is recorded
that Joseph died, "and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt".
Since it formed the subject of prophetic denunciation, I refrain for the moment
from citing the notorious adoption of Assyrian customs at certain periods of the
later Judaean monarchy. The two records I have referred to will suffice, for we
have in them cherished traditions, of which the Hebrews themselves were proud,
concerning the most famous example of Hebrew religious architecture and the
burial of one of the patriarchs of the race. A similar readiness to make use of
the best available resources, even of foreign origin, may on analogy be regarded
as at least possible in the composition of Hebrew literature.

[1] Gen. l. 26, assigned by critics to E.

We shall see that the problems we have to face concern the possible influence of
Babylon, rather than of Egypt, upon Hebrew tradition. And one last example,
drawn from the later period, will serve to demonstrate how Babylonian influence
penetrated the ancient world and has even left some trace upon modern
civilization. It is a fact, though one perhaps not generally realized, that the
twelve divisions on the dials of our clocks and watches have a Babylonian, and
ultimately a Sumerian, ancestry. For why is it we divide the day into
twenty-four hours? We have a decimal system of reckoning, we count by tens; why
then should we divide the day and night into twelve hours each, instead of into
ten or some multiple of ten? The reason is that the Babylonians divided the day
into twelve double-hours; and the Greeks took over their ancient system of
time-division along with their knowledge of astronomy and passed it on to us. So
if we ourselves, after more than two thousand years, are making use of an old
custom from Babylon, it would not be surprising if the Hebrews, a contemporary
race, should have fallen under her influence even before they were carried away
as captives and settled forcibly upon her river-banks.

We may pass on, then, to the site from which our new material has been
obtained--the ancient city of Nippur, in central Babylonia. Though the place has
been deserted for at least nine hundred years, its ancient name still lingers on
in local tradition, and to this day /Niffer/ or /Nuffar/ is the name the Arabs
give the mounds which cover its extensive ruins. No modern town or village has
been built upon them or in their immediate neighbourhood. The nearest
considerable town is Dîwânîyah, on the left bank of the Hillah branch of the
Euphrates, twenty miles to the south-west; but some four miles to the south of
the ruins is the village of Sûq el-`Afej, on the eastern edge of the `Afej
marshes, which begin to the south of Nippur and stretch away westward. Protected
by its swamps, the region contains a few primitive settlements of the wild `Afej
tribesmen, each a group of reed-huts clustering around the mud fort of its
ruling sheikh. Their chief enemies are the Shammâr, who dispute with them
possession of the pastures. In summer the marshes near the mounds are merely
pools of water connected by channels through the reed-beds, but in spring the
flood-water converts them into a vast lagoon, and all that meets the eye are a
few small hamlets built on rising knolls above the water-level. Thus Nippur may
be almost isolated during the floods, but the mounds are protected from the
waters’ encroachment by an outer ring of former habitation which has slightly
raised the level of the encircling area. The ruins of the city stand from thirty
to seventy feet above the plain, and in the north-eastern corner there rose,
before the excavations, a conical mound, known by the Arabs as /Bint el-Emîr/ or
"The Princess". This prominent landmark represents the temple-tower of Enlil’s
famous sanctuary, and even after excavation it is still the first object that
the approaching traveller sees on the horizon. When he has climbed its summit he
enjoys an uninterrupted view over desert and swamp. The cause of Nippur’s
present desolation is to be traced to the change in the bed of the Euphrates,
which now lies far to the west. But in antiquity the stream flowed through the
centre of the city, along the dry bed of the Shatt en-Nîl, which divides the
mounds into an eastern and a western group. The latter covers the remains of the
city proper and was occupied in part by the great business-houses and bazaars.
Here more than thirty thousand contracts and accounts, dating from the fourth
millennium to the fifth century B.C., were found in houses along the former
river-bank. In the eastern half of the city was Enlil’s great temple Ekur, with
its temple-tower Imkharsag rising in successive stages beside it. The huge
temple-enclosure contained not only the sacrificial shrines, but also the
priests’ apartments, store-chambers, and temple-magazines. Outside its enclosing
wall, to the south-west, a large triangular mound, christened "Tablet Hill" by
the excavators, yielded a further supply of records. In addition to
business-documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon and of the later Assyrian,
Neo-Babylonian, and Persian periods, between two and three thousand literary
texts and fragments were discovered here, many of them dating from the Sumerian
period. And it is possible that some of the early literary texts that have been
published were obtained in other parts of the city. No less than twenty-one
different strata, representing separate periods of occupation, have been noted
by the American excavators at various levels within the Nippur mounds,[1] the
earliest descending to virgin soil some twenty feet below the present level of
the surrounding plain. The remote date of Nippur’s foundation as a city and
cult-centre is attested by the fact that the pavement laid by Narâm-Sin in the
south-eastern temple-court lies thirty feet above virgin soil, while only
thirty-six feet of superimposed /débris/ represent the succeeding millennia of
occupation down to Sassanian and early Arab times. In the period of the Hebrew
captivity the city still ranked as a great commercial market and as one of the
most sacred repositories of Babylonian religious tradition. We know that not far
off was Tel-abib, the seat of one of the colonies of Jewish exiles, for that lay
"by the river of Chebar",[2] which we may identify with the Kabaru Canal in
Nippur’s immediate neighbourhood. It was "among the captives by the river
Chebar" that Ezekiel lived and prophesied, and it was on Chebar’s banks that he
saw his first vision of the Cherubim.[3] He and other of the Jewish exiles may
perhaps have mingled with the motley crowd that once thronged the streets of
Nippur, and they may often have gazed on the huge temple-tower which rose above
the city’s flat roofs. We know that the later population of Nippur itself
included a considerable Jewish element, for the upper strata of the mounds have
yielded numerous clay bowls with Hebrew, Mandaean, and Syriac magical
inscriptions;[4] and not the least interesting of the objects recovered was the
wooden box of a Jewish scribe, containing his pen and ink-vessel and a little
scrap of crumbling parchment inscribed with a few Hebrew characters.[5]

[1] See Hilprecht, /Explorations in Bible Lands/, pp. 289 ff., 540 ff.; and
Fisher, /Excavations at Nippur/, Pt. I (1905), Pt. II (1906).

[2] Ezekiel 3:15.

[3] Ezekiel 1:1, Ezekiel 1:3, Ezekiel 3:23; and cf. Ezekiel 10:15, Ezekiel
10:20, Ezekiel 10:22, and Ezekiel 43:3.

[4] See J. A. Montgomery, /Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur/, 1913 [5]
Hilprecht, /Explorations/, p. 555 f. Of the many thousands of inscribed clay
tablets which were found in the course of the expeditions, some were kept at
Constantinople, while others were presented by the Sultan Abdul Hamid to the
excavators, who had them conveyed to America. Since that time a large number
have been published. The work was necessarily slow, for many of the texts were
found to be in an extremely bad state of preservation. So it happened that a
great number of the boxes containing tablets remained until recently still
packed up in the store-rooms of the Pennsylvania Museum. But under the present
energetic Director of the Museum, Dr. G. B. Gordon, the process of arranging and
publishing the mass of literary material has been "speeded up". A staff of
skilled workmen has been employed on the laborious task of cleaning the broken
tablets and fitting the fragments together. At the same time the help of several
Assyriologists was welcomed in the further task of running over and sorting the
collections as they were prepared for study. Professor Clay, Professor Barton,
Dr. Langdon, Dr. Edward Chiera, and Dr. Arno Poebel have all participated in the
work. But the lion’s share has fallen to the last-named scholar, who was given
leave of absence by John Hopkins University in order to take up a temporary
appointment at the Pennsylvania Museum. The result of his labours was published
by the Museum at the end of 1914.[1] The texts thus made available for study are
of very varied interest. A great body of them are grammatical and represent
compilations made by Semitic scribes of the period of Hammurabi’s dynasty for
their study of the old Sumerian tongue. Containing, as most of them do, Semitic
renderings of the

Sumerian words and expressions collected, they are as great a help to us in our
study of Sumerian language as they were to their compilers; in particular they
have thrown much new light on the paradigms of the demonstrative and personal
pronouns and on Sumerian verbal forms. But literary texts are also included in
the recent publications.

[1] Poebel, /Historical Texts/ and /Historical and Grammatical Texts/ (Univ. of
Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, and Vol. V), Philadelphia, 1914.
When the Pennsylvania Museum sent out its first expedition, lively hopes were
entertained that the site selected would yield material of interest from the
biblical standpoint. The city of Nippur, as we have seen, was one of the most
sacred and most ancient religious centres in the country, and Enlil, its
city-god, was the head of the Babylonian pantheon. On such a site it seemed
likely that we might find versions of the Babylonian legends which were current
at the dawn of history before the city of Babylonia and its Semitic inhabitants
came upon the scene. This expectation has proved to be not unfounded, for the
literary texts include the Sumerian Deluge Version and Creation myth to which I
referred at the beginning of the lecture. Other texts of almost equal interest
consist of early though fragmentary lists of historical and semi-mythical
rulers. They prove that Berossus and the later Babylonians depended on material
of quite early origin in compiling their dynasties of semi-mythical kings. In
them we obtain a glimpse of ages more remote than any on which excavation in
Babylonia has yet thrown light, and for the first time we have recovered genuine
native tradition of early date with regard to the cradle of Babylonian culture.
Before we approach the Sumerian legends themselves, it will be as well to-day to
trace back in this tradition the gradual merging of history into legend and
myth, comparing at the same time the ancient Egyptian’s picture of his own
remote past. We will also ascertain whether any new light is thrown by our
inquiry upon Hebrew traditions concerning the earliest history of the human race
and the origins of civilization. In the study of both Egyptian and Babylonian
chronology there has been a tendency of late years to reduce the very early
dates that were formerly in fashion. But in Egypt, while the dynasties of
Manetho have been telescoped in places, excavation has thrown light on
predynastic periods, and we can now trace the history of culture in the Nile
Valley back, through an unbroken sequence, to its neolithic stage. Quite
recently, too, as I mentioned just now, a fresh literary record of these early
predynastic periods has been recovered, on a fragment of the famous Palermo
Stele, our most valuable monument for early Egyptian history and chronology.
Egypt presents a striking contrast to Babylonia in the comparatively small
number of written records which have survived for the reconstruction of her
history. We might well spare much of her religious literature, enshrined in
endless temple-inscriptions and papyri, if we could but exchange it for some of
the royal annals of Egyptian Pharaohs. That historical records of this character
were compiled by the Egyptian scribes, and that they were as detailed and
precise in their information as those we have recovered from Assyrian sources,
is clear from the few extracts from the annals of Thothmes III’s wars which are
engraved on the walls of the temple at Karnak.[1] As in Babylonia and Assyria,
such records must have formed the foundation on which summaries of chronicles of
past Egyptian history were based. In the Palermo Stele it is recognized that we
possess a primitive chronicle of this character.

[1] See Breasted, /Ancient Records/, I, p. 4, II, pp. 163 ff.

Drawn up as early as the Vth Dynasty, its historical summary proves that from
the beginning of the dynastic age onward a yearly record was kept of the most
important achievements of the reigning Pharaoh. In this fragmentary but
invaluable epitome, recording in outline much of the history of the Old
Kingdom,[1] some interesting parallels have long been noted with Babylonian
usage. The early system of time-reckoning, for example, was the same in both
countries, each year being given an official title from the chief event that
occurred in it. And although in Babylonia we are still without material for
tracing the process by which this cumbrous method gave place to that of
reckoning by regnal years, the Palermo Stele demonstrates the way in which the
latter system was evolved in Egypt. For the events from which the year was named
came gradually to be confined to the fiscal "numberings" of cattle and land. And
when these, which at first had taken place at comparatively long intervals, had
become annual events, the numbered sequence of their occurrence corresponded
precisely to the years of the king’s reign. On the stele, during the dynastic
period, each regnal year is allotted its own space or rectangle,[2] arranged in
horizontal sequence below the name and titles of the ruling king.

[1] Op. cit., I, pp. 57 ff.

[2] The spaces are not strictly rectangles, as each is divided vertically from
the next by the Egyptian hieroglyph for "year". The text, which is engraved on
both sides of a great block of black basalt, takes its name from the fact that
the fragment hitherto known has been preserved since 1877 at the Museum of
Palermo. Five other fragments of the text have now been published, of which one
undoubtedly belongs to the same monument as the Palermo fragment, while the
others may represent parts of one or more duplicate copies of that famous text.
One of the four Cairo fragments[1] was found by a digger for /sebakh/ at
Mitrahîneh (Memphis); the other three, which were purchased from a dealer, are
said to have come from Minieh, while the fifth fragment, at University College,
is also said to have come from Upper Egypt,[2] though it was purchased by
Professor Petrie while at Memphis. These reports suggest that a number of
duplicate copies were engraved and set up in different Egyptian towns, and it is
possible that the whole of the text may eventually be recovered. The choice of
basalt for the records was obviously dictated by a desire for their
preservation, but it has had the contrary effect; for the blocks of this hard
and precious stone have been cut up and reused in later times. The largest and
most interesting of the new fragments has evidently been employed as a
door-sill, with the result that its surface is much rubbed and parts of its text
are unfortunately almost undecipherable. We shall see that the earliest section
of its record has an important bearing on our knowledge of Egyptian predynastic
history and on the traditions of that remote period which have come down to us
from the history of Manetho.

[1] See Gautier, /Le Musée Égyptien/, III (1915), pp. 29 ff., pl. xxiv ff., and
Foucart, /Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale/, XII, ii
(1916), pp. 161 ff.; and cf. Gardiner, /Journ. of Egypt. Arch./, III, pp. 143
ff., and Petrie, /Ancient Egypt/, 1916, Pt. III, pp. 114 ff.

[2] Cf. Petrie, op. cit., pp. 115, 120. From the fragment of the stele preserved
at Palermo we already knew that its record went back beyond the Ist Dynasty into
predynastic times. For part of the top band of the inscription, which is there
preserved, contains nine names borne by kings of Lower Egypt or the Delta,
which, it had been conjectured, must follow the gods of Manetho and precede the
"Worshippers of Horus", the immediate predecessors of the Egyptian dynasties.[1]
But of contemporary rulers of Upper Egypt we had hitherto no knowledge, since
the supposed royal names discovered at Abydos and assigned to the time of the
"Worshippers of Horus" are probably not royal names at all.[2] With the possible
exception of two very archaic slate palettes, the first historical memorials
recovered from the south do not date from an earlier period than the beginning
of the Ist Dynasty. The largest of the Cairo fragments now helps us to fill in
this gap in our knowledge.

[1] See Breasted, /Anc. Rec./, I, pp. 52, 57.

[2] Cf. Hall, /Ancient History of the Near East/, p. 99 f. On the top of the new
fragment[1] we meet the same band of rectangles as at Palermo,[2] but here their
upper portions are broken away, and there only remains at the base of each of
them the outlined figure of a royal personage, seated in the same attitude as
those on the Palermo stone. The remarkable fact about these figures is that,
with the apparent exception of the third figure from the right,[3] each wears,
not the Crown of the North, as at Palermo, but the Crown of the South. We have
then to do with kings of Upper Egypt, not the Delta, and it is no longer
possible to suppose that the predynastic rulers of the

Palermo Stele were confined to those of Lower Egypt, as reflecting northern
tradition. Rulers of both halves of the country are represented, and Monsieur
Gautier has shown,[4] from data on the reverse of the inscription, that the
kings of the Delta were arranged on the original stone before the rulers of the
south who are outlined upon our new fragment. Moreover, we have now recovered
definite proof that this band of the inscription is concerned with predynastic

Egyptian princes; for the cartouche of the king, whose years are enumerated in
the second band immediately below the kings of the south, reads Athet, a name we
may with certainty identify with Athothes, the second successor of Menes,
founder of the Ist Dynasty, which is already given under the form Ateth in the
Abydos List of Kings.[5] It is thus quite certain that the first band of the
inscription relates to the earlier periods before the two halves of the country
were brought together under a single ruler.

[1] Cairo No. 1; see Gautier, /Mus. Égypt./, III, pl. xxiv f.

[2] In this upper band the spaces are true rectangles, being separated by
vertical lines, not by the hieroglyph for "year" as in the lower bands; and each
rectangle is assigned to a separate king, and not, as in the other bands, to a
year of a king’s reign.

[3] The difference in the crown worn by this figure is probably only apparent
and not intentional; M. Foucart, after a careful examination of the fragment,
concludes that it is due to subsequent damage or to an original defect in the
stone; cf. /Bulletin/, XII, ii, p. 162.

[4] Op. cit., p. 32 f.

[5] In Manetho’s list he corresponds to {Kenkenos}, the second successor of
Menes according to both Africanus and Eusebius, who assign the name Athothis to
the second ruler of the dynasty only, the Teta of the Abydos List. The form
Athothes is preserved by Eratosthenes for both of Menes’ immediate successors.

Though the tradition of these remote times is here recorded on a monument of the
Vth Dynasty, there is no reason to doubt its general accuracy, or to suppose
that we are dealing with purely mythological personages. It is perhaps possible,
as Monsieur Foucart suggests, that missing portions of the text may have carried
the record back through purely mythical periods to Ptah and the Creation. In
that case we should have, as we shall see, a striking parallel to early Sumerian
tradition. But in the first extant portions of the Palermo text we are already
in the realm of genuine tradition. The names preserved appear to be those of
individuals, not of mythological creations, and we may assume that their owners
really existed. For though the invention of writing had not at that time been
achieved, its place was probably taken by oral tradition. We know that with
certain tribes of Africa at the present day, who possess no knowledge of
writing, there are functionaries charged with the duty of preserving tribal
traditions, who transmit orally to their successors a remembrance of past chiefs
and some details of events that occurred centuries before.[1] The predynastic
Egyptians may well have adopted similar means for preserving a remembrance of
their past history.

[1] M. Foucart illustrates this point by citing the case of the Bushongos, who
have in this way preserved a list of no less than a hundred and twenty-one of
their past kings; op. cit., p. 182, and cf. Tordey and Joyce, "Les Bushongos",
in /Annales du Musée du Congo Belge/, sér. III, t. II, fasc. i (Brussels, 1911).

Moreover, the new text furnishes fresh proof of the general accuracy of Manetho,
even when dealing with traditions of this prehistoric age. On the stele there is
no definite indication that these two sets of predynastic kings were
contemporaneous rulers of Lower and Upper Egypt respectively; and since
elsewhere the lists assign a single sovereign to each epoch, it has been
suggested that we should regard them as successive representatives of the
legitimate kingdom.[1] Now Manetho, after his dynasties of gods and demi-gods,
states that thirty Memphite kings reigned for 1,790 years, and were followed by
ten Thinite kings whose reigns covered a period of 350 years. Neglecting the
figures as obviously erroneous, we may well admit that the Greek historian here
alludes to our two pre-Menite dynasties. But the fact that he should regard them
as ruling consecutively does not preclude the other alternative. The modern
convention of arranging lines of contemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had
not been evolved in antiquity, and without some such method of distinction
contemporaneous rulers, when enumerated in a list, can only be registered
consecutively. It would be natural to assume that, before the unification of
Egypt by the founder of the Ist Dynasty, the rulers of North and South were
independent princes, possessing no traditions of a united throne on which any
claim to hegemony could be based. On the assumption that this was so, their
arrangement in a consecutive series would not have deceived their immediate
successors. But it would undoubtedly tend in course of time to obliterate the
tradition of their true order, which even at the period of the Vth Dynasty may
have been completely forgotten. Manetho would thus have introduced no strange or
novel confusion; and this explanation would of course apply to other sections of
his system where the dynasties he enumerates appear to be too many for their
period. But his reproduction of two lines of predynastic rulers, supported as it
now is by the early evidence of the Palermo text, only serves to increase our
confidence in the general accuracy of his sources, while at the same time it
illustrates very effectively the way in which possible inaccuracies, deduced
from independent data, may have arisen in quite early times.

[1] Foucart, loc. cit. In contrast to the dynasties of Manetho, those of
Berossus are so imperfectly preserved that they have never formed the basis of
Babylonian chronology.[1] But here too, in the chronological scheme, a similar
process of reduction has taken place. Certain dynasties, recovered from native
sources and at one time regarded as consecutive, were proved to have been
contemporaneous; and archaeological evidence suggested that some of the great
gaps, so freely assumed in the royal sequence, had no right to be there. As a
result, the succession of known rulers was thrown into truer perspective, and
such gaps as remained were being partially filled by later discoveries. Among
the latter the most important find was that of an early list of kings, recently
published by Père Scheil[2] and subsequently purchased by the British Museum
shortly before the war. This had helped us to fill in the gap between the famous
Sargon of Akkad and the later dynasties, but it did not carry us far beyond
Sargon’s own time. Our archaeological evidence also comes suddenly to an end.
Thus the earliest picture we have hitherto obtained of the Sumerians has been
that of a race employing an advanced system of writing and possessed of a
knowledge of metal. We have found, in short, abundant remains of a bronze-age
culture, but no traces of preceding ages of development such as meet us on early
Egyptian sites. It was a natural inference that the advent of the Sumerians in
the Euphrates Valley was sudden, and that they had brought their highly
developed culture with them from some region of Central or Southern Asia.

[1] While the evidence of Herodotus is extraordinarily valuable for the details
he gives of the civilizations of both Egypt and Babylonia, and is especially
full in the case of the former, it is of little practical use for the
chronology. In Egypt his report of the early history is confused, and he hardly
attempts one for Babylonia. It is probable that on such subjects he sometimes
misunderstood his informants, the priests, whose traditions were more accurately
reproduced by the later native writers Manetho and Berossus. For a detailed
comparison of classical authorities in relation to both countries, see Griffith
in Hogarth’s /Authority and Archaeology/, pp. 161 ff.

[2] See /Comptes rendus/, 1911 (Oct.), pp. 606 ff., and /Rev. d’Assyr./, IX
(1912), p. 69. The newly published Nippur documents will cause us to modify that
view. The lists of early kings were themselves drawn up under the Dynasty of
Nîsin in the twenty-second century B.C., and they give us traces of possibly ten
and at least eight other "kingdoms" before the earliest dynasty of the known
lists.[1] One of their novel features is that they include summaries at the end,
in which it is stated how often a city or district enjoyed the privilege of
being the seat of supreme authority in Babylonia. The earliest of their sections
lie within the legendary period, and though in the third dynasty preserved we
begin to note signs of a firmer historical tradition, the great break that then
occurs in the text is at present only bridged by titles of various "kingdoms"
which the summaries give; a few even of these are missing and the relative order
of the rest is not assured. But in spite of their imperfect state of
preservation, these documents are of great historical value and will furnish a
framework for future chronological schemes. Meanwhile we may attribute to some
of the later dynasties titles in complete agreement with Sumerian tradition. The
dynasty of Ur-Engur, for example, which preceded that of Nîsin, becomes, if we
like, the Third Dynasty of Ur. Another important fact which strikes us after a
scrutiny of the early royal names recovered is that, while two or three are
Semitic,[2] the great majority of those borne by the earliest rulers of Kish,
Erech, and Ur are as obviously Sumerian.

[1] See Poebel, /Historical Texts/, pp. 73 ff. and /Historical and Grammatical
Texts/, pl. ii-iv, Nos. 2-5. The best preserved of the lists is No. 2; Nos. 3
and 4 are comparatively small fragments; and of No. 5 the obverse only is here
published for the first time, the contents of the reverse having been made known
some years ago by Hilprecht (cf. /Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological
Tablets/, p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47). The fragments belong to separate copies of
the Sumerian dynastic record, and it happens that the extant portions of their
text in some places cover the same period and are duplicates of one another.

[2] Cf., e.g., two of the earliest kings of Kish, Galumum and Zugagib. The
former is probably the Semitic-Babylonian word /kalumum/, "young animal, lamb,"
the latter /zukakîbum/, "scorpion"; cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 111. The
occurrence of these names points to Semitic infiltration into Northern Babylonia
since the dawn of history, a state of things we should naturally expect. It is
improbable that on this point Sumerian tradition should have merely reflected
the conditions of a later period.

It is clear that in native tradition, current among the Sumerians themselves
before the close of the third millennium, their race was regarded as in
possession of Babylonia since the dawn of history. This at any rate proves that
their advent was not sudden nor comparatively recent, and it further suggests
that Babylonia itself was the cradle of their civilization. It will be the
province of future archaeological research to fill out the missing dynasties and
to determine at what points in the list their strictly historical basis
disappears. Some, which are fortunately preserved near the beginning, bear on
their face their legendary character. But for our purpose they are none the
worse for that. In the first two dynasties, which had their seats at the cities
of Kish and Erech, we see gods mingling with men upon the earth. Tammuz, the god
of vegetation, for whose annual death Ezekiel saw women weeping beside the
Temple at Jerusalem, is here an earthly monarch. He appears to be described as
"a hunter", a phrase which recalls the death of Adonis in Greek mythology.
According to our Sumerian text he reigned in Erech for a hundred years.

Another attractive Babylonian legend is that of Etana, the prototype of Icarus
and hero of the earliest dream of human flight.[1] Clinging to the pinions of
his friend the Eagle he beheld the world and its encircling stream recede
beneath him; and he flew through the gate of heaven, only to fall headlong back
to earth. He is here duly entered in the list, where we read that "Etana, the
shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued all lands", ruled in the city of
Kish for 635 years.

[1] The Egyptian conception of the deceased Pharaoh ascending to heaven as a
falcon and becoming merged into the sun, which first occurs in the Pyramid texts
(see Gardiner in Cumont’s /Études Syriennes/, pp. 109 ff.), belongs to a
different range of ideas. But it may well have been combined with the Etana
tradition to produce the funerary eagle employed so commonly in Roman Syria in
representations of the emperor’s apotheosis (cf. Cumont, op. cit., pp. 37 ff.,
115). The god Lugal-banda is another hero of legend. When the hearts of the
other gods failed them, he alone recovered the Tablets of Fate, stolen by the
bird-god Zû from Enlil’s palace. He is here recorded to have reigned in Erech
for 1,200 years.

Tradition already told us that Erech was the native city of Gilgamesh, the hero
of the national epic, to whom his ancestor Ut-napishtim related the story of the
Flood. Gilgamesh too is in our list, as king of Erech for 126 years.

We have here in fact recovered traditions of Post-diluvian kings. Unfortunately
our list goes no farther back than that, but it is probable that in its original
form it presented a general correspondence to the system preserved from
Berossus, which enumerates ten Antediluvian kings, the last of them Xisuthros,
the hero of the Deluge. Indeed, for the dynastic period, the agreement of these
old Sumerian lists with the chronological system of Berossus is striking. The
latter, according to Syncellus, gives 34,090 or 34,080 years as the total
duration of the historical period, apart from his preceding mythical ages, while
the figure as preserved by Eusebius is 33,091 years.[1] The compiler of one of
our new lists,[2] writing some 1,900 years earlier, reckons that the dynastic
period in his day had lasted for 32,243 years. Of course all these figures are
mythical, and even at the time of the Sumerian Dynasty of Nîsin variant
traditions were current with regard to the number of historical and
semi-mythical kings of Babylonia and the duration of their rule. For the earlier
writer of another of our lists,[3] separated from the one already quoted by an
interval of only sixty-seven years, gives 28,876[4] years as the total duration
of the dynasties at his time. But in spite of these discrepancies, the general
resemblance presented by the huge totals in the variant copies of the list to
the alternative figures of Berossus, if we ignore his mythical period, is
remarkable. They indicate a far closer correspondence of the Greek tradition
with that of the early Sumerians themselves than was formerly suspected.

[1] The figure 34,090 is that given by Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p. 147); but it
is 34,080 in the equivalent which is added in "sars", &c. The discrepancy is
explained by some as due to an intentional omission of the units in the second
reckoning; others would regard 34,080 as the correct figure (cf. /Hist. of
Bab./, p. 114 f.). The reading of ninety against eighty is supported by the
33,091 of Eusebius (/Chron. lib. pri./, ed. Schoene, col. 25).

[2] No. 4.

[3] No. 2.

[4] The figures are broken, but the reading given may be accepted with some
confidence; see Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 103.

Further proof of this correspondence may be seen in the fact that the new
Sumerian Version of the Deluge Story, which I propose to discuss in the second
lecture, gives us a connected account of the world’s history down to that point.
The Deluge hero is there a Sumerian king named Ziusudu, ruling in one of the
newly created cities of Babylonia and ministering at the shrine of his city-god.
He is continually given the royal title, and the foundation of the Babylonian
"kingdom" is treated as an essential part of Creation. We may therefore assume
that an Antediluvian period existed in Sumerian tradition as in Berossus.[1] And
I think Dr. Poebel is right in assuming that the Nippur copies of the Dynastic
List begin with the Post-diluvian period.[2]

[1] Of course it does not necessarily follow that the figure assigned to the
duration of the Antediluvian or mythical period by the Sumerians would show so
close a resemblance to that of Berossus as we have already noted in their
estimates of the dynastic or historical period. But there is no need to assume
that Berossus’ huge total of a hundred and twenty "sars" (432,000 years) is
entirely a product of Neo-Babylonian speculation; the total 432,000 is explained
as representing ten months of a cosmic year, each month consisting of twelve
"sars", i.e. 12 x 3600 = 43,200 years. The Sumerians themselves had no
difficulty in picturing two of their dynastic rulers as each reigning for two
"ners" (1,200 years), and it would not be unlikely that "sars" were distributed
among still earlier rulers; the numbers were easily written. For the unequal
distribution of his hundred and twenty "sars" by Berossus among his ten
Antediluvian kings, see Appendix II.

[2] The exclusion of the Antediluvian period from the list may perhaps be
explained on the assumption that its compiler confined his record to "kingdoms",
and that the mythical rulers who preceded them did not form a "kingdom" within
his definition of the term. In any case we have a clear indication that an
earlier period was included before the true "kingdoms", or dynasties, in an
Assyrian copy of the list, a fragment of which is preserved in the British
Museum from the Library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh; see /Chron. conc. Early
Bab. Kings/ (Studies in East. Hist., II f.), Vol. I, pp. 182 ff., Vol. II, pp.
48 ff., 143 f. There we find traces of an extra column of text preceding that in
which the first Kingdom of Kish was recorded. It would seem almost certain that
this extra column was devoted to Antediluvian kings. The only alternative
explanation would be that it was inscribed with the summaries which conclude the
Sumerian copies of our list. But later scribes do not so transpose their
material, and the proper place for summaries is at the close, not at the
beginning, of a list. In the Assyrian copy the Dynastic List is brought up to
date, and extends down to the later Assyrian period. Formerly its compiler could
only be credited with incorporating traditions of earlier times. But the
correspondence of the small fragment preserved of its Second Column with part of
the First Column of the Nippur texts (including the name of "Enmennunna") proves
that the Assyrian scribe reproduced an actual copy of the Sumerian document.

Though Professor Barton, on the other hand, holds that the Dynastic List had no
concern with the Deluge, his suggestion that the early names preserved by it may
have been the original source of Berossus’ Antediluvian rulers[1] may yet be
accepted in a modified form. In coming to his conclusion he may have been
influenced by what seems to me an undoubted correspondence between one of the
rulers in our list and the sixth Antediluvian king of Berossus. I think few will
be disposed to dispute the equation {Daonos poimon} = Etana, a shepherd.

Each list preserves the hero’s shepherd origin and the correspondence of the
names is very close, Daonos merely transposing the initial vowel of Etana.[2]
That Berossus should have translated a Post-diluvian ruler into the Antediluvian
dynasty would not be at all surprising in view of the absence of detailed
correspondence between his later dynasties and those we know actually occupied
the Babylonian throne. Moreover, the inclusion of Babylon in his list of
Antediluvian cities should make us hesitate to regard all the rulers he assigns
to his earliest dynasty as necessarily retaining in his list their original
order in Sumerian tradition. Thus we may with a clear conscience seek equations
between the names of Berossus’ Antediluvian rulers and those preserved in the
early part of our Dynastic List, although we may regard the latter as equally
Post-diluvian in Sumerian belief.

[1] See the brief statement he makes in the course of a review of Dr. Poebel’s
volumes in the /American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature/, XXXI,
April 1915, p. 225. He does not compare any of the names, but he promises a
study of those preserved and a comparison of the list with Berossus and with
Gen. iv and v. It is possible that Professor Barton has already fulfilled his
promise of further discussion, perhaps in his /Archaeology and the Bible/, to
the publication of which I have seen a reference in another connexion (cf.
/Journ. Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI, p. 291); but I have not yet been able to
obtain sight of a copy.

[2] The variant form {Daos} is evidently a mere contraction, and any claim it
may have had to represent more closely the original form of the name is to be
disregarded in view of our new equation. This reflection, and the result already
obtained, encourage us to accept the following further equation, which is
yielded by a renewed scrutiny of the lists:

{’Ammenon} = Enmenunna.

Here Ammenon, the fourth of Berossus’ Antediluvian kings, presents a wonderfully
close transcription of the Sumerian name. The /n/ of the first syllable has been
assimilated to the following consonant in accordance with a recognized law of
euphony, and the resultant doubling of the /m/ is faithfully preserved in the
Greek. Precisely the same initial component, /Enme/, occurs in the name
Enmeduranki, borne by a mythical king of Sippar, who has long been recognized as
the original of Berossus’ seventh Antediluvian king, {Euedorakhos}.[1] There too
the original /n/ has been assimilated, but the Greek form retains no doubling of
the /m/ and points to its further weakening.

[1] Var. {Euedoreskhos}; the second half of the original name, Enmeduranki, is
more closely preserved in /Edoranchus/, the form given by the Armenian
translator of Eusebius.

I do not propose to detain you with a detailed discussion of Sumerian royal
names and their possible Greek equivalents. I will merely point out that the two
suggested equations, which I venture to think we may regard as established,
throw the study of Berossus’ mythological personages upon a new plane. No
equivalent has hitherto been suggested for {Daonos}; but {’Ammenon} has been
confidently explained as the equivalent of a conjectured Babylonian original,
Ummânu, lit. "Workman". The fact that we should now have recovered the Sumerian
original of the name, which proves to have no connexion in form or meaning with
the previously suggested Semitic equivalent, tends to cast doubt on other
Semitic equations proposed. Perhaps {’Amelon} or {’Amillaros} may after all not
prove to be the equivalent of Amêlu, "Man", nor {’Amempsinos} that of Amêl-Sin.
Both may find their true equivalents in some of the missing royal names at the
head of the Sumerian Dynastic List. There too we may provisionally seek
{’Aloros}, the "first king", whose equation with Aruru, the Babylonian
mother-goddess, never appeared a very happy suggestion.[1] The ingenious
proposal,[2] on the other hand, that his successor, {’Alaparos}, represents a
miscopied {’Adaparos}, a Greek rendering of the name of Adapa, may still hold
good in view of Etana’s presence in the Sumerian dynastic record. Ut-napishtim’s
title, Khasisatra or Atrakhasis, "the Very Wise", still of course remains the
established equivalent of {Xisouthros}; but for {’Otiartes} (? {’Opartes}), a
rival to Ubar-Tutu, Ut-napishtim’s father, may perhaps appear. The new
identifications do not of course dispose of the old ones, except in the case of
Ummânu; but they open up a new line of approach and provide a fresh field for
conjecture.[3] Semitic, and possibly contracted, originals are still possible
for unidentified mythical kings of Berossus; but such equations will inspire
greater confidence, should we be able to establish Sumerian originals for the
Semitic renderings, from new material already in hand or to be obtained in the
future.

[1] Dr. Poebel (/Hist Inscr./, p. 42, n. 1) makes the interesting suggestion
that {’Aloros} may represent an abbreviated and corrupt form of the name
Lal-ur-alimma, which has come down to us as that of an early and mythical king
of Nippur; see Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, IV, 60 (67), V, 47 and 44, and cf. /Sev.
Tabl. of Creat./, Vol. I, p. 217, No. 32574, Rev., l. 2 f. It may be added that
the sufferings with which the latter is associated in the tradition are perhaps
such as might have attached themselves to the first human ruler of the world;
but the suggested equation, though tempting by reason of the remote parallel it
would thus furnish to Adam’s fate, can at present hardly be accepted in view of
the possibility that a closer equation to {’Aloros} may be forthcoming.

[2] Hommel, /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol. XV (1893), p. 243.

[3] See further Appendix II. But it is time I read you extracts from the earlier
extant portions of the Sumerian Dynastic List, in order to illustrate the class
of document with which we are dealing. From them it will be seen that the record
is not a tabular list of names like the well-known King’s Lists of the
Neo-Babylonian period. It is cast in the form of an epitomized chronicle and
gives under set formulae the length of each king’s reign, and his father’s name
in cases of direct succession to father or brother. Short phrases are also
sometimes added, or inserted in the sentence referring to a king, in order to
indicate his humble origin or the achievement which made his name famous in
tradition. The head of the First Column of the text is wanting, and the first
royal name that is completely preserved is that of Galumum, the ninth or tenth
ruler of the earliest "kingdom", or dynasty, of Kish. The text then runs on
connectedly for several lines:

Galumum ruled for nine hundred years.

Zugagib ruled for eight hundred and forty years.

Arpi, son of a man of the people, ruled for seven hundred and twenty years.

Etana, the shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued all lands, ruled for six
hundred and thirty-five years.[1] Pili . . ., son of Etana, ruled for four
hundred and ten years.

Enmenunna ruled for six hundred and eleven years.

Melamkish, son of Enmenunna, ruled for nine hundred years.

Barsalnunna, son of Enmenunna, ruled for twelve hundred years.

Mesza[. . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . .] years.

[. . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . .] years.

[1] Possibly 625 years. A small gap then occurs in the text, but we know that
the last two representatives of this dynasty of twenty-three kings are related
to have ruled for nine hundred years and six hundred and twenty-five years
respectively. In the Second Column of the text the lines are also fortunately
preserved which record the passing of the first hegemony of Kish to the "Kingdom
of Eanna", the latter taking its name from the famous temple of Anu and Ishtar
in the old city of Erech. The text continues: The kingdom of Kish passed to
Eanna. In Eanna, Meskingasher, son of the Sun-god, ruled as high priest and king
for three hundred and twenty-five years. Meskingasher entered into[1] [. . .]
and ascended to [. . .].

Enmerkar, son of Meskingasher, the king of Erech who built [. . .] with the
people of Erech,[2] ruled as king for four hundred and twenty years.

Lugalbanda, the shepherd, ruled for twelve hundred years.

Dumuzi,[3], the hunter(?), whose city was . . ., ruled for a hundred years.

Gishbilgames,[4] whose father was A,[5] the high priest of Kullab, ruled for one
hundred and twenty-six[6] years.

[. . .]lugal, son of Gishbilgames, ruled for [. . .] years.

[1] The verb may also imply descent into.

[2] The phrase appears to have been imperfectly copied by the scribe. As it
stands the subordinate sentence reads "the king of Erech who built with the
people of Erech". Either the object governed by the verb has been omitted, in
which case we might restore some such phrase as "the city"; or, perhaps, by a
slight transposition, we should read "the king who built Erech with the people
of Erech". In any case the first building of the city of Erech, as distinguished
from its ancient cult-centre Eanna, appears to be recorded here in the
tradition. This is the first reference to Erech in the text; and Enmerkar’s
father was high priest as well as king.

[3] i.e. Tammuz.

[4] i.e. Gilgamesh.

[5] The name of the father of Gilgamesh is rather strangely expressed by the
single sign for the vowel /a/ and must apparently be read as A. As there is a
small break in the text at the end of this line, Dr. Poebel not unnaturally
assumed that A was merely the first syllable of the name, of which the end was
wanting. But it has now been shown that the complete name was A; see Förtsch,
/Orient. Lit.-Zeit./, Vol. XVIII, No. 12 (Dec., 1915), col. 367 ff. The reading
is deduced from the following entry in an Assyrian explanatory list of gods
(/Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XXIV, pl. 25, ll. 29-31): "The god A, who
is also equated to the god Dubbisaguri (i.e. ’Scribe of Ur’), is the priest of
Kullab; his wife is the goddess Ninguesirka (i.e. ’Lady of the edge of the
street’)." A, the priest of Kullab and the husband of a goddess, is clearly to
be identified with A, the priest of Kullab and father of Gilgamesh, for we know
from the Gilgamesh Epic that the hero’s mother was the goddess Ninsun. Whether
Ninguesirka was a title of Ninsun, or represents a variant tradition with regard
to the parentage of Gilgamesh on the mother’s side, we have in any case
confirmation of his descent from priest and goddess. It was natural that A
should be subsequently deified. This was not the case at the time our text was
inscribed, as the name is written without the divine determinative.

[6] Possibly 186 years. This group of early kings of Erech is of exceptional
interest. Apart from its inclusion of Gilgamesh and the gods Tammuz and
Lugalbanda, its record of Meskingasher’s reign possibly refers to one of the
lost legends of Erech. Like him Melchizedek, who comes to us in a chapter of
Genesis reflecting the troubled times of Babylon’s First Dynasty,[1] was priest
as well as king.[2] Tradition appears to have credited Meskingasher’s son and
successor, Enmerkar, with the building of Erech as a city around the first
settlement Eanna, which had already given its name to the "kingdom". If so,
Sumerian tradition confirms the assumption of modern research that the great
cities of Babylonia arose around the still more ancient cult-centres of the
land. We shall have occasion to revert to the traditions here recorded
concerning the parentage of Meskingasher, the founder of this line of kings, and
that of its most famous member, Gilgamesh. Meanwhile we may note that the
closing rulers of the "Kingdom of Eanna" are wanting. When the text is again
preserved, we read of the hegemony passing from Erech to Ur and thence to Awan:
The k[ingdom of Erech[3] passed to] Ur. In Ur Mesannipada became king and ruled
for eighty years.

Meskiagunna, son of Mesannipada, ruled for thirty years.

Elu[. . .] ruled for twenty-five years.

Balu[. . .] ruled for thirty-six years.

Four kings (thus) ruled for a hundred and seventy-one years. The kingdom of Ur
passed to Awan. In Awan . . .

[1] Cf. /Hist. of Bab./, p. 159 f.

[2] Genesis 14:18.

[3] The restoration of Erech here, in place of Eanna, is based on the absence of
the latter name in the summary; after the building of Erech by Enmerkar, the
kingdom was probably reckoned as that of Erech. With the "Kingdom of Ur" we
appear to be approaching a firmer historical tradition, for the reigns of its
rulers are recorded in decades, not hundreds of years. But we find in the
summary, which concludes the main copy of our Dynastic List, that the kingdom of
Awan, though it consisted of but three rulers, is credited with a total duration
of three hundred and fifty-six years, implying that we are not yet out of the
legendary stratum. Since Awan is proved by newly published historical
inscriptions from Nippur to have been an important deity of Elam at the time of
the Dynasty of Akkad,[1] we gather that the "Kingdom of Awan" represented in
Sumerian tradition the first occasion on which the country passed for a time
under Elamite rule. At this point a great gap occurs in the text, and when the
detailed dynastic succession in Babylonia is again assured, we have passed
definitely from the realm of myth and legend into that of history.[2] [1]
Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 128.

[2] See further, Appendix II.

What new light, then, do these old Sumerian records throw on Hebrew traditions
concerning the early ages of mankind? I think it will be admitted that there is
something strangely familiar about some of those Sumerian extracts I read just
now. We seem to hear in them the faint echo of another narrative, like them but
not quite the same. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
thirty years; and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat
Enosh: and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and
begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve
years: and he died.

. . . and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

. . . and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

. . . and all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety and five years:
and he died.

. . . and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he
died.

. . . and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: and
Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

. . . and all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and
he died.

. . . and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and
he died. And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and

Japheth.

Throughout these extracts from "the book of the generations of Adam",[1]
Galumum’s nine hundred years[2] seem to run almost like a refrain; and
Methuselah’s great age, the recognized symbol for longevity, is even exceeded by
two of the Sumerian patriarchs. The names in the two lists are not the same,[3]
but in both we are moving in the same atmosphere and along similar lines of
thought. Though each list adheres to its own set formulae, it estimates the
length of human life in the early ages of the world on much the same gigantic
scale as the other. Our Sumerian records are not quite so formal in their
structure as the Hebrew narrative, but the short notes which here and there
relieve their stiff monotony may be paralleled in the Cainite genealogy of the
preceding chapter in Genesis.[4] There Cain’s city-building, for example, may
pair with that of Enmerkar; and though our new records may afford no precise
equivalents to Jabal’s patronage of nomad life, or to the invention of music and
metal-working ascribed to Jubal and Tubal-cain, these too are quite in the
spirit of Sumerian and Babylonian tradition, in their attempt to picture the
beginnings of civilization. Thus Enmeduranki, the prototype of the seventh
Antediluvian patriarch of Berossus, was traditionally revered as the first
exponent of divination.[5] It is in the chronological and general setting,
rather than in the Hebrew names and details, that an echo seems here to reach us
from Sumer through Babylon.

[1] Genesis 5:1 ff. (P).

[2] The same length of reign is credited to Melamkish and to one and perhaps two
other rulers of that first Sumerian "kingdom".

[3] The possibility of the Babylonian origin of some of the Hebrew names in this
geneaology and its Cainite parallel has long been canvassed; and considerable
ingenuity has been expended in obtaining equations between Hebrew names and
those of the Antediluvian kings of Berossus by tracing a common meaning for each
suggested pair. It is unfortunate that our new identification of {’Ammenon} with
the Sumerian /Enmenunna/ should dispose of one of the best parallels obtained,
viz. {’Ammenon} = Bab. /ummânu/, "workman" || Cain, Kenan = "smith". Another
satisfactory pair suggested is {’Amelon} = Bab. /amêlu/, "man" || Enosh = "man";
but the resemblance of the former to /amêlu/ may prove to be fortuitous, in view
of the possibility of descent from a quite different Sumerian original. The
alternative may perhaps have to be faced that the Hebrew parallels to Sumerian
and Babylonian traditions are here confined to chronological structure and
general contents, and do not extend to Hebrew renderings of Babylonian names. It
may be added that such correspondence between personal names in different
languages is not very significant by itself. The name of Zugagib of Kish, for
example, is paralleled by the title borne by one of the earliest kings of the
Ist Dynasty of Egypt, Narmer, whose carved slate palettes have been found at
Kierakonpolis; he too was known as "the Scorpion."

[4] Gen. iv. 17 ff. (J).

[5] It may be noted that an account of the origin of divination is included in
his description of the descendents of Noah by the writer of the Biblical
Antiquities of Philo, a product of the same school as the Fourth Book of Esdras
and the Apocalypse of Baruch; see James, /The Biblical Antiquities of Philo/, p.
86.

I may add that a parallel is provided by the new Sumerian records to the
circumstances preceding the birth of the Nephilim at the beginning of Genesis
6:1-22.[1] For in them also great prowess or distinction is ascribed to the
progeny of human and divine unions. We have already noted that, according to the
traditions the records embody, the Sumerians looked back to a time when gods
lived upon the earth with men, and we have seen such deities as Tammuz and
Lugalbanda figuring as rulers of cities in the dynastic sequence. As in later
periods, their names are there preceded by the determinative for divinity. But
more significant still is the fact that we read of two Sumerian heroes, also
rulers of cities, who were divine on the father’s or mother’s side but not on
both. Meskingasher is entered in the list as "son of the Sun-god",[2] and no
divine parentage is recorded on the mother’s side. On the other hand, the human
father of Gilgamesh is described as the high priest of Kullab, and we know from
other sources that his mother was the goddess Ninsun.[3] That this is not a
fanciful interpretation is proved by a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic itself,[4]
in which its hero is described as two-thirds god and one-third man. We again
find ourselves back in the same stratum of tradition with which the Hebrew
narratives have made us so familiar.

[1] Genesis 6:1-4 (J).

[2] The phrase recalls the familiar Egyptian royal designation "son of the Sun,"
and it is possible that we may connect with this same idea the Palermo Stele’s
inclusion of the mother’s and omission of the father’s name in its record of the
early dynastic Pharaohs. This suggestion does not exclude the possibility of the
prevalence of matrilineal (and perhaps originally also of matrilocal and
matripotestal) conditions among the earliest inhabitants of Egypt. Indeed the
early existence of some form of mother-right may have originated, and would
certainly have encouraged, the growth of a tradition of solar parentage for the
head of the state.

