:CO
! LT>
= 0)
CO
THE BRITISH ACADEMY
Legends of Babylon and Egypt
in relation to Hebrew
Tradition
By
Leonard W. King
M.A., L ITT.D., F.S.A.
Assistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities
in the British Museum
Professor in the University of London
King s College
The Schweich Lectures
1916
London
Published for the British Academy
By Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press
Amen Corner, E.C.
1918
PRINTED AT OXFORD, ENGLAND
BY FREDERICK HALL
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PREFACE
IN these lectures an attempt is made, not so much to restate
familiar facts, as to accommodate them to new and supplementary
evidence which has been published in America since the out
break of the war. But even without the excuse of recent
discovery, no apology would be needed for any comparison or
contrast of Hebrew tradition with the mythological and legendary
beliefs of Babylon and Egypt. Hebrew achievements in the
sphere of religion and ethics are only thrown into stronger relief
when studied against their contemporary background.
The bulk of our new material is furnished by some early texts,
written towards the close of the third millennium B.C. They
incorporate traditions which extend in unbroken outline from
their own period into the remote ages of the past, and claim to
trace the history of man back to his creation. They represent the
early national traditions of the Sumerian people, who preceded the
Semites as the ruling race in Babylonia ; and incidentally they
necessitate a revision of current views with regard to the cradle
of Babylonian civilization. The most remarkable of the new
documents is one which relates in poetical narrative an account
of the Creation, of Antediluvian history, and of the Deluge. It
thus exhibits a close resemblance in structure to the correspond
ing Hebrew traditions, a resemblance that is not shared by the
Semitic -Baby Ionian Versions at present known. But in matter
the Sumerian tradition is more primitive than any of the Semitic-
versions. In spite of the fact that the text appears to have reached
us in a magical setting, and to some extent in epitomized form,
this early document enables us to tap the stream of tradition at
a point far above any at which approach has hitherto been
possible.
iv PREFACE
Though the resemblance of early Sumerian tradition to that of
the Hebrews is striking, it furnishes a still closer parallel to the
summaries preserved from the history of Berossus. The huge
figures incorporated in the latter s chronological scheme are no
longer to be treated as a product of Neo -Baby Ionian speculation ;
they reappear in their original surroundings in another of these
early documents, the Sumerian Dynastic List. The sources of
Berossus had inevitably been semitized by Babylon ; but two of
his three Antediluvian cities find their place among the five of
primitive Sumerian belief, and two of his ten Antediluvian kings
rejoin their Sumerian prototypes. Moreover, the recorded ages
of Sumerian and Hebrew patriarchs are strangely alike. It may
be added that in Egypt a new fragment of the Palermo Stele has
enabled us to verify, by a very similar comparison, the accuracy of
Manetho s sources for his prehistoric period, while at the same
time it demonstrates the way in which possible inaccuracies in his
system, deduced from independent evidence, may have arisen in
remote antiquity. It is clear that both Hebrew and Hellenistic
traditions were modelled on very early lines.
Thus our new material enables us to check the age, and in
some measure the accuracy, of the traditions concerning the
dawn of history which the Greeks reproduced from native
sources, both in Babylon and Egypt, after the conquests of
Alexander had brought the Near East within the range of their
intimate acquaintance. The third body of tradition, that of the
Hebrews, though unbacked by the prestige of secular achieve
ment, has, through incorporation in the canons of two great
religious systems, acquired an authority which the others have
not enjoyed. In re-examining the sources of all three accounts,
so far as they are affected by the new discoveries, it will be of
interest to observe how the same problems were solved in
antiquity by very different races, living under widely divergent
conditions, but within easy reach of one another. Their periods
of contact, ascertained in history or suggested by geographical
considerations, will prompt the further question to what extent
each body of belief was evolved in independence of the others.
The close correspondence that has long been recognized and is
now confirmed between the Hebrew and the Semitic-Babylonian
PEEFACE v
systems, as compared with that of Egypt, naturally falls within
the scope of our inquiry.
Excavation has provided an extraordinarily full archaeological
commentary to the legends of Egypt and Babylon ; and when I
received the invitation to deliver the Schweich Lectures for 1916,
I was reminded of the terms of the Bequest and was asked to
emphasize the archaeological side of the subject. Such material
illustration was also calculated to bring out, in a more vivid
manner than was possible with purely literary evidence, the
contrasts and parallels presented by Hebrew tradition. Thanks
to a special grant for photographs from the British Academy, I
was enabled to illustrate by means of lantern slides many of the
problems discussed in the lectures ; and it was originally intended
that the photographs then shown should appear as plates in this
volume. But in view of the continued and increasing shortage
of paper, it was afterwards felt to be only right that all illustra
tions should be omitted. This very necessary decision has in
volved a recasting of certain sections of the lectures as delivered,
which in its turn has rendered possible a fuller treatment of
the new literary evidence. To the consequent shifting of interest
is also due a transposition of names in the title. On their literary
side, and in virtue of the intimacy of their relation to Hebrew
tradition, the legends of Babylon must be given precedence over
those of Egypt.
For the delay in the appearance of the volume I must plead
the pressure of other work, on subjects far removed from archaeo
logical study and affording little time and few facilities for a
continuance of archaeological and textual research. It is hoped
that the insertion of references throughout, and the more detailed
discussion of problems suggested by our new literary material,
may incline the reader to add his indulgence to that already
extended to me by the British Academy.
L. W. KING.
CONTENTS
PAGE
LECTURE I
EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME TRADITIONAL
ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION ....... 1
Object of the lectures to examine Hebrew traditions concerning the
early ages of mankind, in the light of important evidence published in
America since the outbreak of the war ; new material furnished by
Sumerian literary texts of an early period, involving also a comparison of
Egyptian and Babylonian mythology, 1-3 ; character of Hebrew tradition
and justification for choice of subject. 3-4 ; Egypt and Babylon in Hebrew
tradition and in history, 4 ; geographical factors in problem, 4-6 ; lines of
early contact, 7-8 ; commercial and political relations of Syria to valleys
of Nile and Euphrates, 8-10; tendencies in Hebrew history after settle-
ment in Canaan, 10 ; continuity of human culture, and comparative
method of study, 10-11 ; that the vehicle of religious ideas may be of com-
posite origin, illustrated in another medium, 11 ff. ; Egyptian and other
foreign elements in Semitic art exemplified in Phoenician and Aramaean
products, 11-14; striking material effects of Assyrian influence in Syria,
15-16; the Semite s adaptability, 17; cherished traditions^ Q$ the past
applicable, by analogy, to composition of Hebrew lit e i-atureQ 7-1 8j> Baby
lon s influence in antiquity, 18 ; the site of Nippur, 18-20 ;Tel-abib and
the river Chebar, 20; our new material, 21-2; the merging of history
into legend and myth, 22.
