SQLite format 3@  ¯¯O{tableTopicsTopicsCREATE TABLE 'Topics' (Title NVARCHAR(100), Notes TEXT)ئûöñìçâÝ؆eM1{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17\par \par \par \par \pard\qc \b\fs24 LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\par IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\par \par BY\par \par LEONARD W. KING, M.A., LITT.D., F.S.A.\par \par Assistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities\par in the British Museum\par Professor in the University of London\par King's College\par \par \par \par THE SCHWEICH LECTURES\par 1916\par \pard\b0\fs17\par \par \par Z H 4 ¾w  uc1\pard\qc\cf1\lang1033\b\f0\fs22 PREPARER'S NOTE\fs16\par \pard\par This text was prepared from a 1920 edition of the book, hence the\par references to dates after 1916 in some places.\par \par Greek text has been transliterated within brackets "\{\}" using an\par Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table. Diacritical marks have\par been lost.\par \par \par \par \fs24 PREFACE\fs16\par \par In these lectures an attempt is made, not so much to restate familiar\par facts, as to accommodate them to new and supplementary evidence which\par has been published in America since the outbreak of the war. But even\par without the excuse of recent discovery, no apology would be needed for\par any comparison or contrast of Hebrew tradition with the mythological\par and legendary beliefs of Babylon and Egypt. Hebrew achievements in the\par sphere of religion and ethics are only thrown into stronger relief\par when studied against their contemporary background.\par \par The bulk of our new material is furnished by some early texts, written\par towards the close of the third millennium B.C. They incorporate\par traditions which extend in unbroken outline from their own period into\par the remote ages of the past, and claim to trace the history of man\par back to his creation. They represent the early national traditions of\par the Sumerian people, who preceded the Semites as the ruling race in\par Babylonia; and incidentally they necessitate a revision of current\par views with regard to the cradle of Babylonian civilization. The most\par remarkable of the new documents is one which relates in poetical\par narrative an account of the Creation, of Antediluvian history, and of\par the Deluge. It thus exhibits a close resemblance in structure to the\par corresponding Hebrew traditions, a resemblance that is not shared by\par the Semitic-Babylonian Versions at present known. But in matter the\par Sumerian tradition is more primitive than any of the Semitic versions.\par In spite of the fact that the text appears to have reached us in a\par magical setting, and to some extent in epitomized form, this early\par document enables us to tap the stream of tradition at a point far\par above any at which approach has hitherto been possible.\par \par Though the resemblance of early Sumerian tradition to that of the\par Hebrews is striking, it furnishes a still closer parallel to the\par summaries preserved from the history of Berossus. The huge figures\par incorporated in the latter's chronological scheme are no longer to be\par treated as a product of Neo-Babylonian speculation; they reappear in\par their original surroundings in another of these early documents, the\par Sumerian Dynastic List. The sources of Berossus had inevitably been\par semitized by Babylon; but two of his three Antediluvian cities find\par their place among the five of primitive Sumerian belief, and two of\par his ten Antediluvian kings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes. Moreover,\par the recorded ages of Sumerian and Hebrew patriarchs are strangely\par alike. It may be added that in Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo\par Stele has enabled us to verify, by a very similar comparison, the\par accuracy of Manetho's sources for his prehistoric period, while at the\par same time it demonstrates the way in which possible inaccuracies in\par his system, deduced from independent evidence, may have arisen in\par remote antiquity. It is clear that both Hebrew and Hellenistic\par traditions were modelled on very early lines.\par \par Thus our new material enables us to check the age, and in some measure\par the accuracy, of the traditions concerning the dawn of history which\par the Greeks reproduced from native sources, both in Babylonia and\par Egypt, after the conquests of Alexander had brought the Near East\par within the range of their intimate acquaintance. The third body of\par tradition, that of the Hebrews, though unbacked by the prestige of\par secular achievement, has, through incorporation in the canons of two\par great religious systems, acquired an authority which the others have\par not enjoyed. In re-examining the sources of all three accounts, so far\par as they are affected by the new discoveries, it will be of interest to\par observe how the same problems were solved in antiquity by very\par different races, living under widely divergent conditions, but within\par easy reach of one another. Their periods of contact, ascertained in\par history or suggested by geographical considerations, will prompt the\par further question to what extent each body of belief was evolved in\par independence of the others. The close correspondence that has long\par been recognized and is now confirmed between the Hebrew and the\par Semitic-Babylonian systems, as compared with that of Egypt, naturally\par falls within the scope of our enquiry.\par \par Excavation has provided an extraordinarily full archaeological\par commentary to the legends of Egypt and Babylon; and when I received\par the invitation to deliver the Schweich Lectures for 1916, I was\par reminded of the terms of the Bequest and was asked to emphasize the\par archaeological side of the subject. Such material illustration was\par also calculated to bring out, in a more vivid manner than was possible\par with purely literary evidence, the contrasts and parallels presented\par by Hebrew tradition. Thanks to a special grant for photographs from\par the British Academy, I was enabled to illustrate by means of lantern\par slides many of the problems discussed in the lectures; and it was\par originally intended that the photographs then shown should appear as\par plates in this volume. But in view of the continued and increasing\par shortage of paper, it was afterwards felt to be only right that all\par illustrations should be omitted. This very necessary decision has\par involved a recasting of certain sections of the lectures as delivered,\par which in its turn has rendered possible a fuller treatment of the new\par literary evidence. To the consequent shifting of interest is also due\par a transposition of names in the title. On their literary side, and in\par virtue of the intimacy of their relation to Hebrew tradition, the\par legends of Babylon must be given precedence over those of Egypt.\par \par For the delay in the appearance of the volume I must plead the\par pressure of other work, on subjects far removed from archaeological\par study and affording little time and few facilities for a continuance\par of archaeological and textual research. It is hoped that the insertion\par of references throughout, and the more detailed discussion of problems\par suggested by our new literary material, may incline the reader to add\par his indulgence to that already extended to me by the British Academy.\par \par L. W. KING.\b0\fs17\par \par \par \par \par \par \par } ˜˜†eM1{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17\par \par \par \par \pard\qc \b\fs24 LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\par IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\par \par BY\par \par LEONARD W. KING, M.A., LITT.D., F.S.A.\par \par Assistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities\par in the British Museum\par Professor in the University of London\par King's College\par \par \par \par THE SCHWEICH LECTURES\par 1916\par \pard\b0\fs17\par \par \par \par \par } Þ\Þ‚»Z„÷53{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\par IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION\par \par \par \par LECTURE I\par \par EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME\par TRADITIONAL ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION\par \par At the present moment most of us have little time or thought to spare\par for subjects not connected directly or indirectly with the war. We\par have put ¹ò2{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\ aside our own interests and studies; and after the war we\par shall all have a certain amount of leeway to make up in acquainting\par ourselves with what has been going on in countries not yet involved in\par the great struggle. Meanwhile the most we can do is to glance for a\par moment at any discovery of exceptional interest that may come to\par light.\par \par The main object of these lectures will be to examine certain Hebrew\par traditions in the light of new evidence which has been published in\par America since the outbreak of the war. The evidence is furnished by\par some literary texts, inscribed on tablets from Nippur, one of the\par oldest and most sacred cities of Babylonia. They are written in\par Sumerian, the language spoken by the non-Semitic people whom the\par Semitic Babylonians conquered and displaced; and they include a very\par primitive version of the Deluge story and Creation myth, and some\par texts which throw new light on the age of Babylonian civilization and\par on the area within which it had its rise. In them we have recovered\par some of the material from which Berossus derived his dynasty of\par Antediluvian kings, and we are thus enabled to test the accuracy of\par the Greek tradition by that of the Sumerians themselves. So far then\par as Babylonia is concerned, these documents will necessitate a\par re-examination of more than one problem.\par \par The myths and legends of ancient Egypt are also to some extent\par involved. The trend of much recent anthropological research has been\par in the direction of seeking a single place of origin for similar\par beliefs and practices, at least among races which were bound to one\par another by political or commercial ties. And we shall have occasion to\par test, by means of our new data, a recent theory of Egyptian influence.\par The Nile Valley was, of course, one the great centres from which\par civilization radiated throughout the ancient East; and, even when\par direct contact is unproved, Egyptian literature may furnish\par instructive parallels and contrasts in any study of Western Asiatic\par mythology. Moreover, by a strange coincidence, there has also been\par published in Egypt since the beginning of the war a record referring\par to the reigns of predynastic rulers in the Nile Valley. This, like\par some of the Nippur texts, takes us back to that dim period before the\par dawn of actual history, and, though the information it affords is not\par detailed like theirs, it provides fresh confirmation of the general\par accuracy of Manetho's sources, and suggests some interesting points\par for comparison.\par \par But the people with whose traditions we are ultimately concerned are\par the Hebrews. In the first series of Schweich Lectures, delivered in\par the year 1908, the late Canon Driver showed how the literature of\par Assyria and Babylon had thrown light upon Hebrew traditions concerning\par the origin and early history of the world. The majority of the\par cuneiform documents, on which he based his comparison, date from a\par period no earlier than the seventh century B.C., and yet it was clear\par that the texts themselves, in some form or other, must have descended\par from a remote antiquity. He concluded his brief reference to the\par Creation and Deluge Tablets with these words: "The Babylonian\par narratives are both polytheistic, while the corresponding biblical\par narratives (Gen. i and vi-xi) are made the vehicle of a pure and\par exalted monotheism; but in spite of this fundamental difference, and\par also variations in detail, the resemblances are such as to leave no\par doubt that the Hebrew cosmogony and the Hebrew story of the Deluge are\par both derived ultimately from the same original as the Babylonian\par narratives, only transformed by the magic touch of Israel's religion,\par and infused by it with a new spirit."[1] Among the recently published\par documents from Nippur we have at last recovered one at least of those\par primitive originals from which the Babylonian accounts were derived,\par while others prove the existence of variant stories of the world's\par origin and early history which have not survived in the later\par cuneiform texts. In some of these early Sumerian records we may trace\par a faint but remarkable parallel with the Hebrew traditions of man's\par history between his Creation and the Flood. It will be our task, then,\par to examine the relations which the Hebrew narratives bear both to the\par early Sumerian and to the later Babylonian Versions, and to ascertain\par how far the new discoveries support or modify current views with\par regard to the contents of those early chapters of Genesis.\par \par [1] Driver, /Modern Research as illustrating the Bible/ (The Schweich\par Lectures, 1908), p. 23.\par \par I need not remind you that Genesis is the book of Hebrew origins, and\par that its contents mark it off to some extent from the other books of\par the Hebrew Bible. The object of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua\par is to describe in their origin the fundamental institutions of the\par national faith and to trace from the earliest times the course of\par events which led to the Hebrew settlement in Palestine. Of this\par national history the Book of Genesis forms the introductory section.\par Four centuries of complete silence lie between its close and the\par beginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history of a nation as\par contrasted with that of a family.[1] While Exodus and the succeeding\par books contain national traditions, Genesis is largely made up of\par individual biography. Chapters xii-l are concerned with the immediate\par ancestors of the Hebrew race, beginning with Abram's migration into\par Canaan and closing with Joseph's death in Egypt. But the aim of the\par book is not confined to recounting the ancestry of Israel. It seeks\par also to show her relation to other peoples in the world, and probing\par still deeper into the past it describes how the earth itself was\par prepared for man's habitation. Thus the patriarchal biographies are\par preceded, in chapters i-xi, by an account of the original of the\par world, the beginnings of civilization, and the distribution of the\par various races of mankind. It is, of course, with certain parts of this\par first group of chapters that such striking parallels have long been\par recognized in the cuneiform texts.\par \par [1] Cf., e.g., Skinner, /A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on\par Genesis/ (1912), p. ii f.; Driver, /The Book of Genesis/, 10th ed.\par (1916), pp. 1 ff.; Ryle, /The Book of Genesis/ (1914), pp. x ff.\par \par In approaching this particular body of Hebrew traditions, the\par necessity for some caution will be apparent. It is not as though we\par were dealing with the reported beliefs of a Malayan or Central\par Australian tribe. In such a case there would be no difficulty in\par applying a purely objective criticism, without regard to ulterior\par consequences. But here our own feelings are involved, having their\par roots deep in early associations. The ground too is well trodden; and,\par had there been no new material to discuss, I think I should have\par preferred a less contentious theme. The new material is my\par justification for the choice of subject, and also the fact that,\par whatever views we may hold, it will be necessary for us to assimilate\par it to them. I shall have no hesitation in giving you my own reading of\par the evidence; but at the same time it will be possible to indicate\par solutions which will probably appeal to those who view the subject\par from more conservative standpoints. That side of the discussion may\par well be postponed until after the examination of the new evidence in\par detail. And first of all it will be advisable to clear up some general\par aspects of the problem, and to define the limits within which our\par criticism may be applied.\par \par It must be admitted that both Egypt and Babylon bear a bad name in\par Hebrew tradition. Both are synonymous with captivity, the symbols of\par suffering endured at the beginning and at the close of the national\par life. And during the struggle against Assyrian aggression, the\par disappointment at the failure of expected help is reflected in\par prophecies of the period. These great crises in Hebrew history have\par tended to obscure in the national memory the part which both Babylon\par and Egypt may have played in moulding the civilization of the smaller\par nations with whom they came in contact. To such influence the races of\par Syria were, by geographical position, peculiarly subject. The country\par has often been compared to a bridge between the two great continents\par of Asia and Africa, flanked by the sea on one side and the desert on\par the other, a narrow causeway of highland and coastal plain connecting\par the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates.[1] For, except on the\par frontier of Egypt, desert and sea do not meet. Farther north the\par Arabian plateau is separated from the Mediterranean by a double\par mountain chain, which runs south from the Taurus at varying\par elevations, and encloses in its lower course the remarkable depression\par of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and the `Arabah. The Judaean hills\par and the mountains of Moab are merely the southward prolongation of the\par Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and their neighbourhood to the sea endows\par this narrow tract of habitable country with its moisture and\par fertility. It thus formed the natural channel of intercourse between\par the two earliest centres of civilization, and was later the battle-\par ground of their opposing empires.\par \par [1] See G. A. Smith, /Historical Geography of the Holy Land/, pp. 5\par ff., 45 ff., and Myres, /Dawn of History/, pp. 137 ff.; and cf.\par Hogarth, /The Nearer East/, pp. 65 ff., and Reclus, /Nouvelle\par G\'e9ographie universelle/, t. IX, pp. 685 ff.\par \par The great trunk-roads of through communication run north and south,\par across the eastern plateaus of the Haur\'e2n and Moab, and along the\par coastal plains. The old highway from Egypt, which left the Delta at\par Pelusium, at first follows the coast, then trends eastward across the\par plain of Esdraelon, which breaks the coastal range, and passing under\par Hermon runs northward through Damascus and reaches the Euphrates at\par its most westerly point. Other through tracks in Palestine ran then as\par they do to-day, by Beesheba and Hebron, or along the `Arabah and west\par of the Dead Sea, or through Edom and east of Jordan by the present\par Hajj route to Damascus. But the great highway from Egypt, the most\par westerly of the trunk-roads through Palestine, was that mainly\par followed, with some variant sections, by both caravans and armies, and\par was known by the Hebrews in its southern course as the "Way of the\par Philistines" and farther north as the "Way of the East".\par \par The plain of Esraelon, where the road first trends eastward, has been\par the battle-ground for most invaders of Palestine from the north, and\par though Egyptian armies often fought in the southern coastal plain,\par they too have battled there when they held the southern country.\par Megiddo, which commands the main pass into the plain through the low\par Samaritan hills to the southeast of Carmel, was the site of Thothmes\par III's famous battle against a Syrian confederation, and it inspired\par the writer of the Apocalypse with his vision of an Armageddon of the\par future. But invading armies always followed the beaten track of\par caravans, and movements represented by the great campaigns were\par reflected in the daily passage of international commerce.\par \par With so much through traffic continually passing within her borders,\par it may be matter for surprise that far more striking evidence of its\par cultural effect should not have been revealed by archaeological\par research in Palestine. Here again the explanation is mainly of a\par geographical character. For though the plains and plateaus could be\par crossed by the trunk-roads, the rest of the country is so broken up by\par mountain and valley that it presented few facilities either to foreign\par penetration or to external control. The physical barriers to local\par intercourse, reinforced by striking differences in soil, altitude, and\par climate, while they precluded Syria herself from attaining national\par unity, always tended to protect her separate provinces, or "kingdoms,"\par from the full effects of foreign aggression. One city-state could be\par traversed, devastated, or annexed, without in the least degree\par affecting neighbouring areas. It is true that the population of Syria\par has always been predominantly Semitic, for she was on the fringe of\par the great breeding-ground of the Semitic race and her landward\par boundary was open to the Arabian nomad. Indeed, in the whole course of\par her history the only race that bade fair at one time to oust the\par Semite in Syria was the Greek. But the Greeks remained within the\par cities which they founded or rebuilt, and, as Robertson Smith pointed\par out, the death-rate in Eastern cities habitually exceeds the birth-\par rate; the urban population must be reinforced from the country if it\par is to be maintained, so that the type of population is ultimately\par determined by the blood of the peasantry.[1] Hence after the Arab\par conquest the Greek elements in Syria and Palestine tended rapidly to\par disappear. The Moslem invasion was only the last of a series of\par similar great inroads, which have followed one another since the dawn\par of history, and during all that time absorption was continually taking\par place from desert tribes that ranged the Syrian border. As we have\par seen, the country of his adoption was such as to encourage the Semitic\par nomad's particularism, which was inherent in his tribal organization.\par Thus the predominance of a single racial element in the population of\par Palestine and Syria did little to break down or overstep the natural\par barriers and lines of cleavage.\par \par [1] See Robertson Smith, /Religion of the Semites/, p. 12 f.; and cf.\par Smith, /Hist. Geogr./, p. 10 f.\par \par These facts suffice to show why the influence of both Egypt and\par Babylon upon the various peoples and kingdoms of Palestine was only\par intensified at certain periods, when ambition for extended empire\par dictated the reduction of her provinces in detail. But in the long\par intervals, during which there was no attempt to enforce political\par control, regular relations were maintained along the lines of trade\par and barter. And in any estimate of the possible effect of foreign\par influence upon Hebrew thought, it is important to realize that some of\par the channels through which in later periods it may have acted had been\par flowing since the dawn of history, and even perhaps in prehistoric\par times. It is probable that Syria formed one of the links by which we\par may explain the Babylonian elements that are attested in prehistoric\par Egyptian culture.[1] But another possible line of advance may have\par been by way of Arabia and across the Red Sea into Upper Egypt.\par \par [1] Cf. /Sumer and Akkad/, pp. 322 ff.; and for a full discussion of\par the points of resemblance between the early Babylonian and\par Egyptian civilizations, see Sayce, /The Archaeology of the\par Cuneiform Inscriptions/, chap. iv, pp. 101 ff.\par \par The latter line of contact is suggested by an interesting piece of\par evidence that has recently been obtained. A prehistoric flint knife,\par with a handle carved from the tooth of a hippopotamus, has been\par purchased lately by the Louvre,[1] and is said to have been found at\par Gebel el-`Arak near Naga` Ham\'e2di, which lies on the Nile not far below\par Koptos, where an ancient caravan-track leads by W\'e2di Hamm\'e2m\'e2t to the\par Red Sea. On one side of the handle is a battle-scene including some\par remarkable representations of ancient boats. All the warriors are nude\par with the exception of a loin girdle, but, while one set of combatants\par have shaven heads or short hair, the others have abundant locks\par falling in a thick mass upon the shoulder. On the other face of the\par handle is carved a hunting scene, two hunters with dogs and desert\par animals being arranged around a central boss. But in the upper field\par is a very remarkable group, consisting of a personage struggling with\par two lions arranged symmetrically. The rest of the composition is not\par very unlike other examples of prehistoric Egyptian carving in low\par relief, but here attitude, figure, and clothing are quite un-Egyptian.\par The hero wears a sort of turban on his abundant hair, and a full and\par rounded beard descends upon his breast. A long garment clothes him\par from the waist and falls below the knees, his muscular calves ending\par in the claws of a bird of prey. There is nothing like this in\par prehistoric Egyptian art.\par \par [1] See B\'e9n\'e9dite, "Le couteau de Gebel al-`Arak", in /Foundation\par Eug\'e8ne Piot, Mon. et. M\'e9m./, XXII. i. (1916).\par \par Perhaps Monsieur B\'e9n\'e9dite is pressing his theme too far when he\par compares the close-cropped warriors on the handle with the shaven\par Sumerians and Elamites upon steles from Telloh and Susa, for their\par loin-girdles are African and quite foreign to the Euphrates Valley.\par And his suggestion that two of the boats, flat-bottomed and with high\par curved ends, seem only to have navigated the Tigris and Euphrates,[1]\par will hardly command acceptance. But there is no doubt that the heroic\par personage upon the other face is represented in the familiar attitude\par of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh struggling with lions, which formed\par so favourite a subject upon early Sumerian and Babylonian seals. His\par garment is Sumerian or Semitic rather than Egyptian, and the mixture\par of human and bird elements in the figure, though not precisely\par paralleled at this early period, is not out of harmony with\par Mesopotamian or Susan tradition. His beard, too, is quite different\par from that of the Libyan desert tribes which the early Egyptian kings\par adopted. Though the treatment of the lions is suggestive of proto-\par Elamite rather than of early Babylonian models, the design itself is\par unmistakably of Mesopotamian origin. This discovery intensifies the\par significance of other early parallels that have been noted between the\par civilizations of the Euphrates and the Nile, but its evidence, so far\par as it goes, does not point to Syria as the medium of prehistoric\par intercourse. Yet then, as later, there can have been no physical\par barrier to the use of the river-route from Mesopotamia into Syria and\par of the tracks thence southward along the land-bridge to the Nile's\par delta.\par \par [1] Op. cit., p. 32.\par \par I n the early historic periods we have definite evidence that the\par eastern coast of the Levant exercised a strong fascination upon the\par rulers of both Egypt and Babylonia. It may be admitted that Syria had\par little to give in comparison to what she could borrow, but her local\par trade in wine and oil must have benefited by an increase in the\par through traffic which followed the working of copper in Cyprus and\par Sinai and of silver in the Taurus. Moreover, in the cedar forests of\par Lebanon and the north she possessed a product which was highly valued\par both in Egypt and the treeless plains of Babylonia. The cedars\par procured by Sneferu from Lebanon at the close of the IIIrd Dynasty\par were doubtless floated as rafts down the coast, and we may see in them\par evidence of a regular traffic in timber. It has long been known that\par the early Babylonian king Sharru-kin, or Sargon of Akkad, had pressed\par up the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and we now have information\par th!at he too was fired by a desire for precious wood and metal. One of\par the recently published Nippur inscriptions contains copies of a number\par of his texts, collected by an ancient scribe from his statues at\par Nippur, and from these we gather additional details of his campaigns.\par We learn that after his complete subjugation of Southern Babylonia he\par turned his attention to the west, and that Enlil gave him the lands\par "from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea", i.e. from the Mediterranean to\par the Persian Gulf. Fortunately this rather vague phrase, which survived\par in later tradition, is restated in greater detail in one of the\par contemporary versions, which records that Enlil "gave him the upper\par land, Mari, Iarmuti, and Ibla, as far as the Cedar Forest and the\par Silver Mountains".[1]\par \par [1] See Poebel, /Historical Texts/ (Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab.\par Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, 1914), pp. 177 f., 222 ff.\par \par Mari was a city on the middle Euphrates, b"ut the name may here signify\par the district of Mari which lay in the upper course of Sargon's march.\par Now we know that the later Sumerian monarch Gudea obtained his cedar\par beams from the Amanus range, which he names /Amanum/ and describes as\par the "cedar mountains".[1] Doubtless he felled his trees on the eastern\par slopes of the mountain. But we may infer from his texts that Sargon\par actually reached the coast, and his "Cedar Forest" may have lain\par farther to the south, perhaps as far south as the Lebanon. The "Silver\par Mountains" can only be identified with the Taurus, where silver mines\par were worked in antiquity. The reference to Iarmuti is interesting, for\par it is clearly the same place as Iarimuta or Iarimmuta, of which we\par find mention in the Tell el-Amarna letters. From the references to\par this district in the letters of Rib-Adda, governor of Byblos, we may\par infer that it was a level district on the coast, capable of producing\par a considerable quantity# of grain for export, and that it was under\par Egyptian control at the time of Amenophis IV. Hitherto its position\par has been conjecturally placed in the Nile Delta, but from Sargon's\par reference we must probably seek it on the North Syrian or possibly the\par Cilician coast. Perhaps, as Dr. Poebel suggests, it was the plain of\par Antioch, along the lower course and at the mouth of the Orontes. But\par his further suggestion that the term is used by Sargon for the whole\par stretch of country between the sea and the Euphrates is hardly\par probable. For the geographical references need not be treated as\par exhaustive, but as confined to the more important districts through\par which the expedition passed. The district of Ibla which is also\par mentioned by Nar\'e2m-Sin and Gudea, lay probably to the north of\par Iarmuti, perhaps on the southern slopes of Taurus. It, too, we may\par regard as a district of restricted extent rather than as a general\par geographical term for the extreme$ north of Syria.\par \par [1] Thureau-Dangin, /Les inscriptions de Sumer de d'Akkad/, p. 108 f.,\par Statue B, col. v. 1. 28; Germ. ed., p. 68 f.\par \par It is significant that Sargon does not allude to any battle when\par describing this expedition, nor does he claim to have devastated the\par western countries.[1] Indeed, most of these early expeditions to the\par west appear to have been inspired by motives of commercial enterprise\par rather than of conquest. But increase of wealth was naturally followed\par by political expansion, and Egypt's dream of an Asiatic empire was\par realized by Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty. The fact that Babylonian\par should then have been adopted as the medium of official intercourse in\par Syria points to the closeness of the commercial ties which had already\par united the Euphrates Valley with the west. Egyptian control had passed\par from Canaan at the time of the Hebrew settlement, which was indeed a\par comparatively late episode in the earl%y history of Syria. Whether or\par not we identify the Khabiri with the Hebrews, the character of the\par latter's incursion is strikingly illustrated by some of the Tell\par el-Amarna letters. We see a nomad folk pressing in upon settled\par peoples and gaining a foothold here and there.[2]\par \par [1] In some versions of his new records Sargon states that "5,400 men\par daily eat bread before him" (see Poebel, op. cit., p. 178); though\par the figure may be intended to convey an idea of the size of\par Sargon's court, we may perhaps see in it a not inaccurate estimate\par of the total strength of his armed forces.\par \par [2] See especially Professor Burney's forthcoming commentary on Judges\par (passim), and his forthcoming Schweich Lectures (now delivered, in\par 1917).\par \par The great change from desert life consists in the adoption of\par agriculture, and when once that was made by the Hebrews any further\par advance in economic development was dictated& by their new\par surroundings. The same process had been going on, as we have seen, in\par Syria since the dawn of history, the Semitic nomad passing gradually\par through the stages of agricultural and village life into that of the\par city. The country favoured the retention of tribal exclusiveness, but\par ultimate survival could only be purchased at the cost of some\par amalgamation with their new neighbours. Below the surface of Hebrew\par history these two tendencies may be traced in varying action and\par reaction. Some sections of the race engaged readily in the social and\par commercial life of Canaanite civilization with its rich inheritance\par from the past. Others, especially in the highlands of Judah and the\par south, at first succeeded in keeping themselves remote from foreign\par influence. During the later periods of the national life the country\par was again subjected, and in an intensified degree, to those forces of\par political aggression from Mesopotamia and Egypt wh'ich we have already\par noted as operating in Canaan. But throughout the settled Hebrew\par community as a whole the spark of desert fire was not extinguished,\par and by kindling the zeal of the Prophets it eventually affected nearly\par all the white races of mankind.\par \par In his Presidential Address before the British Association at\par Newcastle,[1] Sir Arthur Evans emphasized the part which recent\par archaeology has played in proving the continuity of human culture from\par the most remote periods. He showed how gaps in our knowledge had been\par bridged, and he traced the part which each great race had taken in\par increasing its inheritance. We have, in fact, ample grounds for\par assuming an interchange, not only of commercial products, but, in a\par minor degree, of ideas within areas geographically connected; and it\par is surely not derogatory to any Hebrew writer to suggest that he may\par have adopted, and used for his own purposes, conceptions current among\par his conte(mporaries. In other words, the vehicle of religious ideas may\par well be of composite origin; and, in the course of our study of early\par Hebrew tradition, I suggest that we hold ourselves justified in\par applying the comparative method to some at any rate of the ingredients\par which went to form the finished product. The process is purely\par literary, but it finds an analogy in the study of Semitic art,\par especially in the later periods. And I think it will make my meaning\par clearer if we consider for a moment a few examples of sculpture\par produced by races of Semitic origin. I do not suggest that we should\par regard the one process as in any way proving the existence of the\par other. We should rather treat the comparison as illustrating in\par another medium the effect of forces which, it is clear, were operative\par at various periods upon races of the same stock from which the Hebrews\par themselves were descended. In such material products the eye at once\par detects the Se)mite's readiness to avail himself of foreign models. In\par some cases direct borrowing is obvious; in others, to adapt a metaphor\par from music, it is possible to trace extraneous /motifs/ in the\par design.[2]\par \par [1] "New Archaeological Lights on the Origins of Civilization in\par Europe," British Association, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1916.\par \par [2] The necessary omission of plates, representing the slides shown in\par the lectures, has involved a recasting of most passages in which\par points of archaeological detail were discussed; see Preface. But\par the following paragraphs have been retained as the majority of the\par monuments referred to are well known.\par \par Some of the most famous monuments of Semitic art date from the Persian\par and Hellenistic periods, and if we glance at them in this connexion it\par is in order to illustrate during its most obvious phase a tendency of\par which the earlier effects are less pronounced. In the sarcophagus of\par * the Sidonian king Eshmu-`azar II, which is preserved in the Louvre,[1]\par we have indeed a monument to which no Semitic sculptor can lay claim.\par Workmanship and material are Egyptian, and there is no doubt that it\par was sculptured in Egypt and transported to Sidon by sea. But the\par king's own engravers added the long Phoenician inscription, in which\par he adjures princes and men not to open his resting-place since there\par are no jewels therein, concluding with some potent curses against any\par violation of his tomb. One of the latter implores the holy gods to\par deliver such violators up "to a mighty prince who shall rule over\par them", and was probably suggested by Alexander's recent occupation of\par Sidon in 332 B.C. after his reduction and drastic punishment of Tyre.\par King Eshmun-`zar was not unique in his choice of burial in an Egyptian\par coffin, for he merely followed the example of his royal father,\par Tabn\'eeth, "priest of `Ashtart and king of the Sidonians", who+se\par sarcophagus, preserved at Constantinople, still bears in addition to\par his own epitaph that of its former occupant, a certain Egyptian\par general Penptah. But more instructive than these borrowed memorials is\par a genuine example of Phoenician work, the stele set up by Yehaw-milk,\par king of Byblos, and dating from the fourth or fifth century B.C.[2] In\par the sculptured panel at the head of the stele the king is represented\par in the Persian dress of the period standing in the presence of\par `Ashtart or Astarte, his "Lady, Mistress of Byblos". There is no doubt\par that the stele is of native workmanship, but the influence of Egypt\par may be seen in the technique of the carving, in the winged disk above\par the figures, and still more in the representation of the goddess in\par her character as the Egyptian Hathor, with disk and horns, vulture\par head-dress and papyrus-sceptre. The inscription records the dedication\par of an altar and shrine to the goddess, and these too w,e may conjecture\par were fashioned on Egyptian lines.\par \par [1] /Corp. Inscr. Semit./, I. i, tab. II.\par \par [2] /C.I.S./, I. i, tab. I.\par \par The representation of Semitic deities under Egyptian forms and with\par Egyptian attributes was encouraged by the introduction of their cults\par into Egypt itself. In addition to Astarte of Byblos, Ba`al, Anath, and\par Reshef were all borrowed from Syria in comparatively early times and\par given Egyptian characters. The conical Syrian helmet of Reshef, a god\par of war and thunder, gradually gave place to the white Egyptian crown,\par so that as Reshpu he was represented as a royal warrior; and Qadesh,\par another form of Astarte, becoming popular with Egyptian women as a\par patroness of love and fecundity, was also sometimes modelled on\par Hathor.[1]\par \par [1] See W. Max M\'fcller, /Egyptological Researches/, I, p. 32 f., pl.\par 41, and S. A. Cook, /Religion of Ancient Palestine/, pp. 83 ff.\par \par Semitic colonists on -the Egyptian border were ever ready to adopt\par Egyptian symbolism in delineating the native gods to whom they owed\par allegiance, and a particularly striking example of this may be seen on\par a stele of the Persian period preserved in the Cairo Museum.[1] It was\par found at Tell Defenneh, on the right bank of the Pelusiac branch of\par the Nile, close to the old Egyptian highway into Syria, a site which\par may be identified with that of the biblical Tahpanhes and the Daphnae\par of the Greeks. Here it was that the Jewish fugitives, fleeing with\par Jeremiah after the fall of Jerusalem, founded a Jewish colony beside a\par flourishing Phoenician and Aramaean settlement. One of the local gods\par of Tahpanhes is represented on the Cairo monument, an Egyptian stele\par in the form of a naos with the winged solar disk upon its frieze. He\par stands on the back of a lion and is clothed in Asiatic costume with\par the high Syrian tiara crowning his abundant hair. The Syrian\par workmanship i.s obvious, and the Syrian character of the cult may be\par recognized in such details as the small brazen fire-altar before the\par god, and the sacred pillar which is being anointed by the officiating\par priest. But the god holds in his left hand a purely Egyptian sceptre\par and in his right an emblem as purely Babylonian, the weapon of Marduk\par and Gilgamesh which was also wielded by early Sumerian kings.\par \par [1] M\'fcller, op. cit., p. 30 f., pl. 40. Numismatic evidence exhibits a\par similar readiness on the part of local Syrian cults to adopt the\par veneer of Hellenistic civilization while retaining in great\par measure their own individuality; see Hill, "Some Palestinian Cults\par in the Graeco-Roman Age", in /Proceedings of the British Academy/,\par Vol. V (1912).\par \par The Elephantine papyri have shown that the early Jews of the Diaspora,\par though untrammeled by the orthodoxy of Jerusalem, maintained the\par purity of their local cult in the face /of considerable difficulties.\par Hence the gravestones of their Aramaean contemporaries, which have\par been found in Egypt, can only be cited to illustrate the temptations\par to which they were exposed.[1] Such was the memorial erected by Abseli\par to the memory of his parents, Abb\'e2 and Ahatb\'fb, in the fourth year of\par Xerxes, 481 B.C.[2] They had evidently adopted the religion of Osiris,\par and were buried at Saqq\'e2rah in accordance with the Egyptian rites. The\par upper scene engraved upon the stele represents Abb\'e2 and his wife in\par the presence of Osiris, who is attended by Isis and Nephthys; and in\par the lower panel is the funeral scene, in which all the mourners with\par one exception are Asiatics. Certain details of the rites that are\par represented, and mistakes in the hieroglyphic version of the text,\par prove that the work is Aramaean throughout.[3]\par \par [1] It may be admitted that the Greek platonized cult of Isis and\par Osiris had its origin in the0 fusion of Greeks and Egyptians which\par took place in Ptolemaic times (cf. Scott-Moncrieff, /Paganism and\par Christianity in Egypt/, p. 33 f.). But we may assume that already\par in the Persian period the Osiris cult had begun to acquire a tinge\par of mysticism, which, though it did not affect the mechanical\par reproduction of the native texts, appealed to the Oriental mind as\par well as to certain elements in Greek religion. Persian influence\par probably prepared the way for the Platonic exegesis of the Osiris\par and Isis legends which we find in Plutarch; and the latter may\par have been in great measure a development, and not, as is often\par assumed, a complete misunderstanding of the later Egyptian cult.\par \par [2] /C.I.S./, II. i, tab. XI, No. 122.\par \par [3] A very similar monument is the Carpentras Stele (/C.I.S./, II., i,\par tab. XIII, No. 141), commemorating Taba, daughter of Tahapi, an\par Aramaean lady who was also a 1convert to Osiris. It is rather later\par than that of Abb\'e2 and his wife, since the Aramaic characters are\par transitional from the archaic to the square alphabet; see Driver,\par /Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel/, pp. xviii ff.,\par and Cooke, /North Semitic Inscriptions/, p. 205 f. The Vatican\par Stele (op. cit. tab. XIV. No. 142), which dates from the fourth\par century, represents inferior work.\par \par If our examples of Semitic art were confined to the Persian and later\par periods, they could only be employed to throw light on their own\par epoch, when through communication had been organized, and there was\par consequently a certain pooling of commercial and artistic products\par throughout the empire.[1] It is true that under the Great King the\par various petty states and provinces were encouraged to manage their own\par affairs so long as they paid the required tribute, but their horizon\par naturally expanded with increase of commerc2e and the necessity for\par service in the king's armies. At this time Aramaic was the speech of\par Syria, and the population, especially in the cities, was still largely\par Aramaean. As early as the thirteenth century sections of this\par interesting Semitic race had begun to press into Northern Syria from\par the middle Euphrates, and they absorbed not only the old Canaanite\par population but also the Hittite immigrants from Cappadocia. The latter\par indeed may for a time have furnished rulers to the vigorous North\par Syrian principalities which resulted from this racial combination, but\par the Aramaean element, thanks to continual reinforcement, was\par numerically dominant, and their art may legitimately be regarded as in\par great measure a Semitic product. Fortunately we have recovered\par examples of sculpture which prove that tendencies already noted in the\par Persian period were at work, though in a minor degree, under the later\par Assyrian empire. The discoveries made at Zenjirli, for example,\par illustrate the gradually increasing effect of Assyrian influence upon\par the artistic output of a small North Syrian state.\par \par [1] Cf. Bevan, /House of Seleucus/, Vol. I, pp. 5, 260 f. The artistic\par influence of Mesopotamia was even more widely spread than that of\par Egypt during the Persian period. This is suggested, for example,\par by the famous lion-weight discovered at Abydos in Mysia, the town\par on the Hellespont famed for the loves of Hero and Leander. The\par letters of its Aramaic inscription (/C.I.S./, II. i, tab. VII, No.\par 108) prove by their form that it dates from the Persian period,\par and its provenance is sufficiently attested. Its weight moreover\par suggests that it was not merely a Babylonian or Persian\par importation, but cast for local use, yet in design and technique\par it is scarcely distinguishable from the best Assyrian work of the\par seventh century.\par \par \par \par } 4ch was fashioned and set up in his honour by Panammu I,\par son of Qaral and king of Ya'di.[1] In the long Aramaic inscription\par engraved upon the statue Panammu records the prosperity of his reign,\par which he ascribes to the support he has received from Hadad and his\par other gods, El, Reshef, Rekub-el, and Shamash. He had evidently been\par left in peace by Assyria, and the monument he erected to his god is of\par Aramaean workmanship and design. But the influence of Assyria may be\par traced in Hadad's beard and in his horned head-dress, modelled on that\par worn by Babylonian and Assyrian gods as the symbol of divine power.\par \par [1] See F. von Luschan, /Sendschirli/, I. (1893), pp. 49 ff., pl. vi;\par and cf. Cooke, /North Sem. Inscr./, pp. 159 ff. The characters of\par the inscription on the statue are of the same archaic type as\par those of the Moabite Stone, though unlike them they are engraved\par in relief; so too are the inscriptions of Panammu's later\par5 successor Bar-rekub (see below). Gerjin was certainly in Ya'di,\par and Winckler's suggestion that Zenjirli itself also lay in that\par district but near the border of Sam'al may be provisionally\par accepted; the occurrence of the names in the inscriptions can be\par explained in more than one way (see Cooke, op. cit., p. 183).\par \par The political changes introduced into Ya'di and Sam'al by Tiglath-\par pileser IV are reflected in the inscriptions and monuments of\par Bar-rekub, a later king of the district. Internal strife had brought\par disaster upon Ya'di and the throne had been secured by Panammu II, son\par of Bar-sur, whose claims received Assyrian support. In the words of\par his son Bar-rekub, "he laid hold of the skirt of his lord, the king of\par Assyria", who was gracious to him; and it was probably at this time,\par and as a reward for his loyalty, that Ya'di was united with the\par neighbouring district of Sam'al. But Panammu's devotion to his foreign\6par master led to his death, for he died at the siege of Damascus, in 733\par or 732 B.C., "in the camp, while following his lord, Tiglath-pileser,\par king of Assyria". His kinsfolk and the whole camp bewailed him, and\par his body was sent back to Ya'di, where it was interred by his son, who\par set up an inscribed statue to his memory. Bar-rekub followed in his\par father's footsteps, as he leads us to infer in his palace-inscription\par found at Zenjirli: "I ran at the wheel of my lord, the king of\par Assyria, in the midst of mighty kings, possessors of silver and\par possessors of gold." It is not strange therefore that his art should\par reflect Assyrian influence far more strikingly than that of Panammu I.\par The figure of himself which he caused to be carved in relief on the\par left side of the palace-inscription is in the Assyrian style,[1] and\par so too is another of his reliefs from Zenjirli. On the latter\par Bar-rekub is represented seated upon his throne with eunuch and scr7ibe\par in attendance, while in the field is the emblem of full moon and\par crescent, here ascribed to "Ba`al of Harran", the famous centre of\par moon-worship in Northern Mesopotamia.