[3] Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 124 f.

[4] Tablet I, Colossians 2:1. 1; and cf. Tablet IX, Colossians 2:1. 16.

What light then does our new material throw upon traditional origins of
civilization? We have seen that in Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo Stele has
confirmed in a remarkable way the tradition of the predynastic period which was
incorporated in his history by Manetho. It has long been recognized that in
Babylonia the sources of Berossus must have been refracted by the political
atmosphere of that country during the preceding nineteen hundred years. This
inference our new material supports; but when due allowance has been made for a
resulting disturbance of vision, the Sumerian origin of the remainder of his
evidence is notably confirmed. Two of his ten Antediluvian kings rejoin their
Sumerian prototypes, and we shall see that two of his three Antediluvian cities
find their place among the five of primitive Sumerian belief. It is clear that
in Babylonia, as in Egypt, the local traditions of the dawn of history, current
in the

Hellenistic period, were modelled on very early lines. Both countries were the
seats of ancient civilizations, and it is natural that each should stage its
picture of beginnings upon its own soil and embellish it with local colouring.

It is a tribute to the historical accuracy of Hebrew tradition to recognize that
it never represented Palestine as the cradle of the human race. It looked to the
East rather than to the South for evidence of man’s earliest history and first
progress in the arts of life. And it is in the East, in the soil of Babylonia,
that we may legitimately seek material in which to verify the sources of that
traditional belief. The new parallels I have to-day attempted to trace between
some of the Hebrew traditions, preserved in Genesis 4:1-26, Genesis 5:1-32,
Genesis 6:1-22, and those of the early Sumerians, as presented by their great
Dynastic List, are essentially general in character and do not apply to details
of narrative or to proper names. If they stood alone, we should still have to
consider whether they are such as to suggest cultural influence or independent
origin. But fortunately they do not exhaust the evidence we have lately
recovered from the site of Nippur, and we will postpone formulating our
conclusions with regard to them until the whole field has been surveyed. From
the biblical standpoint by far the most valuable of our new documents is one
that incorporates a Sumerian version of the Deluge story. We shall see that it
presents a variant and more primitive picture of that great catastrophe than
those of the Babylonian and Hebrew versions. And what is of even greater
interest, it connects the narrative of the Flood with that of Creation, and
supplies a brief but intermediate account of the Antediluvian period. How then
are we to explain this striking literary resemblance to the structure of the
narrative in Genesis, a resemblance that is completely wanting in the Babylonian
versions? But that is a problem we must reserve for the next lecture.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 02.04.     LECTURE II: DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION
========================================================================

LECTURE II DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION In the first lecture we
saw how, both in Babylonia and Egypt, recent discoveries had thrown light upon
periods regarded as prehistoric, and how we had lately recovered traditions
concerning very early rulers both in the Nile Valley and along the lower
Euphrates. On the strength of the latter discovery we noted the possibility that
future excavation in Babylonia would lay bare stages of primitive culture
similar to those we have already recovered in Egyptian soil. Meanwhile the
documents from Nippur had shown us what the early Sumerians themselves believed
about their own origin, and we traced in their tradition the gradual blending of
history with legend and myth. We saw that the new Dynastic List took us back in
the legendary sequence at least to the beginning of the Post-diluvian period.
Now one of the newly published literary texts fills in the gap beyond, for it
gives us a Sumerian account of the history of the world from the Creation to the
Deluge, at about which point, as we saw, the extant portions of the Dynastic
List take up the story. I propose to devote my lecture to-day to this early
version of the Flood and to the effect of its discovery upon some current
theories. The Babylonian account of the Deluge, which was discovered by George
Smith in 1872 on tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh, is, as you know,
embedded in a long epic of twelve Books recounting the adventures of the Old
Babylonian hero Gilgamesh. Towards the end of this composite tale, Gilgamesh,
desiring immortality, crosses the Waters of Death in order to beg the secret
from his ancestor Ut-napishtim, who in the past had escaped the Deluge and had
been granted immortality by the gods. The Eleventh Tablet, or Book, of the epic
contains the account of the Deluge which Ut-napishtim related to his kinsman
Gilgamesh. The close correspondence of this Babylonian story with that contained
in Genesis is recognized by every one and need not detain us. You will remember
that in some passages the accounts tally even in minute details, such, for
example, as the device of sending out birds to test the abatement of the waters.
It is true that in the Babylonian version a dove, a swallow, and a raven are
sent forth in that order, instead of a raven and the dove three times. But such
slight discrepancies only emphasize the general resemblance of the narratives.
In any comparison it is usually admitted that two accounts have been combined in
the Hebrew narrative. I should like to point out that this assumption may be
made by any one, whatever his views may be with regard to the textual problems
of the Hebrew Bible and the traditional authorship of the Pentateuch. And for
our purpose at the moment it is immaterial whether we identify the compiler of
these Hebrew narratives with Moses himself, or with some later Jewish historian
whose name has not come down to us. Whoever he was, he has scrupulously
preserved his two texts and, even when they differ, he has given each as he
found it. Thanks to this fact, any one by a careful examination of the narrative
can disentangle the two versions for himself. He will find each gives a
consistent story. One of them appears to be simpler and more primitive than the
other, and I will refer to them as the earlier and the later Hebrew Versions.[1]
The Babylonian text in the Epic of Gilgamesh contains several peculiarities of
each of the Hebrew versions, though the points of resemblance are more detailed
in the earlier of the two.

[1] In the combined account in Genesis 6:5-22, Genesis 7:1-24, Genesis 8:1-22,
Genesis 9:1-17, if the following passages be marked in the margin or underlined,
and then read consecutively, it will be seen that they give a consistent and
almost complete account of the Deluge: Genesis 6:9-22; Genesis 7:6, Genesis
7:11, Genesis 7:13-16 (down to "as God commanded him"), Genesis 7:17 (to "upon
the earth"), Genesis 7:18-21, Genesis 7:24; Genesis 8:1-2 (to "were stopped"),
Genesis 8:3 (from "and after")- Genesis 8:5, Genesis 8:13 (to "from off the
earth"), Genesis 8:14-19; and Genesis 9:1-17. The marked passages represent the
"later Hebrew Version." If the remaining passages be then read consecutively,
they will be seen to give a different version of the same events, though not so
completely preserved as the other; these passages substantially represent the
"earlier Hebrew Version". In commentaries on the Hebrew text they are, of
course, usually referred to under the convenient symbols J and P, representing
respectively the earlier and the later versions. For further details, see any of
the modern commentaries on Genesis, e.g. Driver, /Book of Genesis/, pp. 85 ff.;
Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 147 ff.; Ryle, /Genesis/, p. 96 f.

Now the tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh inscribed with the Gilgamesh
Epic do not date from an earlier period than the seventh century B.C. But
archaeological evidence has long shown that the traditions themselves were
current during all periods of Babylonian history; for Gilgamesh and his
half-human friend Enkidu were favourite subjects for the seal-engraver, whether
he lived in Sumerian times or under the Achaemenian kings of Persia. We have
also, for some years now, possessed two early fragments of the Deluge narrative,
proving that the story was known to the Semitic inhabitants of the country at
the time of Hammurabi’s dynasty.[1] Our newly discovered text from Nippur was
also written at about that period, probably before 2100 B.C. But the composition
itself, apart from the tablet on which it is inscribed, must go back very much
earlier than that. For instead of being composed in Semitic Babylonian, the text
is in Sumerian, the language of the earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia,
whom the Semites eventually displaced. This people, it is now recognized, were
the originators of the Babylonian civilization, and we saw in the first lecture
that, according to their own traditions, they had occupied that country since
the dawn of history.

[1] The earlier of the two fragments is dated in the eleventh year of
Ammizaduga, the tenth king of Hammurabi’s dynasty, i.e. in 1967 B.C.; it was
published by Scheil, /Recueil de travaux/, Vol. XX, pp. 55 ff. Here the Deluge
story does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, but is recounted in the second
tablet of a different work; its hero bears the name Atrakhasis, as in the
variant version of the Deluge from the Nineveh library. The other and smaller
fragment, which must be dated by its script, was published by Hilprecht
(/Babylonian Expedition/, series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1, pp. 33 ff.), who assigned
it to about the same period; but it is probably of a considerably later date.
The most convenient translations of the legends that were known before the
publication of the Nippur texts are those given by Rogers, /Cuneiform Parallels
to the Old Testament/ (Oxford, 1912), and Dhorme, /Choix de textes religieux
Assyro-Babyloniens/ (Paris, 1907). The Semites as a ruling race came later,
though the occurrence of Semitic names in the Sumerian Dynastic List suggests
very early infiltration from Arabia. After a long struggle the immigrants
succeeded in dominating the settled race; and in the process they in turn became
civilized. They learnt and adopted the cuneiform writing, they took over the
Sumerian literature. Towards the close of the third millennium, when our tablet
was written, the Sumerians as a race had almost ceased to exist. They had been
absorbed in the Semitic population and their language was no longer the general
language of the country. But their ancient literature and sacred texts were
carefully preserved and continued to be studied by the Semitic priests and
scribes. So the fact that the tablet is written in the old

Sumerian tongue proves that the story it tells had come down from a very much
earlier period. This inference is not affected by certain small differences in
idiom which its language presents when compared with that of Sumerian
building-inscriptions. Such would naturally occur in the course of transmission,
especially in a text which, as we shall see, had been employed for a practical
purpose after being subjected to a process of reduction to suit it to its new
setting. When we turn to the text itself, it will be obvious that the story also
is very primitive. But before doing so we will inquire whether this very early
version is likely to cast any light on the origin of Deluge stories such as are
often met with in other parts of the world. Our inquiry will have an interest
apart from the question itself, as it will illustrate the views of two divergent
schools among students of primitive literature and tradition. According to one
of these views, in its most extreme form, the tales which early or primitive man
tells about his gods and the origin of the world he sees around him are never to
be regarded as simple stories, but are to be consistently interpreted as
symbolizing natural phenomena. It is, of course, quite certain that, both in
Egypt and Babylonia, mythology in later periods received a strong astrological
colouring; and it is equally clear that some legends derive their origin from
nature myths. But the theory in the hands of its more enthusiastic adherents
goes further than that. For them a complete absence of astrological colouring is
no deterrent from an astrological interpretation; and, where such colouring does
occur, the possibility of later embellishment is discounted, and it is treated
without further proof as the base on which the original story rests. One such
interpretation of the Deluge narrative in Babylonia, particularly favoured by
recent German writers, would regard it as reflecting the passage of the Sun
through a portion of the ecliptic. It is assumed that the primitive Babylonians
were aware that in the course of ages the spring equinox must traverse the
southern or watery region of the zodiac. This, on their system, signified a
submergence of the whole universe in water, and the Deluge myth would symbolize
the safe passage of the vernal Sun-god through that part of the ecliptic. But we
need not spend time over that view, as its underlying conception is undoubtedly
quite a late development of Babylonian astrology.

More attractive is the simpler astrological theory that the voyage of any Deluge
hero in his boat or ark represents the daily journey of the Sun-god across the
heavenly ocean, a conception which is so often represented in Egyptian sculpture
and painting. It used to be assumed by holders of the theory that this idea of
the Sun as "the god in the boat" was common among primitive races, and that that
would account for the widespread occurrence of Deluge-stories among scattered
races of the world. But this view has recently undergone some modification in
accordance with the general trend of other lines of research. In recent years
there has been an increased readiness among archaeologists to recognize evidence
of contact between the great civilizations of antiquity. This has been
particularly the case in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean; but the
possibility has also been mooted of the early use of land-routes running from
the Near East to Central and Southern Asia. The discovery in Chinese Turkestan,
to the east of the Caspian, of a prehistoric culture resembling that of Elam has
now been followed by the finding of similar remains by Sir Aurel Stein in the
course of the journey from which he has lately returned.[1] They were discovered
in an old basin of the Helmand River in Persian Seistan, where they had been
laid bare by wind-erosion. But more interesting still, and an incentive to
further exploration in that region, is another of his discoveries last year,
also made near the Afghan border. At two sites in the Helmand Delta, well above
the level of inundation, he came across fragments of pottery inscribed in early
Aramaic characters,[2] though, for obvious reasons, he has left them with all
his other collections in India. This unexpected find, by the way, suggests for
our problem possibilities of wide transmission in comparatively early times.

[1] See his "Expedition in Central Asia", in /The Geographical Journal/, Vol.
XLVII (Jan.-June, 1916), pp. 358 ff.

[2] Op. cit., p. 363. The synthetic tendency among archaeologists has been
reflected in anthropological research, which has begun to question the separate
and independent origin, not only of the more useful arts and crafts, but also of
many primitive customs and beliefs. It is suggested that too much stress has
been laid on environment; and, though it is readily admitted that similar needs
and experiences may in some cases have given rise to similar expedients and
explanations, it is urged that man is an imitative animal and that inventive
genius is far from common.[1] Consequently the wide dispersion of many beliefs
and practices, which used generally to be explained as due to the similar and
independent working of the human mind under like conditions, is now often
provisionally registered as evidence of migratory movement or of cultural drift.
Much good work has recently been done in tabulating the occurrence of many
customs and beliefs, in order to ascertain their lines of distribution. Workers
are as yet in the collecting stage, and it is hardly necessary to say that
explanatory theories are still to be regarded as purely tentative and
provisional. At the meetings of the British Association during the last few
years, the most breezy discussions in the Anthropological Section have
undoubtedly centred around this subject. There are several works in the field,
but the most comprehensive theory as yet put forward is one that concerns us, as
it has given a new lease of life to the old solar interpretation of the Deluge
story.

[1] See, e.g. Marett, /Anthropology/ (2nd ed., 1914), Chap. iv, "Environment,"
pp. 122 ff.; and for earlier tendencies, particularly in the sphere of
mythological exegesis, see S. Reinach, /Cultes, Mythes et Religions/, t. IV
(1912), pp. 1 ff. In a land such as Egypt, where there is little rain and the
sky is always clear, the sun in its splendour tended from the earliest period to
dominate the national consciousness. As intercourse increased along the Nile
Valley, centres of Sun-worship ceased to be merely local, and the political rise
of a city determined the fortunes of its cult. From the proto-dynastic period
onward, the "King of the two Lands" had borne the title of "Horus" as the lineal
descendant of the great Sun-god of Edfu, and the rise of Ra in the Vth Dynasty,
through the priesthood of Heliopolis, was confirmed in the solar theology of the
Middle Kingdom. Thus it was that other deities assumed a solar character as
forms of Ra. Amen, the local god of Thebes, becomes Amen-Ra with the political
rise of his city, and even the old Crocodile-god, Sebek, soars into the sky as
Sebek-Ra. The only other movement in the religion of ancient Egypt, comparable
in importance to this solar development, was the popular cult of Osiris as God
of the Dead, and with it the official religion had to come to terms. Horus is
reborn as the posthumous son of Osiris, and Ra gladdens his abode during his
nightly journey through the Underworld. The theory with which we are concerned
suggests that this dominant trait in Egyptian religion passed, with other
elements of culture, beyond the bounds of the Nile Valley and influenced the
practice and beliefs of distant races. This suggestion has been gradually
elaborated by its author, Professor Elliot Smith, who has devoted much attention
to the anatomical study of Egyptian mummification. Beginning with a scrutiny of
megalithic building and sun-worship,[1] he has subsequently deduced, from
evidence of common distribution, the existence of a culture-complex, including
in addition to these two elements the varied practices of tattooing,
circumcision, ear-piercing, that quaint custom known as couvade,
head-deformation, and the prevalence of serpent-cults, myths of petrifaction and
the Deluge, and finally of mummification. The last ingredient was added after an
examination of Papuan mummies had disclosed their apparent resemblance in points
of detail to Egyptian mummies of the XXIst Dynasty. As a result he assumes the
existence of an early cultural movement, for which the descriptive title
"heliolithic" has been coined.[2] Starting with Egypt as its centre, one of the
principal lines of its advance is said to have lain through Syria and
Mesopotamia and thence along the coastlands of Asia to the Far East. The method
of distribution and the suggested part played by the Phoenicians have been
already criticized sufficiently. But in a modified form the theory has found
considerable support, especially among ethnologists interested in Indonesia. I
do not propose to examine in detail the evidence for or against it. It will
suffice to note that the Deluge story and its alleged Egyptian origin in solar
worship form one of the prominent strands in its composition.

[1] Cf. Elliot Smith, /The Ancient Egyptians/, 1911.

[2] See in particular his monograph "On the significance of the Geographical
Distribution of the Practice of Mummification" in the /Memoirs of the Manchester
Literary and Philosophical Society/, 1915.

One weakness of this particular strand is that the Egyptians themselves
possessed no tradition of the Deluge. Indeed the annual inundation of the Nile
is not such as would give rise to a legend of world-destruction; and in this
respect it presents a striking contrast to the Tigris and Euphrates. The ancient
Egyptian’s conception of his own gentle river is reflected in the form he gave
the Nile-god, for Hapi is represented as no fierce warrior or monster. He is
given a woman’s breasts as a sign of his fecundity. The nearest Egyptian
parallel to the Deluge story is the "Legend of the Destruction of Mankind",
which is engraved on the walls of a chamber in the tomb of Seti I.[1] The late
Sir Gaston Maspero indeed called it "a dry deluge myth", but his paradox was
intended to emphasize the difference as much as the parallelism presented. It is
true that in the Egyptian myth the Sun-god causes mankind to be slain because of
their impiety, and he eventually pardons the survivors. The narrative thus
betrays undoubted parallelism to the Babylonian and Hebrew stories, so far as
concerns the attempted annihilation of mankind by the offended god, but there
the resemblance ends. For water has no part in man’s destruction, and the
essential element of a Deluge story is thus absent.[2] Our new Sumerian
document, on the other hand, contains what is by far the earliest example yet
recovered of a genuine Deluge tale; and we may thus use it incidentally to test
this theory of Egyptian influence, and also to ascertain whether it furnishes
any positive evidence on the origin of Deluge stories in general.

[1] It was first published by Monsieur Naville, /Tranc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, IV
(1874), pp. 1 ff. The myth may be most conveniently studied in Dr. Budge’s
edition in /Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I, "Legends of the Gods" (1912), pp. 14
ff., where the hieroglyphic text and translation are printed on opposite pages;
cf. the summary, op. cit., pp. xxiii ff., where the principal literature is also
cited. See also his /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, chap. xii, pp. 388 ff.

[2] The undoubted points of resemblance, as well as the equally striking points
of divergence, presented by the Egyptian myth when compared with the Babylonian
and Hebrew stories of a Deluge may be briefly indicated. The impiety of men in
complaining of the age of Ra finds a parallel in the wickedness of man upon the
earth (J) and the corruption of all flesh (P) of the Hebrew Versions. The
summoning by Ra of the great Heliopolitan cosmic gods in council, including his
personified Eye, the primaeval pair Shu and Tefnut, Keb the god of the earth and
his consort Nut the sky-goddess, and Nu the primaeval water-god and originally
Nut’s male counterpart, is paralleled by the /puhur ilâni/, or "assembly of the
gods", in the Babylonian Version (see Gilg. Epic. XI. l. 120 f., and cf. ll. 10
ff.); and they meet in "the Great House", or Sun-temple at Heliopolis, as the
Babylonian gods deliberate in Shuruppak. Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hebrew
narratives all agree in the divine determination to destroy mankind and in man’s
ultimate survival. But the close of the Egyptian story diverges into another
sphere. The slaughter of men by the Eye of Ra in the form of the goddess Hathor,
who during the night wades in their blood, is suggestive of Africa; and so too
is her drinking of men’s blood mixed with the narcotic mandrake and with seven
thousand vessels of beer, with the result that through drunkenness she ceased
from slaughter. The latter part of the narrative is directly connected with the
cult-ritual and beer-drinking at the Festivals of Hathor and Ra; but the
destruction of men by slaughter in place of drowning appears to belong to the
original myth. Indeed, the only suggestion of a Deluge story is suggested by the
presence of Nu, the primaeval water-god, at Ra’s council, and that is explicable
on other grounds. In any case the points of resemblance presented by the earlier
part of the Egyptian myth to Semitic Deluge stories are general, not detailed;
and though they may possibly be due to reflection from Asia, they are not such
as to suggest an Egyptian origin for Deluge myths. The tablet on which our new
version of the Deluge is inscribed was excavated at Nippur during the third
Babylonian expedition sent out by the University of Pennsylvania; but it was not
until the summer of 1912 that its contents were identified, when the several
fragments of which it was composed were assembled and put together. It is a
large document, containing six columns of writing, three on each side; but
unfortunately only the lower half has been recovered, so that considerable gaps
occur in the text.[1] The sharp edges of the broken surface, however, suggest
that it was damaged after removal from the soil, and the possibility remains
that some of the missing fragments may yet be recovered either at Pennsylvania
or in the Museum at Constantinople. As it is not dated, its age must be
determined mainly by the character of its script. A close examination of the
writing suggests that it can hardly have been inscribed as late as the Kassite
Dynasty, since two or three signs exhibit more archaic forms than occur on any
tablets of that period;[2] and such linguistic corruptions as have been noted in
its text may well be accounted for by the process of decay which must have
already affected the Sumerian language at the time of the later kings of Nisin.
Moreover, the tablet bears a close resemblance to one of the newly published
copies of the Sumerian Dynastic List from Nippur;[3] for both are of the same
shape and composed of the same reddish-brown clay, and both show the same
peculiarities of writing. The two tablets in fact appear to have been written by
the same hand, and as that copy of the Dynastic List was probably drawn up
before the latter half of the First Dynasty of Babylon, we may assign the same
approximate date for the writing of our text. This of course only fixes a lower
limit for the age of the myth which it enshrines.

[1] The breadth of the tablet is 5 5/8 in., and it originally measured about 7
in. in length from top to bottom; but only about one-third of its inscribed
surface is preserved.

[2] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, pp. 66 ff.

[3] No. 5. That the composition is in the form of a poem may be seen at a glance
from the external appearance of the tablet, the division of many of the lines
and the blank spaces frequently left between the sign-groups being due to the
rhythmical character of the text. The style of the poetry may be simple and
abrupt, but it exhibits a familiar feature of both Semitic-Babylonian and Hebrew
poetry, in its constant employment of partial repetition or paraphrase in
parallel lines. The story it tells is very primitive and in many respects unlike
the Babylonian

Versions of the Deluge which we already possess. Perhaps its most striking
peculiarity is the setting of the story, which opens with a record of the
creation of man and animals, goes on to tell how the first cities were built,
and ends with a version of the Deluge, which is thus recounted in its relation
to the Sumerian history of the world. This literary connexion between the
Creation and Deluge narratives is of unusual interest, in view of the age of our
text. In the Babylonian Versions hitherto known they are included in separate
epics with quite different contexts. Here they are recounted together in a
single document, much as they probably were in the history of Berossus and as we
find them in the present form of the Book of Genesis. This fact will open up
some interesting problems when we attempt to trace the literary descent of the
tradition. But one important point about the text should be emphasized at once,
since it will affect our understanding of some very obscure passages, of which
no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The assumption has hitherto been
made that the text is an epic pure and simple. It is quite true that the greater
part of it is a myth, recounted as a narrative in poetical form. but there
appear to me to be clear indications that the myth was really embedded in an
incantation. If this was so, the mythological portion was recited for a magical
purpose, with the object of invoking the aid of the chief deities whose actions
in the past are there described, and of increasing by that means the potency of
the spell.[1] In the third lecture I propose to treat in more detail the
employment and significance of myth in magic, and we shall have occasion to
refer to other instances, Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian, in which a myth
has reached us in a magical setting.

[1] It will be seen that the subject-matter of any myth treated in this way has
a close connexion with the object for which the incantation was performed. In
the present case the inference of magical use is drawn from certain passages in
the text itself, which appear to be explicable only on that hypothesis. In
magical compositions of the later period intended for recitation, the sign for
"Incantation" is usually prefixed. Unfortunately the beginning of our text is
wanting; but its opening words are given in the colophon, or title, which is
engraved on the left-hand edge of the tablet, and it is possible that the traces
of the first sign there are to be read as EN, "Incantation".[1] Should a
re-examination of the tablet establish this reading of the word, we should have
definite proof of the suggested magical setting of the narrative. But even if we
assume its absence, that would not invalidate the arguments that can be adduced
in favour of recognizing the existence of a magical element, for they are based
on internal evidence and enable us to explain certain features which are
inexplicable on Dr. Poebel’s hypothesis. Moreover, we shall later on examine
another of the newly published Sumerian compositions from Nippur, which is not
only semi-epical in character, but is of precisely the same shape, script, and
period as our text, and is very probably a tablet of the same series. There also
the opening signs of the text are wanting, but far more of its contents are
preserved and they present unmistakable traces of magical use. Its evidence, as
that of a parallel text, may therefore be cited in support of the present
contention. It may be added that in Sumerian magical compositions of this early
period, of which we have not yet recovered many quite obvious examples, it is
possible that the prefix "Incantation" was not so invariable as in the later
magical literature.

[1] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 63, and /Hist. and Gram. Texts/, pl. i. In the
photographic reproduction of the edges of the tablet given in the latter volume,
pl. lxxxix, the traces of the sign suggest the reading EN (= Sem. /šiptu/,
"incantation"). But the sign may very possibly be read AN. In the latter case we
may read, in the traces of the two sign-groups at the beginning of the text, the
names of both Anu and Enlil, who appear so frequently as the two presiding
deities in the myth.

It has already been remarked that only the lower half of our tablet has been
recovered, and that consequently a number of gaps occur in the text. On the
obverse the upper portion of each of the first three columns is missing, while
of the remaining three columns, which are inscribed upon the reverse, the upper
portions only are preserved. This difference in the relative positions of the
textual fragments recovered is due to the fact that Sumerian scribes, like their
later

Babylonian and Assyrian imitators, when they had finished writing the obverse of
a tablet, turned it over from bottom to top--not, as we should turn a sheet of
paper, from right to left. But in spite of the lacunae, the sequence of events
related in the mythological narrative may be followed without difficulty, since
the main outline of the story is already familiar enough from the versions of
the Semitic-Babylonian scribes and of Berossus. Some uncertainties naturally
remain as to what exactly was included in the missing portions of the tablet;
but the more important episodes are fortunately recounted in the extant
fragments, and these suffice for a definition of the distinctive character of
the Sumerian Version. In view of its literary importance it may be advisable to
attempt a somewhat detailed iscussion of its contents, column by column;[1] and
the analysis may be most conveniently divided into numbered sections, each of
which refers to one of the six columns of the tablet. The description of the
First Column will serve to establish the general character of the text. Through
the analysis of the tablet parallels and contrasts will be noted with the
Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. It will then be possible to summarise, on a
surer foundation, the literary history of the traditions, and finally to
estimate the effect of our new evidence upon current theories as to the origin
and wide dispersion of Deluge stories.

[1] In the lecture as delivered the contents of each column were necessarily
summarized rather briefly, and conclusions were given without discussion of the
evidence. The following headings, under which the six numbered sections may be
arranged, indicate the contents of each column and show at a glance the main
features of the Sumerian Version:

I. Introduction to the Myth, and account of Creation.

II. The Antediluvian Cities.

III. The Council of the Gods, and Ziusudu’s piety.

IV. The Dream-Warning.

V. The Deluge, the Escape of the Great Boat, and the Sacrifice to the Sun-god.

VI. The Propitiation of the Angry Gods, and Ziusudu’s Immortality.

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE MYTH, AND ACCOUNT OF CREATION The beginning of the text
is wanting, and the earliest lines preserved of the First Column open with the
closing sentences of a speech, probably by the chief of the four creating
deities, who are later on referred to by name. In it there is a reference to a
future destruction of mankind, but the context is broken; the lines in question
begin:

"As for my human race, from (/or/ in) its destruction will I cause it to be [. .
.], For Nintu my creatures [. . .] will I [. . .]." From the reference to "my
human race" it is clear that the speaker is a creating deity; and since the
expression is exactly parallel to the term "my people" used by Ishtar, or
Bêlit-ili, "the Lady of the gods", in the Babylonian Version of the Deluge story
when she bewails the destruction of mankind, Dr. Poebel assigns the speech to
Ninkharsagga, or Nintu,[1] the goddess who later in the column is associated
with Anu, Enlil, and Enki in man’s creation. But the mention of Nintu in her own
speech is hardly consistent with that supposition,[2] if we assume with Dr.
Poebel, as we are probably justified in doing, that the title Nintu is employed
here and elsewhere in the narrative merely as a synonym of Ninkharsagga.[3] It
appears to me far more probable that one of the two supreme gods, Anu or Enlil,
is the speaker,[4] and additional grounds will be cited later in support of this
view. It is indeed possible, in spite of the verbs and suffixes in the singular,
that the speech is to be assigned to both Anu and Enlil, for in the last column,
as we shall see, we find verb in the singular following references to both these
deities. In any case one of the two chief gods may be regarded as speaking and
acting on behalf of both, though it may be that the inclusion of the second name
in the narrative was not original but simply due to a combination of variant
traditions. Such a conflate use of Anu-Enlil would present a striking parallel
to the Hebrew combination Yahweh-Elohim, though of course in the case of the
former pair the subsequent stage of identification was never attained. But the
evidence furnished by the text is not conclusive, and it is preferable here and
elsewhere in the narrative to regard either Anu or Enlil as speaking and acting
both on his own behalf and as the other’s representative.

[1] Op. cit., p. 21 f.; and cf. Jastrow, /Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions/, p.
336.

[2] It necessitates the taking of (/dingir/) /Nin-tu-ra/ as a genitive, not a
dative, and the very awkward rendering "my, Nintu’s, creations".

[3] Another of the recently published Sumerian mythological compositions from
Nippur includes a number of myths in which Enki is associated first with
Ninella, referred to also as Nintu, "the Goddess of Birth", then with Ninshar,
referred to also as Ninkurra, and finally with Ninkharsagga. This text exhibits
the process by which separate traditions with regard to goddesses originally
distinct were combined together, with the result that their heroines were
subsequently often identified with one another. There the myths that have not
been subjected to a very severe process of editing, and in consequence the
welding is not so complete as in the Sumerian Version of the Deluge.

[4] If Enlil’s name should prove to be the first word of the composition, we
should naturally regard him as the speaker here and as the protagonist of the
gods throughout the text, a /rôle/he also plays in the Semitic-Babylonian
Version. This reference to the Deluge, which occurs so early in the text,
suggests the probability that the account of the Creation and of the founding of
Antediluvian cities, included in the first two columns, is to be taken merely as
summarizing the events that led up to the Deluge. And an almost certain proof of
this may be seen in the opening words of the composition, which are preserved in
its colophon or title on the left-hand edge of the tablet. We have already noted
that the first two words are there to be read, either as the prefix
"Incantation" followed by the name "Enlil", or as the two divine names "Anu
(and) Enlil". Now the signs which follow the traces of Enlil’s name are quite
certain; they represent "Ziusudu", which, as we shall see in the Third Column,
is the name of the Deluge hero in our

Sumerian Version. He is thus mentioned in the opening words of the text, in some
relation to one or both of the two chief gods of the subsequent narrative. But
the natural place for his first introduction into the story is in the Third
Column, where it is related that "at that time Ziusudu, the king" did so-and-so.
The prominence given him at the beginning of the text, at nearly a column’s
interval before the lines which record the creation of man, is sufficient proof
that the Deluge story is the writer’s main interest, and that preceding episodes
are merely introductory to it.

What subject then may we conjecture was treated in the missing lines of this
column, which precede the account of Creation and close with the speech of the
chief creating deity? Now the Deluge narrative practically ends with the last
lines of the tablet that are preserved, and the lower half of the Sixth Column
is entirely wanting. We shall see reason to believe that the missing end of the
tablet was not left blank and uninscribed, but contained an incantation, the
magical efficacy of which was ensured by the preceding recitation of the Deluge
myth. If that were so, it would be natural enough that the text should open with
its main subject. The cause of the catastrophe and the reason for man’s rescue
from it might well be referred to by one of the creating deities in virtue of
the analogy these aspects of the myth would present to the circumstances for
which the incantation was designed. A brief account of the Creation and of
Antediluvian history would then form a natural transition to the narrative of
the Deluge itself. And even if the text contained no incantation, the narrative
may well have been introduced in the manner suggested, since this explanation in
any case fits in with what is still preserved of the First Column. For after his
reference to the destruction of mankind, the deity proceeds to fix the chief
duty of man, either as a preliminary to his creation, or as a reassertion of
that duty after his rescue from destruction by the Flood. It is noteworthy that
this duty consists in the building of temples to the gods "in a clean spot",
that is to say "in hallowed places". The passage may be given in full, including
the two opening lines already discussed:

"As for my human race, from (/or/ in) its destruction will I cause it to be [. .
.], For Nintu my creatures [. . .] will I [. . .]. The people will I cause to .
. . in their settlements, Cities . . . shall (man) build, in there protection
will I cause him to rest, That he may lay the brick of our houses in a clean
spot, That in a clean spot he may establish our . . . !" In the reason here
given for man’s creation, or for his rescue from the Flood, we have an
interesting parallel to the Sixth Tablet of the Semitic-Babylonian Creation
Series. At the opening of that tablet Marduk, in response to "the word of the
gods", is urged by his heart to devise a cunning plan which he imparts to Ea,
namely the creation of man from his own divine blood and from bone which he will
fashion. And the reason he gives for his proposal is precisely that which, as we
have seen, prompted the Sumerian deity to create or preserve the human race. For
Marduk continues:

"I will create man who shall inhabit [. . .], That the service of the gods may
be established and that their shrines may be built."[1] [1] See /The Seven
Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.

We shall see later, from the remainder of Marduk’s speech, that the Semitic
Version has been elaborated at this point in order to reconcile it with other
ingredients in its narrative, which were entirely absent from the simpler
Sumerian tradition. It will suffice here to note that, in both, the reason given
for man’s existence is the same, namely, that the gods themselves may have
worshippers.[1] The conception is in full agreement with early Sumerian thought,
and reflects the theocratic constitution of the earliest Sumerian communities.
The idea was naturally not repugnant to the Semites, and it need not surprise us
to find the very words of the principal Sumerian Creator put into the mouth of
Marduk, the city-god of Babylon.

[1] It may be added that this is also the reason given for man’s creation in the
introduction to a text which celebrates the founding or rebuilding of a temple.
The deity’s speech perhaps comes to an end with the declaration of his purpose
in creating mankind or in sanctioning their survival of the Deluge; and the
following three lines appear to relate his establishment of the divine laws in
accordance with which his intention was carried out. The passage includes a
refrain, which is repeated in the Second Column: The sublime decrees he made
perfect for it.

It may probably be assumed that the refrain is employed in relation to the same
deity in both passages. In the Second Column it precedes the foundation of the
Babylonian kingdom and the building of the Antediluvian cities. In that passage
there can be little doubt that the subject of the verb is the chief Sumerian
deity, and we are therefore the more inclined to assign to him also the opening
speech of the First Column, rather than to regard it as spoken by the Sumerian
goddess whose share in the creation would justify her in claiming mankind as her
own. In the last four lines of the column we have a brief record of the Creation
itself. It was carried out by the three greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon,
Anu, Enlil and Enki, with the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga; the passage
reads: When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga Created the blackheaded (i.e.
mankind), The /niggil(ma)/ of the earth they caused the earth to produce(?), The
animals, the four-legged creatures of the field, they artfully called into
existence. The interpretation of the third line is obscure, but there is no
doubt that it records the creation of something which is represented as having
taken place between the creation of mankind and that of animals. This object,
which is written as /nig-gil/ or /nig-gil-ma/, is referred to again in the Sixth
Column, where the Sumerian hero of the Deluge assigns to it the honorific title,
"Preserver of the Seed of Mankind". It must therefore have played an important
part in man’s preservation from the Flood; and the subsequent bestowal of the
title may be paralleled in the early Semitic Deluge fragment from Nippur, where
the boat in which Ut-napishtim escapes is assigned the very similar title
"Preserver of Life".[1] But /niggilma/ is not the word used in the Sumerian
Version of Ziusudu’s boat, and I am inclined to suggest a meaning for it in
connexion with the magical element in the text, of the existence of which there
is other evidence. On that assumption, the prominence given to its creation may
be paralleled in the introduction to a later magical text, which described,
probably in connexion with an incantation, the creation of two small creatures,
one white and one black, by Nin-igi-azag, "The Lord of Clear Vision", one of the
titles borne by Enki or Ea. The time of their creation is indicated as after
that of "cattle, beasts of the field and creatures of the city", and the
composition opens in a way which is very like the opening of the present passage
in our text.[2] In neither text is there any idea of giving a complete account
of the creation of the world, only so much of the original myth being included
in each case as suffices for the writer’s purpose. Here we may assume that the
creation of mankind and of animals is recorded because they were to be saved
from the Flood, and that of the /niggilma/ because of the part it played in
ensuring their survival.

[1] See Hilprecht, /Babylonian Expedition/, Series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1, plate,
Rev., l. 8; the photographic reproduction clearly shows, as Dr. Poebel suggests
(/Hist. Texts/, p. 61 n 3), that the line should read: /[(isu)elippu] ši-i lu
(isu)ma-gur-gur-ma šum-ša lu na-si-rat na-piš-tim/, "That ship shall be a
/magurgurru/ (giant boat), and its name shall be ’Preserver of Life’ (lit. ’She
that preserves life’)."

[2] See /Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff. The text opens with the
words "When the gods in their assembly had made [the world], and had created the
heavens, and had formed the earth, and had brought living creatures into being .
. .", the lines forming an introduction to the special act of creation with
which the composition was concerned. The discussion of the meaning of /niggilma/
may best be postponed till the Sixth Column, where we find other references to
the word. Meanwhile it may be noted that in the present passage the creation of
man precedes that of animals, as it did in the earlier Hebrew Version of
Creation, and probably also in the Babylonian version, though not in the later
Hebrew Version. It may be added that in another Sumerian account of the
Creation[1] the same order, of man before animals, is followed.

[1] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, p. 134 f.; but the text has been subjected to
editing, and some of its episodes are obviously displaced.

II. THE ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES As we saw was the case with the First Column of the
text, the earliest part preserved of the Second Column contains the close of a
speech by a deity, in which he proclaims an act he is about to perform. Here we
may assume with some confidence that the speaker is Anu or Enlil, preferably the
latter, since it would be natural to ascribe the political constitution of
Babylonia, the foundation of which is foreshadowed, to the head of the Sumerian
pantheon. It would appear that a beginning had already been made in the
establishment of "the kingdom", and, before proceeding to his further work of
founding the Antediluvian cities, he follows the example of the speaker in the
First Column of the text and lays down the divine enactments by which his
purpose was accomplished. The same refrain is repeated: The sub[lime decrees] he
made perfect for it. The text then relates the founding by the god of five
cities, probably "in clean places", that is to say on hallowed ground. He calls
each by its name and assigns it to its own divine patron or city-god:

[In clean place]s he founded [five] cit[ies]. And after he had called their
names and they had been allotted to divine rulers(?),-- The . . . of these
cities, Eridu, he gave to the leader, Nu-dimmud, Secondly, to Nugira(?) he gave
Bad-. . .,[1] Thirdly, Larak he gave to Pabilkharsag, Fourthly, Sippar he gave
to the hero, the Sun-god, Fifthly, Shuruppak he gave to "the God of
Shuruppak",-- After he had called the names of these cities, and they had been
allotted to divine rulers(?), [1] In Semitic-Babylonian the first component of
this city-name would read "Dûr". The completion of the sentence, in the last two
lines of the column, cannot be rendered with any certainty, but the passage
appears to have related the creation of small rivers and pools. It will be noted
that the lines which contain the names of the five cities and their patron
gods[1] form a long explanatory parenthesis, the preceding line being repeated
after their enumeration.

[1] The precise meaning of the sign-group here provisionally rendered "divine
ruler" is not yet ascertained. As the first of the series of five cities of
Eridu, the seat of Nudimmud or Enki, who was the third of the creating deities,
it has been urged that the upper part of the Second Column must have included an
account of the founding of Erech, the city of Anu, and of Nippur, Enlil’s
city.[1] But the numbered sequence of the cities would be difficult to reconcile
with the earlier creation of other cities in the text, and the mention of Eridu
as the first city to be created would be quite in accord with its great age and
peculiarly sacred character as a cult-centre. Moreover the evidence of the
Sumerian Dynastic List is definitely against any claim of Erech to Antediluvian
existence. For when the hegemony passed from the first Post-diluvian "kingdom"
to the second, it went not to Erech but to the shrine Eanna, which gave its name
to the second "kingdom"; and the city itself was apparently not founded before
the reign of Enmerkar, the second occupant of the throne, who is the first to be
given the title "King of Erech". This conclusion with regard to Erech
incidentally disposes of the arguments for Nippur’s Antediluvian rank in
primitive Sumerian tradition, which have been founded on the order of the cities
mentioned at the beginning of the later Sumerian myth of Creation.[2] The
evidence we thus obtain that the early Sumerians themselves regarded Eridu as
the first city in the world to be created, increases the hope that future
excavation at Abu Shahrain may reveal Sumerian remains of periods which, from an
archaeological standpoint, must still be regarded as prehistoric.

[1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 41.

[2] The city of Nippur does not occur among the first four "kingdoms" of the
Sumerian Dynastic List; but we may probably assume that it was the seat of at
least one early "kingdom", in consequence of which Enlil, its city-god, attained
his later pre-eminent rank in the Sumerian pantheon.

It is noteworthy that no human rulers are mentioned in connexion with Eridu and
the other four Antediluvian cities; and Ziusudu, the hero of the story, is
apparently the only mortal whose name occurred in our text. But its author’s
principal subject is the Deluge, and the preceding history of the world is
clearly not given in detail, but is merely summarized. In view of the obviously
abbreviated form of the narrative, of which we have already noted striking
evidence in its account of the Creation, we may conclude that in the fuller form
of the tradition the cities were also assigned human rulers, each one the
representative of his city-god. These would correspond to the Antediluvian
dynasty of Berossus, the last member of which was Xisuthros, the later
counterpart of Ziusudu. In support of the exclusion of Nippur and Erech from the
myth, it will be noted that the second city in the list is not Adab,[1] which
was probably the principal seat of the goddess Ninkharsagga, the fourth of the
creating deities. The names of both deity and city in that line are strange to
us. Larak, the third city in the series, is of greater interest, for it is
clearly Larankha, which according to Berossus was the seat of the eighth and
ninth of his Antediluvian kings. In commercial documents of the Persian period,
which have been found during the excavations at Nippur, Larak is described as
lying "on the bank of the old Tigris", a phrase which must be taken as referring
to the Shatt el-Hai, in view of the situation of Lagash and other early cities
upon it or in its immediate neighbourhood. The site of the city should perhaps
be sought on the upper course of the stream, where it tends to approach Nippur.
It would thus have lain in the neighbourhood of Bismâya, the site of Adab. Like
Adab, Lagash, Shuruppak, and other early Sumerian cities, it was probably
destroyed and deserted at a very early period, though it was reoccupied under
its old name in Neo-Babylonian or Persian times. Its early disappearance from
Babylonian history perhaps in part accounts for our own unfamiliarity with
Pabilkharsag, its city-god, unless we may regard the name as a variant from of
Pabilsag; but it is hardly likely that the two should be identified.

[1] The site of Adab, now marked by the mounds of Bismâya, was partially
excavated by an expedition sent out in 1903 by the University of Chicago, and
has provided valuable material for the study of the earliest Sumerian period;
see /Reports of the Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund/ (Babylonian
Section of the University of Chicago), and Banks, /Bismya/ (1912). On grounds of
antiquity alone we might perhaps have expected its inclusion in the myth. In
Sibbar, the fourth of the Antediluvian cities in our series, we again have a
parallel to Berossus. it has long been recognized that Pantibiblon, or
Pantibiblia, from which the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh of his
Antediluvian kings all came, was the city of Sippar in Northern Babylonia. For
the seventh of these rulers, {Euedorakhos}, is clearly Enmeduranki, the mythical
king of Sippar, who in Babylonian tradition was regarded as the founder of
divination. In a fragmentary composition that has come down to us he is
described, not only as king of Sippar, but as "beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki",
the three creating gods of our text; and it is there recounted how the patron
deities of divination, Shamash and Adad, themselves taught him to practise their
art.[1] Moreover, Berossus directly implies the existence of Sippar before the
Deluge, for in the summary of his version that has been preserved Xisuthros,
under divine instruction, buries the sacred writings concerning the origin of
the world in

"Sispara", the city of the Sun-god, so that after the Deluge they might be dug
up and transmitted to mankind. Ebabbar, the great Sun-temple, was at Sippar, and
it is to the Sun-god that the city is naturally allotted in the new Sumerian
Version.

[1] Cf. Zimmern, /Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Relig./, pp. 116 ff. The last
of the five Antediluvian cities in our list is Shuruppak, in which dwelt
Ut-napishtim, the hero of the Babylonian version of the Deluge. Its site has
been identified with the mounds of Fâra, in the neighbourhood of the Shatt
el-Kâr, the former bed of the Euphrates; and the excavations that were conducted
there in 1902 have been most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric
period of Sumerian culture.[1] Since our text is concerned mainly with the
Deluge, it is natural to assume that the foundation of the city from which the
Deluge-hero came would be recorded last, in order to lead up to the central
episode of the text. The city of Ziusudu, the hero of the Sumerian story, is
unfortunately not given in the Third Column, but, in view of Shuruppak’s place
in the list of Antediluvian cities, it is not improbable that on this point the
Sumerian and Babylonian Versions agreed. In the Gilgamesh Epic Shuruppak is the
only Antediluvian city referred to, while in the Hebrew accounts no city at all
is mentioned in connexion with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not
recorded, but as his father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that city
as his in the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only Antediluvian cities
according to Berossus were Babylon and Sippar, and the influence of Babylonian
theology, of which we here have evidence, would be sufficient to account for a
disturbance of the original traditions. At the same time it is not excluded that
Larak was also the scene of the Deluge in our text, though, as we have noted,
the position of Shuruppak at the close of the Sumerian list points to it as the
more probable of the two. It may be added that we cannot yet read the name of
the deity to whom Shuruppak was allotted, but as it is expressed by the city’s
name preceded by the divine determinative, the rendering "the God of Shuruppak"
will meanwhile serve.

[1] See /Hist. of Sum. and Akk./, pp. 24 ff. The creation of small rivers and
pools, which seems to have followed the foundation of the five sacred cities, is
best explained on the assumption that they were intended for the supply of water
to the cities and to the temples of their five patron gods. The creation of the
Euphrates and the Tigris, if recorded in our text at all, or in its logical
order, must have occurred in the upper portion of the column. The fact that in
the later Sumerian account their creation is related between that of mankind and
the building of Nippur and Erech cannot be cited in support of this suggestion,
in view of the absence of those cities from our text and of the process of
editing to which the later version has been subjected, with a consequent
disarrangement of its episodes.

III. THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS, AND ZIUSUDU’S PIETY From the lower part of the
Third Column, where its text is first preserved, it is clear that the gods had
already decided to send a Deluge, for the goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga, here
referred to also as "the holy Innanna", wails aloud for the intended destruction
of "her people". That this decision has been decreed by the gods in council is
clear from a passage in the Fourth Column, where it is stated that the sending
of a flood to destroy mankind was "the word of the assembly [of the gods]". The
first lines preserved in the present column describe the effect of the decision
on the various gods concerned and their action at the close of the council. In
the lines which described the Council of the Gods, broken references to "the
people" and "a flood" are preserved, after which the text continues: At that
time Nintu [. . .] like a [. . .], The holy Innanna lament[ed] on account of her
people.

Enki in his own heart [held] counsel;

Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga [. . .]. The gods of heaven and earth
in[voked] the name of Anu and Enlil.

It is unfortunate that the ends of all the lines in this column are wanting, but
enough remains to show a close correspondence of the first two lines quoted with
a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic where Ishtar is described as lamenting the
destruction of mankind.[1] This will be seen more clearly by printing the two
couplets in parallel columns:

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION At that time Nintu [. . .] like Ishtar cried
aloud like a woman a [. . .], in travail, The holy Innanna lament[ed] on
Bêlit-ili lamented with a loud account of her people. voice.