Unbroken cultural sequence in Egypt from neolithic sta^e ; but contrast
of her written historical records to those of Mesopotamiqgj} the Palermo
Stele and the newly recovered fragments, 23-4 ; the Worshippers of
Horus , 24 ; new predynastic rulers of Upper Egypt, 25 ; oral tradition
before invention of writing, 26 ; historical accuracy of Manetho con
firmed, 26-7 ; Manetho and Berossus, 27 ; upper limit of archaeological
evidence, in Euphrates Valley, to bronze-age culture^p?; recordsojLUy
more remote past, relating to cradle of Babylonian Civil ization,(2frjtf >
legendary elements in the early texts, and the age of the gods on earth, 29 ;
correspondence of Sumerian and Greek traditions, 30 ; the Antediluvian
kings of Berossus and some new Sumerian prototypes, 31-3; Sumerian
patriarchs of the Dynastic List, 34-6 ; the book of the generations of-
Adam , 37; Hebrew echoes from Sumer through Babylon,($f? the Nephilim
and their stratum of tradition, 39 ; new light on traditional origins of
civilization, 39-40.
viii CONTENTS
PA.QE
LECTURE II
DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW SUMERIAN VERSION . . 41
Hebrew and Bahj^onian Versions of the story Y4l-2^/ age of the
Sumerian Version,f4x? widespread occurrence of sfffliTar stories, 44;
former astrological interpretations, 44-5 ; recent synthetic tendencies in
research, 45-6 ; solar interpretation of Deluge myth incidentally revived,
47 ; Egyptian Legend of the Destruction of Mankind ASitl^ Sumerian
Version and its literary cojinexion with Creation myth, ^iSp; magical
setting of the narrative/t>3-l.; extant portions of the text, 51-2.
(i) Introduction to rnyBPand account of Creation, 52-8 ; (ii) the Ante
diluvian cities of Sumerand of Berossus, 58-62 ; (iii) the Council of the gods
and Ziusudu s piety, 62-9 ; (iv) the Dream- warning, and Sumerian dream-
divination, 69-76 ; (v) the Flood, the escape of the Great Boat, and the
Sacrifice to the Sun-god,(75^85j (vi) the Propitiation of the angry gods,
and Ziusudu s immortality , 85r-l ; unmistakable evidence of magical use,
85-9 ; close of the versions, 89-91.
Cumulative effect of evidence that the new text contains a primitive
Sumerian Version of the Semitic Deluge story ^t^ 5 general result of
comparison with Hebrew Versions,(2^;. grouping^on certain points, of
Sumerian and Hebrew Versions agairTsCthose of Babylon,(93 ; more com
plete reproduction of Sumerian tradition in Hellenistic period, 94 ; local
-survival of Sumerian mythological texts, and *Neo-Baby Ionian interest in
the more ancient versions, 94-5 ; absence of astrological colouring in the
Sumerian narrative, 95 ; contrast presented by Nile to Tigris and
Euphrates(95-pcharacter of flopds.in Mesopotamia, and attested disasters
during laterTristorical period( 96<r9j ; the local Sumerian Flood fitted to
later political horizons/^99 i flood traditions in area of Eastern Medi
terranean, 99-100 ; Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek Deluge stories traced
to basis of historical fact in Euphrates Valley, and the probable origins of
other Deluge stories(^lQ(l>, observation myths , as applied to the floods of
Deucalion and DardanuY 100-1 ; conclusio
LECTURE III
CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH ; AND THE PROBLEM OF
BABYLONIAN PARALLELS IN HEBREW TRADITION . u . 102
Legend juxd myth, (^02^ sources of our knowledge of Egyptian mytho
logy, (fOiZ-j^/ mythological conceptions of the universe, 103-4 ; poetry
and inyth^ 104 ; philosophical and materialistic interpretations of myth,
104-5 ; Hatshepsut s Creation, and the Potter at work, 105-6 ; the Sun-god
and the primaeval water, 107 ; Egyptian religiou^j^tncretisni, 107 ; absence
of Egyptian parallels in Hebrew tradition, /107^; contrast of Creation
myths in Egypt and Babylonia during the latter s Semitic period/108 ; the
CONTENTS ir
PAQI
Sumerian Creators and their later cosmic activities, 109-10 ; the Lady of the
Mountains and mother of mankind, 111-12; what was the Sumerian con
ception of the universe and its origin?, 113-14; composite character of
the Semitic poem of Creation, and deductions from the Sumerian original
of the Seventh Tablet, 114 ; the Semites intentional combination of exist -"
ing myth^TltlS^ traces of incongruous elements in the poem, 115-16;
independenTexistence of the Dragon combat, 116-17 ; a new Semitic version
of the Dragon myth, 117-18 ; the Sumerian Dragon motif, 118-19 ; the Birth
of the gods and the evidence of Damascius, 120-1 ; generation from
primaeval water, 121-3; the later Sumerian Version under Semitic re
daction, 123-4 ; Gilimma s method of creating dry land, 124-5 ; irrigation
myth of Enki and Ninella, 125-6 ; employment and significance of myth
in magic, 126-7; Cannes and a Sumerian prototype, 127; the Euphrates
as creator, 127-8; my ths suggested by the two aspects of the Mesopotamjan
rivers, 128 ; their combination a reflection^jrf^golitical development,Q28-g?
comparison with Hebrew Versions J jyj$-30^xMvid Semitic-Babylonian
colouring of Hebrew narratives, ^ISO-lj^/primitive ancestry of the later
traditions, 131.
Periods andjaro^ess by which Hebrews became acquainted with Baby- i /.
Ionian ideas/131-2^ possibilities of p re-exilic influenc(Cl32j Ezekiel and
the Epic of^Grilgame8h^l32^ ; Babylonian echoes^suggestiv_.af oral
tradition, 135-6; three debatable periods of pre-exilic contaci/136^; the j
patriarchal age and the traditional authorship of the Pentateucn\ 137-8 ;
the settlement in Canaan and evidence from Tell el-Amarna, 138 ; the later
Judaean monarchy and the notorious adoption of Assyrian customs and
beliefs, 138-9 ; Jewish exiles and Babylonian mythology, and ttie respective
influence of Babylon and Egypt upon Hebrew tradition^9p lack of
Hebrew response to Egypt except injnateiial ideals (jSjik the Arabian
nomad ancH?he Hamitic problem/1 39-40; effects of racial division and
affinit/T 140,
APPENDIXES :
I. COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-BABY
LONIAN, HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS OF CREA
TION, ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE DELUGE . 142
II. THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND THE SUME
RIAN DYNASTIC LIST 144
INDEX . 147
K.
LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT
IN RELATION TO HEBREW
TRADITION
LECTURE I
EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE, AND SOME
TRADITIONAL ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION
AT the present moment most of us have little time or thought
to spare for subjects not connected directly or indirectly with the
war. "We have put aside our own interests and studies ; and
after the war we shall all have a certain amount of leeway to
make up in acquainting ourselves with what has been going on
in countries not yet involved in the great struggle. Meanwhile
the most we can do is to glance for a moment at any discovery
of exceptional interest that may come to light.
The main object of these lectures will be to examine certain
Hebrew traditions in the light of new evidence which has been
published in America since the outbreak of the war. The
evidence is furnished by some early literary texts, inscribed on
tablets from Nippur, one of the oldest and most sacred cities of
Babylonia. They are written in Sumerian, the language spoken by
the non-Semitic people whom the Semitic Babylonians conquered
and displaced ; and they include a very primitive version of the
Deluge story and Creation myth, and some texts which throw
new light on the age of Babylonian civilization and on the area
within which it had its rise. In them we have recovered some
of the material from which Berossus derived his dynasty of Ante
diluvian kings, and we are thus enabled to test the accuracy of
the Greek tradition by that of the Sumerians themselves. So far
then as Babylonia is concerned, these documents will necessitate
a re-examination of more than one problem.
The myths and legends of ancient Egypt are also to some
extent involved. The trend of much recent anthropological
research has been in the direction of seeking a single place of
K. B
2 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
origin for similar beliefs and practices, at least among races
which were bound to one another by political or commercial ties.
And we shall have occasion to test, by means of our new data,
a recent theory of Egyptian influence.) The Nile Valley was, of
course, one of the great centres from which civilization radiated
throughout the ancient East ; and, even when direct contact is
unproved, Egyptian literature may furnish instructive parallels
and contrasts in any study of Western Asiatic mythology.