[2]\par \par [1] /Sendschirli/, IV (1911), pl. lxvii. Attitude and treatment of\par robes are both Assyrian, and so is the arrangement of divine\par symbols in the upper field, though some of the latter are given\par under unfamiliar forms. The king's close-fitting peaked cap was\par evidently the royal headdress of Sam'al; see the royal figure on a\par smaller stele of inferior design, op. cit., pl. lxvi.\par \par [2] Op. cit. pp. 257, 346 ff., and pl. lx. The general style of the\par sculpture and much of the detail are obviously Assyrian. Assyrian\par influence is particularly noticeable in Bar-rekub's throne; the\par details of its decoration are precisely similar to those of an\par Assyrian bronze throne in the British Museum. The full moon and\par crescent are n8ot of the familiar form, but are mounted on a\par standard with tassels.\par \par The detailed history and artistic development of Sam'al and Ya'di\par convey a very vivid impression of the social and material effects upon\par the native population of Syria, which followed the westward advance of\par Assyria in the eighth century. We realize not only the readiness of\par one party in the state to defeat its rival with the help of Assyrian\par support, but also the manner in which the life and activities of the\par nation as a whole were unavoidably affected by their action. Other\par Hittite-Aramaean and Phoenician monuments, as yet undocumented with\par literary records, exhibit a strange but not unpleasing mixture of\par foreign /motifs/, such as we see on the stele from Amrith[1] in the\par inland district of Arvad. But perhaps the most remarkable example of\par Syrian art we possess is the king's gate recently discovered at\par Carchemish.[2] The presence of the hieroglyphic inscrip9tions points to\par the survival of Hittite tradition, but the figures represented in the\par reliefs are of Aramaean, not Hittite, type. Here the king is seen\par leading his eldest son by the hand in some stately ceremonial, and\par ranged in registers behind them are the younger members of the royal\par family, whose ages are indicated by their occupations.[3] The\par employment of basalt in place of limestone does not disguise the\par sculptor's debt to Assyria. But the design is entirely his own, and\par the combined dignity and homeliness of the composition are\par refreshingly superior to the arrogant spirit and hard execution which\par mar so much Assyrian work. This example is particularly instructive,\par as it shows how a borrowed art may be developed in skilled hands and\par made to serve a purpose in complete harmony with its new environment.\par \par [1] /Collection de Clercq/, t. II, pl. xxxvi. The stele is sculptured\par in relief with the figure of a North Syrian god. H:ere the winged\par disk is Egyptian, as well as the god's helmet with uraeus, and his\par loin-cloth; his attitude and his supporting lion are Hittite; and\par the lozenge-mountains, on which the lion stands, and the technique\par of the carving are Assyrian. But in spite of its composite\par character the design is quite successful and not in the least\par incongruous.\par \par [2] Hogarth, /Carchemish/, Pt. I (1914), pl. B. 7 f.\par \par [3] Two of the older boys play at knuckle-bones, others whip spinning-\par tops, and a little naked girl runs behind supporting herself with\par a stick, on the head of which is carved a bird. The procession is\par brought up by the queen-mother, who carries the youngest baby and\par leads a pet lamb.\par \par Such monuments surely illustrate the adaptability of the Semitic\par craftsman among men of Phoenician and Aramaean strain. Excavation in\par Palestine has failed to furnish examples of Hebrew work. But Heb;rew\par tradition itself justifies us in regarding this /trait/ as of more\par general application, or at any rate as not repugnant to Hebrew\par thought, when it relates that Solomon employed Tyrian craftsmen for\par work upon the Temple and its furniture; for Phoenician art was\par essentially Egyptian in its origin and general character. Even Eshmun-\par `zar's desire for burial in an Egyptian sarcophagus may be paralleled\par in Hebrew tradition of a much earlier period, when, in the last verse\par of Genesis,[1] it is recorded that Joseph died, "and they embalmed\par him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt". Since it formed the subject\par of prophetic denunciation, I refrain for the moment from citing the\par notorious adoption of Assyrian customs at certain periods of the later\par Judaean monarchy. The two records I have referred to will suffice, for\par we have in them cherished traditions, of which the Hebrews themselves\par were proud, concerning the most famous example of Hebrew< religious\par architecture and the burial of one of the patriarchs of the race. A\par similar readiness to make use of the best available resources, even of\par foreign origin, may on analogy be regarded as at least possible in the\par composition of Hebrew literature.\par \par [1] Gen. l. 26, assigned by critics to E.\par \par We shall see that the problems we have to face concern the possible\par influence of Babylon, rather than of Egypt, upon Hebrew tradition. And\par one last example, drawn from the later period, will serve to\par demonstrate how Babylonian influence penetrated the ancient world and\par has even left some trace upon modern civilization. It is a fact,\par though one perhaps not generally realized, that the twelve divisions\par on the dials of our clocks and watches have a Babylonian, and\par ultimately a Sumerian, ancestry. For why is it we divide the day into\par twenty-four hours? We have a decimal system of reckoning, we count by\par tens; why then should we divi=de the day and night into twelve hours\par each, instead of into ten or some multiple of ten? The reason is that\par the Babylonians divided the day into twelve double-hours; and the\par Greeks took over their ancient system of time-division along with\par their knowledge of astronomy and passed it on to us. So if we\par ourselves, after more than two thousand years, are making use of an\par old custom from Babylon, it would not be surprising if the Hebrews, a\par contemporary race, should have fallen under her influence even before\par they were carried away as captives and settled forcibly upon her\par river-banks.\par \par We may pass on, then, to the site from which our new material has been\par obtained--the ancient city of Nippur, in central Babylonia. Though the\par place has been deserted for at least nine hundred years, its ancient\par name still lingers on in local tradition, and to this day /Niffer/ or\par /Nuffar/ is the name the Arabs give the mounds which cover its\par extens>ive ruins. No modern town or village has been built upon them or\par in their immediate neighbourhood. The nearest considerable town is\par D\'eew\'e2n\'eeyah, on the left bank of the Hillah branch of the Euphrates,\par twenty miles to the south-west; but some four miles to the south of\par the ruins is the village of S\'fbq el-`Afej, on the eastern edge of the\par `Afej marshes, which begin to the south of Nippur and stretch away\par westward. Protected by its swamps, the region contains a few primitive\par settlements of the wild `Afej tribesmen, each a group of reed-huts\par clustering around the mud fort of its ruling sheikh. Their chief\par enemies are the Shamm\'e2r, who dispute with them possession of the\par pastures. In summer the marshes near the mounds are merely pools of\par water connected by channels through the reed-beds, but in spring the\par flood-water converts them into a vast lagoon, and all that meets the\par eye are a few small hamlets built on rising knolls above the wa?ter-\par level. Thus Nippur may be almost isolated during the floods, but the\par mounds are protected from the waters' encroachment by an outer ring of\par former habitation which has slightly raised the level of the\par encircling area. The ruins of the city stand from thirty to seventy\par feet above the plain, and in the north-eastern corner there rose,\par before the excavations, a conical mound, known by the Arabs as /Bint\par el-Em\'eer/ or "The Princess". This prominent landmark represents the\par temple-tower of Enlil's famous sanctuary, and even after excavation it\par is still the first object that the approaching traveller sees on the\par horizon. When he has climbed its summit he enjoys an uninterrupted\par view over desert and swamp.\par \par The cause of Nippur's present desolation is to be traced to the change\par in the bed of the Euphrates, which now lies far to the west. But in\par antiquity the stream flowed through the centre of the city, along the\par dry bed of the S@hatt en-N\'eel, which divides the mounds into an eastern\par and a western group. The latter covers the remains of the city proper\par and was occupied in part by the great business-houses and bazaars.\par Here more than thirty thousand contracts and accounts, dating from the\par fourth millennium to the fifth century B.C., were found in houses\par along the former river-bank. In the eastern half of the city was\par Enlil's great temple Ekur, with its temple-tower Imkharsag rising in\par successive stages beside it. The huge temple-enclosure contained not\par only the sacrificial shrines, but also the priests' apartments, store-\par chambers, and temple-magazines. Outside its enclosing wall, to the\par south-west, a large triangular mound, christened "Tablet Hill" by the\par excavators, yielded a further supply of records. In addition to\par business-documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon and of the later\par Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian periods, between two and three\par thousanAd literary texts and fragments were discovered here, many of\par them dating from the Sumerian period. And it is possible that some of\par the early literary texts that have been published were obtained in\par other parts of the city.\par \par No less than twenty-one different strata, representing separate\par periods of occupation, have been noted by the American excavators at\par various levels within the Nippur mounds,[1] the earliest descending to\par virgin soil some twenty feet below the present level of the\par surrounding plain. The remote date of Nippur's foundation as a city\par and cult-centre is attested by the fact that the pavement laid by\par Nar\'e2m-Sin in the south-eastern temple-court lies thirty feet above\par virgin soil, while only thirty-six feet of superimposed /d\'e9bris/\par represent the succeeding millennia of occupation down to Sassanian and\par early Arab times. In the period of the Hebrew captivity the city still\par ranked as a great commercial market and as Bone of the most sacred\par repositories of Babylonian religious tradition. We know that not far\par off was Tel-abib, the seat of one of the colonies of Jewish exiles,\par for that lay "by the river of Chebar",[2] which we may identify with\par the Kabaru Canal in Nippur's immediate neighbourhood. It was "among\par the captives by the river Chebar" that Ezekiel lived and prophesied,\par and it was on Chebar's banks that he saw his first vision of the\par Cherubim.[3] He and other of the Jewish exiles may perhaps have\par mingled with the motley crowd that once thronged the streets of\par Nippur, and they may often have gazed on the huge temple-tower which\par rose above the city's flat roofs. We know that the later population of\par Nippur itself included a considerable Jewish element, for the upper\par strata of the mounds have yielded numerous clay bowls with Hebrew,\par Mandaean, and Syriac magical inscriptions;[4] and not the least\par interesting of the objects recovered was the wooden Cbox of a Jewish\par scribe, containing his pen and ink-vessel and a little scrap of\par crumbling parchment inscribed with a few Hebrew characters.[5]\par \par [1] See Hilprecht, /Explorations in Bible Lands/, pp. 289 ff., 540\par ff.; and Fisher, /Excavations at Nippur/, Pt. I (1905), Pt. II\par (1906).\par \par [2] Ezek. iii. 15.\par \par [3] Ezek. i. 1, 3; iii. 23; and cf. x. 15, 20, 22, and xliii. 3.\par \par [4] See J. A. Montgomery, /Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur/,\par 1913\par \par [5] Hilprecht, /Explorations/, p. 555 f.\par \par Of the many thousands of inscribed clay tablets which were found in\par the course of the expeditions, some were kept at Constantinople, while\par others were presented by the Sultan Abdul Hamid to the excavators, who\par had them conveyed to America. Since that time a large number have been\par published. The work was necessarily slow, for many of the texts were\par found to be in an extremely bad state of preservation. So it hapDpened\par that a great number of the boxes containing tablets remained until\par recently still packed up in the store-rooms of the Pennsylvania\par Museum. But under the present energetic Director of the Museum, Dr. G.\par B. Gordon, the process of arranging and publishing the mass of\par literary material has been "speeded up". A staff of skilled workmen\par has been employed on the laborious task of cleaning the broken tablets\par and fitting the fragments together. At the same time the help of\par several Assyriologists was welcomed in the further task of running\par over and sorting the collections as they were prepared for study.\par Professor Clay, Professor Barton, Dr. Langdon, Dr. Edward Chiera, and\par Dr. Arno Poebel have all participated in the work. But the lion's\par share has fallen to the last-named scholar, who was given leave of\par absence by John Hopkins University in order to take up a temporary\par appointment at the Pennsylvania Museum. The result of his labours was\paEr published by the Museum at the end of 1914.[1] The texts thus made\par available for study are of very varied interest. A great body of them\par are grammatical and represent compilations made by Semitic scribes of\par the period of Hammurabi's dynasty for their study of the old Sumerian\par tongue. Containing, as most of them do, Semitic renderings of the\par Sumerian words and expressions collected, they are as great a help to\par us in our study of Sumerian language as they were to their compilers;\par in particular they have thrown much new light on the paradigms of the\par demonstrative and personal pronouns and on Sumerian verbal forms. But\par literary texts are also included in the recent publications.\par \par [1] Poebel, /Historical Texts/ and /Historical and Grammatical Texts/\par (Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, and Vol.\par V), Philadelphia, 1914.\par \par When the Pennsylvania Museum sent out its first expedition, lively\par hopes were enterFtained that the site selected would yield material of\par interest from the biblical standpoint. The city of Nippur, as we have\par seen, was one of the most sacred and most ancient religious centres in\par the country, and Enlil, its city-god, was the head of the Babylonian\par pantheon. On such a site it seemed likely that we might find versions\par of the Babylonian legends which were current at the dawn of history\par before the city of Babylonia and its Semitic inhabitants came upon the\par scene. This expectation has proved to be not unfounded, for the\par literary texts include the Sumerian Deluge Version and Creation myth\par to which I referred at the beginning of the lecture. Other texts of\par almost equal interest consist of early though fragmentary lists of\par historical and semi-mythical rulers. They prove that Berossus and the\par later Babylonians depended on material of quite early origin in\par compiling their dynasties of semi-mythical kings. In them we obtain a\par glimpGse of ages more remote than any on which excavation in Babylonia\par has yet thrown light, and for the first time we have recovered genuine\par native tradition of early date with regard to the cradle of Babylonian\par culture. Before we approach the Sumerian legends themselves, it will\par be as well to-day to trace back in this tradition the gradual merging\par of history into legend and myth, comparing at the same time the\par ancient Egyptian's picture of his own remote past. We will also\par ascertain whether any new light is thrown by our inquiry upon Hebrew\par traditions concerning the earliest history of the human race and the\par origins of civilization.\par \par In the study of both Egyptian and Babylonian chronology there has been\par a tendency of late years to reduce the very early dates that were\par formerly in fashion. But in Egypt, while the dynasties of Manetho have\par been telescoped in places, excavation has thrown light on predynastic\par periods, and we can now traceH the history of culture in the Nile\par Valley back, through an unbroken sequence, to its neolithic stage.\par Quite recently, too, as I mentioned just now, a fresh literary record\par of these early predynastic periods has been recovered, on a fragment\par of the famous Palermo Stele, our most valuable monument for early\par Egyptian history and chronology. Egypt presents a striking contrast to\par Babylonia in the comparatively small number of written records which\par have survived for the reconstruction of her history. We might well\par spare much of her religious literature, enshrined in endless temple-\par inscriptions and papyri, if we could but exchange it for some of the\par royal annals of Egyptian Pharaohs. That historical records of this\par character were compiled by the Egyptian scribes, and that they were as\par detailed and precise in their information as those we have recovered\par from Assyrian sources, is clear from the few extracts from the annals\par of Thothmes III's waIrs which are engraved on the walls of the temple\par at Karnak.[1] As in Babylonia and Assyria, such records must have\par formed the foundation on which summaries of chronicles of past\par Egyptian history were based. In the Palermo Stele it is recognized\par that we possess a primitive chronicle of this character.\par \par [1] See Breasted, /Ancient Records/, I, p. 4, II, pp. 163 ff.\par \par Drawn up as early as the Vth Dynasty, its historical summary proves\par that from the beginning of the dynastic age onward a yearly record was\par kept of the most important achievements of the reigning Pharaoh. In\par this fragmentary but invaluable epitome, recording in outline much of\par the history of the Old Kingdom,[1] some interesting parallels have\par long been noted with Babylonian usage. The early system of time-\par reckoning, for example, was the same in both countries, each year\par being given an official title from the chief event that occurred in\par it. And although in Babylonia wJe are still without material for\par tracing the process by which this cumbrous method gave place to that\par of reckoning by regnal years, the Palermo Stele demonstrates the way\par in which the latter system was evolved in Egypt. For the events from\par which the year was named came gradually to be confined to the fiscal\par "numberings" of cattle and land. And when these, which at first had\par taken place at comparatively long intervals, had become annual events,\par the numbered sequence of their occurrence corresponded precisely to\par the years of the king's reign. On the stele, during the dynastic\par period, each regnal year is allotted its own space or rectangle,[2]\par arranged in horizontal sequence below the name and titles of the\par ruling king.\par \par [1] Op. cit., I, pp. 57 ff.\par \par [2] The spaces are not strictly rectangles, as each is divided\par vertically from the next by the Egyptian hieroglyph for "year".\par \par The text, which is engraved on both sidesK of a great block of black\par basalt, takes its name from the fact that the fragment hitherto known\par has been preserved since 1877 at the Museum of Palermo. Five other\par fragments of the text have now been published, of which one\par undoubtedly belongs to the same monument as the Palermo fragment,\par while the others may represent parts of one or more duplicate copies\par of that famous text. One of the four Cairo fragments[1] was found by a\par digger for /sebakh/ at Mitrah\'eeneh (Memphis); the other three, which\par were purchased from a dealer, are said to have come from Minieh, while\par the fifth fragment, at University College, is also said to have come\par from Upper Egypt,[2] though it was purchased by Professor Petrie while\par at Memphis. These reports suggest that a number of duplicate copies\par were engraved and set up in different Egyptian towns, and it is\par possible that the whole of the text may eventually be recovered. The\par choice of basalt for the records was Lobviously dictated by a desire\par for their preservation, but it has had the contrary effect; for the\par blocks of this hard and precious stone have been cut up and reused in\par later times. The largest and most interesting of the new fragments has\par evidently been employed as a door-sill, with the result that its\par surface is much rubbed and parts of its text are unfortunately almost\par undecipherable. We shall see that the earliest section of its record\par has an important bearing on our knowledge of Egyptian predynastic\par history and on the traditions of that remote period which have come\par down to us from the history of Manetho.\par \par [1] See Gautier, /Le Mus\'e9e \'c9gyptien/, III (1915), pp. 29 ff., pl. xxiv\par ff., and Foucart, /Bulletin de l'Institut Fran\'e7ais d'Arch\'e9ologie\par Orientale/, XII, ii (1916), pp. 161 ff.; and cf. Gardiner, /Journ.\par of Egypt. Arch./, III, pp. 143 ff., and Petrie, /Ancient Egypt/,\par 1916, Pt. III, pp. 114 ff.\parM \par [2] Cf. Petrie, op. cit., pp. 115, 120.\par \par From the fragment of the stele preserved at Palermo we already knew\par that its record went back beyond the Ist Dynasty into predynastic\par times. For part of the top band of the inscription, which is there\par preserved, contains nine names borne by kings of Lower Egypt or the\par Delta, which, it had been conjectured, must follow the gods of Manetho\par and precede the "Worshippers of Horus", the immediate predecessors of\par the Egyptian dynasties.[1] But of contemporary rulers of Upper Egypt\par we had hitherto no knowledge, since the supposed royal names\par discovered at Abydos and assigned to the time of the "Worshippers of\par Horus" are probably not royal names at all.[2] With the possible\par exception of two very archaic slate palettes, the first historical\par memorials recovered from the south do not date from an earlier period\par than the beginning of the Ist Dynasty. The largest of the Cairo\par fragments now helps uNs to fill in this gap in our knowledge.\par \par [1] See Breasted, /Anc. Rec./, I, pp. 52, 57.\par \par [2] Cf. Hall, /Ancient History of the Near East/, p. 99 f.\par \par On the top of the new fragment[1] we meet the same band of rectangles\par as at Palermo,[2] but here their upper portions are broken away, and\par there only remains at the base of each of them the outlined figure of\par a royal personage, seated in the same attitude as those on the Palermo\par stone. The remarkable fact about these figures is that, with the\par apparent exception of the third figure from the right,[3] each wears,\par not the Crown of the North, as at Palermo, but the Crown of the South.\par We have then to do with kings of Upper Egypt, not the Delta, and it is\par no longer possible to suppose that the predynastic rulers of the\par Palermo Stele were confined to those of Lower Egypt, as reflecting\par northern tradition. Rulers of both halves of the country are\par represented, and Monsieur Gautier hasO shown,[4] from data on the\par reverse of the inscription, that the kings of the Delta were arranged\par on the original stone before the rulers of the south who are outlined\par upon our new fragment. Moreover, we have now recovered definite proof\par that this band of the inscription is concerned with predynastic\par Egyptian princes; for the cartouche of the king, whose years are\par enumerated in the second band immediately below the kings of the\par south, reads Athet, a name we may with certainty identify with\par Athothes, the second successor of Menes, founder of the Ist Dynasty,\par which is already given under the form Ateth in the Abydos List of\par Kings.[5] It is thus quite certain that the first band of the\par inscription relates to the earlier periods before the two halves of\par the country were brought together under a single ruler.\par \par [1] Cairo No. 1; see Gautier, /Mus. \'c9gypt./, III, pl. xxiv f.\par \par [2] In this upper band the spaces are true rectangles, bePing separated\par by vertical lines, not by the hieroglyph for "year" as in the\par lower bands; and each rectangle is assigned to a separate king,\par and not, as in the other bands, to a year of a king's reign.\par \par [3] The difference in the crown worn by this figure is probably only\par apparent and not intentional; M. Foucart, after a careful\par examination of the fragment, concludes that it is due to\par subsequent damage or to an original defect in the stone; cf.\par /Bulletin/, XII, ii, p. 162.\par \par [4] Op. cit., p. 32 f.\par \par [5] In Manetho's list he corresponds to \{Kenkenos\}, the second\par successor of Menes according to both Africanus and Eusebius, who\par assign the name Athothis to the second ruler of the dynasty only,\par the Teta of the Abydos List. The form Athothes is preserved by\par Eratosthenes for both of Menes' immediate successors.\par \par Though the tradition of these remote times is here recorded on a\pQar monument of the Vth Dynasty, there is no reason to doubt its general\par accuracy, or to suppose that we are dealing with purely mythological\par personages. It is perhaps possible, as Monsieur Foucart suggests, that\par missing portions of the text may have carried the record back through\par purely mythical periods to Ptah and the Creation. In that case we\par should have, as we shall see, a striking parallel to early Sumerian\par tradition. But in the first extant portions of the Palermo text we are\par already in the realm of genuine tradition. The names preserved appear\par to be those of individuals, not of mythological creations, and we may\par assume that their owners really existed. For though the invention of\par writing had not at that time been achieved, its place was probably\par taken by oral tradition. We know that with certain tribes of Africa at\par the present day, who possess no knowledge of writing, there are\par functionaries charged with the duty of preserving tribalR traditions,\par who transmit orally to their successors a remembrance of past chiefs\par and some details of events that occurred centuries before.[1] The\par predynastic Egyptians may well have adopted similar means for\par preserving a remembrance of their past history.\par \par [1] M. Foucart illustrates this point by citing the case of the\par Bushongos, who have in this way preserved a list of no less than a\par hundred and twenty-one of their past kings; op. cit., p. 182, and\par cf. Tordey and Joyce, "Les Bushongos", in /Annales du Mus\'e9e du\par Congo Belge/, s\'e9r. III, t. II, fasc. i (Brussels, 1911).\par \par Moreover, the new text furnishes fresh proof of the general accuracy\par of Manetho, even when dealing with traditions of this prehistoric age.\par On the stele there is no definite indication that these two sets of\par predynastic kings were contemporaneous rulers of Lower and Upper Egypt\par respectively; and since elsewhere the lists assign a single soSvereign\par to each epoch, it has been suggested that we should regard them as\par successive representatives of the legitimate kingdom.[1] Now Manetho,\par after his dynasties of gods and demi-gods, states that thirty Memphite\par kings reigned for 1,790 years, and were followed by ten Thinite kings\par whose reigns covered a period of 350 years. Neglecting the figures as\par obviously erroneous, we may well admit that the Greek historian here\par alludes to our two pre-Menite dynasties. But the fact that he should\par regard them as ruling consecutively does not preclude the other\par alternative. The modern convention of arranging lines of\par contemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had not been evolved in\par antiquity, and without some such method of distinction contemporaneous\par rulers, when enumerated in a list, can only be registered\par consecutively. It would be natural to assume that, before the\par unification of Egypt by the founder of the Ist Dynasty, the rulers of\par NoTrth and South were independent princes, possessing no traditions of\par a united throne on which any claim to hegemony could be based. On the\par assumption that this was so, their arrangement in a consecutive series\par would not have deceived their immediate successors. But it would\par undoubtedly tend in course of time to obliterate the tradition of\par their true order, which even at the period of the Vth Dynasty may have\par been completely forgotten. Manetho would thus have introduced no\par strange or novel confusion; and this explanation would of course apply\par to other sections of his system where the dynasties he enumerates\par appear to be too many for their period. But his reproduction of two\par lines of predynastic rulers, supported as it now is by the early\par evidence of the Palermo text, only serves to increase our confidence\par in the general accuracy of his sources, while at the same time it\par illustrates very effectively the way in which possible inaccuracies,\par Udeduced from independent data, may have arisen in quite early times.\par \par [1] Foucart, loc. cit.\par \par In contrast to the dynasties of Manetho, those of Berossus are so\par imperfectly preserved that they have never formed the basis of\par Babylonian chronology.[1] But here too, in the chronological scheme, a\par similar process of reduction has taken place. Certain dynasties,\par recovered from native sources and at one time regarded as consecutive,\par were proved to have been contemporaneous; and archaeological evidence\par suggested that some of the great gaps, so freely assumed in the royal\par sequence, had no right to be there. As a result, the succession of\par known rulers was thrown into truer perspective, and such gaps as\par remained were being partially filled by later discoveries. Among the\par latter the most important find was that of an early list of kings,\par recently published by P\'e8re Scheil[2] and subsequently purchased by the\par British Museum shortly beforVe the war. This had helped us to fill in\par the gap between the famous Sargon of Akkad and the later dynasties,\par but it did not carry us far beyond Sargon's own time. Our\par archaeological evidence also comes suddenly to an end. Thus the\par earliest picture we have hitherto obtained of the Sumerians has been\par that of a race employing an advanced system of writing and possessed\par of a knowledge of metal. We have found, in short, abundant remains of\par a bronze-age culture, but no traces of preceding ages of development\par such as meet us on early Egyptian sites. It was a natural inference\par that the advent of the Sumerians in the Euphrates Valley was sudden,\par and that they had brought their highly developed culture with them\par from some region of Central or Southern Asia. \par \par [1] While the evidence of Herodotus is extraordinarily valuable for\par the details he gives of the civilizations of both Egypt and\par Babylonia, and is especially full in the case of Wthe former, it is\par of little practical use for the chronology. In Egypt his report of\par the early history is confused, and he hardly attempts one for\par Babylonia. It is probable that on such subjects he sometimes\par misunderstood his informants, the priests, whose traditions were\par more accurately reproduced by the later native writers Manetho and\par Berossus. For a detailed comparison of classical authorities in\par relation to both countries, see Griffith in Hogarth's /Authority\par and Archaeology/, pp. 161 ff.\par \par [2] See /Comptes rendus/, 1911 (Oct.), pp. 606 ff., and /Rev.\par d'Assyr./, IX (1912), p. 69.\par \par The newly published Nippur documents will cause us to modify that\par view. The lists of early kings were themselves drawn up under the\par Dynasty of N\'eesin in the twenty-second century B.C., and they give us\par traces of possibly ten and at least eight other "kingdoms" before the\par earliest dynasty of the known lisXts.[1] One of their novel features is\par that they include summaries at the end, in which it is stated how\par often a city or district enjoyed the privilege of being the seat of\par supreme authority in Babylonia. The earliest of their sections lie\par within the legendary period, and though in the third dynasty preserved\par we begin to note signs of a firmer historical tradition, the great\par break that then occurs in the text is at present only bridged by\par titles of various "kingdoms" which the summaries give; a few even of\par these are missing and the relative order of the rest is not assured.\par But in spite of their imperfect state of preservation, these documents\par are of great historical value and will furnish a framework for future\par chronological schemes. Meanwhile we may attribute to some of the later\par dynasties titles in complete agreement with Sumerian tradition. The\par dynasty of Ur-Engur, for example, which preceded that of N\'eesin,\par becomes, if we like, thYe Third Dynasty of Ur. Another important fact\par which strikes us after a scrutiny of the early royal names recovered\par is that, while two or three are Semitic,[2] the great majority of\par those borne by the earliest rulers of Kish, Erech, and Ur are as\par obviously Sumerian.\par \par [1] See Poebel, /Historical Texts/, pp. 73 ff. and /Historical and\par Grammatical Texts/, pl. ii-iv, Nos. 2-5. The best preserved of the\par lists is No. 2; Nos. 3 and 4 are comparatively small fragments;\par and of No. 5 the obverse only is here published for the first\par time, the contents of the reverse having been made known some\par years ago by Hilprecht (cf. /Mathematical, Metrological, and\par Chronological Tablets/, p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47). The fragments\par belong to separate copies of the Sumerian dynastic record, and it\par happens that the extant portions of their text in some places\par cover the same period and are duplicates of one another.\par \parZ [2] Cf., e.g., two of the earliest kings of Kish, Galumum and Zugagib.\par The former is probably the Semitic-Babylonian word /kalumum/,\par "young animal, lamb," the latter /zukak\'eebum/, "scorpion"; cf.\par Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 111. The occurrence of these names\par points to Semitic infiltration into Northern Babylonia since the\par dawn of history, a state of things we should naturally expect. It\par is improbable that on this point Sumerian tradition should have\par merely reflected the conditions of a later period.\par \par It is clear that in native tradition, current among the Sumerians\par themselves before the close of the third millennium, their race was\par regarded as in possession of Babylonia since the dawn of history. This\par at any rate proves that their advent was not sudden nor comparatively\par recent, and it further suggests that Babylonia itself was the cradle\par of their civilization. It will be the province of future\par archaeol[ogical research to fill out the missing dynasties and to\par determine at what points in the list their strictly historical basis\par disappears. Some, which are fortunately preserved near the beginning,\par bear on their face their legendary character. But for our purpose they\par are none the worse for that.\par \par In the first two dynasties, which had their seats at the cities of\par Kish and Erech, we see gods mingling with men upon the earth. Tammuz,\par the god of vegetation, for whose annual death Ezekiel saw women\par weeping beside the Temple at Jerusalem, is here an earthly monarch. He\par appears to be described as "a hunter", a phrase which recalls the\par death of Adonis in Greek mythology. According to our Sumerian text he\par reigned in Erech for a hundred years.\par \par Another attractive Babylonian legend is that of Etana, the prototype\par of Icarus and hero of the earliest dream of human flight.[1] Clinging\par to the pinions of his friend the Eagle he beheld the worl\d and its\par encircling stream recede beneath him; and he flew through the gate of\par heaven, only to fall headlong back to earth. He is here duly entered\par in the list, where we read that "Etana, the shepherd who ascended to\par heaven, who subdued all lands", ruled in the city of Kish for 635\par years.\par \par [1] The Egyptian conception of the deceased Pharaoh ascending to\par heaven as a falcon and becoming merged into the sun, which first\par occurs in the Pyramid texts (see Gardiner in Cumont's /\'c9tudes\par Syriennes/, pp. 109 ff.), belongs to a different range of ideas.\par But it may well have been combined with the Etana tradition to\par produce the funerary eagle employed so commonly in Roman Syria in\par representations of the emperor's apotheosis (cf. Cumont, op. cit.,\par pp. 37 ff., 115).\par \par The god Lugal-banda is another hero of legend. When the hearts of the\par other gods failed them, he alone recovered the Tablets of Fate, stolen]\par by the bird-god Z\'fb from Enlil's palace. He is here recorded to have\par reigned in Erech for 1,200 years.\par \par Tradition already told us that Erech was the native city of Gilgamesh,\par the hero of the national epic, to whom his ancestor Ut-napishtim\par related the story of the Flood. Gilgamesh too is in our list, as king\par of Erech for 126 years.\par \par We have here in fact recovered traditions of Post-diluvian kings.\par Unfortunately our list goes no farther back than that, but it is\par probable that in its original form it presented a general\par correspondence to the system preserved from Berossus, which enumerates\par ten Antediluvian kings, the last of them Xisuthros, the hero of the\par Deluge. Indeed, for the dynastic period, the agreement of these old\par Sumerian lists with the chronological system of Berossus is striking.\par The latter, according to Syncellus, gives 34,090 or 34,080 years as\par the total duration of the historical period, apart from his pre^ceding\par mythical ages, while the figure as preserved by Eusebius is 33,091\par years.[1] The compiler of one of our new lists,[2] writing some 1,900\par years earlier, reckons that the dynastic period in his day had lasted\par for 32,243 years. Of course all these figures are mythical, and even\par at the time of the Sumerian Dynasty of N\'eesin variant traditions were\par current with regard to the number of historical and semi-mythical\par kings of Babylonia and the duration of their rule. For the earlier\par writer of another of our lists,[3] separated from the one already\par quoted by an interval of only sixty-seven years, gives 28,876[4] years\par as the total duration of the dynasties at his time. But in spite of\par these discrepancies, the general resemblance presented by the huge\par totals in the variant copies of the list to the alternative figures of\par Berossus, if we ignore his mythical period, is remarkable. They\par indicate a far closer correspondence of the Greek tradi_tion with that\par of the early Sumerians themselves than was formerly suspected.\par \par [1] The figure 34,090 is that given by Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p.\par 147); but it is 34,080 in the equivalent which is added in "sars",\par &c. The discrepancy is explained by some as due to an intentional\par omission of the units in the second reckoning; others would regard\par 34,080 as the correct figure (cf. /Hist. of Bab./, p. 114 f.). The\par reading of ninety against eighty is supported by the 33,091 of\par Eusebius (/Chron. lib. pri./, ed. Schoene, col. 25).\par \par [2] No. 4.\par \par [3] No. 2.\par \par [4] The figures are broken, but the reading given may be accepted with\par some confidence; see Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 103.\par \par Further proof of this correspondence may be seen in the fact that the\par new Sumerian Version of the Deluge Story, which I propose to discuss\par in the second lecture, gives us a connected account of the world's\par his`tory down to that point. The Deluge hero is there a Sumerian king\par named Ziusudu, ruling in one of the newly created cities of Babylonia\par and ministering at the shrine of his city-god. He is continually given\par the royal title, and the foundation of the Babylonian "kingdom" is\par treated as an essential part of Creation. We may therefore assume that\par an Antediluvian period existed in Sumerian tradition as in\par Berossus.[1] And I think Dr. Poebel is right in assuming that the\par Nippur copies of the Dynastic List begin with the Post-diluvian\par period.[2]\par \par [1] Of course it does not necessarily follow that the figure assigned\par to the duration of the Antediluvian or mythical period by the\par Sumerians would show so close a resemblance to that of Berossus as\par we have already noted in their estimates of the dynastic or\par historical period. But there is no need to assume that Berossus'\par huge total of a hundred and twenty "sars" (432,000 yearas) is\par entirely a product of Neo-Babylonian speculation; the total\par 432,000 is explained as representing ten months of a cosmic year,\par each month consisting of twelve "sars", i.e. 12 x 3600 = 43,200\par years. The Sumerians themselves had no difficulty in picturing two\par of their dynastic rulers as each reigning for two "ners" (1,200\par years), and it would not be unlikely that "sars" were distributed\par among still earlier rulers; the numbers were easily written. For\par the unequal distribution of his hundred and twenty "sars" by\par Berossus among his ten Antediluvian kings, see Appendix II.\par \par [2] The exclusion of the Antediluvian period from the list may perhaps\par be explained on the assumption that its compiler confined his\par record to "kingdoms", and that the mythical rulers who preceded\par them did not form a "kingdom" within his definition of the term.\par In any case we have a clear indication that an earlbier period was\par included before the true "kingdoms", or dynasties, in an Assyrian\par copy of the list, a fragment of which is preserved in the British\par Museum from the Library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh; see /Chron.\par conc. Early Bab. Kings/ (Studies in East. Hist., II f.), Vol. I,\par pp. 182 ff., Vol. II, pp. 48 ff., 143 f. There we find traces of\par an extra column of text preceding that in which the first Kingdom\par of Kish was recorded. It would seem almost certain that this extra\par column was devoted to Antediluvian kings. The only alternative\par explanation would be that it was inscribed with the summaries\par which conclude the Sumerian copies of our list. But later scribes\par do not so transpose their material, and the proper place for\par summaries is at the close, not at the beginning, of a list. In the\par Assyrian copy the Dynastic List is brought up to date, and extends\par down to the later Assyrian periocd. Formerly its compiler could\par only be credited with incorporating traditions of earlier times.\par But the correspondence of the small fragment preserved of its\par Second Column with part of the First Column of the Nippur texts\par (including the name of "Enmennunna") proves that the Assyrian\par scribe reproduced an actual copy of the Sumerian document.\par \par Though Professor Barton, on the other hand, holds that the Dynastic\par List had no concern with the Deluge, his suggestion that the early\par names preserved by it may have been the original source of Berossus'\par Antediluvian rulers[1] may yet be accepted in a modified form. In\par coming to his conclusion he may have been influenced by what seems to\par me an undoubted correspondence between one of the rulers in our list\par and the sixth Antediluvian king of Berossus. I think few will be\par disposed to dispute the equation\par \par \{Daonos poimon\} = Etana, a shepherd.\par \par Each list preserdves the hero's shepherd origin and the correspondence\par of the names is very close, Daonos merely transposing the initial\par vowel of Etana.[2] That Berossus should have translated a Post-\par diluvian ruler into the Antediluvian dynasty would not be at all\par surprising in view of the absence of detailed correspondence between\par his later dynasties and those we know actually occupied the Babylonian\par throne. Moreover, the inclusion of Babylon in his list of Antediluvian\par cities should make us hesitate to regard all the rulers he assigns to\par his earliest dynasty as necessarily retaining in his list their\par original order in Sumerian tradition. Thus we may with a clear\par conscience seek equations between the names of Berossus' Antediluvian\par rulers and those preserved in the early part of our Dynastic List,\par although we may regard the latter as equally Post-diluvian in Sumerian\par belief.\par \par [1] See the brief statement he makes in the course of a review of Dr.\pear Poebel's volumes in the /American Journal of Semitic Languages and\par Literature/, XXXI, April 1915, p. 225. He does not compare any of\par the names, but he promises a study of those preserved and a\par comparison of the list with Berossus and with Gen. iv and v. It is\par possible that Professor Barton has already fulfilled his promise\par of further discussion, perhaps in his /Archaeology and the Bible/,\par to the publication of which I have seen a reference in another\par connexion (cf. /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI, p. 291); but I\par have not yet been able to obtain sight of a copy.\par \par [2] The variant form \{Daos\} is evidently a mere contraction, and any\par claim it may have had to represent more closely the original form\par of the name is to be disregarded in view of our new equation.\par \par This reflection, and the result already obtained, encourage us to\par accept the following further equation, which is yielded by fa renewed\par scrutiny of the lists:\par \par \{'Ammenon\} = Enmenunna.\par \par Here Ammenon, the fourth of Berossus' Antediluvian kings, presents a\par wonderfully close transcription of the Sumerian name. The /n/ of the\par first syllable has been assimilated to the following consonant in\par accordance with a recognized law of euphony, and the resultant\par doubling of the /m/ is faithfully preserved in the Greek. Precisely\par the same initial component, /Enme/, occurs in the name Enmeduranki,\par borne by a mythical king of Sippar, who has long been recognized as\par the original of Berossus' seventh Antediluvian king, \{Euedorakhos\}.[1]\par There too the original /n/ has been assimilated, but the Greek form\par retains no doubling of the /m/ and points to its further weakening.\par \par [1] Var. \{Euedoreskhos\}; the second half of the original name,\par Enmeduranki, is more closely preserved in /Edoranchus/, the form\par given by the Armenian translator of Eusebius.\pagr \par I do not propose to detain you with a detailed discussion of Sumerian\par royal names and their possible Greek equivalents. I will merely point\par out that the two suggested equations, which I venture to think we may\par regard as established, throw the study of Berossus' mythological\par personages upon a new plane. No equivalent has hitherto been suggested\par for \{Daonos\}; but \{'Ammenon\} has been confidently explained as the\par equivalent of a conjectured Babylonian original, Umm\'e2nu, lit.\par "Workman". The fact that we should now have recovered the Sumerian\par original of the name, which proves to have no connexion in form or\par meaning with the previously suggested Semitic equivalent, tends to\par cast doubt on other Semitic equations proposed. Perhaps \{'Amelon\} or\par \{'Amillaros\} may after all not prove to be the equivalent of Am\'ealu,\par "Man", nor \{'Amempsinos\} that of Am\'eal-Sin. Both may find their true\par equivalents in some of the missing royal namesh at the head of the\par Sumerian Dynastic List. There too we may provisionally seek \{'Aloros\},\par the "first king", whose equation with Aruru, the Babylonian mother-\par goddess, never appeared a very happy suggestion.[1] The ingenious\par proposal,[2] on the other hand, that his successor, \{'Alaparos\},\par represents a miscopied \{'Adaparos\}, a Greek rendering of the name of\par Adapa, may still hold good in view of Etana's presence in the Sumerian\par dynastic record. Ut-napishtim's title, Khasisatra or Atrakhasis, "the\par Very Wise", still of course remains the established equivalent of\par \{Xisouthros\}; but for \{'Otiartes\} (? \{'Opartes\}), a rival to Ubar-\par Tutu, Ut-napishtim's father, may perhaps appear. The new\par identifications do not of course dispose of the old ones, except in\par the case of Umm\'e2nu; but they open up a new line of approach and\par provide a fresh field for conjecture.[3] Semitic, and possibly\par contracted, originals are still possible for unideintified mythical\par kings of Berossus; but such equations will inspire greater confidence,\par should we be able to establish Sumerian originals for the Semitic\par renderings, from new material already in hand or to be obtained in the\par future.\par \par [1] Dr. Poebel (/Hist Inscr./, p. 42, n. 1) makes the interesting\par suggestion that \{'Aloros\} may represent an abbreviated and corrupt\par form of the name Lal-ur-alimma, which has come down to us as that\par of an early and mythical king of Nippur; see Rawlinson, /W.A.I./,\par IV, 60 (67), V, 47 and 44, and cf. /Sev. Tabl. of Creat./, Vol. I,\par p. 217, No. 32574, Rev., l. 2 f. It may be added that the\par sufferings with which the latter is associated in the tradition\par are perhaps such as might have attached themselves to the first\par human ruler of the world; but the suggested equation, though\par tempting by reason of the remote parallel it would thus furnish to\par Adam's fate, can ajt present hardly be accepted in view of the\par possibility that a closer equation to \{'Aloros\} may be\par forthcoming.\par \par [2] Hommel, /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol. XV (1893), p. 243.\par \par [3] See further Appendix II.