[1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 117 f. The expression Bêlit-ili, "the Lady of the Gods",
is attested as a title borne both by the Semitic goddess Ishtar and by the
Sumerian goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga. In the passage in the Babylonian
Version, "the Lady of the Gods" has always been treated as a synonym of Ishtar,
the second half of the couplet being regarded as a restatement of the first,
according to a recognized law of Babylonian poetry. We may probably assume that
this interpretation is correct, and we may conclude by analogy that "the holy
Innanna" in the second half of the Sumerian couplet is there merely employed as
a synonym of Nintu.[1] When the Sumerian myth was recast in accordance with
Semitic ideas, the /rôle/ of creatress of mankind, which had been played by the
old Sumerian goddess Ninkharsagga or Nintu, was naturally transferred to the
Semitic Ishtar. And as Innanna was one of Ishtar’s designations, it was possible
to make the change by a simple transcription of the lines, the name Nintu being
replaced by the synonymous title Bêlit-ili, which was also shared by Ishtar.
Difficulties are at once introduced if we assume with Dr. Poebel that in each
version two separate goddesses are represented as lamenting, Nintu or Bêlit-ili
and Innanna or Ishtar. For Innanna as a separate goddess had no share in the
Sumerian Creation, and the reference to "her people" is there only applicable to
Nintu. Dr. Poebel has to assume that the Sumerian names should be reversed in
order to restore them to their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian
Version has preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary. In the
Semitic Version Ishtar definitely displaces Nintu as the mother of men, as is
proved by a later passage in her speech where she refers to her own bearing of
mankind.[2] The necessity for the substitution of her name in the later version
is thus obvious, and we have already noted how simply this was effected.

[1] Cf. also Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 336.

[2] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.

Another feature in which the two versions differ is that in the Sumerian text
the lamentation of the goddess precedes the sending of the Deluge, while in the
Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual advent of the storm. Since our
text is not completely preserved, it is just possible that the couplet was
repeated at the end of the Fourth Column after mankind’s destruction had taken
place. But a further apparent difference has been noted. While in the Sumerian
Version the goddess at once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from
Ishtar’s words in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods she had at
any rate concurred in it.[1] On the other hand, in Bêlit-ili’s later speech in
the Epic, after Ut-napishtim’s sacrifice upon the mountain, she appears to
subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.[2] The passages in the Gilgamesh Epic are
not really contradictory, for they can be interpreted as implying that, while
Enlil forced his will upon the other gods against Bêlit-ili’s protest, the
goddess at first reproached herself with her concurrence, and later stigmatized
Enlil as the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does not
appear, as has been suggested, to betray traces of two variant traditions which
have been skilfully combined, though it may perhaps exhibit an expansion of the
Sumerian story. On the other hand, most of the apparent discrepancies between
the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions disappear, on the recognition that our text
gives in many passages only an epitome of the original Sumerian Version.

[1] Cf. l. 121 f., "Since I commanded evil in the assembly of the gods, (and)
commanded battle for the destruction of my people".

[2] Cf. ll. 165 ff., "Ye gods that are here! So long as I forget not the (jewels
of) lapis lazuli upon my neck, I will keep these days in my memory, never will I
forget them! Let the gods come to the offering, but let not Enlil come to the
offering, since he took not counsel but sent the deluge and surrendered my
people to destruction." The lament of the goddess is followed by a brief account
of the action taken by the other chief figures in the drama. Enki holds counsel
with his own heart, evidently devising the project, which he afterwards carried
into effect, of preserving the seed of mankind from destruction. Since the verb
in the following line is wanting, we do not know what action is there recorded
of the four creating deities; but the fact that the gods of heaven and earth
invoked the name of Anu and Enlil suggests that it was their will which had been
forced upon the other gods. We shall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil
are the ultimate rulers of both gods and men. The narrative then introduces the
human hero of the Deluge story: At that time Ziusudu, the king, . . . priest of
the god [. . .], Made a very great . . ., [. . .]. In humility he prostrates
himself, in reverence [. . .], Daily he stands in attendance [. . .]. A
dream,[1] such as had not been before, comes forth[2] . . . [. . .], By the Name
of Heaven and Earth he conjures [. . .].

[1] The word may also be rendered "dreams".

[2] For this rendering of the verb /e-de/, for which Dr. Poebel does not hazard
a translation, see Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, IV, pl. 26, l. 24 f.(a), /nu-e-de/ =
Sem. /la us-su-u/ (Pres.); and cf. Brünnow, /Classified List/, p. 327. An
alternative rendering "is created" is also possible, and would give equally good
sense; cf. /nu-e-de/ = Sem. /la šu-pu-u/, /W.A.I./, IV, pl. 2, l. 5 (a), and
Brünnow, op. cit., p. 328. The name of the hero, Ziusudu, is the fuller Sumerian
equivalent of Ut-napishtim (or Uta-napishtim), the abbreviated Semitic form
which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic. For not only are the first two elements of
the Sumerian name identical with those of the Semitic Ut-napishtim, but the
names themselves are equated in a later Babylonian syllabary or explanatory list
of words.[1] We there find "Ut-napishte" given as the equivalent of the Sumerian
"Zisuda", evidently an abbreviated form of the name Ziusudu;[2] and it is
significant that the names occur in the syllabary between those of Gilgamesh and
Enkidu, evidently in consequence of the association of the Deluge story by the
Babylonians with their national epic of Gilgamesh. The name Ziusudu may be
rendered "He who lengthened the day of life" or "He who made life long of
days",[3] which in the Semitic form is abbreviated by the omission of the verb.
The reference is probably to the immortality bestowed upon Ziusudu at the close
of the story, and not to the prolongation of mankind’s existence in which he was
instrumental. It is scarcely necessary to add that the name has no linguistic
connexion with the Hebrew name Noah, to which it also presents no parallel in
meaning.

[1] Cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XVIII, pl. 30, l. 9 (a).

[2] The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebel as Ziugiddu, but
there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern’s suggestion, based on the form Zisuda,
that the third syllable of the name should be read as /su/. On a fragment of
another Nippur text, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the name as /Zi-u-sud-du/ (cf.
Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90, pl. iv a); the
presence of the phonetic complement /du/ may be cited in favour of this reading,
but it does not appear to be supported by the photographic reproductions of the
name in the Sumerian Deluge Version given by Dr. Poebel (/Hist. and Gramm.
Texts/, pl. lxxxviii f.). It may be added that, on either alternative, the
meaning of the name is the same.

[3] The meaning of the Sumerian element /u/ in the name, rendered as /utu/ in
the Semitic form, is rather obscure, and Dr. Poebel left it unexplained. It is
very probable, as suggested by Dr. Langdon (cf. /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, XXXVI,
1914, p. 190), that we should connect it with the Semitic /uddu/; in that case,
in place of "breath", the rending he suggests, I should be inclined to render it
here as "day", for /uddu/ as the meaning "dawn" and the sign UD is employed both
for /urru/, "day-light", and /ûmu/, "day".


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 02.05.     LECTURE III: CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM ...
========================================================================

LECTURE III CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM OF BABYLONIAN
PARALLELS IN HEBREW TRADITION In our discussion of the new Sumerian version of
the Deluge story we came to the conclusion that it gave no support to any theory
which would trace all such tales to a single origin, whether in Egypt or in
Babylonia. In spite of strong astrological elements in both the Egyptian and
Babylonian religious systems, we saw grounds for regarding the astrological
tinge of much ancient mythology as a later embellishment and not as primitive
material. And so far as our new version of the Deluge story was concerned, it
resolved itself into a legend, which had a basis of historical fact in the
Euphrates Valley. It will be obvious that the same class of explanation cannot
be applied to narratives of the Creation of the World. For there we are dealing,
not with legends, but with myths, that is, stories exclusively about the gods.
But where an examination of their earlier forms is possible, it would seem to
show that many of these tales also, in their origin, are not to be interpreted
as nature myths, and that none arose as mere reflections of the solar system. In
their more primitive and simpler aspects they seem in many cases to have been
suggested by very human and terrestrial experience. To-day we will examine the
Egyptian, Sumerian, and Babylonian myths of Creation, and, after we have noted
the more striking features of our new material, we will consider the problem of
foreign influences upon Hebrew traditions concerning the origin and early
history of the world. In Egypt, as until recently in Babylonia, we have to
depend for our knowledge of Creation myths on documents of a comparatively late
period. Moreover, Egyptian religious literature as a whole is textually corrupt,
and in consequence it is often difficult to determine the original significance
of its allusions. Thanks to the funerary inscriptions and that great body of
magical formulae and ritual known as "The Chapters of Coming forth by Day", we
are very fully informed on the Egyptian doctrines as to the future state of the
dead. The Egyptian’s intense interest in his own remote future, amounting almost
to an obsession, may perhaps in part account for the comparatively meagre space
in the extant literature which is occupied by myths relating solely to the past.
And it is significant that the one cycle of myth, of which we are fully informed
in its latest stage of development, should be that which gave its sanction to
the hope of a future existence for man. The fact that Herodotus, though he
claims a knowledge of the sufferings or "Mysteries" of Osiris, should
deliberately refrain from describing them or from even uttering the name,[1]
suggests that in his time at any rate some sections of the mythology had begun
to acquire an esoteric character. There is no doubt that at all periods myth
played an important part in the ritual of feast-days. But mythological
references in the earlier texts are often obscure; and the late form in which a
few of the stories have come to us is obviously artificial. The tradition, for
example, which relates how mankind came from the tears which issued from Ra’s
eye undoubtedly arose from a play upon words.

[1] Herodotus, II, 171. On the other hand, traces of myth, scattered in the
religious literature of Egypt, may perhaps in some measure betray their relative
age by the conceptions of the universe which underlie them. The Egyptian idea
that the sky was a heavenly ocean, which is not unlike conceptions current among
the Semitic Babylonians and Hebrews, presupposes some thought and reflection. In
Egypt it may well have been evolved from the probably earlier but analogous idea
of the river in heaven, which the Sun traversed daily in his boats. Such a river
was clearly suggested by the Nile; and its world-embracing character is
reminiscent of a time when through communication was regularly established, at
least as far south as Elephantine. Possibly in an earlier period the long narrow
valley, or even a section of it, may have suggested the figure of a man lying
prone upon his back. Such was Keb, the Earth-god, whose counterpart in the sky
was the goddess Nut, her feet and hands resting at the limits of the world and
her curved body forming the vault of heaven. Perhaps still more primitive, and
dating from a pastoral age, may be the notion that the sky was a great cow, her
body, speckled with stars, alone visible from the earth beneath. Reference has
already been made to the dominant influence of the Sun in Egyptian religion, and
it is not surprising that he should so often appear as the first of created
beings. His orb itself, or later the god in youthful human form, might be
pictured as emerging from a lotus on the primaeval waters, or from a
marsh-bird’s egg, a conception which influenced the later Phoenician cosmogeny.
The Scarabaeus, or great dung-feeding beetle of Egypt, rolling the ball before
it in which it lays its eggs, is an obvious theme for the early myth-maker. And
it was natural that the Beetle of Khepera should have been identified with the
Sun at his rising, as the Hawk of Ra represented his noonday flight, and the
aged form of Attun his setting in the west. But in all these varied conceptions
and explanations of the universe it is difficult to determine how far the
poetical imagery of later periods has transformed the original myths which may
lie behind them. As the Egyptian Creator the claims of Ra, the Sun-god of
Heliopolis, early superseded those of other deities. On the other hand, Ptah of
Memphis, who for long ages had been merely the god of architects and craftsmen,
became under the Empire the architect of the universe and is pictured as a
potter moulding the world-egg. A short poem by a priest of Ptah, which has come
down to us from that period, exhibits an attempt to develop this idea on
philosophical lines.[1] Its author represents all gods and living creatures as
proceeding directly from the mind and thought of Ptah. But this movement, which
was more notably reflected in Akhenaton’s religious revolution, died out in
political disaster, and the original materialistic interpretation of the myths
was restored with the cult of Amen. How materialistic this could be is well
illustrated by two earlier members of the XVIIIth Dynasty, who have left us
vivid representations of the potter’s wheel employed in the process of man’s
creation. When the famous Hatshepsut, after the return of her expedition to Punt
in the ninth year of her young consort Thothmes III, decided to build her temple
at Deir el-Bahari in the necropolis of Western Thebes, she sought to emphasize
her claim to the throne of Egypt by recording her own divine origin upon its
walls. We have already noted the Egyptians’ belief in the solar parentage of
their legitimate rulers, a myth that goes back at least to the Old Kingdom and
may have had its origin in prehistoric times. With the rise of Thebes, Amen
inherited the prerogatives of Ra; and so Hatshepsut seeks to show, on the north
side of the retaining wall of her temple’s Upper Platform, that she was the
daughter of Amen himself, "the great God, Lord of the sky, Lord of the Thrones
of the Two Lands, who resides at Thebes". The myth was no invention of her own,
for obviously it must have followed traditional lines, and though it is only
employed to exhibit the divine creation of a single personage, it as obviously
reflects the procedure and methods of a general Creation myth.

[1] See Breasted, /Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache/, XXXIX, pp. 39 ff., and
/History of Egypt/, pp. 356 ff. This series of sculptures shared the deliberate
mutilation that all her records suffered at the hands of Thothmes III after her
death, but enough of the scenes and their accompanying text has survived to
render the detailed interpretation of the myth quite certain.[1] Here, as in a
general Creation myth, Amen’s first act is to summon the great gods in council,
in order to announce to them the future birth of the great princess. Of the
twelve gods who attend, the first is Menthu, a form of the Sun-god and closely
associated with Amen.[2] But the second deity is Atum, the great god of
Heliopolis, and he is followed by his cycle of deities--Shu, "the son of Ra";
Tefnut, "the Lady of the sky"; Keb, "the Father of the Gods"; Nut, "the Mother
of the Gods"; Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Set, Horus, and Hathor. We are here in the
presence of cosmic deities, as befits a projected act of creation. The
subsequent scenes exhibit the Egyptian’s literal interpretation of the myth,
which necessitates the god’s bodily presence and personal participation. Thoth
mentions to Amen the name of queen Aahmes as the future mother of Hatshepsut,
and we later see Amen himself, in the form of her husband, Aa-kheperka-Ra
(Thothmes I), sitting with Aahmes and giving her the Ankh, or sign of Life,
which she receives in her hand and inhales through her nostrils.[3] God and
queen are seated on thrones above a couch, and are supported by two goddesses.
After leaving the queen, Amen calls on Khnum or Khnemu, the flat-horned ram-god,
who in texts of all periods is referred to as the "builder" of gods and men;[4]
and he instructs him to create the body of his future daughter and that of her
/Ka/, or "double", which would be united to her from birth.

[1] See Naville, /Deir el-Bahari/, Pt. II, pp. 12 ff., plates xlvi ff.

[2] See Budge, /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. II, pp. 23 ff. His chief
cult-centre was Hermonthis, but here as elsewhere he is given his usual title
"Lord of Thebes".

[3] Pl. xlvii. Similar scenes are presented in the "birth-temples" at Denderah,
Edfu, Philae, Esneh, and Luxor; see Naville, op. cit., p. 14.

[4] Cf. Budge, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 50. The scene in the series, which is of
greatest interest in the present connexion, is that representing Khnum at his
work of creation. He is seated before a potter’s wheel which he works with his
foot,[1] and on the revolving table he is fashioning two children with his
hands, the baby princess and her "double". It was always Hatshepsut’s desire to
be represented as a man, and so both the children are boys.[2] As yet they are
lifeless, but the symbol of Life will be held to their nostrils by Heqet, the
divine Potter’s wife, whose frog-head typifies birth and fertility. When
Amenophis III copied Hatshepsut’s sculptures for his own series at Luxor, he
assigned this duty to the greater goddess Hathor, perhaps the most powerful of
the cosmic goddesses and the mother of the world. The subsequent scenes at Deir
el-Bahari include the leading of queen Aahmes by Khnum and Heqet to the
birth-chamber; the great birth scene where the queen is attended by the
goddesses Nephthys and Isis, a number of divine nurses and midwives holding
several of the "doubles" of the baby, and favourable genii, in human form or
with the heads of crocodiles, jackals, and hawks, representing the four cardinal
points and all bearing the gift of life; the presentation of the young child by
the goddess Hathor to Amen, who is well pleased at the sight of his daughter;
and the divine suckling of Hatshepsut and her "doubles". But these episodes do
not concern us, as of course they merely reflect the procedure following a royal
birth. But Khnum’s part in the princess’s origin stands on a different plane,
for it illustrates the Egyptian myth of Creation by the divine Potter, who may
take the form of either Khnum or Ptah. Monsieur Naville points out the
extraordinary resemblance in detail which Hatshepsut’s myth of divine paternity
bears to the Greek legend of Zeus and Alkmene, where the god takes the form of
Amphitryon, Alkmene’s husband, exactly as Amen appears to the queen;[3] and it
may be added that the Egyptian origin of the Greek story was traditionally
recognized in the ancestry ascribed to the human couple.[4]

[1] This detail is not clearly preserved at Deir el-Bahari; but it is quite
clear in the scene on the west wall of the "Birth-room" in the Temple at Luxor,
which Amenophis III evidently copied from that of Hatshepsut.

[2] In the similar scene at Luxor, where the future Amenophis III is represented
on the Creator’s wheel, the sculptor has distinguished the human child from its
spiritual "double" by the quaint device of putting its finger in its mouth.

[3] See Naville, op. cit., p. 12.

[4] Cf., e.g., Herodotus, II, 43. The only complete Egyptian Creation myth yet
recovered is preserved in a late papyrus in the British Museum, which was
published some years ago by Dr. Budge.[1] It occurs under two separate versions
embedded in "The Book of the Overthrowing of Apep, the Enemy of Ra". Here Ra,
who utters the myth under his late title of Neb-er-tcher, "Lord to the utmost
limit", is self-created as Khepera from Nu, the primaeval water; and then follow
successive generations of divine pairs, male and female, such as we find at the
beginning of the Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series.[2] Though the papyrus was
written as late as the year 311 B.C., the myth is undoubtedly early. For the
first two divine pairs Shu and Tefnut, Keb and Nut, and four of the latter
pairs’ five children, Osiris and Isis, Set and Nephthys, form with the Sun-god
himself the Greater Ennead of Heliopolis, which exerted so wide an influence on
Egyptian religious speculation. The Ennead combined the older solar elements
with the cult of Osiris, and this is indicated in the myth by a break in the
successive generations, Nut bringing forth at a single birth the five chief gods
of the Osiris cycle, Osiris himself and his son Horus, with Set, Isis, and
Nephthys. Thus we may see in the myth an early example of that religious
syncretism which is so characteristic of later Egyptian belief.

[1] See /Archaeologia/, Vol. LII (1891). Dr. Budge published a new edition of
the whole papyrus in /Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum/ (1910),
and the two versions of the Creation myth are given together in his /Gods of the
Egyptians/, Vol. I (1904), Chap. VIII, pp. 308 ff., and more recently in his
/Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I, "Legends of the Gods" (1912), pp. 2 ff. An
account of the papyrus is included in the Introduction to "Legends of the Gods",
pp. xiii ff.

[2] In /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, Chap. VII, pp. 288 ff., Dr. Budge gives
a detailed comparison of the Egyptian pairs of primaeval deities with the very
similar couples of the Babylonian myth. The only parallel this Egyptian myth of
Creation presents to the Hebrew cosmogony is in its picture of the primaeval
water, corresponding to the watery chaos of Genesis i. But the resemblance is of
a very general character, and includes no etymological equivalence such as we
find when we compare the Hebrew account with the principal Semitic-Babylonian
Creation narrative.[1] The application of the Ankh, the Egyptian sign for Life,
to the nostrils of a newly-created being is no true parallel to the breathing
into man’s nostrils of the breath of life in the earlier Hebrew Version,[2]
except in the sense that each process was suggested by our common human anatomy.
We should naturally expect to find some Hebrew parallel to the Egyptian idea of
Creation as the work of a potter with his clay, for that figure appears in most
ancient mythologies. The Hebrews indeed used the conception as a metaphor or
parable,[3] and it also underlies their earlier picture of man’s creation. I
have not touched on the grosser

Egyptian conceptions concerning the origin of the universe, which we may
probably connect with African ideas; but those I have referred to will serve to
demonstrate the complete absence of any feature that presents a detailed
resemblance of the Hebrew tradition.

[1] For the wide diffusion, in the myths of remote peoples, of a vague theory
that would trace all created things to a watery origin, see Farnell, /Greece and
Babylon/, p. 180.

[2] Genesis 2:7 (J).

[3] Cf., e.g., Isaiah 29:16, Isaiah 45:9; and Jeremiah 18:2 f. When we turn to
Babylonia, we find there also evidence of conflicting ideas, the product of
different and to some extent competing religious centres. But in contrast to the
rather confused condition of Egyptian mythology, the Semitic Creation myth of
the city of Babylon, thanks to the latter’s continued political ascendancy,
succeeded in winning a dominant place in the national literature. This is the
version in which so many points of resemblance to Genesis 1:1-31 have long been
recognized, especially in the succession of creative acts and their relative
order. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version the creation of the world is
represented as the result of conflict, the emergence of order out of chaos, a
result that is only attained by the personal triumph of the Creator. But this
underlying dualism does not appear in the more primitive Sumerian Version we
have now recovered. It will be remembered that in the second lecture I gave some
account of the myth, which occurs in an epitomized form as an introduction to
the Sumerian Version of the Deluge, the two narratives being recorded in the
same document and connected with one another by a description of the
Antediluvian cities. We there saw that Creation is ascribed to the three
greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil, and Enki, assisted by the
goddess Ninkharsagga.

It is an interesting fact that Ziusudu should be described simply as "the king",
without any indication of the city or area he ruled; and in three of the five
other passages in the text in which his name is mentioned it is followed by the
same title without qualification. In most cases Berossus tells us the cities
from which his Antediluvian rulers came; and if the end of the line had been
preserved it might have been possible to determine definitely Ziusudu’s city,
and incidentally the scene of the Deluge in the Sumerian Version, by the name of
the deity in whose service he acted as priest. We have already noted some
grounds for believing that his city may have been Shuruppak, as in the
Babylonian Version; and if that were so, the divine name reads as "the God of
Shurrupak" should probably be restored at the end of the line.[1]

[1] The remains that are preserved of the determinative, which is not combined
with the sign EN, proves that Enki’s name is not to be restored. Hence Ziusudu
was not priest of Enki, and his city was probably not Eridu, the seat of his
divine friend and counsellor, and the first of the Antediluvian cities.
Sufficient reason for Enki’s intervention on Ziusudu’s behalf is furnished by
the fact that, as God of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposed method of
man’s destruction. His rivalry of Enlil, the God of the Earth, is implied in the
Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-42), and in the Sumerian Version
this would naturally extend to Anu, the God of Heaven. The employment of the
royal title by itself accords with the tradition from Berossus that before the
Deluge, as in later periods, the land was governed by a succession of supreme
rulers, and that the hero of the Deluge was the last of them. In the Gilgamesh
Epic, on the other hand, Ut-napishtim is given no royal nor any other title. He
is merely referred to as a "man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu", and he appears
in the guise of an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal power. On
this point Berossus evidently preserves the original Sumerian traditions, while
the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-

Babylonian narrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of supreme
Antediluvian rulers is of course merely a reflection from the historical period,
when the hegemony in Babylonia was contested among the city-states. The growth
of the tradition may have been encouraged by the early use of /lugal/, "king",
which, though always a term of secular character, was not very sharply
distinguished from that of /patesi/ and other religious titles, until, in
accordance with political development, it was required to connote a wider
dominion. In

Sumer, at the time of the composition of our text, Ziusudu was still only one in
a long line of Babylonian rulers, mainly historical but gradually receding into
the realms of legend and myth. At the time of the later Semites there had been
more than one complete break in the tradition and the historical setting of the
old story had become dim. The fact that Hebrew tradition should range itself in
this matter with Babylon rather than with Sumer is important as a clue in
tracing the literary history of our texts. The rest of the column may be taken
as descriptive of Ziusudu’s activities. One line records his making of some very
great object or the erection of a huge building;[1] and since the following
lines are concerned solely with religious activities, the reference is possibly
to a temple or some other structure of a sacred character. Its foundation may
have been recorded as striking evidence of his devotion to his god; or, since
the verb in this sentence depends on the words "at that time" in the preceding
line, we may perhaps regard his action as directly connected with the revelation
to be made to him. His personal piety is then described: daily he occupied
himself in his god’s service, prostrating himself in humility and constant in
his attendance at the shrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), "such as had not
been before", appears to him and he seems to be further described as conjuring
"by the Name of Heaven and Earth"; but as the ends of all these lines are
broken, the exact connexion of the phrases is not quite certain.

[1] The element /gur-gur/, "very large" or "huge", which occurs in the name of
this great object or building, /an-sag-gur-gur/, is employed later in the term
for the "huge boat", /(gish)ma-gur-gur/, in which Ziusudu rode out the storm.
There was, of course, even at this early period a natural tendency to picture on
a superhuman scale the lives and deeds of remote predecessors, a tendency which
increased in later times and led, as we shall see, to the elaboration of
extravagant detail.

It is difficult not to associate the reference to a dream, or possibly to
dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki reveals the purpose of the
gods. For the later versions prepare us for a reference to a dream. If we take
the line as describing Ziusudu’s practice of dream-divination in general, "such
as had not been before", he may have been represented as the first diviner of
dreams, as Enmeduranki was held to be the first practitioner of divination in
general. But it seems to me more probable that the reference is to a particular
dream, by means of which he obtained knowledge of the gods’ intentions. On the
rendering of this passage depends our interpretation of the whole of the Fourth
Column, where the point will be further discussed. Meanwhile it may be noted
that the conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth", which we may assume is
ascribed to Ziusudu, gains in significance if we may regard the setting of the
myth as a magical incantation, an inference in support of which we shall note
further evidence. For we are furnished at once with the grounds for its magical
employment. If Ziusudu, through conjuring by the Name of Heaven and earth, could
profit by the warning sent him and so escape the impending fate of mankind, the
application of such a myth to the special needs of a Sumerian in peril or
distress will be obvious. For should he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and
Earth, he might look for a similar deliverance; and his recital of the myth
itself would tend to clinch the magical effect of his own incantation. The
description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnishing us with a close
parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew Versions. For in the Gilgamesh Epic
and in Berossus this feature of the story is completely absent. We are there
given no reason why Ut-napishtim was selected by Ea, nor Xisuthros by Kronos.
For all that those versions tell us, the favour of each deity might have been
conferred arbitrarily, and not in recognition of, or in response to, any
particular quality or action on the part of its recipient. The Sumerian Version
now restores the original setting of the story and incidentally proves that, in
this particular, the Hebrew Versions have not embroidered a simpler narrative
for the purpose of edification, but have faithfully reproduced an original
strand of the tradition.

IV. THE DREAM-WARNING The top of the Fourth Column of the text follows
immediately on the close of the Third Column, so that at this one point we have
no great gap between the columns. But unfortunately the ends of all the lines in
both columns are wanting, and the exact content of some phrases preserved and
their relation to each other are consequently doubtful. This materially affects
the interpretation of the passage as a whole, but the main thread of the
narrative may be readily followed. Ziusudu is here warned that a flood is to be
sent "to destroy the seed of mankind"; the doubt that exists concerns the manner
in which the warning is conveyed. In the first line of the column, after a
reference to "the gods", a building seems to be mentioned, and Ziusudu, standing
beside it, apparently hears a voice, which bids him take his stand beside a wall
and then conveys to him the warning of the coming flood. The destruction of
mankind had been decreed in "the assembly [of the gods]" and would be carried
out by the commands of Anu and Enlil. Before the text breaks off we again have a
reference to the "kingdom" and "its rule", a further trace of the close
association of the Deluge with the dynastic succession in the early traditions
of Sumer. In the opening words of the warning to Ziusudu, with its prominent
repetition of the word "wall", we must evidently trace some connexion with the
puzzling words of Ea in the Gilgamesh Epic, when he begins his warning to
Ut-napishtim. The warnings, as given in the two versions, are printed below in
parallel columns for comparison.[1] The Gilgamesh Epic, after relating how the
great gods in Shuruppak had decided to send a deluge, continues as follows in
the right-hand column:

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION For [. . .] . . . the gods a Nin-igi-azag,[2]
the god Ea, . . . [. . .]; sat with them, Ziusudu standing at its side And he
repeated their word to heard [. . .]: the house of reeds:

"At the wall on my left side take "Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall, thy stand and [. .
.], wall! At the wall I will speak a word O reed-hut, hear! O wall, to thee [. .
.]. understand!

O my devout one . . . [. . .], Thou man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, By our
hand(?) a flood[3] . . . Pull down thy house, build a [. . .] will be [sent].
ship, To destroy the seed of mankind Leave thy possessions, take [. . .] heed
for thy life, Is the decision, the word of the Abandon thy property, and save
assembly[4] [of the gods] thy life. The commands of Anu (and) And bring living
seed of every En[lil . . .] kind into the ship. Its kingdom, its rule [. . .] As
for the ship, which thou shalt build, To his [. . .]" Of which the measurements
shall be carefully measured, [. . .] Its breadth and length shall correspond.

[. . .] In the deep shalt thou immerse it."

[1] Col. IV, ll. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 19-31.

[2] Nin-igi-azag, "The Lord of Clear Vision", a title borne by Enki, or Ea, as
God of Wisdom.

[3] The Sumerian term /amaru/, here used for the flood and rendered as
"rain-storm" by Dr. Poebel, is explained in a later syllabary as the equivalent
of the Semitic-Babylonian word /abûbu/ (cf. Meissner, /S.A.I./, No. 8909), the
term employed for the flood both in the early Semitic version of the Atrakhasis
story dated in Ammizaduga’s reign and in the Gilgamesh Epic. The word /abûbu/ is
often conventionally rendered "deluge", but should be more accurately translated
"flood". It is true that the tempests of the Sumerian Version probably imply
rain; and in the Gilgamesh Epic heavy rain in the evening begins the flood and
is followed at dawn by a thunderstorm and hurricane. But in itself the term
/abûbu/ implies flood, which could take place through a rise of the rivers
unaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annual rainfall in Babylonia to-day is on
an average only about 8 in., and there have been years in succession when the
total rainfall has not exceeded 4 in.; and yet the /abûbu/ is not a thing of the
past.

[4] The word here rendered "assembly" is the Semitic loan-word /buhrum/, in
Babylonian /puhrum/, the term employed for the "assembly" of the gods both in
the Babylonian Creation Series and in the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment in the
Sumerian Version, in place of its Sumerian equivalent /ukkin/, is an interesting
example of Semitic influence. Its occurrence does not necessarily imply the
existence of a recognized Semitic Version at the period our text was inscribed.
The substitution of /buhrum/ for /ukkin/ in the text may well date from the
period of Hammurabi, when we may assume that the increased importance of the
city-council was reflected in the general adoption of the Semitic term (cf.
Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 53). In the Semitic Version Ut-napishtim, who tells
the story in the first person, then says that he "understood", and that, after
assuring Ea that he would carry out his commands, he asked how he was to explain
his action to "the city, the people, and the elders"; and the god told him what
to say. Then follows an account of the building of the ship, introduced by the
words "As soon as the dawn began to break". In the Sumerian Version the close of
the warning, in which the ship was probably referred to, and the lines
prescribing how Ziusudu carried out the divine instructions are not preserved.

It will be seen that in the passage quoted from the Semitic Version there is no
direct mention of a dream; the god is represented at first as addressing his
words to a "house of reeds" and a "wall", and then as speaking to Ut-napishtim
himself. But in a later passage in the Epic, when Ea seeks to excuse his action
to Enlil, he says that the gods’ decision was revealed to Atrakhasis through a
dream.[1] Dr.

Poebel rightly compares the direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in the passage
quoted above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu receives in the Sumerian
Version. But he would have us divorce the direct warning from the dream-warning,
and he concludes that no less than three different versions of the story have
been worked together in the Gilgamesh Epic. In the first, corresponding to that
in our text, Ea communicates the gods’ decision directly to Ut-napishtim; in the
second he sends a dream from which Atrakhasis, "the Very Wise one", guesses the
impending peril; while in the third he relates the plan to a wall, taking care
that Ut-napishtim overhears him.[2] The version of Berossus, that Kronos himself
appears to Xisuthros in a dream and warns him, is rejected by Dr. Poebel, who
remarks that here the "original significance of the dream has already been
obliterated". Consequently there seems to him to be "no logical connexion"
between the dreams or dream mentioned at the close of the Third Column and the
communication of the plan of the gods at the beginning of the Fourth Column of
our text.[3]

[1] Cf. l. 195 f.; "I did not divulge the decision of the great gods. I caused
Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thus he heard the decision of the gods."

[2] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 51 f. With the god’s apparent subterfuge in
the third of these supposed versions Sir James Frazer (/Ancient Stories of a
Great Flood/, p. 15) not inaptly compares the well-known story of King Midas’s
servant, who, unable to keep the secret of the king’s deformity to himself,
whispered it into a hole in the ground, with the result that the reeds which
grew up there by their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the world (Ovid,
/Metamorphoses/, xi, 174 ff.).

[3] Op. cit., p. 51; cf. also Jastrow, /Heb. and Bab. Trad./, p. 346. So far
from Berossus having missed the original significance of the narrative he
relates, I think it can be shown that he reproduces very accurately the sense of
our Sumerian text; and that the apparent discrepancies in the Semitic Version,
and the puzzling references to a wall in both it and the Sumerian Version, are
capable of a simple explanation. There appears to me no justification for
splitting the

Semitic narrative into the several versions suggested, since the assumption that
the direct warning and the dream-warning must be distinguished is really based
on a misunderstanding of the character of Sumerian dreams by which important
decisions of the gods in council were communicated to mankind. We fortunately
possess an instructive Sumerian parallel to our passage. In it the will of the
gods is revealed in a dream, which is not only described in full but is
furnished with a detailed interpretation; and as it seems to clear up our
difficulties, it may be well to summarize its main features. The occasion of the
dream in this case was not a coming deluge but a great dearth of water in the
rivers, in consequence of which the crops had suffered and the country was
threatened with famine. This occurred in the reign of Gudea, patesi of Lagash,
who lived some centuries before our Sumerian document was inscribed. In his own
inscription[1] he tells us that he was at a loss to know by what means he might
restore prosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream; and it was in
consequence of the dream that he eventually erected one of the most sumptuously
appointed of Sumerian temples and thereby restored his land to prosperity.
Before recounting his dream he describes how the gods themselves took counsel.
On the day in which destinies were fixed in heaven and earth, Enlil, the chief
of the gods, and Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash, held converse; and Enlil,
turning to Ningirsu, described the sad condition of Southern

Babylonia, and remarked that "the decrees of the temple Eninnû should be made
glorious in heaven and upon earth", or, in other words, that Ningirsu’s
city-temple must be rebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not communicate his orders
directly to Gudea, but conveyed the will of the gods to him by means of a dream.

[1] See Thureau-Dangin, /Les inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad/, Cyl. A, pp. 134
ff., Germ. ed., pp. 88 ff.; and cf. King and Hall, /Eg. and West. Asia/, pp. 196
ff.

It will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation to that in the
Deluge story. A conference of the gods has been held; a decision has been taken
by the greatest god, Enlil; and, in consequence, another deity is anxious to
inform a Sumerian ruler of that decision. The only difference is that here Enlil
desires the communication to be made, while in the Deluge story it is made
without his knowledge, and obviously against his wishes. So the fact that
Ningirsu does not communicate directly with the patesi, but conveys his message
by means of a dream, is particularly instructive. For here there can be no
question of any subterfuge in the method employed, since Enlil was a consenting
party. The story goes on to relate that, while the patesi slept, a vision of the
night came to him, and he beheld a man whose stature was so great that it
equalled the heavens and the earth. By the diadem he wore upon his head Gudea
knew that the figure must be a god. Beside the god was the divine eagle, the
emblem of Lagash; his feet rested upon the whirlwind, and a lion crouched upon
his right hand and upon his left. The figure spoke to the patesi, but he did not
understand the meaning of the words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose
from the earth; and he beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure reed, and she
carried also a tablet on which was a star of the heavens, and she seemed to take
counsel with herself. While Gudea was gazing, he seemed to see a second man, who
was like a warrior; and he carried a slab of lapis lazuli, on which he drew out
the plan of a temple. Before the patesi himself it seemed that a fair cushion
was placed, and upon the cushion was set a mould, and within the mould was a
brick. And on the right hand the patesi beheld an ass that lay upon the ground.
Such was the dream of Gudea, and he was troubled because he could not interpret
it.[1]

[1] The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalyptic visions of a later
period is interesting, as evidence of the latter’s remote ancestry, and of the
development in the use of primitive material to suit a completely changed
political outlook. But those are points which do not concern our problem. To cut
the long story short, Gudea decided to seek the help of Ninâ, "the child of
Eridu", who, as daughter of Enki, the God of Wisdom, could divine all the
mysteries of the gods. But first of all by sacrifices and libations he secured
the mediation of his own city-god and goddess, Ningirsu and Gatumdug; and then,
repairing to Ninâ’s temple, he recounted to her the details of his vision. When
the patesi had finished, the goddess addressed him and said she would explain to
him the meaning of his dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand that she
spoke through the mouth of her chief priest. And this was the interpretation of
the dream. The man whose stature was so great, and whose head was that of a god,
was the god Ningirsu, and the words which he uttered were an order to the patesi
to rebuild the temple Eninnû. The Sun which rose from the earth was the god
Ningishzida, for like the Sun he goes forth from the earth. The maiden who held
the pure reed and carried the tablet with the star was the goddess Nisaba; the
star was the pure star of the temple’s construction, which she proclaimed. The
second man, who was like a warrior, was the god Nibub; and the plan of the
temple which he drew was the plan of Eninnû; and the ass that lay upon the
ground was the patesi himself.[1]

[1] The symbolism of the ass, as a beast of burden, was applicable to the patesi
in his task of carrying out the building of the temple. The essential feature of
the vision is that the god himself appeared to the sleeper and delivered his
message in words. That is precisely the manner in which Kronos warned Xisuthros
of the coming Deluge in the version of Berossus; while in the Gilgamesh Epic the
apparent contradiction between the direct warning and the dream-warning at once
disappears. It is true that Gudea states that he did not understand the meaning
of the god’s message, and so required an interpretation; but he was equally at a
loss as to the identity of the god who gave it, although Ningirsu was his own
city-god and was accompanied by his own familiar city-emblem. We may thus assume
that the god’s words, as words, were equally intelligible to Gudea. But as they
were uttered in a dream, it was necessary that the patesi, in view of his
country’s peril, should have divine assurance that they implied no other
meaning. And in his case such assurance was the more essential, in view of the
symbolism attaching to the other features of his vision. That this is sound
reasoning is proved by a second vision vouchsafed to Gudea by Ningirsu. For the
patesi, though he began to prepare for the building of the temple, was not
content even with Ninâ’s assurance. He offered a prayer to Ningirsu himself,
saying that he wished to build the temple, but had received no sign that this
was the will of the god; and he prayed for a sign. Then, as the patesi lay
stretched upon the ground, the god again appeared to him and gave him detailed
instructions, adding that he would grant the sign for which he asked. The sign
was that he should feel his side touched as by a flame,[1] and thereby he should
know that he was the man chosen by Ningirsu to carry out his commands. Here it
is the sign which confirms the apparent meaning of the god’s words. And Gudea
was at last content and built the temple.[2]

[1] Cyl. A., col. xii, l. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 150 f., Germ.
ed., p. 102 f. The word translated "side" may also be rendered as "hand"; but
"side" is the more probable rendering of the two. The touching of Gudea’s side
(or hand) presents an interesting resemblance to the touching of Jacob’s thigh
by the divine wrestler at Peniel in Genesis 32:24 ff. (J or JE). Given a belief
in the constant presence of the unseen and its frequent manifestation, such a
story as that of Peniel might well arise from an unexplained injury to the
sciatic muscle, while more than one ailment of the heart or liver might perhaps
suggest the touch of a beckoning god. There is of course no connexion between
the Sumerian and Hebrew stories beyond their common background. It may be added
that those critics who would reverse the /rôles/ of Jacob and the wrestler miss
the point of the Hebrew story.

[2] Even so, before starting on the work, he took the further precautions of
ascertaining that the omens were favourable and of purifying his city from all
malign influence.

We may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge we have
traced a logical connexion between the direct warning to Ziusudu in the Fourth
Column of the text and the reference to a dream in the broken lines at the close
of the Third Column. As in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, here too the
god’s warning is conveyed in a dream; and the accompanying reference to
conjuring by the Name of Heaven and Earth probably represents the means by which
Ziusudu was enabled to verify its apparent meaning. The assurance which Gudea
obtained through the priest of Ninâ and the sign, the priest-king Ziusudu
secured by his own act, in virtue of his piety and practice of divination. And
his employment of the particular class of incantation referred to, that which
conjures by the Name of Heaven and Earth, is singularly appropriate to the
context. For by its use he was enabled to test the meaning of Enki’s words,
which related to the intentions of Anu and Enlil, the gods respectively of
Heaven and of Earth. The symbolical setting of Gudea’s vision also finds a
parallel in the reed-house and wall of the Deluge story, though in the latter
case we have not the benefit of interpretation by a goddess. In the Sumerian
Version the wall is merely part of the vision and does not receive a direct
address from the god. That appears as a later development in the Semitic
Version, and it may perhaps have suggested the excuse, put in that version into
the mouth of Ea, that he had not directly revealed the decision of the gods.[1]

[1] In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazer between the
reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, now regarded as a medium of
communication, and the whispering reeds of the Midas story would still hold
good. The omission of any reference to a dream before the warning in the
Gilgamesh Epic may be accounted for on the assumption that readers of the poem
would naturally suppose that the usual method of divine warning was implied; and
the text does indicate that the warning took place at night, for Gilgamesh
proceeds to carry out the divine instructions at the break of day. The direct
warning of the Hebrew Versions, on the other hand, does not carry this
implication, since according to Hebrew ideas direct speech, as well as vision,
was included among the methods by which the divine will could be conveyed o man.

V. THE FLOOD, THE ESCAPE OF THE GREAT BOAT, AND THE SACRIFICE TO THE SUN-GOD The
missing portion of the Fourth Column must have described Ziusudu’s building of
his great boat in order to escape the Deluge, for at the beginning of the Fifth
Column we are in the middle of the Deluge itself. The column begins:

All the mighty wind-storms together blew, The flood . . . raged. When for seven
days, for seven nights, The flood had overwhelmed the land When the wind-storm
had driven the great boat over the mighty waters, The Sun-god came forth,
shedding light over heaven and earth.

Ziusudu opened the opening of the great boat; The light of the hero, the
Sun-god, (he) causes to enter into the interior(?) of the great boat.

Ziusudu, the king, Bows himself down before the Sun-god; The king sacrifices an
ox, a sheep he slaughters(?). The connected text of the column then breaks off,
only a sign or two remaining of the following half-dozen lines. It will be seen
that in the eleven lines that are preserved we have several close parallels to
the Babylonian Version and some equally striking differences. While attempting
to define the latter, it will be well to point out how close the resemblances
are, and at the same time to draw a comparison between the Sumerian and
Babylonian Versions of this part of the story and the corresponding Hebrew
accounts.

Here, as in the Babylonian Version, the Flood is accompanied by hurricanes of
wind, though in the latter the description is worked up in considerable detail.
We there read[1] that at the appointed time the ruler of the darkness at
eventide sent a heavy rain. Ut-napishtim saw its beginning, but fearing to watch
the storm, he entered the interior of the ship by Ea’s instructions, closed the
door, and handed over the direction of the vessel to the pilot Puzur-Amurri.
Later a thunder-storm and hurricane added their terrors to the deluge. For at
early dawn a black cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-god thundering
in its midst, and his heralds, Nabû and Sharru, flying over mountain and plain.
Nergal tore away the ship’s anchor, while Ninib directed the storm; the Anunnaki
carried their lightning-torches and lit up the land with their brightness; the
whirlwind of the Storm-god reached the heavens, and all light was turned into
darkness. The storm raged the whole day, covering mountain and people with
water.[2] No man beheld his fellow; the gods themselves were afraid, so that
they retreated into the highest heaven, where they crouched down, cowering like
dogs. Then follows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference has already
been made, the goddess reproaching herself for the part she had taken in the
destruction of her people. This section of the Semitic narrative closes with the
picture of the gods weeping with her, sitting bowed down with their lips pressed
together.

[1] Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 90 ff.

[2] In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign of Ammizaduga, Colossians
1:1,, Colossians 1:5, contains a reference to the "cry" of men when Adad the
Storm-god, slays them with his flood.

It is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion of its Fourth
Column, contained some account of Ziusudu’s entry into his boat; and this may
have been preceded, as in the Gilgamesh Epic, by a reference to "the living seed
of every kind", or at any rate to "the four-legged creatures of the field", and
to his personal possessions, with which we may assume he had previously loaded
it. But in the Fifth Column we have no mention of the pilot or of any other
companions who may have accompanied the king; and we shall see that the Sixth
Column contains no reference to Ziusudu’s wife. The description of the storm may
have begun with the closing lines of the Fourth Column, though it is also quite
possible that the first line of the Fifth Column actually begins the account.
However that may be, and in spite of the poetic imagery of the Semitic
Babylonian narrative, the general character of the catastrophe is the same in
both versions.

We find an equally close parallel, between the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts,
in the duration of the storm which accompanied the Flood, as will be seen by
printing the two versions together:[3] SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION When for
seven days, for seven For six days and nights nights, The flood had overwhelmed
the The wind blew, the flood, the land, tempest overwhelmed the land. When the
wind-storm had driven When the seventh day drew near, the great boat over the
the tempest, the flood, ceased mighty waters, from the battle In which it had
fought like a host. The Sun-god came forth shedding Then the sea rested and was
light over heaven and earth. still, and the wind-storm, the flood, ceased.

[3] Col. V, ll. 3-6 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 128-32. The two
narratives do not precisely agree as to the duration of the storm, for while in
the Sumerian account the storm lasts seven days and seven nights, in the
Semitic-Babylonian Version it lasts only six days and nights, ceasing at dawn on
the seventh day. The difference, however, is immaterial when we compare these
estimates with those of the Hebrew Versions, the older of which speaks of forty
days’ rain, while the later version represents the Flood as rising for no less
than a hundred and fifty days. The close parallel between the Sumerian and
Babylonian Versions is not, however, confined to subject-matter, but here, even
extends to some of the words and phrases employed. It has already been noted
that the Sumerian term employed for "flood" or "deluge" is the attested
equivalent of the Semitic word; and it may now be added that the word which may
be rendered "great boat" or "great ship" in the Sumerian text is the same word,
though partly expressed by variant characters, which occurs in the early Semitic
fragment of the Deluge story from Nippur.[1] In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other
hand, the ordinary ideogram for "vessel" or "ship"[2] is employed, though the
great size of the vessel is there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew
Version, by detailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian and Semitic verbs,
which are employed in the parallel passages quoted above for the "overwhelming"
of the land, are given as synonyms in a late syllabary, while in another
explanatory text the Sumerian verb is explained as applying to the destructive
action of a flood.[3] Such close linguistic parallels are instructive as
furnishing additional proof, if it were needed, of the dependence of the
Semitic-Babylonian and Assyrian Versions upon Sumerian originals.

[1] The Sumerian word is /(gish)ma-gur-gur/, corresponding to the term written
in the early Semitic fragment, l. 8, as /(isu)ma-gur-gur/, which is probably to
be read under its Semitized form /magurgurru/. In l. 6 of that fragment the
vessel is referred to under the synonymous expression /(isu)elippu ra-be-tu/, "a
great ship".

[2] i.e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word, read in Semitic
Babylonian as /elippu/, "ship"; when employed in the early Semitic fragment it
is qualified by the adj. /ra-be-tu/, "great". There is no justification for
assuming, with Prof. Hilbrecht, that a measurement of the vessel was given in l.
7 of the early Semitic fragment.