Moreover, by a strange coincidence, there has also been published
in Egypt since the beginning of the war a record referring to the
reigns of predynastic rulers in the Nile Valley. This, like some
of the Nippur texts, takes us back to that dim period before the
dawn of actual history, and, though the information it affords is
not detailed like theirs, it provides fresh confirmation of the
general accuracy of Manetho s sources, and suggests some inter
esting points for comparison.
But the people with whose traditions we are ultimately con
cerned are the Hebrews. In the first series of Schweich Lectures,
delivered in the year 1908, the late Canon Driver showed how
the literature of Assyria and Babylon had thrown light upon
Hebrew traditions concerning the origin and early history of the
world. The majority of the cuneiform documents, on which he
based his comparison, date from a period no earlier than the
seventh century B.C., and yet it was clear that the texts them
selves, in some form or other, must have descended from a remote
antiquity. He concluded his brief reference to the Creation and
Deluge Tablets with these words : The Babylonian narratives
are both polytheistic, while the corresponding biblical narratives
(Gen. i and vi-ix) are made the vehicle of a pure and exalted
monotheism ; , but in spite of this fundamental difference, and also
variations in detail, the resemblances are such as to leave no
doubt that the Hebrew cosmogony and the Hebrew story of the
Deluge are both derived ultimately from the same original as the
Babylonian narratives, only transformed by the magic touch of
Israel s religion, and infused by it with a new spirit. l Among
the recently published documents from Nippur we have at last
recovered one at least of those primitive originals from which
the Babylonian accounts were derived, while others prove the
existence of variant stories of the world s origin and early history
which have not survived in the later cuneiform texts. In some
1 Driver, Modern Research as illustrating the Bible (The Schweich Lectures,
1908), p. 23.
SUBJECT OF THE LECTURES 3
of these early Sumerian records we may trace a faint but remark
able parallel with the Hebrew traditions of man s history between
his Creation and the Flood. It will be our task, then, to examine
the relations which the Hebrew narratives bear both to the early
Sumerian and to the later Babylonian Versions, and to Ascertain
how far the new__di_scoyerjes support or modify current views
with regard to the contents of those early chapters of Genesis.
I need not remind you that Genesis is the book of Hebrew
origins, and that its contents mark it off to some extent from the
other books of the Hebrew -Bible. ] The object of the Pentateuch
and the Book -of Joshua is to describe in their origin the ftmda-
mental institutions of the national faith and to trace from the
earliest times the course of events which led to the Hebrew
*~~%
settlement in Palestine} Of this national history the Book of
Genesis forms the introductory section. Four centuries of com
plete silence lie between its close and the beginning of Exodus,
where we enter on the history ot a nation as contrasted with that
of a family. 1 While Exodus and the succeeding books contain
national traditions, Genesis is largely .made up of individual
biography. Chapters xii-1 are concerned with the immediate
ancestors of the Hebrew race, beginning with Abram s migration
into Canaan and closing with Joseph s death in Egypt. But the
aim of the book is not confined to recounting the ancestry of
Israel. It seeks also to show her relation to other peoples in the
world, and probing still deeper into the past it describes how the
earth itself was prepared for man s habitation. Thus the patri
archal biographies are preceded, in chapters i-xi, by an account
of the origin of the world, the beginnings of civilization, and
the distribution of the various races of mankind. It is, of course,
with certain parts of this first group of chapters that such
striking parallels have long been recognized in the cuneiform
texts.
In approaching this particular body of Hebrew traditions, the
necessity for some caution will be apparent. It is not as though
we were dealing with the reported beliefs of a Malayan or Central
Australian tribe. In such a case there would be no difficulty in
applying a purely objective criticism, without regard to ulterior
consequences. But here our own feelings are involved, having
their roots deep in early associations. The ground too is well
1 Cf., e.g., Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (1912),
p. ii f. ; Driver, The Book of Genesis, 10th ed. (1916), pp. 1 if. ; Ryle, The Book of
Genesis (1914), pp. xff.
B2
4 EGYFT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
trodden ; and, had there been no new material to discuss, I think
I should have preferred a less contentious theme. The new
material is my justification for the choice of subject, and also the
fact that, whatever views we may hold, it will be necessary for
us to assimilate it to them. I shall have no hesitation in giving
you my own reading of the evidence ; but at the same time it
will be possible to indicate solutions which will probably appeal
to those who view the subject from more conservative stand
points. That side of the discussion may well be postponed until
after the examination of the new evidence in detail. And first
of all it will be advisable to clear up some general aspects of the
problem, and to define the limits within which our criticism may
be applied.
If It mnsf. ha fl.fJTmff.ed that, both Egypt and TSa.hylrm hp^r a. ha.f?
name in Hebrew tradition. Both are synonymous with captivity.
the symbols of suffering endured a.f. thp. l^gim-iing and a.f,
close of the national life. And diirinp- f-hft stmo-p-lft a0-a.irisf.
Assyrian aggression, the disappointment a.t. thp. failprp. nf
help is reflected in prnplip.p.jp^ pf thp. pp.rind. . Tlip^cy
in Hebrew history have jtended to nTisnnrp, in thp. na.f.i_Qiifl]
the part which, both Babylon and Egypt may have played in
moulding the civilization of the smaller Cations with whom they
cama, in Gonfont. To such influence the races of Syria were, by
geographical position, peculiarly subject. The country has often
been compared to a bridge between the two great continents of
Asia and Africa, flanked by the sea on one side and the desert on
the other, a narrow causeway of highland and coastal plain con
necting the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates. 1 For, except
on the frontier of Egypt, desert and sea do not meet. Farther
north the Arabian plateau is separated from the Mediterranean
by a double mountain chain, which runs south from the Taurus
at varying elevations, and encloses in its lower course the remark
able depression of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and the
Arabah.^ The Judaean hills and the mountains of Moab are
merely the southward prolongation of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon,
and their neighbourhood to the sea endows this narrow tract of
habitable country with its moisture and fertility. It thus formed
the natural channel of intercourse between the two earliest
1 See G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 5 ff., 45 if., and
Myres, Dawn of History, pp. 137 ff. ; and cf. Hogarth, The Nearer Easf, pp. 65 ff.
Keclus, Non-velle Geographic vniverselle, t. IX, pp. 685 ff.
GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS IN PROBLEM 5
centres of civilization, and was later the battle-ground of their
opposing empires.
The great trunk-roads of through communication run north
and south, across the eastern plateaus of the Hauran and Moab,
and along the coastal plains. The old highway from Egypt,
which left the Delta at Pelusium, at first follows the coast, then
trends eastward across the plain of Esdraelon, which breaks the
coastal range, and passing under Hermon runs northward through
Damascus and reaches the Euphrates at its most westerly point.
Other through tracks in Palestine ran then as they do to-day,
by Beersheba and Hebron, or along the Arabah and west of the
Dead Sea, or through Edom and east of Jordan by the present
Hajj route to Damascus. But the great highway from Egypt, __
the most westerly of the trunk-roads through Palestine, was thati
mainly followed, -.with some variant sections, by both caravans!,
and armies, and w.as known by the Hebrews in its southern]
course as the Way of the Philifltfrtpa* suqd forth P.r north as
The plain of Esdraelon, where the road first trends eastward,
has been the battle-ground for most invaders of Palestine from
the north, and though Egyptian armies often fought in the
southern coastal plain, they too have battled there when they
held the southern country. Megiddo, which commands the main
pass into the plain through the low Samaritan hills to the south
east of Carmel, was the site of Thothmes Ill s famous battle
against a Syrian confederation, and it inspired the writer of the
Apocalypse with his vision of an Armageddon of the future. But
invading armies always followed the beaten track of caravans,
and movements represented by the great campaigns were reflected
in the daily passage of international commerce.