\par \par But it is time I read you extracts from the earlier extant portions of\par the Sumerian Dynastic List, in order to illustrate the class of\par document with which we are dealing. From them it will be seen that the\par record is not a tabular list of names like the well-known King's Lists\par of the Neo-Babylonian period. It is cast in the form of an epitomized\par chronicle and gives under set formulae the length of each king's\par reign, and his father's name in cases of direct succession to father\par or brother. Short phrases are also sometimes added, or inserted in the\par sentence referring to a king, in order to indicate his humble origin\par or the achievement which made his name famous in tradition. The head\par of the First Column of tkhe text is wanting, and the first royal name\par that is completely preserved is that of Galumum, the ninth or tenth\par ruler of the earliest "kingdom", or dynasty, of Kish. The text then\par runs on connectedly for several lines:\par \par Galumum ruled for nine hundred years.\par Zugagib ruled for eight hundred and forty years.\par Arpi, son of a man of the people, ruled for seven hundred and twenty\par years.\par Etana, the shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued all lands,\par ruled for six hundred and thirty-five years.[1] \par Pili . . ., son of Etana, ruled for four hundred and ten years.\par Enmenunna ruled for six hundred and eleven years.\par Melamkish, son of Enmenunna, ruled for nine hundred years.\par Barsalnunna, son of Enmenunna, ruled for twelve hundred years.\par Mesza[. . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . .] years.\par [. . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . .] years.\par \par [1] Possibly 625 years.\par \par A small gap then loccurs in the text, but we know that the last two\par representatives of this dynasty of twenty-three kings are related to\par have ruled for nine hundred years and six hundred and twenty-five\par years respectively. In the Second Column of the text the lines are\par also fortunately preserved which record the passing of the first\par hegemony of Kish to the "Kingdom of Eanna", the latter taking its name\par from the famous temple of Anu and Ishtar in the old city of Erech. The\par text continues:\par \par The kingdom of Kish passed to Eanna.\par In Eanna, Meskingasher, son of the Sun-god, ruled as high priest and\par king for three hundred and twenty-five years. Meskingasher entered\par into[1] [. . .] and ascended to [. . .].\par Enmerkar, son of Meskingasher, the king of Erech who built [. . .]\par with the people of Erech,[2] ruled as king for four hundred and\par twenty years.\par Lugalbanda, the shepherd, ruled for twelve hundred years.\par Dumuzi,[3], the mhunter(?), whose city was . . ., ruled for a hundred\par years.\par Gishbilgames,[4] whose father was A,[5] the high priest of Kullab,\par ruled for one hundred and twenty-six[6] years.\par [. . .]lugal, son of Gishbilgames, ruled for [. . .] years.\par \par [1] The verb may also imply descent into.\par \par [2] The phrase appears to have been imperfectly copied by the scribe.\par As it stands the subordinate sentence reads "the king of Erech who\par built with the people of Erech". Either the object governed by the\par verb has been omitted, in which case we might restore some such\par phrase as "the city"; or, perhaps, by a slight transposition, we\par should read "the king who built Erech with the people of Erech".\par In any case the first building of the city of Erech, as\par distinguished from its ancient cult-centre Eanna, appears to be\par recorded here in the tradition. This is the first reference to\par Erech in the text; and Enmernkar's father was high priest as well\par as king.\par \par [3] i.e. Tammuz.\par \par [4] i.e. Gilgamesh.\par \par [5] The name of the father of Gilgamesh is rather strangely expressed\par by the single sign for the vowel /a/ and must apparently be read\par as A. As there is a small break in the text at the end of this\par line, Dr. Poebel not unnaturally assumed that A was merely the\par first syllable of the name, of which the end was wanting. But it\par has now been shown that the complete name was A; see F\'f6rtsch,\par /Orient. Lit.-Zeit./, Vol. XVIII, No. 12 (Dec., 1915), col. 367\par ff. The reading is deduced from the following entry in an Assyrian\par explanatory list of gods (/Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt.\par XXIV, pl. 25, ll. 29-31): "The god A, who is also equated to the\par god Dubbisaguri (i.e. 'Scribe of Ur'), is the priest of Kullab;\par his wife is the goddess Ninguesirka (i.e. 'Lady of the edge of the\par street'o)." A, the priest of Kullab and the husband of a goddess,\par is clearly to be identified with A, the priest of Kullab and\par father of Gilgamesh, for we know from the Gilgamesh Epic that the\par hero's mother was the goddess Ninsun. Whether Ninguesirka was a\par title of Ninsun, or represents a variant tradition with regard to\par the parentage of Gilgamesh on the mother's side, we have in any\par case confirmation of his descent from priest and goddess. It was\par natural that A should be subsequently deified. This was not the\par case at the time our text was inscribed, as the name is written\par without the divine determinative.\par \par [6] Possibly 186 years.\par \par This group of early kings of Erech is of exceptional interest. Apart\par from its inclusion of Gilgamesh and the gods Tammuz and Lugalbanda,\par its record of Meskingasher's reign possibly refers to one of the lost\par legends of Erech. Like him Melchizedek, who comes to us in a chappter\par of Genesis reflecting the troubled times of Babylon's First\par Dynasty,[1] was priest as well as king.[2] Tradition appears to have\par credited Meskingasher's son and successor, Enmerkar, with the building\par of Erech as a city around the first settlement Eanna, which had\par already given its name to the "kingdom". If so, Sumerian tradition\par confirms the assumption of modern research that the great cities of\par Babylonia arose around the still more ancient cult-centres of the\par land. We shall have occasion to revert to the traditions here recorded\par concerning the parentage of Meskingasher, the founder of this line of\par kings, and that of its most famous member, Gilgamesh. Meanwhile we may\par note that the closing rulers of the "Kingdom of Eanna" are wanting.\par When the text is again preserved, we read of the hegemony passing from\par Erech to Ur and thence to Awan:\par \par The k[ingdom of Erech[3] passed to] Ur.\par In Ur Mesannipada became king and ruled forq eighty years.\par Meskiagunna, son of Mesannipada, ruled for thirty years.\par Elu[. . .] ruled for twenty-five years.\par Balu[. . .] ruled for thirty-six years.\par Four kings (thus) ruled for a hundred and seventy-one years.\par The kingdom of Ur passed to Awan.\par In Awan . . .\par \par [1] Cf. /Hist. of Bab./, p. 159 f.\par \par [2] Gen. xiv. 18.\par \par [3] The restoration of Erech here, in place of Eanna, is based on the\par absence of the latter name in the summary; after the building of\par Erech by Enmerkar, the kingdom was probably reckoned as that of\par Erech.\par \par With the "Kingdom of Ur" we appear to be approaching a firmer\par historical tradition, for the reigns of its rulers are recorded in\par decades, not hundreds of years. But we find in the summary, which\par concludes the main copy of our Dynastic List, that the kingdom of\par Awan, though it consisted of but three rulers, is credited with a\par total duration of three hundred andr fifty-six years, implying that we\par are not yet out of the legendary stratum. Since Awan is proved by\par newly published historical inscriptions from Nippur to have been an\par important deity of Elam at the time of the Dynasty of Akkad,[1] we\par gather that the "Kingdom of Awan" represented in Sumerian tradition\par the first occasion on which the country passed for a time under\par Elamite rule. At this point a great gap occurs in the text, and when\par the detailed dynastic succession in Babylonia is again assured, we\par have passed definitely from the realm of myth and legend into that of\par history.[2]\par \par [1] Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 128.\par \par [2] See further, Appendix II.\par \par What new light, then, do these old Sumerian records throw on Hebrew\par traditions concerning the early ages of mankind? I think it will be\par admitted that there is something strangely familiar about some of\par those Sumerian extracts I read just now. We seem to hear in them the\par s faint echo of another narrative, like them but not quite the same.\par \par And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years;\par and he died.\par And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enosh: and Seth\par lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and\par begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Seth were nine\par hundred and twelve years: and he died.\par . . . and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years:\par and he died.\par . . . and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years: and\par he died.\par . . . and all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety and\par five years: and he died.\par . . . and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two\par years: and he died.\par . . . and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five\par years: and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took\par him.\par . . . and all the dayst of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and\par nine years: and he died.\par . . . and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and\par seven years: and he died.\par And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and\par Japheth.\par \par Throughout these extracts from "the book of the generations of\par Adam",[1] Galumum's nine hundred years[2] seem to run almost like a\par refrain; and Methuselah's great age, the recognized symbol for\par longevity, is even exceeded by two of the Sumerian patriarchs. The\par names in the two lists are not the same,[3] but in both we are moving\par in the same atmosphere and along similar lines of thought. Though each\par list adheres to its own set formulae, it estimates the length of human\par life in the early ages of the world on much the same gigantic scale as\par the other. Our Sumerian records are not quite so formal in their\par structure as the Hebrew narrative, but the short notes which here and\par thereu relieve their stiff monotony may be paralleled in the Cainite\par genealogy of the preceding chapter in Genesis.[4] There Cain's city-\par building, for example, may pair with that of Enmerkar; and though our\par new records may afford no precise equivalents to Jabal's patronage of\par nomad life, or to the invention of music and metal-working ascribed to\par Jubal and Tubal-cain, these too are quite in the spirit of Sumerian\par and Babylonian tradition, in their attempt to picture the beginnings\par of civilization. Thus Enmeduranki, the prototype of the seventh\par Antediluvian patriarch of Berossus, was traditionally revered as the\par first exponent of divination.[5] It is in the chronological and\par general setting, rather than in the Hebrew names and details, that an\par echo seems here to reach us from Sumer through Babylon.\par \par [1] Gen. v. 1 ff. (P).\par \par [2] The same length of reign is credited to Melamkish and to one and\par perhaps two other rulers of that first vSumerian "kingdom".\par \par [3] The possibility of the Babylonian origin of some of the Hebrew\par names in this geneaology and its Cainite parallel has long been\par canvassed; and considerable ingenuity has been expended in\par obtaining equations between Hebrew names and those of the\par Antediluvian kings of Berossus by tracing a common meaning for\par each suggested pair. It is unfortunate that our new identification\par of \{'Ammenon\} with the Sumerian /Enmenunna/ should dispose of one\par of the best parallels obtained, viz. \{'Ammenon\} = Bab. /umm\'e2nu/,\par "workman" || Cain, Kenan = "smith". Another satisfactory pair\par suggested is \{'Amelon\} = Bab. /am\'ealu/, "man" || Enosh = "man"; but\par the resemblance of the former to /am\'ealu/ may prove to be\par fortuitous, in view of the possibility of descent from a quite\par different Sumerian original. The alternative may perhaps have to\par be faced that the Hebrew parallels to Sumerian and Babylonian\par traditions are here confined to chronological structure and\par general contents, and do not extend to Hebrew renderings of\par Babylonian names. It may be added that such correspondence between\par personal names in different languages is not very significant by\par itself. The name of Zugagib of Kish, for example, is paralleled by\par the title borne by one of the earliest kings of the Ist Dynasty of\par Egypt, Narmer, whose carved slate palettes have been found at\par Kierakonpolis; he too was known as "the Scorpion."\par \par [4] Gen. iv. 17 ff. (J).\par \par [5] It may be noted that an account of the origin of divination is\par included in his description of the descendents of Noah by the\par writer of the Biblical Antiquities of Philo, a product of the same\par school as the Fourth Book of Esdras and the Apocalypse of Baruch;\par see James, /The Biblical Antiquities of Philo/, p. 86.\par \par \par } UU„¥ˆÊ'4{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 This village in north-western Syria, on the road between Antioch and\par Mar`ash, marks the site of a town which lay near the southern border\par or just within the Syrian district of Sam'al. The latter is first\par mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions by Shalmaneser III, the son and\par successor of the great conqueror, Ashur-nasir-pal; and in the first\par half of the eighth century, though within the radius of Assyrian\par influence, it was still an independent kingdom. It is to this period\par that we must assign the earliest of the inscribed monuments discovered\par at Zenjirli and its neighbourhood. At Gerjin, not far to the north-\par west, was found the colossal statue of Hadad, chief god of the\par Aramaeans, whi3yue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 It is an interesting fact that Ziusudu should be described simply as\par "the king", without any indication of the city or area he ruled; and\par in three of the five other passages in the text in which his name is\par mentioned it is followed by the same title without qualification. In\par most cases Berossus tells us the cities from which his Antediluvian\par rulers came; and if the end of the line had been preserved it might\par have been possible to determine definitely Ziusudu's city, and\par incidentally the scene of the Deluge in the Sumerian Version, by the\par name of the deity in whose service he acted as priest. We have already\par noted some grounds for believing that his city may have been\par Shuruppak, as in the Babylonian Version; and if that were so, the\par divine name reads as "the God of Shurrupak" should probably be\par restored at the end of the line.[1]\par \par [1] The remains that arze preserved of the determinative, which is not\par combined with the sign EN, proves that Enki's name is not to be\par restored. Hence Ziusudu was not priest of Enki, and his city was\par probably not Eridu, the seat of his divine friend and counsellor,\par and the first of the Antediluvian cities. Sufficient reason for\par Enki's intervention on Ziusudu's behalf is furnished by the fact\par that, as God of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposed method\par of man's destruction. His rivalry of Enlil, the God of the Earth,\par is implied in the Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-\par 42), and in the Sumerian Version this would naturally extend to\par Anu, the God of Heaven.\par \par The employment of the royal title by itself accords with the tradition\par from Berossus that before the Deluge, as in later periods, the land\par was governed by a succession of supreme rulers, and that the hero of\par the Deluge was the last of them. In the{ Gilgamesh Epic, on the other\par hand, Ut-napishtim is given no royal nor any other title. He is merely\par referred to as a "man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu", and he appears\par in the guise of an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal\par power. On this point Berossus evidently preserves the original\par Sumerian traditions, while the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-\par Babylonian narrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of supreme\par Antediluvian rulers is of course merely a reflection from the\par historical period, when the hegemony in Babylonia was contested among\par the city-states. The growth of the tradition may have been encouraged\par by the early use of /lugal/, "king", which, though always a term of\par secular character, was not very sharply distinguished from that of\par /patesi/ and other religious titles, until, in accordance with\par political development, it was required to connote a wider dominion. In\par Sumer, at the time of the composition |of our text, Ziusudu was still\par only one in a long line of Babylonian rulers, mainly historical but\par gradually receding into the realms of legend and myth. At the time of\par the later Semites there had been more than one complete break in the\par tradition and the historical setting of the old story had become dim.\par The fact that Hebrew tradition should range itself in this matter with\par Babylon rather than with Sumer is important as a clue in tracing the\par literary history of our texts.\par \par The rest of the column may be taken as descriptive of Ziusudu's\par activities. One line records his making of some very great object or\par the erection of a huge building;[1] and since the following lines are\par concerned solely with religious activities, the reference is possibly\par to a temple or some other structure of a sacred character. Its\par foundation may have been recorded as striking evidence of his devotion\par to his god; or, since the verb in this sentence depends on} the words\par "at that time" in the preceding line, we may perhaps regard his action\par as directly connected with the revelation to be made to him. His\par personal piety is then described: daily he occupied himself in his\par god's service, prostrating himself in humility and constant in his\par attendance at the shrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), "such as had\par not been before", appears to him and he seems to be further described\par as conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth"; but as the ends of all\par these lines are broken, the exact connexion of the phrases is not\par quite certain.\par \par [1] The element /gur-gur/, "very large" or "huge", which occurs in the\par name of this great object or building, /an-sag-gur-gur/, is\par employed later in the term for the "huge boat", /(gish)ma-gur-\par gur/, in which Ziusudu rode out the storm. There was, of course,\par even at this early period a natural tendency to picture on a\par superhuman scale the lives ~and deeds of remote predecessors, a\par tendency which increased in later times and led, as we shall see,\par to the elaboration of extravagant detail.\par \par It is difficult not to associate the reference to a dream, or possibly\par to dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki reveals the\par purpose of the gods. For the later versions prepare us for a reference\par to a dream. If we take the line as describing Ziusudu's practice of\par dream-divination in general, "such as had not been before", he may\par have been represented as the first diviner of dreams, as Enmeduranki\par was held to be the first practitioner of divination in general. But it\par seems to me more probable that the reference is to a particular dream,\par by means of which he obtained knowledge of the gods' intentions. On\par the rendering of this passage depends our interpretation of the whole\par of the Fourth Column, where the point will be further discussed.\par Meanwhile it may be noted that the conjuring "by the Name of Heaven\par and Earth", which we may assume is ascribed to Ziusudu, gains in\par significance if we may regard the setting of the myth as a magical\par incantation, an inference in support of which we shall note further\par evidence. For we are furnished at once with the grounds for its\par magical employment. If Ziusudu, through conjuring by the Name of\par Heaven and earth, could profit by the warning sent him and so escape\par the impending fate of mankind, the application of such a myth to the\par special needs of a Sumerian in peril or distress will be obvious. For\par should he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and Earth, he might look\par for a similar deliverance; and his recital of the myth itself would\par tend to clinch the magical effect of his own incantation.\par \par The description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnishing us\par with a close parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew Versions. For\par in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus th€is feature of the story is\par completely absent. We are there given no reason why Ut-napishtim was\par selected by Ea, nor Xisuthros by Kronos. For all that those versions\par tell us, the favour of each deity might have been conferred\par arbitrarily, and not in recognition of, or in response to, any\par particular quality or action on the part of its recipient. The\par Sumerian Version now restores the original setting of the story and\par incidentally proves that, in this particular, the Hebrew Versions have\par not embroidered a simpler narrative for the purpose of edification,\par but have faithfully reproduced an original strand of the tradition.\par \par \par IV. THE DREAM-WARNING\par \par The top of the Fourth Column of the text follows immediately on the\par close of the Third Column, so that at this one point we have no great\par gap between the columns. But unfortunately the ends of all the lines\par in both columns are wanting, and the exact content of some phrases\par preserved and their relation to each other are consequently doubtful.\par This materially affects the interpretation of the passage as a whole,\par but the main thread of the narrative may be readily followed. Ziusudu\par is here warned that a flood is to be sent "to destroy the seed of\par mankind"; the doubt that exists concerns the manner in which the\par warning is conveyed. In the first line of the column, after a\par reference to "the gods", a building seems to be mentioned, and\par Ziusudu, standing beside it, apparently hears a voice, which bids him\par take his stand beside a wall and then conveys to him the warning of\par the coming flood. The destruction of mankind had been decreed in "the\par assembly [of the gods]" and would be carried out by the commands of\par Anu and Enlil. Before the text breaks off we again have a reference to\par the "kingdom" and "its rule", a further trace of the close association\par of the Deluge with the dynastic succession in the ea‚rly traditions of\par Sumer.\par \par In the opening words of the warning to Ziusudu, with its prominent\par repetition of the word "wall", we must evidently trace some connexion\par with the puzzling words of Ea in the Gilgamesh Epic, when he begins\par his warning to Ut-napishtim. The warnings, as given in the two\par versions, are printed below in parallel columns for comparison.[1] The\par Gilgamesh Epic, after relating how the great gods in Shuruppak had\par decided to send a deluge, continues as follows in the right-hand\par column:\par \par SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\par \par For [. . .] . . . the gods a Nin-igi-azag,[2] the god Ea,\par . . . [. . .]; sat with them,\par Ziusudu standing at its side And he repeated their word to\par heard [. . .]: the house of reeds:\par "At the wall on my left side take "Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall,\par thy stand and [. . .], waƒll!\par At the wall I will speak a word O reed-hut, hear! O wall,\par to thee [. . .]. understand!\par O my devout one . . . [. . .], Thou man of Shuruppak, son of\par Ubar-Tutu,\par By our hand(?) a flood[3] . . . Pull down thy house, build a\par [. . .] will be [sent]. ship,\par To destroy the seed of mankind Leave thy possessions, take\par [. . .] heed for thy life,\par Is the decision, the word of the Abandon thy property, and save\par assembly[4] [of the gods] thy life.\par The commands of Anu (and) And bring living seed of every\par En[lil . . .] kind into the ship.\par Its kingdom, its rule [. . .] As for the ship, which thou\par shalt build,\par To his [. . .]" Of which the measurements\par „ shall be carefully measured,\par [. . .] Its breadth and length shall\par correspond.\par [. . .] In the deep shalt thou immerse\par it."\par \par [1] Col. IV, ll. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll.\par 19-31.\par \par [2] Nin-igi-azag, "The Lord of Clear Vision", a title borne by Enki,\par or Ea, as God of Wisdom.\par \par [3] The Sumerian term /amaru/, here used for the flood and rendered as\par "rain-storm" by Dr. Poebel, is explained in a later syllabary as\par the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian word /ab\'fbbu/ (cf.\par Meissner, /S.A.I./, No. 8909), the term employed for the flood\par both in the early Semitic version of the Atrakhasis story dated in\par Ammizaduga's reign and in the Gilgamesh Epic. The word /ab\'fbbu/ is\par often conventionally rendered "deluge", but should be more\p…ar accurately translated "flood". It is true that the tempests of the\par Sumerian Version probably imply rain; and in the Gilgamesh Epic\par heavy rain in the evening begins the flood and is followed at dawn\par by a thunderstorm and hurricane. But in itself the term /ab\'fbbu/\par implies flood, which could take place through a rise of the rivers\par unaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annual rainfall in\par Babylonia to-day is on an average only about 8 in., and there have\par been years in succession when the total rainfall has not exceeded\par 4 in.; and yet the /ab\'fbbu/ is not a thing of the past.\par \par [4] The word here rendered "assembly" is the Semitic loan-word\par /buhrum/, in Babylonian /puhrum/, the term employed for the\par "assembly" of the gods both in the Babylonian Creation Series and\par in the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment in the Sumerian Version, in\par place of its Sumerian equivalent /ukkin/, is an interesti†ng\par example of Semitic influence. Its occurrence does not necessarily\par imply the existence of a recognized Semitic Version at the period\par our text was inscribed. The substitution of /buhrum/ for /ukkin/\par in the text may well date from the period of Hammurabi, when we\par may assume that the increased importance of the city-council was\par reflected in the general adoption of the Semitic term (cf. Poebel,\par /Hist. Texts/, p. 53).\par \par In the Semitic Version Ut-napishtim, who tells the story in the first\par person, then says that he "understood", and that, after assuring Ea\par that he would carry out his commands, he asked how he was to explain\par his action to "the city, the people, and the elders"; and the god told\par him what to say. Then follows an account of the building of the ship,\par introduced by the words "As soon as the dawn began to break". In the\par Sumerian Version the close of the warning, in which the ship was\par probably r‡eferred to, and the lines prescribing how Ziusudu carried\par out the divine instructions are not preserved.\par \par It will be seen that in the passage quoted from the Semitic Version\par there is no direct mention of a dream; the god is represented at first\par as addressing his words to a "house of reeds" and a "wall", and then\par as speaking to Ut-napishtim himself. But in a later passage in the\par Epic, when Ea seeks to excuse his action to Enlil, he says that the\par gods' decision was revealed to Atrakhasis through a dream.[1] Dr.\par Poebel rightly compares the direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in\par the passage quoted above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu\par receives in the Sumerian Version. But he would have us divorce the\par direct warning from the dream-warning, and he concludes that no less\par than three different versions of the story have been worked together\par in the Gilgamesh Epic. In the first, corresponding to that in our\par text, Ea communicates the ˆgods' decision directly to Ut-napishtim; in\par the second he sends a dream from which Atrakhasis, "the Very Wise\par one", guesses the impending peril; while in the third he relates the\par plan to a wall, taking care that Ut-napishtim overhears him.[2] The\par version of Berossus, that Kronos himself appears to Xisuthros in a\par dream and warns him, is rejected by Dr. Poebel, who remarks that here\par the "original significance of the dream has already been obliterated".\par Consequently there seems to him to be "no logical connexion" between\par the dreams or dream mentioned at the close of the Third Column and the\par communication of the plan of the gods at the beginning of the Fourth\par Column of our text.[3]\par \par [1] Cf. l. 195 f.; "I did not divulge the decision of the great gods.\par I caused Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thus he heard the\par decision of the gods."\par \par [2] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 51 f. With the god's apparent\par subterfuge in the‰ third of these supposed versions Sir James\par Frazer (/Ancient Stories of a Great Flood/, p. 15) not inaptly\par compares the well-known story of King Midas's servant, who, unable\par to keep the secret of the king's deformity to himself, whispered\par it into a hole in the ground, with the result that the reeds which\par grew up there by their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the\par world (Ovid, /Metamorphoses/, xi, 174 ff.).\par \par [3] Op. cit., p. 51; cf. also Jastrow, /Heb. and Bab. Trad./, p. 346.\par \par So far from Berossus having missed the original significance of the\par narrative he relates, I think it can be shown that he reproduces very\par accurately the sense of our Sumerian text; and that the apparent\par discrepancies in the Semitic Version, and the puzzling references to a\par wall in both it and the Sumerian Version, are capable of a simple\par explanation. There appears to me no justification for splitting the\par Semitic narrative intŠo the several versions suggested, since the\par assumption that the direct warning and the dream-warning must be\par distinguished is really based on a misunderstanding of the character\par of Sumerian dreams by which important decisions of the gods in council\par were communicated to mankind. We fortunately possess an instructive\par Sumerian parallel to our passage. In it the will of the gods is\par revealed in a dream, which is not only described in full but is\par furnished with a detailed interpretation; and as it seems to clear up\par our difficulties, it may be well to summarize its main features.\par \par The occasion of the dream in this case was not a coming deluge but a\par great dearth of water in the rivers, in consequence of which the crops\par had suffered and the country was threatened with famine. This occurred\par in the reign of Gudea, patesi of Lagash, who lived some centuries\par before our Sumerian document was inscribed. In his own inscription[1]\par he tells us that ‹he was at a loss to know by what means he might\par restore prosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream; and\par it was in consequence of the dream that he eventually erected one of\par the most sumptuously appointed of Sumerian temples and thereby\par restored his land to prosperity. Before recounting his dream he\par describes how the gods themselves took counsel. On the day in which\par destinies were fixed in heaven and earth, Enlil, the chief of the\par gods, and Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash, held converse; and Enlil,\par turning to Ningirsu, described the sad condition of Southern\par Babylonia, and remarked that "the decrees of the temple Eninn\'fb should\par be made glorious in heaven and upon earth", or, in other words, that\par Ningirsu's city-temple must be rebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not\par communicate his orders directly to Gudea, but conveyed the will of the\par gods to him by means of a dream.\par \par [1] See Thureau-Dangin, /Les inscriptions de Sumer eŒt d'Akkad/, Cyl.\par A, pp. 134 ff., Germ. ed., pp. 88 ff.; and cf. King and Hall, /Eg.\par and West. Asia/, pp. 196 ff.\par \par It will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation to that\par in the Deluge story. A conference of the gods has been held; a\par decision has been taken by the greatest god, Enlil; and, in\par consequence, another deity is anxious to inform a Sumerian ruler of\par that decision. The only difference is that here Enlil desires the\par communication to be made, while in the Deluge story it is made without\par his knowledge, and obviously against his wishes. So the fact that\par Ningirsu does not communicate directly with the patesi, but conveys\par his message by means of a dream, is particularly instructive. For here\par there can be no question of any subterfuge in the method employed,\par since Enlil was a consenting party.\par \par The story goes on to relate that, while the patesi slept, a vision of\par the night came to him, and he beheld a man whose stature was so great\par that it equalled the heavens and the earth. By the diadem he wore upon\par his head Gudea knew that the figure must be a god. Beside the god was\par the divine eagle, the emblem of Lagash; his feet rested upon the\par whirlwind, and a lion crouched upon his right hand and upon his left.\par The figure spoke to the patesi, but he did not understand the meaning\par of the words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose from the\par earth; and he beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure reed, and she\par carried also a tablet on which was a star of the heavens, and she\par seemed to take counsel with herself. While Gudea was gazing, he seemed\par to see a second man, who was like a warrior; and he carried a slab of\par lapis lazuli, on which he drew out the plan of a temple. Before the\par patesi himself it seemed that a fair cushion was placed, and upon the\par cushion was set a mould, and within the mould was a brick. And on the\par right hand the patesŽi beheld an ass that lay upon the ground. Such was\par the dream of Gudea, and he was troubled because he could not interpret\par it.[1]\par \par [1] The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalyptic visions\par of a later period is interesting, as evidence of the latter's\par remote ancestry, and of the development in the use of primitive\par material to suit a completely changed political outlook. But those\par are points which do not concern our problem.\par \par To cut the long story short, Gudea decided to seek the help of Nin\'e2,\par "the child of Eridu", who, as daughter of Enki, the God of Wisdom,\par could divine all the mysteries of the gods. But first of all by\par sacrifices and libations he secured the mediation of his own city-god\par and goddess, Ningirsu and Gatumdug; and then, repairing to Nin\'e2's\par temple, he recounted to her the details of his vision. When the patesi\par had finished, the goddess addressed him and said she would explain to\par him the meaning of his dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand\par that she spoke through the mouth of her chief priest. And this was the\par interpretation of the dream. The man whose stature was so great, and\par whose head was that of a god, was the god Ningirsu, and the words\par which he uttered were an order to the patesi to rebuild the temple\par Eninn\'fb. The Sun which rose from the earth was the god Ningishzida, for\par like the Sun he goes forth from the earth. The maiden who held the\par pure reed and carried the tablet with the star was the goddess Nisaba;\par the star was the pure star of the temple's construction, which she\par proclaimed. The second man, who was like a warrior, was the god Nibub;\par and the plan of the temple which he drew was the plan of Eninn\'fb; and\par the ass that lay upon the ground was the patesi himself.[1]\par \par [1] The symbolism of the ass, as a beast of burden, was applicable to\par the patesi in his task of carrying out the building of the temple.\par \par The essential feature of the vision is that the god himself appeared\par to the sleeper and delivered his message in words. That is precisely\par the manner in which Kronos warned Xisuthros of the coming Deluge in\par the version of Berossus; while in the Gilgamesh Epic the apparent\par contradiction between the direct warning and the dream-warning at once\par disappears. It is true that Gudea states that he did not understand\par the meaning of the god's message, and so required an interpretation;\par but he was equally at a loss as to the identity of the god who gave\par it, although Ningirsu was his own city-god and was accompanied by his\par own familiar city-emblem. We may thus assume that the god's words, as\par words, were equally intelligible to Gudea. But as they were uttered in\par a dream, it was necessary that the patesi, in view of his country's\par peril, should have divine assurance that they implied no other\par meaning. And in his case such assuranc‘e was the more essential, in\par view of the symbolism attaching to the other features of his vision.\par That this is sound reasoning is proved by a second vision vouchsafed\par to Gudea by Ningirsu. For the patesi, though he began to prepare for\par the building of the temple, was not content even with Nin\'e2's\par assurance. He offered a prayer to Ningirsu himself, saying that he\par wished to build the temple, but had received no sign that this was the\par will of the god; and he prayed for a sign. Then, as the patesi lay\par stretched upon the ground, the god again appeared to him and gave him\par detailed instructions, adding that he would grant the sign for which\par he asked. The sign was that he should feel his side touched as by a\par flame,[1] and thereby he should know that he was the man chosen by\par Ningirsu to carry out his commands. Here it is the sign which confirms\par the apparent meaning of the god's words. And Gudea was at last content\par and built the temple.[2]\par ’ \par [1] Cyl. A., col. xii, l. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 150\par f., Germ. ed., p. 102 f. The word translated "side" may also be\par rendered as "hand"; but "side" is the more probable rendering of\par the two. The touching of Gudea's side (or hand) presents an\par interesting resemblance to the touching of Jacob's thigh by the\par divine wrestler at Peniel in Gen. xxxii. 24 ff. (J or JE). Given a\par belief in the constant presence of the unseen and its frequent\par manifestation, such a story as that of Peniel might well arise\par from an unexplained injury to the sciatic muscle, while more than\par one ailment of the heart or liver might perhaps suggest the touch\par of a beckoning god. There is of course no connexion between the\par Sumerian and Hebrew stories beyond their common background. It may\par be added that those critics who would reverse the /r\'f4les/ of Jacob\par and the wrestler miss the point of the Hebrew s“tory.\par \par [2] Even so, before starting on the work, he took the further\par precautions of ascertaining that the omens were favourable and of\par purifying his city from all malign influence.\par \par We may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge\par we have traced a logical connexion between the direct warning to\par Ziusudu in the Fourth Column of the text and the reference to a dream\par in the broken lines at the close of the Third Column. As in the\par Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, here too the god's warning is conveyed\par in a dream; and the accompanying reference to conjuring by the Name of\par Heaven and Earth probably represents the means by which Ziusudu was\par enabled to verify its apparent meaning. The assurance which Gudea\par obtained through the priest of Nin\'e2 and the sign, the priest-king\par Ziusudu secured by his own act, in virtue of his piety and practice of\par divination. And his employment of the particular class of incanta”tion\par referred to, that which conjures by the Name of Heaven and Earth, is\par singularly appropriate to the context. For by its use he was enabled\par to test the meaning of Enki's words, which related to the intentions\par of Anu and Enlil, the gods respectively of Heaven and of Earth. The\par symbolical setting of Gudea's vision also finds a parallel in the\par reed-house and wall of the Deluge story, though in the latter case we\par have not the benefit of interpretation by a goddess. In the Sumerian\par Version the wall is merely part of the vision and does not receive a\par direct address from the god. That appears as a later development in\par the Semitic Version, and it may perhaps have suggested the excuse, put\par in that version into the mouth of Ea, that he had not directly\par revealed the decision of the gods.[1]\par \par [1] In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazer between\par the reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, now regarded as a\par medi•um of communication, and the whispering reeds of the Midas\par story would still hold good.\par \par The omission of any reference to a dream before the warning in the\par Gilgamesh Epic may be accounted for on the assumption that readers of\par the poem would naturally suppose that the usual method of divine\par warning was implied; and the text does indicate that the warning took\par place at night, for Gilgamesh proceeds to carry out the divine\par instructions at the break of day. The direct warning of the Hebrew\par Versions, on the other hand, does not carry this implication, since\par according to Hebrew ideas direct speech, as well as vision, was\par included among the methods by which the divine will could be conveyed\par to man.\par \par \par V. THE FLOOD, THE ESCAPE OF THE GREAT BOAT,\par AND THE SACRIFICE TO THE SUN-GOD\par \par The missing portion of the Fourth Column must have described Ziusudu's\par building of his great boat in order t–o escape the Deluge, for at the\par beginning of the Fifth Column we are in the middle of the Deluge\par itself. The column begins:\par \par All the mighty wind-storms together blew,\par The flood . . . raged.\par When for seven days, for seven nights,\par The flood had overwhelmed the land\par When the wind-storm had driven the great boat over the mighty\par waters,\par The Sun-god came forth, shedding light over heaven and earth.\par Ziusudu opened the opening of the great boat;\par The light of the hero, the Sun-god, (he) causes to enter into the\par interior(?) of the great boat.\par Ziusudu, the king,\par Bows himself down before the Sun-god;\par The king sacrifices an ox, a sheep he slaughters(?).\par \par The connected text of the column then breaks off, only a sign or two\par remaining of the following half-dozen lines. It will be seen that in\par the eleven lines that are preserved we have several close parallels to\par the Babylonian Version and— some equally striking differences. While\par attempting to define the latter, it will be well to point out how\par close the resemblances are, and at the same time to draw a comparison\par between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions of this part of the story\par and the corresponding Hebrew accounts.\par \par Here, as in the Babylonian Version, the Flood is accompanied by\par hurricanes of wind, though in the latter the description is worked up\par in considerable detail. We there read[1] that at the appointed time\par the ruler of the darkness at eventide sent a heavy rain. Ut-napishtim\par saw its beginning, but fearing to watch the storm, he entered the\par interior of the ship by Ea's instructions, closed the door, and handed\par over the direction of the vessel to the pilot Puzur-Amurri. Later a\par thunder-storm and hurricane added their terrors to the deluge. For at\par early dawn a black cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-god\par thundering in its midst, and his herald˜s, Nab\'fb and Sharru, flying over\par mountain and plain. Nergal tore away the ship's anchor, while Ninib\par directed the storm; the Anunnaki carried their lightning-torches and\par lit up the land with their brightness; the whirlwind of the Storm-god\par reached the heavens, and all light was turned into darkness. The storm\par raged the whole day, covering mountain and people with water.[2] No\par man beheld his fellow; the gods themselves were afraid, so that they\par retreated into the highest heaven, where they crouched down, cowering\par like dogs. Then follows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference\par has already been made, the goddess reproaching herself for the part\par she had taken in the destruction of her people. This section of the\par Semitic narrative closes with the picture of the gods weeping with\par her, sitting bowed down with their lips pressed together.\par \par [1] Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 90 ff.\par \par [2] In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign of Amm™izaduga, Col.\par I, l. 5, contains a reference to the "cry" of men when Adad the\par Storm-god, slays them with his flood.\par \par It is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion of\par its Fourth Column, contained some account of Ziusudu's entry into his\par boat; and this may have been preceded, as in the Gilgamesh Epic, by a\par reference to "the living seed of every kind", or at any rate to "the\par four-legged creatures of the field", and to his personal possessions,\par with which we may assume he had previously loaded it. But in the Fifth\par Column we have no mention of the pilot or of any other companions who\par may have accompanied the king; and we shall see that the Sixth Column\par contains no reference to Ziusudu's wife. The description of the storm\par may have begun with the closing lines of the Fourth Column, though it\par is also quite possible that the first line of the Fifth Column\par actually begins the account. However that may be, and in spšite of the\par poetic imagery of the Semitic Babylonian narrative, the general\par character of the catastrophe is the same in both versions.\par \par We find an equally close parallel, between the Sumerian and Babylonian\par accounts, in the duration of the storm which accompanied the Flood, as\par will be seen by printing the two versions together:[3]\par \par SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\par \par When for seven days, for seven For six days and nights\par nights, \par The flood had overwhelmed the The wind blew, the flood, the\par land, tempest overwhelmed the land.\par When the wind-storm had driven When the seventh day drew near,\par the great boat over the the tempest, the flood, ceased\par mighty waters, from the battle\par In which it had fought like a\par host.\par The S›un-god came forth shedding Then the sea rested and was\par light over heaven and earth. still, and the wind-storm, the\par flood, ceased.\par \par [3] Col. V, ll. 3-6 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 128-32.\par \par The two narratives do not precisely agree as to the duration of the\par storm, for while in the Sumerian account the storm lasts seven days\par and seven nights, in the Semitic-Babylonian Version it lasts only six\par days and nights, ceasing at dawn on the seventh day. The difference,\par however, is immaterial when we compare these estimates with those of\par the Hebrew Versions, the older of which speaks of forty days' rain,\par while the later version represents the Flood as rising for no less\par than a hundred and fifty days.\par \par The close parallel between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions is\par not, however, confined to subject-matter, but here, even extends to\par some of the words and phrases eœmployed. It has already been noted that\par the Sumerian term employed for "flood" or "deluge" is the attested\par equivalent of the Semitic word; and it may now be added that the word\par which may be rendered "great boat" or "great ship" in the Sumerian\par text is the same word, though partly expressed by variant characters,\par which occurs in the early Semitic fragment of the Deluge story from\par Nippur.[1] In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, the ordinary\par ideogram for "vessel" or "ship"[2] is employed, though the great size\par of the vessel is there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew\par Version, by detailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian and Semitic\par verbs, which are employed in the parallel passages quoted above for\par the "overwhelming" of the land, are given as synonyms in a late\par syllabary, while in another explanatory text the Sumerian verb is\par explained as applying to the destructive action of a flood.[3] Such\par close linguistic parallels are instructive as furnishing additional\par proof, if it were needed, of the dependence of the Semitic-Babylonian\par and Assyrian Versions upon Sumerian originals.\par \par [1] The Sumerian word is /(gish)ma-gur-gur/, corresponding to the term\par written in the early Semitic fragment, l. 8, as /(isu)ma-gur-gur/,\par which is probably to be read under its Semitized form\par /magurgurru/. In l. 6 of that fragment the vessel is referred to\par under the synonymous expression /(isu)elippu ra-be-tu/, "a great\par ship".\par \par [2] i.e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word, read in\par Semitic Babylonian as /elippu/, "ship"; when employed in the early\par Semitic fragment it is qualified by the adj. /ra-be-tu/, "great".\par There is no justification for assuming, with Prof. Hilbrecht, that\par a measurement of the vessel was given in l. 7 of the early Semitic\par fragment.\par \par [3] The Sumerian verb /ur/, which is employed in l. 2 ožf the Fifth\par Column in the expression /ba-an-da-ab-ur-ur/, translated as\par "raged", occurs again in l. 4 in the phrase /kalam-ma ba-ur-ra/,\par "had overwhelmed the land". That we are justified in regarding the\par latter phrase as the original of the Semitic /i-sap-pan m\'e2ta/\par (Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 129) is proved by the equation Sum. /ur-ur/ =\par Sem. /sa-pa-nu/ (Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, Vol. V, pl. 42, l. 54 c) and\par by the explanation Sum. /ur-ur/ = Sem. /\'9aa-ba-tu \'9aa a-bu-bi/, i.e.