[3] The Sumerian verb /ur/, which is employed in l. 2 of the Fifth Column in the
expression /ba-an-da-ab-ur-ur/, translated as "raged", occurs again in l. 4 in
the phrase /kalam-ma ba-ur-ra/, "had overwhelmed the land". That we are
justified in regarding the latter phrase as the original of the Semitic
/i-sap-pan mâta/ (Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 129) is proved by the equation Sum. /ur-ur/
= Sem. /sa-pa-nu/ (Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, Vol. V, pl. 42, l. 54 c) and by the
explanation Sum. /ur-ur/ = Sem. /ša-ba-tu ša a-bu-bi/, i.e. "/ur-ur/ = to smite,
of a flood" (/Cun. Texts, Pt. XII, pl. 50, Obv., l. 23); cf. Poebel, /Hist.
Texts/, p. 54, n. 1.

It may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of the text, in order
to inquire what kind of boat it was in which Ziusudu escaped the Flood. It is
only called "a great boat" or "a great ship" in the text, and this term, as we
have noted, was taken over, semitized, and literally translated in an early
Semitic-Babylonian Version. But the Gilgamesh Epic, representing the later
Semitic-Babylonian Version, supplies fuller details, which have not, however,
been satisfactorily explained. Either the obvious meaning of the description and
figures there given has been ignored, or the measurements have been applied to a
central structure placed upon a hull, much on the lines of a modern "house-boat"
or the conventional Noah’s ark.[1] For the latter interpretation the text itself
affords no justification. The statement is definitely made that the length and
breadth of the vessel itself are to be the same;[2] and a later passage gives
ten /gar/ for the height of its sides and ten /gar/ for the breadth of its
deck.[3] This description has been taken to imply a square box-like structure,
which, in order to be seaworthy, must be placed on a conjectured hull.

[1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 329.

[2] Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 28-30.

[3] L. 58 f. The /gar/ contained twelve cubits, so that the vessel would have
measured 120 cubits each way; taking the Babylonian cubit, on the basis of
Gudea’s scale, at 495 mm. (cf. Thureau-Dangin, /Journal Asiatique/, Dix. Sér.,
t. XIII, 1909, pp. 79 ff., 97), this would give a length, breadth, and height of
nearly 195 ft.

I do not think it has been noted in this connexion that a vessel, approximately
with the relative proportions of that described in the Gilgamesh Epic, is in
constant use to-day on the lower Tigris and Euphrates. A /kuffah/,[1] the
familiar pitched coracle of Baghdad, would provide an admirable model for the
gigantic vessel in which Ut-napishtim rode out the Deluge. "Without either stem
or stern, quite round like a shield"--so Herodotus described the /kuffah/ of his
day;2[] so, too, is it represented on Assyrian slabs from Nineveh, where we see
it employed for the transport of heavy building material;[3] its form and
structure indeed suggest a prehistoric origin. The /kuffah/ is one of those
examples of perfect adjustment to conditions of use which cannot be improved.
Any one who has travelled in one of these craft will agree that their storage
capacity is immense, for their circular form and steeply curved side allow every
inch of space to be utilized. It is almost impossible to upset them, and their
only disadvantage is lack of speed. For their guidance all that is required is a
steersman with a paddle, as indicated in the Epic. It is true that the larger
kuffah of to-day tends to increase in diameter as compared to height, but that
detail might well be ignored in picturing the monster vessel of Ut-napishtim.
Its seven horizontal stages and their nine lateral divisions would have been
structurally sound in supporting the vessel’s sides; and the selection of the
latter uneven number, though prompted doubtless by its sacred character, is only
suitable to a circular craft in which the interior walls would radiate from the
centre. The use of pitch and bitumen for smearing the vessel inside and out,
though unusual even in Mesopotamian shipbuilding, is precisely the method
employed in the /kuffah’s/ construction.

[1] Arab. /kuffah/, pl. /kufaf/; in addition to its common use for the Baghdad
coracle, the word is also employed for a large basket.

[2] Herodotus, I, 194.

[3] The /kuffah/ is formed of wicker-work coated with bitumen. Some of those
represented on the Nineveh sculptures appear to be covered with skins; and
Herodotus (I, 94) states that "the boats which come down the river to Babylon
are circular and made of skins." But his further description shows that he is
here referred to the /kelek/ or skin-raft, with which he has combined a
description of the /kuffah/. The late Sir Henry Rawlinson has never seen or
heard of a skin-covered /kuffah/ on either the Tigris or Euphrates, and there
can be little doubt that bitumen was employed for their construction in
antiquity, as it is to-day. These craft are often large enough to carry five or
six horses and a dozen men.

We have no detailed description of Ziusudu’s "great boat", beyond the fact that
it was covered in and had an opening, or light-hole, which could be closed. But
the form of Ut-napishtim’s vessel was no doubt traditional, and we may picture
that of Ziusudu as also of the /kuffah/ type, though smaller and without its
successor’s elaborate internal structure. The gradual development of the huge
coracle into a ship would have been encouraged by the Semitic use of the term
"ship" to describe it; and the attempt to retain something of its original
proportions resulted in producing the unwieldy ark of later tradition.[1]

[1] The description of the ark is not preserved from the earlier Hebrew Version
(J), but the latter Hebrew Version (P), while increasing the length of the
vessel, has considerably reduced its height and breadth. Its measurements are
there given (Genesis 6:15) as 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in breadth, and 30
cubits in height; taking the ordinary Hebrew cubit at about 18 in., this would
give a length of about 450 ft., a breadth of about 75 ft., and a height of about
45 ft. The interior stories are necessarily reduced to three. The vessel in
Berossus measures five stadia by two, and thus had a length of over three
thousand feet and a breadth of more than twelve hundred.

We will now return to the text and resume the comparison we were making between
it and the Gilgamesh Epic. In the latter no direct reference is made to the
appearance of the Sun-god after the storm, nor is Ut-napishtim represented as
praying to him. But the sequence of events in the Sumerian Version is very
natural, and on that account alone, apart from other reasons, it may be held to
represent the original form of the story. For the Sun-god would naturally
reappear after the darkness of the storm had passed, and it would be equally
natural that Ziusudu should address himself to the great light-god. Moreover,
the Gilgamesh Epic still retains traces of the Sumerian Version, as will be seen
from a comparison of their narratives,[1] the Semitic Version being quoted from
the point where the hurricane ceased and the sea became still.

[1] Col. V, ll. 7-11 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 133-9.

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION When I looked at the storm, the uproar had
ceased, And all mankind was turned into clay; In place of fields there was a
swamp.

Ziusudu opened the opening of I opened the opening (lit. the great boat;
"hole"), and daylight fell upon my countenance. The light of the hero, the Sun-
god, (he) causes to enter into the interior(?) of the great boat.

Ziusudu, the king, Bows himself down before the I bowed myself down and sat down
Sun-god; weeping; The king sacrifices an ox, a Over my countenance flowed my
sheep he slaughters(?). tears.

I gazed upon the quarters (of the world)--all(?) was sea.

It will be seen that in the Semitic Version the beams of the Sun-god have been
reduced to "daylight", and Ziusudu’s act of worship has become merely
prostration in token of grief.

Both in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus the sacrifice offered by the Deluge
hero to the gods follows the episode of the birds, and it takes place on the top
of the mountain after the landing from the vessel. It is hardly probable that
two sacrifices were recounted in the Sumerian Version, one to the Sun-god in the
boat and another on the mountain after landing; and if we are right in
identifying Ziusudu’s recorded sacrifice with that of Ut-napishtim and
Xisuthros, it would seem that, according to the Sumerian Version, no birds were
sent out to test the abatement of the waters. This conclusion cannot be regarded
as quite certain, inasmuch as the greater part of the Fifth Column is waning. We
have, moreover, already seen reason to believe that the account on our tablet is
epitomized, and that consequently the omission of any episode from our text does
not necessarily imply its absence from the original Sumerian Version which it
follows. But here at least it is clear that nothing can have been omitted
between the opening of the light-hole and the sacrifice, for the one act is the
natural sequence of the other. On the whole it seems preferable to assume that
we have recovered a simpler form of the story. As the storm itself is described
in a few phrases, so the cessation of the flood may have been dismissed with
equal brevity; the gradual abatement of the waters, as attested by the dove, the
swallow, and the raven, may well be due to later elaboration or to combination
with some variant account. Under its amended form the narrative leads naturally
up to the landing on the mountain and the sacrifice of thanksgiving to the gods.
In the Sumerian Version, on the other hand,

Ziusudu regards himself as saved when he sees the Sun shining; he needs no
further tests to assure himself that the danger is over, and his sacrifice too
is one of gratitude for his escape. The disappearance of the Sun-god from the
Semitic Version was thus a necessity, to avoid an anti-climax; and the hero’s
attitude of worship had obviously to be translated into one of grief. An
indication that the sacrifice was originally represented as having taken place
on board the boat may be seen in the lines of the Gilgamesh Epic which recount
how Enlil, after acquiescing in Ut-napishtim’s survival of the Flood, went up
into the ship and led him forth by the hand, although, in the preceding lines,
he had already landed and had sacrificed upon the mountain. The two passages are
hardly consistent as they stand, but they find a simple explanation of we regard
the second of them as an unaltered survival from an earlier form of the story.

If the above line of reasoning be sound, it follows that, while the earlier
Hebrew Version closely resembles the Gilgamesh Epic, the later Hebrew Version,
by its omission of the birds, would offer a parallel to the Sumerian Version.
But whether we may draw any conclusion from this apparent grouping of our
authorities will be best dealt with when we have concluded our survey of the new
evidence. As we have seen, the text of the Fifth Column breaks off with
Ziusudu’s sacrifice to the Sun-god, after he had opened a light-hole in the boat
and had seen by the god’s beams that the storm was over. The missing portion of
the Fifth Column must have included at least some account of the abatement of
the waters, the stranding of the boat, and the manner in which Anu and Enlil
became apprised of

Ziusudu’s escape, and consequently of the failure of their intention to
annihilate mankind. For in the Sixth Column of the text we find these two
deities reconciled to Ziusudu and bestowing immortality upon him, as Enlil
bestows immortality upon Ut-napishtim at the close of the Semitic Version. In
the latter account, after the vessel had grounded on Mount Nisir and
Ut-napishtim had tested the abatement of the waters by means of the birds, he
brings all out from the ship and offers his libation and sacrifice upon the
mountain, heaping up reed, cedar-wood, and myrtle beneath his seven sacrificial
vessels. And it was by this act on his part that the gods first had knowledge of
his escape. For they smelt the sweet savour of the sacrifice, and "gathered like
flies over the sacrificer".[1] [1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 162.

It is possible in our text that Ziusudu’s sacrifice in the boat was also the
means by which the gods became acquainted with his survival; and it seems
obvious that the Sun-god, to whom it was offered, should have continued to play
some part in the narrative, perhaps by assisting Ziusudu in propitiating Anu and
Enlil. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version, the first deity to approach the
sacrifice is Bêlit-ili or

Ishtar, who is indignant with Enlil for what he has done. When Enlil himself
approaches and sees the ship he is filled with anger against the gods, and,
asking who has escaped, exclaims that no man must live in the destruction.
Thereupon Ninib accuses Ea, who by his pleading succeeds in turning Enlil’s
purpose. He bids Enlil visit the sinner with his sin and lay his transgression
on the transgressor; Enlil should not again send a deluge to destroy the whole
of mankind, but should be content with less wholesale destruction, such as that
wrought by wild beasts, famine, and plague. Finally he confesses that it was he
who warned Ziusudu of the gods’ decision by sending him a dream. Enlil thereupon
changes his intention, and going up into the ship, leads Ut-napishtim forth.
Though Ea’s intervention finds, of course, no parallel in either Hebrew version,
the subject-matter of his speech is reflected in both. In the earlier Hebrew
Version Yahweh smells the sweet savour of Noah’s burnt offering and says in his
heart he will no more destroy every living creature as he had done; while in the
later Hebrew Version Elohim, after remembering Noah and causing the waters to
abate, establishes his covenant to the same effect, and, as a sign of the
covenant, sets his bow in the clouds. In its treatment of the climax of the
story we shall see that the Sumerian Version, at any rate in the form it has
reached us, is on a lower ethical level than the Babylonian and Hebrew Versions.
Ea’s argument that the sinner should bear his own sin and the transgressor his
own transgression in some measure forestalls that of Ezekiel;[1] and both the
Hebrew Versions represent the saving of Noah as part of the divine intention
from the beginning. But the Sumerian Version introduces the element of magic as
the means by which man can bend the will of the gods to his own ends. How far
the details of the Sumerian myth at this point resembled that of the Gilgamesh
Epic it is impossible to say, but the general course of the story must have been
the same. In the latter Enlil’s anger is appeased, in the former that of Anu and
Enlil; and it is legitimate to suppose that Enki, like Ea, was Ziusudu’s
principal supporter, in view of the part he had already taken in ensuring his
escape.

[1] Cf. Ezekiel 18:32, passim, esp. Ezekiel 18:20.

VI. THE PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY GODS, AND ZIUSUDU’S IMMORTALITY The presence
of the puzzling lines, with which the Sixth Column of our text opens, was not
explained by Dr. Poebel; indeed, they would be difficult to reconcile with his
assumption that our text is an epic pure and simple. But if, as is suggested
above, we are dealing with a myth in magical employment, they are quite capable
of explanation. The problem these lines present will best be stated by giving a
translation of the extant portion of the column, where they will be seen with
their immediate context in relation to what follows them:

"By the Soul of Heaven, by the soul of Earth, shall ye conjure him, That with
you he may . . . !

Anu and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth, shall ye conjure, And
with you will he . . . !

"The /niggilma/ of the ground springs forth in abundance(?)!"

Ziusudu, the king, Before Anu and Enlil bows himself down.

Life like (that of) a god he gives to him, An eternal soul like (that of) a god
he creates for him. At that time Ziusudu, the king, The name of the /niggilma/
(named) "Preserver of the Seed of Mankind". In a . . . land,[1] the land[1] of
Dilmun(?), they caused him to dwell.

[1] Possibly to be translated "mountain". The rendering of the proper name as
that of Dilmun is very uncertain. For the probable identification of Dilmun with
the island of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf, cf. Rawlinson, /Journ. Roy. As.
Soc./, 1880, pp. 20 ff.; and see further, Meissner, /Orient. Lit-Zeit./, XX. No.
7, col. 201 ff. The first two lines of the column are probably part of the
speech of some deity, who urges the necessity of invoking or conjuring Anu and
Enlil "by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth", in order to secure their
support or approval. Now Anu and Enlil are the two great gods who had determined
on mankind’s destruction, and whose wrath at his own escape from death Ziusudu
must placate. It is an obvious inference that conjuring "by the Soul of Heaven"
and "by the Soul of Earth" is either the method by which Ziusudu has already
succeeded in appeasing their anger, or the means by which he is here enjoined to
attain that end. Against the latter alternative it is to be noted that the god
is addressing more than one person; and, further, at Ziusudu is evidently
already pardoned, for, so far from following the deity’s advice, he immediately
prostrates himself before Anu and Enlil and receives immortality. We may
conjecture that at the close of the Fifth Column Ziusudu had already performed
the invocation and thereby had appeased the divine wrath; and that the lines at
the beginning of the Sixth Column point the moral of the story by enjoining on
Ziusudu and his descendants, in other words on mankind, the advisability of
employing this powerful incantation at their need. The speaker may perhaps have
been one of Ziusudu’s divine helpers--the Sun-god to whom he had sacrificed, or
Enki who had saved him from the Flood. But it seems to me more probable that the
words are uttered by Anu and Enlil themselves.[1] For thereby they would be
represented as giving their own sanction to the formula, and as guaranteeing its
magical efficacy. That the incantation, as addressed to Anu and Enlil, would be
appropriate is obvious, since each would be magically approached through his own
sphere of control.

[1] One of them may have been the speaker on behalf of both.

It is significant that at another critical point of the story we have already
met with a reference to conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth", the phrase
occurring at the close of the Third Column after the reference to the dream or
dreams. There, as we saw, we might possibly explain the passage as illustrating
one aspect of Ziusudu’s piety: he may have been represented as continually
practising this class of divination, and in that case it would be natural enough
that in the final crisis of the story he should have propitiated the gods he
conjured by the same means. Or, as a more probable alternative, it was suggested
that we might connect the line with Enki’s warning, and assume that Ziusudu
interpreted the dream-revelation of Anu and Enlil’s purpose by means of the
magical incantation which was peculiarly associated with them. On either
alternative the phrase fits into the story itself, and there is no need to
suppose that the narrative is interrupted, either in the Third or in the Sixth
Column, by an address to the hearers of the myth, urging them to make the
invocation on their own behalf. On the other hand, it seems improbable that the
lines in question formed part of the original myth; they may have been inserted
to weld the myth more closely to the magic. Both incantation and epic may have
originally existed independently, and, if so, their combination would have been
suggested by their contents. For while the former is addressed to Anu and Enlil,
in the latter these same gods play the dominant parts: they are the two chief
creators, it is they who send the Flood, and it is their anger that must be
appeased. If once combined, the further step of making the incantation the
actual means by which Ziusudu achieved his own rescue and immortality would be a
natural development. It may be added that the words would have been an equally
appropriate addition if the incantation had not existed independently, but had
been suggested by, and developed from, the myth. In the third and eleventh lines
of the column we have further references to the mysterious object, the creation
of which appears to have been recorded in the First Column of the text between
man’s creation and that of animals. The second sign of the group composing its
name was not recognized by Dr. Poebel, but it is quite clearly written in two of
the passages, and has been correctly identified by

Professor Barton.[1] The Sumerian word is, in fact, to be read /nig-gil-ma/,[2]
which, when preceded by the determinative for "pot", "jar", or "bowl", is given
in a later syllabary as the equivalent of the Semitic word /mashkhalu/. Evidence
that the word /mashkhalu/ was actually employed to denote a jar or vessel of
some sort is furnished by one of the Tel el-Amarna letters which refers to "one
silver

/mashkhalu/" and "one (or two) stone /mashkhalu/".[3] In our text the
determinative is absent, and it is possible that the word is used in another
sense. Professor Barton, in both passages in the Sixth Column, gives it the
meaning "curse"; he interprets the lines as referring to the removal of a curse
from the earth after the Flood, and he compares Genesis 8:21, where Yahweh
declares he will not again "curse the ground for man’s sake". But this
translation ignores the occurrence of the word in the First Column, where the
creation of the /niggilma/ is apparently recorded; and his rendering "the seed
that was cursed" in l. 11 is not supported by the photographic reproduction of
the text, which suggests that the first sign in the line is not that for "seed",
but is the sign for "name", as correctly read by Dr. Poebel. In that passage the
/niggilma/ appears to be given by Ziusudu the name "Preserver of the Seed of
Mankind", which we have already compared to the title bestowed on
Uta-napishtim’s ship, "Preserver of Life". Like the ship, it must have played an
important part in man’s preservation, which would account not only for the
honorific title but for the special record of its creation.

[1] See /American Journal of Semitic Languages/, Vol. XXXI, April 1915, p. 226.

[2] It is written /nig-gil/ in the First Column.

[3] See Winckler, /El-Amarna/, pl. 35 f., No. 28, Obv., Col. II, l. 45, Rev.,
Col. I, l. 63, and Knudtzon, /El-Am. Taf./, pp. 112, 122; the vessels were
presents from Amenophis IV to Burnaburiash.

It we may connect the word with the magical colouring of the myth, we might
perhaps retain its known meaning, "jar" or "bowl", and regard it as employed in
the magical ceremony which must have formed part of the invocation "by the Soul
of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth". But the accompanying references to the ground,
to its production from the ground, and to its springing up, if the phrases may
be so rendered, suggest rather some kind of plant;[1] and this, from its
employment in magical rites, may also have given its name to a bowl or vessel
which held it. A very similar plant was that found and lost by Gilgamesh, after
his sojourn with Ut-napishtim; it too had potent magical power and bore a title
descriptive of its peculiar virtue of transforming old age to youth. Should this
suggestion prove to be correct, the three passages mentioning the /niggilma/
must be classed with those in which the invocation is referred to, as ensuring
the sanction of the myth to further elements in the magic. In accordance with
this view, the fifth line in the Sixth Column is probably to be included in the
divine speech, where a reference to the object employed in the ritual would not
be out of place. But it is to be hoped that light will be thrown on this
puzzling word by further study, and perhaps by new fragments of the text;
meanwhile it would be hazardous to suggest a more definite rendering.

[1] The references to "the ground", or "the earth", also tend to connect it
peculiarly with Enlil. Enlil’s close association with the earth, which is, of
course, independently attested, is explicitly referred to in the Babylonian
Version (cf. Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-42). Suggested reflections of this idea have
long been traced in the Hebrew Versions; cf. Genesis 8:21 (J), where Yahweh says
he will not again curse the ground, and Genesis 9:13 (P), where Elohim speaks of
his covenant "between me and the earth". With the sixth line of the column it is
clear that the original narrative of the myth is resumed.[1] Ziusudu, the king,
prostrates himself before Anu and Enlil, who bestow immortality upon him and
cause him to dwell in a land, or mountain, the name of which may perhaps be read
as Dilmun. The close parallelism between this portion of the text and the end of
the myth in the Gilgamesh Epic will be seen from the following extracts,[2] the
magical portions being omitted from the Sumerian Version:

[1] It will also be noted that with this line the text again falls naturally
into couplets.

[2] Col. VI, ll. 6-9 and 12 are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 198-205.

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION Then Enlil went up into the ship;

Ziusudu, the king, He took me by the hand and led me forth.

Before Anu and Enlil bows He brought out my wife and himself down. caused her to
bow down at my side;

He touched our brows, standing between us and blessing us:

Life like (that of) a god he "Formerly was Ut-napishtim of gives to him.
mankind, An eternal soul like (that of) a But now let Ut-napishtim be like god
he creates for him. the gods, even us!

And let Ut-napishtim dwell afar off at the mouth of the rivers!" In a . . .
land, the land of[1] Then they took me and afar off, Dilmun(?), they caused him
to at the mouth of the rivers, dwell. they caused me to dwell.

[1] Or, "On a mountain, the mountain of", &c. The Sumerian Version thus
apparently concludes with the familiar ending of the legend which we find in the
Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, though it here occurs in an abbreviated form and
with some variations in detail. In all three versions the prostration of the
Deluge hero before the god is followed by the bestowal of immortality upon him,
a fate which, according to Berossus, he shared with his wife, his daughter, and
the steersman. The Gilgamesh Epic perhaps implies that Ut-napishtim’s wife
shared in his immortality, but the Sumerian Version mentions Ziusudu alone. In
the Gilgamesh Epic Ut-napishtim is settled by the gods at the mouth of the
rivers, that is to say at the head of the Persian Gulf, while according to a
possible rendering of the Sumerian Version he is made to dwell on Dilmun, an
island in the Gulf itself. The fact that Gilgamesh in the

Epic has to cross the sea to reach Ut-napishtim may be cited in favour of the
reading "Dilmun"; and the description of the sea as "the Waters of Death", if it
implies more than the great danger of their passage, was probably a later
development associated with Ut-napishtim’s immortality. It may be added that in
neither Hebrew version do we find any parallel to the concluding details of the
original story, the Hebrew narratives being brought to an end with the blessing
of Noah and the divine promise to, or covenant with, mankind.

Such then are the contents of our Sumerian document, and from the details which
have been given it will have been seen that its story, so far as concerns the
Deluge, is in essentials the same as that we already find in the Gilgamesh Epic.
It is true that this earlier version has reached us in a magical setting, and to
some extent in an abbreviated form. In the next lecture I shall have occasion to
refer to another early mythological text from Nippur, which was thought by its
first interpreter to include a second Sumerian Version of the Deluge legend.
That suggestion has not been substantiated, though we shall see that the
contents of the document are of a very interesting character. But in view of the
discussion that has taken place in the United States over the interpretation of
the second text, and of the doubts that have subsequently been expressed in some
quarters as to the recent discovery of any new form of the Deluge legend, it may
be well to formulate briefly the proof that in the inscription published by Dr.
Poebel an early Sumerian Version of the Deluge story has actually been
recovered. Any one who has followed the detailed analysis of the new text which
has been attempted in the preceding paragraphs will, I venture to think, agree
that the following conclusions may be drawn:

(i) The points of general resemblance presented by the narrative to that in the
Gilgamesh Epic are sufficiently close in themselves to show that we are dealing
with a Sumerian Version of that story. And this conclusion is further supported
(a) by the occurrence throughout the text of the attested Sumerian equivalent of
the Semitic word, employed in the Babylonian Versions, for the "Flood" or
"Deluge", and (b) by the use of precisely the same term for the hero’s "great
boat", which is already familiar to us from an early Babylonian Version.

(ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of the Sumerian
legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the one version was ultimately
derived from the other. And this conclusion in its turn is confirmed (a) by the
identity in meaning of the Sumerian and Babylonian names for the Deluge hero,
The cumulative effect of such general and detailed evidence is overwhelming, and
we may dismiss all doubts as to the validity of Dr. Poebel’s claim. We have
indeed recovered a very early, and in some of its features a very primitive,
form of the Deluge narrative which till now has reached us only in Semitic and
Greek renderings; and the stream of tradition has been tapped at a point far
above any at which we have hitherto approached it. What evidence, we may ask,
does this early Sumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and literary
history of the Hebrew Versions? The general dependence of the biblical Versions
upon the Babylonian legend as a whole has long been recognized, and needs no
further demonstration; and it has already been observed that the parallelisms
with the version in the Gilgamesh Epic are on the whole more detailed and
striking in the earlier than in the later Hebrew Version.[1] In the course of
our analysis of the Sumerian text its more striking points of agreement or
divergence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions, were noted under the different
sections of its narrative. It was also obvious that, in many features in which
the Hebrew Versions differ from the Gilgamesh Epic, the latter finds Sumerian
support. These facts confirm the conclusion, which we should naturally base on
grounds of historical probability, that while the Semitic-Babylonian Versions
were derived from Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were equally clearly derived from
Babylon. But there are one or two pieces of evidence which are apparently at
variance with this conclusion, and these call for some explanation.

[1] For details see especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 177 ff. Not too much
significance should be attached to the apparent omission of the episode of the
birds from the Sumerian narrative, in which it would agree with the later as
against the earlier Hebrew Version; for, apart from its epitomized character,
there is so much missing from the text that the absence of this episode cannot
be regarded as established with certainty. And in any case it could be balanced
by the Sumerian order of Creation of men before animals, which agrees with the
earlier Hebrew Version against the later. But there is one very striking point
in which our new Sumerian text agrees with both the Hebrew Versions as against
the Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus; and that is in the character of Ziusudu, which
presents so close a parallel to the piety of Noah. As we have already seen, the
latter is due to no Hebrew idealization of the story, but represents a genuine
strand of the original tradition, which is completely absent from the Babylonian
Versions. But the Babylonian Versions are the media through which it has
generally been assumed that the tradition of the Deluge reached the Hebrews.
What explanation have we of this fact? This grouping of Sumerian and Hebrew
authorities, against the extant sources from Babylon, is emphasized by the
general framework of the Sumerian story. For the literary connexion which we
have in Genesis between the Creation and the Deluge narratives has hitherto
found no parallel in the cuneiform texts. In Babylon and Assyria the myth of
Creation and the Deluge legend have been divorced. From the one a complete epic
has been evolved in accordance with the tenets of Babylonian theology, the
Creation myth being combined in the process with other myths of a somewhat
analogous character. The Deluge legend has survived as an isolated story in more
than one setting, the principal Semitic Version being recounted to the national
hero Gilgamesh, towards the close of the composite epic of his adventures which
grew up around the nucleus of his name. It is one of the chief surprises of the
newly discovered Sumerian Version that the Hebrew connexion of the narratives is
seen to be on the lines of very primitive tradition. Noah’s reputation for piety
does not stand alone. His line of descent from Adam, and the thread of narrative
connecting the creation of the world with its partial destruction by the Deluge,
already appear in Sumerian form at a time when the city of Babylon itself had
not secured its later power. How then are we to account for this correspondence
of Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on points completely wanting in our
intermediate authorities, from which, however, other evidence suggests that the
Hebrew narratives were derived? At the risk of anticipating some of the
conclusions to be drawn in the next lecture, it may be well to define an answer
now. It is possible that those who still accept the traditional authorship of
the Pentateuch may be inclined to see in this correspondence of Hebrew and
Sumerian ideas a confirmation of their own hypothesis. But it should be pointed
out at once that this is not an inevitable deduction from the evidence. Indeed,
it is directly contradicted by the rest of the evidence we have summarized,
while it would leave completely unexplained some significant features of the
problem. It is true that certain important details of the Sumerian tradition,
while not affecting Babylon and Assyria, have left their stamp upon the Hebrew
narratives; but that is not an exhaustive statement of the case. For we have
also seen that a more complete survival of Sumerian tradition has taken place in
the history of Berossus. There we traced the same general framework of the
narratives, with a far closer correspondence in detail. The kingly rank of
Ziusudu is in complete harmony with the Berossian conception of a series of
supreme Antediluvian rulers, and the names of two of the Antediluvian cites are
among those of their newly recovered Sumerian prototypes. There can thus be no
suggestion that the Greek reproductions of the Sumerian tradition were in their
turn due to Hebrew influence. On the contrary we have in them a parallel case of
survival in a far more complete form. The inference we may obviously draw is
that the Sumerian narrative continued in existence, in a literary form that
closely resembled the original version, into the later historical periods. In
this there would be nothing to surprise us, when we recall the careful
preservation and study of ancient Sumerian religious texts by the later Semitic
priesthood of the country. Each ancient cult-centre in Babylonia continued to
cling to its own local traditions, and the Sumerian desire for their
preservation, which was inherited by their Semitic guardians, was in great
measure unaffected by political occurrences elsewhere. Hence it was that
Ashur-bani-pal, when forming his library at Nineveh, was able to draw upon so
rich a store of the more ancient literary texts of Babylonia. The Sumerian
Version of the Deluge and of Antediluvian history may well have survived in a
less epitomized form than that in which we have recovered it; and, like other
ancient texts, it was probably provided with a Semitic translation. Indeed its
literary study and reproduction may have continued without interruption in
Babylon itself. But even if Sumerian tradition died out in the capital under the
influence of the Babylonian priesthood, its re-introduction may well have taken
place in Neo-Babylonian times. Perhaps the antiquarian researches of Nabonidus
were characteristic of his period; and in any case the collection of his
country’s gods into the capital must have been accompanied by a renewed interest
in the more ancient versions of the past with which their cults were peculiarly
associated. In the extant summary from Berossus we may possibly see evidence of
a subsequent attempt to combine with these more ancient traditions the continued
religious dominance of Marduk and of Babylon. Our conclusion, that the Sumerian
form of the tradition did not die out, leaves the question as to the periods
during which Babylonian influence may have acted upon Hebrew tradition in great
measure unaffected; and we may therefore postpone its further consideration to
the next lecture. To-day the only question that remains to be considered
concerns the effect of our new evidence upon the wider problem of Deluge stories
as a whole. What light does it throw on the general character of Deluge stories
and their suggested Egyptian origin?

One thing that strikes me forcibly in reading this early text is the complete
absence of any trace or indication of astrological /motif/. It is true that
Ziusudu sacrifices to the Sun-god; but the episode is inherent in the story, the
appearance of the Sun after the storm following the natural sequence of events
and furnishing assurance to the king of his eventual survival. To identify the
worshipper with his god and to transfer Ziusudu’s material craft to the heavens
is surely without justification from the simple narrative. We have here no
prototype of Ra sailing the heavenly ocean. And the destructive flood itself is
not only of an equally material and mundane character, but is in complete
harmony with its Babylonian setting. In the matter of floods the Tigris and
Euphrates present a striking contrast to the Nile. It is true that the
life-blood of each country is its river-water, but the conditions of its use are
very different, and in Mesopotamia it becomes a curse when out of control. In
both countries the river-water must be used for maturing the crops. But while
the rains of Abyssinia cause the Nile to rise between August and October, thus
securing both summer and winter crops, the melting snows of Armenia and the
Taurus flood the Mesopotamian rivers between March and May. In Egypt the Nile
flood is gentle; it is never abrupt, and the river gives ample warning of its
rise and fall. It contains just enough sediment to enrich the land without
choking the canals; and the water, after filling its historic basins, may when
necessary be discharged into the falling river in November. Thus Egypt receives
a full and regular supply of water, and there is no difficulty in disposing of
any surplus. The growth in such a country of a legend of world-wide destruction
by flood is inconceivable. In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the floods, which
come too late for the winter crops, are followed by the rainless summer months;
and not only must the flood-water be controlled, but some portion of it must be
detained artificially, if it is to be of use during the burning months of July,
August, and September, when the rivers are at their lowest. Moreover, heavy rain
in April and a warm south wind melting the snow in the hills may bring down such
floods that the channels cannot contain them; the dams are then breached and the
country is laid waste. Here there is first too much water and then too little.
The great danger from flood in Babylonia, both in its range of action and in its
destructive effect, is due to the strangely flat character of the Tigris and
Euphrates delta.[1] Hence after a severe breach in the Tigris or Euphrates, the
river after inundating the country may make itself a new channel miles away from
the old one. To mitigate the danger, the floods may be dealt with in two
ways--by a multiplication of canals to spread the water, and by providing
escapes for it into depressions in the surrounding desert, which in their turn
become centres of fertility. Both methods were employed in antiquity; and it may
be added that in any scheme for the future prosperity of the country they must
be employed again, of course with the increased efficiency of modern
apparatus.[2] But while the Babylonians succeeded in controlling the Euphrates,
the Tigris was never really tamed,[3] and whenever it burst its right bank the
southern plains were devastated. We could not have more suitable soil for the
growth of a Deluge story.

[1] Baghdad, though 300 miles by crow-fly from the sea and 500 by river, is only
120 ft. above sea-level.

[2] The Babylonians controlled the Euphrates, and at the same time provided
against its time of "low supply", by escapes into two depressions in the western
desert to the NW. of Babylon, known to-day as the Habbânîyah and Abu Dîs
depressions, which lie S. of the modern town of Ramâdi and N. of Kerbela. That
these depressions were actually used as reservoirs in antiquity is proved by the
presence along their edges of thick beds of Euphrates shells. In addition to
canals and escapes, the Babylonian system included well-constructed dikes
protected by brushwood. By cutting an eight-mile channel through a low hill
between the Habbânîyah and Abu Dîs depressions and by building a short dam 50
ft. high across the latter’s narrow outlet, Sir William Willcocks estimates that
a reservoir could be obtained holding eighteen milliards of tons of water. See
his work /The Irrigations of Mesopotamia/ (E. and F. N. Spon, 1911),
/Geographical Journal/, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug., 1912), pp. 129 ff., and the
articles in /The Near East/ cited on p. 97, n. 1, and p. 98, n. 2. Sir William
Willcocks’s volume and subsequent papers form the best introduction to the study
of Babylonian Deluge tradition on its material side.

[3] Their works carried out on the Tigris were effective for irrigation; but the
Babylonians never succeeded in controlling its floods as they did those of the
Euphrates. A massive earthen dam, the remains of which are still known as
"Nimrod’s Dam", was thrown across the Tigris above the point where it entered
its delta; this served to turn the river over hard conglomerate rock and kept it
at a high level so that it could irrigate the country on both banks. Above the
dam were the heads of the later Nahrwân Canal, a great stream 400 ft. wide and
17 ft. deep, which supplied the country east of the river. The Nâr Sharri or
"King’s Canal", the Nahar Malkha of the Greeks and the Nahr el-Malik of the
Arabs, protected the right bank of the Tigris by its own high artificial banks,
which can still be traced for hundreds of miles; but it took its supply from the
Euphrates at Sippar, where the ground is some 25 ft. higher than on the Tigris.
The Tigris usually flooded its left bank; it was the right bank which was
protected, and a breach here meant disaster. Cf. Willcocks, op. cit., and /The
Near East/, Sept. 29, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 282), p. 522.

It was only by constant and unremitting attention that disaster from flood could
be averted; and the difficulties of the problem were and are increased by the
fact that the flood-water of the Mesopotamian rivers contains five times as much
sediment as the Nile. In fact, one of the most pressing of the problems the
Sumerian and early Babylonian engineers had to solve was the keeping of the
canals free from silt.[1] What the floods, if left unchecked, may do in
Mesopotamia, is well illustrated by the decay of the ancient canal-system, which
has been the immediate cause of the country’s present state of sordid
desolation. That the decay was gradual was not the fault of the rivers, but was
due to the sound principles on which the old system of control had been evolved
through many centuries of labour. At the time of the Moslem conquest the system
had already begun to fail. In the fifth century there had been bad floods; but
worse came in A.D. 629, when both rivers burst their banks and played havoc with
the dikes and embankments. It is related that the Sassanian king Parwiz, the
contemporary of Mohammed, crucified in one day forty canal-workers at a certain
breach, and yet was unable to master the flood.[2] All repairs were suspended
during the anarchy of the Moslem invasion. As a consequence the Tigris left its
old bed for the Shatt el-Hai at Kût, and pouring its own and its tributaries’
waters into the Euphrates formed the Great Euphrates Swamp, two hundred miles
long and fifty broad. But even then what was left of the old system was
sufficient to support the splendour of the Eastern Caliphate.

[1] Cf. /Letters of Hammurabi/, Vol. III, pp. xxxvi ff.; it was the duty of
every village or town upon the banks of the main canals in Babylonia to keep its
own section clear of silt, and of course it was also responsible for its own
smaller irrigation-channels. While the invention of the system of
basin-irrigation was practically forced on Egypt, the extraordinary fertility of
Babylonia was won in the teeth of nature by the system of perennial irrigation,
or irrigation all the year round. In Babylonia the water was led into small
fields of two or three acres, while the Nile valley was irrigated in great
basins each containing some thirty to forty thousand acres. The Babylonian
method gives far more profitable results, and Sir William Willcocks points out
that Egypt to-day is gradually abandoning its own system and adopting that of
its ancient rival; see /The Near East/, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 521.

[2] See Le Strange, /The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate/, p. 27. The second
great blow to the system followed the Mongol conquest, when the Nahrwân Canal,
to the east of the Tigris, had its head swept away by flood and the area it had
irrigated became desert. Then, in about the fifteenth century, the Tigris
returned to its old course; the Shatt el-Hai shrank, and much of the Great Swamp
dried up into the desert it is to-day.[1] Things became worse during the
centuries of Turkish misrule. But the silting up of the Hillah, or main, branch
of the Euphrates about 1865, and the transference of a great part of its stream
into the Hindîyah Canal, caused even the Turks to take action. They constructed
the old Hindîyah Barrage in 1890, but it gave way in 1903 and the state of
things was even worse than before; for the Hillah branch then dried entirely.[2]

[1] This illustrates the damage the Tigris itself is capable of inflicting on
the country. It may be added that Sir William Willcocks proposes to control the
Tigris floods by an escape into the Tharthâr depression, a great salt pan at the
tail of Wadi Tharthâr, which lies 14 ft. below sea level and is 200 ft. lower
than the flood-level of the Tigris some thirty-two miles away. The escape would
leave the Tigris to the S. of Sâmarra, the proposed Beled Barrage being built
below it and up-stream of "Nimrod’s Dam". The Tharthâr escape would drain into
the Euphrates, and the latter’s Habbânîyah escape would receive any surplus
water from the Tigris, a second barrage being thrown across the Euphrates
up-stream of Fallûjah, where there is an outcrop of limestone near the head of
the Sakhlawîyah Canal. The Tharthâr depression, besides disposing of the Tigris
flood-water, would thus probably feed the Euphrates; and a second barrage on the
Tigris, to be built at Kût, would supply water to the Shatt el-Hai. When the
country is freed from danger of flood, the Baghdad Railway could be run through
the cultivated land instead of through the eastern desert; see Willcocks, /The
Near East/, Oct. 6, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 283), p. 545 f.

[2] It was then that Sir William Willcocks designed the new Hindîyah Barrage,
which was completed in 1913. The Hindîyah branch, to-day the main stream of the
Euphrates, is the old low-lying Pallacopas Canal, which branched westward above
Babylon and discharged its waters into the western marshes. In antiquity the
head of this branch had to be opened in high floods and then closed again
immediately after the flood to keep the main stream full past Babylon, which
entailed the employment of an enormous number of men. Alexander the Great’s
first work in Babylonia was cutting a new head for the Pallacopas in solid
ground, for hitherto it had been in sandy soil; and it was while reclaiming the
marshes farther down-stream that he contracted the fever that killed him. From
this brief sketch of progressive disaster during the later historical period,
the inevitable effect of neglected silt and flood, it will be gathered that the
two great rivers of Mesopotamia present a very strong contrast to the Nile. For
during the same period of misgovernment and neglect in Egypt the Nile did not
turn its valley and delta into a desert. On the Tigris and Euphrates, during
ages when the earliest dwellers on their banks were struggling to make effective
their first efforts at control, the waters must often have regained the upper
hand. Under such conditions the story of a great flood in the past would not be
likely to die out in the future; the tradition would tend to gather illustrative
detail suggested by later experience. Our new text reveals the Deluge tradition
in Mesopotamia at an early stage of its development, and incidentally shows us
that there is no need to postulate for its origin any convulsion of nature or
even a series of seismic shocks accompanied by cyclone in the Persian Gulf.

If this had been the only version of the story that had come down to us, we
should hardly have regarded it as a record of world-wide catastrophe. It is true
the gods’ intention is to destroy mankind, but the scene throughout is laid in
Southern Babylonia. After seven days’ storm, the Sun comes out, and the vessel
with the pious priest-king and his domestic animals on board grounds, apparently
still in

Babylonia, and not on any distant mountain, such as Mt. Nisir or the great mass
of Ararat in Armenia. These are obviously details which tellers of the story
have added as it passed down to later generations. When it was carried still
farther afield, into the area of the Eastern Mediterranean, it was again adapted
to local conditions. Thus Apollodorus makes Deucalion land upon Parnassus,[1]
and the pseudo-Lucian relates how he founded the temple of Derketo at Hierapolis
in Syria beside the hole in the earth which swallowed up the Flood.[2] To the
Sumerians who first told the story, the great Flood appeared to have destroyed
mankind, for Southern Babylonia was for them the world. Later peoples who heard
it have fitted the story to their own geographical horizon, and in all good
faith and by a purely logical process the mountain-tops are represented as
submerged, and the ship, or ark, or chest, is made to come to ground on the
highest peak known to the story-teller and his hearers. But in its early
Sumerian form it is just a simple tradition of some great inundation, which
overwhelmed the plain of Southern Babylonia and was peculiarly disastrous in its
effects. And so its memory survived in the picture of Ziusudu’s solitary coracle
upon the face of the waters, which, seen through the mists of the Deluge
tradition, has given us the Noah’s ark of our nursery days.

[1] Hesiod is our earliest authority for the Deucalion Flood story. For its
probable Babylonian origin, cf. Farnell, /Greece and Babylon/ (1911), p. 184.

[2] /De Syria dea/, 12 f.

Thus the Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek Deluge stories resolve themselves, not
into a nature myth, but into an early legend, which has the basis of historical
fact in the Euphrates Valley. And it is probable that we may explain after a
similar fashion the occurrence of tales of a like character at least in some
other parts of the world. Among races dwelling in low-lying or well-watered
districts it would be surprising if we did not find independent stories of past
floods from which few inhabitants of the land escaped. It is only in hilly
countries such as Palestine, where for the great part of the year water is
scarce and precious, that we are forced to deduce borrowing; and there is no
doubt that both the Babylonian and the biblical stories have been responsible
for some at any rate of the scattered tales. But there is no need to adopt the
theory of a single source for all of them, whether in Babylonia or, still less,
in Egypt.[1]

[1] This argument is taken from an article I published in Professor Headlam’s
/Church Quarterly Review/, Jan., 1916, pp. 280 ff., containing an account of Dr.
Poebel’s discovery.

I should like to add, with regard to this reading of our new evidence, that I am
very glad to know Sir James Frazer holds a very similar opinion. For, as you are
doubtless all aware, Sir James is at present collecting Flood stories from all
over the world, and is supplementing from a wider range the collections already
made by Lenormant, Andree, Winternitz, and Gerland. When his work is complete it
will be possible to conjecture with far greater confidence how particular
traditions or groups of tradition arose, and to what extent transmission has
taken place. Meanwhile, in his recent Huxley Memorial Lecture,[1] he has
suggested a third possibility as to the way Deluge stories may have arisen.

[1] Sir J. G. Frazer, /Ancient Stories of a Great Flood/ (the Huxley Memorial
Lecture, 1916), Roy. Anthrop. Inst., 1916.

Stated briefly, it is that a Deluge story may arise as a popular explanation of
some striking natural feature in a country, although to the scientific eye the
feature in question is due to causes other than catastrophic flood. And he
worked out the suggestion in the case of the Greek traditions of a great deluge,
associated with the names of Deucalion and Dardanus. Deucalion’s deluge, in its
later forms at any rate, is obviously coloured by Semitic tradition; but both
Greek stories, in their origin, Sir James Frazer would trace to local
conditions--the one suggested by the Gorge of Tempe in Thessaly, the other
explaining the existence of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. As he pointed out,
they would be instances, not of genuine historical traditions, but of what Sir
James Tyler calls "observation myths". A third story of a great flood, regarded
in Greek tradition as the earliest of the three, he would explain by an
extraordinary inundation of the Copaic Lake in Boeotia, which to this day is
liable to great fluctuations of level. His new theory applies only to the other
two traditions. For in them no historical kernel is presupposed, though gradual
erosion by water is not excluded as a cause of the surface features which may
have suggested the myths. This valuable theory thus opens up a third possibility
for our analysis. It may also, of course, be used in combination, if in any
particular instance we have reason to believe that transmission, in some vague
form, may already have taken place. And it would with all deference suggest the
possibility that, in view of other evidence, this may have occurred in the case
of the Greek traditions. With regard to the theory itself we may confidently
expect that further examples will be found in its illustration and support.
Meanwhile in the new Sumerian Version I think we may conclude that we have
recovered beyond any doubt the origin of the Babylonian and Hebrew traditions
and of the large group of stories to which they in their turn have given rise.

It is significant that in the Sumerian version no less than four deities are
represented as taking part in the Creation. For in this we may see some
indication of the period to which its composition must be assigned. Their
association in the text suggests that the claims of local gods had already begun
to compete with one another as a result of political combination between the
cities of their cults. To the same general period we must also assign the
compilation of the Sumerian Dynastic record, for that presupposes the existence
of a supreme ruler among the Sumerian city-states. This form of political
constitution must undoubtedly have been the result of a long process of
development, and the fact that its existence should be regarded as dating from
the Creation of the world indicates a comparatively developed stage of the
tradition. But behind the combination of cities and their gods we may
conjecturally trace anterior stages of development, when each local deity and
his human representative seemed to their own adherents the sole objects for
worship and allegiance. And even after the demands of other centres had been
conceded, no deity ever quite gave up his local claims.

Enlil, the second of the four Sumerian creating deities, eventually ousted his
rivals. It has indeed long been recognized that the /rôle/ played by Marduk in
the Babylonian Version of Creation had been borrowed from Enlil of Nippur; and
in the Atrakhasis legend Enlil himself appears as the ultimate ruler of the
world and the other gods figure as "his sons". Anu, who heads the list and plays
with Enlil the leading part in the Sumerian narrative, was clearly his chief
rival. And though we possess no detailed account of Anu’s creative work, the
persistent ascription to him of the creation of heaven, and his familiar title,
"the Father of the Gods", suggest that he once possessed a corresponding body of
myth in Eanna, his temple at Erech. Enki, the third of the creating gods, was
naturally credited, as God of Wisdom, with special creative activities, and
fortunately in his case we have some independent evidence of the varied forms
these could assume.

According to one tradition that has come down to us,[1] after Anu had made the
heavens, Enki created Apsû or the Deep, his own dwelling-place. Then taking from
it a piece of clay[2] he proceeded to create the Brick-god, and reeds and
forests for the supply of building material. From the same clay he continued to
form other deities and materials, including the Carpenter-god; the Smith-god;
Arazu, a patron deity of building; and mountains and seas for all that they
produced; the Goldsmith-god, the Stone-cutter-god, and kindred deities, together
with their rich products for offerings; the Grain-deities, Ashnan and Lakhar;
Siris, a Wine-god; Ningishzida and Ninsar, a Garden-god, for the sake of the
rich offerings they could make; and a deity described as "the High priest of the
great gods," to lay down necessary ordinances and commands. Then he created "the
King", for the equipment probably of a particular temple, and finally men, that
they might practise the cult in the temple so elaborately prepared.