With so much through traffic continually parsing wif.Tii-n Vmr
borders, it may lie matter for surprise that iar more striking
evidence of its cultural effect should not have been revealed by
archaeological research in Palestine. Here again the explanation
is mainly of a geographical character. For though the plains and
plateaus could be crossed by the trunk-roads, the rest of the
country ift so hrnkp.n rip by mgnntain and yaJleyJJiat it presented
few facilities either to foreign penetration or to external control. .
The physical barriers to local intercourse, reinforced by striking
differences in soil, altitude, and climate, while they precluded
Syria herself from attaining national unity, always tended to
protect her separate provinces, or kingdoms , from the full
6 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
effects of foreign aggression. One city-state could be traversed,
devastated, or annexed, without in the least degree affecting
neighbouring areas. It is true that the population of Syria has
always been predominantly Semitic, for she was on the fringe of
the great breeding-ground of the Semitic race and her landward
boundary was open to the Arabian nomad. Indeed, in the whole
course of her history the only race that bade fair at one time to
oust the Semite in Syria was the Greek. But the Greeks
remained within the cities which they founded or rebuilt, and,
as Eobertson Smith pointed out, the death-rate in Eastern cities
habitually exceeds the birth-rate ; the urban population must be
reinforced from the country if it is to be maintained, so that the
type of population is ultimately determined by the blood of the
peasantry. 1 Hence after the Arab conquest the Greek elements
in Syria and Palestine tended rapidly to disappear. The Moslem
invasion was only the last of a series of similar great inroads,
which have followed one another since the dawn of history, and
during all that time absorption was continually taking place from
desert tribes that ranged the Syrian border. As we have seen,
the country of his adoption was such as to encourage the Semitic
nomad s particularism, which was inherent in his tribal organiza
tion. Thus the predominance of a single racial element in the
population of Palestine and Syria did little to break down or
overstep the natural barriers and lines of cleavage.
These facts suffice to show why the influence of both Egypt
and Babylon upon the various peoples and kingdoms of Palestine
was only intensified at certain periods, when ambition for
extended empire dictated the reduction of her provinces in. detail..
But in the long intervals, during which therajsvas no attempt, In-
^enforce political control, regular relations were maintained along
the lines of trade and barter. And in any estimate of the possible
effect of foreign influence upon Hebrew thought, it is important
to realize that some of the channels through which in later
periods it may have acted had been flowing since the dawn of
history, and even perhaps in prehistoric times. It is probable
that Syria formed one of the links by which we may explain
, the Babylonian elements that are attested in prehistoric Egyptian
V culture. 2 But another possible line of advance may have been by
way of Arabia and across the Eed Sea into Upper Egypt.
1 See Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 12 f. ; and cf. Smith, Hist.
Geogr., p. 10 f.
2 Cf. Sumer and Aklcad, pp. 322 ff. ; and for a full discussion of the points of
LINES OF EARLY CONTACT 7
The latter line of contact is suggested by an interesting piece
of evidence that has recently been obtained. A prehistoric flint
knife, with a handle carved from the tooth of a hippopotamus,
has been purchased lately by the Louvre, 1 and is said to have
been found at Gebel el- Arak near Naga Hamadi, which lies on
the Nile not far below Koptos, where an ancient caravan- track
leads by Wadi Hammamat to the Red Sea. On one side of the
handle is a battle-scene including some remarkable representations
of ancient boats. All the warriors are nude with the exception of
a loin girdle, but, while one set of combatants have shaven heads
or short hair, the others have abundant locks falling in a thick
mass upon the shoulder. On the other face of the handle is
carved a hunting scene, two hunters with dogs and desert
animals being arranged around a central boss. But in the upper
field is a very remarkable group, consisting of a personage
struggling with two lions arranged symmetrically. The rest of
the composition is not very unlike other examples of prehistoric
Egyptian carving in low relief, but here attitude, figure, and
clothing are quite un- Egyptian. The hero wears a sort of turban
on his abundant hair, and a full and rounded beard descends
upon his breast. A long garment clothes him from the waist
and falls below the knees, his muscular calves ending in the claws
of a bird of prey. There is nothing like this in prehistoric
Egyptian art.
Perhaps Monsieur Be ne dite is pressing his theme too far when
he compares the close-cropped warriors on the handle with the
shaven Sumerians and Elamites upon steles from Telloh and
Susa, for their lorn-girdles are African and quite foreign to the
Euphrates Valley. And his suggestion that two of the boats,
flat-bottomed and with high curved ends, seem only to have
navigated the Tigris and Euphrates, 2 will hardly command
acceptance. But there is no doubt that the heroic personage
upon the other face is represented in the familiar attitude of the
Babylonian hero Gilgamesh struggling with lions, whicjx fnrnr^H
so favouxitfTA subi ecTnipoTn^Tj^S^ seals.
His garment is Sumerian or Semitic rather than Egyptian, and
the mixture of human and bird elements in the figure, though
not precisely paralleled at this early period, is not out of harmony
resemblance between the early Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, see
Saycc, Ttie Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, chap, iv, pp. 10 Iff.
1 See Be"nedite, 4 Le coutoau de Gebcl el- Arak , in Fovdation Ewjcnc Piot,
Mon. ft A/em., XXII. i. (1916).
2 Op. cit., p. 32.
8 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
with Mesopotamian or Susan traditions. His beard, too, is quite
different from that of the Libyan desert tribes which the early
Egyptian kings adopted. Though the treatment of the lions is
suggestive of proto-Elamite rather than of early Babylonian
models, the design itself is unmistakably of Mesopotamian origin.
This discovery intensifies the significance of other early parallels
that have been noted between the civilizations of the Euphrates
and the Nile, but its evidence, so far as it goes, does not point to
Syria as the medium of prehistoric intercourse. Yet then, as
later, there can have been no physical barrier to the use of the
river-route from Mesopotamia into Syria and of the tracks thence
southward along the land-bridge to the Nile s delta.
In the early historic periods we have definite evidence that
the eastern coast of the Levant exercised a strong fascination
upon the rulers of both Egypt and Babylonia. It may be
admitted that Syria had little to give in comparison to what she
could borrow, but her local trade in wine and oil must have
.benefited by an increase in the through traffic which followed
the working of copper in Cyprus and Sinai and of silver in the
Taurus. Moreover, in the cedar forests of Lebanon and the north
she possessed a product which was highly valued both in Egypt
and the treeless plains of Babylonia. The cedars procured by
Sneferu from Lebanon at the close of the Illrd Dynasty were
doubtless floated as rafts down the coast, and we may see in them
evidence of a regular traffic in timber. It has long been known
that the early Babylonian kin? Sha-mi-lnn. or flaro- nf AfcT^
had pressed up the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and we now
have information that he too was fired by a desire for precious
wood and metal. One of the recently published Nippur inscrip
tions contains copies of a number of his texts, collected by an
ancient scribe from his statues at Nippur, and from these we
gather additional details of his campaigns. "We learn that after
his complete subjugation of Southern Babylonia he turned his
attention to the west, and that Enlil ^ave him the lands ( from
the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea , i. e. from the Mediterranean to
the Persian fl-nlf. Fortunately this rather vague phrase, which
survived in later tradition, is restated in greater detail in one of
the contemporary versions, which records that Enlil gave him
the upper land, Mari, larmuti, and Ibla, as far as the Cedar Forest
and the Silver Mountains . 1
1 See Poebel, Historical Texts (Univ. of Penna. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV,
No. 1, 1914), pp. 177f.,222ff.