\par "/ur-ur/ = to smite, of a flood" (/Cun. Texts, Pt. XII, pl. 50,\par Obv., l. 23); cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 54, n. 1.\par \par It may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of the text,\par in order to inquire what kind of boat it was in which Ziusudu escaped\par the Flood. It is only called "a great boat" or "a great ship" in the\par text, and this term, as we have noted, was taken over, semitized, and\par literally translated in an early SemŸitic-Babylonian Version. But the\par Gilgamesh Epic, representing the later Semitic-Babylonian Version,\par supplies fuller details, which have not, however, been satisfactorily\par explained. Either the obvious meaning of the description and figures\par there given has been ignored, or the measurements have been applied to\par a central structure placed upon a hull, much on the lines of a modern\par "house-boat" or the conventional Noah's ark.[1] For the latter\par interpretation the text itself affords no justification. The statement\par is definitely made that the length and breadth of the vessel itself\par are to be the same;[2] and a later passage gives ten /gar/ for the\par height of its sides and ten /gar/ for the breadth of its deck.[3] This\par description has been taken to imply a square box-like structure,\par which, in order to be seaworthy, must be placed on a conjectured hull.\par \par [1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 329.\par \par [2] Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 28 -30.\par \par [3] L. 58 f. The /gar/ contained twelve cubits, so that the vessel\par would have measured 120 cubits each way; taking the Babylonian\par cubit, on the basis of Gudea's scale, at 495 mm. (cf. Thureau-\par Dangin, /Journal Asiatique/, Dix. S\'e9r., t. XIII, 1909, pp. 79 ff.,\par 97), this would give a length, breadth, and height of nearly 195\par ft.\par \par I do not think it has been noted in this connexion that a vessel,\par approximately with the relative proportions of that described in the\par Gilgamesh Epic, is in constant use to-day on the lower Tigris and\par Euphrates. A /kuffah/,[1] the familiar pitched coracle of Baghdad,\par would provide an admirable model for the gigantic vessel in which\par Ut-napishtim rode out the Deluge. "Without either stem or stern, quite\par round like a shield"--so Herodotus described the /kuffah/ of his\par day;2[] so, too, is it represented on Assyrian slabs from Nineveh,\par where we see it employed for the transp¡ort of heavy building\par material;[3] its form and structure indeed suggest a prehistoric\par origin. The /kuffah/ is one of those examples of perfect adjustment to\par conditions of use which cannot be improved. Any one who has travelled\par in one of these craft will agree that their storage capacity is\par immense, for their circular form and steeply curved side allow every\par inch of space to be utilized. It is almost impossible to upset them,\par and their only disadvantage is lack of speed. For their guidance all\par that is required is a steersman with a paddle, as indicated in the\par Epic. It is true that the larger kuffah of to-day tends to increase in\par diameter as compared to height, but that detail might well be ignored\par in picturing the monster vessel of Ut-napishtim. Its seven horizontal\par stages and their nine lateral divisions would have been structurally\par sound in supporting the vessel's sides; and the selection of the\par latter uneven number, though prompted d¢oubtless by its sacred\par character, is only suitable to a circular craft in which the interior\par walls would radiate from the centre. The use of pitch and bitumen for\par smearing the vessel inside and out, though unusual even in\par Mesopotamian shipbuilding, is precisely the method employed in the\par /kuffah's/ construction.\par \par [1] Arab. /kuffah/, pl. /kufaf/; in addition to its common use for the\par Baghdad coracle, the word is also employed for a large basket.\par \par [2] Herodotus, I, 194.\par \par [3] The /kuffah/ is formed of wicker-work coated with bitumen. Some of\par those represented on the Nineveh sculptures appear to be covered with\par skins; and Herodotus (I, 94) states that "the boats which come down\par the river to Babylon are circular and made of skins." But his further\par description shows that he is here referred to the /kelek/ or\par skin-raft, with which he has combined a description of the /kuffah/.\par The late Sir Henry Rawlinson has never seen£ or heard of a skin-covered\par /kuffah/ on either the Tigris or Euphrates, and there can be little\par doubt that bitumen was employed for their construction in antiquity,\par as it is to-day. These craft are often large enough to carry five or\par six horses and a dozen men.\par \par We have no detailed description of Ziusudu's "great boat", beyond the\par fact that it was covered in and had an opening, or light-hole, which\par could be closed. But the form of Ut-napishtim's vessel was no doubt\par traditional, and we may picture that of Ziusudu as also of the\par /kuffah/ type, though smaller and without its successor's elaborate\par internal structure. The gradual development of the huge coracle into a\par ship would have been encouraged by the Semitic use of the term "ship"\par to describe it; and the attempt to retain something of its original\par proportions resulted in producing the unwieldy ark of later\par tradition.[1]\par \par [1] The description of the ark is not preserved fr¤om the earlier\par Hebrew Version (J), but the latter Hebrew Version (P), while\par increasing the length of the vessel, has considerably reduced its\par height and breadth. Its measurements are there given (Gen. vi. 15)\par as 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in\par height; taking the ordinary Hebrew cubit at about 18 in., this\par would give a length of about 450 ft., a breadth of about 75 ft.,\par and a height of about 45 ft. The interior stories are necessarily\par reduced to three. The vessel in Berossus measures five stadia by\par two, and thus had a length of over three thousand feet and a\par breadth of more than twelve hundred.\par \par We will now return to the text and resume the comparison we were\par making between it and the Gilgamesh Epic. In the latter no direct\par reference is made to the appearance of the Sun-god after the storm,\par nor is Ut-napishtim represented as praying to him. But the sequence of\par ¥ events in the Sumerian Version is very natural, and on that account\par alone, apart from other reasons, it may be held to represent the\par original form of the story. For the Sun-god would naturally reappear\par after the darkness of the storm had passed, and it would be equally\par natural that Ziusudu should address himself to the great light-god.\par Moreover, the Gilgamesh Epic still retains traces of the Sumerian\par Version, as will be seen from a comparison of their narratives,[1] the\par Semitic Version being quoted from the point where the hurricane ceased\par and the sea became still.\par \par [1] Col. V, ll. 7-11 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 133-9.\par \par SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\par \par When I looked at the storm, the\par uproar had ceased,\par And all mankind was turned into\par ¦ clay;\par In place of fields there was a\par swamp.\par Ziusudu opened the opening of I opened the opening (lit.\par the great boat; "hole"), and daylight fell\par upon my countenance.\par The light of the hero, the Sun-\par god, (he) causes to enter into\par the interior(?) of the great\par boat.\par Ziusudu, the king,\par Bows himself down before the I bowed myself down and sat down\par Sun-god; weeping;\par The king sacrifices an ox, a Over my countenance flowed my\par sheep he slaughters(?). tears.\par I gazed upon the quarters (of\par the world)--all(?) was sea.\par \par It will be seen that in the Semitic Version the beams of the Sun-god\par have been reduced to "day§light", and Ziusudu's act of worship has\par become merely prostration in token of grief.\par \par Both in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus the sacrifice offered by\par the Deluge hero to the gods follows the episode of the birds, and it\par takes place on the top of the mountain after the landing from the\par vessel. It is hardly probable that two sacrifices were recounted in\par the Sumerian Version, one to the Sun-god in the boat and another on\par the mountain after landing; and if we are right in identifying\par Ziusudu's recorded sacrifice with that of Ut-napishtim and Xisuthros,\par it would seem that, according to the Sumerian Version, no birds were\par sent out to test the abatement of the waters. This conclusion cannot\par be regarded as quite certain, inasmuch as the greater part of the\par Fifth Column is waning. We have, moreover, already seen reason to\par believe that the account on our tablet is epitomized, and that\par consequently the omission of any episode from our tex¨t does not\par necessarily imply its absence from the original Sumerian Version which\par it follows. But here at least it is clear that nothing can have been\par omitted between the opening of the light-hole and the sacrifice, for\par the one act is the natural sequence of the other. On the whole it\par seems preferable to assume that we have recovered a simpler form of\par the story.\par \par As the storm itself is described in a few phrases, so the cessation of\par the flood may have been dismissed with equal brevity; the gradual\par abatement of the waters, as attested by the dove, the swallow, and the\par raven, may well be due to later elaboration or to combination with\par some variant account. Under its amended form the narrative leads\par naturally up to the landing on the mountain and the sacrifice of\par thanksgiving to the gods. In the Sumerian Version, on the other hand,\par Ziusudu regards himself as saved when he sees the Sun shining; he\par needs no further tests to assure ©himself that the danger is over, and\par his sacrifice too is one of gratitude for his escape. The\par disappearance of the Sun-god from the Semitic Version was thus a\par necessity, to avoid an anti-climax; and the hero's attitude of worship\par had obviously to be translated into one of grief. An indication that\par the sacrifice was originally represented as having taken place on\par board the boat may be seen in the lines of the Gilgamesh Epic which\par recount how Enlil, after acquiescing in Ut-napishtim's survival of the\par Flood, went up into the ship and led him forth by the hand, although,\par in the preceding lines, he had already landed and had sacrificed upon\par the mountain. The two passages are hardly consistent as they stand,\par but they find a simple explanation of we regard the second of them as\par an unaltered survival from an earlier form of the story.\par \par If the above line of reasoning be sound, it follows that, while the\par earlier Hebrew Version closely resemªbles the Gilgamesh Epic, the later\par Hebrew Version, by its omission of the birds, would offer a parallel\par to the Sumerian Version. But whether we may draw any conclusion from\par this apparent grouping of our authorities will be best dealt with when\par we have concluded our survey of the new evidence.\par \par As we have seen, the text of the Fifth Column breaks off with\par Ziusudu's sacrifice to the Sun-god, after he had opened a light-hole\par in the boat and had seen by the god's beams that the storm was over.\par The missing portion of the Fifth Column must have included at least\par some account of the abatement of the waters, the stranding of the\par boat, and the manner in which Anu and Enlil became apprised of\par Ziusudu's escape, and consequently of the failure of their intention\par to annihilate mankind. For in the Sixth Column of the text we find\par these two deities reconciled to Ziusudu and bestowing immortality upon\par him, as Enlil bestows immortality upon Ut-napi«shtim at the close of\par the Semitic Version. In the latter account, after the vessel had\par grounded on Mount Nisir and Ut-napishtim had tested the abatement of\par the waters by means of the birds, he brings all out from the ship and\par offers his libation and sacrifice upon the mountain, heaping up reed,\par cedar-wood, and myrtle beneath his seven sacrificial vessels. And it\par was by this act on his part that the gods first had knowledge of his\par escape. For they smelt the sweet savour of the sacrifice, and\par "gathered like flies over the sacrificer".[1]\par \par [1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 162.\par \par It is possible in our text that Ziusudu's sacrifice in the boat was\par also the means by which the gods became acquainted with his survival;\par and it seems obvious that the Sun-god, to whom it was offered, should\par have continued to play some part in the narrative, perhaps by assisting\par Ziusudu in propitiating Anu and Enlil. In the Semitic-Babylonian\par Version, the first¬ deity to approach the sacrifice is B\'ealit-ili or\par Ishtar, who is indignant with Enlil for what he has done. When Enlil\par himself approaches and sees the ship he is filled with anger against\par the gods, and, asking who has escaped, exclaims that no man must live\par in the destruction. Thereupon Ninib accuses Ea, who by his pleading\par succeeds in turning Enlil's purpose. He bids Enlil visit the sinner\par with his sin and lay his transgression on the transgressor; Enlil\par should not again send a deluge to destroy the whole of mankind, but\par should be content with less wholesale destruction, such as that\par wrought by wild beasts, famine, and plague. Finally he confesses that\par it was he who warned Ziusudu of the gods' decision by sending him a\par dream. Enlil thereupon changes his intention, and going up into the\par ship, leads Ut-napishtim forth. Though Ea's intervention finds, of\par course, no parallel in either Hebrew version, the subject-matter of\par his speech is r­eflected in both. In the earlier Hebrew Version Yahweh\par smells the sweet savour of Noah's burnt offering and says in his heart\par he will no more destroy every living creature as he had done; while in\par the later Hebrew Version Elohim, after remembering Noah and causing\par the waters to abate, establishes his covenant to the same effect, and,\par as a sign of the covenant, sets his bow in the clouds.\par \par In its treatment of the climax of the story we shall see that the\par Sumerian Version, at any rate in the form it has reached us, is on a\par lower ethical level than the Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. Ea's\par argument that the sinner should bear his own sin and the transgressor\par his own transgression in some measure forestalls that of Ezekiel;[1]\par and both the Hebrew Versions represent the saving of Noah as part of\par the divine intention from the beginning. But the Sumerian Version\par introduces the element of magic as the means by which man can bend the\par will of® the gods to his own ends. How far the details of the Sumerian\par myth at this point resembled that of the Gilgamesh Epic it is\par impossible to say, but the general course of the story must have been\par the same. In the latter Enlil's anger is appeased, in the former that\par of Anu and Enlil; and it is legitimate to suppose that Enki, like Ea,\par was Ziusudu's principal supporter, in view of the part he had already\par taken in ensuring his escape.\par \par [1] Cf. Ezek. xviii, passim, esp. xviii. 20.\par \par \par VI. THE PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY GODS,\par AND ZIUSUDU'S IMMORTALITY\par \par The presence of the puzzling lines, with which the Sixth Column of our\par text opens, was not explained by Dr. Poebel; indeed, they would be\par difficult to reconcile with his assumption that our text is an epic\par pure and simple. But if, as is suggested above, we are dealing with a\par myth in magical employment, they are quite capable of explanation. ¯The\par problem these lines present will best be stated by giving a\par translation of the extant portion of the column, where they will be\par seen with their immediate context in relation to what follows them:\par \par "By the Soul of Heaven, by the soul of Earth, shall ye conjure him,\par That with you he may . . . !\par Anu and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth, shall ye\par conjure,\par And with you will he . . . !\par "The /niggilma/ of the ground springs forth in abundance(?)!"\par Ziusudu, the king,\par Before Anu and Enlil bows himself down.\par Life like (that of) a god he gives to him,\par An eternal soul like (that of) a god he creates for him.\par At that time Ziusudu, the king,\par The name of the /niggilma/ (named) "Preserver of the Seed of\par Mankind".\par In a . . . land,[1] the land[1] of Dilmun(?), they caused him to\par dwell.\par \par [1] Possibly to be translated "mountain". The rendering of the proper\par ° name as that of Dilmun is very uncertain. For the probable\par identification of Dilmun with the island of Bahrein in the Persian\par Gulf, cf. Rawlinson, /Journ. Roy. As. Soc./, 1880, pp. 20 ff.; and\par see further, Meissner, /Orient. Lit-Zeit./, XX. No. 7, col. 201\par ff.\par \par The first two lines of the column are probably part of the speech of\par some deity, who urges the necessity of invoking or conjuring Anu and\par Enlil "by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth", in order to\par secure their support or approval. Now Anu and Enlil are the two great\par gods who had determined on mankind's destruction, and whose wrath at\par his own escape from death Ziusudu must placate. It is an obvious\par inference that conjuring "by the Soul of Heaven" and "by the Soul of\par Earth" is either the method by which Ziusudu has already succeeded in\par appeasing their anger, or the means by which he is here enjoined to\par attain that end. Against the latter alternative ±it is to be noted that\par the god is addressing more than one person; and, further, at Ziusudu\par is evidently already pardoned, for, so far from following the deity's\par advice, he immediately prostrates himself before Anu and Enlil and\par receives immortality. We may conjecture that at the close of the Fifth\par Column Ziusudu had already performed the invocation and thereby had\par appeased the divine wrath; and that the lines at the beginning of the\par Sixth Column point the moral of the story by enjoining on Ziusudu and\par his descendants, in other words on mankind, the advisability of\par employing this powerful incantation at their need. The speaker may\par perhaps have been one of Ziusudu's divine helpers--the Sun-god to whom\par he had sacrificed, or Enki who had saved him from the Flood. But it\par seems to me more probable that the words are uttered by Anu and Enlil\par themselves.[1] For thereby they would be represented as giving their\par own sanction to the formula, and ²as guaranteeing its magical efficacy.\par That the incantation, as addressed to Anu and Enlil, would be\par appropriate is obvious, since each would be magically approached\par through his own sphere of control.\par \par [1] One of them may have been the speaker on behalf of both.\par \par It is significant that at another critical point of the story we have\par already met with a reference to conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and\par Earth", the phrase occurring at the close of the Third Column after\par the reference to the dream or dreams. There, as we saw, we might\par possibly explain the passage as illustrating one aspect of Ziusudu's\par piety: he may have been represented as continually practising this\par class of divination, and in that case it would be natural enough that\par in the final crisis of the story he should have propitiated the gods\par he conjured by the same means. Or, as a more probable alternative, it\par was suggested that we might connect the line with Enki's war³ning, and\par assume that Ziusudu interpreted the dream-revelation of Anu and\par Enlil's purpose by means of the magical incantation which was\par peculiarly associated with them. On either alternative the phrase fits\par into the story itself, and there is no need to suppose that the\par narrative is interrupted, either in the Third or in the Sixth Column,\par by an address to the hearers of the myth, urging them to make the\par invocation on their own behalf.\par \par On the other hand, it seems improbable that the lines in question\par formed part of the original myth; they may have been inserted to weld\par the myth more closely to the magic. Both incantation and epic may have\par originally existed independently, and, if so, their combination would\par have been suggested by their contents. For while the former is\par addressed to Anu and Enlil, in the latter these same gods play the\par dominant parts: they are the two chief creators, it is they who send\par the Flood, and it is the´ir anger that must be appeased. If once\par combined, the further step of making the incantation the actual means\par by which Ziusudu achieved his own rescue and immortality would be a\par natural development. It may be added that the words would have been an\par equally appropriate addition if the incantation had not existed\par independently, but had been suggested by, and developed from, the\par myth.\par \par In the third and eleventh lines of the column we have further\par references to the mysterious object, the creation of which appears to\par have been recorded in the First Column of the text between man's\par creation and that of animals. The second sign of the group composing\par its name was not recognized by Dr. Poebel, but it is quite clearly\par written in two of the passages, and has been correctly identified by\par Professor Barton.[1] The Sumerian word is, in fact, to be read /nig-\par gil-ma/,[2] which, when preceded by the determinative for "pot",\par "jar", or "bowl", µis given in a later syllabary as the equivalent of\par the Semitic word /mashkhalu/. Evidence that the word /mashkhalu/ was\par actually employed to denote a jar or vessel of some sort is furnished\par by one of the Tel el-Amarna letters which refers to "one silver\par /mashkhalu/" and "one (or two) stone /mashkhalu/".[3] In our text the\par determinative is absent, and it is possible that the word is used in\par another sense. Professor Barton, in both passages in the Sixth Column,\par gives it the meaning "curse"; he interprets the lines as referring to\par the removal of a curse from the earth after the Flood, and he compares\par Gen. viii. 21, where Yahweh declares he will not again "curse the\par ground for man's sake". But this translation ignores the occurrence of\par the word in the First Column, where the creation of the /niggilma/ is\par apparently recorded; and his rendering "the seed that was cursed" in\par l. 11 is not supported by the photographic reproduction of the text,\par ¶which suggests that the first sign in the line is not that for "seed",\par but is the sign for "name", as correctly read by Dr. Poebel. In that\par passage the /niggilma/ appears to be given by Ziusudu the name\par "Preserver of the Seed of Mankind", which we have already compared to\par the title bestowed on Uta-napishtim's ship, "Preserver of Life". Like\par the ship, it must have played an important part in man's preservation,\par which would account not only for the honorific title but for the\par special record of its creation.\par \par [1] See /American Journal of Semitic Languages/, Vol. XXXI, April\par 1915, p. 226.\par \par [2] It is written /nig-gil/ in the First Column.\par \par [3] See Winckler, /El-Amarna/, pl. 35 f., No. 28, Obv., Col. II, l.\par 45, Rev., Col. I, l. 63, and Knudtzon, /El-Am. Taf./, pp. 112,\par 122; the vessels were presents from Amenophis IV to Burnaburiash.\par \par It we may connect the word with the magical colouring of the myth, we\par mi·ght perhaps retain its known meaning, "jar" or "bowl", and regard it\par as employed in the magical ceremony which must have formed part of the\par invocation "by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth". But the\par accompanying references to the ground, to its production from the\par ground, and to its springing up, if the phrases may be so rendered,\par suggest rather some kind of plant;[1] and this, from its employment in\par magical rites, may also have given its name to a bowl or vessel which\par held it. A very similar plant was that found and lost by Gilgamesh,\par after his sojourn with Ut-napishtim; it too had potent magical power\par and bore a title descriptive of its peculiar virtue of transforming\par old age to youth. Should this suggestion prove to be correct, the\par three passages mentioning the /niggilma/ must be classed with those in\par which the invocation is referred to, as ensuring the sanction of the\par myth to further elements in the magic. In accordance with this ¸view,\par the fifth line in the Sixth Column is probably to be included in the\par divine speech, where a reference to the object employed in the ritual\par would not be out of place. But it is to be hoped that light will be\par thrown on this puzzling word by further study, and perhaps by new\par fragments of the text; meanwhile it would be hazardous to suggest a\par more definite rendering.\par \par [1] The references to "the ground", or "the earth", also tend to\par connect it peculiarly with Enlil. Enlil's close association with\par the earth, which is, of course, independently attested, is\par explicitly referred to in the Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic.\par XI, ll. 39-42). Suggested reflections of this idea have long been\par traced in the Hebrew Versions; cf. Gen. viii. 21 (J), where Yahweh\par says he will not again curse the ground, and Gen. ix. 13 (P),\par where Elohim speaks of his covenant "between me and the earth".\par \par With the sixth line¹ of the column it is clear that the original\par narrative of the myth is resumed.[1] Ziusudu, the king, prostrates\par himself before Anu and Enlil, who bestow immortality upon him and\par cause him to dwell in a land, or mountain, the name of which may\par perhaps be read as Dilmun. The close parallelism between this portion\par of the text and the end of the myth in the Gilgamesh Epic will be seen\par from the following extracts,[2] the magical portions being omitted\par from the Sumerian Version:\par \par [1] It will also be noted that with this line the text again falls\par naturally into couplets.\par \par [2] Col. VI, ll. 6-9 and 12 are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI,\par ll. 198-205.\par \par SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\par \par Then Enlil went up into the\par ship;\par Ziusudu, the king, He took me by the hand and led\par º me forth.\par Before Anu and Enlil bows himself He brought out my wife and\par down. caused her to bow down at my\par side;\par He touched our brows, standing\par between us and blessing us:\par Life like (that of) a god he "Formerly was Ut-napishtim of\par gives to him. mankind,\par An eternal soul like (that of) a But now let Ut-napishtim be like\par god he creates for him. the gods, even us!\par And let Ut-napishtim dwell afar\par off at the mouth of the\par rivers!"\par In a . . . land, the land of[1] Then they took me and afar off,\par Dilmun(?), they caused him to at the mouth of the rivers,\par dwell. » they caused me to dwell.\par \par [1] Or, "On a mountain, the mountain of", &c.\par \par The Sumerian Version thus apparently concludes with the familiar\par ending of the legend which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic and in\par Berossus, though it here occurs in an abbreviated form and with some\par variations in detail. In all three versions the prostration of the\par Deluge hero before the god is followed by the bestowal of immortality\par upon him, a fate which, according to Berossus, he shared with his\par wife, his daughter, and the steersman. The Gilgamesh Epic perhaps\par implies that Ut-napishtim's wife shared in his immortality, but the\par Sumerian Version mentions Ziusudu alone. In the Gilgamesh Epic\par Ut-napishtim is settled by the gods at the mouth of the rivers, that\par is to say at the head of the Persian Gulf, while according to a\par possible rendering of the Sumerian Version he is made to dwell on\par Dilmun, an island in the Gulf itself. The fact that Gilg¼amesh in the\par Epic has to cross the sea to reach Ut-napishtim may be cited in favour\par of the reading "Dilmun"; and the description of the sea as "the Waters\par of Death", if it implies more than the great danger of their passage,\par was probably a later development associated with Ut-napishtim's\par immortality. It may be added that in neither Hebrew version do we find\par any parallel to the concluding details of the original story, the\par Hebrew narratives being brought to an end with the blessing of Noah\par and the divine promise to, or covenant with, mankind.\par \par \par Such then are the contents of our Sumerian document, and from the\par details which have been given it will have been seen that its story,\par so far as concerns the Deluge, is in essentials the same as that we\par already find in the Gilgamesh Epic. It is true that this earlier\par version has reached us in a magical setting, and to some extent in an\par abbreviated form. In the next lecture I shall have o½ccasion to refer\par to another early mythological text from Nippur, which was thought by\par its first interpreter to include a second Sumerian Version of the\par Deluge legend. That suggestion has not been substantiated, though we\par shall see that the contents of the document are of a very interesting\par character. But in view of the discussion that has taken place in the\par United States over the interpretation of the second text, and of the\par doubts that have subsequently been expressed in some quarters as to\par the recent discovery of any new form of the Deluge legend, it may be\par well to formulate briefly the proof that in the inscription published\par by Dr. Poebel an early Sumerian Version of the Deluge story has\par actually been recovered. Any one who has followed the detailed\par analysis of the new text which has been attempted in the preceding\par paragraphs will, I venture to think, agree that the following\par conclusions may be drawn:\par \par (i) The points of general resemblance presented by the narrative to\par that in the Gilgamesh Epic are sufficiently close in themselves to\par show that we are dealing with a Sumerian Version of that story. And\par this conclusion is further supported (a) by the occurrence throughout\par the text of the attested Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic word,\par employed in the Babylonian Versions, for the "Flood" or "Deluge", and\par (b) by the use of precisely the same term for the hero's "great boat",\par which is already familiar to us from an early Babylonian Version.\par \par (ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of the\par Sumerian legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the one version\par was ultimately derived from the other. And this conclusion in its turn\par is confirmed (a) by the identity in meaning of the Sumerian and\par Babylonian names for the Deluge hero, \par } b‘Ñb‚¯M„ß7{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blî‚ù|…óy6{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 The cumulative effect of such general and detailed evidence is\par overwhelming, and we may dismiss all doubts as to the validity of Dr.\par Poebel's claim. We have indeed recovered a very early, and in some of\par its features a very primitive, for¿„­_ˆÛ?5{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blxÀm of the Deluge narrative which till\par now has reached us only in Semitic and Greek renderings; and the\par stream of tradition has been tapped at a point far above any at which\par we have hitherto approached it. What evidence, we may ask, does this\par early Sumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and literary\par history of the Hebrew Versions?\par \par The general dependence of the biblical Versions upon the Babylonian\par legend as a whole has long been recognized, and needs no further\par demonstration; and it has already been observed that the parallelisms\par with the version in the Gilgamesh Epic are on the whole more detailed\par and striking in the earlier than in the later Hebrew Version.[1] In\par the course of our analysis of the Sumerian text its more striking\par points of agreement or divergence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions,\par were noted under the different sections of its narrative. It was also\par obvious that, in many features in which the Hebrew VersÁions differ\par from the Gilgamesh Epic, the latter finds Sumerian support. These\par facts confirm the conclusion, which we should naturally base on\par grounds of historical probability, that while the Semitic-Babylonian\par Versions were derived from Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were equally\par clearly derived from Babylon. But there are one or two pieces of\par evidence which are apparently at variance with this conclusion, and\par these call for some explanation.\par \par [1] For details see especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 177 ff.\par \par Not too much significance should be attached to the apparent omission\par of the episode of the birds from the Sumerian narrative, in which it\par would agree with the later as against the earlier Hebrew Version; for,\par apart from its epitomized character, there is so much missing from the\par text that the absence of this episode cannot be regarded as\par established with certainty. And in any case it could be balanced by\par the Sumerian ordeÂr of Creation of men before animals, which agrees\par with the earlier Hebrew Version against the later. But there is one\par very striking point in which our new Sumerian text agrees with both\par the Hebrew Versions as against the Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus; and\par that is in the character of Ziusudu, which presents so close a\par parallel to the piety of Noah. As we have already seen, the latter is\par due to no Hebrew idealization of the story, but represents a genuine\par strand of the original tradition, which is completely absent from the\par Babylonian Versions. But the Babylonian Versions are the media through\par which it has generally been assumed that the tradition of the Deluge\par reached the Hebrews. What explanation have we of this fact?\par \par This grouping of Sumerian and Hebrew authorities, against the extant\par sources from Babylon, is emphasized by the general framework of the\par Sumerian story. For the literary connexion which we have in Genesis\par between the CÃreation and the Deluge narratives has hitherto found no\par parallel in the cuneiform texts. In Babylon and Assyria the myth of\par Creation and the Deluge legend have been divorced. From the one a\par complete epic has been evolved in accordance with the tenets of\par Babylonian theology, the Creation myth being combined in the process\par with other myths of a somewhat analogous character. The Deluge legend\par has survived as an isolated story in more than one setting, the\par principal Semitic Version being recounted to the national hero\par Gilgamesh, towards the close of the composite epic of his adventures\par which grew up around the nucleus of his name. It is one of the chief\par surprises of the newly discovered Sumerian Version that the Hebrew\par connexion of the narratives is seen to be on the lines of very\par primitive tradition. Noah's reputation for piety does not stand alone.\par His line of descent from Adam, and the thread of narrative connecting\par the creation of the wÄorld with its partial destruction by the Deluge,\par already appear in Sumerian form at a time when the city of Babylon\par itself had not secured its later power. How then are we to account for\par this correspondence of Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on points\par completely wanting in our intermediate authorities, from which,\par however, other evidence suggests that the Hebrew narratives were\par derived?\par \par At the risk of anticipating some of the conclusions to be drawn in the\par next lecture, it may be well to define an answer now. It is possible\par that those who still accept the traditional authorship of the\par Pentateuch may be inclined to see in this correspondence of Hebrew and\par Sumerian ideas a confirmation of their own hypothesis. But it should\par be pointed out at once that this is not an inevitable deduction from\par the evidence. Indeed, it is directly contradicted by the rest of the\par evidence we have summarized, while it would leave completely\par unexplaiÅned some significant features of the problem. It is true that\par certain important details of the Sumerian tradition, while not\par affecting Babylon and Assyria, have left their stamp upon the Hebrew\par narratives; but that is not an exhaustive statement of the case. For\par we have also seen that a more complete survival of Sumerian tradition\par has taken place in the history of Berossus. There we traced the same\par general framework of the narratives, with a far closer correspondence\par in detail. The kingly rank of Ziusudu is in complete harmony with the\par Berossian conception of a series of supreme Antediluvian rulers, and\par the names of two of the Antediluvian cites are among those of their\par newly recovered Sumerian prototypes. There can thus be no suggestion\par that the Greek reproductions of the Sumerian tradition were in their\par turn due to Hebrew influence. On the contrary we have in them a\par parallel case of survival in a far more complete form.\par \par The infeÆrence we may obviously draw is that the Sumerian narrative\par continued in existence, in a literary form that closely resembled the\par original version, into the later historical periods. In this there\par would be nothing to surprise us, when we recall the careful\par preservation and study of ancient Sumerian religious texts by the\par later Semitic priesthood of the country. Each ancient cult-centre in\par Babylonia continued to cling to its own local traditions, and the\par Sumerian desire for their preservation, which was inherited by their\par Semitic guardians, was in great measure unaffected by political\par occurrences elsewhere. Hence it was that Ashur-bani-pal, when forming\par his library at Nineveh, was able to draw upon so rich a store of the\par more ancient literary texts of Babylonia. The Sumerian Version of the\par Deluge and of Antediluvian history may well have survived in a less\par epitomized form than that in which we have recovered it; and, like\par other ancient teÇxts, it was probably provided with a Semitic\par translation. Indeed its literary study and reproduction may have\par continued without interruption in Babylon itself. But even if Sumerian\par tradition died out in the capital under the influence of the\par Babylonian priesthood, its re-introduction may well have taken place\par in Neo-Babylonian times. Perhaps the antiquarian researches of\par Nabonidus were characteristic of his period; and in any case the\par collection of his country's gods into the capital must have been\par accompanied by a renewed interest in the more ancient versions of the\par past with which their cults were peculiarly associated. In the extant\par summary from Berossus we may possibly see evidence of a subsequent\par attempt to combine with these more ancient traditions the continued\par religious dominance of Marduk and of Babylon.\par \par Our conclusion, that the Sumerian form of the tradition did not die\par out, leaves the question as to the periods during wÈhich Babylonian\par influence may have acted upon Hebrew tradition in great measure\par unaffected; and we may therefore postpone its further consideration to\par the next lecture. To-day the only question that remains to be\par considered concerns the effect of our new evidence upon the wider\par problem of Deluge stories as a whole. What light does it throw on the\par general character of Deluge stories and their suggested Egyptian\par origin?\par \par One thing that strikes me forcibly in reading this early text is the\par complete absence of any trace or indication of astrological /motif/.\par It is true that Ziusudu sacrifices to the Sun-god; but the episode is\par inherent in the story, the appearance of the Sun after the storm\par following the natural sequence of events and furnishing assurance to\par the king of his eventual survival. To identify the worshipper with his\par god and to transfer Ziusudu's material craft to the heavens is surely\par without justification from the simÉple narrative. We have here no\par prototype of Ra sailing the heavenly ocean. And the destructive flood\par itself is not only of an equally material and mundane character, but\par is in complete harmony with its Babylonian setting.\par \par In the matter of floods the Tigris and Euphrates present a striking\par contrast to the Nile. It is true that the life-blood of each country\par is its river-water, but the conditions of its use are very different,\par and in Mesopotamia it becomes a curse when out of control. In both\par countries the river-water must be used for maturing the crops. But\par while the rains of Abyssinia cause the Nile to rise between August and\par October, thus securing both summer and winter crops, the melting snows\par of Armenia and the Taurus flood the Mesopotamian rivers between March\par and May. In Egypt the Nile flood is gentle; it is never abrupt, and\par the river gives ample warning of its rise and fall. It contains just\par enough sediment to enrich the laÊnd without choking the canals; and the\par water, after filling its historic basins, may when necessary be\par discharged into the falling river in November. Thus Egypt receives a\par full and regular supply of water, and there is no difficulty in\par disposing of any surplus. The growth in such a country of a legend of\par world-wide destruction by flood is inconceivable.\par \par In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the floods, which come too late for\par the winter crops, are followed by the rainless summer months; and not\par only must the flood-water be controlled, but some portion of it must\par be detained artificially, if it is to be of use during the burning\par months of July, August, and September, when the rivers are at their\par lowest. Moreover, heavy rain in April and a warm south wind melting\par the snow in the hills may bring down such floods that the channels\par cannot contain them; the dams are then breached and the country is\par laid waste. Here there is first too much Ëwater and then too little.\par \par The great danger from flood in Babylonia, both in its range of action\par and in its destructive effect, is due to the strangely flat character\par of the Tigris and Euphrates delta.[1] Hence after a severe breach in\par the Tigris or Euphrates, the river after inundating the country may\par make itself a new channel miles away from the old one. To mitigate the\par danger, the floods may be dealt with in two ways--by a multiplication\par of canals to spread the water, and by providing escapes for it into\par depressions in the surrounding desert, which in their turn become\par centres of fertility. Both methods were employed in antiquity; and it\par may be added that in any scheme for the future prosperity of the\par country they must be employed again, of course with the increased\par efficiency of modern apparatus.[2] But while the Babylonians succeeded\par in controlling the Euphrates, the Tigris was never really tamed,[3]\par and whenever it burst itsÌ right bank the southern plains were\par devastated. We could not have more suitable soil for the growth of a\par Deluge story.\par \par [1] Baghdad, though 300 miles by crow-fly from the sea and 500 by\par river, is only 120 ft. above sea-level.\par \par [2] The Babylonians controlled the Euphrates, and at the same time\par provided against its time of "low supply", by escapes into two\par depressions in the western desert to the NW. of Babylon, known\par to-day as the Habb\'e2n\'eeyah and Abu D\'ees depressions, which lie S. of\par the modern town of Ram\'e2di and N. of Kerbela. That these\par depressions were actually used as reservoirs in antiquity is\par proved by the presence along their edges of thick beds of\par Euphrates shells. In addition to canals and escapes, the\par Babylonian system included well-constructed dikes protected by\par brushwood. By cutting an eight-mile channel through a low hill\par between the Habb\'e2n\'eeyah and AÍbu D\'ees depressions and by building a\par short dam 50 ft. high across the latter's narrow outlet, Sir\par William Willcocks estimates that a reservoir could be obtained\par holding eighteen milliards of tons of water. See his work /The\par Irrigations of Mesopotamia/ (E. and F. N. Spon, 1911),\par /Geographical Journal/, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug., 1912), pp. 129 ff.,\par and the articles in /The Near East/ cited on p. 97, n. 1, and p.\par 98, n. 2. Sir William Willcocks's volume and subsequent papers\par form the best introduction to the study of Babylonian Deluge\par tradition on its material side.\par \par [3] Their works carried out on the Tigris were effective for\par irrigation; but the Babylonians never succeeded in controlling its\par floods as they did those of the Euphrates. A massive earthen dam,\par the remains of which are still known as "Nimrod's Dam", was thrown\par across the Tigris above the point where it entered its delta; Îthis\par served to turn the river over hard conglomerate rock and kept it\par at a high level so that it could irrigate the country on both\par banks. Above the dam were the heads of the later Nahrw\'e2n Canal, a\par great stream 400 ft. wide and 17 ft. deep, which supplied the\par country east of the river. The N\'e2r Sharri or "King's Canal", the\par Nahar Malkha of the Greeks and the Nahr el-Malik of the Arabs,\par protected the right bank of the Tigris by its own high artificial\par banks, which can still be traced for hundreds of miles; but it\par took its supply from the Euphrates at Sippar, where the ground is\par some 25 ft. higher than on the Tigris. The Tigris usually flooded\par its left bank; it was the right bank which was protected, and a\par breach here meant disaster. Cf. Willcocks, op. cit., and /The Near\par East/, Sept. 29, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 282), p. 522.\par \par It was only by constant and unremitting attention that dÏisaster from\par flood could be averted; and the difficulties of the problem were and\par are increased by the fact that the flood-water of the Mesopotamian\par rivers contains five times as much sediment as the Nile. In fact, one\par of the most pressing of the problems the Sumerian and early Babylonian\par engineers had to solve was the keeping of the canals free from\par silt.[1] What the floods, if left unchecked, may do in Mesopotamia, is\par well illustrated by the decay of the ancient canal-system, which has\par been the immediate cause of the country's present state of sordid\par desolation. That the decay was gradual was not the fault of the\par rivers, but was due to the sound principles on which the old system of\par control had been evolved through many centuries of labour. At the time\par of the Moslem conquest the system had already begun to fail. In the\par fifth century there had been bad floods; but worse came in A.D. 629,\par when both rivers burst their banks and played haÐvoc with the dikes and\par embankments. It is related that the Sassanian king Parwiz, the\par contemporary of Mohammed, crucified in one day forty canal-workers at\par a certain breach, and yet was unable to master the flood.[2] All\par repairs were suspended during the anarchy of the Moslem invasion. As a\par consequence the Tigris left its old bed for the Shatt el-Hai at K\'fbt,\par and pouring its own and its tributaries' waters into the Euphrates\par formed the Great Euphrates Swamp, two hundred miles long and fifty\par broad. But even then what was left of the old system was sufficient to\par support the splendour of the Eastern Caliphate.\par \par [1] Cf. /Letters of Hammurabi/, Vol. III, pp. xxxvi ff.; it was the\par duty of every village or town upon the banks of the main canals in\par Babylonia to keep its own section clear of silt, and of course it\par was also responsible for its own smaller irrigation-channels.\par While the invention of the system of basin-irrigÑation was\par practically forced on Egypt, the extraordinary fertility of\par Babylonia was won in the teeth of nature by the system of\par perennial irrigation, or irrigation all the year round. In\par Babylonia the water was led into small fields of two or three\par acres, while the Nile valley was irrigated in great basins each\par containing some thirty to forty thousand acres. The Babylonian\par method gives far more profitable results, and Sir William\par Willcocks points out that Egypt to-day is gradually abandoning its\par own system and adopting that of its ancient rival; see /The Near\par East/, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 521.\par \par [2] See Le Strange, /The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate/, p. 27.\par \par The second great blow to the system followed the Mongol conquest, when\par the Nahrw\'e2n Canal, to the east of the Tigris, had its head swept away\par by flood and the area it had irrigated became desert. Then, in about\par the fifteenth centÒury, the Tigris returned to its old course; the\par Shatt el-Hai shrank, and much of the Great Swamp dried up into the\par desert it is to-day.[1] Things became worse during the centuries of\par Turkish misrule. But the silting up of the Hillah, or main, branch of\par the Euphrates about 1865, and the transference of a great part of its\par stream into the Hind\'eeyah Canal, caused even the Turks to take action.\par They constructed the old Hind\'eeyah Barrage in 1890, but it gave way in\par 1903 and the state of things was even worse than before; for the\par Hillah branch then dried entirely.