[1] See Weissbach, /Babylonische Miscellen/, pp. 32 ff.

[2] One of the titles of Enki was "the Potter"; cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit.
Mus., Pt. XXIV, pl. 14 f., ll. 41, 43.

It will be seen from this summary of Enki’s creative activities, that the text
from which it is taken is not a general Creation myth, but in all probability
the introductory paragraph of a composition which celebrated the building or
restoration of a particular temple; and the latter’s foundation is represented,
on henotheistic lines, as the main object of creation. Composed with that
special purpose, its narrative is not to be regarded as an exhaustive account of
the creation of the world. The incidents are eclective, and only such gods and
materials are mentioned as would have been required for the building and
adornment of the temple and for the provision of its offerings and cult. But
even so its mythological background is instructive. For while Anu’s creation of
heaven is postulated as the necessary precedent of Enki’s activities, the latter
creates the Deep, vegetation, mountains, seas, and mankind. Moreover, in his
character as God of Wisdom, he is not only the teacher but the creator of those
deities who were patrons of man’s own constructive work. From such evidence we
may infer that in his temple at Eridu, now covered by the mounds of Abu Shahrain
in the extreme south of Babylonia, and regarded in early Sumerian tradition as
the first city in the world, Enki himself was once celebrated as the sole
creator of the universe. The combination of the three gods Anu, Enlil, and Enki,
is persistent in the tradition; for not only were they the great gods of the
universe, representing respectively heaven, earth, and the watery abyss, but
they later shared the heavenly sphere between them. It is in their astrological
character that we find them again in creative activity, though without the
co-operation of any goddess, when they appear as creators of the great
light-gods and as founders of time divisions, the day and the month. This
Sumerian myth, though it reaches us only in an extract or summary in a
Neo-Babylonian schoolboy’s exercise,[1] may well date from a comparatively early
period, but probably from a time when the "Ways" of Anu, Enlil, and Enki had
already been fixed in heaven and their later astrological characters had
crystallized.

[1] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 124 ff. The tablet gives
extracts from two very similar Sumerian and Semitic texts. In both of them Anu,
Enlil, and Enki appear as creators "through their sure counsel". In the Sumerian
extract they create the Moon and ordain its monthly course, while in the Semitic
text, after establishing heaven and earth, they create in addition to the New
Moon the bright Day, so that "men beheld the Sun-god in the Gate of his going
forth". The idea that a goddess should take part with a god in man’s creation is
already a familiar feature of Babylonian mythology. Thus the goddess Aruru, in
co-operation with Marduk, might be credited with the creation of the human
race,[1] as she might also be pictured creating on her own initiative an
individual hero such as Enkidu of the Gilgamesh Epic. The /rôle/ of mother of
mankind was also shared, as we have seen, by the Semitic Ishtar. And though the
old Sumerian goddess, Ninkharsagga, the "Lady of the Mountains", appears in our
Sumerian text for the first time in the character of creatress, some of the
titles we know she enjoyed, under her synonyms in the great God List of
Babylonia, already reflected her cosmic activities.[2] For she was known as "The
Builder of that which has Breath", "The Carpenter of Mankind", "The Carpenter of
the Heart", "The Coppersmith of the Gods", "The Coppersmith of the Land", and
"The Lady Potter".

[1] Op. cit., p. 134 f.

[2] Cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XXIV, pl. 12, ll. 32, 26, 27, 25,
24, 23, and Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 34. In the myth we are not told her method
of creation, but from the above titles it is clear that in her own cycle of
tradition Ninkhasagga was conceived as fashioning men not only from clay but
also from wood, and perhaps as employing metal for the manufacture of her other
works of creation. Moreover, in the great God List, where she is referred to
under her title Makh, Ninkhasagga is associated with Anu, Enlil, and Enki; she
there appears, with her dependent deities, after Enlil and before Enki. We thus
have definite proof that her association with the three chief Sumerian gods was
widely recognized in the early Sumerian period and dictated her position in the
classified pantheon of Babylonia. Apart from this evidence, the important rank
assigned her in the historical and legal records and in votive inscriptions,[1]
especially in the early period and in Southern Babylonia, accords fully with the
part she here plays in the Sumerian Creation myth. Eannatum and Gudea of Lagash
both place her immediately after Anu and

Enlil, giving her precedence over Enki; and even in the Kassite Kudurru
inscriptions of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries, where she is referred to,
she takes rank after Enki and before the other gods. In Sumer she was known as
"the Mother of the Gods", and she was credited with the power of transferring
the kingdom and royal insignia from one king to his successor.

[1] See especially, Poebel, op. cit., pp. 24 ff. Her supreme position as a
goddess is attested by the relative insignificance of her husband Dunpae, whom
she completely overshadows, in which respect she presents a contrast to the
goddess Ninlil, Enlil’s female counterpart. The early clay figurines found at
Nippur and on other sites, representing a goddess suckling a child and clasping
one of her breasts, may well be regarded as representing

Ninkharsagga and not Ninlil. Her sanctuaries were at Kesh and Adab, both in the
south, and this fact sufficiently explains her comparative want of influence in
Akkad, where the Semitic Ishtar took her place. She does indeed appear in the
north during the Sargonic period under her own name, though later she survives
in her synonyms of Ninmakh, "the Sublime Lady", and Nintu, "the Lady of
Child-bearing". It is under the latter title that Hammurabi refers to her in his
Code of Laws, where she is tenth in a series of eleven deities. But as Goddess
of Birth she retained only a pale reflection of her original cosmic character,
and her functions were gradually specialized.[1]

[1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under one of her later
synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr. Poebel suggests, with the Mylitta of
Herodotus. From a consideration of their characters, as revealed by independent
sources of evidence, we thus obtain the reason for the co-operation of four
deities in the Sumerian Creation. In fact the new text illustrates a well-known
principle in the development of myth, the reconciliation of the rival claims of
deities, whose cults, once isolated, had been brought from political causes into
contact with each other. In this aspect myth is the medium through which a
working pantheon is evolved. Naturally all the deities concerned cannot continue
to play their original parts in detail. In the Babylonian Epic of Creation,
where a single deity, and not a very prominent one, was to be raised to
pre-eminent rank, the problem was simple enough. He could retain his own
qualities and achievements while borrowing those of any former rival. In the
Sumerian text we have the result of a far more delicate process of adjustment,
and it is possible that the brevity of the text is here not entirely due to
compression of a longer narrative, but may in part be regarded as evidence of
early combination. As a result of the association of several competing deities
in the work of creation, a tendency may be traced to avoid discrimination
between rival claims. Thus it is that the assembled gods, the pantheon as a
whole, are regarded as collectively responsible for the creation of the
universe. It may be added that this use of /ilâni/, "the gods", forms an
interesting linguistic parallel to the plural of the Hebrew divine title Elohim.

It will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the account of Creation is
not given in full, only such episodes being included as were directly related to
the Deluge story. No doubt the selection of men and animals was suggested by
their subsequent rescue from the Flood; and emphasis was purposely laid on the
creation of the /niggilma/ because of the part it played in securing mankind’s
survival. Even so, we noted one striking parallel between the Sumerian Version
and that of the Semitic Babylonians, in the reason both give for man’s creation.
But in the former there is no attempt to explain how the universe itself had
come into being, and the existence of the earth is presupposed at the moment
when Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninkharsagga undertake the creation of man. The
Semitic-Babylonian Version, on the other hand, is mainly occupied with events
that led up to the acts of creation, and it concerns our problem to inquire how
far those episodes were of Semitic and how far of Sumerian origin. A further
question arises as to whether some strands of the narrative may not at one time
have existed in Sumerian form independently of the Creation myth. The statement
is sometimes made that there is no reason to assume a Sumerian original for the
Semitic-Babylonian Version, as recorded on "the Seven Tablets of Creation";[1]
and this remark, though true of that version as a whole, needs some
qualification. The composite nature of the poem has long been recognized, and an
analysis of the text has shown that no less than five principal strands have
been combined for its formation. These consist of (i) The Birth of the Gods;
(ii) The Legend of Ea and Apsû; (iii) The principal Dragon Myth; (iv) The actual
account of Creation; and (v) the Hymn to Marduk under his fifty titles.[2] The
Assyrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which considerable portions of its text
are restored, quote throughout a Sumerian original, and explain it word for word
by the phrases of the Semitic Version;[3] so that for one out of the Seven
Tablets a Semitic origin is at once disproved. Moreover, the majority of the
fifty titles, even in the forms in which they have reached us in the Semitic
text, are demonstrably Sumerian, and since many of them celebrate details of
their owner’s creative work, a Sumerian original for other parts of the version
is implied. Enlil and Ea are both represented as bestowing their own names upon
Marduk,[4] and we may assume that many of the fifty titles were originally borne
by Enlil as a Sumerian Creator.[5] Thus some portions of the actual account of
Creation were probably derived from a Sumerian original in which "Father Enlil"
figured as the hero.

[1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI (1916), p.
279.

[2] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. lxvi ff.; and cf. Skinner,
/Genesis/, pp. 43 ff.

[3] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.

[4] Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff.

[5] The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed for Enlil’s name. For
what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves responsible? It seems to me
that, in the "Seven Tablets", we may credit them with considerable ingenuity in
the combination of existing myths, but not with their invention. The whole poem
in its present form is a glorification of Marduk, the god of Babylon, who is to
be given pre-eminent rank among the gods to correspond with the political
position recently attained by his city. It would have been quite out of keeping
with the national thought to make a break in the tradition, and such a course
would not have served the purpose of the Babylonian priesthood, which was to
obtain recognition of their claims by the older cult-centres in the country.
Hence they chose and combined the more important existing myths, only making
such alterations as would fit them to their new hero. Babylon herself had won
her position by her own exertions; and it would be a natural idea to give Marduk
his opportunity of becoming Creator of the world as the result of successful
conflict. A combination of the Dragon myth with the myth of Creation would have
admirably served their purpose; and this is what we find in the Semitic poem.
But even that combination may not have been their own invention; for, though, as
we shall see, the idea of conflict had no part in the earlier forms of the
Sumerian Creation myth, its combination with the Dragon /motif/ may have
characterized the local Sumerian Version of Nippur. How mechanical was the
Babylonian redactors’ method of glorifying Marduk is seen in their use of the
description of Tiamat and her monster brood, whom Marduk is made to conquer. To
impress the hearers of the poem with his prowess, this is repeated at length no
less than four times, one god carrying the news of her revolt to another.

Direct proof of the manner in which the later redactors have been obliged to
modify the original Sumerian Creation myth, in consequence of their
incorporation of other elements, may be seen in the Sixth Tablet of the poem,
where Marduk states the reason for man’s creation. In the second lecture we
noted how the very words of the principal Sumerian Creator were put into
Marduk’s mouth; but the rest of the Semitic god’s speech finds no equivalent in
the Sumerian Version and was evidently inserted in order to reconcile the
narrative with its later ingredients. This will best be seen by printing the two
passages in parallel columns:[1]

[1] The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in the lower part of the
First Column, is here compared with the Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series,
Tablet VI, ll. 6-10 (see /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.). The comparison is
justified whether we regard the Sumerian speech as a direct preliminary to man’s
creation, or as a reassertion of his duty after his rescue from destruction by
the Flood.

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION "The people will I cause to . . . "I will make
man, that man may in their settlements, [. . .].

Cities . . . shall (man) build, I will create man who shall in their protection
will I cause inhabit [. . .], him to rest, That he may lay the brick of our That
the service of the gods may house in a clean spot, be established, and that
[their] shrines [may be built]. That in a clean spot he may But I will alter the
ways of the establish our . . . !" gods, and I will change [their paths];
Together shall they be oppressed, and unto evil shall [they . . .]!" The welding
of incongruous elements is very apparent in the Semitic Version. For the
statement that man will be created in order that the gods may have worshippers
is at once followed by the announcement that the gods themselves must be
punished and their "ways" changed. In the Sumerian Version the gods are united
and all are naturally regarded as worthy of man’s worship. The Sumerian Creator
makes no distinctions; he refers to "our houses", or temples, that shall be
established. But in the later version divine conflict has been introduced, and
the future head of the pantheon has conquered and humiliated the revolting
deities. Their "ways" must therefore be altered before they are fit to receive
the worship which was accorded them by right in the simpler Sumerian tradition.
In spite of the epitomized character of the Sumerian Version, a comparison of
these passages suggests very forcibly that the Semitic-Babylonian myth of
Creation is based upon a simpler Sumerian story, which has been elaborated to
reconcile it with the Dragon myth. The Semitic poem itself also supplies
evidence of the independent existence of the Dragon myth apart from the process
of Creation, for the story of Ea and Apsû, which it incorporates, is merely the
local Dragon myth of Eridu. Its inclusion in the story is again simply a tribute
to Marduk; for though Ea, now become Marduk’s father, could conquer Apsû, he was
afraid of Tiamat, "and turned back".[1] The original Eridu myth no doubt
represented Enki as conquering the watery Abyss, which became his home; but
there is nothing to connect this tradition with his early creative activities.
We have long possessed part of another local version of the Dragon myth, which
describes the conquest of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk; and the
fight is there described as taking place, not before Creation, but at a time
when men existed and cities had been built.[2] Men and gods were equally
terrified at the monster’s appearance, and it was to deliver the land from his
clutches that one of the gods went out and slew him. Tradition delighted to
dwell on the dragon’s enormous size and terrible appearance. In this version he
is described as fifty /bêru/[3] in length and one in height; his mouth measured
six cubits and the circuit of his ears twelve; he dragged himself along in the
water, which he lashed with his tail; and, when slain, his blood flowed for
three years, three months, a day and a night. From this description we can see
he was given the body of an enormous serpent.[4]

[1] Tabl. III, l. 53, &c. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, the third of the
apocryphal additions to Daniel, we have direct evidence of the late survival of
the Dragon /motif/ apart from any trace of the Creation myth; in this connexion
see Charles, /Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha/, Vol. I (1913), p. 653 f.

[2] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. 116 ff., lxviii f. The text is preserved on
an Assyrian tablet made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal.

[3] The /bêru/ was the space that could be covered in two hours’ travelling.

[4] The Babylonian Dragon has progeny in the later apocalyptic literature, where
we find very similar descriptions of the creatures’ size. Among them we may
perhaps include the dragon in the Apocalypse of Baruch, who, according to the
Slavonic Version, apparently every day drinks a cubit’s depth from the sea, and
yet the sea does not sink because of the three hundred and sixty rivers that
flow into it (cf. James, "Apocrypha Anecdota", Second Series, in Armitage
Robinson’s /Texts and Studies/, V, No. 1, pp. lix ff.). But Egypt’s Dragon
/motif/ was even more prolific, and the /Pistis Sophia/ undoubtedly suggested
descriptions of the Serpent, especially in connexion with Hades. A further
version of the Dragon myth has now been identified on one of the tablets
recovered during the recent excavations at Ashur,[1] and in it the dragon is not
entirely of serpent form, but is a true dragon with legs. Like the one just
described, he is a male monster. The description occurs as part of a myth, of
which the text is so badly preserved that only the contents of one column can be
made out with any certainty. In it a god, whose name is wanting, announces the
presence of the dragon: "In the water he lies and I [. . .]!" Thereupon a second
god cries successively to Aruru, the mother-goddess, and to Pallil, another
deity, for help in his predicament. And then follows the description of the
dragon: In the sea was the Serpent cre[ated].

Sixty /bêru/ is his length;

Thirty /bêru/ high is his he[ad].[2] For half (a /bêru/) each stretches the
surface of his ey[es];[3] For twenty /bêru/ go [his feet].[4] He devours fish,
the creatures [of the sea], He devours birds, the creatures [of the heaven], He
devours wild asses, the creatures [of the field], He devours men,[5] to the
peoples [he . . .].

[1] For the text, see Ebeling, /Assurtexte/ I, No. 6; it is translated by him in
/Orient. Lit.-Zeit./, Vol. XIX, No. 4 (April, 1916).

[2] The line reads: /30 bêru ša-ka-a ri-[ša-a-šu]/. Dr. Ebeling enders /ri-ša-a/
as "heads" (Köpfe), implying that the dragon had more than one head. It may be
pointed out that, if we could accept this translation, we should have an
interesting parallel to the description of some of the primaeval monsters,
preserved from Berossus, as {soma men ekhontas en, kephalas de duo}. But the
common word for "head" is /kakkadu/, and there can be little doubt that /rîšâ/
is here used in its ordinary sense of "head, summit, top" when applied to a high
building.

[3] The line reads: /a-na 1/2 ta-am la-bu-na li-bit ên[a-šu]/. Dr. Ebeling
translates, "auf je eine Hälfte ist ein Ziegel [ihrer] Auge[n] gelegt". But
/libittu/ is clearly used here, not with its ordinary meaning of "brick", which
yields a strange rendering, but in its special sense, when applied to large
buildings, of "foundation, floor-space, area", i.e. "surface". Dr. Ebeling reads
/ênâ-šu/ at the end of the line, but the sign is broken; perhaps the traces may
prove to be those of /uznâ šu/, "his ears", in which case /li-bit uz[nâ-šu]/
might be rendered either as "surface of his ears", or as "base (lit. foundation)
of his ears".

[4] i.e. the length of his pace was twenty /bêru/.

[5] Lit. "the black-headed". The text here breaks off, at the moment when
Pallil, whose help against the dragon had been invoked, begins to speak. Let us
hope we shall recover the continuation of the narrative and learn what became of
this carnivorous monster.

There are ample grounds, then, for assuming the independent existence of the
Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the versions recovered have come to us
in Semitic form, there is no doubt that the myth itself existed among the
Sumerians. The dragon /motif/ is constantly recurring in descriptions of
Sumerian temple-decoration, and the twin dragons of Ningishzida on Gudea’s
libation-vase, carved in green steatite and inlaid with shell, are a notable
product of Sumerian art.[1] The very names borne by Tiamat’s brood of monsters
in the "Seven Tablets" are stamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent,
and Kingu, whom she appointed as her champion in place of Apsû, is equally
Sumerian. It would be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not evolved a Dragon
myth,[2] for the Dragon combat is the most obvious of nature myths and is found
in most mythologies of Europe and the Near East. The trailing storm-clouds
suggest his serpent form, his fiery tongue is seen in the forked lightning, and,
though he may darken the world for a time, the Sun-god will always be
victorious. In Egypt the myth of "the Overthrowing of Apep, the enemy of Ra"
presents a close parallel to that of Tiamat;[3] but of all Eastern mythologies
that of the Chinese has inspired in art the most beautiful treatment of the
Dragon, who, however, under his varied forms was for them essentially
beneficent. Doubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions of the
Dragon combat, both before and after their arrival on the Euphrates, but the
particular version which the priests of Babylon wove into their epic is not one
of them.

[1] See E. de Sarzec, /Découvertes en Chaldée/, pl. xliv, Fig. 2, and Heuzey,
/Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes/, p. 281.

[2] In his very interesting study of "Sumerian and Akkadian Views of
Beginnings", contributed to the /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI
(1916), pp. 274 ff., Professor Jastrow suggests that the Dragon combat in the
Semitic-Babylonian Creation poem is of Semitic not Sumerian origin. He does not
examine the evidence of the poem itself in detail, but bases the suggestion
mainly on the two hypotheses, that the Dragon combat of the poem was suggested
by the winter storms and floods of the Euphrates Valley, and that the Sumerians
came from a mountain region where water was not plentiful. If we grant both
assumptions, the suggested conclusion does not seem to me necessarily to follow,
in view of the evidence we now possess as to the remote date of the Sumerian
settlement in the Euphrates Valley. Some evidence may still be held to point to
a mountain home for the proto-Sumerians, such as the name of their early goddess
Ninkharsagga, "the Lady of the Mountains". But, as we must now regard Babylonia
itself as the cradle of their civilization, other data tend to lose something of
their apparent significance. It is true that the same Sumerian sign means "land"
and "mountain"; but it may have been difficult to obtain an intelligible profile
for "land" without adopting a mountain form. Such a name as Ekur, the "Mountain
House" of Nippur, may perhaps indicate size, not origin; and Enki’s association
with metal-working may be merely due to his character as God of Wisdom, and is
not appropriate solely "to a god whose home is in the mountains where metals are
found" (op. cit., p. 295). It should be added that Professor Jastrow’s theory of
the Dragon combat is bound up with his view of the origin of an interesting
Sumerian "myth of beginnings", to which reference is made later.

[3] Cf. Budge, /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, pp. 324 ff. The inclusion of the
two versions of the Egyptian Creation myth, recording the Birth of the Gods in
the "Book of Overthrowing Apep", does not present a very close parallel to the
combination of Creation and Dragon myths in the Semitic-Babylonian poem, for in
the Egyptian work the two myths are not really combined, the Creation Versions
being inserted in the middle of the spells against Apep, without any attempt at
assimilation (see Budge, /Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I, p. xvi).

We have thus traced four out of the five strands which form the
Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to a Sumerian ancestry. And we now come back
to the first of the strands, the Birth of the Gods, from which our discussion
started. For if this too should prove to be Sumerian, it would help to fill in
the gap in our Sumerian Creation myth, and might furnish us with some idea of
the Sumerian view of "beginnings", which preceded the acts of creation by the
great gods. It will be remembered that the poem opens with the description of a
time when heaven and earth did not exist, no field or marsh even had been
created, and the universe consisted only of the primaeval water-gods, Apsû,
Mummu, and Tiamat, whose waters were mingled together. Then follows the
successive generation of two pairs of deities, Lakhmu and Lakhamu, and Anshar
and Kishar, long ages separating the two generations from each other and from
the birth of the great gods which subsequently takes place. In the summary of
the myth which is given by Damascius[1] the names of the various deities
accurately correspond to those in the opening lines of the poem; but he makes
some notable additions, as will be seen from the following table:

DAMASCUS "SEVEN TABLETS" I {’Apason---Tauthe} Apsû---Tiamat

| {Moumis} Mummu {Lakhos---Lakhe}[2] Lakhmu---Lakhamu {’Assoros---Kissare} Anshar---Kishar {’Anos, ’Illinos, ’Aos} Anu, [ ], Nudimmud (= Ea) {’Aos---Dauke} | {Belos} [1] /Quaestiones de primis principiis/, cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 384.

[2] Emended from the reading {Dakhen kai Dakhon} of the text. In the passage of
the poem which describes the birth of the great gods after the last pair of
primaeval deities, mention is duly made of Anu and Nudimmud (the latter a title
of Ea), corresponding to the {’Anos} and {’Aos} of Damascius; and there appears
to be no reference to Enlil, the original of {’Illinos}. It is just possible
that his name occurred at the end of one of the broken lines, and, if so, we
should have a complete parallel to Damascius. But the traces are not in favour
of the restoration;[1] and the omission of Enlil’s name from this part of the
poem may be readily explained as a further tribute to Marduk, who definitely
usurps his place throughout the subsequent narrative. Anu and Ea had both to be
mentioned because of the parts they play in the Epic, but Enlil’s only recorded
appearance is in the final assembly of the gods, where he bestows his own name
"the Lord of the World"[2] upon Marduk. The evidence of Damascius suggests that
Enlil’s name was here retained, between those of Anu and Ea, in other versions
of the poem. But the occurrence of the name in any version is in itself evidence
of the antiquity of this strand of the narrative. It is a legitimate inference
that the myth of the Birth of the Gods goes back to a time at least before the
rise of Babylon, and is presumably of Sumerian origin.

[1] Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time at the beginning of a
line, and the three lines following the reference to Nudimmud are entirely
occupied with descriptions of his wisdom and power. It is also probable that the
three preceding lines (ll. 14-16), all of which refer to Anu by name, were
entirely occupied with his description. But it is only in ll. 13-16 that any
reference to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of their second
halves do not suggestion the restoration.

[2] Cf. Tabl. VII, . 116.

Further evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu, Enlil, and Ea (i.e.
Enki), who are here created together, are the three great gods of the Sumerian
Version of Creation; it is they who create mankind with the help of the goddess
Ninkharsagga, and in the fuller version of that myth we should naturally expect
to find some account of their own origin. The reference in Damascius to Marduk
({Belos}) as the son of Ea and Damkina ({Dauke}) is also of interest in this
connexion, as it exhibits a goddess in close connexion with one of the three
great gods, much as we find Ninkharsagga associated with them in the Sumerian
Version.[1] Before leaving the names, it may be added that, of the primaeval
deities, Anshar and Kishar are obviously Sumerian in form.

[1] Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki; and Ninkharsagga is associated
with Enki, as his consort, in another Sumerian myth.

It may be noted that the character of Apsû and Tiamat in this portion of the
poem[1] is quite at variance with their later actions. Their revolt at the
ordered "way" of the gods was a necessary preliminary to the incorporation of
the Dragon myths, in which Ea and Marduk are the heroes. Here they appear as
entirely beneficent gods of the primaeval water, undisturbed by storms, in whose
quiet depths the equally beneficent deities Lakhmu and Lakhamu, Anshar and
Kishar, were generated.[2] This interpretation, by the way, suggests a more
satisfactory restoration for the close of the ninth line of the poem than any
that has yet been proposed. That line is usually taken to imply that the gods
were created "in the midst of [heaven]", but I think the following rendering, in
connexion with ll. 1-5, gives better sense: When in the height heaven was not
named, And the earth beneath did not bear a name, And the primaeval Apsû who
begat them,[3] And Mummu, and Tiamat who bore them[3] all,-- Their waters were
mingled together,

. . .

. . .

. . .

Then were created the gods in the midst of [their waters],[4] Lakhmu and Lakhamu
were called into being . . .

[1] Tabl. I, ll. 1-21.

[2] We may perhaps see a survival of Tiamat’s original character in her control
of the Tablets of Fate. The poem does not represent her as seizing them in any
successful fight; they appear to be already hers to bestow on Kingu, though in
the later mythology they are "not his by right" (cf. Tabl. I, ll. 137 ff., and
Tabl. IV, l. 121).

[3] i.e. the gods.

[4] The ninth line is preserved only on a Neo-Babylonian duplicate

(/Seven Tablets/, Vol. II, pl. i). I suggested the restoration /ki-rib
š[a-ma-mi]/, "in the midst of heaven", as possible, since the traces of the
first sign in the last word of the line seemed to be those of the Neo-Babylonian
form of /ša/. The restoration appeared at the time not altogether satisfactory
in view of the first line of the poem, and it could only be justified by
supposing that /šamâmu/, or "heaven", was already vaguely conceived as in
existence (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3, n. 14). But the traces of the sign, as I have
given them (op. cit., Vol. II, pl. i), may also possibly be those of the
Neo-Babylonian form of the sign /me/; and I would now restore the end of the
line in the Neo-Babylonian tablet as /ki-rib m[e-e-šu-nu]/, "in the midst of
[their waters]", corresponding to the form /mu-u-šu-nu/ in l. 5 of this
duplicate. In the Assyrian Version /mé(pl)-šu-nu/ would be read in both lines.
It will be possible to verify the new reading, by a re-examination of the traces
on the tablet, when the British Museum collections again become available for
study after the war.

If the ninth line of the poem be restored as suggested, its account of the Birth
of the Gods will be found to correspond accurately with the summary from
Berossus, who, in explaining the myth, refers to the Babylonian belief that the
universe consisted at first of moisture in which living creatures, such as he
had already described, were generated.[1] The primaeval waters are originally
the source of life, not of destruction, and it is in them that the gods are
born, as in Egyptian mythology; there Nu, the primaeval water-god from whom Ra
was self-created, never ceased to be the Sun-god’s supporter. The change in the
Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the combination of the Dragon
myth with that of Creation, a combination that in Egypt would never have been
justified by the gentle Nile. From a study of some aspects of the names at the
beginning of the Babylonian poem we have already seen reason to suspect that its
version of the Birth of the Gods goes back to Sumerian times, and it is
pertinent to ask whether we have any further evidence that in Sumerian belief
water was the origin of all things.

[1] {ugrou gar ontos tou pantos kai zoon en auto gegennemenon [toionde] ktl}.
His creatures of the primaeval water were killed by the light; and terrestrial
animals were then created which could bear (i.e. breathe and exist in) the air.
For many years we have possessed a Sumerian myth of Creation, which has come to
us on a late Babylonian tablet as the introductory section of an incantation. It
is provided with a Semitic translation, and to judge from its record of the
building of Babylon and Egasila, Marduk’s temple, and its identification of
Marduk himself with the Creator, it has clearly undergone some editing at the
hands of the Babylonian priests. Moreover, the occurrence of various episodes
out of their logical order, and the fact that the text records twice over the
creation of swamps and marshes, reeds and trees or forests, animals and cities,
indicate that two Sumerian myths have been combined. Thus we have no guarantee
that the other cities referred to by name in the text, Nippur, Erech, and Eridu,
are mentioned in any significant connexion with each other.[1] Of the actual
cause of Creation the text appears to give two versions also, one in its present
form impersonal, and the other carried out by a god. But these two accounts are
quite unlike the authorized version of Babylon, and we may confidently regard
them as representing genuine Sumerian myths. The text resembles other early
accounts of Creation by introducing its narrative with a series of negative
statements, which serve to indicate the preceding non-existence of the world, as
will be seen from the following extract:[2] No city had been created, no
creature had been made, Nippur had not been created, Ekur had not been built,
Erech had not been created, Eanna had not been built, Apsû had not been created,
Eridu had not been built, Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the
habitation had not been created.

All lands[3] were sea. At the time when a channel (was formed) in the midst of
the sea, Then was Eridu created, Esagila built, etc.

Here we have the definite statement that before Creation all the world was sea.
And it is important to note that the primaeval water is not personified; the
ordinary Sumerian word for "sea" is employed, which the Semitic translator has
faithfully rendered in his version of the text.[4] The reference to a channel in
the sea, as the cause of Creation, seems at first sight a little obscure; but
the word implies a "drain" or "water-channel", not a current of the sea itself,
and the reference may be explained as suggested by the drainage of a flood-area.
No doubt the phrase was elaborated in the original myth, and it is possible that
what appears to be a second version of Creation later on in the text is really
part of the more detailed narrative of the first myth. There the Creator himself
is named. He is the Sumerian god Gilimma, and in the Semitic translation
Marduk’s name is substituted. To the following couplet, which describes
Gilimma’s method of creation, is appended a further extract from a later portion
of the text, there evidently displaced, giving additional details of the
Creator’s work:

Gilimma bound reeds in the face of the waters, He formed soil and poured it out
beside the reeds.[5] [He][6] filled in a dike by the side of the sea, [He . . .]
a swamp, he formed a marsh.

[. . .], he brought into existence, [Reeds he form]ed,[7] trees he created.

[1] The composite nature of the text is discussed by Professor Jastrow in his
/Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions/, pp. 89 ff.; and in his paper in the /Journ.
Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 279 ff.; he has analysed it into two
main versions, which he suggests originated in Eridu and Nippur respectively.
The evidence of the text does not appear to me to support the view that any
reference to a watery chaos preceding Creation must necessarily be of Semitic
origin. For the literature of the text (first published by Pinches, /Journ. Roy.
Asiat. Soc./, Vol. XXIII, pp. 393 ff.), see /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, p. 130.

[2] Obv., ll. 5-12.

[3] Sum. /nigin-kur-kur-ra-ge/, Sem. /nap-har ma-ta-a-tu/, lit. "all lands",
i.e. Sumerian and Babylonian expressions for "the world".

[4] Sum. /a-ab-ba/, "sea", is here rendered by /tâmtum/, not by its personified
equivalent Tiamat.

[5] The suggestion has been made that /amu/, the word in the Semitic version
here translated "reeds", should be connected with /ammatu/, the word used for
"earth" or "dry land" in the Babylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, l. 2, and
given some such meaning as "expanse". The couplet is thus explained to mean that
the god made an expanse on the face of the waters, and then poured out dust "on
the expanse". But the Semitic version in l. 18 reads /itti ami/, "beside the
/a./", not /ina ami/, "on the /a./"; and in any case there does not seem much
significance in the act of pouring out specially created dust on or beside land
already formed. The Sumerian word translated by /amu/ is written /gi-dir/, with
the element /gi/, "reed", in l. 17, and though in the following line it is
written under its variant form /a-dir/ without /gi/, the equation /gi-a-dir/ =
/amu/ is elsewhere attested (cf. Delitzsch, /Handwörterbuch/, p. 77). In favour
of regarding /amu/ as some sort of reed, here used collectively, it may be
pointed out that the Sumerian verb in l. 17 is /kešda/, "to bind", accurately
rendered by /rakašu/ in the Semitic version. Assuming that l. 34 belongs to the
same account, the creation of reeds in general beside trees, after dry land is
formed, would not of course be at variance with the god’s use of some sort of
reed in his first act of creation. He creates the reed-bundles, as he creates
the soil, both of which go to form the first dike; the reed-beds, like the other
vegetation, spring up from the ground when it appears.

[6] The Semitic version here reads "the lord Marduk"; the corresponding name in
the Sumerian text is not preserved.

[7] The line is restored from l. 2 o the obverse of the text.

Here the Sumerian Creator is pictured as forming dry land from the primaeval
water in much the same way as the early cultivator in the Euphrates Valley
procured the rich fields for his crops. The existence of the earth is here not
really presupposed. All the world was sea until the god created land out of the
waters by the only practical method that was possible in Mesopotamia. In another
Sumerian myth, which has been recovered on one of the early tablets from Nippur,
we have a rather different picture of beginnings. For there, though water is the
source of life, the existence of the land is presupposed. But it is bare and
desolate, as in the Mesopotamian season of "low water". The underlying idea is
suggestive of a period when some progress in systematic irrigation had already
been made, and the filling of the dry canals and subsequent irrigation of the
parched ground by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but eagerly desired.
The myth is only one of several that have been combined to form the introductory
sections of an incantation; but in all of them Enki, the god of the deep water,
plays the leading part, though associated with different consorts.[1] The
incantation is directed against various diseases, and the recitation of the
closing mythical section was evidently intended to enlist the aid of special
gods in combating them. The creation of these deities is recited under set
formulae in a sort of refrain, and the divine name assigned to each bears a
magical connexion with the sickness he or she is intended to dispel.[2]

[1] See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. X, No. 1 (1915),
pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 140 ff.;
cf. Prince, /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow, /Journ.
Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 122 ff., and in particular his detailed study
of the text in /Amer. Journ. Semit. Lang./, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ff. Dr.
Langdon’s first description of the text, in /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol. XXXVI
(1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively small fragment only; and on
his completion of the text from other fragments in Pennsylvania. Professor Sayce
at once realized that the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth could not be
sustained (cf. /Expos. Times/, Nov., 1915, pp. 88 ff.). He, Professor Prince,
and Professor Jastrow independently showed that the action of Enki in the myth
in sending water on the land was not punitive but beneficent; and the preceding
section, in which animals are described as not performing their usual
activities, was shown independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to
have reference, not to their different nature in an ideal existence in Paradise,
but, on familiar lines, to their non-existence in a desolate land. It may be
added that Professor Barton and Dr. Peters agree generally with Professor Prince
and Professor Jastrow in their interpretation of the text, which excludes the
suggested biblical parallels; and I understand from Dr. Langdon that he very
rightly recognizes that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a subject for
congratulation that the discussion has materially increased our knowledge of
this difficult composition.

[2] Cf. Col. VI, ll. 24 ff.; thus /Ab/-u was created for the sickness of the cow
(/ab/); Nin-/tul/ for that of the flock (u-/tul/); Nin-/ka/-u-tu and Nin-/ka/-si
for that of the mouth (/ka/); Na-zi for that of the /na-zi/ (meaning uncertain);
/Da zi/-ma for that of the /da-zi/ (meaning uncertain); Nin-/til/ for that of
/til/ (life); the name of the eighth and last deity is imperfectly preserved.

We have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic, which was
common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its employment against
disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice to cite a well-known magical
cure for the toothache which was adopted in Babylon.[1] There toothache was
believed to be caused by the gnawing of a worm in the gum, and a myth was used
in the incantation to relieve it. The worm’s origin is traced from Anu, the god
of heaven, through a descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the earth,
rivers, canals and marshes are represented as each giving rise to the next in
order, until finally the marshes produce the worm. The myth then relates how the
worm, on being offered tempting food by Ea in answer to her prayer, asked to be
allowed to drink the blood of the teeth, and the incantation closes by invoking
the curse of Ea because of the worm’s misguided choice. It is clear that power
over the worm was obtained by a recital of her creation and of her subsequent
ingratitude, which led to her present occupation and the curse under which she
laboured. When the myth and invocation had been recited three times over the
proper mixture of beer, a plant, and oil, and the mixture had been applied to
the offending tooth, the worm would fall under the spell of the curse and the
patient would at once gain relief. The example is instructive, as the connexion
of ideas is quite clear. In the Nippur document the recital of the creation of
the eight deities evidently ensured their presence, and a demonstration of the
mystic bond between their names and the corresponding diseases rendered the
working of their powers effective. Our knowledge of a good many other myths is
due solely to their magical employment.

[1] See Thompson, /Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia/, Vol. II, pp. 160 ff.;
for a number of other examples, see Jastrow, /J.A.O.S./, Vol. XXXVI, p. 279, n.
7.

Perhaps the most interesting section of the new text is one in which divine
instructions are given in the use of plants, the fruit or roots of which may be
eaten. Here Usmû, a messenger from Enki, God of the Deep, names eight such
plants by Enki’s orders, thereby determining the character of each. As Professor
Jastrow has pointed out, the passage forcibly recalls the story from Berossus,
concerning the mythical creature Oannes, who came up from the Erythraean Sea,
where it borders upon Babylonia, to instruct mankind in all things, including
"seeds and the gathering of fruits".[1] But the only part of the text that
concerns us here is the introductory section, where the life-giving flood, by
which the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured as following the union of the
water-deities, Enki and Ninella.[2] Professor Jastrow is right in emphasizing
the complete absence of any conflict in this Sumerian myth of beginnings; but,
as with the other Sumerian Versions we have examined, it seems to me there is no
need to seek its origin elsewhere than in the Euphrates Valley.

[1] Cf. Jastrow, /J.A.O.S./, Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and /A.J.S.L./, Vol. XXXIII, p.
134 f. It may be added that the divine naming of the plants also presents a
faint parallel to the naming of the beasts and birds by man himself in Genesis
2:19 f.

[2] Professor Jastrow (/A.J.S.L./, Vol. XXXIII, p. 115) compares similar myths
collected by Sir James Frazer (/Magic Art/, Vol. II, chap. xi and chap. xii, §
2). He also notes the parallel the irrigation myth presents to the mist (or
flood) of the earlier Hebrew Version (Genesis 2:5 f). But Enki, like Ea, was no
rain-god; he had his dwellings in the Euphrates and the Deep.

Even in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation had been superseded
by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never ceased to be regarded as the source of
life and the creator of all things. And this is well brought out in the
following introductory lines of a Semitic incantation, of which we possess two
Neo-Babylonian copies:[1] O thou River, who didst create all things, When the
great gods dug thee out, They set prosperity upon thy banks, Within thee Ea,
King of the Deep, created his dwelling. The Flood they sent not before thou
wert!

Here the river as creator is sharply distinguished from the Flood; and we may
conclude that the water of the Euphrates Valley impressed the early Sumerians,
as later the Semites, with its creative as well as with its destructive power.
The reappearance of the fertile soil, after the receding inundation, doubtless
suggested the idea of creation out of water, and the stream’s slow but automatic
fall would furnish a model for the age-long evolution of primaeval deities. When
a god’s active and artificial creation of the earth must be portrayed, it would
have been natural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the Creator working as
he himself would work when he reclaimed a field from flood. We are thus shown
the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling reed-bundles in the water and heaping up
soil beside them, till the ground within his dikes dries off and produces
luxuriant vegetation. But here there is a hint of struggle in the process, and
we perceive in it the myth-redactor’s opportunity to weave in the Dragon
/motif/. No such excuse is afforded by the other Sumerian myth, which pictures
the life-producing inundation as the gift of the two deities of the Deep and the
product of their union. But in their other aspect the rivers of Mesopotamia
could be terrible; and the Dragon /motif/ itself, on the Tigris and Euphrates,
drew its imagery as much from flood as from storm. When therefore a single deity
must be made to appear, not only as Creator, but also as the champion of his
divine allies and the conqueror of other gods, it was inevitable that the myths
attaching to the waters under their two aspects should be combined. This may
already have taken place at Nippur, when Enlil became the head of the pantheon;
but the existence of his myth is conjectural.[1] In a later age we can trace the
process in the light of history and of existing texts. There Marduk, identified
wholly as the Sun-god, conquers the once featureless primaeval water, which in
the process of redaction has now become the Dragon of flood and storm.

[1] The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is emphasized in Tablet VII
of the Babylonian poem of Creation. It is significant that his first title,
Asara, should be interpreted as "Bestower of planting", "Founder of sowing",
"Creator of grain and plants", "He who caused the green herb to spring up" (cf.
/Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, p. 92 f.). These opening phrases, by which the god is
hailed, strike the key-note of the whole composition. It is true that, as
Sukh-kur, he is "Destroyer of the foe"; but the great majority of the titles and
their Semitic glosses refer to creative activities, not to the Dragon myth.

Thus the dualism which is so characteristic a feature of the Semitic-Babylonian
system, though absent from the earliest Sumerian ideas of Creation, was inherent
in the nature of the local rivers, whose varied aspects gave rise to or coloured
separate myths. Its presence in the later mythology may be traced as a
reflection of political development, at first probably among the warring cities
of Sumer, but certainly later in the Semitic triumph at Babylon. It was but to
be expected that the conqueror, whether Sumerian or Semite, should represent his
own god’s victory as the establishment of order out of chaos. But this would be
particularly in harmony with the character of the Semitic Babylonians of the
First Dynasty, whose genius for method and organization produced alike
Hammurabi’s Code of Laws and the straight streets of the capital.

We have thus been able to trace the various strands of the Semitic-Babylonian
poem of Creation to Sumerian origins; and in the second lecture we arrived at a
very similar conclusion with regard to the Semitic-Babylonian Version of the
Deluge preserved in the Epic of Gilgamesh. We there saw that the literary
structure of the Sumerian Version, in which Creation and Deluge are combined,
must have survived under some form into the Neo-Babylonian period, since it was
reproduced by Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same arrangement in
Genesis did not therefore prove that the Hebrew accounts go back directly to
early Sumerian originals. In fact, the structural resemblance presented by
Genesis can only be regarded as an additional proof that the Sumerian originals
continued to be studied and translated by the Semitic priesthood, although they
had long been superseded officially by their later descendants, the Semitic
epics. A detailed comparison of the Creation and Deluge narratives in the
various versions at once discloses the fact that the connexion between those of
the Semitic Babylonians and the Hebrews is far closer and more striking than
that which can be traced when the latter are placed beside the Sumerian
originals. We may therefore regard it as certain that the Hebrews derived their
knowledge of Sumerian tradition, not directly from the Sumerians themselves, but
through Semitic channels from Babylon.

It will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points of resemblance
that are admitted to exist between the Hebrew account of Creation in Genesis
1:1-31 and that preserved in the "Seven Tablets".[1] It will suffice to
emphasize two of them, which gain in significance through our newly acquired
knowledge of early

Sumerian beliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem, one is
struck more by the differences than by the parallels; but that is due to the
polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention when compared with the
severe and dignified monotheism of the Hebrew writer. And if allowance be made
for the change in theological standpoint, the material points of resemblance are
seen to be very marked. The outline or general course of events is the same. In
both we have an abyss of waters at the beginning denoted by almost the same

Semitic word, the Hebrew /tehôm/, translated "the deep" in Genesis 1:2, being
the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian /Tiamat/, the monster of storm and
flood who presents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian primaeval water.[2]
The second act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative is that of a "firmament",
which divided the waters under it from those above.[3] But this, as we have
seen, has no parallel in the early Sumerian conception until it was combined
with the Dragon combat in the form in which we find it in the Babylonian poem.
There the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from one half of her he
constructs a covering or dome for heaven, that is to say a "firmament", to keep
her upper waters in place. These will suffice as text passages, since they serve
to point out quite clearly the Semitic source to which all the other detailed
points of Hebrew resemblance may be traced.

[1] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 45
ff.

[2] The invariable use of the Hebrew word /tehôm/ without the article, except in
two passages in the plural, proves that it is a proper name (cf. Skinner, op.
cit., p. 17); and its correspondence with /Tiamat/ makes the resemblance of the
versions far more significant than if their parallelism were confined solely to
ideas.

[3] Genesis 1:6-8. In the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a
demonstration is not possible, since we have no similar criterion to apply. And
on one point, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve an original Sumerian
strand of the narrative that was not woven into the Gilgamesh Epic, where there
is no parallel to the piety of Noah. But from the detailed description that was
given in the second lecture, it will have been noted that the Sumerian account
is on the whole far simpler and more primitive than the other versions. It is
only in the Babylonian Epic, for example, that the later Hebrew writer finds
material from which to construct the ark, while the sweet savour of
Ut-napishtim’s sacrifice, and possibly his sending forth of the birds, though
reproduced in the earlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the Sumerian
account.[1] As to the general character of the Flood, there is no direct
reference to rain in the Sumerian Version, though its presence is probably
implied in the storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been increased
to forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which would be suitable to
a country where local rain was the sole cause of flood. But the later Hebrew
writer’s addition of "the fountains of the deep" to "the windows of heaven"
certainly suggests a more intimate knowledge of Mesopotamia, where some
contributary cause other than local rain must be sought for the sudden and
overwhelming catastrophes of which the rivers are capable.

[1] For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented by the Hebrew
Versions J and P to the account in the Gilgamesh Epic, see Skinner, op. cit., p.
177 f.; Driver, /Genesis/, p. 106 f.; and Gordon, /Early Traditions of Genesis/
(1907), pp. 38 ff.

Thus, viewed from a purely literary standpoint, we are now enabled to trace back
to a primitive age the ancestry of the traditions, which, under a very different
aspect, eventually found their way into Hebrew literature. And in the process we
may note the changes they underwent as they passed from one race to another. The
result of such literary analysis and comparison, so far from discrediting the
narratives in Genesis, throws into still stronger relief the moral grandeur of
the

Hebrew text.

We come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did the
Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian ideas? The tendency of the purely
literary school of critics has been to explain the process by the direct use of
Babylonian documents wholly within exilic times. If the Creation and Deluge
narratives stood alone, a case might perhaps be made out for confining
Babylonian influence to this late period. It is true that during the Captivity
the Jews were directly exposed to such influence. They had the life and
civilization of their captors immediately before their eyes, and it would have
been only natural for the more learned among the Hebrew scribes and priests to
interest themselves in the ancient literature of their new home. And any
previous familiarity with the myths of Babylonia would undoubtedly have been
increased by actual residence in the country. We may perhaps see a result of
such acquaintance with Babylonian literature, after Jehoiachin’s deportation,,
in an interesting literary parallel that has been pointed out between Ezekiel
19:12-20 and a speech in the Babylonian account of the Deluge in the Gilgamesh
Epic, XI, ll. 180-194.[1] The passage in Ezekiel occurs within Ezekiel 1:1-28,
Ezekiel 2:1-10, Ezekiel 3:1-27, Ezekiel 4:1-17, Ezekiel 5:1-17, Ezekiel 6:1-14,
Ezekiel 7:1-27, Ezekiel 8:1-18, Ezekiel 9:1-11, Ezekiel 10:1-22, Ezekiel
11:1-25, Ezekiel 12:1-28, Ezekiel 13:1-23, Ezekiel 14:1-23, Ezekiel 15:1-8,
Ezekiel 16:1-63, Ezekiel 17:1-24, Ezekiel 18:1-32, Ezekiel 19:1-14, Ezekiel
20:11-49, Ezekiel 21:1-32, Ezekiel 22:1-31, Ezekiel 23:1-49, Ezekiel 34:1-27,
which correspond to the prophet’s first period and consist in the main of his
utterances in exile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in fact, the
introduction to the prophet’s announcement of the coming of "four sore
judgements upon Jerusalem", from which there "shall be left a remnant that shall
be carried forth".[2] But in consequence, here and there, of traces of a later
point of view, it is generally admitted that many of the chapters in this
section may have been considerably amplified and altered by Ezekiel himself in
the course of writing. And if we may regard the literary parallel that has been
pointed out as anything more than fortuitous, it is open to us to assume that
Ezekiel 14:1-23 may have been worked up by Ezekiel many years after his
prophetic call at Tel-abib.