CEDAR FOREST AND SILVER MOUNTAINS 9
Mari was a city on the middle Euphrates, but the name may
here signify the district of Mari which lay in the upper course of
Sargon s march. Now we know that the later Sumerian monarch
Gudea obtained his cedar beams from the Amanus range, which
he names Amanum and describes as the cedar mountains . l
Doubtless he felled his trees on the eastern slopes of the moun
tain. But we may infer from his texts that Sargon actually
reached the coast, and his Cedar Forest may have lain farther
to the south, perhaps as far south as the Lebanon. The Silver
Mountains can only be identified with the Taurus, where silver
mines were worked in antiquity. The reference to larmuti is
interesting, for it is clearly the same place as larimuta or
larimmuta, of which we find mention in the Tell el-Amarna
letters. From the references to this district in the letters of
Rib-Adda, governor of Byblos, we may infer that it was a level
district on the coast, capable of producing a considerable quantity
of grain for export, and that it was under Egyptian control at
the time of Amenophis IV. Hitherto its position has been con-
jecturally placed in the Nile Delta, but from Sargon s reference we
must probably seek it on the North Syrian or possibly the Cilician
coast. Perhaps, as Dr. Poebel suggests, it was the plain of
Antioch, along the lower course and at the mouth of the Orontes.
But his further suggestion that the term is used by Sargon for
the whole stretch of country between the sea and the Euphrates
is hardly probable. For the geographical references need not
be treated as exhaustive, but as confined to the more important
districts through which the expedition passed. The district of Ibla
which is also mentioned by Naram-Sin and Gudea, lay probably
to the north of larmuti, perhaps on the southern slopes of Taurus.
It, too, we may regard as a district of restricted extent rather than
as a general geographical term for the extreme north of Syria.
It is significant that Sargon does not allude to any battle when
describing this expedition, nor does he claim to have devastated
the western countries. 2 Indeed, most of these early expeditions
to the \vost appear to have bucu inspire d by muti^i^ . u f <.u.i i n -
niercia,! e,ptflrTO*isfl ratl\pr tha.Ti r>f p.rmnnp.at. But increase of
1 Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et d Akkad, p. 108 f., Statue B,
col. v, 1. 28 ; Germ, ed., p. 68 f.
2 In some versions of his new records Sargon states that 5,400 men daily
eat bread before him (see Poebel, op. cit., p. 178) ; though the figure may bo
intended to convey an idea of the size of Sargon e court, we may perhaps se^
in it a not inaccurate estimate of the total strength of his armed forces.
10 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
wealth was naturally followed by. political expansion^ and Egypt s
dream of an Asiatic empire was realized by Pharaohs of the
XVIIIth Dynasty. The fact that Babylonian should then have
been adopted as the medium of official intercourse in Syria points
to the closeness of the commercial ties which had already united
the Euphrates Valley with the west. Egyptian control had
passed from Canaan at the time of the Hebrew settlement, which
was indeed a comparatively late episode in the early history of
Syria. Whether or not we identify the Khabiri with the Hebrews.
the character of the latter s incursion is strikingly illustrated by
some of the Tell el-Amarna letters. We see a nomad folk pressing
in upon settled peoples and gaining a foothold here and there. 1
e great change from desert life consists in the adoption of\
OTinft flmf wfl* nrrndfl by f.hft R
further advance in economic development was dictated by their
new surroundings. The same process had been going on, as we
have seen, in Syria since the dawn of history, the Semitic nomad
passing gradually through the stages of agricultural and village
life into that of the city. . The country favoured the retention of
] exclusiveness, but ultimate survival could only be purchased
at the cost of some amalgamation with their new neighbours.
Below the surface of Hebrew history these two tendencies .may _bo
traced in varying action and reaction. Some sections .jDf the race.
engaged readily in the social ^and commercial life of Caiiaanite
civilization with its rich inheritance from the 1 past. Others,
especially in the highlands of Judah and the south, at first
succeeded in keeping themselves remote from foreign influence.
During the later periods of the national life the country was
again subjected, and in an intensified degree, to those forces of
political aggression from Mesopotamia and Egypt which we have
already noted as operating in Canaan. But throughout the settled
Hebrew community as a whole the spark of desert fire was not
L extinguished, and by kindling the zeal of the Prophets it even-
\ tually affected nearly all the white races of mankind.
" In his Presidential Address before the British Association
at Newcastle, 2 Sir Arthur Evans emphasized the part which
recent archaeology has played in proving the fcoiitinuity of
human culture from the most remote periods. He showed how
1 See especially Professor Burney s forthcoming commentary on Judges
(passim), and his forthcoming Schweich Lectures (now delivered, in 1917).
2 New Archaeological Lights on the Origins of Civilization in Europe,
British Association, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1916.
COMPAEATIVE METHOD OF STUDY 11
gaps in our knowledge had been bridged, and he traced the
part which each great race had taken in increasing its inheri
tance. We have, in fact, ample grounds for assuming an inter
change, not only of commercial products, but, in a minor degree,
of ideas wifehin areas geographically connected ; and it is surelv
not derogatory to any Hebrew waiter ^ -suggest that he may.
have adopted, mid used for his own purposes, conceptions current
.n|nTig- frj fi fion tern pprari A In other words, the vehicle of reli
gious ideas may well be of composite origin ; and, in the course
of our study of early Hebrew tradition, I suggest that we hold
ourselves justified in applying the comparative method to some
at any rate of the ingredients which went to form the finished
product. The process is purely literary, but it finds an analogy
in the study of Semitic art, especially in the later periods. And
I think it will make my meaning clearer if we consider for a
moment a few examples of sculpture produced by races of Semitic
origin. I do not suggest that we should regard the one process
as in any way proving the existence of the other. "We should
rather treat the comparison as illustrating in another medium
the effect of forces which, it is clear, were operative at various
periods upon races of the same stock from which the Hebrews
emselves were descended. In such material products the eye
at once detects the Semite s readiness to avail himself of foreign
fOdels. In some cases direct borrowing is obvious ; in others, to
aclapt a metaphor from music, it is possible to trace extraneous
motifs in the design. 1
Some of the most famous monuments of Semitic art date from
he Persian and Hellenistic periods, and if we glance at them in
t^is connexion it is in order to illustrate during its most obvious
phase a tendency of which the earlier effects are less pronounced.
In the sarcophagus of the Sidonian king Eshmun- azar II, which
is preserved in the Louvre, 2 we have indeed a monument to
which no Semitic sculptor can lay claim. Workmanship and
material are Egyptian, and there is no doubt that it was sculp
tured in Egypt and transported to Sidon by sea. But the
king s own engravers added the long Phoenician inscription, in
1 The necessary omission oi plates, representing the slides shown in the
lectures, has involved a recasting of most passages in which points of archaeo
logical detail were discussed ; see Preface, p. v. But the following paragraphs
have been retained as the majority of the monuments referred to are well
known.