[2]\par \par [1] This illustrates the damage the Tigris itself is capable of\par inflicting on the country. It may be added that Sir William\par Willcocks proposes to control the Tigris floods by an escape into\par the Tharth\'e2r depression, a great salt pan at the tail of Wadi\par Tharth\'e2r, which lies 14 ft. below sea level and is 200 ft. lower\par than the flood-level of the TÓigris some thirty-two miles away. The\par escape would leave the Tigris to the S. of S\'e2marra, the proposed\par Beled Barrage being built below it and up-stream of "Nimrod's\par Dam". The Tharth\'e2r escape would drain into the Euphrates, and the\par latter's Habb\'e2n\'eeyah escape would receive any surplus water from\par the Tigris, a second barrage being thrown across the Euphrates up-\par stream of Fall\'fbjah, where there is an outcrop of limestone near\par the head of the Sakhlaw\'eeyah Canal. The Tharth\'e2r depression,\par besides disposing of the Tigris flood-water, would thus probably\par feed the Euphrates; and a second barrage on the Tigris, to be\par built at K\'fbt, would supply water to the Shatt el-Hai. When the\par country is freed from danger of flood, the Baghdad Railway could\par be run through the cultivated land instead of through the eastern\par desert; see Willcocks, /The Near East/, Oct. 6, 1916 (Vol. XI, No.\par Ô 283), p. 545 f.\par \par [2] It was then that Sir William Willcocks designed the new Hind\'eeyah\par Barrage, which was completed in 1913. The Hind\'eeyah branch, to-day\par the main stream of the Euphrates, is the old low-lying Pallacopas\par Canal, which branched westward above Babylon and discharged its\par waters into the western marshes. In antiquity the head of this\par branch had to be opened in high floods and then closed again\par immediately after the flood to keep the main stream full past\par Babylon, which entailed the employment of an enormous number of\par men. Alexander the Great's first work in Babylonia was cutting a\par new head for the Pallacopas in solid ground, for hitherto it had\par been in sandy soil; and it was while reclaiming the marshes\par farther down-stream that he contracted the fever that killed him.\par \par From this brief sketch of progressive disaster during the later\par historical period, the inevitableÕ effect of neglected silt and flood,\par it will be gathered that the two great rivers of Mesopotamia present a\par very strong contrast to the Nile. For during the same period of\par misgovernment and neglect in Egypt the Nile did not turn its valley\par and delta into a desert. On the Tigris and Euphrates, during ages when\par the earliest dwellers on their banks were struggling to make effective\par their first efforts at control, the waters must often have regained\par the upper hand. Under such conditions the story of a great flood in\par the past would not be likely to die out in the future; the tradition\par would tend to gather illustrative detail suggested by later\par experience. Our new text reveals the Deluge tradition in Mesopotamia\par at an early stage of its development, and incidentally shows us that\par there is no need to postulate for its origin any convulsion of nature\par or even a series of seismic shocks accompanied by cyclone in the\par Persian Gulf.\par \par If thÖis had been the only version of the story that had come down to\par us, we should hardly have regarded it as a record of world-wide\par catastrophe. It is true the gods' intention is to destroy mankind, but\par the scene throughout is laid in Southern Babylonia. After seven days'\par storm, the Sun comes out, and the vessel with the pious priest-king\par and his domestic animals on board grounds, apparently still in\par Babylonia, and not on any distant mountain, such as Mt. Nisir or the\par great mass of Ararat in Armenia. These are obviously details which\par tellers of the story have added as it passed down to later\par generations. When it was carried still farther afield, into the area\par of the Eastern Mediterranean, it was again adapted to local\par conditions. Thus Apollodorus makes Deucalion land upon Parnassus,[1]\par and the pseudo-Lucian relates how he founded the temple of Derketo at\par Hierapolis in Syria beside the hole in the earth which swallowed up\par the Flood.[2] To th×e Sumerians who first told the story, the great\par Flood appeared to have destroyed mankind, for Southern Babylonia was\par for them the world. Later peoples who heard it have fitted the story\par to their own geographical horizon, and in all good faith and by a\par purely logical process the mountain-tops are represented as submerged,\par and the ship, or ark, or chest, is made to come to ground on the\par highest peak known to the story-teller and his hearers. But in its\par early Sumerian form it is just a simple tradition of some great\par inundation, which overwhelmed the plain of Southern Babylonia and was\par peculiarly disastrous in its effects. And so its memory survived in\par the picture of Ziusudu's solitary coracle upon the face of the waters,\par which, seen through the mists of the Deluge tradition, has given us\par the Noah's ark of our nursery days.\par \par [1] Hesiod is our earliest authority for the Deucalion Flood story.\par For its probable Babylonian origin, cf. ØFarnell, /Greece and\par Babylon/ (1911), p. 184.\par \par [2] /De Syria dea/, 12 f.\par \par Thus the Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek Deluge stories resolve\par themselves, not into a nature myth, but into an early legend, which\par has the basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley. And it is\par probable that we may explain after a similar fashion the occurrence of\par tales of a like character at least in some other parts of the world.\par Among races dwelling in low-lying or well-watered districts it would\par be surprising if we did not find independent stories of past floods\par from which few inhabitants of the land escaped. It is only in hilly\par countries such as Palestine, where for the great part of the year\par water is scarce and precious, that we are forced to deduce borrowing;\par and there is no doubt that both the Babylonian and the biblical\par stories have been responsible for some at any rate of the scattered\par tales. But there is no need to adopt the theorÙy of a single source for\par all of them, whether in Babylonia or, still less, in Egypt.[1]\par \par [1] This argument is taken from an article I published in Professor\par Headlam's /Church Quarterly Review/, Jan., 1916, pp. 280 ff.,\par containing an account of Dr. Poebel's discovery.\par \par I should like to add, with regard to this reading of our new evidence,\par that I am very glad to know Sir James Frazer holds a very similar\par opinion. For, as you are doubtless all aware, Sir James is at present\par collecting Flood stories from all over the world, and is supplementing\par from a wider range the collections already made by Lenormant, Andree,\par Winternitz, and Gerland. When his work is complete it will be possible\par to conjecture with far greater confidence how particular traditions or\par groups of tradition arose, and to what extent transmission has taken\par place. Meanwhile, in his recent Huxley Memorial Lecture,[1] he has\par suggested a third possibility as to tÚhe way Deluge stories may have\par arisen.\par \par [1] Sir J. G. Frazer, /Ancient Stories of a Great Flood/ (the Huxley\par Memorial Lecture, 1916), Roy. Anthrop. Inst., 1916.\par \par Stated briefly, it is that a Deluge story may arise as a popular\par explanation of some striking natural feature in a country, although to\par the scientific eye the feature in question is due to causes other than\par catastrophic flood. And he worked out the suggestion in the case of\par the Greek traditions of a great deluge, associated with the names of\par Deucalion and Dardanus. Deucalion's deluge, in its later forms at any\par rate, is obviously coloured by Semitic tradition; but both Greek\par stories, in their origin, Sir James Frazer would trace to local\par conditions--the one suggested by the Gorge of Tempe in Thessaly, the\par other explaining the existence of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. As he\par pointed out, they would be instances, not of genuine historical\par traditions, but of whaÛt Sir James Tyler calls "observation myths". A\par third story of a great flood, regarded in Greek tradition as the\par earliest of the three, he would explain by an extraordinary inundation\par of the Copaic Lake in Boeotia, which to this day is liable to great\par fluctuations of level. His new theory applies only to the other two\par traditions. For in them no historical kernel is presupposed, though\par gradual erosion by water is not excluded as a cause of the surface\par features which may have suggested the myths.\par \par This valuable theory thus opens up a third possibility for our\par analysis. It may also, of course, be used in combination, if in any\par particular instance we have reason to believe that transmission, in\par some vague form, may already have taken place. And it would with all\par deference suggest the possibility that, in view of other evidence,\par this may have occurred in the case of the Greek traditions. With\par regard to the theory itself we may confidentlÜy expect that further\par examples will be found in its illustration and support. Meanwhile in\par the new Sumerian Version I think we may conclude that we have\par recovered beyond any doubt the origin of the Babylonian and Hebrew\par traditions and of the large group of stories to which they in their\par turn have given rise.\par \par \par \par LECTURE III\par \par CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM OF\par BABYLONIAN PARALLELS IN HEBREW TRADITION\par \par In our discussion of the new Sumerian version of the Deluge story we\par came to the conclusion that it gave no support to any theory which\par would trace all such tales to a single origin, whether in Egypt or in\par Babylonia. In spite of strong astrological elements in both the\par Egyptian and Babylonian religious systems, we saw grounds for\par regarding the astrological tinge of much ancient mythology as a later\par embellishment and not as primitive material. AÝnd so far as our new\par version of the Deluge story was concerned, it resolved itself into a\par legend, which had a basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley.\par It will be obvious that the same class of explanation cannot be\par applied to narratives of the Creation of the World. For there we are\par dealing, not with legends, but with myths, that is, stories\par exclusively about the gods. But where an examination of their earlier\par forms is possible, it would seem to show that many of these tales\par also, in their origin, are not to be interpreted as nature myths, and\par that none arose as mere reflections of the solar system. In their more\par primitive and simpler aspects they seem in many cases to have been\par suggested by very human and terrestrial experience. To-day we will\par examine the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Babylonian myths of Creation, and,\par after we have noted the more striking features of our new material, we\par will consider the problem of foreign influenÞces upon Hebrew traditions\par concerning the origin and early history of the world.\par \par In Egypt, as until recently in Babylonia, we have to depend for our\par knowledge of Creation myths on documents of a comparatively late\par period. Moreover, Egyptian religious literature as a whole is\par textually corrupt, and in consequence it is often difficult to\par determine the original significance of its allusions. Thanks to the\par funerary inscriptions and that great body of magical formulae and\par ritual known as "The Chapters of Coming forth by Day", we are very\par fully informed on the Egyptian doctrines as to the future state of the\par dead. The Egyptian's intense interest in his own remote future,\par amounting almost to an obsession, may perhaps in part account for the\par comparatively meagre space in the extant literature which is occupied\par by myths relating solely to the past. And it is significant that the\par one cycle of myth, of which we are fully informed in its latßest stage\par of development, should be that which gave its sanction to the hope of\par a future existence for man. The fact that Herodotus, though he claims\par a knowledge of the sufferings or "Mysteries" of Osiris, should\par deliberately refrain from describing them or from even uttering the\par name,[1] suggests that in his time at any rate some sections of the\par mythology had begun to acquire an esoteric character. There is no\par doubt that at all periods myth played an important part in the ritual\par of feast-days. But mythological references in the earlier texts are\par often obscure; and the late form in which a few of the stories have\par come to us is obviously artificial. The tradition, for example, which\par relates how mankind came from the tears which issued from Ra's eye\par undoubtedly arose from a play upon words.\par \par [1] Herodotus, II, 171.\par \par On the other hand, traces of myth, scattered in the religious\par literature of Egypt, may perhaps in some measuràe betray their relative\par age by the conceptions of the universe which underlie them. The\par Egyptian idea that the sky was a heavenly ocean, which is not unlike\par conceptions current among the Semitic Babylonians and Hebrews,\par presupposes some thought and reflection. In Egypt it may well have\par been evolved from the probably earlier but analogous idea of the river\par in heaven, which the Sun traversed daily in his boats. Such a river\par was clearly suggested by the Nile; and its world-embracing character\par is reminiscent of a time when through communication was regularly\par established, at least as far south as Elephantine. Possibly in an\par earlier period the long narrow valley, or even a section of it, may\par have suggested the figure of a man lying prone upon his back. Such was\par Keb, the Earth-god, whose counterpart in the sky was the goddess Nut,\par her feet and hands resting at the limits of the world and her curved\par body forming the vault of heaven. Perhaps stiáll more primitive, and\par dating from a pastoral age, may be the notion that the sky was a great\par cow, her body, speckled with stars, alone visible from the earth\par beneath. Reference has already been made to the dominant influence of\par the Sun in Egyptian religion, and it is not surprising that he should\par so often appear as the first of created beings. His orb itself, or\par later the god in youthful human form, might be pictured as emerging\par from a lotus on the primaeval waters, or from a marsh-bird's egg, a\par conception which influenced the later Phoenician cosmogeny. The\par Scarabaeus, or great dung-feeding beetle of Egypt, rolling the ball\par before it in which it lays its eggs, is an obvious theme for the early\par myth-maker. And it was natural that the Beetle of Khepera should have\par been identified with the Sun at his rising, as the Hawk of Ra\par represented his noonday flight, and the aged form of Attun his setting\par in the west. But in all these varied conceâptions and explanations of\par the universe it is difficult to determine how far the poetical imagery\par of later periods has transformed the original myths which may lie\par behind them.\par \par As the Egyptian Creator the claims of Ra, the Sun-god of Heliopolis,\par early superseded those of other deities. On the other hand, Ptah of\par Memphis, who for long ages had been merely the god of architects and\par craftsmen, became under the Empire the architect of the universe and\par is pictured as a potter moulding the world-egg. A short poem by a\par priest of Ptah, which has come down to us from that period, exhibits\par an attempt to develop this idea on philosophical lines.[1] Its author\par represents all gods and living creatures as proceeding directly from\par the mind and thought of Ptah. But this movement, which was more\par notably reflected in Akhenaton's religious revolution, died out in\par political disaster, and the original materialistic interpretation of\par the myths wasã restored with the cult of Amen. How materialistic this\par could be is well illustrated by two earlier members of the XVIIIth\par Dynasty, who have left us vivid representations of the potter's wheel\par employed in the process of man's creation. When the famous Hatshepsut,\par after the return of her expedition to Punt in the ninth year of her\par young consort Thothmes III, decided to build her temple at Deir\par el-Bahari in the necropolis of Western Thebes, she sought to emphasize\par her claim to the throne of Egypt by recording her own divine origin\par upon its walls. We have already noted the Egyptians' belief in the\par solar parentage of their legitimate rulers, a myth that goes back at\par least to the Old Kingdom and may have had its origin in prehistoric\par times. With the rise of Thebes, Amen inherited the prerogatives of Ra;\par and so Hatshepsut seeks to show, on the north side of the retaining\par wall of her temple's Upper Platform, that she was the daughter of Amen\par häimself, "the great God, Lord of the sky, Lord of the Thrones of the\par Two Lands, who resides at Thebes". The myth was no invention of her\par own, for obviously it must have followed traditional lines, and though\par it is only employed to exhibit the divine creation of a single\par personage, it as obviously reflects the procedure and methods of a\par general Creation myth.\par \par [1] See Breasted, /Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache/, XXXIX, pp. 39\par ff., and /History of Egypt/, pp. 356 ff.\par \par This series of sculptures shared the deliberate mutilation that all\par her records suffered at the hands of Thothmes III after her death, but\par enough of the scenes and their accompanying text has survived to\par render the detailed interpretation of the myth quite certain.[1] Here,\par as in a general Creation myth, Amen's first act is to summon the great\par gods in council, in order to announce to them the future birth of the\par great princess. Of the twelve gods who attend,å the first is Menthu, a\par form of the Sun-god and closely associated with Amen.[2] But the\par second deity is Atum, the great god of Heliopolis, and he is followed\par by his cycle of deities--Shu, "the son of Ra"; Tefnut, "the Lady of\par the sky"; Keb, "the Father of the Gods"; Nut, "the Mother of the\par Gods"; Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Set, Horus, and Hathor. We are here in\par the presence of cosmic deities, as befits a projected act of creation.\par The subsequent scenes exhibit the Egyptian's literal interpretation of\par the myth, which necessitates the god's bodily presence and personal\par participation. Thoth mentions to Amen the name of queen Aahmes as the\par future mother of Hatshepsut, and we later see Amen himself, in the\par form of her husband, Aa-kheperka-Ra (Thothmes I), sitting with Aahmes\par and giving her the Ankh, or sign of Life, which she receives in her\par hand and inhales through her nostrils.[3] God and queen are seated on\par thrones above a couch, and are suæpported by two goddesses. After\par leaving the queen, Amen calls on Khnum or Khnemu, the flat-horned ram-\par god, who in texts of all periods is referred to as the "builder" of\par gods and men;[4] and he instructs him to create the body of his future\par daughter and that of her /Ka/, or "double", which would be united to\par her from birth.\par \par [1] See Naville, /Deir el-Bahari/, Pt. II, pp. 12 ff., plates xlvi ff.\par \par [2] See Budge, /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. II, pp. 23 ff. His chief\par cult-centre was Hermonthis, but here as elsewhere he is given his\par usual title "Lord of Thebes".\par \par [3] Pl. xlvii. Similar scenes are presented in the "birth-temples" at\par Denderah, Edfu, Philae, Esneh, and Luxor; see Naville, op. cit.,\par p. 14.\par \par [4] Cf. Budge, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 50.\par \par The scene in the series, which is of greatest interest in the present\par connexion, is that representing Khnum at his work of creation. He is\par seated bçefore a potter's wheel which he works with his foot,[1] and on\par the revolving table he is fashioning two children with his hands, the\par baby princess and her "double". It was always Hatshepsut's desire to\par be represented as a man, and so both the children are boys.[2] As yet\par they are lifeless, but the symbol of Life will be held to their\par nostrils by Heqet, the divine Potter's wife, whose frog-head typifies\par birth and fertility. When Amenophis III copied Hatshepsut's sculptures\par for his own series at Luxor, he assigned this duty to the greater\par goddess Hathor, perhaps the most powerful of the cosmic goddesses and\par the mother of the world. The subsequent scenes at Deir el-Bahari\par include the leading of queen Aahmes by Khnum and Heqet to the birth-\par chamber; the great birth scene where the queen is attended by the\par goddesses Nephthys and Isis, a number of divine nurses and midwives\par holding several of the "doubles" of the baby, and favourable genii, in\parè human form or with the heads of crocodiles, jackals, and hawks,\par representing the four cardinal points and all bearing the gift of\par life; the presentation of the young child by the goddess Hathor to\par Amen, who is well pleased at the sight of his daughter; and the divine\par suckling of Hatshepsut and her "doubles". But these episodes do not\par concern us, as of course they merely reflect the procedure following a\par royal birth. But Khnum's part in the princess's origin stands on a\par different plane, for it illustrates the Egyptian myth of Creation by\par the divine Potter, who may take the form of either Khnum or Ptah.\par Monsieur Naville points out the extraordinary resemblance in detail\par which Hatshepsut's myth of divine paternity bears to the Greek legend\par of Zeus and Alkmene, where the god takes the form of Amphitryon,\par Alkmene's husband, exactly as Amen appears to the queen;[3] and it may\par be added that the Egyptian origin of the Greek story was traditionallyé\par recognized in the ancestry ascribed to the human couple.[4]\par \par [1] This detail is not clearly preserved at Deir el-Bahari; but it is\par quite clear in the scene on the west wall of the "Birth-room" in\par the Temple at Luxor, which Amenophis III evidently copied from\par that of Hatshepsut.\par \par [2] In the similar scene at Luxor, where the future Amenophis III is\par represented on the Creator's wheel, the sculptor has distinguished\par the human child from its spiritual "double" by the quaint device\par of putting its finger in its mouth.\par \par [3] See Naville, op. cit., p. 12.\par \par [4] Cf., e.g., Herodotus, II, 43.\par \par The only complete Egyptian Creation myth yet recovered is preserved in\par a late papyrus in the British Museum, which was published some years\par ago by Dr. Budge.[1] It occurs under two separate versions embedded in\par "The Book of the Overthrowing of Apep, the Enemy of Ra". Here Ra, who\par utters the myth underê his late title of Neb-er-tcher, "Lord to the\par utmost limit", is self-created as Khepera from Nu, the primaeval\par water; and then follow successive generations of divine pairs, male\par and female, such as we find at the beginning of the Semitic-Babylonian\par Creation Series.[2] Though the papyrus was written as late as the year\par 311 B.C., the myth is undoubtedly early. For the first two divine\par pairs Shu and Tefnut, Keb and Nut, and four of the latter pairs' five\par children, Osiris and Isis, Set and Nephthys, form with the Sun-god\par himself the Greater Ennead of Heliopolis, which exerted so wide an\par influence on Egyptian religious speculation. The Ennead combined the\par older solar elements with the cult of Osiris, and this is indicated in\par the myth by a break in the successive generations, Nut bringing forth\par at a single birth the five chief gods of the Osiris cycle, Osiris\par himself and his son Horus, with Set, Isis, and Nephthys. Thus we may\par see in the mytëh an early example of that religious syncretism which is\par so characteristic of later Egyptian belief.\par \par [1] See /Archaeologia/, Vol. LII (1891). Dr. Budge published a new\par edition of the whole papyrus in /Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the\par British Museum/ (1910), and the two versions of the Creation myth\par are given together in his /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I (1904),\par Chap. VIII, pp. 308 ff., and more recently in his /Egyptian\par Literature/, Vol. I, "Legends of the Gods" (1912), pp. 2 ff. An\par account of the papyrus is included in the Introduction to "Legends\par of the Gods", pp. xiii ff.\par \par [2] In /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, Chap. VII, pp. 288 ff., Dr.\par Budge gives a detailed comparison of the Egyptian pairs of\par primaeval deities with the very similar couples of the Babylonian\par myth.\par \par The only parallel this Egyptian myth of Creation presents to the\par Hebrew cosmogony is in its picture of thìe primaeval water,\par corresponding to the watery chaos of Genesis i. But the resemblance is\par of a very general character, and includes no etymological equivalence\par such as we find when we compare the Hebrew account with the principal\par Semitic-Babylonian Creation narrative.[1] The application of the Ankh,\par the Egyptian sign for Life, to the nostrils of a newly-created being\par is no true parallel to the breathing into man's nostrils of the breath\par of life in the earlier Hebrew Version,[2] except in the sense that\par each process was suggested by our common human anatomy. We should\par naturally expect to find some Hebrew parallel to the Egyptian idea of\par Creation as the work of a potter with his clay, for that figure\par appears in most ancient mythologies. The Hebrews indeed used the\par conception as a metaphor or parable,[3] and it also underlies their\par earlier picture of man's creation. I have not touched on the grosser\par Egyptian conceptions concerning the origíin of the universe, which we\par may probably connect with African ideas; but those I have referred to\par will serve to demonstrate the complete absence of any feature that\par presents a detailed resemblance of the Hebrew tradition.\par \par [1] For the wide diffusion, in the myths of remote peoples, of a vague\par theory that would trace all created things to a watery origin, see\par Farnell, /Greece and Babylon/, p. 180.\par \par [2] Gen. ii. 7 (J).\par \par [3] Cf., e.g., Isaiah xxix. 16, xlv. 9; and Jeremiah xviii. 2f.\par \par When we turn to Babylonia, we find there also evidence of conflicting\par ideas, the product of different and to some extent competing religious\par centres. But in contrast to the rather confused condition of Egyptian\par mythology, the Semitic Creation myth of the city of Babylon, thanks to\par the latter's continued political ascendancy, succeeded in winning a\par dominant place in the national literature. This is the version in\par which so many points of resemblance to the first chapter of Genesis\par have long been recognized, especially in the succession of creative\par acts and their relative order. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version the\par creation of the world is represented as the result of conflict, the\par emergence of order out of chaos, a result that is only attained by the\par personal triumph of the Creator. But this underlying dualism does not\par appear in the more primitive Sumerian Version we have now recovered.\par It will be remembered that in the second lecture I gave some account\par of the myth, which occurs in an epitomized form as an introduction to\par the Sumerian Version of the Deluge, the two narratives being recorded\par in the same document and connected with one another by a description\par of the Antediluvian cities. We there saw that Creation is ascribed to\par the three greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil, and\par Enki, assisted by the goddess Ninkharsagga.\par \par \par \par } ïue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 It is significant that in the Sumerian version no less than four\par deities are represented as taking part in the Creation. For in this we\par may see some indication of the period to which its composition must be\par assigned. Their association in the text suggests that the claims of\par local gods had already begun to compete with one another as a result\par of political combination between the cities of their cults. To the\par same general period we must also assign the compilation of the\par Sumerian Dynastic record, for that presupposes the existence of a\par supreme ruler among the Sumerian city-states. This form of political\par constitution must undoubtedly have been the result of a long process\par of development, and the fact that its existence should be regarded as\par dating from the Creation of the world indicates a comparatively\par developed stage of the tradition. But behind the combination ofð cities\par and their gods we may conjecturally trace anterior stages of\par development, when each local deity and his human representative seemed\par to their own adherents the sole objects for worship and allegiance.\par And even after the demands of other centres had been conceded, no\par deity ever quite gave up his local claims.\par \par Enlil, the second of the four Sumerian creating deities, eventually\par ousted his rivals. It has indeed long been recognized that the /r\'f4le/\par played by Marduk in the Babylonian Version of Creation had been\par borrowed from Enlil of Nippur; and in the Atrakhasis legend Enlil\par himself appears as the ultimate ruler of the world and the other gods\par figure as "his sons". Anu, who heads the list and plays with Enlil the\par leading part in the Sumerian narrative, was clearly his chief rival.\par And though we possess no detailed account of Anu's creative work, the\par persistent ascription to him of the creation of heaven, and his\par familiañr title, "the Father of the Gods", suggest that he once\par possessed a corresponding body of myth in Eanna, his temple at Erech.\par Enki, the third of the creating gods, was naturally credited, as God\par of Wisdom, with special creative activities, and fortunately in his\par case we have some independent evidence of the varied forms these could\par assume.\par \par According to one tradition that has come down to us,[1] after Anu had\par made the heavens, Enki created Aps\'fb or the Deep, his own dwelling-\par place. Then taking from it a piece of clay[2] he proceeded to create\par the Brick-god, and reeds and forests for the supply of building\par material. From the same clay he continued to form other deities and\par materials, including the Carpenter-god; the Smith-god; Arazu, a patron\par deity of building; and mountains and seas for all that they produced;\par the Goldsmith-god, the Stone-cutter-god, and kindred deities, together\par with their rich products for offerings; the Grainò-deities, Ashnan and\par Lakhar; Siris, a Wine-god; Ningishzida and Ninsar, a Garden-god, for\par the sake of the rich offerings they could make; and a deity described\par as "the High priest of the great gods," to lay down necessary\par ordinances and commands. Then he created "the King", for the equipment\par probably of a particular temple, and finally men, that they might\par practise the cult in the temple so elaborately prepared.\par \par [1] See Weissbach, /Babylonische Miscellen/, pp. 32 ff.\par \par [2] One of the titles of Enki was "the Potter"; cf. /Cun. Texts in the\par Brit. Mus., Pt. XXIV, pl. 14 f., ll. 41, 43.\par \par It will be seen from this summary of Enki's creative activities, that\par the text from which it is taken is not a general Creation myth, but in\par all probability the introductory paragraph of a composition which\par celebrated the building or restoration of a particular temple; and the\par latter's foundation is represented, on henotheistic lines, as óthe main\par object of creation. Composed with that special purpose, its narrative\par is not to be regarded as an exhaustive account of the creation of the\par world. The incidents are eclective, and only such gods and materials\par are mentioned as would have been required for the building and\par adornment of the temple and for the provision of its offerings and\par cult. But even so its mythological background is instructive. For\par while Anu's creation of heaven is postulated as the necessary\par precedent of Enki's activities, the latter creates the Deep,\par vegetation, mountains, seas, and mankind. Moreover, in his character\par as God of Wisdom, he is not only the teacher but the creator of those\par deities who were patrons of man's own constructive work. From such\par evidence we may infer that in his temple at Eridu, now covered by the\par mounds of Abu Shahrain in the extreme south of Babylonia, and regarded\par in early Sumerian tradition as the first city in the world, Enki\pôar himself was once celebrated as the sole creator of the universe.\par \par The combination of the three gods Anu, Enlil, and Enki, is persistent\par in the tradition; for not only were they the great gods of the\par universe, representing respectively heaven, earth, and the watery\par abyss, but they later shared the heavenly sphere between them. It is\par in their astrological character that we find them again in creative\par activity, though without the co-operation of any goddess, when they\par appear as creators of the great light-gods and as founders of time\par divisions, the day and the month. This Sumerian myth, though it\par reaches us only in an extract or summary in a Neo-Babylonian\par schoolboy's exercise,[1] may well date from a comparatively early\par period, but probably from a time when the "Ways" of Anu, Enlil, and\par Enki had already been fixed in heaven and their later astrological\par characters had crystallized.\par \par [1] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Voõl. I, pp. 124 ff. The\par tablet gives extracts from two very similar Sumerian and Semitic\par texts. In both of them Anu, Enlil, and Enki appear as creators\par "through their sure counsel". In the Sumerian extract they create\par the Moon and ordain its monthly course, while in the Semitic text,\par after establishing heaven and earth, they create in addition to\par the New Moon the bright Day, so that "men beheld the Sun-god in\par the Gate of his going forth".\par \par The idea that a goddess should take part with a god in man's creation\par is already a familiar feature of Babylonian mythology. Thus the\par goddess Aruru, in co-operation with Marduk, might be credited with the\par creation of the human race,[1] as she might also be pictured creating\par on her own initiative an individual hero such as Enkidu of the\par Gilgamesh Epic. The /r\'f4le/ of mother of mankind was also shared, as we\par have seen, by the Semitic Ishtar. And though the old Sumerian göoddess,\par Ninkharsagga, the "Lady of the Mountains", appears in our Sumerian\par text for the first time in the character of creatress, some of the\par titles we know she enjoyed, under her synonyms in the great God List\par of Babylonia, already reflected her cosmic activities.[2] For she was\par known as\par \par "The Builder of that which has Breath",\par "The Carpenter of Mankind",\par "The Carpenter of the Heart",\par "The Coppersmith of the Gods",\par "The Coppersmith of the Land", and\par "The Lady Potter".\par \par [1] Op. cit., p. 134 f.\par \par [2] Cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XXIV, pl. 12, ll. 32, 26,\par 27, 25, 24, 23, and Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 34.\par \par In the myth we are not told her method of creation, but from the above\par titles it is clear that in her own cycle of tradition Ninkhasagga was\par conceived as fashioning men not only from clay but also from wood, and\par perhaps as employing metal for the manufacture of her other w÷orks of\par creation. Moreover, in the great God List, where she is referred to\par under her title Makh, Ninkhasagga is associated with Anu, Enlil, and\par Enki; she there appears, with her dependent deities, after Enlil and\par before Enki. We thus have definite proof that her association with the\par three chief Sumerian gods was widely recognized in the early Sumerian\par period and dictated her position in the classified pantheon of\par Babylonia. Apart from this evidence, the important rank assigned her\par in the historical and legal records and in votive inscriptions,[1]\par especially in the early period and in Southern Babylonia, accords\par fully with the part she here plays in the Sumerian Creation myth.\par Eannatum and Gudea of Lagash both place her immediately after Anu and\par Enlil, giving her precedence over Enki; and even in the Kassite\par Kudurru inscriptions of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries, where\par she is referred to, she takes rank after Enki and before the oøther\par gods. In Sumer she was known as "the Mother of the Gods", and she was\par credited with the power of transferring the kingdom and royal insignia\par from one king to his successor.\par \par [1] See especially, Poebel, op. cit., pp. 24 ff.\par \par Her supreme position as a goddess is attested by the relative\par insignificance of her husband Dunpae, whom she completely overshadows,\par in which respect she presents a contrast to the goddess Ninlil,\par Enlil's female counterpart. The early clay figurines found at Nippur\par and on other sites, representing a goddess suckling a child and\par clasping one of her breasts, may well be regarded as representing\par Ninkharsagga and not Ninlil. Her sanctuaries were at Kesh and Adab,\par both in the south, and this fact sufficiently explains her comparative\par want of influence in Akkad, where the Semitic Ishtar took her place.\par She does indeed appear in the north during the Sargonic period under\par her own name, though later she suùrvives in her synonyms of Ninmakh,\par "the Sublime Lady", and Nintu, "the Lady of Child-bearing". It is\par under the latter title that Hammurabi refers to her in his Code of\par Laws, where she is tenth in a series of eleven deities. But as Goddess\par of Birth she retained only a pale reflection of her original cosmic\par character, and her functions were gradually specialized.[1]\par \par [1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under one of her\par later synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr. Poebel suggests,\par with the Mylitta of Herodotus.\par \par From a consideration of their characters, as revealed by independent\par sources of evidence, we thus obtain the reason for the co-operation of\par four deities in the Sumerian Creation. In fact the new text\par illustrates a well-known principle in the development of myth, the\par reconciliation of the rival claims of deities, whose cults, once\par isolated, had been brought from political causes into contact witúh\par each other. In this aspect myth is the medium through which a working\par pantheon is evolved. Naturally all the deities concerned cannot\par continue to play their original parts in detail. In the Babylonian\par Epic of Creation, where a single deity, and not a very prominent one,\par was to be raised to pre-eminent rank, the problem was simple enough.\par He could retain his own qualities and achievements while borrowing\par those of any former rival. In the Sumerian text we have the result of\par a far more delicate process of adjustment, and it is possible that the\par brevity of the text is here not entirely due to compression of a\par longer narrative, but may in part be regarded as evidence of early\par combination. As a result of the association of several competing\par deities in the work of creation, a tendency may be traced to avoid\par discrimination between rival claims. Thus it is that the assembled\par gods, the pantheon as a whole, are regarded as collectively\par respûonsible for the creation of the universe. It may be added that\par this use of /il\'e2ni/, "the gods", forms an interesting linguistic\par parallel to the plural of the Hebrew divine title Elohim.\par \par It will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the account of\par Creation is not given in full, only such episodes being included as\par were directly related to the Deluge story. No doubt the selection of\par men and animals was suggested by their subsequent rescue from the\par Flood; and emphasis was purposely laid on the creation of the\par /niggilma/ because of the part it played in securing mankind's\par survival. Even so, we noted one striking parallel between the Sumerian\par Version and that of the Semitic Babylonians, in the reason both give\par for man's creation. But in the former there is no attempt to explain\par how the universe itself had come into being, and the existence of the\par earth is presupposed at the moment when Anu, Enlil, Enki, and\par Ninkharsagga undertaüke the creation of man. The Semitic-Babylonian\par Version, on the other hand, is mainly occupied with events that led up\par to the acts of creation, and it concerns our problem to inquire how\par far those episodes were of Semitic and how far of Sumerian origin. A\par further question arises as to whether some strands of the narrative\par may not at one time have existed in Sumerian form independently of the\par Creation myth.\par \par The statement is sometimes made that there is no reason to assume a\par Sumerian original for the Semitic-Babylonian Version, as recorded on\par "the Seven Tablets of Creation";[1] and this remark, though true of\par that version as a whole, needs some qualification. The composite\par nature of the poem has long been recognized, and an analysis of the\par text has shown that no less than five principal strands have been\par combined for its formation. These consist of (i) The Birth of the\par Gods; (ii) The Legend of Ea and Aps\'fb; (iii) The principal Dragýon Myth;\par (iv) The actual account of Creation; and (v) the Hymn to Marduk under\par his fifty titles.[2] The Assyrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which\par considerable portions of its text are restored, quote throughout a\par Sumerian original, and explain it word for word by the phrases of the\par Semitic Version;[3] so that for one out of the Seven Tablets a Semitic\par origin is at once disproved. Moreover, the majority of the fifty\par titles, even in the forms in which they have reached us in the Semitic\par text, are demonstrably Sumerian, and since many of them celebrate\par details of their owner's creative work, a Sumerian original for other\par parts of the version is implied. Enlil and Ea are both represented as\par bestowing their own names upon Marduk,[4] and we may assume that many\par of the fifty titles were originally borne by Enlil as a Sumerian\par Creator.[5] Thus some portions of the actual account of Creation were\par probably derived from a Sumerian original in þwhich "Father Enlil"\par figured as the hero.\par \par [1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI\par (1916), p. 279.\par \par [2] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. lxvi ff.; and cf.\par Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 43 ff.\par \par [3] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.\par \par [4] Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff.\par \par [5] The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed for Enlil's\par name.\par \par For what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves responsible? It\par seems to me that, in the "Seven Tablets", we may credit them with\par considerable ingenuity in the combination of existing myths, but not\par with their invention. The whole poem in its present form is a\par glorification of Marduk, the god of Babylon, who is to be given\par pre-eminent rank among the gods to correspond with the political\par position recently attained by his city. It would have been quite out\par of keeping with the national thought to make ÿa break in the tradition,\par and such a course would not have served the purpose of the Babylonian\par priesthood, which was to obtain recognition of their claims by the\par older cult-centres in the country. Hence they chose and combined the\par more important existing myths, only making such alterations as would\par fit them to their new hero. Babylon herself had won her position by\par her own exertions; and it would be a natural idea to give Marduk his\par opportunity of becoming Creator of the world as the result of\par successful conflict. A combination of the Dragon myth with the myth of\par Creation would have admirably served their purpose; and this is what\par we find in the Semitic poem. But even that combination may not have\par been their own invention; for, though, as we shall see, the idea of\par conflict had no part in the earlier forms of the Sumerian Creation\par myth, its combination with the Dragon /motif/ may have characterized\par the local Sumerian Version of Nippur. How mechanical was the\par Babylonian redactors' method of glorifying Marduk is seen in their use\par of the description of Tiamat and her monster brood, whom Marduk is\par made to conquer. To impress the hearers of the poem with his prowess,\par this is repeated at length no less than four times, one god carrying\par the news of her revolt to another.\par \par Direct proof of the manner in which the later redactors have been\par obliged to modify the original Sumerian Creation myth, in consequence\par of their incorporation of other elements, may be seen in the Sixth\par Tablet of the poem, where Marduk states the reason for man's creation.\par In the second lecture we noted how the very words of the principal\par Sumerian Creator were put into Marduk's mouth; but the rest of the\par Semitic god's speech finds no equivalent in the Sumerian Version and\par was evidently inserted in order to reconcile the narrative with its\par later ingredients. This will best be seen by printing the two passages\par in parallel columns:[1]\par \par [1] The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in the lower\par part of the First Column, is here compared with the Semitic-\par Babylonian Creation Series, Tablet VI, ll. 6-10 (see /Seven\par Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.). The comparison is justified whether\par we regard the Sumerian speech as a direct preliminary to man's\par creation, or as a reassertion of his duty after his rescue from\par destruction by the Flood.\par \par SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\par \par "The people will I cause to . . . "I will make man, that man may\par in their settlements, [. . .].\par Cities . . . shall (man) build, I will create man who shall\par in their protection will I cause inhabit [. . .],\par him to rest,\par That he may lay the brick of our That the service of the gods may\par house in a clean spot, be established, and that\par [their] shrines [may be\par built].\par That in a clean spot he may But I will alter the ways of the\par establish our . . . !" gods, and I will change [their\par paths];\par Together shall they be\par oppressed, and unto evil shall\par [they . . .]!"\par \par The welding of incongruous elements is very apparent in the Semitic\par Version. For the statement that man will be created in order that the\par gods may have worshippers is at once followed by the announcement that\par the gods themselves must be punished and their "ways" changed. In the\par Sumerian Version the gods are united and all are naturally regarded as\par worthy of man's worship. The Sumerian Creator makes no distinctions;\par he refers to "our houses", or temples, that shall be established. But\par in the later version divine conflict has been introduced, and the\par future head of the pantheon has conquered and humiliated the revolting\par deities. Their "ways" must therefore be altered before they are fit to\par receive the worship which was accorded them by right in the simpler\par Sumerian tradition. In spite of the epitomized character of the\par Sumerian Version, a comparison of these passages suggests very\par forcibly that the Semitic-Babylonian myth of Creation is based upon a\par simpler Sumerian story, which has been elaborated to reconcile it with\par the Dragon myth.\par \par The Semitic poem itself also supplies evidence of the independent\par existence of the Dragon myth apart from the process of Creation, for\par the story of Ea and Aps\'fb, which it incorporates, is merely the local\par Dragon myth of Eridu. Its inclusion in the story is again simply a\par tribute to Marduk; for though Ea, now become Marduk's father, could\par conquer Aps\'fb, he was afraid of Tiamat, "and turned back".[1] The\par original Eridu myth no doubt represented Enki as conquering the watery\par Abyss, which became his home; but there is nothing to connect this\par tradition with his early creative activities. We have long possessed\par part of another local version of the Dragon myth, which describes the\par conquest of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk; and the fight is\par there described as taking place, not before Creation, but at a time\par when men existed and cities had been built.[2] Men and gods were\par equally terrified at the monster's appearance, and it was to deliver\par the land from his clutches that one of the gods went out and slew him.\par Tradition delighted to dwell on the dragon's enormous size and\par terrible appearance. In this version he is described as fifty\par /b\'earu/[3] in length and one in height; his mouth measured six cubits\par and the circuit of his ears twelve; he dragged himself along in the\par water, which he lashed with his tail; and, when slain, his blood\par flowed for three years, three months, a day and a night. From this\par description we can see he was given the body of an enormous\par serpent.[4]\par \par [1] Tabl. III, l. 53, &c. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, the\par third of the apocryphal additions to Daniel, we have direct\par evidence of the late survival of the Dragon /motif/ apart from any\par trace of the Creation myth; in this connexion see Charles,\par /Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha/, Vol. I (1913), p. 653 f.