[1] See Daiches, "Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the Deluge", in the
/Jewish Quarterly Review/, April 1905. It has of course long been recognized
that Ezekiel, in announcing the punishment of the king of Egypt in xxxii. 2 ff.,
uses imagery which strongly recalls the Babylonian Creation myth. For he
compares Pharaoh to a sea-monster over whom Yahweh will throw his net (as Marduk
had thrown his over Tiamat); cf. Loisy, /Les mythes babyloniens et les premiers
chaptires de la Genèse/ (1901), p. 87.

[2] Ezekiel 14:21 f. In the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already
sent the Flood and had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon
remonstrates with him, and he urges that in future the sinner only should be
made to suffer for his sin; and, instead of again causing a flood, let there be
discrimination in the divine punishments sent on men or lands. While the flood
made the escape of the deserving impossible, other forms of punishment would
affect the guilty only. In

Ezekiel the subject is the same, but the point of view is different. The land
the prophet has in his mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah, and his desire is to
explain why it will suffer although not all its inhabitants deserved to share
its fate. The discrimination, which Ea urges, Ezekiel asserts will be made; but
the sinner must bear his own sin, and the righteous, however eminent, can only
save themselves by their righteousness. The general principle propounded in the
Epic is here applied to a special case. But the parallelism between the passages
lies not only in the general principle but also in the literary setting. This
will best be brought out by printing the passages in parallel columns.

Gilg. Epic, XI, 180-194 Ezekiel 14:12-20 Ea opened his mouth and spake, And the
word of the Lord came He said to the warrior Enlil; unto me, saying, Thou
director of the gods! O Son of man, when a land sinneth warrior! against me by
committing a Why didst thou not take counsel trespass, and I stretch out but
didst cause a flood? mine hand upon it, and break On the transgressor lay his
the staff of the bread transgression! thereof, and send /famine/ Be merciful, so
that (all) be not upon it, and cut off from it destroyed! Have patience, so man
and beast; though these that (all) be not [cut off]! three men, Noah, Daniel,
and Instead of causing a flood, Job, were in it, they should Let /lions/[1] come
and diminish deliver but their own souls by mankind! their righteousness, saith
the Instead of causing a flood, Lord God.

Let /leopards/[1] come and If I cause /noisome beasts/ to diminish mankind! pass
through the land, and Instead of causing a flood, they spoil it, so that it be
Let /famine/ be caused and let it desolate, that no man may pass smite the land!
through because of the beasts;

Instead of causing a flood, though these three men were in Let the /Plague-god/
come and it, as I live, saith the Lord [slay] mankind! God, they shall deliver
neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be
desolate. Or if I bring a /sword/ upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the
land; so that I cut off from it man and beast; though these three men were in
it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither sons nor
daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves. Or if I send a
/pestilence/ into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off
from it man and beast; though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live,
saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but
deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

[1] Both Babylonian words are in the singular, but probably used collectively,
as is the case with their Hebrew equivalent in Ezekiel 14:15.

It will be seen that, of the four kinds of divine punishment mentioned, three
accurately correspond in both compositions. Famine and pestilence occur in both,
while the lions and leopards of the Epic find an equivalent in "noisome beasts".
The sword is not referred to in the Epic, but as this had already threatened
Jerusalem at the time of the prophecy’s utterance its inclusion by Ezekiel was
inevitable. Moreover, the fact that Noah should be named in the refrain, as the
first of the three proverbial examples of righteousness, shows that Ezekiel had
the Deluge in his mind, and increases the significance of the underlying
parallel between his argument and that of the Babylonian poet.[1] It may be
added that Ezekiel has thrown his prophecy into poetical form, and the metre of
the two passages in the Babylonian and Hebrew is, as Dr. Daiches points out, not
dissimilar.

[1] This suggestion is in some measure confirmed by the /Biblical Antiquities of
Philo/, ascribed by Dr. James to the closing years of the first century A.D.;
for its writer, in his account of the Flood, has actually used Ezekiel 14:12 ff.
in order to elaborate the divine speech in Genesis 8:21 f. This will be seen
from the following extract, in which the passage interpolated between Genesis
8:21-22 is enclosed within brackets: "And God said: I will not again curse the
earth for man’s sake, for the guise of man’s heart hath left off (sic) from his
youth. And therefore I will not again destroy together all living as I have
done. [But it shall be, when the dwellers upon earth have sinned, I will judge
them by /famine/ or by the /sword/ or by fire or by /pestilence/ (lit. death),
and there shall be earthquakes, and they shall be scattered into places not
inhabited (or, the places of their habitation shall be scattered). But I will
not again spoil the earth with the water of a flood, and] in all the days of the
earth seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and autumn, day and night
shall not cease . . ."; see James, /The Biblical Antiquities of Philo/, p. 81,
iii. 9. Here wild beasts are omitted, and fire, earthquakes, and exile are
added; but famine, sword, and pestilence are prominent, and the whole passage is
clearly suggested by Ezekiel. As a result of the combination, we have in the
/Biblical Antiquities/ a complete parallel to the passage in the Gilgamesh Epic.

It may of course be urged that wild beasts, famine, and pestilence are such
obvious forms of divine punishment that their enumeration by both writers is
merely due to chance. But the parallelism should be considered with the other
possible points of connexion, namely, the fact that each writer is dealing with
discrimination in divine punishments of a wholesale character, and that while
the one is inspired by the Babylonian tradition of the Flood, the other takes
the hero of the Hebrew Flood story as the first of his selected types of
righteousness. It is possible that Ezekiel may have heard the Babylonian Version
recited after his arrival on the Chebar. And assuming that some form of the
story had long been a cherished tradition of the Hebrews themselves, we could
understand his intense interest in finding it confirmed by the Babylonians, who
would show him where their Flood had taken place. To a man of his temperament,
the one passage in the Babylonian poem that would have made a special appeal
would have been that quoted above, where the poet urges that divine vengeance
should be combined with mercy, and that all, righteous and wicked alike, should
not again be destroyed. A problem continually in Ezekiel’s thoughts was this
very question of wholesale divine punishment, as exemplified in the case of
Judah; and it would not have been unlikely that the literary structure of the
Babylonian extract may have influenced the form in which he embodied his own
conclusions. But even if we regard this suggestion as unproved or improbable,
Ezekiel’s reference to Noah surely presupposes that at least some version of the
Flood story was familiar to the Hebrews before the Captivity. And this
conclusion is confirmed by other Babylonian parallels in the early chapters of
Genesis, in which oral tradition rather than documentary borrowing must have
played the leading part.[1] Thus Babylonian parallels may be cited for many
features in the story of Paradise,[2] though no equivalent of the story itself
has been recovered. In the legend of Adapa, for example, wisdom and immortality
are the prerogative of the gods, and the winning of immortality by man is bound
up with eating the Food of Life and drinking the Water of Life; here too man is
left with the gift of wisdom, but immortality is withheld. And the association
of winged guardians with the Sacred Tree in Babylonian art is at least
suggestive of the Cherubim and the Tree of Life. The very side of Eden has now
been identified in Southern Babylonia by means of an old boundary-stone acquired
by the British Museum a year or two ago.[3]

[1] See Loisy, /Les mythes babyloniens/, pp. 10 ff., and cf. S. Reinach,
/Cultes, Mythes et Religions/, t. II, pp. 386 ff.

[2] Cf. especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 90 ff. For the latest discussion of
the Serpent and the Tree of Life, suggested by Dr. Skinner’s summary of the
evidence, see Frazer in /Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway/
(1913), pp. 413 ff.

[3] See /Babylonian Boundary Stones in the British Museum/ (1912), pp. 76 ff.,
and cf. /Geographical Journal/, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug., 1912), p. 147. For the
latest review of the evidence relating to the site of Paradise, see Boissier,
"La situation du paradis terrestre", in /Le Globe/, t. LV, Mémoires (Geneva,
1916). But I need not now detain you by going over this familiar ground. Such
possible echoes from Babylon seem to suggest pre-exilic influence rather than
late borrowing, and they surely justify us in inquiring to what periods of
direct or indirect contact, earlier than the Captivity, the resemblances between
Hebrew and Babylonian ideas may be traced. One point, which we may regard as
definitely settled by our new material, is that these stories of the Creation
and of the early history of the world were not of Semitic origin. It is no
longer possible to regard the Hebrew and Babylonian Versions as descended from
common Semitic originals. For we have now recovered some of those originals, and
they are not Semitic but Sumerian. The question thus resolves itself into an
inquiry as to periods during which the Hebrews may have come into direct or
indirect contact with Babylonia.

There are three pre-exilic periods at which it has been suggested the Hebrews,
or the ancestors of the race, may have acquired a knowledge of Babylonian
traditions. The earliest of these is the age of the patriarchs, the traditional
ancestors of the Hebrew nation. The second period is that of the settlement in
Canaan, which we may put from 1200 B.C. to the establishment of David’s kingdom
at about 1000 B.C. The third period is that of the later Judaean monarch, from
734 B.C. to 586 B.C., the date of the fall of Jerusalem; and in this last period
there are two reigns of special importance in this connexion, those of Ahaz
(734-720 B.C.) and Manasseh (693-638 B.C.). With regard to the earliest of these
periods, those who support the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may quite
consistently assume that Abraham heard the legends in Ur of the Chaldees. And a
simple retention of the traditional view seems to me a far preferable attitude
to any elaborate attempt at rationalizing it. It is admitted that Arabia was the
cradle of the Semitic race; and the most natural line of advance from Arabia to
Aram and thence to Palestine would be up the Euphrates Valley. Some writers
therefore assume that nomad tribes, personified in the traditional figure of
Abraham, may have camped for a time in the neighbourhood of Ur and Babylon; and
that they may have carried the Babylonian stories with them in their wanderings,
and continued to preserve them during their long subsequent history. But, even
granting that such nomads would have taken any interest in traditions of settled
folk, this view hardly commends itself. For stories received from foreign
sources become more and more transformed in the course of centuries.[1] The
vivid Babylonian colouring of the Genesis narratives cannot be reconciled with
this explanation of their source.

[1] This objection would not of course apply to M. Naville’s suggested solution,
that cuneiform tablets formed the medium of transmission. But its author himself
adds that he does not deny its conjectural character; see /The Text of the Old
Testament/(Schweich Lectures, 1915), p. 32. A far greater number of writers hold
that it was after their arrival in Palestine that the Hebrew patriarchs came
into contact with Babylonian culture. It is true that from an early period Syria
was the scene of Babylonian invasions, and in the first lecture we noted some
newly recovered evidence upon this point. Moreover, the dynasty to which
Hammurabi belonged came originally from the north-eastern border of Canaan and
Hammurabi himself exercised authority in the west. Thus a plausible case could
be made out by exponents of this theory, especially as many parallels were noted
between the Mosaic legislation and that contained in Hammurabi’s Code. But it is
now generally recognized that the features common to both the Hebrew and the
Babylonian legal systems may be paralleled to-day in the Semitic East and
elsewhere,[1] and cannot therefore be cited as evidence of cultural contact.
Thus the hypothesis that the Hebrew patriarchs were subjects of Babylon in
Palestine is not required as an explanation of the facts; and our first period
still stands or falls by the question of the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, which must be decided on quite other grounds. Those who do not
accept the traditional view will probably be content to rule this first period
out.

[1] See Cook, /The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi/, p. 281 f.; Driver,
/Genesis/, p. xxxvi f.; and cf. Johns, "The Laws of Babylonia and the Laws of
the Hebrew Peoples/ (Schweich Lectures, 1912), pp. 50 ff.

During the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan, the Hebrews came
into contact with a people who had used the Babylonian language as the common
medium of communication throughout the Near East. It is an interesting fact that
among the numerous letters found at Tell el-Amarna were two texts of quite a
different character. These were legends, both in the form of school exercises,
which had been written out for practice in the Babylonian tongue. One of them
was the legend of Adapa, in which we noted just now a distant resemblance to the
Hebrew story of Paradise. It seems to me we are here standing on rather firmer
ground; and provisionally we might place the beginning of our process after the
time of Hebrew contact with the Canaanites.

Under the earlier Hebrew monarchy there was no fresh influx of Babylonian
culture into Palestine. That does not occur till our last main period, the later
Judaean monarchy, when, in consequence of the westward advance of Assyria, the
civilization of Babylon was once more carried among the petty Syrian states.
Israel was first drawn into the circle of Assyrian influence, when Arab fought
as the ally of Benhadad of Damascus at the battle of Karkar in 854 B.C.; and
from that date onward the nation was menaced by the invading power. In 734 B.C.,
at the invitation of Ahaz of Judah, Tiglath-Pileser IV definitely intervened in
the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help against the allied armies of
Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish war. Tiglath-pileser threw his forces
against Damascus and Israel, and Ahaz became his vassal.[1] To this period, when
Ahaz, like Panammu II, "ran at the wheel of his lord, the king of Assyria", we
may ascribe the first marked invasion of Assyrian influence over Judah. Traces
of it may be seen in the altar which Ahaz caused to be erected in Jerusalem
after the pattern of the Assyrian altar at Damascus.[2] We saw in the first
lecture, in the monuments we have recovered of Panammu I and of Bar-rekub, how
the life of another small Syrian state was inevitably changed and thrown into
new channels by the presence of Tiglath-pileser and his armies in the West.

[1] 2 Kings 16:7 ff.

[2] 2 Kings 16:10 ff.

Hezekiah’s resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence on Judah for a
time. But it was intensified under his son Manasseh, when Judah again became
tributary to Assyria, and in the house of the Lord altars were built to all the
host of heaven.[1] Towards the close of his long reign Manasseh himself was
summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to Babylon.[2] So when in the year 586 B.C. the
Jewish exiles came to Babylon they could not have found in its mythology an
entirely new and unfamiliar subject. They must have recognized several of its
stories as akin to those they had assimilated and now regarded as their own. And
this would naturally have inclined them to further study and comparison.

[1] 2 Kings 21:5.

[2] Cf. 2 Chronicles 33:11 ff. The answer I have outlined to this problem is the
one that appears to me most probable, but I do not suggest that it is the only
possible one that can be given. What I do suggest is that the Hebrews must have
gained some acquaintance with the legends of Babylon in pre-exilic times. And it
depends on our reading of the evidence into which of the three main periods the
beginning of the process may be traced. So much, then, for the influence of
Babylon. We have seen that no similar problem arises with regard to the legends
of Egypt. At first sight this may seem strange, for Egypt lay nearer than
Babylon to Palestine, and political and commercial intercourse was at least as
close. We have already noted how Egypt influenced Semitic art, and how she
offered an ideal, on the material side of her existence, which was readily
adopted by her smaller neighbours. Moreover, the Joseph traditions in Genesis
give a remarkably accurate picture of ancient Egyptian life; and even the
Egyptian proper names embedded in that narrative may be paralleled with native
Egyptian names than that to which the traditions refer. Why then is it that the
actual myths and legends of Egypt concerning the origin of the world and its
civilization should have failed to impress the Hebrew mind, which, on the other
hand, was so responsive to those of Babylon?

One obvious answer would be, that it was Nebuchadnezzar II, and not Necho, who
carried the Jews captive. And we may readily admit that the Captivity must have
tended to perpetuate and intensify the effects of any Babylonian influence that
may have previously been felt. But I think there is a wider and in that sense a
better answer than that.

I do not propose to embark at this late hour on what ethnologists know as the
"Hamitic" problem. But it is a fact that many striking parallels to Egyptian
religious belief and practice have been traced among races of the Sudan and East
Africa. These are perhaps in part to be explained as the result of contact and
cultural inheritance. But at the same time they are evidence of an African, but
non-Negroid, substratum in the religion of ancient Egypt. In spite of his proto-

Semitic strain, the ancient Egyptian himself never became a Semite. The Nile
Valley, at any rate until the Moslem conquest, was stronger than its invaders;
it received and moulded them to its own ideal. This quality was shared in some
degree by the Euphrates Valley. But Babylonia was not endowed with Egypt’s
isolation; she was always open on the south and west to the Arabian nomad, who
at a far earlier period sealed her Semitic type. To such racial division and
affinity I think we may confidently trace the influence exerted by Egypt and
Babylon respectively upon Hebrew tradition.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 02.06.     APPENDIXES
========================================================================

APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-BABYLONIAN, HELLENISTIC,
AND HEBREW VERSIONS OF CREATION, ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE DELUGE
N.B.--Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are in upper-case.

Sumerian Version. Seven Tablets Gilgamesh Epic, XI Berossus[’Damscius] Earlier
Heb. (J) Later Heb. (P)

[No heaven or earth No heaven or earth Darkness and water Creation of earth
Earth without form

First Creation from Primaeval water- [Primaeval water- and heaven and void;
darkness primaeval water gods: Apsû-Tiamat, gods: {’Apason- No plant or herb on
face of /tehôm/, without conflict; Mummu Tauthe}, {Moumis} Ground watered by the
primaeval water cf. Later Sum. Ver. Generation of: Generation of: mist (or
flood) Divine spirit moving Lakhmu-Lakhamu {Lakhos-Lakhe} [cf. Sumerian
(hovering, brooding) Anshar-Kishar {’Assoros-Kissare} irrigation myth of upon
face of waters Creation] The great gods: Birth of great gods: Birth of great
gods:

ANU, ENLIL, ENKI, ANU, Nudimmud (=EA) {’Anos, ’Illinos, and Ninkharsagga, Apsû
and Tiamat ’Aos, ’Aois-Lauke, creating deities revolt Belos] Conquest of Tiamat
Conquest of {’Omorka}, Creation of light by Marduk as Sun- or {Thamte}, by god
{Belos} Creation of covering Creation of heaven and Creation of firmament, for
heaven from earth from two halves or heaven, to divide half of Tiamat’s of body
of Thamte waters; followed by body, to keep her emergence of land waters in
place Creation of vegetation Creation of luminaries Creation of luminaries
Creation of luminaries [Creation of (probable order) Creation of animals
vegetation] REASON FOR MAN’S REASON FOR MAN’S CREATION: worship of CREATION:
worship of gods gods

Creation of MAN Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from
Creation of MAN in

Creator’s blood and Creator’s blood and dust and Creator’s image of Creator, to
from bone from earth breath of life have dominion Creation of ANIMALS [Creation
of animals] Creation of ANIMALS Creation of vegetation Hymn on Seventh Tablet
able to bear the air ANIMALS, and woman Rest on Seventh Day

Creation of KINGDOM 10 Antediluvian KINGS The line of Cain Antediluvian

5 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: Antediluvian city: 3 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: The Nephilim
[cf. patriarchs [cf.

Eridu, Bad.., LARAK, SHURUPPAK Babylon, SIPPAR, Sumerian Dynastic Sumerian
Dynastic

SIPPAR, SHURUPPAK LARANKHA List] List]

Gods decree MANKIND’S Gods decree flood, Destruction of MAN Destruction of all
destruction by flood, goddess ISHTAR decreed, because of flesh decreed, because

NINTU protesting protesting his wickedness of its corruption

ZIUSUDU, hero of UT-NAPISHTIM, hero {Xisouthros} Noah, hero of Deluge Noah, hero
of Deluge Deluge, KING and of Deluge (=Khasisatra), hero priest of Deluge, KING

Ziusudu’s PIETY Noah’s FAVOUR Noah’s RIGHTEOUSNESS

WARNING of Ziusudu by WARNING of Ut-nap- WARNING of Xisuthros WARNING of Noah,
and

Enki in DREAM ishtim by Ea in DREAM by Kronos in DREAM instructions for ark

Ziusudu’s vessel a SHIP: 120x120x120 Size of SHIP: 5x2 Instructions to enter
Size of ARK: 300x50x30

HUGE SHIP cubits; 7 stories; 9 stadia ark cubits; 3 stories divisions All kinds
of animals All kinds of animals 7(x2) clean, 2 unclean 2 of all animals

Flood and STORM for 7 FLOOD from heavy rain FLOOD FLOOD from rain for 40 FLOOD;
founts. of deep days and STORM for 6 days days and rain, 150 days Ship on Mt.
Nisir Ark on Ararat Abatement of waters Abatement of waters Abatement of waters
Abatement of waters tested by birds tested by birds tested by birds through
drying wind

SACRIFICE to Sun-god SACRIFICE with sweet SACRIFICE to gods, SACRIFICE with
sweet Landing from ark [after in ship savour on mountain after landing and
savour after landing year (+10 days)] paying adoration to EARTH

Anu and Enlil appeased Ea’s protest to ENLIL APOTHEOSIS of X., Divine promise to
Noah Divine covenant not

[by "Heaven and Earth"] IMMORTALITY of Ut-nap- wife, daughter, and not again to
curse again to destroy EARTH

IMMORTALITY of Ziusudu ishtim and his wife pilot the GROUND by flood; bow as
sign

APPENDIX II THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND THE SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST

It may be of assistance to the reader to repeat in tabular form the equivalents
to the mythical kings of Berossus which are briefly discussed in Lecture I. In
the following table the two new equations, obtained from the earliest section of
the Sumerian Dynastic List, are in upper-case.[1] The established equations to
other names are in normal case, while those for which we should possibly seek
other equivalents are enclosed within brackets.[2] Aruru has not been included
as a possible equivalent for {’Aloros}.[3] 1. {’Aloros} 2. {’Alaparos [?
’Adaparos]}, /Alaporus/, /Alapaurus/ [Adapa] 3. {’Amelon, ’Amillaros}, /Almelon/
[Amêlu] 4. {’Ammenon} ENMENUNNA 5. {Megalaros, Megalanos}, /Amegalarus/ 6.
{Daonos, Daos} ETANA 7. {Euedorakhos, Euedoreskhos}, /Edoranchus/ Enmeduranki 8.
{’Amemphinos}, /Amemphsinus/ [Amêl-Sin] 9. {’Otiartes [? ’Opartes]} [Ubar-Tutu]
10. {Xisouthros, Sisouthros, Sisithros} Khasisatra, Atrakhasis[4]

[1] For the royal names of Berossus, see /Euseb. chron. lib. pri./, ed. Schoene,
cols. 7 f., 31 ff. The latinized variants correspond to forms in the Armenian
translation of Eusebius.

[2] For the principal discussions of equivalents, see Hommel, /Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch./, Vol. XV (1893), pp. 243 ff., and /Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und
das Alte Testament/ (1902), pp. 23 ff.; Zimmern, /Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament/, 3rd ed. (1902), pp. 531 ff.; and cf. Lenormant, /Les origines
de l’histoire/, I (1880), pp. 214 ff. See also Driver, /Genesis/, 10th ed.
(1916), p. 80 f.; Skinner, /Genesis/, p. 137 f.; Ball, /Genesis/, p. 50; and
Gordon, /Early Traditions of Genesis/, pp. 46 ff.

[3] There is a suggested equation of Lal-ur-alimma with {’Aloros}.

[4] The hundred and twenty "sars", or 432,000 years assigned by Berossus for the
duration of the Antediluvian dynasty, are distributed as follows among the ten
kings; the numbers are given below first in "sars", followed by their
equivalents in years within brackets: 1. Ten "sars" (36,000); 2. Three (10,800);
3. Thirteen (46,800); 4. Twelve (43,200); 5. Eighteen (64,800); 6. Ten (36,000);
7. Eighteen (64,800); 8. Ten (36,000); 9. Eight (28,800); 10. Eighteen (64,800).
For comparison with Berossus it may be useful to abstract from the Sumerian
Dynastic List the royal names occurring in the earliest extant dynasties. They
are given below with variant forms from duplicate copies of the list, and
against each is added the number of years its owner is recorded to have ruled.
The figures giving the total duration of each dynasty, either in the summaries
or under the separate reigns, are sometimes not completely preserved; in such
cases an x is added to the total of the figures still legible. Except in those
cases referred to in the foot-notes, all the names are written in the Sumerian
lists without the determinative for "god".

KINGDOM OF KISH (23 kings; 18,000 + x years, 3 months, 3 days)

. . .[1] 8. [. . .] 900(?) years 9. Galumum, Kalumum 900 "

10. Zugagib, Zugakib 830 "

11. Arpi, Arpiu, Arbum 720 "

12. Etana[2] 635 (or 625) years 13. Pili . . .[3] 410 years 14. Enmenunna,
Enmennunna[4] 611 "

15. Melamkish 900 "

16. Barsalnunna 1,200 "

17. Mesza[. . .] [. . .] "

. . .[5] 22. . . . 900 years 23. . . . 625 "

KINGDOM OF EANNA (ERECH)[6] (About 10-12 kings; 2,171 + x years) 1. Meskingasher
325 years 2. Enmerkar 420 "

3. Lugalbanda[7] 1,200 "

4. Dumuzi[8] (i.e. Tammuz) 100 "

5. Gishbilgames[9] (i.e. Gilgamesh) 126 (or 186) years 6. [. . .]lugal [. . .]
years

. . .[10]

KINGDOM OF UR (4 kings; 171 years) 1. Mesannipada 80 years 2. Meskiagnunna 30 "

3. Elu[. . .] 25 "

4. Balu[. . .] 36 "

KINGDOM OF AWAN (3 kings; 356 years)

. . .[11] [1] Gap of seven, or possibly eight, names.

[2] The name Etana is written in the lists with and without the determinative
for "god".

[3] The reading of the last sign in the name is unknown. A variant form of the
name possibly begins with Bali.

[4] This form is given on a fragment of a late Assyrian copy of the list; cf.
/Studies in Eastern History/, Vol. III, p. 143.

[5] Gap of four, or possibly three, names.

[6] Eanna was the great temple of Erech. In the Second Column of the list "the
kingdom" is recorded to have passed from Kish to Eanna, but the latter name does
not occur in the summary.

[7] The name Lugalbanda is written in the lists with and without the
determinative for "god".

[8] The name Dumuzi is written in the list with the determinative for "god".

[9] The name Gishbilgames is written in the list with the determinative for
"god".

[10] Gap of about four, five, or six kings.

[11] Wanting. At this point a great gap occurs in our principal list. The names
of some of the missing "kingdoms" may be inferred from the summaries, but their
relative order is uncertain. Of two of them we know the duration, a second
Kingdom of Ur containing four kings and lasting for a hundred and eight years,
and another kingdom, the name of which is not preserved, consisting of only one
king who ruled for seven years. The dynastic succession only again becomes
assured with the opening of the Dynastic chronicle published by Père Scheil and
recently acquired by the British Museum. It will be noted that with the Kingdom
of Ur the separate reigns last for decades and not hundreds of years each, so
that we here seem to approach genuine tradition, though the Kingdom of Awan
makes a partial reversion to myth so far as its duration is concerned. The two
suggested equations with Antediluvian kings of Berossus both occur in the
earliest Kingdom of Kish and lie well within the Sumerian mythical period. The
second of the rulers concerned, Enmenunna (Ammenon), is placed in Sumerian
tradition several thousand years before the reputed succession of the gods
Lugalbanda and Tammuz and of the national hero Gilgamesh to the throne of Erech.
In the first lecture some remarkable points of general resemblance have already
been pointed out between Hebrew and Sumerian traditions of these early ages of
the world.

End of the Project Gutenberg Etext of LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 03.000. THE SEVEN TABLETS OF CREATION
========================================================================

The Seven Tablets of Creation by Leonard William King Luzac’s Semitic text and
translation series. vol. xii-xiii

Luzac and Co.

London

[1902]

Scanned at sacred-texts.com, December, 2002. J.B. Hare, Redactor. This text is
in the public domain. This file may be used for any non-commercial purpose,
provided that this attribution is left intact.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 03.001.     PREFACE
========================================================================

Preface

PERHAPS no section of Babylonian literature has been more generally studied than
the legends which record the Creation of the world. On the publication of the
late Mr. George Smith’s work, "The Chaldean Account of Genesis," which appeared
some twenty-seven years ago, it was recognized that there was in the Babylonian
account of the Creation, as it existed in the seventh century before Christ,
much which invited comparison with the corresponding narrative in the Book of
Genesis. It is true that the Babylonian legends which had been recovered and
were first published by him were very fragmentary, and that the exact number and
order of the Tablets, or sections, of which they were composed were quite
uncertain; and that, although they recorded the creation of the heavens and of
the heavenly bodies, they contained no direct account of the creation of man. In
spite of this, however, their resemblance to the Hebrew narrative was
unmistakable, and in consequence they at once appealed to a far larger circle of
students than would otherwise have been the case.

After the appearance of Mr. Smith’s work, other scholars produced translations
of the fragments which he had published, and the names of Oppert, Schrader, and
Sayce will always be associated with those who were the first to devote
themselves to the interpretation of the Creation Legends. Moreover, new
fragments of the legends have from time to time been acquired by the Trustees of
the British Museum, and of these the most important is the fine text of the
Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series, containing the account of the fight
between the god Marduk and the dragon Tiamat, which was published in 1887 by Dr.
Wallis Budge, and translated by Professor Sayce in the same year. Professor
Sayce’s translation of the Creation Legends marked a distinct advance upon those
of his predecessors, and it was the most complete, inasmuch as he was enabled to
make use of the new tablet which restored so much of the central portion of the
story. In the year 1890, in his important work Die Kosmologie der Babylonier,
Professor Jensen of Marburg gave a translation of the legends together with a
transliteration and commentary; in 1895 Professor Zimmern of Leipzig translated
all the fragments then known, and a year later Professor Delitzsch of Berlin
also published a rendering. Finally, two years ago, Professor Jensen issued a
new and revised translation of the Creation Legends in the opening pages of the
first part of his work Mythen and Epen, the second part of which, containing his
notes and commentary, appeared some months ago. In the course of the year 1900,
the writer was entrusted with the task of copying the texts of a number of
Babylonian and Assyrian legends for publication in the series of Cuneiform Texts
from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, and, among the documents
selected for issue, were those relating to the Creation of the world. Several of
the texts of the Creation Legends, which had been used by previous translators,
had never been published, and one tablet, which Mr. George Smith had consulted
in 1876, had not been identified by subsequent workers. During my work I was so
fortunate as to recognize this tablet, and was enabled to make copies of all the
texts, not only of those which were previously known, but also of a number of
new duplicates and fragments which I had meanwhile identified. These copies
appeared in Cuneiform Texts, Part XIII (1901), Plates 1-41. The most interesting
of the new fragments there published was a tablet which restored a missing
portion of the text of the Second Tablet of the Creation Series, and of this, on
account of its interest, I gave a translation in a note to the plate on which
the text appeared. It was not my intention at that time to publish anything
further upon the subject of the Creation Legends.

While I was engaged, however, in searching for fragments of other Babylonian
legends for publication officially, it was my good fortune to come across a fine
duplicate of the Second Tablet of the Creation Series. A further prolonged
search was rewarded by the finding of other fragments of the poem, and a study
of these showed me that the earlier portions of the text of the Creation Story,
as already known, could be considerably augmented. Among them, moreover, was a
fragment of the poem which refers to the Creation of Man; this fragment is
extremely important, for in addition to its valuable contents it also settles
the disputed question as to the number of Tablets, or sections, of which the
Creation Series was composed. In view of the additional information as to the
form and contents of the poem which this new material afforded, it was clearly
necessary that a new translation of the Creation Legends should be made, and
this I undertook forthwith. The new fragments of the poem which I had identified
up to the summer of last year are inscribed upon tablets of the Neo-Babylonian
period. At the conclusion of the examination of tablets of this class, I
lithographed the newly identified texts in a series of plates which are
published in the second volume of the present work. These plates were already
printed off, when, at the beginning of the present year, after my return from
Assyria, I identified a fresh group of fragments of the poem inscribed, not upon
Neo-Babylonian, but upon Assyrian tablets. At that time I was engaged on making
a detailed catalogue, or hand-list, of the smaller fragments in the various
collections of Assyrian tablets from Kuyunjik, and, as a result of previous
study of the legends themselves and of the Assyrian commentaries to the Seventh
Tablet of the series, I was enabled to identify ten new fragments of the poem
which are inscribed upon tablets from the library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh.
In order to avoid upsetting the arrangement of the plates in Vol. II, the texts
of the new Assyrian fragments are published by means of outline blocks in
Appendices I and II to the present volume.

Those who have studied the published texts of the Creation Series will remember
that the material used by previous translators of the legends has consisted of
some twenty-one tablets and fragments inscribed with portions of the poem. The
number of new tablets and fragments belonging to the Creation Series which are
here used and translated for the first time reaches the total of thirty-four,
but, as I have joined up six of these to other similar fragments, this total has
been reduced to twenty-eight. Thus, in place of the twenty-one tablets
previously known, forty-nine separate tablets and fragments have now been
identified as containing portions of the text of the Creation Series. The new
information, furnished by the recently discovered material regarding the Story
of Creation, may here be briefly summarized. Hitherto our knowledge of the
contents of Tablets I and II of the series has been very fragmentary. After the
narrative of the creation of the great gods in the opening lines of the poem,
and a fragmentary reference to the first symptoms of revolt exhibited by the
primeval monsters, Apsû and Tiamat, and Mummu, the minister of Apsû, there
occurred a great gap in the text, and the story began again with the account of
how Tiamat prepared to wage war against the gods. Apsû and Mummu have at this
point entirely disappeared from the narrative, and the ally of Tiamat is the god
Kingu, whom she appoints to command her forces. What followed the creation of
the great gods, what was the cause of the revolt, what was the fate of Apsû and
Mummu, and what were the events which led up to Tiamat’s preparations for
battle, are questions that have hitherto remained unanswered. We now know that
the account of the creation of the gods was no fuller than that which has come
down to us from Damascius. After the birth of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, Anshar and
Kishar, Anu, Bêl (i.e., Enlil, or Illil), and Ea (Nudimmud), the text does not
proceed to narrate in detail the coming forth of the lesser deities, but plunges
at once into the story of the revolt of the primeval forces of chaos. We now
know also that it was Apsû, and not Tiamat, who began the revolt against the
gods; and that, according to the poem, his enmity was aroused, not by the
creation of light as has been previously suggested, but by the disturbance of
his rest in consequence of the new "way" of the gods, which tended to produce
order in place of chaos.

One of the most striking facts which the new fragments furnish with regard to
the contents of the legends is the prominent part played by the god Ea in the
earlier episodes of the story. After Apsû and Mummu had repaired to Tiamat and
had hatched with her their plot against the gods, it was the god Ea, who,
abounding in all wisdom, detected their plan and frustrated it. The details of
Ea’s action are still a matter of uncertainty, but, as I have shown in the
Introduction, it is clear that Apsû and Mummu were overthrown, and that their
conqueror was Ea. Moreover, it was only after their downfall, and in order to
avenge them, that Tiamat began her preparations for battle. She was encouraged
in her determination by the god Kingu, and it was in consequence of the
assistance he then gave her that she afterwards appointed him leader of her
host.

Another point which is explained by the new fragments concerns the repetitions
in Tablets I, II, and III of the lines containing the account of Tiamat’s
preparations for battle. The lines describing this episode are given no less
than four times: in Tablet I, in Tablet II, and twice in Tablet III. We now know
that the first description of Tiamat’s preparations occurs after the account of
her determination to avenge her former allies; and in the Second Tablet the
lines are put into the mouth of Ea, who continues to play a prominent part in
the narrative, and carries the tidings to Anshar. How Anshar repeated the lines
to Gaga, his messenger, and how Gaga delivered the message to Lakhmu and
Lakhamu, is already well known.

Perhaps the most striking of all the new fragments of the poem here published is
that which contains the opening and closing lines of the Sixth Tablet, and, at
last, furnishes us with a portion of the text describing the Creation of Man. We
now know that, as in the Hebrew narrative, the culminating act of Creation was
the making of man. Marduk is here represented as declaring to Ea that he will
create man from his own blood, and from bone which he will form; it is important
to note that the Assyrian word here used for "bone," issimtu, which has not
hitherto been known, corresponds to the Hebrew word ’esem, "bone," which occurs
in Genesis 2:2-3, in connection with the account of the creation of woman. The
text thus furnishes another point of resemblance between the Babylonian and the
Hebrew stories of Creation. The new fragment also corroborates in a remarkable
degree the account given by Berossus of the Babylonian version of the creation
of man. According to the writer’s rendering of the passage, Marduk declares that
he will use his own blood in creating mankind, and this agrees with the
statement of Berossus, that Bêl directed one of the gods to cut off his (i.e.
Bêl’s) head, and to form mankind from his blood mixed with earth. This subject
is discussed at length and in detail in the Introduction, as well as a number of
new points of resemblance between the Babylonian and the Hebrew accounts of the
Creation which are furnished by other recently identified fragments of the poem.
With regard to the extent and contents of the Creation Series, we now know that
the Tablets of which the series was composed are seven in number; and we also
possess the missing context or frame-work of the Seventh Tablet, which contains
addresses to Marduk under his fifty titles of honour. From this we learn that,
when the work of Creation was ended, the gods gathered together once more in
Upshukkinakku, their council-chamber; here they seated themselves in solemn
assembly and proceeded to do honour to Marduk, the Creator, by reciting before
him the remarkable series of addresses which form the contents of the last
Tablet of the poem. Many of the missing portions of the Seventh Tablet,
including the opening lines, it has been found possible to restore from the new
fragments and duplicates here published. In the following pages a
transliteration of the text of the Creation Series is given, which has been
constructed from all the tablets and fragments now known to be inscribed with
portions of the poem, together with a translation and notes. For comparison with
the legends contained in the Creation Series, translations have been added of
the other Babylonian accounts of the history of Creation, and of some texts
closely connected therewith. Among these mention may be made of the extracts
from a Sumerian text, and from a somewhat similar one in Babylonian, referring
to the Creation of the Moon and the Sun; these are here published from a
so-called "practice-tablet," or student’s exercise. A remarkable address to a
mythical river, to which the creation of the world is ascribed, is also given.
In the first Appendix the Assyrian commentaries to the Seventh Tablet are
examined in detail, and some fragments of texts are described which bear a
striking resemblance to the Seventh Tablet, and are of considerable interest for
the light they throw on the literary history of the poem. Among the texts dealt
with in the second Appendix one of the most interesting is a Babylonian
duplicate of the tablet which has been supposed to contain the instructions
given by Marduk to man after his creation, but is now shown by the duplicate to
be part of a long didactic composition containing moral precepts, and to have
nothing to do with the Creation Series. Similarly, in the fourth Appendix I have
printed a copy of the text which has been commonly, but erroneously, supposed to
refer to the Tower of Babel. The third Appendix includes some hitherto
unpublished astrological texts of the period of the Arsacidae, which contain
astrological interpretations and explanations of episodes of the Creation story;
they indicate that Tiamat, in her astrological character, was regarded as a star
or constellation in the neighbourhood of the ecliptic, and they moreover furnish
an additional proof of the identification of her monster brood with at any rate
some of the Zodiacal constellations.

During the preparation of this work I have, of course, consulted the
translations and renderings of the Creation Legends which have been made by
other workers on the subject, and especially those of Professors Jensen,
Zimmern, and Delitzsch. I have much pleasure in expressing here my indebtedness
to their published works for suggestions which I have adopted from them. To Mr.
R. Campbell Thompson I am indebted for the ready assistance he has afforded me
during my search for new fragments and duplicates of the legends. In conclusion,
my thanks are due to Dr. Wallis Budge for his friendly suggestions which I have
adopted throughout the progress of the work.

L. W. KING.

LONDON, July 31st, 1902.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 03.002.     CONTENTS
========================================================================

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION:--

I. DESCRIPTION AND LITERATURE OF THE POEM ENUMA ELISH

II. CONTENTS OF THE POEM AND DISCUSSION OF NEW MATERIAL

III. COMPOSITION OF THE POEM

IV. DATE AND ORIGIN OF THE BABYLONIAN CREATION LEGENDS

V. INFLUENCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CREATION LEGENDS AND PARALLELS IN HEBREW
LITERATURE

VI. AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT OF THE POEM ENUMA ELISH AND THE ASSYRIAN
COMMENTARIES

VII. RECONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE TEXT

TRANSLITERATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS:--

I. THE SEVEN TABLETS OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

I. THE FIRST TABLET

II. THE SECOND TABLET

III. THE THIRD TABLET

IV. THE FOURTH TABLET

V. THE FIFTH TABLET

VI. THE SIXTH TABLET

VII. THE SEVENTH TABLET

EPILOGUE

II. OTHER ACCOUNTS OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION.

I. ANOTHER VERSION OF THE DRAGON-MYTH

II. A REFERENCE TO THE CREATION OF THE CATTLE AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD

III. A REFERENCE TO THE CREATION OF THE MOON AND THE SUN

IV. AN ADDRESS TO THE RIVER OF CREATION

V. ANOTHER VERSION OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD BY MARDUK

VI. THE "CUTHAEAN LEGEND OF THE CREATION"

APPENDICES:--

I. ASSYRIAN COMMENTARIES AND PARALLEL TEXTS TO THE SEVENTH TABLET OF THE
CREATION SERIES

II. ON SOME FRAGMENTS OF THE SERIES ENUMA ELISH, AND ON SOME TEXTS RELATING TO
THE HISTORY OF CREATION

III. ON SOME TRACES OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION IN RELIGIOUS AND ASTROLOGICAL
LITERATURE

IV. SUPPOSED ASSYRIAN LEGENDS OF THE TEMPTATION AND THE TOWER OF BABEL

V. A "PRAYER OF THE RAISING OF THE HAND" TO ISHTAR

INDICES, GLOSSARY, ETC.:--

I. INDEX TO TEXTS.

A. CUNEIFORM TEXTS FROM BABYLONIAN TABLETS, ETC., IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, PART
XIII (1901), PLATES 1-41

B. SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS, PUBLISHED IN VOL. II, PLATES, I-LXXXIV

C. SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS, PUBLISHED IN APPENDICES I, II, AND III.

II. INDEX TO REGISTRATION NUMBERS

III. GLOSSARY OF SELECTED WORDS

IV. INDEX TO NAMES OF DEITIES, STARS, PLACES, ETC.

PLATES:--

I. THE SIXTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES

II. THE FIRST TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES

III. THE SECOND TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES

IV. THE FOURTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES

V. THE FIFTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES

VI. THE SEVENTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 03.003.     INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

INTRODUCTION. THE great Assyrian poem, or series of legends, which narrates the
story of the Creation of the world and man, was termed by the Assyrians and
Babylonians Enuma elish, "When in the height," from the two opening words of the
text. The poem consisted of some nine hundred and ninety-four lines, and was
divided into seven sections, each of which was inscribed upon a separate Tablet.
The Tablets were numbered by the Assyrian scribes, and the separate sections of
the poem written upon them do not vary very much in length. The shortest Tablet
contains one hundred and thirty-eight lines, and the longest one hundred and
forty-six, the average length of a Tablet being about one hundred and forty-two
lines. The poem embodies the beliefs of the Babylonians and Assyrians concerning
the origin of the universe; it describes the coming forth of the gods from
chaos, and tells the story of how the forces of disorder, represented by the
primeval water-gods Apsû and Tiamat, were overthrown by Ea and Marduk
respectively, and how Marduk, after completing the triumph of the gods over
chaos, proceeded to create the world and man. The poem is known to us from
portions of several Assyrian and late-Babylonian copies of the work, and from
extracts from it written out upon the so-called "practice-tablets," or students’
exercises, by pupils of the Babylonian scribes. The Assyrian copies of the work
are from the great library which was founded at Nineveh by Ashur-bani-pal, king
of Assyria from B.C. 668 to about B.C. 626; the Babylonian copies and extracts
were inscribed during the period of the kings of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian
periods; and one copy of the Seventh Tablet may probably be assigned to as late
a date as the period of the Arsacidae. All the tablets and fragments, which have
hitherto been identified as inscribed with portions of the text of the poem, are
preserved in the British Museum. From the time of the first discovery of
fragments of the poem considerable attention has been directed towards them, for
not only are the legends themselves the principal source of our knowledge of the
Babylonian cosmogony, but passages in them bear a striking resemblance to the
cognate narratives in the Book of Genesis concerning the creation of the world.
The late Mr. George Smith, who was the first to publish an account of the poem,
recognized this resemblance and emphasized it in his papers on the subject in
1875. In the following year in his work "The Chaldean Account of Genesis" he
gave translations of the fragments of the poem which had been identified, and
the copies which he had made of the principal fragments were published. After
Smith’s death the interest in the texts which he had published did not cease,
and scholars continued to produce renderings and studies of the legends. In 1883
Dr. Wallis Budge gave an account of a fine Babylonian duplicate of what proved
to be the Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series; this document restored
considerable portions of the narrative of the fight between Marduk and the
dragon Tiamat, and added considerably to our knowledge of the story of Creation
and of the order in which the events related in the story took place. In the
Hibbert Lectures for 1887 Professor Sayce translated the new fragment of the
text, and in the following year published a complete translation of all
fragments of the Creation Legends which had up to that time been identified. In
1890 Professor Jensen, in his studies on the Babylonian cosmogony, included a
translation of the legends together with a transliteration and a number of
valuable philological notes and discussion. In 1895 Professor Zimmern published
a translation of the legends, similar in plan to Sayce’s earlier edition; in it
he took advantage of some recently identified fragments and duplicates, and put
forward a number of new renderings of difficult passages. In 1896 a third German
translation of the legends made its appearance; it was published by Professor
Delitzsch and included transliterations and descriptions of the various tablets
and fragments inscribed with portions of the text. Finally, in 1900 Professor
Jensen published a second edition of his rendering of the legends in his Mythen
und Epen; this work was the best which could be prepared with the material then
available. In the most recent translations of the Creation Series, those of
Delitzsch and Jensen, use was made in all of twenty-one separate tablets and
fragments which had been identified as inscribed with portions of the text of
the poem. In the present work thirty-four additional tablets and fragments,
inscribed with portions of the text of the Creation Series, have been employed;
but, as six of these join other similar fragments, the number of separate
tablets and fragments here used for the first time is reduced to twenty-eight.
The total number of separate fragments of the text of the Creation Series is
thus brought up to forty-nine. The new material is distributed among the Seven
Tablets of the Creation Series as follows:--To the four known fragments of the
First Tablet may now be added eight others, consisting of two fragments of an
Assyrian tablet and four Babylonian fragments and two extracts inscribed upon
Babylonian "practice-tablets." To the three known fragments of the Second Tablet
may be added four others, consisting of parts of one Assyrian and of three
Babylonian tablets. To the four known fragments of the Third Tablet may be added
five other, consisting of fragments of one Assyrian and one Babylonian tablet
and extracts inscribed upon three Babylonian "practice-tablets." To the five
known fragments of the Fourth Tablet only one new duplicate can be added, which
is inscribed upon a Babylonian "practice-tablet." To the three known fragments
of the Fifth Tablet may be added two others, consisting of parts of two Assyrian
tablets. Of the Sixth Tablet no fragment has previously been known, and its
existence was only inferred from a fragment of the catch-line preserved on
copies of the Fifth Tablet; fragments of the text of the Sixth Tablet are
published for the first time in the present work from part of a Babylonian
tablet. Finally, to the two known fragments of the Seventh Tablet may now be
added seven other inscribed upon five Assyrian fragments and portions of two
Babylonian tablets. The new fragments of the text of the First and Second
Tablets of the Creation Series throw light on the earlier episodes in the story
of Creation, and enable us to fill up some of the gaps in the narrative. By the
identification of the Tablet K. 5,419 c, George Smith recovered the opening
lines of the First Tablet, which describes the condition of things before
Creation when the primeval water-gods, Apsû and Tiamat, personifying chaos,
mingled their waters in confusion. The text then briefly relates how to Apsû and
Tiamat were born the oldest of the gods, the first pair, Lahmu and Lahamu, being
followed after a long interval by Anshar and Kishar, and after a second interval
by other deities, of whose names the text of K. 5,419 c only preserves that of
Anu. George Smith perceived that this theogony had been reproduced by Damascius
in his summary of the beliefs of the Babylonians concerning the creation of the
world. Now, since Damascius mentions Ἴλλινος and Ἀόσ along with Ἀνόσ, it was
clear that the text of the poem included a description of the birth of the elder
Bel (i.e. Enlil or Illil) and of Ea in the passage in which Anu’s name occurs.
But as the text inscribed upon the obverse of K. 5,419 c, to Apsû, Κισσαρή to
Kishar, Ἀσσωρόσ to Anshar, and Ἀνόσ to Anu; Μωϋμῖσ corresponds to Mummu (see
below, p. xxxviii, note 1).} and of its Neo-Babylonian duplicate 82-7-14, 402,
breaks off at l. 15, the course of the story after this point has hitherto been
purely a matter for conjecture. It appeared probable that the lines which
followed contained a full account of the origin of the younger gods, and from
the fact that Damascius states that Βῆλος, the Creator of the world, was the son
of (i.e. Ea) and Δαύκη (i.e. Damkina), it has Seen concluded that at any rate
special prominence was given to the birth of Bel, i.e. Marduk, who figures so
prominently in the story from the close of the Second Tablet onwards. The new
fragments of the First Tablet show that the account of the birth of the gods in
the Creation Series is even shorter than that given by Damascius, for the poem
contains no mention of the birth and parentage of Marduk. After mentioning the
birth of Nudimmud (i.e. Ea), <\l > the text proceeds to describe his marvellous
wisdom and strength, and states that he had no rival among the gods; the birth
of no other god is recorded after that of Ea, and, when Marduk is introduced
later on, his existence, like that of Mummu and of Gaga, appears to be tacitly
assumed. It would seem, therefore, that the reference made by Damascius to
Marduk’s parentage was not derived from the text of the Creation Series, but was
added by him to complete his summary of the Babylonian beliefs concerning the
origin of the gods. This omission of Marduk’s name from the earlier lines of the
First Tablet and the prominence given to that of Ea may at first sight seem
strange, but it is in accordance with the other newly recovered portions of the
text of the First and Second Tablets, which indirectly throw an interesting
light on the composite character and literary history of the great poem. It will
be seen that of the deities mentioned in these earlier lines Nudimmud (Ea) is
the only god whose characteristics are described in detail; his birth, moreover,
forms the climax to which the previous lines lead up, and, after the description
of his character, the story proceeds at once to relate the rebellion of the
primeval gods and the part which Ea played in detecting and frustrating their
plans. In fact, Ea and not Marduk is the hero of the earlier episodes of the
Creation story. The new fragments of the text show, moreover, that it was Apsû
and not Tiamat who began the rebellion against the gods. While the newly created
gods represented the birth of order and system in the universe, Apsû and Tiamat
still remained in confusion and undiminished in might. Apsû, however, finding
the earlier part that his slothful rest was disturbed by the new order of beings
whom he had begotten, summoned Mummu, his minister, and the two went together to
Tiamat, and lying down before her, took counsel with her regarding the means to
be adopted to restore the old order of things. It may be noted that the text
contains no direct statement that it was the creation of light which caused the
rebellion of the primeval gods. Apsû merely states his hatred of the alkatu or
"way" of the gods, in consequence of which he can get no rest by day or night;
and, from the fact that he makes use of the expressions "by day" and "by night,"
it may be inferred that day and night were vaguely conceived as already in
existence. It was therefore the substitution of order in place of chaos which,
according to the text of the poem, roused Apsû’s resentment and led to his
rebellion and downfall Our knowledge of the part played by Ea in the overthrow
of Apsû and Mummu is still fragmentary, but we know from l. 60 of the First
Tablet that it was he who detected the plot against the gods; it is also certain
that the following twenty lines recorded the fate of Apsû and his minister, and
there are clear indications that it was Ea to whom their overthrow was due. In
Tablet II, ll. 53 E, Anshar, on learning from Ea the news of Tiamat’s
preparations for battle, contrasts the conquest of Mummu and Apsû with the task
of opposing Tiamat, and the former achievement he implies has been accomplished
by Ea. It is clear, therefore, that Ea caused the overthrow of Apsû and the
capture of Mummu but in what way he brought it about, whether by actual fighting
or by "his pure incantation," is still a matter for conjecture. In view of the
fact that Anshar at first tried peaceful means for overcoming Tiamat before
exhorting Marduk to wage battle against her, the latter supposition is the more
probable of the two. The subjugation of Apsû by Ea explains his subsequent
disappearance from the Creation story. When Apsû is next mentioned, it is as
"the Deep," and not as an active and Tiamat’s malevolent deity.