2 Corp. Imrr. Semit., 1. i. tab. 11.
12 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
which he adjures princes and men not to open his resting-place
since there are no jewels therein, concluding with some potent
curses against any violation of his tomb. One of the latter
implores the holy gods to deliver such violators up to a mighty
prince who shall rule over them , and was probably suggested
by Alexander s recent occupation of Sidon in 332 B.C. after his
reduction and drastic punishment of Tyre. King Eshmun- azar
was not unique in his choice of burial in an Egyptian coffin,
for he merely followed the example of his royal father, Tabnith,
priest of Ashtart and king of the Sidonians , whose sarcophagus,
preserved at Constantinople, still bears in addition to his own
epitaph that of its former occupant, a certain Egyptian general
Penptah. But more instructive than these borrowed memorials
is a genuine example of Phoenician work, the stele set up by
Yehaw-milk, king of Byblos, and dating from the fourth or fifth
century B. c. 1 In the sculptured panel at the head of the stele
the king is represented in the Persian dress of the period stand
ing in the presence of Ashtart or Astarte, his Lady, Mistress of
Byblos . There is no doubt that the stele is of native work
manship, but the influence of Egypt may be seen in the technique
of the carving, in the winged disk above the figures, and still
more in the representation of the goddess in her character as
the Egyptian Hathor, with disk and horns, vulture head-dress
and papyrus-sceptre. The inscription records the dedication of an
altar and shrine to the goddess, and these too we may conjecture
were fashioned on Egyptian lines.
The representation of Semitic deities under Egyptian forms and
with Egyptian attributes was encouraged by the introduction of
their cults into Egypt itself. In addition to Astarte of Byblos,
Ba al, Anath, and Reshef were all borrowed from Syria in com
paratively early times and given Egyptian characters. The
conical Syrian helmet of Eeshef, a god of war and thunder,
gradually gave place to the white Egyptian crown, so that as
Reshpu he was represented as a royal warrior ; and Qadesh,
another form of Astarte, becoming popular with Egyptian women
as a patroness of love and fecundity, was also sometimes modelled
on Hathor. 2
Semitic colonists on the Egyptian border were ever ready to
adopt Egyptian symbolism in delineating the native gods to
1 C.I.S., I. i, tab. I.
2 See W. Max Miiller, Egyptological Researches, I, p. 32 f., pi. 41, and S. A.
Cook, Religion of Ancient Palestine, pp. 83 ff.
EGYPTIAN ELEMENTS IN SEMITIC ART 13
whom they owed allegiance, and a particularly striking example
of this may be seen on a stele of the Persian period preserved in
the Cairo Museum. 1 It was found at Tell Defenneh, on the right
bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, close to the old Egyptian
highway into Syria, a site which may be identified with that of
the biblical Tahpanhes and the Daphnae of the Greeks. Here it
was that the Jewish fugitives, fleeing with Jeremiah after the
fall of Jerusalem, founded a Jewish colony beside a flourishing
Phoenician and Aramaean settlement. One of the local gods of
Tahpanhes is represented on the Cairo monument, an Egyptian
stele in the form of a naos with the winged solar disk upon its
frieze. He stands on the back of a lion and is clothed in Asiatic
costume with the high Syrian tiara crowning his abundant hair.
The Syrian workmanship is obvious, and the Syrian character of
the cult may be recognized in such details as the small brazen
fire-altar before the god, and the sacred pillar which is being
anointed by the officiating priest. But the god holds in his
left hand a purely Egyptian sceptre and in his right an emblem
as purely Babylonian, the weapon of Marduk and Gilgamesh
which was also wielded by early Sumerian kings.
The Elephantine papyri have shown that the early Jews of the
Diaspora, though untrammeled by the orthodoxy of Jerusalem,
maintained the purity of their local cult in the face of consider
able difficulties. Hence the gravestones of their Aramaean con
temporaries, which have been found in Egypt, can only be cited
to illustrate the temptations to which they were exposed. 2 Such
was the memorial erected by Abseli to the memory of his parents,
Abba and Ahatbu, in the fourth year of Xerxes, 481 B. c. 3 They
1 Miiller, op. cit., p. 30 f., pi. 40. Numismatic evidence exhibits a similar
readiness on the part of local Syrian cults to adopt the veneer of Hellenistic
civilization while retaining in great measure their own individuality ; see Hill,
Some Palestinian Cults in the Graeco-Roman Age , in Proceedings of th?
British Academy, Vol. V (1912).
- It may be admitted that the Greek platonized cult of Isia and Osiris had
its origin in the fusion of Greeks and Egyptians which took place in Ptolemaic
times (cf. Scott-Moncrieff, Paganism and Christianity in Egypt, p. 33 f.). But
we may assume that already in the Persian period the Osiris cult had begun
to acquire a tinge of mysticism, which, though it did not affect the mechanical
reproduction of the native texts, appealed to the Oriental mind ?is
well as to certain elements in Greek religion. Persian influence probably
prepared the way for the Platonic exegesis of the Osiris and Isis legends which
we find in Plutarch ; and the latter may have been in great measure a develop
ment," and not, as is often assumed, a complete misunderstanding of the latei:.
Egyptian cult. 3 C. /. , II. i, tab. XI, No. 122.
14 , EGYPT, , BABYLON,. AND PALESTINE
had evidently adopted the religion of Osiris, and were buried at
Saqqarah in accordance with Egyptian rites. The upper scene
engraved . upon the stele represents Abba and his wife in the
presence of .dsiris, w.ho is attended by Isis and Nephthys; and
in the lower panel is the funeral scene, in which all the mourners
with one exception are Asiatics. Certain details of the rites that
are represented, and mistakes in the hieroglyphic version of the
text, prove that the work is Aramaean throughout. 1
If our examples of Semitic art were confined to the Persian
and later periods, they could only be employed to throw light
on their own epoch, when through communication had been
organized, and, there was consequently a certain pooling of com
mercial and artistic products throughout the empire. 2 It is true
that under the Great King the various petty states and provinces
were encouraged to manage their own affairs so long as they paid
the required tribute, but their horizon naturally expanded with
increase of commerce and the necessity for service in the king s
armies. At this time Aramaic was the speech of Syria, and the
population, especially in the cities, was still largely Aramaean.
As early as the thirteenth century sections of this interesting
Semitic race had begun to press into Northern Syria from the
middle Euphrates, and they absorbed not only the old Canaanite
population but also Hittite immigrants from Cappadocia. The
latter indeed may for a time have furnished rulers to the vigorous
North Syrian principalities which resulted from this racial com
bination, but the Aramaean element, thanks to continual reinforce-
1 A very similar monument is the Carpentras Stele (C.I. S., II. i, tab. XIII,
No. 141), commemorating Taba, daughter of Tahapi, an Aramaean lady who
was also a conrert to Osiris. It is rather later than that of Abba and his
wife, since the Aramaic characters are transitional from the archaic to the
square alphabet ; see Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel,
pp. xviiiff., and Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 205 f. The Vatican Stele
(op. cit., tab. XIV, No. 142), which dates from the fourth century, represents
inferior work.
2 Cf. Bevan, House of Seleucus, Vol. I, pp. 5, 260 f. The artistic influence
of Mesopotamia was even more widely spread than that of Egypt during the
Persian period. This is suggested, for example, by the famous lion-weight
discovered at Abydos in Mysia, the town on the Hellespont famed for the loves
of Hero and Leander. The letters of its Aramaic inscription (C.I.S., IT. i,
tab. VII, No. 108) prove by their form that it dates from the Persian period,
and its provenance is sufficiently attested. Its weight moreover suggests that it
was not merely a Babylonian or Persian importation, but cast for local use, yet
in design and technique it is scarcely distinguishable from the best Assyrian
work of the seventh century.
ASSYRIAN INFLUENCE IN SYRIA 15
ment, was numerically dominant, and their art may legitimately
be regarded as in great measure a Semitic product. Fortunately
we have recovered examples of sculpture which prove that ten
dencies already noted in the Persian period were at work, though
in a minor degree, under the later Assyrian empire. The dis
coveries made at Zenjirli, for example, illustrate the gradually
increasing effect of Assyrian influence upon the artistic output
of a small North Syrian state.