\par \par [2] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. 116 ff., lxviii f. The text is\par preserved on an Assyrian tablet made for the library of Ashur-\par bani-pal.\par \par [3] The /b\'earu/ was the space that could be covered in two hours'\par travelling.\par \par [4] The Babylonian Dragon has progeny in the later apocalyptic\par literature, where we find very similar descriptions of the\par creatures' size. Among them we may perhaps include the dragon in\par the Apocalypse of Baruch, who, according to the Slavonic Version,\par apparently every day drinks a cubit's depth from the sea, and yet\par the sea does not sink because of the three hundred and sixty\par rivers that flow into it (cf. James, "Apocrypha Anecdota", Second\par Series, in Armitage Robinson's /Texts and Studies/, V, No. 1, pp.\par lix ff.). But Egypt's Dragon /motif/ was even more prolific, and\par the /Pistis Sophia/ undoubtedly suggested descriptions of the\par Serpent, especially in connexion with Hades.\par \par A further version of the Dragon myth has now been identified on one of\par the tablets recovered during the recent excavations at Ashur,[1] and\par in it the dragon is not entirely of serpent form, but is a true dragon\par with legs. Like the one just described, he is a male monster. The\par description occurs as part of a myth, of which the text is so badly\par preserved that only the contents of one column can be made out with\par any certainty. In it a god, whose name is wanting, announces the\par presence of the dragon: "In the water he lies and I [. . .]!"\par Thereupon a second god cries successively to Aruru, the mother-\par goddess, and to Pallil, another deity, for help in his predicament.\par And then follows the description of the dragon:\par \par In the sea was the Serpent cre[ated].\par Sixty /b\'earu/ is his length;\par Thirty /b\'earu/ high is his he[ad].[2]\par For half (a /b\'earu/) each stretches the surface of his ey[es];[3]\par For twenty /b\'earu/ go [his feet].[4]\par He devours fish, the creatures [of the sea],\par He devours birds, the creatures [of the heaven],\par He devours wild asses, the creatures [of the field],\par He devours men,[5] to the peoples [he . . .].\par \par [1] For the text, see Ebeling, /Assurtexte/ I, No. 6; it is translated\par by him in /Orient. Lit.-Zeit./, Vol. XIX, No. 4 (April, 1916).\par \par [2] The line reads: /30 b\'earu \'9aa-ka-a ri-[\'9aa-a-\'9au]/. Dr. Ebeling\par renders /ri-\'9aa-a/ as "heads" (K\'f6pfe), implying that the dragon had\par more than one head. It may be pointed out that, if we could accept\par this translation, we should have an interesting parallel to the\par description of some of the primaeval monsters, preserved from\par Berossus, as \{soma men ekhontas en, kephalas de duo\}. But the\par common word for "head" is /kakkadu/, and there can be little doubt\par that /r\'ee\'9a\'e2/ is here used in its ordinary sense of "head, summit,\par top" when applied to a high building.\par \par [3] The line reads: /a-na 1/2 ta-am la-bu-na li-bit \'ean[a-\'9au]/. Dr.\par Ebeling translates, "auf je eine H\'e4lfte ist ein Ziegel [ihrer]\par Auge[n] gelegt". But /libittu/ is clearly used here, not with its\par ordinary meaning of "brick", which yields a strange rendering, but\par in its special sense, when applied to large bu ildings, of\par "foundation, floor-space, area", i.e. "surface". Dr. Ebeling reads\par /\'ean\'e2-\'9au/ at the end of the line, but the sign is broken; perhaps\par the traces may prove to be those of /uzn\'e2 \'9au/, "his ears", in\par which case /li-bit uz[n\'e2-\'9au]/ might be rendered either as "surface\par of his ears", or as "base (lit. foundation) of his ears".\par \par [4] i.e. the length of his pace was twenty /b\'earu/.\par \par [5] Lit. "the black-headed".\par \par The text here breaks off, at the moment when Pallil, whose help\par against the dragon had been invoked, begins to speak. Let us hope we\par shall recover the continuation of the narrative and learn what became\par of this carnivorous monster.\par \par There are ample grounds, then, for assuming the independent existence\par of the Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the versions recovered\par have come to us in Semitic form, there is no doubt that the myth\par itself existed among the Sume rians. The dragon /motif/ is constantly\par recurring in descriptions of Sumerian temple-decoration, and the twin\par dragons of Ningishzida on Gudea's libation-vase, carved in green\par steatite and inlaid with shell, are a notable product of Sumerian\par art.[1] The very names borne by Tiamat's brood of monsters in the\par "Seven Tablets" are stamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent,\par and Kingu, whom she appointed as her champion in place of Aps\'fb, is\par equally Sumerian. It would be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not\par evolved a Dragon myth,[2] for the Dragon combat is the most obvious of\par nature myths and is found in most mythologies of Europe and the Near\par East. The trailing storm-clouds suggest his serpent form, his fiery\par tongue is seen in the forked lightning, and, though he may darken the\par world for a time, the Sun-god will always be victorious. In Egypt the\par myth of "the Overthrowing of Apep, the enemy of Ra" presents a close\par parallel to tha t of Tiamat;[3] but of all Eastern mythologies that of\par the Chinese has inspired in art the most beautiful treatment of the\par Dragon, who, however, under his varied forms was for them essentially\par beneficent. Doubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions\par of the Dragon combat, both before and after their arrival on the\par Euphrates, but the particular version which the priests of Babylon\par wove into their epic is not one of them.\par \par [1] See E. de Sarzec, /D\'e9couvertes en Chald\'e9e/, pl. xliv, Fig. 2, and\par Heuzey, /Catalogue des antiquit\'e9s chald\'e9ennes/, p. 281.\par \par [2] In his very interesting study of "Sumerian and Akkadian Views of\par Beginnings", contributed to the /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./,\par Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 274 ff., Professor Jastrow suggests that\par the Dragon combat in the Semitic-Babylonian Creation poem is of\par Semitic not Sumerian origin. He does not examine the evidence of\par the poem itsel f in detail, but bases the suggestion mainly on the\par two hypotheses, that the Dragon combat of the poem was suggested\par by the winter storms and floods of the Euphrates Valley, and that\par the Sumerians came from a mountain region where water was not\par plentiful. If we grant both assumptions, the suggested conclusion\par does not seem to me necessarily to follow, in view of the evidence\par we now possess as to the remote date of the Sumerian settlement in\par the Euphrates Valley. Some evidence may still be held to point to\par a mountain home for the proto-Sumerians, such as the name of their\par early goddess Ninkharsagga, "the Lady of the Mountains". But, as\par we must now regard Babylonia itself as the cradle of their\par civilization, other data tend to lose something of their apparent\par significance. It is true that the same Sumerian sign means "land"\par and "mountain"; but it may have been difficult to obtain an\par  intelligible profile for "land" without adopting a mountain form.\par Such a name as Ekur, the "Mountain House" of Nippur, may perhaps\par indicate size, not origin; and Enki's association with metal-\par working may be merely due to his character as God of Wisdom, and\par is not appropriate solely "to a god whose home is in the mountains\par where metals are found" (op. cit., p. 295). It should be added\par that Professor Jastrow's theory of the Dragon combat is bound up\par with his view of the origin of an interesting Sumerian "myth of\par beginnings", to which reference is made later.\par \par [3] Cf. Budge, /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, pp. 324 ff. The\par inclusion of the two versions of the Egyptian Creation myth,\par recording the Birth of the Gods in the "Book of Overthrowing\par Apep", does not present a very close parallel to the combination\par of Creation and Dragon myths in the Semitic-Babylonian poem, for\par in the Egyptian work the two myths are not really combined, the\par Creation Versions being inserted in the middle of the spells\par against Apep, without any attempt at assimilation (see Budge,\par /Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I, p. xvi).\par \par We have thus traced four out of the five strands which form the\par Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to a Sumerian ancestry. And we now\par come back to the first of the strands, the Birth of the Gods, from\par which our discussion started. For if this too should prove to be\par Sumerian, it would help to fill in the gap in our Sumerian Creation\par myth, and might furnish us with some idea of the Sumerian view of\par "beginnings", which preceded the acts of creation by the great gods.\par It will be remembered that the poem opens with the description of a\par time when heaven and earth did not exist, no field or marsh even had\par been created, and the universe consisted only of the primaeval water-\par gods, Aps\'fb, Mummu, and Tiamat, whose waters were mingled together.\par Then follows the successive generation of two pairs of deities, Lakhmu\par and Lakhamu, and Anshar and Kishar, long ages separating the two\par generations from each other and from the birth of the great gods which\par subsequently takes place. In the summary of the myth which is given by\par Damascius[1] the names of the various deities accurately correspond to\par those in the opening lines of the poem; but he makes some notable\par additions, as will be seen from the following table:\par \par DAMASCUS "SEVEN TABLETS" I\par \par \{'Apason---Tauthe\} Aps\'fb---Tiamat\par |\par \{Moumis\} Mummu\par \{Lakhos---Lakhe\}[2] Lakhmu---Lakhamu\par \{'Assoros---Kissare\} Anshar---Kishar\par \{'Anos, 'Illinos, 'Aos\} Anu, [ ], Nudimmud (= Ea)\par \{'Aos---Dauke\}\par  |\par \{Belos\}\par \par [1] /Quaestiones de primis principiis/, cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 384.\par \par [2] Emended from the reading \{Dakhen kai Dakhon\} of the text.\par \par In the passage of the poem which describes the birth of the great gods\par after the last pair of primaeval deities, mention is duly made of Anu\par and Nudimmud (the latter a title of Ea), corresponding to the \{'Anos\}\par and \{'Aos\} of Damascius; and there appears to be no reference to\par Enlil, the original of \{'Illinos\}. It is just possible that his name\par occurred at the end of one of the broken lines, and, if so, we should\par have a complete parallel to Damascius. But the traces are not in\par favour of the restoration;[1] and the omission of Enlil's name from\par this part of the poem may be readily explained as a further tribute to\par Marduk, who definitely usurps his place throughout the subsequent\par narrative. Anu and Ea had both to be mentioned because of the parts\par they play in the Epic, but Enlil's only recorded appearance is in the\par final assembly of the gods, where he bestows his own name "the Lord of\par the World"[2] upon Marduk. The evidence of Damascius suggests that\par Enlil's name was here retained, between those of Anu and Ea, in other\par versions of the poem. But the occurrence of the name in any version is\par in itself evidence of the antiquity of this strand of the narrative.\par It is a legitimate inference that the myth of the Birth of the Gods\par goes back to a time at least before the rise of Babylon, and is\par presumably of Sumerian origin.\par \par [1] Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time at the\par beginning of a line, and the three lines following the reference\par to Nudimmud are entirely occupied with descriptions of his wisdom\par and power. It is also probable that the three preceding lines (ll.\par 14-16), all of which refer to Anu by name, were entirely occupied\par with his description. But it is only in ll. 13-16 that any\par reference to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of\par their second halves do not suggestion the restoration.\par \par [2] Cf. Tabl. VII, . 116.\par \par Further evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu, Enlil, and\par Ea (i.e. Enki), who are here created together, are the three great\par gods of the Sumerian Version of Creation; it is they who create\par mankind with the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga, and in the fuller\par version of that myth we should naturally expect to find some account\par of their own origin. The reference in Damascius to Marduk (\{Belos\}) as\par the son of Ea and Damkina (\{Dauke\}) is also of interest in this\par connexion, as it exhibits a goddess in close connexion with one of the\par three great gods, much as we find Ninkharsagga associated with them in\par the Sumerian Version.[1] Before leaving the names, it may be added\par that, of the primaeval deities, Anshar and Kishar are obviously\par Sumerian in form.\par \par [1] Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki; and Ninkharsagga is\par associated with Enki, as his consort, in another Sumerian myth.\par \par It may be noted that the character of Aps\'fb and Tiamat in this portion\par of the poem[1] is quite at variance with their later actions. Their\par revolt at the ordered "way" of the gods was a necessary preliminary to\par the incorporation of the Dragon myths, in which Ea and Marduk are the\par heroes. Here they appear as entirely beneficent gods of the primaeval\par water, undisturbed by storms, in whose quiet depths the equally\par beneficent deities Lakhmu and Lakhamu, Anshar and Kishar, were\par generated.[2] This interpretation, by the way, suggests a more\par satisfactory restoration for the close of the ninth line of the poem\par than any that has yet been proposed. That line is usually taken to\par imply that the gods were created "in the midst of [heaven]", but I\par think the following rendering, in connexion with ll. 1-5, gives better\par sense:\par \par When in the height heaven was not named,\par And the earth beneath did not bear a name,\par And the primaeval Aps\'fb who begat them,[3]\par And Mummu, and Tiamat who bore them[3] all,--\par Their waters were mingled together,\par . . .\par . . .\par . . .\par Then were created the gods in the midst of [their waters],[4]\par Lakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being . . .\par \par [1] Tabl. I, ll. 1-21.\par \par [2] We may perhaps see a survival of Tiamat's original character in\par her control of the Tablets of Fate. The poem does not represent\par her as seizing them in any successful fight; they appear to be\par already hers to bestow on Kingu, though in the later mythology\par they are "not his by right" (cf. Tabl. I, ll. 137 ff., and Tabl.\par IV, l. 121).\par \par [3] i.e. the gods.\par \par [4] The ninth line is preserved only on a Neo-Babylonian duplicate\par \par } ce (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3, n. 14). But the\par traces of the sign, as I have given them (op. cit., Vol. II, pl.\par i), may also possibly be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of the\par sign /me/; and I would now restore the end of the line in the Neo-\par Babylonian tablet as /ki-rib m[e-e-\'9au-nu]/, "in the midst of\par [their waters]", corresponding to the form /mu-u-\'9au-nu/ in l. 5 of\par this duplicate. In the Assyrian Version /m\'e9(pl)-\'9au-nu/ would be\par read in both lines. It will be possible to verify the new reading,\par by a re-examination of the traces on the tablet, when the British\par Museum collections again become available for study after the war.\par \par If the ninth line of the poem be restored as suggested, its account of\par the Birth of the Gods will be found to correspond accurately with the\par summary from Berossus, who, in explaining the myth, refers to the\par Babylonian belief that the universe consisted at first of moisture in\par which living creatures, such as he had already described, were\par generated.[1] The primaeval waters are originally the source of life,\par not of destruction, and it is in them that the gods are born, as in\par Egyptian mythology; there Nu, the primaeval water-god from whom Ra was\par self-created, never ceased to be the Sun-god's supporter. The change\par in the Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the\par combination of the Dragon myth with that of Creation, a combination\par that in Egypt would never have been justified by the gentle Nile. From\par a study of some aspects of the names at the beginning of the\par Babylonian poem we have already seen reason to suspect that its\par version of the Birth of the Gods goes back to Sumerian times, and it\par is pertinent to ask whether we have any further evidence that in\par Sumerian belief water was the origin of all things.\par \par [1] \{ugrou gar ontos tou pantos kai zoon en auto gegennemenon\par [toionde] ktl\}. His creatures of the primaeval water were killed\par by the light; and terrestrial animals were then created which\par could bear (i.e. breathe and exist in) the air.\par \par For many years we have possessed a Sumerian myth of Creation, which\par has come to us on a late Babylonian tablet as the introductory section\par of an incantation. It is provided with a Semitic translation, and to\par judge from its record of the building of Babylon and Egasila, Marduk's\par temple, and its identification of Marduk himself with the Creator, it\par has clearly undergone some editing at the hands of the Babylonian\par priests. Moreover, the occurrence of various episodes out of their\par logical order, and the fact that the text records twice over the\par creation of swamps and marshes, reeds and trees or forests, animals\par and cities, indicate that two Sumerian myths have been combined. Thus\par we have no guarantee that the other cities referred to by name in the\par text, Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, are mentioned in any significant\par connexion with each other.[1] Of the actual cause of Creation the text\par appears to give two versions also, one in its present form impersonal,\par and the other carried out by a god. But these two accounts are quite\par unlike the authorized version of Babylon, and we may confidently\par regard them as representing genuine Sumerian myths. The text resembles\par other early accounts of Creation by introducing its narrative with a\par series of negative statements, which serve to indicate the preceding\par non-existence of the world, as will be seen from the following\par extract:[2]\par \par No city had been created, no creature had been made,\par Nippur had not been created, Ekur had not been built,\par Erech had not been created, Eanna had not been built,\par Aps\'fb had not been created, Eridu had not been built,\par Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had not\par been created.\par All lands[3] were sea.\par At the time when a channel (was formed) in the midst of the sea,\par Then was Eridu created, Esagila built, etc.\par \par Here we have the definite statement that before Creation all the world\par was sea. And it is important to note that the primaeval water is not\par personified; the ordinary Sumerian word for "sea" is employed, which\par the Semitic translator has faithfully rendered in his version of the\par text.[4] The reference to a channel in the sea, as the cause of\par Creation, seems at first sight a little obscure; but the word implies\par a "drain" or "water-channel", not a current of the sea itself, and the\par reference may be explained as suggested by the drainage of a flood-\par area. No doubt the phrase was elaborated in the original myth, and it\par is possible that what appears to be a second version of Creation later\par on in the text is really part of the more detailed narrative of the\par first myth. There the Creator himself is named. He is the Sumerian god\par Gilimma, and in the Semitic translation Marduk's name is substituted.\par To the following couplet, which describes Gilimma's method of\par creation, is appended a further extract from a later portion of the\par text, there evidently displaced, giving additional details of the\par Creator's work:\par \par Gilimma bound reeds in the face of the waters,\par He formed soil and poured it out beside the reeds.[5]\par [He][6] filled in a dike by the side of the sea,\par [He . . .] a swamp, he formed a marsh.\par [. . .], he brought into existence,\par [Reeds he form]ed,[7] trees he created.\par \par [1] The composite nature of the text is discussed by Professor Jastrow\par in his /Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions/, pp. 89 ff.; and in his\par paper in the /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 279\par ff.; he has analysed it into two main versions, which he suggests\par originated in Eridu and Nippur respectively. The evidence of the\par text does not appear to me to support the view that any reference\par to a watery chaos preceding Creation must necessarily be of\par Semitic origin. For the literature of the text (first published by\par Pinches, /Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc./, Vol. XXIII, pp. 393 ff.), see\par /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, p. 130.\par \par [2] Obv., ll. 5-12.\par \par [3] Sum. /nigin-kur-kur-ra-ge/, Sem. /nap-har ma-ta-a-tu/, lit. "all\par lands", i.e. Sumerian and Babylonian expressions for "the world".\par \par [4] Sum. /a-ab-ba/, "sea", is here rendered by /t\'e2mtum/, not by its\par personified equivalent Tiamat.\par \par [5] The suggestion has been made that /amu/, the word in the Semitic\par version here translated "reeds", should be connected with\par /ammatu/, the word used for "earth" or "dry land" in the\par Babylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, l. 2, and given some such\par meaning as "expanse". The couplet is thus explained to mean that\par the god made an expanse on the face of the waters, and then poured\par out dust "on the expanse". But the Semitic version in l. 18 reads\par /itti ami/, "beside the /a./", not /ina ami/, "on the /a./"; and\par in any case there does not seem much significance in the act of\par pouring out specially created dust on or beside land already\par formed. The Sumerian word translated by /amu/ is written /gi-dir/,\par with the element /gi/, "reed", in l. 17, and though in the\par following line it is written under its variant form /a-dir/\par without /gi/, the equation /gi-a-dir/ = /amu/ is elsewhere\par attested (cf. Delitzsch, /Handw\'f6rterbuch/, p. 77). In favour of\par regarding /amu/ as some sort of reed, here used collectively, it\par may be pointed out that the Sumerian verb in l. 17 is /ke\'9ada/, "to\par bind", accurately rendered by /raka\'9au/ in the Semitic version.\par Assuming that l. 34 belongs to the same account, the creation of\par reeds in general beside trees, after dry land is formed, would not\par of course be at variance with the god's use of some sort of reed\par in his first act of creation. He creates the reed-bundles, as he\par creates the soil, both of which go to form the first dike; the\par reed-beds, like the other vegetation, spring up from the ground\par when it appears.\par \par [6] The Semitic version here reads "the lord Marduk"; the\par corresponding name in the Sumerian text is not preserved.\par \par [7] The line is restored from l. 2 o the obverse of the text.\par \par Here the Sumerian Creator is pictured as forming dry land from the\par primaeval water in much the same way as the early cultivator in the\par Euphrates Valley procured the rich fields for his crops. The existence\par of the earth is here not really presupposed. All the world was sea\par until the god created land out of the waters by the only practical\par method that was possible in Mesopotamia.\par \par \par } %%Í0ša8{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 (/Seven Tablets/, Vol. II, pl. i). I suggested the restoration\par /ki-rib \'9a[a-ma-mi]/, "in the midst of heaven", as possible, since\par the traces of the first sign in the last word of the line seemed\par to be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of /\'9aa/. The restoration\par appeared at the time not altogether satisfactory in view of the\par first line of the poem, and it could only be justified by\par supposing that /\'9aam\'e2mu/, or "heaven", was already vaguely\par conceived as in existenar For there, though water is the source of life, the existence of the\par land is presupposed. But it is bare and desolate, as in the\par Mesopotamian season of "low water". The underlying idea is suggestive\par of a period when some progress in systematic irrigation had already\par been made, and the filling of the dry canals and subsequent irrigation\par of the parched ground by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but\par eagerly desired. The myth is only one of several that have been\par combined to form the introductory sections of an incantation; but in\par all of them Enki, the god of the deep water, plays the leading part,\par though associated with different consorts.[1] The incantation is\par directed against various diseases, and the recitation of the closing\par mythical section was evidently intended to enlist the aid of special\par gods in combating them. The creation of these deities is recited under\par set formulae in a sort of refrain, and the divine name assigned to\p ar each bears a magical connexion with the sickness he or she is intended\par to dispel.[2]\par \par [1] See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. X, No. 1\par (1915), pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI\par (1916), pp. 140 ff.; cf. Prince, /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol.\par XXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow, /Journ. Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI,\par pp. 122 ff., and in particular his detailed study of the text in\par /Amer. Journ. Semit. Lang./, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ff. Dr. Langdon's\par first description of the text, in /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol.\par XXXVI (1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively small\par fragment only; and on his completion of the text from other\par fragments in Pennsylvania. Professor Sayce at once realized that\par the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth could not be sustained\par (cf. /Expos. Times/, Nov., 1915, pp. 88 ff.). He, Professor\par Prince, and Professor Jastrow in!dependently showed that the action\par of Enki in the myth in sending water on the land was not punitive\par but beneficent; and the preceding section, in which animals are\par described as not performing their usual activities, was shown\par independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to have\par reference, not to their different nature in an ideal existence in\par Paradise, but, on familiar lines, to their non-existence in a\par desolate land. It may be added that Professor Barton and Dr. Peters\par agree generally with Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow in\par their interpretation of the text, which excludes the suggested\par biblical parallels; and I understand from Dr. Langdon that he very\par rightly recognizes that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a\par subject for congratulation that the discussion has materially\par increased our knowledge of this difficult composition.\par \par [2] Cf. Col. VI, ll. 24 ff.; thu"s /Ab/-u was created for the sickness\par of the cow (/ab/); Nin-/tul/ for that of the flock (u-/tul/); Nin-\par /ka/-u-tu and Nin-/ka/-si for that of the mouth (/ka/); Na-zi for\par that of the /na-zi/ (meaning uncertain); /Da zi/-ma for that of\par the /da-zi/ (meaning uncertain); Nin-/til/ for that of /til/\par (life); the name of the eighth and last deity is imperfectly\par preserved.\par \par We have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic,\par which was common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its\par employment against disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice\par to cite a well-known magical cure for the toothache which was adopted\par in Babylon.[1] There toothache was believed to be caused by the\par gnawing of a worm in the gum, and a myth was used in the incantation\par to relieve it. The worm's origin is traced from Anu, the god of\par heaven, through a descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the\par earth#, rivers, canals and marshes are represented as each giving rise\par to the next in order, until finally the marshes produce the worm. The\par myth then relates how the worm, on being offered tempting food by Ea\par in answer to her prayer, asked to be allowed to drink the blood of the\par teeth, and the incantation closes by invoking the curse of Ea because\par of the worm's misguided choice. It is clear that power over the worm\par was obtained by a recital of her creation and of her subsequent\par ingratitude, which led to her present occupation and the curse under\par which she laboured. When the myth and invocation had been recited\par three times over the proper mixture of beer, a plant, and oil, and the\par mixture had been applied to the offending tooth, the worm would fall\par under the spell of the curse and the patient would at once gain\par relief. The example is instructive, as the connexion of ideas is quite\par clear. In the Nippur document the recital of the creation of the ei$ght\par deities evidently ensured their presence, and a demonstration of the\par mystic bond between their names and the corresponding diseases\par rendered the working of their powers effective. Our knowledge of a\par good many other myths is due solely to their magical employment.\par \par [1] See Thompson, /Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia/, Vol. II, pp.\par 160 ff.; for a number of other examples, see Jastrow, /J.A.O.S./,\par Vol. XXXVI, p. 279, n. 7.\par \par Perhaps the most interesting section of the new text is one in which\par divine instructions are given in the use of plants, the fruit or roots\par of which may be eaten. Here Usm\'fb, a messenger from Enki, God of the\par Deep, names eight such plants by Enki's orders, thereby determining\par the character of each. As Professor Jastrow has pointed out, the\par passage forcibly recalls the story from Berossus, concerning the\par mythical creature Oannes, who came up from the Erythraean Sea, where\par it borders upon %Babylonia, to instruct mankind in all things,\par including "seeds and the gathering of fruits".[1] But the only part of\par the text that concerns us here is the introductory section, where the\par life-giving flood, by which the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured\par as following the union of the water-deities, Enki and Ninella.[2]\par Professor Jastrow is right in emphasizing the complete absence of any\par conflict in this Sumerian myth of beginnings; but, as with the other\par Sumerian Versions we have examined, it seems to me there is no need to\par seek its origin elsewhere than in the Euphrates Valley.\par \par [1] Cf. Jastrow, /J.A.O.S./, Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and /A.J.S.L./, Vol.\par XXXIII, p. 134 f. It may be added that the divine naming of the\par plants also presents a faint parallel to the naming of the beasts\par and birds by man himself in Gen. ii. 19 f.\par \par [2] Professor Jastrow (/A.J.S.L./, Vol. XXXIII, p. 115) compares\par similar myths collected b&y Sir James Frazer (/Magic Art/, Vol. II,\par chap. xi and chap. xii, \'a7 2). He also notes the parallel the\par irrigation myth presents to the mist (or flood) of the earlier\par Hebrew Version (Gen. ii. 5 f). But Enki, like Ea, was no rain-god;\par he had his dwellings in the Euphrates and the Deep.\par \par Even in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation had been\par superseded by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never ceased to be\par regarded as the source of life and the creator of all things. And this\par is well brought out in the following introductory lines of a Semitic\par incantation, of which we possess two Neo-Babylonian copies:[1]\par \par O thou River, who didst create all things,\par When the great gods dug thee out,\par They set prosperity upon thy banks,\par Within thee Ea, King of the Deep, created his dwelling.\par The Flood they sent not before thou wert!\par \par Here the river as creator is sharply distinguished from the Flood; 'and\par we may conclude that the water of the Euphrates Valley impressed the\par early Sumerians, as later the Semites, with its creative as well as\par with its destructive power. The reappearance of the fertile soil,\par after the receding inundation, doubtless suggested the idea of\par creation out of water, and the stream's slow but automatic fall would\par furnish a model for the age-long evolution of primaeval deities. When\par a god's active and artificial creation of the earth must be portrayed,\par it would have been natural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the\par Creator working as he himself would work when he reclaimed a field\par from flood. We are thus shown the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling\par reed-bundles in the water and heaping up soil beside them, till the\par ground within his dikes dries off and produces luxuriant vegetation.\par But here there is a hint of struggle in the process, and we perceive\par in it the myth-redactor's opportunity to weave in the Dragon (/motif/.\par No such excuse is afforded by the other Sumerian myth, which pictures\par the life-producing inundation as the gift of the two deities of the\par Deep and the product of their union.\par \par But in their other aspect the rivers of Mesopotamia could be terrible;\par and the Dragon /motif/ itself, on the Tigris and Euphrates, drew its\par imagery as much from flood as from storm. When therefore a single\par deity must be made to appear, not only as Creator, but also as the\par champion of his divine allies and the conqueror of other gods, it was\par inevitable that the myths attaching to the waters under their two\par aspects should be combined. This may already have taken place at\par Nippur, when Enlil became the head of the pantheon; but the existence\par of his myth is conjectural.[1] In a later age we can trace the process\par in the light of history and of existing texts. There Marduk,\par identified wholly as the Sun-god, conquers the once featureless\par primaeval water), which in the process of redaction has now become the\par Dragon of flood and storm.\par \par [1] The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is emphasized in\par Tablet VII of the Babylonian poem of Creation. It is significant\par that his first title, Asara, should be interpreted as "Bestower of\par planting", "Founder of sowing", "Creator of grain and plants", "He\par who caused the green herb to spring up" (cf. /Seven Tablets/, Vol.\par I, p. 92 f.). These opening phrases, by which the god is hailed,\par strike the key-note of the whole composition. It is true that, as\par Sukh-kur, he is "Destroyer of the foe"; but the great majority of\par the titles and their Semitic glosses refer to creative activities,\par not to the Dragon myth.\par \par Thus the dualism which is so characteristic a feature of the Semitic-\par Babylonian system, though absent from the earliest Sumerian ideas of\par Creation, was inherent in the nature of the local rivers,* whose varied\par aspects gave rise to or coloured separate myths. Its presence in the\par later mythology may be traced as a reflection of political\par development, at first probably among the warring cities of Sumer, but\par certainly later in the Semitic triumph at Babylon. It was but to be\par expected that the conqueror, whether Sumerian or Semite, should\par represent his own god's victory as the establishment of order out of\par chaos. But this would be particularly in harmony with the character of\par the Semitic Babylonians of the First Dynasty, whose genius for method\par and organization produced alike Hammurabi's Code of Laws and the\par straight streets of the capital.\par \par We have thus been able to trace the various strands of the Semitic-\par Babylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins; and in the second\par lecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with regard to the\par Semitic-Babylonian Version of the Deluge preserved in the Epic of\par Gilgamesh. We there+ saw that the literary structure of the Sumerian\par Version, in which Creation and Deluge are combined, must have survived\par under some form into the Neo-Babylonian period, since it was\par reproduced by Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same\par arrangement in Genesis did not therefore prove that the Hebrew\par accounts go back directly to early Sumerian originals. In fact, the\par structural resemblance presented by Genesis can only be regarded as an\par additional proof that the Sumerian originals continued to be studied\par and translated by the Semitic priesthood, although they had long been\par superseded officially by their later descendants, the Semitic epics. A\par detailed comparison of the Creation and Deluge narratives in the\par various versions at once discloses the fact that the connexion between\par those of the Semitic Babylonians and the Hebrews is far closer and\par more striking than that which can be traced when the latter are placed\par beside the Sumerian ori,ginals. We may therefore regard it as certain\par that the Hebrews derived their knowledge of Sumerian tradition, not\par directly from the Sumerians themselves, but through Semitic channels\par from Babylon.\par \par It will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points of\par resemblance that are admitted to exist between the Hebrew account of\par Creation in the first chapter of Genesis and that preserved in the\par "Seven Tablets".[1] It will suffice to emphasize two of them, which\par gain in significance through our newly acquired knowledge of early\par Sumerian beliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem,\par one is struck more by the differences than by the parallels; but that\par is due to the polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention\par when compared with the severe and dignified monotheism of the Hebrew\par writer. And if allowance be made for the change in theological\par standpoint, the material points of resemblance are seen to be very-\par marked. The outline or general course of events is the same. In both\par we have an abyss of waters at the beginning denoted by almost the same\par Semitic word, the Hebrew /teh\'f4m/, translated "the deep" in Gen. i. 2,\par being the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian /Tiamat/, the monster\par of storm and flood who presents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian\par primaeval water.[2] The second act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative\par is that of a "firmament", which divided the waters under it from those\par above.[3] But this, as we have seen, has no parallel in the early\par Sumerian conception until it was combined with the Dragon combat in\par the form in which we find it in the Babylonian poem. There the body of\par Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from one half of her he constructs a\par covering or dome for heaven, that is to say a "firmament", to keep her\par upper waters in place. These will suffice as text passages, since they\par serve to point out quite clearly the .Semitic source to which all the\par other detailed points of Hebrew resemblance may be traced.\par \par [1] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner,\par /Genesis/, pp. 45 ff.\par \par [2] The invariable use of the Hebrew word /teh\'f4m/ without the article,\par except in two passages in the plural, proves that it is a proper\par name (cf. Skinner, op. cit., p. 17); and its correspondence with\par /Tiamat/ makes the resemblance of the versions far more\par significant than if their parallelism were confined solely to\par ideas.\par \par [3] Gen. i. 6-8.\par \par In the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a demonstration is\par not possible, since we have no similar criterion to apply. And on one\par point, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve an original Sumerian\par strand of the narrative that was not woven into the Gilgamesh Epic,\par where there is no parallel to the piety of Noah. But from the detailed\par description that was giv/en in the second lecture, it will have been\par noted that the Sumerian account is on the whole far simpler and more\par primitive than the other versions. It is only in the Babylonian Epic,\par for example, that the later Hebrew writer finds material from which to\par construct the ark, while the sweet savour of Ut-napishtim's sacrifice,\par and possibly his sending forth of the birds, though reproduced in the\par earlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the Sumerian account.[1]\par As to the general character of the Flood, there is no direct reference\par to rain in the Sumerian Version, though its presence is probably\par implied in the storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been\par increased to forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which\par would be suitable to a country where local rain was the sole cause of\par flood. But the later Hebrew writer's addition of "the fountains of the\par deep" to "the windows of heaven" certainly suggests a more intimate\par kn0owledge of Mesopotamia, where some contributary cause other than\par local rain must be sought for the sudden and overwhelming catastrophes\par of which the rivers are capable.\par \par [1] For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented by the\par Hebrew Versions J and P to the account in the Gilgamesh Epic, see\par Skinner, op. cit., p. 177 f.; Driver, /Genesis/, p. 106 f.; and\par Gordon, /Early Traditions of Genesis/ (1907), pp. 38 ff.\par \par Thus, viewed from a purely literary standpoint, we are now enabled to\par trace back to a primitive age the ancestry of the traditions, which,\par under a very different aspect, eventually found their way into Hebrew\par literature. And in the process we may note the changes they underwent\par as they passed from one race to another. The result of such literary\par analysis and comparison, so far from discrediting the narratives in\par Genesis, throws into still stronger relief the moral grandeur of the\par Hebrew text.\par 1\par We come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did\par the Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian ideas? The tendency of\par the purely literary school of critics has been to explain the process\par by the direct use of Babylonian documents wholly within exilic times.\par If the Creation and Deluge narratives stood alone, a case might\par perhaps be made out for confining Babylonian influence to this late\par period. It is true that during the Captivity the Jews were directly\par exposed to such influence. They had the life and civilization of their\par captors immediately before their eyes, and it would have been only\par natural for the more learned among the Hebrew scribes and priests to\par interest themselves in the ancient literature of their new home. And\par any previous familiarity with the myths of Babylonia would undoubtedly\par have been increased by actual residence in the country. We may perhaps\par see a result of such acquaintance with Babylonian li2terature, after\par Jehoiachin's deportation,, in an interesting literary parallel that\par has been pointed out between Ezek. xiv. 12-20 and a speech in the\par Babylonian account of the Deluge in the Gilgamesh Epic, XI, ll. 180-\par 194.[1] The passage in Ezekiel occurs within chaps. i-xxiv, which\par correspond to the prophet's first period and consist in the main of\par his utterances in exile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in\par fact, the introduction to the prophet's announcement of the coming of\par "four sore judgements upon Jerusalem", from which there "shall be left\par a remnant that shall be carried forth".[2] But in consequence, here\par and there, of traces of a later point of view, it is generally\par admitted that many of the chapters in this section may have been\par considerably amplified and altered by Ezekiel himself in the course of\par writing. And if we may regard the literary parallel that has been\par pointed out as anything more than fortuitous, it is open3 to us to\par assume that chap. xiv may have been worked up by Ezekiel many years\par after his prophetic call at Tel-abib.\par \par [1] See Daiches, "Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the Deluge",\par in the /Jewish Quarterly Review/, April 1905. It has of course\par long been recognized that Ezekiel, in announcing the punishment of\par the king of Egypt in xxxii. 2 ff., uses imagery which strongly\par recalls the Babylonian Creation myth. For he compares Pharaoh to a\par sea-monster over whom Yahweh will throw his net (as Marduk had\par thrown his over Tiamat); cf. Loisy, /Les mythes babyloniens et les\par premiers chaptires de la Gen\'e8se/ (1901), p. 87.\par \par [2] Ezek. xiv. 21 f.\par \par In the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already sent the\par Flood and had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon\par remonstrates with him, and he urges that in future the sinner only\par should be made to suffer for his sin; and, instead of again causing a\par flood, let there be discrimination in the divine punishments sent on\par men or lands. While the flood made the escape of the deserving\par impossible, other forms of punishment would affect the guilty only. In\par Ezekiel the subject is the same, but the point of view is different.\par The land the prophet has in his mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah,\par and his desire is to explain why it will suffer although not all its\par inhabitants deserved to share its fate. The discrimination, which Ea\par urges, Ezekiel asserts will be made; but the sinner must bear his own\par sin, and the righteous, however eminent, can only save themselves by\par their righteousness. The general principle propounded in the Epic is\par here applied to a special case. But the parallelism between the\par passages lies not only in the general principle but also in the\par literary setting. This will best be brought out by printing the\par passages in parallel columns.\par \par \par } ¨¨±x ‚ãq9{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 In another Sumerian myth, which has been recovered on one of the early\par tablets from Nippur, we have a rather different picture of beginnings.\p6 thereof, and send /famine/\par Be merciful, so that (all) be not upon it, and cut off from it\par destroyed! Have patience, so man and beast; though these\par that (all) be not [cut off]! three men, Noah, Daniel, and\par Instead of causing a flood, Job, were in it, they should\par Let /lions/[1] come and diminish deliver but their own souls by\par mankind! their righteousness, saith the\par Instead of causing a flood, Lord God.\par Let /leopards/[1] come and If I cause /noisome beasts/ to\par diminish mankind! pass through the land, and\par Instead of causing a flood, they spoil it, so that it be\par Let /famine/ be caused and let it desolate, that no man may pass\par smite the land! through because of the beasts;\par Instead of causing a flood, though these three men were in\par Let the /Plague-god/ come and7 it, as I live, saith the Lord\par [slay] mankind! God, they shall deliver\par neither sons nor daughters;\par they only shall be delivered,\par but the land shall be\par desolate.\par Or if I bring a /sword/ upon\par that land, and say, Sword, go\par through the land; so that I\par cut off from it man and beast;\par though these three men were in\par it, as I live, saith the Lord\par God, they shall deliver\par neither sons nor daughters,\par but they8 only shall be\par delivered themselves.\par Or if I send a /pestilence/ into\par that land, and pour out my\par fury upon it in blood, to cut\par off from it man and beast;\par though Noah, Daniel, and Job,\par were in it, as I live, saith\par the Lord God, they shall\par deliver neither son nor\par daughter; they shall but\par deliver their own souls by\par their righteousness.\par \par [1] Both Babylonian words are in the singular, but probably used\par collectively, as is the case with their Hebrew equivalent in E9zek.\par xiv. 15.\par \par It will be seen that, of the four kinds of divine punishment\par mentioned, three accurately correspond in both compositions. Famine\par and pestilence occur in both, while the lions and leopards of the Epic\par find an equivalent in "noisome beasts". The sword is not referred to\par in the Epic, but as this had already threatened Jerusalem at the time\par of the prophecy's utterance its inclusion by Ezekiel was inevitable.\par Moreover, the fact that Noah should be named in the refrain, as the\par first of the three proverbial examples of righteousness, shows that\par Ezekiel had the Deluge in his mind, and increases the significance of\par the underlying parallel between his argument and that of the\par Babylonian poet.[1] It may be added that Ezekiel has thrown his\par prophecy into poetical form, and the metre of the two passages in the\par Babylonian and Hebrew is, as Dr. Daiches points out, not dissimilar.\par \par [1] This suggestion is in some measur:e confirmed by the /Biblical\par Antiquities of Philo/, ascribed by Dr. James to the closing years\par of the first century A.D.; for its writer, in his account of the\par Flood, has actually used Ezek. xiv. 12 ff. in order to elaborate\par the divine speech in Gen. viii. 21 f. This will be seen from the\par following extract, in which the passage interpolated between \par verses 21 and 22 of Gen. viii is enclosed within brackets: "And\par God said: I will not again curse the earth for man's sake, for the\par guise of man's heart hath left off (sic) from his youth. And\par therefore I will not again destroy together all living as I have\par done. [But it shall be, when the dwellers upon earth have sinned,\par I will judge them by /famine/ or by the /sword/ or by fire or by\par /pestilence/ (lit. death), and there shall be earthquakes, and\par they shall be scattered into places not inhabited (or, the places\par of their habitation shall; be scattered). But I will not again\par spoil the earth with the water of a flood, and] in all the days of\par the earth seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and autumn,\par day and night shall not cease . . ."; see James, /The Biblical\par Antiquities of Philo/, p. 81, iii. 9. Here wild beasts are\par omitted, and fire, earthquakes, and exile are added; but famine,\par sword, and pestilence are prominent, and the whole passage is\par clearly suggested by Ezekiel. As a result of the combination, we\par have in the /Biblical Antiquities/ a complete parallel to the\par passage in the Gilgamesh Epic.