After the overthrow of Apsû, Tiamat remained unconquered, and she continued to
represent in her own person the unsubdued forces of chaos. But, as at first she
had not herself begun the rebellion, so now her continuation of the war against
the gods was due to the prompting of another deity. The speech in which this
deity urges Tiamat to avenge Apsû and Mummu occurs in Tablet I, ll. 93-104, and,
inasmuch as she subsequently promoted Kingu to be the leader of her forces
’because he had given her support," it may be concluded that it was Kingu who
now prompted her to avenge her former spouse. Ea, however, did not cease his
active opposition to the forces of disorder, but continued to play the chief
rôle on the side of the gods. He heard of Tiamat’s preparations for battle, he
carried the news to Anshar, his father, and he was sent by him against the
monster. It was only after both he and Anu had failed in their attempts to
approach and appease Tiamat that Anshar appealed to Marduk to become the
champion of the gods.

Another point completely explained by the new fragments of the text is the
reason for the repetitions which occur in the first three tablets of the series.
It will be seen that Tablet I, ll. 109-142, are repeated in Tablet II, ll.
15-48; that Tablet II, ll. 1. 1-48, are repeated in Tablet III, ll. 15-52; and
that Tablet III, ll. 15-66, are repeated in the same Tablet, II. 73-124. The
lines which are repeated have reference to Tiamat’s preparations for battle
against the gods, and to Anshar’s summons of the gods in order that they may
confer power on Marduk as their champion. From the new fragments of the text we
now know that the lines relating to Tiamat’s preparations occur on the First
Tablet in the form of narrative, immediately after she had adopted Kingu’s
suggestion that she should avenge the overthrow of Apsû and Mummu; and that in
the Second Tablet they are repeated by Ea in his speech to Anshar, to whom he
carried the news. The context of the repetitions in the Third Tablet is already
known; Anshar first repeats the lines to his minister Gaga, when telling him to
go and summon the gods to an assembly, and later on in the Tablet Gaga repeats
the message word for word to Lahmu and Lahamu. The constant repetition of these
lines was doubtless intended to emphasize the terrible nature of the opposition
which Marduk successfully overcame; and the fact that Berossus omits all mention
of the part played by Ea in the earlier portions of the story is also due to the
tendency of the Babylonian priests to exalt their local god at the expense of
other deities. The account which we have received from Berossus of the
Babylonian beliefs concerning the origin of the universe is largely taken up
with a description of the mythical monsters which dwelt in the deep at a time
when the world had not come into being and when darkness and water alone
existed. Over these monsters, according to Berossus, reigned a woman named
Ὀμόρκα, who is to be identified with Tiamat, while the creatures themselves
represent the monster-brood which Tiamat formed to aid her in her fight against
the gods. Compared with the description of the monsters, the summary from
Berossus of the incidents related on the Fourth Tablet is not very full; the
text states that Βῆλος (i.e. Bel) slew Ὀμόρκα, and having cleft her in twain,
from one half of her he made the earth, and from the other the heavens, while he
overcame the creatures that were within her, i.e. the monsters of the deep. The
actual account of the creation of the world by Marduk, as related in the
Creation Series, begins towards the end of the Fourth Tablet, where the
narrative closely agrees with the summary from Berossus. Marduk is there related
to have split Tiamat into halves, and to have used one half of her as a covering
for heaven. The text then goes on to state that he founded heaven, which is
termed E-shara, a mansion like unto the Deep in structure, and that he caused
Anu, Bêl, and Ea to inhabit their respective districts therein. The Fifth Tablet
does not begin with the account of the creation of the earth, but records the
fixing of the constellations of the Zodiac, the founding of the year, and
Marduk’s charge to the Moon-god and the Sun-god, to the former of whom he
entrusted the night, his instructions relating to the phases of the Moon, and
the relative positions of the Moon and the Sun during the month. The new
fragments of the Fifth Tablet contain some interesting variants to this portion
of the text, but, with the exception of the last few lines of the text, they
throw no light on what the missing portions of the Tablet contained. In view,
however, of the statement of Berossus that from one half of Tiamat Bêl formed
the earth, we may conjecture that an account of the creation of the earth
occurred upon some part of the Fifth Tablet. It is also probable that the Fifth
Tablet recorded the creation of vegetation. That. this formed the subject of
some portion of the poem is certain from the opening lines of the Seventh
Tablet, where Marduk is hailed as "Asari, ’Bestower of planting,’ ’[Founder of
sowing],’ ’Creator of grain and plants,’ ’who caused [the green herb to spring
up]!’"; and the creation of plants and herbs would naturally follow that of the
earth. From the new fragment of the Sixth Tablet, No. 92,629, we know that this
portion of the poem related the story of the creation of man. As at the
beginning of his work of creation Marduk is said to have "devised a cunning
plan" while gazing upon the dead body of Tiamat, so now, before proceeding to
man’s creation, it is said that "his heart prompted him and he devised [a
cunning plan]." In the repetition of this phrase we may see an indication of the
importance which was ascribed to this portion of the story, and it is probable
that the creation of man was regarded as the culmination of Marduk’s creative
work. It is interesting to note, however, that the creation of man is not
related as a natural sequel to the formation of the rest of the universe, but
forms the solution of a difficulty with which Marduk has been met in the course
of his work as Creator. To overcome this difficulty Marduk devised the "cunning
plan" already referred to; the context of this passage is not very clear, but
the reason for man’s creation may be gathered from certain indications in the
text.

We learn from the beginning of the Sixth Tablet that Marduk devised his cunning
plan after he had "heard the word of the gods," and from this it is clear that
the Fifth Tablet ends with a speech of the gods. Now in Tablet VI, l. 8, Marduk
states that he will create man "that the service of the gods may be
established"; in l. 9. f., however, he adds that he will change the ways of the
gods, and he appears to threaten them with punishment. It may be conjectured,
therefore, that after Marduk had completed the creation of the world, the gods
came to him and complained that there were no shrines built in their honour, nor
was there anyone to worship them. To supply this need Marduk formed the device
of creating man, but at the same time he appears to have decided to vent his
wrath upon the gods because of their discontent. It is possible, however, that
Ea dissuaded Marduk from punishing the gods, though he no doubt assisted him in
carrying out the first part of his proposal. In ll. 5 ff. of the Sixth Tablet
Marduk indicates the means he will employ for forming man, and this portion of
the text corroborates in a remarkable manner the account given by Berossus of
the method employed by Bêl for man’s creation. The text of the summary from
Berossus, in the form in which it has come down to us, is not quite
satisfactory, as the course of the narrative is confused. The confusion is
apparent in the repetition of the description of man’s creation and in the
interruption of the naturalistic explanation of the slaying of Omorka. An
ingenious but simple emendation of the text, however, was suggested by von
Gutschmidt which removes both these difficulties. The passage which interrupts
the naturalistic explanation, and apparently describes a first creation of man,
he regarded as having been transposed; but if it is placed at the end of the
extract it falls naturally into place as a summary by Eusebius of the preceding
account of man’s creation which is said by Alexander Polyhistor to have been
given by Berossus in the First Book of his History. By adopting this emendation
we obtain the text a clear and consecutive account of how Bêl, after the
creation of heaven and earth, perceived that the land was desolate; and how he
ordered one of the gods to cut off his (i.e. Bêl’s) head, and, by mixing the
blood which flowed forth with earth, to create men and animals. This passage
from Berossus has given rise to considerable discussion, and more than one
scholar has attempted to explain away the beheading of Bêl, the Creator, that
man might be formed from his blood. Gunkel has suggested that in the original
legend the blood of Tiamat was used for this purpose; Stucken, followed by
Cheyne, has emended the text so that it may suggest that the head of Tiamat, and
not that of Bel, was cut off; while Zimmern would take the original meaning of
the passage to be that the god beheaded was not Bel, but the other deity whom he
addressed. In l. 5 of the Sixth Tablet, however, Marduk states that he will use
his own blood for creating man; the text of this passage from Berossus is thus
shown to be correct, and it follows that the account which he gave of the
Babylonian beliefs concerning man’s creation does not require to be

Jensen has already suggested that the god whom Bel addressed was Ea, and the new
fragment of. the Sixth Tablet proves that this suggestion is correct. In the
Sixth Tablet Marduk recounts to Ea his intention of forming man, and tells him
the means he will employ. We may therefore conclude that it was Ea who beheaded
Marduk at his request, and, according to his instructions, formed mankind from
his blood. Ea may thus have performed the actual work of making man, but he
acted under Marduk’s directions, and it is clear from Tablet VII, ll. 29 and 32,
that Marduk, and not Ea, was regarded as man’s Creator.

According to Berossus, man was formed from the blood of Bêl mixed with earth.
The new fragment of the Sixth Tablet does not mention the mixing of the blood
with earth, but it is quite possible that this detail was recounted in the
subsequent narrative. On the other hand, in the Babylonian poem Marduk declares
that, in addition to using his own blood, he will create bone for forming man.
Berossus makes no mention of bone, but it is interesting to note that issimtu,
the Assyrian word here used for "bone," is doubtless the equivalent of the
Hebrew word ’esem, "bone," which occurs at the end of the narrative of the
creation of woman in Genesis 2:23. The blood of Bêl, according to Berossus, was
employed not only in man’s creation but in that of animals also, and it is
possible that this represents the form of the legend as it was preserved upon
the Sixth Tablet. Though, in that case, the creation of animals would follow
that of man, the opening lines of the Sixth Tablet prove that man’s creation was
regarded as the culmination of Marduk’s creative work. The "cunning plan," which
Marduk devised in order to furnish worshippers for the gods, concerned the
creation of man, and if that of animals followed it must have been recorded as a
subsidiary and less important act. In this connection it may be noted that the
expression τὰ δυμάμενα τὸν ἀέρα φέρειν, which Berossus applies to the men and
animals created from the blood of Bel, was probably not based on any description
or episode in the Creation story as recorded on the Seven Tablets, but was
suggested by the naturalistic interpretation of the legend furnished by Berossus
himself. With reference to the creation of man, it was suggested by George Smith
that the tablet K. 3,364 was a fragment of the Creation Series, and contained
the instructions given to man after his creation by Marduk. This view has been
provisionally adopted by other translators of the poem, but in Appendix II I
have shown by means of a duplicate, No. 33,851, that the suggestion must be
given up. Apart from other reasons there enumerated, it may be stated that there
would be no room upon the Sixth Tablet of the Creation Series for such a long
series of moral precepts as is inscribed upon the tablets K. 3,364 and No.
33,851. It may be that Marduk, after creating man, gave him some instructions
with regard to the worship of the gods and the building of shrines in their
honour, but the greater part of the text must have been taken up with other
matter. The concluding lines of the Sixth Tablet are partly preserved, and they
afford us a glimpse of the filial scene in the Creation story. As the gods had
previously been summoned to a solemn assembly that they might confer power upon
Marduk before he set out to do battle on their behalf, so now, when he had
vanquished Tiamat and had finished his work of instructions to creation, they
again gathered together in Upshukki-naku, their council-chamber, and proceeded
to magnify him by every title of honour. We thus obtain the context or setting
of the Seventh, and last, Tablet of the Creation Series, the greater part of
which consists of the hymn of praise addressed by the gods to Marduk as the
conqueror of Tiamat and the Creator of the world. The hymn of the gods takes up
lines 1-124 of the Seventh Tablet, and consists of a series of addresses in
Creation which Marduk is hailed by them under fifty titles of honour. The titles
are Sumerian, not Semitic, and each is followed by one or more Assyrian phrases
descriptive of Marduk, which either explain the title or are suggested by it. Of
the fifty titles which the hymn contained, the following list of eleven occur in
the first forty-seven lines of the text:-- Asari: ilu Asar-ri, Tabl. VII, l. 1;
p. 92 f.

Asaru-alim: ilu Asaru-alim, Tabl. VII, l. 3; p. 92 f.

Asaru-alim-nuna: ilu Asaru-alim-nun-na, Tabl. VII, l. 5; p. 92 f.

Tutu: ilu Tu-tu, Tabl. VII, l. 9; p. 92 f.

Zi-ukkina: ilu Zi-ukkin-na, var. ilu Zi-ukkin, Tabl. VII, l. 15; p. 94f.

Zi-azag: ilu Zi-azag, Tabl. VII, l. 19; p. 36 f.; var. ilu Na-zi-azag-g[a], p.
161.

Aga-azag: ilu Aga-azag, Tabl. VII, l. 25; p. 96 f.

Mu-azag: ilu Mu(i.e. KA + LI)-azag, Tabl. VII, l. 33; var. ilu Mu(i.e.
SHAR)-azag, p. 173.

Shag-zu: ilu Shag-zu, Tabl. VII, l. 35; p. 98 f.

Zi-si: ilu Zi-si, Tabl. VII, l. 41; p. 100 f.

Sub-kur: ilu Suh-kur, Tabl. VII, l. 43; p. 100 f . In the gap in the text of the
Seventh Tablet, between ll. 47 and 105, occur the following ten titles of
Marduk, which are taken from the fragments K. 13,761 and K. 8,519 (and its
duplicate K. 13,337), and from the commentary K. 4,406:-- Agi[l . . . . ]; ilu
A-gi[l- . . . . ], Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.; var. ilu Gil[ ], p. 163.

Zulummu: ilu Zu-lum-mu, Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.

Mummu: ilu Mu-um-mu, Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.

Mulil: ilu Mu-lil, Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.

Gishkul: ilu Gish-kul, Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.

Lugal-ab[ . . . . ]: ilu Lugad-ab-[ . . . . ], Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.

Pap-[ . . . . ]: ilu Pap-[ . . . . ], Tabl. VII (K. 13,761); p. 102 f.

Lugal-durmah: ilu Lugal-dur-mah, Tabl. VII (K. 8,519), and K. 4,406, Rev., col.
ii, l. 8; pp. 104f., 165.

Adu-nuna: ilu A-du-nun-na, Tabl. VII (K. 8,519) and K. 4,406, Rev., col. ii, l.
23; pp. 104f., 166.

Lugal-dul(or du)-azaga: ilu Lugal-dul-azag-ga, Tabl. VII (K. 8,519); p. 106 f.

Four other titles, occurring in the concluding portion of the text of the
Seventh Tablet, are:-- Nibiru: ilu Ni-bi-ru, var. [ilu] Ne-bi-ri, Tabl. VII, l.
109; p. 108 f.

Bêl-mâtâti: be-el mâtâti, var. ilu Bêl mâtâti, Tabl. VII, l. 116, p. 110 f.; cf.
also EN KUR-KUR (i.e. bêl mâtâti), p. 168.

Ea: ilu E-a, Tabl. VII, l. 120; p. 100 f.

Hansha: Hanshâ A-AN, var. Ha-an-sha-a, Tabl. VII, l. 123, p. 110 f.; cf. also
ilu Hanshâ, p. 178. From the above lists it will be seen that the recovered
portions of the text of the Seventh Tablet furnish twenty-five out of the fifty
names of Marduk. From the list of the titles of Marduk preserved on K. 2,107 +
K. 6,086, and from No. 54,228, a parallel text to the Seventh Tablet, seven
other names may be obtained, which were probably among those occurring in the
missing portion of the text; these are:-- Lugal-en-ankia: ilu Lugal-en-an-ki-a,
K. 210, col. ii, l. 19; p. 173.

Gugu: ilu Gu-gu, K. 2,107, col. ii, l. 22; p. 173.

Mumu: ilu Mu-mu, K. 2,107, col. ii, l. 23; p. 173.

Dutu: ilu Du-tu, K. 2,107, col. ii, l. 24; p. 173.

Dudu: ilu Du-du, K. 2,107, col. ii, l. 25; p. 173.

Shag-gar(?): Shag-gar, No. 54,228, Obv., l. 13; p. 177.

En-bilulu: ilu En-bi-lu-lu, No. 54,228, Obv., l. 14; p. 178. By these titles of
honour the gods are represented as conferring supreme power upon Marduk, and the
climax is reached in ll. 116 ff. of the Seventh Tablet, when the elder Bêl and
Ea, Marduk’s father, confer their own names and power upon him. Marduk’s name of
Hanshâ, "Fifty," by which he is finally addressed, in itself sums up and
symbolizes his fifty titles. At the conclusion of these addresses there follows
an epilogue of eighteen lines, in which the study of the poem is commended to
mankind, and prosperity is promised to those that rejoice in Marduk and keep his
works in remembrance. The story of the Creation, in the form in which it has
come down to us upon tablets of the seventh and later centuries before Christ,
is of a distinctly composite character, and bears traces of a long process of
editing and modification at the hands of the Babylonian priests. Five principal
strands may be traced which have been combined to form the poem; these may be
described as (1) The Birth of the gods; parts (2 ) The Legend of Ea and Apsû;
(3) The Dragon-Myth; (4) The actual account of Creation; and (5) The Hymn to
Marduk under his fifty titles. Since the poem in its present form is a
glorification, of Marduk as the champion of the gods and the Creator of the
world, it is natural that more prominence should be given to episodes in which
Marduk is the hero than is assigned to other portions of the narrative in which
he plays no part. Thus the description of Tiamat and her monster-brood, whom
Marduk conquered, is repeated no less than four times, and the preparations of
Marduk for battle and his actual fight with the dragon take up the greater part
of the Fourth Tablet. On the other hand, the birth of the older gods, among whom
Marduk does not figure, is confined to the first twenty-one lines of the First
Tablet; and not more than twenty lines are given to the account of the
subjugation of Apsû by Ea. That these elements should have been incorporated at
all in the Babylonian version of the Creation story may be explained by the fact
that they serve to enhance the position of prominence subsequently attained by
Marduk. Thus the description of the birth of the older gods and of the
opposition they excited among the forces of disorder, was necessarily included
in order to make it clear how Marduk was appointed their champion; and the
account of Ea’s success against Apsû served to accentuate the terrible nature of
Tiamat, whom he was unable to withstand. From the latter half of the Second
Tablet onwards, Marduk alone is the hero of the poem. The central episode of the
poem is the fight between Marduk and Tiamat, and there is evidence to prove that
this legend existed in other forms than that under which it occurs in the
Creation Series. The conquest of the dragon was ascribed by the Babylonian
priests to their local god, and in the poem the death of Tiamat is made a
necessary preliminary to the creation of the world. On a fragment of a tablet
from Ashur-bani-pal’s library we possess, however, part of a copy of a legend
which describes the conquest of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk.
Moreover, the fight is there described as taking place, not before creation, but
at a time when men existed and cities had been built. In this version men and
gods are described as equally terrified at the dragon’s appearance, and it was
to deliver the land from the monster that one of the gods went out and slew him.
This fragmentary tablet serves to prove that the Dragon-Myth existed in more
than one form in Babylonian mythology, and it is not improbable that, many of
the great cities of Babylonia possessed local versions of the legend in each of
which the city-god figured as the hero. In the Creation Series the creation of
the world is narrated as the result of Marduk’s conquest of the dragon, and
there is no doubt that this version of the story represents the belief most
generally held during the reigns of the later Assyrian and Babylonian kings. We
possess, however, fragments of other legends in which the creation of the world
is not connected with the death of a dragon. In one of these, which is written
both in Sumerian and Babylonian, the great Babylonian cities and temples are
described as coming into existence in consequence of a movement in the waters
which alone existed before the creation of the world. Marduk in this ersion also
figures as the Creator, for, together with the goddess Aruru, he created man by
laying a reed upon the face of the waters and forming dust which he poured out
beside it; according to this version also he is described as creating animals
and vegetation. In other legends which have come down to us, not only is the
story of Creation unconnected with the Dragon-Myth, but Marduk does not figure
as the Creator. In one of these "the gods" generally are referred to as having
created the heavens and the earth and the cattle and beasts of the field; while
in another the creation of the Moon and the Sun is ascribed to Anu, Bel, and Ea.
From the variant accounts of the story of Creation and of the Dragon-Myth, which
are referred to in the preceding paragraphs, it will be clear that the priests
of Babylon made use of independent legends in the composition of their great
poem of Creation; by assigning to Marduk the conquest of the Dragon and the
creation of the world they justified his claim to the chief place among the
gods. As a fit ending to the great poem they incorporated the hymn to Marduk,
consisting of addresses to him under his fifty titles. This portion of the poem
is proved by the Assyrian commentary, R. 366, etc., as well as by fragments of
parallel, but not duplicate, texts to have been an independent composition which
had at one time no connection with the series Enuma elish. In the poem the hymn
is placed in the mouth of the gods, who at the end of the Creation have
assembled together in Upshukkinaku; and to it is added the epilogue of eighteen
lines, which completes the Seventh Tablet of the series. In discussing the
question as to the date of the Creation legends, it is necessary to distinguish
clearly between the date at which the legends assumed the form in which they
have come down to us upon the Seven Tablets of the series Enuma elish, and the
date which may be assigned to the legends themselves before they were
incorporated in the poem. Of the actual tablets inscribed with portions of the
text of the Creation Series we possess none which dates from an earlier period
than the seventh century B.C. The tablets of this date were made for the library
of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh, but it is obvious that the poem was not composed
in Assyria at this time. The legends in the form in which we possess them are
not intended to glorify Ashur, the national god of Assyria, but Marduk, the god
of Babylon, and it is clear that the scribes of Ashur-bani-pal merely made
copies for their master of older tablets of Babylonian origin. T o what earlier
date we may assign the actual composition of the poem and its arrangement upon
the Seven Tablets, is still a matter for conjecture; but it is possible to offer
a conjecture, with some degree of probability, after an examination of the
various indirect sources of evidence we possess with regard to the age of
Babylonian legends in general, and of the Creation legends in particular. With
regard to the internal evidence of date furnished by the Creation legends
themselves, we may note that the variant forms of the Dragon-Myth and of the
account of the Creation, to which reference has already been made, presuppose
many centuries of tradition during which the legends, though derived probably
from common originals, were handed down independently of one another. During
this period we may suppose that the same story was related in different cities
in different ways, and that in course of time variations crept in, with the
result that two or more forms of the same story were developed along different
lines. The process must have been gradual, and the considerable differences
which can be traced in the resultant forms of the same legend may be cited as
evidence in favour of assigning an early date to the original tradition from
which they were derived.

Evidence as to the existence of the Creation legends at least as early as the
ninth century B.C. may be deduced from the representations of the fight between
Marduk and the dragon Tiamat, which was found sculptured upon two limestone
slabs in the temple of Ninib at Nimrûd. The temple was built by Ashur-nasir-pal,
who reigned from B.C. 884 to B.C. 860, and across the actual sculpture was
inscribed the text of a dedication to Ninib by this king. The slab therefore
furnishes direct proof of the existence of the legend more than two hundred
years before the formation of Ashur-bani-pal’s library. Moreover, the fight
between Marduk and Tiamat is frequently found engraved upon cylinder-seals, and,
although the majority of such seals probably date from the later Assyrian and
Persian periods, the varied treatment of the scene which they present points to
the existence of variant forms of the legend, and so indirectly furnishes
evidence of the early origin of the legend itself. From an examination of the
Babylonian historical inscriptions which record the setting up of statues and
the making of temple furniture, we are enabled to trace back the existence of
the Creation legends to still earlier periods. For instance, in a text of Agum,
a Babylonian king who reigned not later than the seventeenth century B.C., we
find descriptions of the figures of a dragon and of other monsters which he set
up in the temple E-sagil at Babylon; and in this passage we may trace an
unmistakable reference to the legend of Tiamat and her monster-brood. Agum also
set up in the temple beside the dragon a great basin, or laver, termed in the
inscription a tâmtu, or "sea." From the name of the laver, and from its position
beside the figure of the dragon, we may conclude that it was symbolical of the
abyss of water personified in the Creation legends by Tiamat and Apsû. Moreover,
in historical inscriptions of still earlier periods we find allusions to similar
vessels termed apsê, i.e. "deeps" or "oceans," the presence of which in the
temples is probably to be traced to the existence of the same traditions. The
three classes of evidence briefly summarized above tend to show that the most
important elements in the Creation legends were not of late origin, but must be
traced back in some form or other to remote periods, and may well date from the
first half of the third millennium B.C., or even earlier. It remains to consider
to what date we may assign the actual weaving together of these legends into the
poem termed by the Babylonians and Assyrians Enuma elish. Although, as has
already been remarked, we do not possess any early copies of the text of the
Creation Series, this is not the case with other Babylonian legends. Among the
tablets found at Tell el-Amarna, which date from the fifteenth century B.C.,
were fragments of copies of two Babylonian legends, the one containing the story
of Nergal and Ereshkigal, and the other inscribed with a part of the legend of
Adapa and the South Wind. Both these compositions, in style and general
arrangement, closely resemble the legends known from late Assyrian copies, while
of the legend of Adapa an actual fragment, though not a duplicate, exists in the
library of Ashur-bani-pal. Fragments of legends have also been recently found in
Babylonia which date from the end of the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon,
about B.C. 2100, and the resemblance which these documents bear to certain
legends previously known from Assyrian copies only is not only of a general
nature, but extends even to identity of language. Thus one of the recovered
fragments is in part a duplicate of the so-called "Cuthaean Legend of Creation";
two others contain phrases found upon the legend of Ea and Atar-hasis, while
upon one of them are traces of a new version of the Deluge-story. Still more
recently the Trustees of the British Museum have acquired three fragments of
Babylonian legends inscribed upon tablets which date from a still earlier
period, i.e. from the period of the kings of the Second Dynasty of Ur, before
B.C. 2200; and to the same period is to be assigned the fragment of a legend
which was published a few weeks ago by Dr. Meissner, and probably also the new
fragment of the Etana-myth, published last year by Father Scheil. These five
fragments are of peculiar interest, for they show that early Semitic, as opposed
to Sumerian, legends were in existence, and were carefully preserved and studied
in other cities of Mesopotamia than Babylon, and at a period before the rise of
that city to a position of importance under the kings of the First Dynasty. The
evidence furnished by these recently discovered tablets with regard to the date
of Babylonian legends in general may be applied to the date of the Creation
legends. While the origin of much of the Creation legends may be traced to
Sumerian sources, it is clear that the Semitic inhabitants of Mesopotamia at a
very early period produced their own versions of the compositions which they
borrowed, modifying and augmenting them to suit their own legends and beliefs.
The connection of Marduk with the Dragon-Myth, and with the stories of the
creation of the world and man, may with considerable probability be assigned to
the subsequent period during which Babylon gradually attained to the position of
the principal city in Mesopotamia. On tablets inscribed during the reigns of
kings of the First Dynasty we may therefore expect to find copies of the
Creation legends corresponding closely with the text of the series Enuma elish.
It is possible that the division of the poem into seven sections, inscribed upon
separate tablets, took place at a later period; but, be this as it may, we may
conclude with a considerable degree of confidence that the bulk of the poem, as
we know it from late Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian copies, was composed at a
period not later than B.C. 2000. The political influence which the Babylonians
exerted over neighbouring nations during long periods of their history was
considerable, and it is not surprising that their beliefs concerning the origin
of the universe should have been partially adopted by the races with whom they
came in contact. That Babylonian elements may be traced in the Phoenician
cosmogony has long been admitted, but the imperfect, and probably distorted,
form in which the latter has come down to us renders uncertain any comparison of
details. Some of the beliefs concerning the creation of the world which were
current among the Egyptians bear a more striking resemblance to the
corresponding legends of Babylonia. Whether this resemblance was due to the
proto-Semitic strain which probably existed in the ancient Egyptian race, or is
to be explained as the result of later Babylonian influence from without, is yet
uncertain. But, whatever explanation be adopted, it is clear that the conception
of chaos as a watery mass out of which came forth successive generations of
primeval gods is common to both races. It is in Hebrew literature, however, that
the most striking examples of the influence of the Babylonian Creation legends
are to be found. The close relation existing between the Babylonian account of
the Creation and the narrative in Genesis 1:1-11, 4a has been recognized from
the time of the first discovery of the former, and the old and new points of
resemblance between them may here be briefly discussed. According to each
account the existence of a watery chaos preceded the creation of the universe;
and the Hebrew word tehôm, translated "the deep" in Genesis 1:2, is the
equivalent of the Babylonian Tiamat, the monster of the deep personifying chaos
and confusion. In the details of the Creation there is also a close resemblance
between the two accounts. In the Hebrew narrative the first act of creation is
that of light (Genesis 1:3-5), and it has been suggested that a parallel
possibly existed in the Babylonian account, in that the creation of light may
have been the cause of the revolt of Tiamat. From the new fragments of the poem
we now know that the rebellion of the forces of disorder, which was incited by
Apsû and not Tiamat, was due, not to the creation of light, but to his hatred of
the way of the gods which produced order in place of chaos A parallelism may
still be found, however; in the original form of the Babylonian myth, according
to which the conqueror of the dragon was undoubtedly a solar deity. Moreover, as
has been pointed out above, day and night are vaguely conceived in the poem as
already in existence at the time of Apsû’s revolt, so that the belief in the
existence of light before the creation of the heavenly bodies is a common
feature of the Hebrew and the Babylonian account. The second act of creation in
the Hebrew narrative is that of a firmament which divided the waters that were
under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament (Genesis
1:6-8). In the Babylonian poem the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from
one-half of her he formed a covering or dome for heaven, i.e. a firmament, which
kept her upper waters in place. Moreover, on the fragment S. 2,013 we find
mention of a Ti-amat e-Zi-ti and a Ti-amat shap-li-ti, that is, an Upper Tiamat
(or Ocean) and a Lower Tiamat (or Ocean), which are the exact equivalents of the
waters above and under the firmament. The third and fourth acts of creation, as
narrated in Genesis 1:9-13, are those of the earth and of vegetation. Although
no portion of the Babylonian poem has yet been recovered which contains the
corresponding account, it is probable that these acts of creation were related
on the Fifth Tablet of the series. Berossus expressly states that Bel formed the
earth out of one half of Omorka’s body, and as his summary of the Babylonian
Creation story is proved to be correct wherever it can be controlled, it is
legitimate to assume that he is correct in this detail also. More- over, in
three passages in the Seventh Tablet the creation of the earth by Marduk is
referred to: l. 115 reads, "Since he created the heaven and fashioned the firm
earth"; the new fragment K. 12,830 (restored from the commentary K. 8,299)
states, "He named the four quarters (of the world)"; and another new fragment,
K. 13,761 (restored from the commentary K. 4,4061, definitely ascribes to Marduk
the title "Creator of the earth." That the creation of vegetation by Marduk was
also recorded in the poem may be concluded from the opening lines of the Seventh
Tablet, which are inscribed on the new fragment K. 2,854, and (with restorations
from the commentary S. II, etc.) ascribe to him the titles "Bestower of
planting," "Founder of sowing," " Creator of grain and plants," and add that he
"caused the green herb to spring up." To the fifth act of creation, that of the
heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:14-15), we find an exceedingly close parallel in the
opening lines of the Fifth Tablet of the series. In the Hebrew account, lights
were created in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and to
be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. In the Babylonian poem
also the stars were created and the year was ordained at the same time; the
twelve months were to be regulated by the stars; and the Moon-god was appointed
"to determine the days." As according to the Hebrew account two great lights
were created in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day and
the lesser to rule the night, so according to the Babylonian poem the night was
entrusted to the Moon-god, and the Moon-god’s relations to the Sun-god are
described in detail. On the Seventh Tablet, also, the creation of heaven and the
heavenly bodies is referred t o; in l. 16 Marduk is stated "to have established
for the gods the bright heavens," and l. 111 f. read, "For the stars of heaven
he upheld the paths, he shepherded all the gods like sheep!" To the sixth and
seventh acts of creation, i.e., the creation of creatures of the sea and winged
fowl, and of beasts and cattle and creeping things (Genesis 1:20-25), the
Babylonian poem as yet offers no parallel, for the portion of the text which
refers to the creation of animals is still wanting. But since Berossus states
that animals were created at the same time as man, it is probable that their
creation was recorded in a missing portion either of the Fifth or of the Sixth
Tablet. If the account was on the lines suggested by Berossus, and animals
shared in the blood of Bel, it is clear that their creation was narrated, as a
subsidiary and less important episode, after that of man. But, although this
episode is still wanting in the poem, we find references on other Assyrian
Creation fragments to the creation of beasts. Thus, for the creation of the
creatures of the sea in Genesis, we may compare the fragmentary text K. 3445+R.
396, which records the creation of nahirê; "dolphins (?)." And for the creation
of beasts of the earth and cattle, we may compare the tablet D.T. 41, which,
after referring generally to the creation of "living creatures" by "the gods,"
proceeds to classify them as the cattle and beasts of the field, and the
creatures of the city, the two of animals classes referring respectively to wild
and domesticated animals. The account of the creation of man, which is recorded
as the eighth and last act of creation in the Hebrew account (Genesis 1:26-31),
at length finds its parallel in the Babylonian poem upon the new fragment of the
Sixth Tablet, No. 92,629. It has already been pointed out that the Babylonian
account closely follows the version of the story handed down to us from
Berossus, and it may here be added that the employment by Marduk, the Creator,
of his own blood in the creation of man may perhaps be compared to the Hebrew
account of the creation of man in the image and after the likeness of Elohim.
Moreover, the use of the plural in the phrase "Let us make man" in Genesis 1:26,
may be compared with the Babylonian narrative which relates that Marduk imparted
his purpose of forming man to his father Ea, whom he probably afterwards
instructed to carry out the actual work of man’s creation. A parallel to the
charge which, according to the Hebrew account, Elohim gave to man and woman
after their creation, has hitherto been believed to exist on the tablet K.
3,364, which was supposed to contain a list of the duties of man as delivered to
him after his creation by Marduk. The new Babylonian duplicate of this text, No.
33,851, proves that K. 3,364 is not part of the Creation Series, but is merely a
tablet of moral precepts, so that its suggested resemblance to the Hebrew
narrative must be given up. It is not improbable, however, that a missing
portion of the Sixth Tablet did contain a short series of instructions by Marduk
to man, since man was created with the special object of supplying the gods with
worshippers and building shrines in their honour. That to these instructions to
worship the gods was added the gift of dominion over beasts, birds, and
vegetation is possible, but it must be pointed out that the Babylonian version
of man’s creation is related from the point of view of the gods, not from that
of man. Although his creation forms the culmination of Marduk’s work, it was
conceived, not as an end and aim in itself, but merely as an expedient to
satisfy the discontented gods. This expedient is referred to in the Seventh
Tablet, l. 29, in the phrase "For their forgiveness (i.e., the forgiveness of
the gods) did he create mankind," and other passages in the Seventh Tablet tend
to show that Marduk’s mercy and goodness are extolled in his relations, not to
mankind, but to the gods. In one passage marl’s creation is referred to, but it
is in connection with the charge that he forget not the deeds of his Creator.
The above considerations render it unlikely that the Babylonian poem contained
an exact parallel to the exalted charge of Elohim in which He placed the rest of
creation under man’s dominion. It is possible, however, that upon the new
fragment of the Seventh Tablet, K. 12,830 (restored from the commentary K.
8,299) we have a reference to the superiority of man over animals, in the phrase
"mankind [he created], [and upon] him understanding [he bestowed (?) . . .]";
and if this be so, we may compare it to Genesis 1:28 6. Moreover, if my
suggested restoration of the last word in l. 7 of the Sixth Tablet be correct,
so that it may read "I will create man who shall inhabit [the earth], " we may
compare it to Genesis 1:28 in which man is commanded to be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth. A suggestion has been made that the
prominence given to the word of the Creator in the Hebrew account may have found
its parallel in the creation by a word in the Babylonian poem. It is true that
the word of Marduk had magical power and could destroy and create alike; but
Marduk did not employ his word in any of his acts of creation which are at
present known to us. He first conceived a cunning device, and then proceeded to
carry it out by hand. The only occasion on which he did employ his word to
destroy and to create is in the Fourth Tablet, ll. 19-26, when, at the
invitation of the gods, he tested his power by making a garment disappear and
then appear again at the word of his mouth. The parallelism between the two
accounts under this heading is not very close. The order of the separate acts of
creation is also not quite the same in the two accounts, for, while in the
Babylonian poem the heavenly bodies are created immediately after the formation
of the firmament, in the Hebrew account their creation is postponed until after
the earth and vegetation have been made. It is possible that the creation of the
earth and plants has been displaced by the writer to whom the present form of
the Hebrew account is due, and that the order of creation was precisely the same
in the original forms of the two narratives. But even according to the present
arrangement of the Hebrew account, there are several striking points of
resemblance to the Babylonian poem. These may be seen in the existence of light
before the creation of the heavenly bodies; in the dividing of the waters of the
primeval flood by means of a firmament also before the creation of the heavenly
bodies; and in the culminating act of creation being that of man.

It would be tempting to trace the framework of the Seven Days of Creation, upon
which the narrative in Genesis is stretched, to the influence of the Seven
Tablets of Creation, of which we now know that the great Creation Series was
composed. The reasons for the employment of the Seven Days in the Hebrew account
are, however, not the same which led to the arrangement of the Babylonian poem
upon Seven Tablets. In the one the writer’s intention is to give the original
authority for the observance of the Sabbath; in the other there appears to have
been no special reason for this arrangement of the poem beyond the mystical
nature of the number "seven." Moreover, acts of creation are recorded on all of
the first six Days in the Hebrew narrative, while in the Babylonian poem the
creation only begins at the end of the Fourth Tablet. The resemblance,
therefore, is somewhat superficial, but it is possible that the employment of
the number "seven" in the two accounts was not fortuitous. Whether the Sabbath
was of Babylonian origin (as seems probable) or not, it is clear that the writer
of the narrative in Genesis was keenly interested in its propagation and its due
observance. Now in Exilic and post-Exilic times the account of the Creation most
prevalent in Babylonia was that in the poem Enuma elish, the text of which was
at this time absolutely fixed and its arrangement upon Seven Tablets invariable.
That the late revival of mythology among the Jews was partly due to their actual
study of the Babylonian legends at this period is sufficiently proved by the
minute points of resemblance between the accounts of the Deluge in Genesis and
in the poem of Gilgamesh. It is probable, therefore, that the writer who was
responsible for the final form of Genesis 1:1-31, Genesis 2:1-25, 4a, was
familiar with the Babylonian legend of Creation in the form in which it has come
down to us. The supposition, then, is perhaps not too fanciful, that the
connection of the Sabbath with the story of Creation was suggested by the
mystical number of the Tablets upon which the Babylonian poem was inscribed.

Further resemblances to the Babylonian Creation legends may be traced in the
second Hebrew account of the Creation which follows the first in Genesis 2:4-7.
According to this version man was formed from the dust of the ground, which may
be compared to the mixing of Bel’s blood with earth according to the account of
Berossus, the use of the Creator’s blood in the one account being paralleled by
the employment of His breath in the other for the purpose of giving life to the
dust or earth. Earth is not mentioned in the recovered portion of the Sixth
Tablet, but its use in the creation of men is fully in accordance with
Babylonian beliefs. Thus, according to the second Babylonian account of the
Creation, Marduk formed man by pouring out dust beside a reed which he had set
upon the face of the waters. Clay is also related to have been employed in the
creation of special men and heroes; thus it was used in Ea-bani’s creation by
Arum, and it is related to have been mixed with divine blood for a similar
purpose in the fragmentary legend Bu. 91-5-9, 269. To the account of the
creation of woman in Genesis 2:18 ff. we find a new parallel in l. 5 of the
Sixth Tablet of the Creation Series, in the use of the word issimtu, " bone,"
corresponding to the Hebrew ’esem which occurs in the phrase "bone of my bones "
in Genesis 2:23. In addition to the Babylonian colouring of much of the story of
Paradise we may now add a new parallel from the Babylonian address to a mythical
River of Creation, inscribed on S. 1704 and the Neo-Babylonian Tablet 82-9-18,
5311. This short composition is addressed to a River to whom the creation of all
things is ascribed, and with this river we may compare the mythical river of
Paradise which watered the garden, and on leaving it was divided into four
branches. That the Hebrew River of Paradise is Babylonian in character is clear;
and the origin of the Babylonian River of Creation is also to be found in the
Euphrates, from whose waters southern Babylonia derived its great fertility. The
life-giving stream of Paradise is met with elsewhere in the Old Testament, as,
for instance, in Ezekiel 47:1-23 and it is probable that we may trace its
influence in the Apocalypse.

It is unnecessary here to discuss in detail the evidence to prove that the
Hebrew narratives of the influence on Creation were ultimately derived from
Babylonia, and mythology. were not inherited independently by the Babylonians
and Hebrews from a common Semitic ancestor. For the local Babylonian colouring
of the stories, and the great age to which their existence can be traced,
extending back to the time of the Sumerian inhabitants of Mesopotamia, are
conclusive evidence against the second alternative. On the other hand, it is
equally unnecessary to cite the well-known arguments


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 03.004.     THE FIRST TABLET
========================================================================

The Seven Tablets of the History of Creation. The First Tablet 1. When in the
height heaven was not named, 2. And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
3. And the primeval Apsû, who begat them, 4. And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of
them both,-- 5. Their waters were mingled together, 6. And no field was formed,
no marsh was to be seen;

7. When of the gods none had been called into being, 8. And none bore a name,
and no destinies [were ordained];

9. Then were created the gods in the midst of [heaven], 10. Lahmu and Lahamu
were called into being [...].

11. Ages increased, [...], 12. Then Anshar and Kishar were created, and over
them [...].

13. Long were the days, then there came forth [...] 14. Anu, their son, [...]
15. Anshar and Anu [...] 16. And the god Anu [...] 17. Nudimmud, whom his
fathers [his] begetters [...] 18. Abounding in all wisdom, [...] 19. He was
exceeding strong [...] 20. He had no rival [...] 21. (Thus) were established and
[were ... the great gods (?)].

22 . But T[iamat and Âpsû] were (still) in confusion [...], 23. They were
troubled and [...] 24. In disorder(?) ... [...] 26. And Tiamat roared [...] 25.
Apsû was not diminished in might [...] 27. She smote, and their deeds [...] 28.
Their way was evil ... [...] ...

29. Then Apsû, the begetter of the great gods, 30. Cried unto Mummu, his
minister, and said unto him:

31. "O Mummu, thou minister that rejoicest my spirit, 32. "Come, unto Tiamat let
us [go]!"

33. So they went and before Tiamat they lay down, 34. They consulted on a plan
with regard to the gods [their sons].

35. Apsû opened his mouth [and spake], 36. And unto Tiamat, the glistening one,
he addressed [the word]:

37. "[...] their way [...], 38. "By day I cannot rest, by night [I cannot lie
down (in peace)].

39. "But I will destroy their way, I will [...], 40. "Let there be lamentation,
and let us lie down (again in peace)."

41. When Tiamat [heard] these words, 42. She raged and cried aloud [...].

43. [She ...] grievously [...], 44. She uttered a curse, and unto [Apsû she
spake]:

45. "What then shall we [do]?

46. "Let their way be made difficult, and let us [lie down (again) in peace]."

47. Mummu answered, and gave counsel unto Apsû, 48. [...] and hostile (to the
gods) was the counsel Mu[mmu gave]:

49. "Come, their way is strong, but thou shalt destroy [it];

50. "Then by day shalt thou have rest, by night shalt thou lie down (in peace)."

51. Apsû [hearkened unto] him and his countenance grew bright, 52. [Since] he
(i.e. Mummu) planned evil against the gods his sons.

53. [...] he was afraid [...], 54. His knees [became weak(?)], they gave way
beneath him, 55. [Because of the evil] which their first-born had planned.

56. [...] their [...] they altered(?).

58. Lamentation [...] they sat in [sorrow] ’

57. [...] they [...],

59. [...] 60. Then Ea, who knoweth all that [is], went up and he beheld their
muttering.

61. [...] 62. [...] ... his pure incantation 63. [...] ... [...]

64. [...] 65. [...] misery

66. [...]

67. [...] [Lines 68-82 are wanting.]

83. [...]

84 [...] ...

85. [...] the god Anu, 86. [... an aven]ger.

87. [...] 88. [...] and he shall confound Tiamat.