This village in north-western Syria, on the road between
Antioch and Mar ash, marks the site of a town which lay near
the southern border or just within the Syrian district of Sam al.
The latter is first mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions by
Shalmaneser III, the son and successor of the great conqueror,
Ashur-nasir-pal ; and in the first half of the eighth century,
though within the radius of Assyrian influence, it was still an
independent kingdom. It is to this period that we must assign
the earliest of the inscribed monuments discovered at Zenjirli and
its neighbourhood. At Gerjin, not far to the north-west, was found
the colossal statue of Hadad, chief god of the Aramaeans, which
was fashioned and set up in his honour by Panammu I, son of
Qaral and king of Ya di. 1 In the long Aramaic inscription
engraved upon the statue Panammu records the prosperity of his
reign, which he ascribes to the support he has received from
Hadad and his other gods, El. Reshef, Rekub-el, and Shamash.
He had evidently been left in peace by Assyria, and the monu
ment he erected to his god is of Aramaean workmanship and
design. But the influence of Assyria may be traced in Hadad s
beard and in his horned head-dress, modelled on that worn by
Babylonian and Assyrian gods as the symbol of divine power.
The political changes introduced into Ya di and Sam al by
Tiglath-pileser IV are reflected in the inscriptions and monu
ments of Bar-rekub, a later king of the district. Internal strife
had brought disaster upon Ya di and the throne had been secured
by Panarnmu II, son of Bar-sur. whose claims received Assyrian
1 See F. von Luschan, Sendschirli, 1. (1893), pp. 49 ft ., pi. vi ; and cf. Cooke,
Xorth Sem. Inscr., pp. 159 if. The characters of the inscription on the statue
are of the same archaic type as those of the Moabite Stone, though unlike
them they are engraved in relief; so too are the inscriptions of Panammu s
later successor Bar-rekub (see below). Gerjin was certainly in Ya di, and
Winckler s suggestion that Zenjirli itself also lay in that district but near
the border of Sam al may be provisionally accepted ; the occurrence of the
names in the inscriptions can be explained in more than one way (see Cooke.
op. cit., p. 183).
16 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
support. In the words of his son Bar-rekub, * he laid hold of the
skirt of his lord, the king of Assyria , who was gracious to him ;
and it was probably at this time, and as a reward for his loyalty,
that Ya di was united with the neighbouring district of Sam al.
But Panammu s devotion to his foreign master led to his death,
for he died at the siege of Damascus, in 733 or 732 B. c., in the
camp, while following his lord, Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria .
His kinsfolk and the whole camp bewailed him, and his body
was sent back to Ya di, where it was interred by his son, who set
up an inscribed statue to his memory. Bar-rekub followed in
his father s footsteps, as he leads us to infer in his palace-inscrip
tion found at Zenjirli : I ran at the wheel of my lord, the king
of Assyria, in the midst of mighty kings, possessors of silver and
possessors of gold. It is not strange therefore that his art
should reflect Assyrian influence far more strikingly than that of
Panammu I. The figure of himself which he caused to be carved
in relief on the left side of the palace-inscription is in the Assy
rian style, 1 and so too is another of his reliefs from Zenjirli. On
the latter Bar-rekub is represented seated upon his throne with
eunuch and scribe in attendance, while in the field is the emblem
of full moon and crescent, here ascribed to Ba al of Harran ,
the famous centre of moon- worship in Northern Mesopotamia. 2
The detailed history and artistic development of Sam al and
Ya di convey a very vivid impression of the social and material
1 Sendschirli, IV (1911), pi. Ixvii. Attitude and treatment of robe are both
Assyrian, and so is the arrangement of divine symbols in the upper field,
though some of the latter are given under unfamiliar forms. The king s close-
fitting peaked cap was evidently the royal headdress of Sam al ; sec the royal
figure on a smaller stele of inferior design, op. cit., pi. Ixvi.
2 Op. cit., pp. 257, 346 ff., and pi. Ix. The general style of the sculpture and
much of the detail are obviously Assyrian. Assyrian influence is particularly
noticeable in Bar-rekub s throne ; the details of its decoration are precisely
similar to those of an Assyrian bronze throne in the British Museum. The full
moon and crescent are not of the familiar form, but are mounted on a standard
with tassels. Perhaps the most interesting figure in the composition is the
scribe with shaven head, who stands before the king. He is probably an
Egyptian, for in his left hand he carries an Egyptian scribe s writing-palette,
with place for ink and case for brushes. The writing-tablet under his arm,
which looks like a bound volume, may possibly be a double tablet with hinge,
or a single tablet with a register ruled ready for entries down one side. One
would like to know in what characters he took down Bar-rekub s instructions.
The twin sphinxes of Zenjirli, Sakje-Geuzi, and Carcheraish were ultimately
derived from Egypt, but in view of the absence of other traces of Egyptian
influence in the Zenjirli sculptures, the scribe s presence at the royal court is
quite unexpected.
THE SEMITE S ADAPTABILITY 17
effects upon the native population of Syria, which followed the
westward advance of Assyria in the eighth century. "We realize
not only the readiness of one party in the state to defeat its rival
with the help of Assyrian support, but also the manner in which
the life and activities of the nation as a whole were unavoidably
affected by their action. Other Hittite-Aramaean and Phoenician
monuments, as yet undocumented with literary records, exhibit
a strange but not unpleasing mixture of foreign motifs, such as
we see on the stele from Amrith 1 in the inland district of Arvad.
But perhaps the most remarkable example of Syrian art we
possess is the King s Gate recently discovered at Carchemish. 2
The presence of the hieroglyphic inscriptions points to the
survival of Hittite tradition, but the figures represented in the
reliefs are of Aramaean, not Hittite, type. Here the king is seen
leading his eldest son by the hand in some stately ceremonial,
and ranged in registers behind them are the younger members
of the royal family, whose ages are indicated by their occupations. 3
The employment of basalt in place of limestone does not disguise
the sculptor s debt to Assyria. But the design is entirely his
own, and the combined dignity and homeliness of the composition
are refreshingly superior to the arrogant spirit and hard execution
which mar so much Assyrian work. This example is particularly
instructive, as it shows how a borrowed art may be developed in
skilled hands and made to serve a purpose in complete harmony
with its new environment.
Such monuments surely illustrate the adaptability of the
Semitic craftsman among men of Phoenician and Aramaean
strain. Excavation in Palestine has failed to furnish examples
of Hebrew work. But Hebrew tradition itself justifies us in
regarding this trait as of more general application, or at any
rate as not repugnant to Hebrew thought, when it relates that
Solomon employed Tyrian craftsmen for work upon the Temple
1 Collection tie Clercq, t. II, pi. xxxvi. The stele is sculptured in relief
with the figure of a North Syrian god. Here the winged disk is Egyptian, as
well as the god s helmet with uraeus, and his loin-cloth ; his attitude and his
supporting lion are Hittite ; and the lozenge-mountains, on which the lion
stands, and the technique of the carving are Assyrian. But in spite of its com
posite character the design is quite successful and not in the least incongruous.
z Hogarth, Carchemish, Pt. I (1914), pi. B. 7 f.
8 Two of the older boys play at knuckle-bones, others whip spinning-tops, and
a little naked girl runs behind supporting herself with a stick, on the head of
which is carved a bird. The procession is brought up by the queen-mother,
who carries the youngest baby and leads a pet lamb.