\par \par It may of course be urged that wild beasts, famine, and pestilence are\par such obvious forms of divine punishment that their enumeration by both\par writers is merely due to chance. But the parallelism should be\par considered with the other possible points of connexion, namely, the\par fact that each writer is dealing with discrimination in ddrinking the Water of Life; here too man is left with the gift of\par wisdom, but immortality is withheld. And the association of winged\par guardians with the Sacred Tree in Babylonian art is at least\par suggestive of the Cherubim and the Tree of Life. The very side of Eden\par has now been identified in Southern Babylonia by means of an old\par boundary-stone acquired by the British Museum a year or two ago.[3]\par \par [1] See Loisy, /Les mythes babyloniens/, pp. 10 ff., and cf. S.\par Reinach, /Cultes, Mythes et Religions/, t. II, pp. 386 ff.\par \par [2] Cf. especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 90 ff. For the latest\par discussion of the Serpent and the Tree of Life, suggested by Dr.\par Skinner's summary of the evidence, see Frazer in /Essays and\par Studies presented to William Ridgeway/ (1913), pp. 413 ff.\par \par [3] See /Babylonian Boundary Stones in the British Museum/ (1912), pp.\par 76 ff., and cf. /Geographical Journal/, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug.,\par 1912?), p. 147. For the latest review of the evidence relating to\par the site of Paradise, see Boissier, "La situation du paradis\par terrestre", in /Le Globe/, t. LV, M\'e9moires (Geneva, 1916).\par \par But I need not now detain you by going over this familiar ground. Such\par possible echoes from Babylon seem to suggest pre-exilic influence\par rather than late borrowing, and they surely justify us in inquiring to\par what periods of direct or indirect contact, earlier than the\par Captivity, the resemblances between Hebrew and Babylonian ideas may be\par traced. One point, which we may regard as definitely settled by our\par new material, is that these stories of the Creation and of the early\par history of the world were not of Semitic origin. It is no longer\par possible to regard the Hebrew and Babylonian Versions as descended\par from common Semitic originals. For we have now recovered some of those\par originals, and they are not Semitic but Sumerian. The question thus\par reso@lves itself into an inquiry as to periods during which the Hebrews\par may have come into direct or indirect contact with Babylonia.\par \par There are three pre-exilic periods at which it has been suggested the\par Hebrews, or the ancestors of the race, may have acquired a knowledge\par of Babylonian traditions. The earliest of these is the age of the\par patriarchs, the traditional ancestors of the Hebrew nation. The second\par period is that of the settlement in Canaan, which we may put from 1200\par B.C. to the establishment of David's kingdom at about 1000 B.C. The\par third period is that of the later Judaean monarch, from 734 B.C. to\par 586 B.C., the date of the fall of Jerusalem; and in this last period\par there are two reigns of special importance in this connexion, those of\par Ahaz (734-720 B.C.) and Manasseh (693-638 B.C.).\par \par With regard to the earliest of these periods, those who support the\par Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may quite consistently assume that\parA Abraham heard the legends in Ur of the Chaldees. And a simple\par retention of the traditional view seems to me a far preferable\par attitude to any elaborate attempt at rationalizing it. It is admitted\par that Arabia was the cradle of the Semitic race; and the most natural\par line of advance from Arabia to Aram and thence to Palestine would be\par up the Euphrates Valley. Some writers therefore assume that nomad\par tribes, personified in the traditional figure of Abraham, may have\par camped for a time in the neighbourhood of Ur and Babylon; and that\par they may have carried the Babylonian stories with them in their\par wanderings, and continued to preserve them during their long\par subsequent history. But, even granting that such nomads would have\par taken any interest in traditions of settled folk, this view hardly\par commends itself. For stories received from foreign sources become more\par and more transformed in the course of centuries.[1] The vivid\par Babylonian colouring ofB the Genesis narratives cannot be reconciled\par with this explanation of their source.\par \par [1] This objection would not of course apply to M. Naville's suggested\par solution, that cuneiform tablets formed the medium of\par transmission. But its author himself adds that he does not deny\par its conjectural character; see /The Text of the Old Testament/\par (Schweich Lectures, 1915), p. 32.\par \par A far greater number of writers hold that it was after their arrival\par in Palestine that the Hebrew patriarchs came into contact with\par Babylonian culture. It is true that from an early period Syria was the\par scene of Babylonian invasions, and in the first lecture we noted some\par newly recovered evidence upon this point. Moreover, the dynasty to\par which Hammurabi belonged came originally from the north-eastern border\par of Canaan and Hammurabi himself exercised authority in the west. Thus\par a plausible case could be made out by exponents of this theory,\par esCpecially as many parallels were noted between the Mosaic legislation\par and that contained in Hammurabi's Code. But it is now generally\par recognized that the features common to both the Hebrew and the\par Babylonian legal systems may be paralleled to-day in the Semitic East\par and elsewhere,[1] and cannot therefore be cited as evidence of\par cultural contact. Thus the hypothesis that the Hebrew patriarchs were\par subjects of Babylon in Palestine is not required as an explanation of\par the facts; and our first period still stands or falls by the question\par of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which must be decided on\par quite other grounds. Those who do not accept the traditional view will\par probably be content to rule this first period out.\par \par [1] See Cook, /The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi/, p. 281\par f.; Driver, /Genesis/, p. xxxvi f.; and cf. Johns, "The Laws of\par Babylonia and the Laws of the Hebrew Peoples/ (Schweich Lectures,\par 1912D), pp. 50 ff.\par \par During the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan, the\par Hebrews came into contact with a people who had used the Babylonian\par language as the common medium of communication throughout the Near\par East. It is an interesting fact that among the numerous letters found\par at Tell el-Amarna were two texts of quite a different character. These\par were legends, both in the form of school exercises, which had been\par written out for practice in the Babylonian tongue. One of them was the\par legend of Adapa, in which we noted just now a distant resemblance to\par the Hebrew story of Paradise. It seems to me we are here standing on\par rather firmer ground; and provisionally we might place the beginning\par of our process after the time of Hebrew contact with the Canaanites.\par \par Under the earlier Hebrew monarchy there was no fresh influx of\par Babylonian culture into Palestine. That does not occur till our last\par main period, the later Judaean monarchEy, when, in consequence of the\par westward advance of Assyria, the civilization of Babylon was once more\par carried among the petty Syrian states. Israel was first drawn into the\par circle of Assyrian influence, when Arab fought as the ally of Benhadad\par of Damascus at the battle of Karkar in 854 B.C.; and from that date\par onward the nation was menaced by the invading power. In 734 B.C., at\par the invitation of Ahaz of Judah, Tiglath-Pileser IV definitely\par intervened in the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help\par against the allied armies of Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish\par war. Tiglath-pileser threw his forces against Damascus and Israel, and\par Ahaz became his vassal.[1] To this period, when Ahaz, like Panammu II,\par "ran at the wheel of his lord, the king of Assyria", we may ascribe\par the first marked invasion of Assyrian influence over Judah. Traces of\par it may be seen in the altar which Ahaz caused to be erected in\par Jerusalem after the patternF of the Assyrian altar at Damascus.[2] We\par saw in the first lecture, in the monuments we have recovered of\par Panammu I and of Bar-rekub, how the life of another small Syrian state\par was inevitably changed and thrown into new channels by the presence of\par Tiglath-pileser and his armies in the West.\par \par [1] 2 Kings xvi. 7 ff.\par \par [2] 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.\par \par Hezekiah's resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence on\par Judah for a time. But it was intensified under his son Manasseh, when\par Judah again became tributary to Assyria, and in the house of the Lord\par altars were built to all the host of heaven.[1] Towards the close of\par his long reign Manasseh himself was summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to\par Babylon.[2] So when in the year 586 B.C. the Jewish exiles came to\par Babylon they could not have found in its mythology an entirely new and\par unfamiliar subject. They must have recognized several of its stories\par as akin to those they had assimilated anGd now regarded as their own.\par And this would naturally have inclined them to further study and\par comparison.\par \par [1] 2 Kings xxi. 5.\par \par [2] Cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.\par \par The answer I have outlined to this problem is the one that appears to\par me most probable, but I do not suggest that it is the only possible\par one that can be given. What I do suggest is that the Hebrews must have\par gained some acquaintance with the legends of Babylon in pre-exilic\par times. And it depends on our reading of the evidence into which of the\par three main periods the beginning of the process may be traced.\par \par So much, then, for the influence of Babylon. We have seen that no\par similar problem arises with regard to the legends of Egypt. At first\par sight this may seem strange, for Egypt lay nearer than Babylon to\par Palestine, and political and commercial intercourse was at least as\par close. We have already noted how Egypt influenced Semitic art, and how\par she offered an ideal, on the material side of her existence, which was\par readily adopted by her smaller neighbours. Moreover, the Joseph\par traditions in Genesis give a remarkably accurate picture of ancient\par Egyptian life; and even the Egyptian proper names embedded in that\par narrative may be paralleled with native Egyptian names than that to\par which the traditions refer. Why then is it that the actual myths and\par legends of Egypt concerning the origin of the world and its\par civilization should have failed to impress the Hebrew mind, which, on\par the other hand, was so responsive to those of Babylon?\par \par One obvious answer would be, that it was Nebuchadnezzar II, and not\par Necho, who carried the Jews captive. And we may readily admit that the\par Captivity must have tended to perpetuate and intensify the effects of\par any Babylonian influence that may have previously been felt. But I\par think there is a wider and in that sense a better answer than that.\par \par \par } ççE ‚» 10{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 Gilg. Epic, XI, 180-194 Ezek. xiv. 12-20\par \par Ea opened his mouth and spake, And the word of the Lord came\par He said to the warrior Enlil; unto me, saying,\par Thou director of the gods! O Son of man, when a land sinneth\par warrior! against me by committing a\par Why didst thou not take counsel trespass, and I stretch out\par but didst cause a flood? mine hand upon it, and break\par On the transgressor lay his the staff of the bread\par transgression! 5Jtriking\par parallels to Egyptian religious belief and practice have been traced\par among races of the Sudan and East Africa. These are perhaps in part to\par be explained as the result of contact and cultural inheritance. But at\par the same time they are evidence of an African, but non-Negroid,\par substratum in the religion of ancient Egypt. In spite of his proto-\par Semitic strain, the ancient Egyptian himself never became a Semite.\par The Nile Valley, at any rate until the Moslem conquest, was stronger\par than its invaders; it received and moulded them to its own ideal. This\par quality was shared in some degree by the Euphrates Valley. But\par Babylonia was not endowed with Egypt's isolation; she was always open\par on the south and west to the Arabian nomad, who at a far earlier\par period sealed her Semitic type.\par \par To such racial division and affinity I think we may confidently trace\par the influence exerted by Egypt and Babylon respectively upon Hebrew\par tradition.\pKar \par \par \par APPENDIX I\par \par COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-BABYLONIAN,\par HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS OF CREATION,\par ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE DELUGE\par \par N.B.--Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are in upper-case.\par \par Sumerian Version. Seven Tablets Gilgamesh Epic, XI Berossus['Damscius] Earlier Heb. (J) Later Heb. (P)\par [No heaven or earth No heaven or earth Darkness and water Creation of earth Earth without form\par First Creation from Primaeval water- [Primaeval water- and heaven and void; darkness\par primaeval water gods: Aps\'fb-Tiamat, gods: \{'Apason- No plant or herb on face of /teh\'f4m/,\par without conflict; Mummu Tauthe\}, \{MoLumis\} Ground watered by the primaeval water\par cf. Later Sum. Ver. Generation of: Generation of: mist (or flood) Divine spirit moving\par Lakhmu-Lakhamu \{Lakhos-Lakhe\} [cf. Sumerian (hovering, brooding)\par Anshar-Kishar \{'Assoros-Kissare\} irrigation myth of upon face of waters\par Creation]\par \par The great gods: Birth of great gods: Birth of great gods:\par ANU, ENLIL, ENKI, ANU, Nudimmud (=EA) \{'Anos, 'Illinos,\par and Ninkharsagga, Aps\'fb and Tiamat 'Aos, 'Aois-Lauke,\par creating deities revolt Belos]\par M Conquest of Tiamat Conquest of \{'Omorka\}, Creation of light\par by Marduk as Sun- or \{Thamte\}, by\par god \{Belos\}\par Creation of covering Creation of heaven and Creation of firmament,\par for heaven from earth from two halves or heaven, to divide\par half of Tiamat's of body of Thamte waters; followed by\par body, to keep her emergence of land\par waters in place N Creation of vegetation\par Creation of luminaries Creation of luminaries Creation of luminaries\par [Creation of (probable order) Creation of animals\par vegetation]\par \par REASON FOR MAN'S REASON FOR MAN'S\par CREATION: worship of CREATION: worship of\par gods gods\par Creation of MAN Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN in\par Creator's blood and Creator's blood and dust and Creator's image of Creator, to\par from bone from earth breath of life have dominion\par Creation of ANIMALS [Creation of animals] Creation of ANIOMALS Creation of vegetation\par Hymn on Seventh Tablet able to bear the air ANIMALS, and woman Rest on Seventh Day\par \par Creation of KINGDOM 10 Antediluvian KINGS The line of Cain Antediluvian\par 5 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: Antediluvian city: 3 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: The Nephilim [cf. patriarchs [cf.\par Eridu, Bad.., LARAK, SHURUPPAK Babylon, SIPPAR, Sumerian Dynastic Sumerian Dynastic\par SIPPAR, SHURUPPAK LARANKHA List] List]\par \par Gods decree MANKIND'S Gods decree flood, Destruction of MAN Destruction of all\par destruction by flood, goddess ISHTAR decreed, because of fleshP decreed, because\par NINTU protesting protesting his wickedness of its corruption\par \par ZIUSUDU, hero of UT-NAPISHTIM, hero \{Xisouthros\} Noah, hero of Deluge Noah, hero of Deluge\par Deluge, KING and of Deluge (=Khasisatra), hero\par priest of Deluge, KING\par \par Ziusudu's PIETY Noah's FAVOUR Noah's RIGHTEOUSNESS\par \par WARNING of Ziusudu by WARNING of Ut-nap- WARNING of Xisuthros WARNING of Noah, and\par Enki in DREAM ishtim by Ea in DREAM by Kronos in DREAM instructions for ark\par \par Ziusudu's vessel a SHQIP: 120x120x120 Size of SHIP: 5x2 Instructions to enter Size of ARK: 300x50x30\par HUGE SHIP cubits; 7 stories; 9 stadia ark cubits; 3 stories\par divisions\par \par All kinds of animals All kinds of animals 7(x2) clean, 2 unclean 2 of all animals\par \par Flood and STORM for 7 FLOOD from heavy rain FLOOD FLOOD from rain for 40 FLOOD; founts. of deep\par days and STORM for 6 days days and rain, 150 days\par \par Ship on Mt. Nisir Ark on Ararat\par \par Abatement of waters Abatement of waters Abatement of watersR Abatement of waters\par tested by birds tested by birds tested by birds through drying wind\par \par SACRIFICE to Sun-god SACRIFICE with sweet SACRIFICE to gods, SACRIFICE with sweet Landing from ark [after\par in ship savour on mountain after landing and savour after landing year (+10 days)]\par paying adoration to\par EARTH\par \par Anu and Enlil appeased Ea's protest to ENLIL APOTHEOSIS of X., Divine promise to Noah Divine covenant not\par [by "Heaven and Earth"] IMMORTALITY of Ut-nap- wife, daughter, and not again to curse again to destroy EARTH\par IMMORTALITY of Ziusudu ishtim and hisS wife pilot the GROUND by flood; bow as sign\par \par \par \par APPENDIX II\par \par THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND\par THE SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST\par \par It may be of assistance to the reader to repeat in tabular form the\par equivalents to the mythical kings of Berossus which are briefly\par discussed in Lecture I. In the following table the two new equations,\par obtained from the earliest section of the Sumerian Dynastic List, are\par in upper-case.[1] The established equations to other names are in\par normal case, while those for which we should possibly seek other\par equivalents are enclosed within brackets.[2] Aruru has not been\par included as a possible equivalent for \{'Aloros\}.[3]\par \par 1. \{'Aloros\}\par 2. \{'Alaparos [? 'Adaparos]\}, /Alaporus/, /Alapaurus/ [Adapa]\par 3. \{'Amelon, 'Amillaros\}, /Almelon/ [Am\'ealu]\par 4. T\{'Ammenon\} ENMENUNNA\par 5. \{Megalaros, Megalanos\}, /Amegalarus/\par 6. \{Daonos, Daos\} ETANA\par 7. \{Euedorakhos, Euedoreskhos\}, /Edoranchus/ Enmeduranki\par 8. \{'Amemphinos\}, /Amemphsinus/ [Am\'eal-Sin]\par 9. \{'Otiartes [? 'Opartes]\} [Ubar-Tutu]\par 10. \{Xisouthros, Sisouthros, Sisithros\} Khasisatra, Atrakhasis[4]\par \par [1] For the royal names of Berossus, see /Euseb. chron. lib. pri./,\par ed. Schoene, cols. 7 f., 31 ff. The latinized variants correspond\par to forms in the Armenian translation of Eusebius.\par \par [2] For the principal discussions of equivalents, see Hommel, /Proc.\par Soc. Bibl. Arch./, Vol. XV (1893), pp. 243 ff., and /Die\par altorientalischen Denkm\'e4ler und das Alte Testament/ (1902), pp. 23\par ff.; Zimmern, /Die Keilinschriften und das Alte TestUament/, 3rd\par ed. (1902), pp. 531 ff.; and cf. Lenormant, /Les origines de\par l'histoire/, I (1880), pp. 214 ff. See also Driver, /Genesis/,\par 10th ed. (1916), p. 80 f.; Skinner, /Genesis/, p. 137 f.; Ball,\par /Genesis/, p. 50; and Gordon, /Early Traditions of Genesis/, pp.\par 46 ff.\par \par [3] There is a suggested equation of Lal-ur-alimma with \{'Aloros\}.\par \par [4] The hundred and twenty "sars", or 432,000 years assigned by\par Berossus for the duration of the Antediluvian dynasty, are\par distributed as follows among the ten kings; the numbers are given\par below first in "sars", followed by their equivalents in years\par within brackets: 1. Ten "sars" (36,000); 2. Three (10,800); 3.\par Thirteen (46,800); 4. Twelve (43,200); 5. Eighteen (64,800); 6.\par Ten (36,000); 7. Eighteen (64,800); 8. Ten (36,000); 9. Eight\par (28,800); 10. Eighteen (64,800).\par \par For comparison with Berossus it may be useful to abstract from thVe\par Sumerian Dynastic List the royal names occurring in the earliest\par extant dynasties. They are given below with variant forms from\par duplicate copies of the list, and against each is added the number of\par years its owner is recorded to have ruled. The figures giving the\par total duration of each dynasty, either in the summaries or under the\par separate reigns, are sometimes not completely preserved; in such cases\par an x is added to the total of the figures still legible. Except in\par those cases referred to in the foot-notes, all the names are written\par in the Sumerian lists without the determinative for "god".\par \par KINGDOM OF KISH\par (23 kings; 18,000 + x years, 3 months, 3 days)\par \par . . .[1]\par 8. [. . .] 900(?) years\par 9. Galumum, Kalumum 900 "\par 10. Zugagib, Zugakib 830 "\par 11. Arpi, Arpiu, Arbum 720 "\par 12. EWtana[2] 635 (or 625) years\par 13. Pili . . .[3] 410 years\par 14. Enmenunna, Enmennunna[4] 611 "\par 15. Melamkish 900 "\par 16. Barsalnunna 1,200 "\par 17. Mesza[. . .] [. . .] "\par . . .[5]\par 22. . . . 900 years\par 23. . . . 625 "\par \par KINGDOM OF EANNA (ERECH)[6]\par (About 10-12 kings; 2,171 + x years)\par \par 1. Meskingasher 325 years\par 2. Enmerkar 420 "\par 3. Lugalbanda[7] 1,200 "\par 4. Dumuzi[8] (i.e. Tammuz) 100 "\par 5. Gishbilgames[9] (i.e. Gilgamesh) 126 (or 186) years\par 6. [. . .]lugal [. . .] years\par . . .[10]\par \par KINGDOM OF UR\par (4 kings; 171 years)X\par \par 1. Mesannipada 80 years\par 2. Meskiagnunna 30 "\par 3. Elu[. . .] 25 "\par 4. Balu[. . .] 36 "\par \par KINGDOM OF AWAN\par (3 kings; 356 years)\par . . .[11]\par \par \par [1] Gap of seven, or possibly eight, names.\par \par [2] The name Etana is written in the lists with and without the\par determinative for "god".\par \par [3] The reading of the last sign in the name is unknown. A variant\par form of the name possibly begins with Bali.\par \par [4] This form is given on a fragment of a late Assyrian copy of the\par list; cf. /Studies in Eastern History/, Vol. III, p. 143.\par \par [5] Gap of four, or possibly three, names.\par \par [6] Eanna was the great temple of Erech. In the Second Column of the\par list "the kingdom" is recorded to have passed from Kish to Eanna,\par but the latterY name does not occur in the summary.\par \par [7] The name Lugalbanda is written in the lists with and without the\par determinative for "god".\par \par [8] The name Dumuzi is written in the list with the determinative for\par "god".\par \par [9] The name Gishbilgames is written in the list with the\par determinative for "god".\par \par [10] Gap of about four, five, or six kings.\par \par [11] Wanting.\par \par At this point a great gap occurs in our principal list. The names of\par some of the missing "kingdoms" may be inferred from the summaries, but\par their relative order is uncertain. Of two of them we know the\par duration, a second Kingdom of Ur containing four kings and lasting for\par a hundred and eight years, and another kingdom, the name of which is\par not preserved, consisting of only one king who ruled for seven years.\par The dynastic succession only again becomes assured with the opening of\par the Dynastic chronicle published by P\'e8re Scheil and recently acquired\par by the British Museum. It will be noted that with the Kingdom of Ur\par the separate reigns last for decades and not hundreds of years each,\par so that we here seem to approach genuine tradition, though the Kingdom\par of Awan makes a partial reversion to myth so far as its duration is\par concerned. The two suggested equations with Antediluvian kings of\par Berossus both occur in the earliest Kingdom of Kish and lie well\par within the Sumerian mythical period. The second of the rulers\par concerned, Enmenunna (Ammenon), is placed in Sumerian tradition\par several thousand years before the reputed succession of the gods\par Lugalbanda and Tammuz and of the national hero Gilgamesh to the throne\par of Erech. In the first lecture some remarkable points of general\par resemblance have already been pointed out between Hebrew and Sumerian\par traditions of these early ages of the world.\par End of the Project Gutenberg Etext of LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT\par \par \par } ë¹ë„©2 ˆÒa4-1{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier New;}} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\lang1033\f0\fs20 [4] Gen. iv. 17 ff. (J).\par \par [5] It may be noted that an account of the origin of divination is\par included in his description of the descendents of Noah by the\par writer of the Biblical Antiquities of Philo, a product of the same\par school as the Fourth Book of Esdras and[‰{ ‚“u11{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 I do not propose to embark at this late hour on what ethnologists know\par as the "Hamitic" problem. But it is a fact that many sI\ the Apocalypse of Baruch;\par see James, /The Biblical Antiquities of Philo/, p. 86.\par \par I may add that a parallel is provided by the new Sumerian records to\par the circumstances preceding the birth of the Nephilim at the beginning\par of the sixth chapter of Genesis.[1] For in them also great prowess or\par distinction is ascribed to the progeny of human and divine unions. We\par have already noted that, according to the traditions the records\par embody, the Sumerians looked back to a time when gods lived upon the\par earth with men, and we have seen such deities as Tammuz and Lugalbanda\par figuring as rulers of cities in the dynastic sequence. As in later\par periods, their names are there preceded by the determinative for\par divinity. But more significant still is the fact that we read of two\par Sumerian heroes, also rulers of cities, who were divine on the\par father's or mother's side but not on both. Meskingasher is entered in\par the list as "son of the Sun-god",[2] an]d no divine parentage is\par recorded on the mother's side. On the other hand, the human father of\par Gilgamesh is described as the high priest of Kullab, and we know from\par other sources that his mother was the goddess Ninsun.[3] That this is\par not a fanciful interpretation is proved by a passage in the Gilgamesh\par Epic itself,[4] in which its hero is described as two-thirds god and\par one-third man. We again find ourselves back in the same stratum of\par tradition with which the Hebrew narratives have made us so familiar.\par \par [1] Gen. vi. 1-4 (J).\par \par [2] The phrase recalls the familiar Egyptian royal designation "son of\par the Sun," and it is possible that we may connect with this same\par idea the Palermo Stele's inclusion of the mother's and omission of\par the father's name in its record of the early dynastic Pharaohs.\par This suggestion does not exclude the possibility of the prevalence\par of matrilineal (and perhaps originally also of matril^ocal and\par matripotestal) conditions among the earliest inhabitants of Egypt.\par Indeed the early existence of some form of mother-right may have\par originated, and would certainly have encouraged, the growth of a\par tradition of solar parentage for the head of the state.\par \par [3] Poebel, /Hist. Inscr./, p. 124 f.\par \par [4] Tablet I, Col. ii, l. 1; and cf. Tablet IX, Col. ii. l. 16.\par \par What light then does our new material throw upon traditional origins\par of civilization? We have seen that in Egypt a new fragment of the\par Palermo Stele has confirmed in a remarkable way the tradition of the\par predynastic period which was incorporated in his history by Manetho.\par It has long been recognized that in Babylonia the sources of Berossus\par must have been refracted by the political atmosphere of that country\par during the preceding nineteen hundred years. This inference our new\par material supports; but when due allowance has been made for a\par resul_ting disturbance of vision, the Sumerian origin of the remainder\par of his evidence is notably confirmed. Two of his ten Antediluvian\par kings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes, and we shall see that two of\par his three Antediluvian cities find their place among the five of\par primitive Sumerian belief. It is clear that in Babylonia, as in Egypt,\par the local traditions of the dawn of history, current in the\par Hellenistic period, were modelled on very early lines. Both countries\par were the seats of ancient civilizations, and it is natural that each\par should stage its picture of beginnings upon its own soil and embellish\par it with local colouring.\par \par It is a tribute to the historical accuracy of Hebrew tradition to\par recognize that it never represented Palestine as the cradle of the\par human race. It looked to the East rather than to the South for\par evidence of man's earliest history and first progress in the arts of\par life. And it is in the East, in the soil of Baby`lonia, that we may\par legitimately seek material in which to verify the sources of that\par traditional belief.\par \par The new parallels I have to-day attempted to trace between some of the\par Hebrew traditions, preserved in Gen. iv-vi, and those of the early\par Sumerians, as presented by their great Dynastic List, are essentially\par general in character and do not apply to details of narrative or to\par proper names. If they stood alone, we should still have to consider\par whether they are such as to suggest cultural influence or independent\par origin. But fortunately they do not exhaust the evidence we have\par lately recovered from the site of Nippur, and we will postpone\par formulating our conclusions with regard to them until the whole field\par has been surveyed. From the biblical standpoint by far the most\par valuable of our new documents is one that incorporates a Sumerian\par version of the Deluge story. We shall see that it presents a variant\par and more primitive pictaure of that great catastrophe than those of the\par Babylonian and Hebrew versions. And what is of even greater interest,\par it connects the narrative of the Flood with that of Creation, and\par supplies a brief but intermediate account of the Antediluvian period.\par How then are we to explain this striking literary resemblance to the\par structure of the narrative in Genesis, a resemblance that is\par completely wanting in the Babylonian versions? But that is a problem\par we must reserve for the next lecture.\par \par \par \par LECTURE II\par \par DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION\par \par In the first lecture we saw how, both in Babylonia and Egypt, recent\par discoveries had thrown light upon periods regarded as prehistoric, and\par how we had lately recovered traditions concerning very early rulers\par both in the Nile Valley and along the lower Euphrates. On the strength\par of the latter discovery we noted the possibility thabt future\par excavation in Babylonia would lay bare stages of primitive culture\par similar to those we have already recovered in Egyptian soil. Meanwhile\par the documents from Nippur had shown us what the early Sumerians\par themselves believed about their own origin, and we traced in their\par tradition the gradual blending of history with legend and myth. We saw\par that the new Dynastic List took us back in the legendary sequence at\par least to the beginning of the Post-diluvian period. Now one of the\par newly published literary texts fills in the gap beyond, for it gives\par us a Sumerian account of the history of the world from the Creation to\par the Deluge, at about which point, as we saw, the extant portions of\par the Dynastic List take up the story. I propose to devote my lecture\par to-day to this early version of the Flood and to the effect of its\par discovery upon some current theories.\par \par The Babylonian account of the Deluge, which was discovered by George\par Smitch in 1872 on tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh, is, as you\par know, embedded in a long epic of twelve Books recounting the\par adventures of the Old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh. Towards the end of\par this composite tale, Gilgamesh, desiring immortality, crosses the\par Waters of Death in order to beg the secret from his ancestor\par Ut-napishtim, who in the past had escaped the Deluge and had been\par granted immortality by the gods. The Eleventh Tablet, or Book, of the\par epic contains the account of the Deluge which Ut-napishtim related to\par his kinsman Gilgamesh. The close correspondence of this Babylonian\par story with that contained in Genesis is recognized by every one and\par need not detain us. You will remember that in some passages the\par accounts tally even in minute details, such, for example, as the\par device of sending out birds to test the abatement of the waters. It is\par true that in the Babylonian version a dove, a swallow, and a raven are\par sent forth in tdhat order, instead of a raven and the dove three times.\par But such slight discrepancies only emphasize the general resemblance\par of the narratives.\par \par In any comparison it is usually admitted that two accounts have been\par combined in the Hebrew narrative. I should like to point out that this\par assumption may be made by any one, whatever his views may be with\par regard to the textual problems of the Hebrew Bible and the traditional\par authorship of the Pentateuch. And for our purpose at the moment it is\par immaterial whether we identify the compiler of these Hebrew narratives\par with Moses himself, or with some later Jewish historian whose name has\par not come down to us. Whoever he was, he has scrupulously preserved his\par two texts and, even when they differ, he has given each as he found\par it. Thanks to this fact, any one by a careful examination of the\par narrative can disentangle the two versions for himself. He will find\par each gives a consistent story. One of ethem appears to be simpler and\par more primitive than the other, and I will refer to them as the earlier\par and the later Hebrew Versions.[1] The Babylonian text in the Epic of\par Gilgamesh contains several peculiarities of each of the Hebrew\par versions, though the points of resemblance are more detailed in the\par earlier of the two.\par \par [1] In the combined account in Gen. vi. 5-ix. 17, if the following\par passages be marked in the margin or underlined, and then read\par consecutively, it will be seen that they give a consistent and\par almost complete account of the Deluge: Gen. vi. 9-22; vii. 6, 11,\par 13-16 (down to "as God commanded him"), 17 (to "upon the earth"),\par 18-21, 24; viii. 1, 2 (to "were stopped"), 3 (from "and after")-5,\par 13 (to "from off the earth"), 14-19; and ix. 1-17. The marked\par passages represent the "later Hebrew Version." If the remaining\par passages be then read consecutively, they will be seen to give a\par f different version of the same events, though not so completely\par preserved as the other; these passages substantially represent the\par "earlier Hebrew Version". In commentaries on the Hebrew text they\par are, of course, usually referred to under the convenient symbols J\par and P, representing respectively the earlier and the later\par versions. For further details, see any of the modern commentaries\par on Genesis, e.g. Driver, /Book of Genesis/, pp. 85 ff.; Skinner,\par /Genesis/, pp. 147 ff.; Ryle, /Genesis/, p. 96 f.\par \par Now the tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh inscribed with the\par Gilgamesh Epic do not date from an earlier period than the seventh\par century B.C. But archaeological evidence has long shown that the\par traditions themselves were current during all periods of Babylonian\par history; for Gilgamesh and his half-human friend Enkidu were favourite\par subjects for the seal-engraver, whether he lived in Sumerian times or\par ungder the Achaemenian kings of Persia. We have also, for some years\par now, possessed two early fragments of the Deluge narrative, proving\par that the story was known to the Semitic inhabitants of the country at\par the time of Hammurabi's dynasty.[1] Our newly discovered text from\par Nippur was also written at about that period, probably before 2100\par B.C. But the composition itself, apart from the tablet on which it is\par inscribed, must go back very much earlier than that. For instead of\par being composed in Semitic Babylonian, the text is in Sumerian, the\par language of the earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia, whom the\par Semites eventually displaced. This people, it is now recognized, were\par the originators of the Babylonian civilization, and we saw in the\par first lecture that, according to their own traditions, they had\par occupied that country since the dawn of history.\par \par [1] The earlier of the two fragments is dated in the eleventh year of\par Ammizaduga, hthe tenth king of Hammurabi's dynasty, i.e. in 1967\par B.C.; it was published by Scheil, /Recueil de travaux/, Vol. XX,\par pp. 55 ff. Here the Deluge story does not form part of the\par Gilgamesh Epic, but is recounted in the second tablet of a\par different work; its hero bears the name Atrakhasis, as in the\par variant version of the Deluge from the Nineveh library. The other\par and smaller fragment, which must be dated by its script, was\par published by Hilprecht (/Babylonian Expedition/, series D, Vol. V,\par Fasc. 1, pp. 33 ff.), who assigned it to about the same period;\par but it is probably of a considerably later date. The most\par convenient translations of the legends that were known before the\par publication of the Nippur texts are those given by Rogers,\par /Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament/ (Oxford, 1912), and\par Dhorme, /Choix de textes religieux Assyro-Babyloniens/ (Paris,\par 1907).\par \par The Semites ias a ruling race came later, though the occurrence of\par Semitic names in the Sumerian Dynastic List suggests very early\par infiltration from Arabia. After a long struggle the immigrants\par succeeded in dominating the settled race; and in the process they in\par turn became civilized. They learnt and adopted the cuneiform writing,\par they took over the Sumerian literature. Towards the close of the third\par millennium, when our tablet was written, the Sumerians as a race had\par almost ceased to exist. They had been absorbed in the Semitic\par population and their language was no longer the general language of\par the country. But their ancient literature and sacred texts were\par carefully preserved and continued to be studied by the Semitic priests\par and scribes. So the fact that the tablet is written in the old\par Sumerian tongue proves that the story it tells had come down from a\par very much earlier period. This inference is not affected by certain\par small differences in idiomj which its language presents when compared\par with that of Sumerian building-inscriptions. Such would naturally\par occur in the course of transmission, especially in a text which, as we\par shall see, had been employed for a practical purpose after being\par subjected to a process of reduction to suit it to its new setting.\par \par When we turn to the text itself, it will be obvious that the story\par also is very primitive. But before doing so we will inquire whether\par this very early version is likely to cast any light on the origin of\par Deluge stories such as are often met with in other parts of the world.\par Our inquiry will have an interest apart from the question itself, as\par it will illustrate the views of two divergent schools among students\par of primitive literature and tradition. According to one of these\par views, in its most extreme form, the tales which early or primitive\par man tells about his gods and the origin of the world he sees around\par him are never to bke regarded as simple stories, but are to be\par consistently interpreted as symbolizing natural phenomena. It is, of\par course, quite certain that, both in Egypt and Babylonia, mythology in\par later periods received a strong astrological colouring; and it is\par equally clear that some legends derive their origin from nature myths.\par But the theory in the hands of its more enthusiastic adherents goes\par further than that. For them a complete absence of astrological\par colouring is no deterrent from an astrological interpretation; and,\par where such colouring does occur, the possibility of later\par embellishment is discounted, and it is treated without further proof\par as the base on which the original story rests. One such interpretation\par of the Deluge narrative in Babylonia, particularly favoured by recent\par German writers, would regard it as reflecting the passage of the Sun\par through a portion of the ecliptic. It is assumed that the primitive\par Babylonians were aware thalt in the course of ages the spring equinox\par must traverse the southern or watery region of the zodiac. This, on\par their system, signified a submergence of the whole universe in water,\par and the Deluge myth would symbolize the safe passage of the vernal\par Sun-god through that part of the ecliptic. But we need not spend time\par over that view, as its underlying conception is undoubtedly quite a\par late development of Babylonian astrology.\par \par More attractive is the simpler astrological theory that the voyage of\par any Deluge hero in his boat or ark represents the daily journey of the\par Sun-god across the heavenly ocean, a conception which is so often\par represented in Egyptian sculpture and painting. It used to be assumed\par by holders of the theory that this idea of the Sun as "the god in the\par boat" was common among primitive races, and that that would account\par for the widespread occurrence of Deluge-stories among scattered races\par of the world. But this view hasm recently undergone some modification\par in accordance with the general trend of other lines of research. In\par recent years there has been an increased readiness among\par archaeologists to recognize evidence of contact between the great\par civilizations of antiquity. This has been particularly the case in the\par area of the Eastern Mediterranean; but the possibility has also been\par mooted of the early use of land-routes running from the Near East to\par Central and Southern Asia. The discovery in Chinese Turkestan, to the\par east of the Caspian, of a prehistoric culture resembling that of Elam\par has now been followed by the finding of similar remains by Sir Aurel\par Stein in the course of the journey from which he has lately\par returned.[1] They were discovered in an old basin of the Helmand River\par in Persian Seistan, where they had been laid bare by wind-erosion. But\par more interesting still, and an incentive to further exploration in\par that region, is another of his disncoveries last year, also made near\par the Afghan border. At two sites in the Helmand Delta, well above the\par level of inundation, he came across fragments of pottery inscribed in\par early Aramaic characters,[2] though, for obvious reasons, he has left\par them with all his other collections in India. This unexpected find, by\par the way, suggests for our problem possibilities of wide transmission\par in comparatively early times.\par \par [1] See his "Expedition in Central Asia", in /The Geographical\par Journal/, Vol. XLVII (Jan.-June, 1916), pp. 358 ff.\par \par [2] Op. cit., p. 363.\par \par The synthetic tendency among archaeologists has been reflected in\par anthropological research, which has begun to question the separate and\par independent origin, not only of the more useful arts and crafts, but\par also of many primitive customs and beliefs. It is suggested that too\par much stress has been laid on environment; and, though it is readily\par admitted that similar needs aond experiences may in some cases have\par given rise to similar expedients and explanations, it is urged that\par man is an imitative animal and that inventive genius is far from\par common.[1] Consequently the wide dispersion of many beliefs and\par practices, which used generally to be explained as due to the similar\par and independent working of the human mind under like conditions, is\par now often provisionally registered as evidence of migratory movement\par or of cultural drift. Much good work has recently been done in\par tabulating the occurrence of many customs and beliefs, in order to\par ascertain their lines of distribution. Workers are as yet in the\par collecting stage, and it is hardly necessary to say that explanatory\par theories are still to be regarded as purely tentative and provisional.\par At the meetings of the British Association during the last few years,\par the most breezy discussions in the Anthropological Section have\par undoubtedly centred around this subjectp. There are several works in\par the field, but the most comprehensive theory as yet put forward is one\par that concerns us, as it has given a new lease of life to the old solar\par interpretation of the Deluge story.\par \par [1] See, e.g. Marett, /Anthropology/ (2nd ed., 1914), Chap. iv,\par "Environment," pp. 122 ff.; and for earlier tendencies,\par particularly in the sphere of mythological exegesis, see S.\par Reinach, /Cultes, Mythes et Religions/, t. IV (1912), pp. 1 ff.\par \par In a land such as Egypt, where there is little rain and the sky is\par always clear, the sun in its splendour tended from the earliest period\par to dominate the national consciousness. As intercourse increased along\par the Nile Valley, centres of Sun-worship ceased to be merely local, and\par the political rise of a city determined the fortunes of its cult. From\par the proto-dynastic period onward, the "King of the two Lands" had\par borne the title of "Horus" as the lineal descendant of theq great Sun-\par god of Edfu, and the rise of Ra in the Vth Dynasty, through the\par priesthood of Heliopolis, was confirmed in the solar theology of the\par Middle Kingdom. Thus it was that other deities assumed a solar\par character as forms of Ra. Amen, the local god of Thebes, becomes\par Amen-Ra with the political rise of his city, and even the old\par Crocodile-god, Sebek, soars into the sky as Sebek-Ra. The only other\par movement in the religion of ancient Egypt, comparable in importance to\par this solar development, was the popular cult of Osiris as God of the\par Dead, and with it the official religion had to come to terms. Horus is\par reborn as the posthumous son of Osiris, and Ra gladdens his abode\par during his nightly journey through the Underworld. The theory with\par which we are concerned suggests that this dominant trait in Egyptian\par religion passed, with other elements of culture, beyond the bounds of\par the Nile Valley and influenced the practice and beliefs of distrant\par races.\par \par This suggestion has been gradually elaborated by its author, Professor\par Elliot Smith, who has devoted much attention to the anatomical study\par of Egyptian mummification. Beginning with a scrutiny of megalithic\par building and sun-worship,[1] he has subsequently deduced, from\par evidence of common distribution, the existence of a culture-complex,\par including in addition to these two elements the varied practices of\par tattooing, circumcision, ear-piercing, that quaint custom known as\par couvade, head-deformation, and the prevalence of serpent-cults, myths\par of petrifaction and the Deluge, and finally of mummification. The last\par ingredient was added after an examination of Papuan mummies had\par disclosed their apparent resemblance in points of detail to Egyptian\par mummies of the XXIst Dynasty. As a result he assumes the existence of\par an early cultural movement, for which the descriptive title\par "heliolithic" has been coined.[2] Starting with Egsypt as its centre,\par one of the principal lines of its advance is said to have lain through\par Syria and Mesopotamia and thence along the coastlands of Asia to the\par Far East. The method of distribution and the suggested part played by\par the Phoenicians have been already criticized sufficiently. But in a\par modified form the theory has found considerable support, especially\par among ethnologists interested in Indonesia. I do not propose to\par examine in detail the evidence for or against it. It will suffice to\par note that the Deluge story and its alleged Egyptian origin in solar\par worship form one of the prominent strands in its composition.\par \par [1] Cf. Elliot Smith, /The Ancient Egyptians/, 1911.\par \par [2] See in particular his monograph "On the significance of the\par Geographical Distribution of the Practice of Mummification" in the\par /Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society/,\par 1915.\par \par One weakness of this particular sttrand is that the Egyptians\par themselves possessed no tradition of the Deluge. Indeed the annual\par inundation of the Nile is not such as would give rise to a legend of\par world-destruction; and in this respect it presents a striking contrast\par to the Tigris and Euphrates. The ancient Egyptian's conception of his\par own gentle river is reflected in the form he gave the Nile-god, for\par Hapi is represented as no fierce warrior or monster. He is given a\par woman's breasts as a sign of his fecundity. The nearest Egyptian\par parallel to the Deluge story is the "Legend of the Destruction of\par Mankind", which is engraved on the walls of a chamber in the tomb of\par Seti I.[1] The late Sir Gaston Maspero indeed called it "a dry deluge\par myth", but his paradox was intended to emphasize the difference as\par much as the parallelism presented. It is true that in the Egyptian\par myth the Sun-god causes mankind to be slain because of their impiety,\par and he eventually pardons the survivuors. The narrative thus betrays\par undoubted parallelism to the Babylonian and Hebrew stories, so far as\par concerns the attempted annihilation of mankind by the offended god,\par but there the resemblance ends. For water has no part in man's\par destruction, and the essential element of a Deluge story is thus\par absent.