89. [...] Hebrews ...

90. [...] for ever.

91. [...] the evil, 92. [...] ... he spake:

93. "[...] thy [...] he hath conquered and 94. " [...] he [weepeth] and sitteth
in tribulation(?).

95. "[...] of fear, 96. "[...] we shall not lie down (in peace).

97. "[...] Apsû is laid waste(?), 98. "[...] and Mummu, who were taken captive,
in [...] 99. "[...] thou didst, ...

100. "[...] let us lie down (in peace).

101. "[...] ... they will smite (?) [...].

102. " [...] let us lie down (in peace).

103. "[...] thou shalt take vengeance for them, 104. "[...]unto the tempest
shalt thou [...]!"

105. [And Tiamat hearkened unto] the word of the bright god, (and said):

106. "[...] shalt thou entrust! let us wage [war]!"

107. [...] the gods in the midst of [...] 108. [...] for the gods did she
create.’

109. [They banded themselves together and] at the side of Tiamat [they]
advanced;

110. [They were furious, they devised mischief without resting] night and [day].

111. [They prepared for battle], fuming and raging;

112. [They joined their forces] and made war.

113. [Ummu-Hubu]r, who formed all things, 114. [Made in addition] weapons
invincible, she spawned monster-serpents, 115. [Sharp of] tooth, and merciless
of fang;

116. [With poison instead of] blood she filled [their] bodies.

117. Fierce [monster-vipers] she clothed with terror, 118. [With splendour] she
decked them, [she made them] of lofty stature.

119. [Whoever beheld] them, terror overcame him, 120. Their bodies reared up and
none could withstand [their attack].

121. [She set] up vipers, and dragons, and the (monster) [Lahamu], 122. [And
hurricanes], and raging hounds, and scorpion-men, 123. And mighty [tempests],
and fish-men, and[rams];

124. [They bore] cruel weapons, without fear of [the fight].

125. Her commands [were mighty], [none] could resist them;

126. After this fashion, huge of stature, [she made] eleven (monsters).

127. Among the gods who were her sons, inasmuch as he had given [her support],
128. She exalted Kingu; in their midst [she raised] him [to power].

129. To march before the forces, to lead [the host], 130. To give the
battle-signal, to advance to the attack, 131. To direct the battle, to control
the fight, 132. Unto him she entrusted; in [costly raiment] she made him sit,
(saying):

133. "I have uttered thy spell, in the assembly of the gods I have raised thee
to power.

134. "The dominion over all the gods [have I entrusted unto him].

135. "Be thou exalted, thou my chosen spouse, 136. "May they magnify thy name
over all [of them ... the Anunnaki]."

137. She gave him the Tablets of Destiny, on [his] breast she laid them,
(saying):

138. "Thy command shall not be without avail, and[the word of thy mouth shall be
established]."

139. Now Kingu, (thus) exalted, having received [the power of Anu], 140.
[Decreed] the fate among the gods his sons, (saying):

141. "Let the opening of your mouth [quench] the Fire-god;

142. "Whoso is exalted in the battle, let him [display (his) might]!"


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 03.005.     THE SECOND TABLET
========================================================================

The Second Tablet 1. Tiamat made weighty her handiwork, 2. [Evil] she wrought
against the gods her children.

3. [To avenge] Apsû, Tiamat planned evil, 4. But how she had collected her
[forces, the god ...] unto Ea divulged.

5. Ea [hearkened to] this thing, and 6. He was [grievous]ly afflicted and he sat
in sorrow.

7. [The days] went by, and his anger was appeased, 8. And to [the place of]
Anshar his father he took[his way].

9. [He went] and standing before Anshar, the father who begat him, 10. [All
that] Tiamat had plotted he repeated unto him, 11. [Saying, "Ti]amat our mother
hath conceived a hatred for us, 12. "With all her force she rageth, full of
wrath.

13. "All the gods have turned to her, 14. "[With] those, whom ye created, they
go at her side.

15. "They are banded together and at the side of Tiamat they advance;

16. "They are furious, they devise mischief without resting night and day.

17. "They prepare for battle, fuming and raging;

18. "They have joined their forces and are making war.

19. "Ummu-Hubur, who formed all things, 20. "Hath made in addition weapons
invincible, she hath spawned monster-serpents, 21. "Sharp of tooth, and
merciless of fang.

22. "With poison instead of blood she hath filled their bodies.

23. "Fierce monster-vipers she hath clothed with terror, 24. "With splendour she
hath decked them, she hath made them of lofty stature.

25. "Whoever beholdeth them is overcome by terror,"

26. "Their bodies rear up and none can withstand their attack.

27. "She hath set up vipers, and dragons, and the 28. "And hurricanes and raging
hounds, and scorpion-men, 29. "And mighty tempests, and fish-men and rams;

30. "They bear cruel weapons, without fear of the fight.

31. "Her commands are mighty, none can resist them;

32. "After this fashion, huge of stature, hath she made eleven (monsters).

33. "Among the gods who are her sons, inasmuch as he hath given her support, 34.
She hath exalted Kingu; in their midst she hath raised him to power.

35. "To march before the forces, to lead the host, 36. "To give the
battle-signal, to advance to the attack, 37. "[To direct] the battle, to control
the fight, 38. "Unto him [hath she entrusted]; in costly raiment she hath made
him sit, (saying):

39. "’[I have uttered] thy [spell], in the assembly of the gods I have raised
thee to power, 40. "’[The dominion over all] the gods have I entrusted [unto
thee].

41. "’[Be thou exalted], thou [my chosen spouse], 42. "’[May they magnify thy
name over all of them ...] ...’

43. "[She hath given him the Tablets of Destiny, on his breast she] laid them,
(saying):

44. "’[Thy command shall not be without avail], and the [word] of thy mouth
shall be established.’

45. "[Now Kingu, (thus) exalted], having received the power of Anu, 46. "Decreed
the fate [for the gods, her sons], (saying):

47. "’Let [the opening of your mouth] quench the Fire-god;

48. "’[Whoso is exalted in the battle], let him display (his) might!’"

49. [When Anshar heard how Tiamat] was mightily in revolt, 50. [...], he bit his
lips, 51. [...], his mind was not at peace, 52. His [...], he made a bitter
lamentation:

53. [...] battle, 54. "[...] thou ....

55. "[Mummu and] Apsû thou hast smitten, 56. "[But Tiamat hath exalted Kin]gu,
and where is one who can oppose her?"

57. [...] deliberation 58. [ ... the ... of] the gods, N[u]di[mmud] [A gap of
about ten lines occurs here.]

(69) [...]

(70) [...]

(71) [...] (72) [Anshar unto] his son addressed [the word]:

(73) "[...] ... my mighty hero, (74) "[Whose] strength [is great] and whose
onslaught cannot be withstood, (75) "[Go] and stand before Tiamat, (76) "[That]
her spirit [may be appeased], that her heart may be merciful.

(77) "[But if] she will not hearken unto thy word, (78) "Our [word] shalt thou
speak unto her, that she may be pacified."

(79) [He heard the] word of his father Anshar (80) And [he directed] his path to
her, towards her he took the way.

(81) Anu [drew nigh], he beheld the muttering of Tiamat, (82) [But he could not
withstand her], and he turned back.

(83) [...] Anshar (84) [...] he spake unto him:

(85) "[...] upon me [A gap of about twenty lines occurs here.]

(104) [...] (105) [...] an avenger [...] (106) [...] va[liant] (107) [...] in
the place of his decision (108) [...] he spake unto him:

(109) "[...] thy father (110) "Thou art my son, who maketh merciful his heart.

(111) " [...] to the battle shalt thou draw nigh, (112) "[...] he that shall
behold thee shall have peace."

(113) And the lord rejoiced at the word of his father, (114) And he drew nigh
and stood before Anshar.

(115) Anshar beheld him and his heart was filled with joy, (116) He kissed him
on the lips and his fear departed from him.

(117) "[O my father], let not the word of thy lips be overcome, (118) "Let me
go, that I may accomplish all that is in thy heart.

(119). "[O Anshar], let not the word of thy lips be overcome, (120) ". [Let me]
go, that I may accomplish all that is in thy heart."

(121) "What man is it, who hath brought thee forth to battle?

(122) "[...] Tiamat, who is a woman, is armed and attacketh thee."

(123) "[...] ... rejoice and be glad;

(124) "The neck of Tiamat shalt thou swiftly trample under foot.

(125) "[...] ... rejoice and be glad;

(126) "[The neck] of Tiamat shalt thou swiftly trample under foot.

(127) "O my [son], who knoweth all wisdom, (128) "Pacify [Tiama]t with thy pure
incantation.

(129) "Speedily set out upon thy way, (130) "For [thy blood (?)] shall not be
poured out, thou shalt return again."

(131) The lord rejoiced at the word of his father, (132) His heart exulted, and
unto his father he spake:

(133) "O Lord of the gods, Destiny of the great gods, (134) "If I, your avenger,
(135) "Conquer Tiamat and give you life, (136) "Appoint an assembly, make my
fate preeminent and proclaim it.

(137) "In Upshukkinaku seat yourselves joyfully together, (138) "With my word in
place of you will I decree fate.

(139) "May whatsoever I do remain unaltered, (140) "May the word of my lips
never be changed nor made of no avail."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 03.006.     THE THIRD TABLET
========================================================================

The Third Tablet 1. Anshar opened his mouth, and 2. [Unto Gaga], his [minister],
spake the word:

3. "[O Gaga, thou minis]ter that rejoicest my spirit, 4. ’[Unto Lahmu and
Lah]amu will I send thee.

5. "[...] thou canst attain, 6. ’[...] thou shalt cause to be brought before
thee.

7. [... let] the gods, all of them, 8. "[Make ready for a feast], at a banquet
let them sit, 9. "[Let them eat bread], let them mix wine, 10. ’[That for
Marduk], their avenger, they may decree the fate.

11. "[Go,] Gaga, stand before them, 12. ’[And all that] I, tell thee, repeat
unto them, (and say):

13. "[Anshar], your son, hath sent me, 14. "[The purpose] of his heart he hath
made known unto me.

15. "[He saith that Tia]mat our mother hath conceived a hatred for us, 16.
"[With all] her force she rageth, full of wrath.

17. "All the gods have turned to her, 18. "With those, whom ye created, they go
at her side.

19. ’They are banded together, and at the side of Tiamat they advance;

20 . "They are furious, they devise mischief without resting night and day.

21. ’They prepare for battle, fuming and raging;

22. "They have joined their forces and are making war.

23. "Ummu-Hubur, who formed all things, 24. "Hath made in addition weapons
invincible, she hath spawned monster-serpents, 25. "Sharp of tooth and merciless
of fang.

26. "With poison instead of blood she hath filled heir bodies.

27. "Fierce monster-vipers she hath clothed with terror, 28. "With splendour she
hath decked them, she hath made them of lofty stature.

29. "Whoever beholdeth them, terror overcometh him, 30. "Their bodies rear up
and none can withstand their attack.

31. "She hath set up vipers, and dragons, and the (monster) Lahamu, 32. "And
hurricanes, and raging hounds, and scorpion-men, 33. "And mighty tempests, and
fish-men, and rams;

34. They bear merciless weapons, without fear of the fight.

35. "Her commands are mighty, none can resist them;

36. "After this fashion, huge of stature, hath she made eleven (monsters).

37. "Among the gods who are her sons, inasmuch as he hath given her [support],
38. "She hath exalted Kingu; in their midst she hath raised [him] to power.

39. ’To march before the forces, [to lead the host], 40. "[To] give the
battle-signal, to advance [to the attack], 41. "[To direct] the battle, to
control the [fight], 42. "Unto him [hath she entrusted; in costly raiment] she
hath made him sit, (saying):

43. "’[I have] uttered thy spell, in the assembly of the gods [I have raised
thee to power], 44. "’[The] dominion over all the gods [have I entrusted unto
thee].

45. "’[Be] thou exalted, [thou] my chosen spouse, 46. "’ May they magnify thy
name over all of [them ... the Anunnaki].’

47. "She hath given him the Tablets of Destiny, on his breast she laid them,
(saying):

48. "’Thy command shall not be without avail, and the word of [thy] mouth shall
be established.’

49. "Now Kingu, (thus) exalted, having received [the power of Anu], 50. "Decreed
the fate for the gods, her sons, (saying):

51. "’Let the opening of your mouth quench the Fire-god;

52. "’Whoso is exalted in the battle, let him display (his) might! ’

53. ’I sent Anu, but he could not withstand her;

54. "Nudimmud was afraid and turned back.

55. "But Marduk hath set out, the director of the gods, your Song of Solomon;
56. ’To set out against Tiamat his heart hath prompted (him).

57. "He opened his mouth and spake unto me, (saying):

58. "’If I, your avenger, 59. "’Conquer Tiamat and give you life, 60. "’Appoint
an assembly, make my fate preeminent and proclaim it.

61. "’In Upshukkinaku seat yourselves joyfully together;

62. "’With my word in place of you will I decree fate.

63. "’May whatsoever I do remain unaltered, 64. "’May the word of my lips never
be changed nor made of no avail.’

65. "Hasten, therefore, and swiftly decree for him the fate which you bestow,
66. "That he may go and fight your strong enemy!"

67. Gaga went, he took his way and 68. Humbly before Lahmu and Lahamu, the gods,
his fathers, 69. He made obeisance, and he kissed the ground at their feet.

70. He humbled himself; then he stood up and spake unto them, (saying):

71. "Anshar, your son, hath sent me, 72. ’The purpose of his heart he hath made
known unto me.

73. "He saith that Tiamat our mother hath conceived a hatred for us, 74. "With
all her force she rageth, full of wrath.

75. "All the gods have turned to her, 76. "With those, whom ye created, they go
at her side.

77. "They are banded together and at the side of Tiamat they advance;

78. ’They are furious, they devise mischief without resting night and day.

79. "They prepare for battle, fuming and raging;

80. ’They have joined their forces and are making war.

81. ’Ummu-Hubur, who formed all things, 82. "Hath made in addition weapons
invincible, she hath spawned monster-serpents, 83. "Sharp of tooth and merciless
of fang.

84. "With poison instead of blood she hath filled their bodies.

85. ’Fierce monster-vipers she hath clothed with terror, 86. "With splendour she
hath decked them, she hath made them of lofty stature.

87. ’Whoever beholdeth them, terror overcometh him, 88. "Their bodies rear up
and none can withstand their attack.

89. ’She hath set up vipers, and dragons, and the (monster) Lahamu, 90. "And
hurricanes, and raging hounds, and scorpion-men, 91. ’And mighty tempests, and
fish-men, and [rams];

92. "They bear merciless weapons, without fear of the fight.

93. "Her commands are mighty, none can resist them;

94. ’After this fashion, huge of stature, hath she made eleven (monsters).

95. ’Among the gods who are her sons, inasmuch as he hath given her support, 96.
"She hath exalted Kingu; in their midst she hath raised him to power.

97. "To march before the forces, to lead the host, 98. ’To give the
battle-signal, to advance to the attack, 99. "To direct the battle, to control
the fight, 100. ’Unto him hath she entrusted; in costly raiment she hath made
him sit, (saying):

101. "’I have uttered thy spell, in the assembly of the gods I have raised thee
to power, 102. "’The dominion over all the gods have I entrusted unto thee.

103. "’Be thou exalted, thou my chosen spouse, 104. "’May they magnify thy name
over all of them ... the Anunna[ki].’

105. "She hath given him the Tablets of Destiny, on [his] breast [she laid
them], (saying):

106. "’Thy command shall not be without avail, [and the word of thy mouth shall
be established].

107. "Now Kingu, (thus) exalted, [having received the power of Anu], 108.
"[Decreed the fate] for the gods, her sons, (saying):

109. "’Let the opening of your mouth [quench] the Fire-god;

110. "’Whoso is exalted in the battle, [let him display] (his) might!’

111. "I sent Anu, but he could not [withstand her];

112. "Nudimmud was afraid and [turned back].

113. "But Marduk hath set out, the director of the[gods, your son];

114. "T o set out against Tiamat [his heart hath prompted (him)].

115. "He opened his mouth [and spake unto me], (saying):

116. "’If I, [your avenger], 117. "’Conquer Tiamat and [give you life], 118.
"’Appoint an assembly, [make my fate preeminent and proclaim it].

119. "’In Upshukkinaku [seat yourselves joyfully together];

120. "’With my word in place of [you will I decree fate].

121. "’May whatsoever [I] do remain unaltered, 122. "’May the word of [my lips]
never be changed nor made of no avail.’

123. ’Hasten, therefore, and swiftly [decree for him] the fate which you bestow,
124. "That he may go and fight your strong enemy!"

125. Lahmu and Lahamu heard and cried aloud, 126. All of the Igigi wailed
bitterly, (saying):

127. ’What has been altered so that they should ... [...] 128. ’We do not
understand the d[eed] of Tiamat!"

129. Then did they collect and go, 130. The great gods, all of them, who decree
[fate].

131. They entered in before Anshar, they filled [...];

132. They kissed one another, in the assembly [...].

133. They made ready for the feast, at the banquet [they sat];

134. They ate bread, they mixed [sesame-wine].

135. The sweet drink, the mead, confused their [...], 136. They were drunk with
drinking, their bodies were filled.

137. They were wholly at ease, their spirit was exalted;

138. Then for Marduk, their avenger, did they decree the fate.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 03.007.     THE FOURTH TABLET
========================================================================

The Fourth Tablet 1. They prepared for him a lordly chamber, 2 . Before his
fathers as prince he took his place.

3. "Thou art chiefest among the great gods, 4. "Thy fate is unequalled, thy word
is Anu!

5. "O Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods, 6. "Thy fate is
unequalled, thy word is Anu!

7. "Henceforth not without avail shall be thy command, 8. "In thy power shall it
be to exalt and to abase.

9. "Established shall be the word of thy mouth, irresistible shall be thy
command;

10. "None among the gods shall transgress thy boundary.

11. "Abundance, the desire of the shrines of the gods, 12. "Shall be established
in thy sanctuary, even though they lack (offerings).

13. "O Marduk, thou art our avenger!

14. "We give thee sovereignty over the whole world.

15. "Sit thou down in night, be exalted in thy command.

16. "Thy weapon shall never lose its power, it shall crush thy foe.

17. "O lord, spare the life of him that putteth his trust in thee, 18. "But as
for the god who began the rebellion, pour out his life."

19. Then set they in their midst a garment, 20. And unto Marduk their first-born
they spake:

21. "May thy fate, O lord, be supreme among the gods, 22. "To destroy and to
create; speak thou the word, and (thy command) shall be fulfilled.

23. "Command now and let the garment vanish;

24. "And speak the word again and let the garment reappear!"

25. Then he spake with his mouth, and the garment vanished;

26. Again he commanded it, and the garment reappeared.

27. When the gods, his fathers, beheld (the fulfilment of) his word, 28. They
rejoiced, and they did homage (unto him, saying), " Marduk is king! "

29. They bestowed upon him the sceptre, and the throne, and the ring, 30. They
give him an invincible weapon, which overwhelmeth the foe.

31. "Go, and cut off the life of Tiamat, 32. "And let the wind carry her blood
into secret places."

33. After the gods his fathers had decreed for the lord his fate, 34. They
caused him to set out on a path of prosperity and success.

35 . He made ready the bow, he chose his weapon, 36. He slung a spear upon him
and fastened it . . .

37. He raised the club, in his right hand he grasped (it), 38. The bow and the
quiver he hung at his side.

39. He set the lightning in front of him, . With burning flame he filled his
body.

41. He made a net to enclose the inward parts of Tiamat, 42. The four winds he
stationed so that nothing of her might escape;

43. The South wind and the North wind and the East wind and the West wind 44. He
brought near to the net, the gift of his father Anu.

45. He created the evil wind, and the tempest, and the hurricane, 46. And the
fourfold wind, and the sevenfold wind, and the whirlwind, and the wind which had
no equal;

47. He sent forth the winds which he had created, the seven of them;

48. T o disturb the inward parts of Tiamat, they followed after him.

49. Then the lord raised the thunderbolt, his mighty weapon, 50. He mounted the
chariot, the storm unequalled for terror, 51. He harnessed and yoked unto it
four horses, 52. Destructive, ferocious, overwhelming, and swift of pace;

53. [...] were their teeth, they were flecked with foam;

54. They were skilled in [...], they had been trained to trample underfoot.

55. [...], mighty in battle, 56. Left and [right ...

57. His garment was [...], he was clothed with terror, 58. With overpowering
brightness his head was crowned.

59. Then he set out, he took his way, 60. And towards the [rag]ing Tiamat he set
his face.

61. On his lips he held [...], 62. ... [...] he grasped in his hand.

63. Then they beheld him, the gods beheld him, 64. The gods his fathers beheld
him, the gods beheld him.

65. And the lord drew nigh, he gazed upon the inward parts of Tiamat, 66. He
perceived the muttering of Kingu, her spouse.

67. As (Marduk) gazed, (Kingu) was troubled in his gait, 68. His will was
destroyed and his motions ceased.

69. And the gods, his helpers, who marched by his side, 70. Beheld their
leader’s [...], and their sight was troubled.

71. But Tiamat [...], she turned not her neck, 72. With lips that failed not she
uttered rebellious words:

73. "[...] thy coming as lord of the gods, 74. "From their places have they
gathered, in thy place are they!"

75. Then the lord [raised] the thunderbolt, his mighty weapon, 76. [And against]
Tiamat, who was raging, thus he sent (the word):

77. "[Thou] art become great, thou hast exalted thyself on high, 78. "And thy
[heart hath prompted] thee to call to battle.

79. "[...] their fathers [...], 80. "[...] their [...] thou hatest [...].

81. "[Thou hast exalted King]u to be [thy] spouse, 82. "[Thou hast . . . ] him,
that, even as Anu, he should issue decrees.

83. "[...] thou hast followed after evil, 84. "And [against] the .gods my
fathers thou hast contrived thy wicked plan.

85. "Let then thy host be equipped, let thy weapons be girded on!

86. "Stand! I and thou, let us join battle!"

87. When Tiamat heard these words, 88. She was like one possessed, she lost her
reason.

89. Tiamat uttered wild, piercing cries, 90. She trembled and shook to her very
foundations.

91. She recited an incantation, she pronounced her spell, 92. And the gods of
the battle cried out for their weapons.

93. Then advanced Tiamat and Marduk, the counsellor of the gods;

94. To the fight they came on, to the battle they drew nigh.

95. The lord spread out his net and caught her, 96. And the evil wind that was
behind (him) he let loose in her face.

97. As Tiamat opened her mouth to its full extent, 98. He drove in the evil
wind, while as yet she had not shut her lips.

99. The terrible winds filled her belly, 100. And her courage was taken from
her, and her mouth she opened wide.

101. He seized the spear and burst her belly, 102. He severed her inward parts,
he pierced (her) heart.

103. He overcame her and cut off her life;

104. He cast down her body and stood upon it.

105. When he had slain Tiamat, the leader, 106. Her might was broken, her host
was scattered.

107. And the gods her helpers, who marched by her side, 108. Trembled, and were
afraid, and turned back.

109. They took to flight to save their lives;

110. But they were surrounded, so that they could not escape.

111. He took them captive, he broke their weapons;

112. In the net they were caught and in the snare they sat down.

113. The [...] ... of the world they filled with cries of grief.

114. They received punishment from him, they were held in bondage.

115. And on the eleven creatures which she had filled with the power of striking
terror, 116. Upon the troop of devils, who marched at her [...], 117. He brought
affliction, their strength [he ...];

118. Them and their opposition he trampled under his feet.

119. Moreover, Kingu, who had been exalted over them, 120. He conquered, and
with the god Dug-ga he counted him.

121. He took from him the Tablets of Destiny that were not rightly his, 122. He
sealed them with a seal and in his own breast he laid them.

123. Now after the hero Marduk had conquered and cast down his enemies, 124. And
had made the arrogant foe even like ..., 125. And had fully established Anshar’s
triumph over the enemy, 126. And had attained the purpose of Nudimmud, 127. Over
the captive gods he strengthened his durance, 128. And unto Tiamat, whom he had
conquered, he returned.

129. And the lord stood upon Tiamat’s hinder parts, 130. And with his merciless
club he smashed her skull.

131. He cut through the channels of her blood, 132. And he made the North wind
bear it away into secret places.

133. His fathers beheld, and they rejoiced and were glad;

134. Presents and gifts they brought unto him.

135. Then the lord rested, gazing upon her dead body, 136. While he divided the
flesh of the ..., and devised a cunning plan.

137. He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;

138. One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.

139. He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman, 140. And bade them not to let her
waters come forth.

141. He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions (thereof), 142. And
over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.

143. And the lord measured the structure of the Deep, 144. And he founded
E-shara, a mansion like unto it.

145. The mansion E-shara which he created as heaven, 146. He caused Anu, Bêl,
and Ea in their districts to inhabit.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 03.008.     THE FIFTH TABLET
========================================================================

The Fifth Tablet 1. He.(i.e. Marduk) made the stations for the great gods;

2. The stars, their images, as the stars of the Zodiac, he fixed.

3. He ordained the year and into sections he divided it;

4. For the twelve months he fixed three stars.

5. After he had [...] the days of the year [...] images, 6. He founded the
station of Nibir <\l >to determine their bounds;

7. That none might err or go astray, 8. He set the station of Bêl and Ea along
with him.

9. He opened great gates on both sides, 10. He made strong the bolt on the left
and on the right.

11. In the midst thereof he fixed the zenith;

12. The Moon-god he caused to shine forth, the night he entrusted to him.

13. He appointed him, a being of the night, to determine the days;

14. Every month without ceasing with the crown he covered(?) him, (saying):

15. "At the beginning of the month, when thou shinest upon the land, 16. "Thou
commandest the horns to determine six days, 17. "And on the seventh day to
[divide] the crown.

18. "On the fourteenth day thou shalt stand opposite, the half [...].

19. "When the Sun-god on the foundation of heaven [...] thee, 20. "The [...]
thou shalt cause to ..., and thou shalt make his [...].

21. "[...] ... unto the path of the Sun-god shalt thou cause to draw nigh, 22.
"[And on the ... day] thou shalt stand opposite, and the Sun-god shall ... [...]
23. "[...] to traverse her way.

24. "[...] thou shalt cause to draw nigh, and thou shalt judge the right.

25. "[...] to destroy 26. "[...] me.

"..."

[The following twenty-two lines are taken from K. 3,449a, and probably form part
of the Fifth Tablet.]

(66 ). [...]

(67) [...] (68 ) From [...] (69) In E-sagil [...] (70) To establish [...] (71)
The station of [...] (72) The great gods [...] (73) The gods [...] (74) He took
and [...] (75) The gods [his fathers] beheld the net which he had made, (76)
They beheld the bow and how [its work] was accomplished.

(77) They praised the work which he had done [...] (78) Then Anu raised [the
...] in the assembly of the gods.

(79) H e kissed the bow, (saying), "It is [...]!"

(80) And thus he named the names of the bow, (saying), (81) "’Long-wood’ shall
be one name, and the second name [shall be ...] (82) "And its third name shall
be the Bow-star, in heaven [shall it ...]"

(83) Then he fixed a station for it [...] (84) Now after the fate of [...] (85)
[He set] a throne [...] (86) [...] in heaven [...] (87) [...] ... [...]

[The following traces of the last thirteen lines of the Fifth Tablet are taken
from the reverse of K. 11,641 and from the reverse of K. 8,526.] (128) "[...]
him [...]"

(129) "[...] them [...]"

(130) "[...] him [...]"

(131) "[...] them [...]"

(132) "[...] their [...] may [...]"

(133) [...] the gods spake, (134) [...] the heavens [...]:

(135) "[... your] son [...]"

(136) "[...] our [...] hath he [...]"

(137) "[...] he hath caused to live [...]"

(138) "[...] splendour [...]"

(139) "[...] not [...]!"

(140) "[...] we [...]!"

Footnotes

77:1 Jupiter

85:1 In the speech that follows it may be conjectured that the gods complained
that, although Marduk had endowed the heavens with splendour and had caused
plants to live upon the earth, yet there were no shrines built in honour of the
gods, and there were no worshippers devoted to their service; see below, p. 88,
note 1


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 03.009.     THE SIXTH TABLET
========================================================================

The Sixth Tablet 1. When Marduk heard the word of the gods, 2. His heart
prompted him and he devised [a cunning plan].

3. He opened his mouth and unto Ea [he spake], 4. [That which] he had conceived
in his heart he imparted [unto him]:

5. "My blood will I take and bone will I [fashion], 6. "I will make man, that
man may ... [...].

7. "I will create man who shall inhabit [the earth],"

8. "That the service of the gods may be established, and that [their] shrines
<\l > [may be built].

9. "But I will alter the ways of the gods, and I will change [their paths];

10. "Together shall they be oppressed <\l >, and unto evil shall [they ...]."

11. And Ea answered him and spake the word:

12. "[...] the [...] of the gods I have [changed] 13. [...] ... and one ...
[...] 14. [...shall be de]stroyed and men will I [...] 15. [...] and the gods
[...] 16. [...] ... and they [...] 17. [...] ... and the gods [...] 18. [...]
.... [...] 19. [...] the gods [...] 20. [...] the Anunnaki [...] 21. [...] ...
[...] [The rest of the text is wanting with the exception of the last few lines
of the tablet, which read as follows.] 138. [...] ... [...] 139. [...] ... [...]
140. When [...] ... [...] 141. They rejoiced [...] ... [...] 142. In
Upshukkinnaku they set [their dwelling].

143. Of the heroic son, their avenger, [they cried]:

144. "We, whom he succoured, ... [...]!"

145. They seated themselves and in the assembly they named [him ...], 146. They
all [cried aloud (?), they exalted [him ...].

Footnotes

89:1 ... literally the line reads "Let the service of the gods be established,
and as for them let [their] shrines be built. It is interesting to note the
reason that is here implied for the creation of mankind, i.e., that the gods my
have worshipers. There is clearly a reference to this in l. 29 of the Seventh
Tablet, where, after referring to Marduk’s mercy upon the gods, the text goes on
... "For their forgiveness did he create mankind."

89:2 It seems preferable to assign to the Piel of [kabâtu] its usual meaning "to
oppress," rather than to render the passage as "Together shall they be
honoured." The sense seems to be that Marduk, by the creation of man, will
establish the worship of the gods, but at the same time will punish the gods for
their complaints. It is possible that in his speech that follows Ea dissuades
Marduk from carrying out the second part of his proposal.

91:1 It is probable that the missing portion of the text corresponded closely
with the account of the creation of man and animals given by Berossus; for a
further discussion of this subject, see the Introduction. The tablet K. 3,364
(Cun. Texts, part xiii, pl. 24 f.) has been thought to belong to the Creation
Series, and to contain the instructions given by Marduk to man after his
creation. Had this been so, it would have formed part of the Sixth Tablet. On
plates lxiv ff. of Vol. II is published the text of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, No.
33,851, which gives a duplicate text to K. 3,364; and in Appendix II I have
given reasons for believing that the text inscribed upon K. 3,364 and No. 33,851
has no connection with the Creation Series, but is part of a long composition
containing moral precepts. Another fragment which it has been suggested belongs
to one of the later tablets of the Creation Series is K. 3,445 + R. 396 (Cun.
Texts, part xiii, pl. 24 f.; cf. also its duplicate K. 14,949, pl. 24); but
there are strong reasons against the identification of the text as a fragment of
the series Enuma elish, though it may well be part of a parallel version of the
Creation story (see further, Appendix II).

91:2 The address of the gods to Marduk forms the subject of the Seventh Tablet
of the series.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 03.010.     THE SEVENTH TABLET
========================================================================

The Seventh Tablet 1. O Asari, "Bestower of planting," "[Founder of sowing],"

2. "Creator of grain and plants," "who caused [the green herb to spring up]!"

3. O Asaru-alim, "who is revered in the house of counsel," "[who aboundeth in
counsel],"

4. The gods paid homage, fear [took hold upon them]!

5. O Asaru-alim-nuna, "the mighty one," "the Light of [the father who begat
him],"

6. Who directeth the decrees of Anu, Bel, [and Ea]!"

7. He was their patron, he ordained [their . . . . ];

8. He, whose provision is abundance, goeth forth [...]!

9. Tutu [is] "He who created them anew;"

10. Should their wants be pure, then are they [satisfied];

11. Should he make an incantation, then are the gods [appeased];

12 . Should they attack him in anger, he withstandeth [their onslaught]!

13. Let him therefore be exalted, and in the assembly of the gods [let him ...];

14. None among the gods can [rival him]!

15. Tutu is Zi-ukkina, "the Life of the host [of the gods],"

16. Who established for the gods the bright heavens.

17. He set them on their way, and ordained [their path (?)] 18. Never shall his
[...] deeds be forgotten among men.

19. Tutu as Zi-azag thirdly they named, "the Bringer of Purification,"

20. "The God of the Favouring Breeze," "the Lord of Hearing and Mercy,"

21. "The Creator of Fulness and Abundance," "the Founder of Plenteousness,"

22. "Who increaseth all that is small."

23. "In sore distress we felt his favouring breeze,"

24. Let them say, let them pay reverence, let them bow in humility before him!

25. Tutu as Aga-azag may mankind fourthly magnify!

26. "The Lord of the Pure Incantation," "the Quickener of the Dead,"

27. "Who had mercy upon the captive gods,"

28. "Who removed the yoke from upon the gods his enemies,"

29. "For their forgiveness did he create mankind,"

30. "The Merciful One, with whom it is to bestow life!"

31. May his deeds endure, may they never be forgotten 32. In the mouth of
mankind whom his hands have made!

33. Tutu as Mu-azag, fifthly, his "Pure Incantation" may their mouth proclaim,
34. "Who through his Pure Incantation hath destroyed all the evil ones!"

35. Shag-zu, "who knoweth the heart of the gods," "who seeth through the
innermost part!"

36. "The evil-doer he hath not caused to go forth with him!"

37. "Founder of the assembly of the gods," "[who ...] their heart! "

38. "Subduer of the disobedient," "[...]!"

39. "Who rebellion and [...]!"

41. Tutu as Zi-si, "the [...], 42. "Who put an end to anger," "[who ...]!"

43. Tutu as Suh-kur, thirdly, "the [Destroyer of the foe],"

44. "Who put their plans to confusion," "[...],"

45. "Who destroyed all the wicked," "[...],"

46. [...] let them [...]!

47. [...] ... [...] [The following lines are taken from the fragment K. 12,830,
but their position in the text is uncertain.] [He named the four quarters (of
the world)], mankind [he created], [And upon] him understanding [...]

[...] ... [...] [...] Tiamat [...]

[...] ... [...] [...] distant [...] [...] may [...].

[The following lines are taken from the fragment K. 13,761.]

[...]

(10) [...] "The mighty one [...]!"

... Agi[l ...], "The Creator of [the earth ...]!"

Zulummu ... [...], "The Giver of counsel and of whatsoever [...]!"

Mummu, "the Creator [of ...]!"

Mulil, the heavens [...], "Who for ... [...]!"

Gishkul, let [...], (10) "Who brought the gods to naught[...]!"

Lugal-ab-[...], "Who in [ ............ ]!"

Pap-[...], "Who in [...]!"

[...]

[The following lines are taken from the fragment K. 8,519 and its duplicate K.
13,337; this portion of the text was not separated by much from that preserved
by K. 13,761.]

[...].

[...] ...

[... the Chief (?) of] all lords,"

[... supreme] is his might!

[Lugal-durmah, "the King] of the band of the gods," "the Lord of rulers,"

"Who is exalted in a royal habitation,"

"[Who] among the gods is gloriously supreme!"

[Adu-nuna], "the Counsellor of Ea," who created the gods his fathers, Unto the
path of whose majesty [No] god can ever attain!

[... in] Dul-azag he made it known, [...] pure is his dwelling!

[... the ...] of those without understanding is Lugal-dul-azaga!

[...] supreme is his might!

[...] their [...] in the midst of Tiamat, [...] ... of the battle!

[The numbering of the following lines is based on the marginal numbers upon No.
91,139. + 93,073.] 105. [...] ... [...] him, 106. [...] ... the star, which
[shineth in the heavens].

107. May he hold the Beginning and the Future , may they pay homage unto him,
108. Saying, "He who forced his way through the midst of Tiamat [without
resting], 109. "Let his name be Nibiru, ’the Seizer of the Midst’!

110. "For the stars of heaven he upheld the paths, 111. "He shepherded all the
gods like sheep!

112. "He conquered Tiamat, he troubled and ended her life,"

113. In the future of mankind, when the days grow old, 114. May this be heard
without ceasing, may it hold sway for ever!

115. Since he created the realm (of heaven) and fashioned the firm earth, 116.
"The Lord of the World," the father Bêl hath called his name.

117. (This) title, which all the Spirits of Heaven proclaimed, 118. Did Ea hear,
and his spirit was rejoiced, (and he said):

119. "He whose name his fathers have made glorious, 120. "Shall be even as I,
his name shall be Ea!

121. "The binding of all my decrees shall he control, 122. "All my commands
shall he make known! "

123. By the name of "Fifty" did the great gods 124. Proclaim his fifty names,
they made his path pre-eminent."

Epilogue 125. Let them be held in remembrance, and let the first man proclaim
them;

126. Let the wise and the understanding consider them together!

127. Let the father repeat them and teach them to his Song of Solomon;

128. Let them be in the ears of the pastor and the shepherd!

129. Let a man rejoice in Marduk, the Lord of the gods, 130. That he may cause
his land to be fruitful, and that he himself may have prosperity!

131. His word standeth fast, his command is unaltered;

132. The utterance of his mouth hath no god ever annulled.

133. He gazed in his anger, he turned not his neck;

134. When he is wroth, no god can withstand his indignation.

135. Wide is his heart, broad is his compassion;

136. The sinner and evil-doer in his presence [...].

137. They received instruction, they spake before him, 138. [...] unto [...].

139. [...] of Marduk may the gods [...].

140. [May] they [... his ] name [...]!

141. [...] they took and [...];

142. [...]!

Footnotes

93:1 The title Tutu is there explained as ba-a-nu, " creator," while its two
component parts (TU + TU) occur in the Sumerian version of the line as the
equivalents of la-nu-u and e-di-shu.

97:1 The text of the commentary read mu-kin, i.e. "the Founder of Purification";
for other variant readings in the line, see Appendix I.

99:1 Literally, "the black-headed ones."

103:1 In the margin of the fragment K. 13,761 every tenth line is indicated by
the figure "10."

105:1 The word durmahu was employed as a Babylonian priestly title. It may here
be rendered by some such general phrase as "ruler," unless it is to be taken as
a proper name.

107:1 ... The expression rêshu-arkât, literally "the beginning--the future," may
be taken as implying Marduk’s complete control over the world, both at its
creation and during its subsequent existence. It is possible that s’u-nu is the
pronominal suffix and should be attached to the preceding word, i.e.
rêsh-arkâtu-shu-nu, "their beginning and future," that is, "the beginning and
future of mankind."

107:2 I.e., mankind.

111:1 From the commentary R. 366, etc., and the explanatory text S. 747, it may
be concluded that the Seventh Tablet, in its original form, ended at 1. 124. It
is probable that ll. 125-142 were added as an epilogue at the time when the
composition was incorporated in the Creation Series (see Appendix I).

111:2 I.e., the names of Marduk.

115:1 This is probably the last line of the tablet. It may here be noted that,
for the text of the Seventh Tablet given in the preceding pages, only those
fragments have been used which are proved by the commentaries to contain missing
portions of the text. Several other fragments, which from their contents and
style of writing may possibly belong to copies of the text, have not been.
included. The text of one such fragment (S. 2,013) is of peculiar interest and
is given in Appendix II; in l. 10 f. it refers to Ti-amat e-li-ti and Ti-amat
shap-li-ti, "The Ocean (Tiamat) which is above" and "The Ocean (Tiamat) which is
beneath," a close parallel to "the waters which were above the firmament" and
"the waters which were under the firmament" of Genesis 1:7; see the
Introduction.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 03.011.     ANOTHER VERSION OF THE DRAGON-MYTH
========================================================================

Other Accounts of the History of Creation I. Another Version of the Dragon-Myth

OBV.

I. The cities sighed, men [...], 2. Men uttered lamentation, [they ...], 3. For
their lamentation there was none [to help], 4. For their grief there was none to
take [them by the hand].

5. Who was the dragon [...]?

6. Tiamat was the dragon [...]!

7. Bêl in heaven hath formed [...].

8. Fifty kaspu in his length, one kaspu [his height], 9. Six cubits is his
mouth, twelve cubits [his ...], 10. Twelve cubits is the circuit of his [ears
...];

11. For the space of sixty cubits he [...] a bird;

12. In water nine cubits deep he draggeth [...].

13. He raiseth his tail on high [...];

14. All the gods of heaven [...].

15. In heaven the gods bowed themselves down before [the Moon-god ...];

16. The border of the Moon-god’s robe they hasti[ly grasped]:

17. "Who will go and [slay] the dragon, 18. "And deliver the broad land [from
...], 19. "And become king [over ...]?"

20. "Go, Tishhu, [slay] the dragon, 21. "And deliver the broad land [from ...],
22. "And become king [over ...]?"

23. "Thou hast sent me, O lord, [to ...] the raging (creatures) of the river,
24. "But I know not the [...] of the Dragon!"

[The rest of the Obverse and the upper part of the Reverse of the tablet are
wanting.] Revelation 1:1-20. [And ...] opened his mouth and [spake] unto the god
[...]:

2 . "Stir up cloud, and storm [and tempest]!

3. "The seal of thy life [shalt thou set] before thy face, 4. "Thou shalt grasp
it, and thou shalt [slay] the dragon."

5. He stirred up cloud, and storm [and tempest], 6. He [set] the seal of his
life before his face, 7. He grasped it, and [he slew] the dragon.

8. For three years and three months, one day and [one night] 9. The blood of the
dragon flowed [...]}

Footnotes

117:1 For the text, see Cuneiform Texts, part xiii, pl. 33 f., Romans 282; for a
previous publication, cf. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Wörterbuch, p. 390 f.;
translations have been given by Zimmern in Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos, pp. 417
ff., and by Jensen in Schrader’s Keilins. Bibl., vi, pp. 44 ff. Strictly
speaking, the text is not a creation legend, though it gives a variant form of
the principal incident in the history of creation according to the version Enuma
elish. In the tablet Romans 282 the fight with the dragon did not precede the
creation of the world, but took place after men had been created and cities had
been built; see further the Introduction.

117:2 The form of the name here used is Tâmtu, i.e., the Sea."

117:3 The kaspu is the space that can be covered in two hours travelling, i.e.,
about six or seven miles. These general dimensions of the size of the dragon are
in accordance with the statement made in l. 8f. of the reverse to the effect
that after the dragon had been slain his blood flowed for more than three years.
The. second measurement in the line is taken by Zimmern to refer to the dragon’s
breadth, but, as Jensen points out, this is not consistent with the measurement
of the mouth given in the following line. Even Zimmern’s readings of 60 GAR in
l. 10 and 65 GAR in l. 11 do not explain, but render still more anomalous, the ½
GAR in l. 9. Without going into the question of the probable length of the
Babylonian cubit, it is obvious that the dragon’s breadth can hardly have been
given as so many miles, if its mouth only measures so many feet. This difficulty
can be got over by restoring sîrûtishu in place of the suggested rupussu at the
end of l. 8. We then have a consistent picture of the dragon as a long thin
snake, rearing his head on high; his coils might well have been believed to
extend for three hundred or three hundred and fifty miles, and the raising of
his head in the air to a height of six or seven miles would not be inconsistent
with the measurement of his mouth as six cubits, i.e., some ten feet or more
across.

119:1 Lines 17-19 are the appeal of the gods to the Moon-god; ll. 20-22 contain
the address of the Moon-god to Tishhu; and ll. 23 ff. give Tishhu’s answer to
the Moon-god.

119:2 Jensen, ri-hu-ut, which he renders as "moisture." The plural, dalhûti, may
perhaps be explained by supposing that, according to this version also, the
dragon had other creatures to help her in the fight.

121:1 Jensen suggests the restoration ilu B[êl], which he deduces from the
traces upon the tablet as published by Delitzsch; for, as he states, the only
other restoration possible would be ilu I[shtaar], and this is rendered unlikely
by the masculine form of the imperatives in ll. 2 and 4. This would prove that
the slayer of the dragon was Bêl, or Marduk, in both the versions of the story.
As a matter of fact, the traces are incorrectly given by Delitzsch; they
represent the sign AN and not the conflate sign AN +EN (cf. Cun. Txts., pt.
xiii, pl. 34), and it is not possible to conclude from the text who is the hero
of this version.

121:2 Jensen suggests the restoration u [ . KAS-PU], i.e., "for three years,
three months, a day and [ . hours]." The trace of the next character after u is
the single diagonal wedge (cf. Cun. Txts., pt. xiii, pl. 34); according to
Jensen’s restoration this sign can only be the number "10," i.e. X KAS-PU,
"twenty hours," a not very probable reading. The diagonal wedge is more probably
the beginning of the sign MI, i.e. mûshu, and the end of the line may be
restored as umu IKAN u [mûshu IKAN]; this may be rendered "one day and one
night," or possibly, as Zimmern in his translation suggests, "day and night."

121:3 The lower part of the tablet is taken up with the common colophon found
upon tablets from Ashur-bani-pal’s palace.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 03.012.     A REFERENCE TO THE CREATION OF THE CATTLE AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD
========================================================================

II. A Reference to the Creation of the Cattle and the Beasts of the Field 1.
When the gods in their assembly had made [the world], 2. And had created the
heavens, and had formed [the earth], 3. And had brought living creatures into
being [...], 4. And [had fashioned] the cattle of the field, and the beasts of
the field, and the creatures [of the city],-- 5. After [they had ...] unto the
living creatures [...], 6. [And between the beasts] of the field and the
creatures of the city had divided [...] 7. [And had ...] all creatures, the
whole of creation [...], 8. [And had ...], which in the whole of my family
[...], 9. [Then did] Nin-igi-azag [fashion] two small creatures [...].

10. [Among] all the beasts he made [their form] glorious 11. [...] the goddess
Gula ... [...] 12. [...] ... one white [and one black ...] 13. [...] ... one
white and one black [...] 14. [...] ... [...] [The rest of the text is wanting.]

Footnotes

123:1 For the text, see Cuneiform Texts, part xiii, pl. 34, D.T. 41; for a
previous publication, cf. Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestücke, 3rd ed., p. 34 f.;
and for previous translations, see George Smith, The Chaldean Account of
Genesis, p. 76f., Zimmern in Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos, and Jensen in
Schrader’s Keilins. Bibl., vi, p. 42 f. This fragment, which George Smith
suggested might be part of the Seventh Tablet of the Creation Series, does not
belong to that series; it contains the introduction or opening lines of a text,
and describes the creation of two small creatures by Nin-igi-azag, "The lord of
clear vision." The reference to the creation of cattle and beasts of the field
is merely incidental; it occurs in the long opening sentence and indicates the
period at which the two small creatures were made; see further the Introduction.

123:2 It is probable, that the second section of the text also dealt with the
two small creatures whose creation is described in the first paragraph.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 03.013.     A REFERENCE TO THE CREATION OF THE MOON AND THE SUN
========================================================================

III. A reference to the Creation of the Moon and the Sun 1. When the gods Ana,
Enlil, and Enki 2. Through their sure counsel and by their great commands 3.
Ordained the renewal of the Moon-god, 4. The reappearance of the moon, and the
creation of the month, 5. And ordained the oracle of heaven and earth, 6. The
New Moon did Ana cause to appear, 7. In the midst of heaven he beheld it come
forth.

8. [Version]. When Anu, Bêl and Ea, 9. The great gods, through their sure
counsel 10. Fixed the bounds of heaven and earth, 11. (And) to the hands of the
great gods entrusted 12. The creation of the day and the renewal of the month
which they might behold, 13. (And) mankind beheld the Sun-god in the gate of his
going forth, 14. In the midst of heaven and earth they duly created (him).

Footnotes

127:1 I is interesting to note that in the Semitic version the creation of the
sun is substituted for that of the moon, although in the preceding line the
renewal of the month is referred to.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-leonard-w-king/
========================================================================