[2] Our new Sumerian document, on the other hand, contains what\par is by far the earliest example yet recovered of a genuine Deluge tale;\par and we may thus use it incidentally to test this theory of Egyptian\par influence, and also to ascertain whether it furnishes any positive\par evidence on the origin of Deluge stories in general.\par \par [1] It was first published by Monsieur Naville, /Tranc. Soc. Bibl.\par Arch./, IV (1874), pp. 1 ff. The myth may be most conveniently\par studied in Dr. Budge's edition in /Egyptian Literature/, Vol. I,\par "Legends of the Gods" (1912), pp. 14 ff., where the hieroglyphic\par text and translation are printed on oppovsite pages; cf. the\par summary, op. cit., pp. xxiii ff., where the principal literature\par is also cited. See also his /Gods of the Egyptians/, Vol. I, chap.\par xii, pp. 388 ff.\par \par [2] The undoubted points of resemblance, as well as the equally\par striking points of divergence, presented by the Egyptian myth when\par compared with the Babylonian and Hebrew stories of a Deluge may be\par briefly indicated. The impiety of men in complaining of the age of\par Ra finds a parallel in the wickedness of man upon the earth (J)\par and the corruption of all flesh (P) of the Hebrew Versions. The\par summoning by Ra of the great Heliopolitan cosmic gods in council,\par including his personified Eye, the primaeval pair Shu and Tefnut,\par Keb the god of the earth and his consort Nut the sky-goddess, and\par Nu the primaeval water-god and originally Nut's male counterpart,\par is paralleled by the /puhur il\'e2ni/, or "assembly of the gods", win\par the Babylonian Version (see Gilg. Epic. XI. l. 120 f., and cf. ll.\par 10 ff.); and they meet in "the Great House", or Sun-temple at\par Heliopolis, as the Babylonian gods deliberate in Shuruppak.\par Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hebrew narratives all agree in the\par divine determination to destroy mankind and in man's ultimate\par survival. But the close of the Egyptian story diverges into\par another sphere. The slaughter of men by the Eye of Ra in the form\par of the goddess Hathor, who during the night wades in their blood,\par is suggestive of Africa; and so too is her drinking of men's blood\par mixed with the narcotic mandrake and with seven thousand vessels\par of beer, with the result that through drunkenness she ceased from\par slaughter. The latter part of the narrative is directly connected\par with the cult-ritual and beer-drinking at the Festivals of Hathor\par and Ra; but the destruction of men by slaughter in place xof\par drowning appears to belong to the original myth. Indeed, the only\par suggestion of a Deluge story is suggested by the presence of Nu,\par the primaeval water-god, at Ra's council, and that is explicable\par on other grounds. In any case the points of resemblance presented\par by the earlier part of the Egyptian myth to Semitic Deluge stories\par are general, not detailed; and though they may possibly be due to\par reflection from Asia, they are not such as to suggest an Egyptian\par origin for Deluge myths.\par \par The tablet on which our new version of the Deluge is inscribed was\par excavated at Nippur during the third Babylonian expedition sent out by\par the University of Pennsylvania; but it was not until the summer of\par 1912 that its contents were identified, when the several fragments of\par which it was composed were assembled and put together. It is a large\par document, containing six columns of writing, three on each side; but\par unforytunately only the lower half has been recovered, so that\par considerable gaps occur in the text.[1] The sharp edges of the broken\par surface, however, suggest that it was damaged after removal from the\par soil, and the possibility remains that some of the missing fragments\par may yet be recovered either at Pennsylvania or in the Museum at\par Constantinople. As it is not dated, its age must be determined mainly\par by the character of its script. A close examination of the writing\par suggests that it can hardly have been inscribed as late as the Kassite\par Dynasty, since two or three signs exhibit more archaic forms than\par occur on any tablets of that period;[2] and such linguistic\par corruptions as have been noted in its text may well be accounted for\par by the process of decay which must have already affected the Sumerian\par language at the time of the later kings of Nisin. Moreover, the tablet\par bears a close resemblance to one of the newly published copies of the\par Sumeriazn Dynastic List from Nippur;[3] for both are of the same shape\par and composed of the same reddish-brown clay, and both show the same\par peculiarities of writing. The two tablets in fact appear to have been\par written by the same hand, and as that copy of the Dynastic List was\par probably drawn up before the latter half of the First Dynasty of\par Babylon, we may assign the same approximate date for the writing of\par our text. This of course only fixes a lower limit for the age of the\par myth which it enshrines.\par \par [1] The breadth of the tablet is 5 5/8 in., and it originally measured\par about 7 in. in length from top to bottom; but only about one-third\par of its inscribed surface is preserved.\par \par [2] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, pp. 66 ff.\par \par [3] No. 5.\par \par That the composition is in the form of a poem may be seen at a glance\par from the external appearance of the tablet, the division of many of\par the lines and the blank spaces frequently left be{tween the sign-groups\par being due to the rhythmical character of the text. The style of the\par poetry may be simple and abrupt, but it exhibits a familiar feature of\par both Semitic-Babylonian and Hebrew poetry, in its constant employment\par of partial repetition or paraphrase in parallel lines. The story it\par tells is very primitive and in many respects unlike the Babylonian\par Versions of the Deluge which we already possess. Perhaps its most\par striking peculiarity is the setting of the story, which opens with a\par record of the creation of man and animals, goes on to tell how the\par first cities were built, and ends with a version of the Deluge, which\par is thus recounted in its relation to the Sumerian history of the\par world. This literary connexion between the Creation and Deluge\par narratives is of unusual interest, in view of the age of our text. In\par the Babylonian Versions hitherto known they are included in separate\par epics with quite different contexts. Here the|y are recounted together\par in a single document, much as they probably were in the history of\par Berossus and as we find them in the present form of the Book of\par Genesis. This fact will open up some interesting problems when we\par attempt to trace the literary descent of the tradition.\par \par But one important point about the text should be emphasized at once,\par since it will affect our understanding of some very obscure passages,\par of which no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The\par assumption has hitherto been made that the text is an epic pure and\par simple. It is quite true that the greater part of it is a myth,\par recounted as a narrative in poetical form. but there appear to me to\par be clear indications that the myth was really embedded in an\par incantation. If this was so, the mythological portion was recited for\par a magical purpose, with the object of invoking the aid of the chief\par deities whose actions in the past are there described, and of\par } increasing by that means the potency of the spell.[1] In the third\par lecture I propose to treat in more detail the employment and\par significance of myth in magic, and we shall have occasion to refer to\par other instances, Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian, in which a myth\par has reached us in a magical setting.\par \par [1] It will be seen that the subject-matter of any myth treated in\par this way has a close connexion with the object for which the\par incantation was performed.\par \par In the present case the inference of magical use is drawn from certain\par passages in the text itself, which appear to be explicable only on\par that hypothesis. In magical compositions of the later period intended\par for recitation, the sign for "Incantation" is usually prefixed.\par Unfortunately the beginning of our text is wanting; but its opening\par words are given in the colophon, or title, which is engraved on the\par left-hand edge of the tablet, and it is possible that the trac~es of\par the first sign there are to be read as EN, "Incantation".[1] Should a\par re-examination of the tablet establish this reading of the word, we\par should have definite proof of the suggested magical setting of the\par narrative. But even if we assume its absence, that would not\par invalidate the arguments that can be adduced in favour of recognizing\par the existence of a magical element, for they are based on internal\par evidence and enable us to explain certain features which are\par inexplicable on Dr. Poebel's hypothesis. Moreover, we shall later on\par examine another of the newly published Sumerian compositions from\par Nippur, which is not only semi-epical in character, but is of\par precisely the same shape, script, and period as our text, and is very\par probably a tablet of the same series. There also the opening signs of\par the text are wanting, but far more of its contents are preserved and\par they present unmistakable traces of magical use. Its evidence, as that\par of a parallel text, may therefore be cited in support of the present\par contention. It may be added that in Sumerian magical compositions of\par this early period, of which we have not yet recovered many quite\par obvious examples, it is possible that the prefix "Incantation" was not\par so invariable as in the later magical literature.\par \par [1] Cf. Poebel, /Hist. Texts/, p. 63, and /Hist. and Gram. Texts/, pl.\par i. In the photographic reproduction of the edges of the tablet\par given in the latter volume, pl. lxxxix, the traces of the sign\par suggest the reading EN (= Sem. /\'9aiptu/, "incantation"). But the\par sign may very possibly be read AN. In the latter case we may read,\par in the traces of the two sign-groups at the beginning of the text,\par the names of both Anu and Enlil, who appear so frequently as the\par two presiding deities in the myth.\par \par It has already been remarked that only the lower half of our tablet\par has been recovered€, and that consequently a number of gaps occur in\par the text. On the obverse the upper portion of each of the first three\par columns is missing, while of the remaining three columns, which are\par inscribed upon the reverse, the upper portions only are preserved.\par This difference in the relative positions of the textual fragments\par recovered is due to the fact that Sumerian scribes, like their later\par Babylonian and Assyrian imitators, when they had finished writing the\par obverse of a tablet, turned it over from bottom to top--not, as we\par should turn a sheet of paper, from right to left. But in spite of the\par lacunae, the sequence of events related in the mythological narrative\par may be followed without difficulty, since the main outline of the\par story is already familiar enough from the versions of the Semitic-\par Babylonian scribes and of Berossus. Some uncertainties naturally\par remain as to what exactly was included in the missing portions of the\par tablet; but the more important episodes are fortunately recounted in\par the extant fragments, and these suffice for a definition of the\par distinctive character of the Sumerian Version. In view of its literary\par importance it may be advisable to attempt a somewhat detailed\par discussion of its contents, column by column;[1] and the analysis may\par be most conveniently divided into numbered sections, each of which\par refers to one of the six columns of the tablet. The description of the\par First Column will serve to establish the general character of the\par text. Through the analysis of the tablet parallels and contrasts will\par be noted with the Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. It will then be\par possible to summarise, on a surer foundation, the literary history of\par the traditions, and finally to estimate the effect of our new evidence\par upon current theories as to the origin and wide dispersion of Deluge\par stories.\par \par [1] In the lecture as delivered the contents of each column wer‚e\par necessarily summarized rather briefly, and conclusions were given\par without discussion of the evidence.\par \par The following headings, under which the six numbered sections may be\par arranged, indicate the contents of each column and show at a glance\par the main features of the Sumerian Version:\par \par I. Introduction to the Myth, and account of Creation.\par II. The Antediluvian Cities.\par III. The Council of the Gods, and Ziusudu's piety.\par IV. The Dream-Warning.\par V. The Deluge, the Escape of the Great Boat, and the Sacrifice to\par the Sun-god.\par VI. The Propitiation of the Angry Gods, and Ziusudu's Immortality.\par \par \par I. INTRODUCTION TO THE MYTH, AND ACCOUNT OF CREATION\par \par The beginning of the text is wanting, and the earliest lines preserved\par of the First Column open with the closing sentences of a speech,\par probably by the chief of the four creating deities, who are later on\par referred to by naƒme. In it there is a reference to a future\par destruction of mankind, but the context is broken; the lines in\par question begin:\par \par "As for my human race, from (/or/ in) its destruction will I cause\par it to be [. . .],\par For Nintu my creatures [. . .] will I [. . .]."\par \par From the reference to "my human race" it is clear that the speaker is\par a creating deity; and since the expression is exactly parallel to the\par term "my people" used by Ishtar, or B\'ealit-ili, "the Lady of the gods",\par in the Babylonian Version of the Deluge story when she bewails the\par destruction of mankind, Dr. Poebel assigns the speech to Ninkharsagga,\par or Nintu,[1] the goddess who later in the column is associated with\par Anu, Enlil, and Enki in man's creation. But the mention of Nintu in\par her own speech is hardly consistent with that supposition,[2] if we\par assume with Dr. Poebel, as we are probably justified in doing, that\par the title Nintu is employed here and elsewher„e in the narrative merely\par as a synonym of Ninkharsagga.[3] It appears to me far more probable\par that one of the two supreme gods, Anu or Enlil, is the speaker,[4] and\par additional grounds will be cited later in support of this view. It is\par indeed possible, in spite of the verbs and suffixes in the singular,\par that the speech is to be assigned to both Anu and Enlil, for in the\par last column, as we shall see, we find verb in the singular following\par references to both these deities. In any case one of the two chief\par gods may be regarded as speaking and acting on behalf of both, though\par it may be that the inclusion of the second name in the narrative was\par not original but simply due to a combination of variant traditions.\par Such a conflate use of Anu-Enlil would present a striking parallel to\par the Hebrew combination Yahweh-Elohim, though of course in the case of\par the former pair the subsequent stage of identification was never\par attained. But the evidence fur…nished by the text is not conclusive,\par and it is preferable here and elsewhere in the narrative to regard\par either Anu or Enlil as speaking and acting both on his own behalf and\par as the other's representative.\par \par [1] Op. cit., p. 21 f.; and cf. Jastrow, /Hebrew and Babylonian\par Traditions/, p. 336.\par \par [2] It necessitates the taking of (/dingir/) /Nin-tu-ra/ as a\par genitive, not a dative, and the very awkward rendering "my,\par Nintu's, creations".\par \par [3] Another of the recently published Sumerian mythological\par compositions from Nippur includes a number of myths in which Enki\par is associated first with Ninella, referred to also as Nintu, "the\par Goddess of Birth", then with Ninshar, referred to also as\par Ninkurra, and finally with Ninkharsagga. This text exhibits the\par process by which separate traditions with regard to goddesses\par originally distinct were combined together, with the result that\par their h†eroines were subsequently often identified with one\par another. There the myths that have not been subjected to a very\par severe process of editing, and in consequence the welding is not\par so complete as in the Sumerian Version of the Deluge.\par \par [4] If Enlil's name should prove to be the first word of the\par composition, we should naturally regard him as the speaker here\par and as the protagonist of the gods throughout the text, a /r\'f4le/\par he also plays in the Semitic-Babylonian Version.\par \par This reference to the Deluge, which occurs so early in the text,\par suggests the probability that the account of the Creation and of the\par founding of Antediluvian cities, included in the first two columns, is\par to be taken merely as summarizing the events that led up to the\par Deluge. And an almost certain proof of this may be seen in the opening\par words of the composition, which are preserved in its colophon or title\par on the left-hand edge of t‡he tablet. We have already noted that the\par first two words are there to be read, either as the prefix\par "Incantation" followed by the name "Enlil", or as the two divine names\par "Anu (and) Enlil". Now the signs which follow the traces of Enlil's\par name are quite certain; they represent "Ziusudu", which, as we shall\par see in the Third Column, is the name of the Deluge hero in our\par Sumerian Version. He is thus mentioned in the opening words of the\par text, in some relation to one or both of the two chief gods of the\par subsequent narrative. But the natural place for his first introduction\par into the story is in the Third Column, where it is related that "at\par that time Ziusudu, the king" did so-and-so. The prominence given him\par at the beginning of the text, at nearly a column's interval before the\par lines which record the creation of man, is sufficient proof that the\par Deluge story is the writer's main interest, and that preceding\par episodes are merely introductory ˆto it.\par \par What subject then may we conjecture was treated in the missing lines\par of this column, which precede the account of Creation and close with\par the speech of the chief creating deity? Now the Deluge narrative\par practically ends with the last lines of the tablet that are preserved,\par and the lower half of the Sixth Column is entirely wanting. We shall\par see reason to believe that the missing end of the tablet was not left\par blank and uninscribed, but contained an incantation, the magical\par efficacy of which was ensured by the preceding recitation of the\par Deluge myth. If that were so, it would be natural enough that the text\par should open with its main subject. The cause of the catastrophe and\par the reason for man's rescue from it might well be referred to by one\par of the creating deities in virtue of the analogy these aspects of the\par myth would present to the circumstances for which the incantation was\par designed. A brief account of the Creation and ‰of Antediluvian history\par would then form a natural transition to the narrative of the Deluge\par itself. And even if the text contained no incantation, the narrative\par may well have been introduced in the manner suggested, since this\par explanation in any case fits in with what is still preserved of the\par First Column. For after his reference to the destruction of mankind,\par the deity proceeds to fix the chief duty of man, either as a\par preliminary to his creation, or as a reassertion of that duty after\par his rescue from destruction by the Flood. It is noteworthy that this\par duty consists in the building of temples to the gods "in a clean\par spot", that is to say "in hallowed places". The passage may be given\par in full, including the two opening lines already discussed:\par \par "As for my human race, from (/or/ in) its destruction will I cause\par it to be [. . .],\par For Nintu my creatures [. . .] will I [. . .].\par The people will I cause to . . . in theirŠ settlements,\par Cities . . . shall (man) build, in there protection will I cause him\par to rest,\par That he may lay the brick of our houses in a clean spot,\par That in a clean spot he may establish our . . . !"\par \par In the reason here given for man's creation, or for his rescue from\par the Flood, we have an interesting parallel to the Sixth Tablet of the\par Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series. At the opening of that tablet\par Marduk, in response to "the word of the gods", is urged by his heart\par to devise a cunning plan which he imparts to Ea, namely the creation\par of man from his own divine blood and from bone which he will fashion.\par And the reason he gives for his proposal is precisely that which, as\par we have seen, prompted the Sumerian deity to create or preserve the\par human race. For Marduk continues:\par \par "I will create man who shall inhabit [. . .],\par That the service of the gods may be established and that their\par shrines may be bui‹lt."[1]\par \par [1] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.\par \par We shall see later, from the remainder of Marduk's speech, that the\par Semitic Version has been elaborated at this point in order to\par reconcile it with other ingredients in its narrative, which were\par entirely absent from the simpler Sumerian tradition. It will suffice\par here to note that, in both, the reason given for man's existence is\par the same, namely, that the gods themselves may have worshippers.[1]\par The conception is in full agreement with early Sumerian thought, and\par reflects the theocratic constitution of the earliest Sumerian\par communities. The idea was naturally not repugnant to the Semites, and\par it need not surprise us to find the very words of the principal\par Sumerian Creator put into the mouth of Marduk, the city-god of\par Babylon.\par \par [1] It may be added that this is also the reason given for man's\par creation in the introduction to a text which celebratŒes the\par founding or rebuilding of a temple.\par \par The deity's speech perhaps comes to an end with the declaration of his\par purpose in creating mankind or in sanctioning their survival of the\par Deluge; and the following three lines appear to relate his\par establishment of the divine laws in accordance with which his\par intention was carried out. The passage includes a refrain, which is\par repeated in the Second Column:\par \par The sublime decrees he made perfect for it.\par \par It may probably be assumed that the refrain is employed in relation to\par the same deity in both passages. In the Second Column it precedes the\par foundation of the Babylonian kingdom and the building of the\par Antediluvian cities. In that passage there can be little doubt that\par the subject of the verb is the chief Sumerian deity, and we are\par therefore the more inclined to assign to him also the opening speech\par of the First Column, rather than to regard it as spoken by the\par Sumerian goddess whose share in the creation would justify her in\par claiming mankind as her own. In the last four lines of the column we\par have a brief record of the Creation itself. It was carried out by the\par three greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil and Enki,\par with the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga; the passage reads:\par \par When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga\par Created the blackheaded (i.e. mankind),\par The /niggil(ma)/ of the earth they caused the earth to produce(?),\par The animals, the four-legged creatures of the field, they artfully\par called into existence.\par \par The interpretation of the third line is obscure, but there is no doubt\par that it records the creation of something which is represented as\par having taken place between the creation of mankind and that of\par animals. This object, which is written as /nig-gil/ or /nig-gil-ma/,\par is referred to again in the Sixth Column, where the Sumerian hero of\par the Deluge assignŽs to it the honorific title, "Preserver of the Seed\par of Mankind". It must therefore have played an important part in man's\par preservation from the Flood; and the subsequent bestowal of the title\par may be paralleled in the early Semitic Deluge fragment from Nippur,\par where the boat in which Ut-napishtim escapes is assigned the very\par similar title "Preserver of Life".[1] But /niggilma/ is not the word\par used in the Sumerian Version of Ziusudu's boat, and I am inclined to\par suggest a meaning for it in connexion with the magical element in the\par text, of the existence of which there is other evidence. On that\par assumption, the prominence given to its creation may be paralleled in\par the introduction to a later magical text, which described, probably in\par connexion with an incantation, the creation of two small creatures,\par one white and one black, by Nin-igi-azag, "The Lord of Clear Vision",\par one of the titles borne by Enki or Ea. The time of their creation is\par indicated as after that of "cattle, beasts of the field and creatures\par of the city", and the composition opens in a way which is very like\par the opening of the present passage in our text.[2] In neither text is\par there any idea of giving a complete account of the creation of the\par world, only so much of the original myth being included in each case\par as suffices for the writer's purpose. Here we may assume that the\par creation of mankind and of animals is recorded because they were to be\par saved from the Flood, and that of the /niggilma/ because of the part\par it played in ensuring their survival.\par \par [1] See Hilprecht, /Babylonian Expedition/, Series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1,\par plate, Rev., l. 8; the photographic reproduction clearly shows, as\par Dr. Poebel suggests (/Hist. Texts/, p. 61 n 3), that the line\par should read: /[(isu)elippu] \'9ai-i lu (isu)ma-gur-gur-ma \'9aum-\'9aa lu\par na-si-rat na-pi\'9a-tim/, "That ship shall be a /magurgurru/ (giant\par  boat), and its name shall be 'Preserver of Life' (lit. 'She that\par preserves life')."\par \par [2] See /Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff. The text\par opens with the words "When the gods in their assembly had made\par [the world], and had created the heavens, and had formed the\par earth, and had brought living creatures into being . . .", the\par lines forming an introduction to the special act of creation with\par which the composition was concerned.\par \par The discussion of the meaning of /niggilma/ may best be postponed till\par the Sixth Column, where we find other references to the word.\par Meanwhile it may be noted that in the present passage the creation of\par man precedes that of animals, as it did in the earlier Hebrew Version\par of Creation, and probably also in the Babylonian version, though not\par in the later Hebrew Version. It may be added that in another Sumerian\par account of the Creation[1] the same order, of man before an‘imals, is\par followed.\par \par [1] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, p. 134 f.; but the text has been\par subjected to editing, and some of its episodes are obviously\par displaced.\par \par \par II. THE ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES\par \par As we saw was the case with the First Column of the text, the earliest\par part preserved of the Second Column contains the close of a speech by\par a deity, in which he proclaims an act he is about to perform. Here we\par may assume with some confidence that the speaker is Anu or Enlil,\par preferably the latter, since it would be natural to ascribe the\par political constitution of Babylonia, the foundation of which is\par foreshadowed, to the head of the Sumerian pantheon. It would appear\par that a beginning had already been made in the establishment of "the\par kingdom", and, before proceeding to his further work of founding the\par Antediluvian cities, he follows the example of the speaker in the\par First Column of the text and’ lays down the divine enactments by which\par his purpose was accomplished. The same refrain is repeated:\par \par The sub[lime decrees] he made perfect for it.\par \par The text then relates the founding by the god of five cities, probably\par "in clean places", that is to say on hallowed ground. He calls each by\par its name and assigns it to its own divine patron or city-god:\par \par [In clean place]s he founded [five] cit[ies].\par And after he had called their names and they had been allotted to\par divine rulers(?),--\par The . . . of these cities, Eridu, he gave to the leader, Nu-dimmud,\par Secondly, to Nugira(?) he gave Bad-. . .,[1]\par Thirdly, Larak he gave to Pabilkharsag,\par Fourthly, Sippar he gave to the hero, the Sun-god,\par Fifthly, Shuruppak he gave to "the God of Shuruppak",--\par After he had called the names of these cities, and they had been\par allotted to divine rulers(?),\par \par [1] In Semitic-Babylonian the first component of th“is city-name would\par read "D\'fbr".\par \par The completion of the sentence, in the last two lines of the column,\par cannot be rendered with any certainty, but the passage appears to have\par related the creation of small rivers and pools. It will be noted that\par the lines which contain the names of the five cities and their patron\par gods[1] form a long explanatory parenthesis, the preceding line being\par repeated after their enumeration.\par \par [1] The precise meaning of the sign-group here provisionally rendered\par "divine ruler" is not yet ascertained.\par \par As the first of the series of five cities of Eridu, the seat of\par Nudimmud or Enki, who was the third of the creating deities, it has\par been urged that the upper part of the Second Column must have included\par an account of the founding of Erech, the city of Anu, and of Nippur,\par Enlil's city.[1] But the numbered sequence of the cities would be\par difficult to reconcile with the earlier creation of ot”her cities in\par the text, and the mention of Eridu as the first city to be created\par would be quite in accord with its great age and peculiarly sacred\par character as a cult-centre. Moreover the evidence of the Sumerian\par Dynastic List is definitely against any claim of Erech to Antediluvian\par existence. For when the hegemony passed from the first Post-diluvian\par "kingdom" to the second, it went not to Erech but to the shrine Eanna,\par which gave its name to the second "kingdom"; and the city itself was\par apparently not founded before the reign of Enmerkar, the second\par occupant of the throne, who is the first to be given the title "King\par of Erech". This conclusion with regard to Erech incidentally disposes\par of the arguments for Nippur's Antediluvian rank in primitive Sumerian\par tradition, which have been founded on the order of the cities\par mentioned at the beginning of the later Sumerian myth of Creation.[2]\par The evidence we thus obtain that the early Sumerians• themselves\par regarded Eridu as the first city in the world to be created, increases\par the hope that future excavation at Abu Shahrain may reveal Sumerian\par remains of periods which, from an archaeological standpoint, must\par still be regarded as prehistoric.\par \par [1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 41.\par \par [2] The city of Nippur does not occur among the first four "kingdoms"\par of the Sumerian Dynastic List; but we may probably assume that it\par was the seat of at least one early "kingdom", in consequence of\par which Enlil, its city-god, attained his later pre-eminent rank in\par the Sumerian pantheon.\par \par It is noteworthy that no human rulers are mentioned in connexion with\par Eridu and the other four Antediluvian cities; and Ziusudu, the hero of\par the story, is apparently the only mortal whose name occurred in our\par text. But its author's principal subject is the Deluge, and the\par preceding history of the world is clearly not given in detail, bu–t is\par merely summarized. In view of the obviously abbreviated form of the\par narrative, of which we have already noted striking evidence in its\par account of the Creation, we may conclude that in the fuller form of\par the tradition the cities were also assigned human rulers, each one the\par representative of his city-god. These would correspond to the\par Antediluvian dynasty of Berossus, the last member of which was\par Xisuthros, the later counterpart of Ziusudu.\par \par In support of the exclusion of Nippur and Erech from the myth, it will\par be noted that the second city in the list is not Adab,[1] which was\par probably the principal seat of the goddess Ninkharsagga, the fourth of\par the creating deities. The names of both deity and city in that line\par are strange to us. Larak, the third city in the series, is of greater\par interest, for it is clearly Larankha, which according to Berossus was\par the seat of the eighth and ninth of his Antediluvian kings. In\par commercia—l documents of the Persian period, which have been found\par during the excavations at Nippur, Larak is described as lying "on the\par bank of the old Tigris", a phrase which must be taken as referring to\par the Shatt el-Hai, in view of the situation of Lagash and other early\par cities upon it or in its immediate neighbourhood. The site of the city\par should perhaps be sought on the upper course of the stream, where it\par tends to approach Nippur. It would thus have lain in the neighbourhood\par of Bism\'e2ya, the site of Adab. Like Adab, Lagash, Shuruppak, and other\par early Sumerian cities, it was probably destroyed and deserted at a\par very early period, though it was reoccupied under its old name in Neo-\par Babylonian or Persian times. Its early disappearance from Babylonian\par history perhaps in part accounts for our own unfamiliarity with\par Pabilkharsag, its city-god, unless we may regard the name as a variant\par from of Pabilsag; but it is hardly likely that the two should b˜e\par identified.\par \par [1] The site of Adab, now marked by the mounds of Bism\'e2ya, was\par partially excavated by an expedition sent out in 1903 by the\par University of Chicago, and has provided valuable material for the\par study of the earliest Sumerian period; see /Reports of the\par Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund/ (Babylonian Section\par of the University of Chicago), and Banks, /Bismya/ (1912). On\par grounds of antiquity alone we might perhaps have expected its\par inclusion in the myth.\par \par In Sibbar, the fourth of the Antediluvian cities in our series, we\par again have a parallel to Berossus. it has long been recognized that\par Pantibiblon, or Pantibiblia, from which the third, fourth, fifth,\par sixth, and seventh of his Antediluvian kings all came, was the city of\par Sippar in Northern Babylonia. For the seventh of these rulers,\par \{Euedorakhos\}, is clearly Enmeduranki, the mythical king of Sippar,\par who in Babylonian™ tradition was regarded as the founder of divination.\par In a fragmentary composition that has come down to us he is described,\par not only as king of Sippar, but as "beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki",\par the three creating gods of our text; and it is there recounted how the\par patron deities of divination, Shamash and Adad, themselves taught him\par to practise their art.[1] Moreover, Berossus directly implies the\par existence of Sippar before the Deluge, for in the summary of his\par version that has been preserved Xisuthros, under divine instruction,\par buries the sacred writings concerning the origin of the world in\par "Sispara", the city of the Sun-god, so that after the Deluge they\par might be dug up and transmitted to mankind. Ebabbar, the great\par Sun-temple, was at Sippar, and it is to the Sun-god that the city is\par naturally allotted in the new Sumerian Version.\par \par [1] Cf. Zimmern, /Beitr\'e4ge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Relig./, pp. 116 ff.\par \par The last of the fšive Antediluvian cities in our list is Shuruppak, in\par which dwelt Ut-napishtim, the hero of the Babylonian version of the\par Deluge. Its site has been identified with the mounds of F\'e2ra, in the\par neighbourhood of the Shatt el-K\'e2r, the former bed of the Euphrates;\par and the excavations that were conducted there in 1902 have been most\par productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian\par culture.[1] Since our text is concerned mainly with the Deluge, it is\par natural to assume that the foundation of the city from which the\par Deluge-hero came would be recorded last, in order to lead up to the\par central episode of the text. The city of Ziusudu, the hero of the\par Sumerian story, is unfortunately not given in the Third Column, but,\par in view of Shuruppak's place in the list of Antediluvian cities, it is\par not improbable that on this point the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions\par agreed. In the Gilgamesh Epic Shuruppak is the only Antediluvian city\par› referred to, while in the Hebrew accounts no city at all is mentioned\par in connexion with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not recorded,\par but as his father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that city\par as his in the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only Antediluvian\par cities according to Berossus were Babylon and Sippar, and the\par influence of Babylonian theology, of which we here have evidence,\par would be sufficient to account for a disturbance of the original\par traditions. At the same time it is not excluded that Larak was also\par the scene of the Deluge in our text, though, as we have noted, the\par position of Shuruppak at the close of the Sumerian list points to it\par as the more probable of the two. It may be added that we cannot yet\par read the name of the deity to whom Shuruppak was allotted, but as it\par is expressed by the city's name preceded by the divine determinative,\par the rendering "the God of Shuruppak" will meanwhile serve.\par \par œ[1] See /Hist. of Sum. and Akk./, pp. 24 ff.\par \par The creation of small rivers and pools, which seems to have followed\par the foundation of the five sacred cities, is best explained on the\par assumption that they were intended for the supply of water to the\par cities and to the temples of their five patron gods. The creation of\par the Euphrates and the Tigris, if recorded in our text at all, or in\par its logical order, must have occurred in the upper portion of the\par column. The fact that in the later Sumerian account their creation is\par related between that of mankind and the building of Nippur and Erech\par cannot be cited in support of this suggestion, in view of the absence\par of those cities from our text and of the process of editing to which\par the later version has been subjected, with a consequent disarrangement\par of its episodes.\par \par \par III. THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS, AND ZIUSUDU'S PIETY\par \par From the lower part of the Third Column, where its text is first\par preserved, it is clear that the gods had already decided to send a\par Deluge, for the goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga, here referred to also\par as "the holy Innanna", wails aloud for the intended destruction of\par "her people". That this decision has been decreed by the gods in\par council is clear from a passage in the Fourth Column, where it is\par stated that the sending of a flood to destroy mankind was "the word of\par the assembly [of the gods]". The first lines preserved in the present\par column describe the effect of the decision on the various gods\par concerned and their action at the close of the council.\par \par In the lines which described the Council of the Gods, broken\par references to "the people" and "a flood" are preserved, after which\par the text continues:\par \par At that time Nintu [. . .] like a [. . .],\par The holy Innanna lament[ed] on account of her people.\par Enki in his own heart [held] counsel;\par Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkhažrsagga [. . .].\par The gods of heaven and earth in[voked] the name of Anu and Enlil.\par \par It is unfortunate that the ends of all the lines in this column are\par wanting, but enough remains to show a close correspondence of the\par first two lines quoted with a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic where\par Ishtar is described as lamenting the destruction of mankind.[1] This\par will be seen more clearly by printing the two couplets in parallel\par columns:\par \par SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION\par \par At that time Nintu [. . .] like Ishtar cried aloud like a woman\par a [. . .], in travail,\par The holy Innanna lament[ed] on B\'ealit-ili lamented with a loud\par account of her people. voice.\par \par [1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 117 f.\par \par The expression B\'ealit-ili, "the Lady of the Gods", is attested as a\par title borne both by the Semitic goddess Ishtar and by the Sumerian\par goddess NintuŸ or Ninkharsagga. In the passage in the Babylonian\par Version, "the Lady of the Gods" has always been treated as a synonym\par of Ishtar, the second half of the couplet being regarded as a\par restatement of the first, according to a recognized law of Babylonian\par poetry. We may probably assume that this interpretation is correct,\par and we may conclude by analogy that "the holy Innanna" in the second\par half of the Sumerian couplet is there merely employed as a synonym of\par Nintu.[1] When the Sumerian myth was recast in accordance with Semitic\par ideas, the /r\'f4le/ of creatress of mankind, which had been played by\par the old Sumerian goddess Ninkharsagga or Nintu, was naturally\par transferred to the Semitic Ishtar. And as Innanna was one of Ishtar's\par designations, it was possible to make the change by a simple\par transcription of the lines, the name Nintu being replaced by the\par synonymous title B\'ealit-ili, which was also shared by Ishtar.\par Difficulties are at once introduced if we assume with Dr. Poebel that\par in each version two separate goddesses are represented as lamenting,\par Nintu or B\'ealit-ili and Innanna or Ishtar. For Innanna as a separate\par goddess had no share in the Sumerian Creation, and the reference to\par "her people" is there only applicable to Nintu. Dr. Poebel has to\par assume that the Sumerian names should be reversed in order to restore\par them to their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian Version\par has preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary. In the\par Semitic Version Ishtar definitely displaces Nintu as the mother of\par men, as is proved by a later passage in her speech where she refers to\par her own bearing of mankind.[2] The necessity for the substitution of\par her name in the later version is thus obvious, and we have already\par noted how simply this was effected.\par \par [1] Cf. also Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 336.\par \par [2] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.\par \par \par } ¡hand, in B\'ealit-\par ili's later speech in the Epic, after Ut-napishtim's sacrifice upon\par the mountain, she appears to subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.[2]\par The passages in the Gilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory, for\par they can be interpreted as implying that, while Enlil forced his will\par upon the other gods against B\'ealit-ili's protest, the goddess at first\par reproached herself with her concurrence, and later stigmatized Enlil\par as the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does\par not appear, as has been suggested, to betray traces of two variant\par traditions which have been skilfully combined, though it may perhaps\par exhibit an expansion of the Sumerian story. On the other hand, most of\par the apparent discrepancies between the Sumerian and Babylonian\par Versions disappear, on the recognition that our text gives in many\par passages only an epitome of the original Sumerian Version.\par \par [1] Cf. l. 121 f., "Since I commanded ¢evil in the assembly of the\par gods, (and) commanded battle for the destruction of my people".\par \par [2] Cf. ll. 165 ff., "Ye gods that are here! So long as I forget not\par the (jewels of) lapis lazuli upon my neck, I will keep these days\par in my memory, never will I forget them! Let the gods come to the\par offering, but let not Enlil come to the offering, since he took\par not counsel but sent the deluge and surrendered my people to\par destruction."\par \par The lament of the goddess is followed by a brief account of the action\par taken by the other chief figures in the drama. Enki holds counsel with\par his own heart, evidently devising the project, which he afterwards\par carried into effect, of preserving the seed of mankind from\par destruction. Since the verb in the following line is wanting, we do\par not know what action is there recorded of the four creating deities;\par but the fact that the gods of heaven and earth invoked the name of Anu\par a£nd Enlil suggests that it was their will which had been forced upon\par the other gods. We shall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil\par are the ultimate rulers of both gods and men.\par \par The narrative then introduces the human hero of the Deluge story:\par \par At that time Ziusudu, the king, . . . priest of the god [. . .],\par Made a very great . . ., [. . .].\par In humility he prostrates himself, in reverence [. . .],\par Daily he stands in attendance [. . .].\par A dream,[1] such as had not been before, comes forth[2] . . . [. . .],\par By the Name of Heaven and Earth he conjures [. . .].\par \par [1] The word may also be rendered "dreams".\par \par [2] For this rendering of the verb /e-de/, for which Dr. Poebel does\par not hazard a translation, see Rawlinson, /W.A.I./, IV, pl. 26, l.\par 24 f.(a), /nu-e-de/ = Sem. /la us-su-u/ (Pres.); and cf. Br\'fcnnow,\par /Classified List/, p. 327. An alternative rendering "is created"\par is also possi¤ble, and would give equally good sense; cf. /nu-e-de/\par = Sem. /la \'9au-pu-u/, /W.A.I./, IV, pl. 2, l. 5 (a), and Br\'fcnnow,\par op. cit., p. 328.\par \par The name of the hero, Ziusudu, is the fuller Sumerian equivalent of\par Ut-napishtim (or Uta-napishtim), the abbreviated Semitic form which we\par find in the Gilgamesh Epic. For not only are the first two elements of\par the Sumerian name identical with those of the Semitic Ut-napishtim,\par but the names themselves are equated in a later Babylonian syllabary\par or explanatory list of words.[1] We there find "Ut-napishte" given as\par the equivalent of the Sumerian "Zisuda", evidently an abbreviated form\par of the name Ziusudu;[2] and it is significant that the names occur in\par the syllabary between those of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, evidently in\par consequence of the association of the Deluge story by the Babylonians\par with their national epic of Gilgamesh. The name Ziusudu may be\par rendered "He who lengthened the day ¥of life" or "He who made life long\par of days",[3] which in the Semitic form is abbreviated by the omission\par of the verb. The reference is probably to the immortality bestowed\par upon Ziusudu at the close of the story, and not to the prolongation of\par mankind's existence in which he was instrumental. It is scarcely\par necessary to add that the name has no linguistic connexion with the\par Hebrew name Noah, to which it also presents no parallel in meaning.\par \par [1] Cf. /Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./, Pt. XVIII, pl. 30, l. 9 (a).\par \par [2] The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebel as\par Ziugiddu, but there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern's\par suggestion, based on the form Zisuda, that the third syllable of\par the name should be read as /su/. On a fragment of another Nippur\par text, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the name as /Zi-u-sud-du/ (cf.\par Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90, pl.\par iv a); the presence of the phonetic complement /du/ may be cited\par in favour of this reading, but it does not appear to be supported\par by the photographic reproductions of the name in the Sumerian\par Deluge Version given by Dr. Poebel (/Hist. and Gramm. Texts/, pl.\par lxxxviii f.). It may be added that, on either alternative, the\par meaning of the name is the same.\par \par [3] The meaning of the Sumerian element /u/ in the name, rendered as\par /utu/ in the Semitic form, is rather obscure, and Dr. Poebel left\par it unexplained. It is very probable, as suggested by Dr. Langdon\par (cf. /Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch./, XXXVI, 1914, p. 190), that we\par should connect it with the Semitic /uddu/; in that case, in place\par of "breath", the rending he suggests, I should be inclined to\par render it here as "day", for /uddu/ as the meaning "dawn" and the\par sign UD is employed both for /urru/, "day-light", and /\'fbmu/,\par "day".\par \par \cf1\f1\fs17\par } ==·$ îG4-2{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\lang1033\f0\fs20 [2] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.\par \par Another feature in which the two versions differ is that in the\par Sumerian text the lamentation of the goddess precedes the sending of\par the Deluge, while in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual\par advent of the storm. Since our text is not completely preserved, it is\par just possible that the couplet was repeated at the end of the Fourth\par Column after mankind's destruction had taken place. But a further\par apparent difference has been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the\par goddess at once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from\par Ishtar's words in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods\par she had at any rate concurred in it.[1] On the other