K. C
18 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
and its furniture; for Phoenician art was essentially Egyptian
in its origin and general character. Even Eshmun- azar s desire
for burial in an Egyptian sarcophagus may be paralleled in
Hebrew tradition of a much earlier period, when, in the last
verse of Genesis, 1 it is recorded that Joseph died, and they
embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt . Since it
formed the subject of prophetic denunciation, I refrain for the
moment from citing the notorious adoption of Assyrian customs
at certain periods of the later Judaean monarchy. The two
records I have referred to will suffice, for we have in them
cherished traditions, of which the Hebrews themselves were
proud, concerning the most famous example of Hebrew religious
architecture and the burial of one of the patriarchs of the race.
A similar readiness to make use of the best available resources,
even of foreign origin, may on analogy be regarded as at least
possible in the composition of Hebrew literature.
4 We shall see that the problems we have to face concern the
[possible influence of Babylon, rather than of Egypt, upon Hebrew
(tradition. |And one last example, drawn from the later period,
(will serve to demonstrate how Babylonian influence penetrated
the ancient world and has even left some trace upon modern
civilization. | It is a fact, though one perhaps not generally
realized, that the twelve divisions on the dials of our clocks and
watches have a Babylonian, and ultimately a Sumerian, ancestry.
For why is it we divide the day into twenty-four hours ? We
have a decimal system of reckoning, we count by tens ; why
then should we divide the day and night into twelve hours each,
instead of into ten or some multiple of ten ? The reason is that
the Babylonians divided the day into twelve double-hours ; and
the Greeks took over their ancient system of time-division along
with their knowledge of astronomy and passed it on to us. So
if we ourselye^, after more than two thousand years, are making
use of an old custom from Babylon, it would not be surprising if
\the Hebrews, a contemporary race, should have fallen under her
linfluence even before they were carried away as captives and
settled forcibly upon her river-banks.
We may pass on, then, to the site from which our new material
. has been obtained the ancient city of. Nippur, in central Baby
lonia. Though the place has been deserted for at least nine
hundred years, its ancient name still lingers on in local tradition,
and to this day Niffer or Nuffar is the name the Arabs give the
1 Gen. 1. 26, assigned by critics to E.
SITE OF NIPPUR NEAR THE SWAMPS 19
mounds which cover its extensive ruins. No modern town or
village has been built upon them or in their immediate neigh
bourhood. The nearest considerable town is Diwaniyah, on the
left bank of the Hillah branch of the Euphrates, twenty miles to
the south-west ; but some four miles to the south of the ruins is
the village of Suq el- Afej, on the eastern edge of the Afej
marshes, which begin to the south of Nippur and stretch away
westward. Protected by its swamps, the region contains a
few primitive settlements of the wild Afej tribesmen, each
a group of reed-huts clustering around the mud fort of its
ruling sheikh. Their chief enemies are the Shammar, who
dispute with them possession of the pastures. In. summer the
marshes near the mounds are merely pools of water connected
by channels through the reed-beds, but in spring the flood-
water converts them into a vast lagoon, and all that meets the
eye are a few small hamlets built on rising knolls above the
water-level. Thus Nippur may be almost isolated during the
floods, but the mounds are protected from the waters encroach
ment by an outer ring of former habitation which has slightly
raised the level of the encircling area. The ruins of the city
stand from thirty to seventy feet above the plain, and in the
north-eastern corner there rose, before the excavations, a conical
mound, known by the Arabs as Bint el-Emir or The Princess .
This prominent landmark represents the temple-tower of Enlil s
famous sanctuary, and even after excavation it is still the first
object that the approaching traveller sees on the horizon. When
he has climbed its summit he enjoys an uninterrupted view over
desert and swamp.
The cause of Nippur s present desolation is to be traced to the
change in the bed of the Euphrates, which now lies far to
the west. But in antiquity the stream flowed through the centre
of the city, along the dry bed of the Shatt en-Nil, which divides
the mounds into an eastern and a western group. The latter covers
the remains of the city proper and was occupied in part by the
great business-houses and bazaars. Here more than thirty
thousand contracts and accounts, dating from the fourth mil
lennium to the fifth century B. c.. were found in houses along the
former river-bank. In the eastern half of the city was Enlil s
great temple Ekur, with its temple-tower Imkharsag rising in
successive stages beside it. The huge temple-enclosure contained
not only the sacred shrines, but also the priests apartments,
store-chambers, and temple-magazines. Outside its enclosing
\
20 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
wall, to the south-west, a large triangular mound, christened
Tablet Hill by the excavators, yielded a further supply of
records. In addition to business-documents of the First Dynasty
of Babylon and of the later Assy ri an, Neo- Babylonian, and Persian
periods, between two and three thousand literary texts and
fragments were discovered here, many of them dating from the
Sumeriaii period. And it is possible that some of the early
literary texts that have been published were obtained in other
parts of the city.
No less than twenty-one different strata, representing separate
periods of occupation, have been noted by the American exca
vators at various levels within the Nippur mounds, 1 the earliest
descending to virgin soil some twenty feet below the present
level of the surrounding plain. The remote date of Nippur s
foundation as a city and cult-centre is attested by the fact that
the pavement laid by Naram-Sin in the south-eastern temple-
court lies thirty feet above virgin soil, while only thirty-six feet
of superimposed cUbris represent the succeeding millennia of
occupation down to Sassanian and early Arab times. In the
period of the Hebrew captivity the city still ranked as a great
commercial market and as one of the most sacred repositories of
Babylonian religious tradition. We know that not far off was
Tel-abib, the seat of one of the colonies of Jewish exiles, for that <
lay b} 7 the river of Chebar , 2 which we may identify with the
Kabaru Canal in Nippur s immediate neighbourhood. It was
* among the captives by the river Chebar that Ezekiel lived and
prophesied, and it was on Chebar s banks that he saw his first
vision of the Cherubim. 3 He and other of the Jewish exiles may
perhaps have mingled with the motley crowd that once thronged
the streets of Nippur, and they may often have gazed on the
huge temple-tower which rose above the city s flat roofs. We
know that the later population of Nippur itself included a con
siderable Jewish element, for the upper strata of the mounds
have yielded numerous clay bowls with Hebrew, Mandaean, and
Syriac magical inscriptions ; 4 and not the least interesting of
the objects recovered was the wooden box of a Jewish scribe,
1 See Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 289 ff., 540 ff. ; and Fisher,
Excavations at Nippur, Pt. 1 (1905), Pt. II (1906).
2 Ezek. iii. 15.
A Ezek. i. 1, 3 ; iii. 23 ; and cf. x. 15, 20, 22, and xliii. 3.
4 See J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, 1913.
TEL-ABIB AND THE EIVER CHEBAE, 21
containing his pen and ink- vessel and a little scrap of crumbling t
parchment inscribed with a few Hebrew characters. 1
Of the many thousands of inscribed clay tablets which were
found in the course of the expeditions, some were kept at
Constantinople, while others were presented by the Sultan Abdul
Hamid to the excavators, who had them conveyed to America.
Since that time a large number have been published. The work
was necessarily slow, for many of the texts were found to be in
an extremely bad state of preservation. So it happened that
a great number of the boxes containing tablets remained until
recently still packed up in the store-rooms of the Pennsylvania
Museum. But under the present energetic Director of the
Museum, Dr. G. B. Gordon, the process of arranging and pub
lishing the mass of literary material has been speeded up .
A staff of skilled workmen has been employed on the laborious
task of cleaning the broken tablets and fitting the fragments
together. At the same time the help of several Assyriologists
was welcomed in the further task of running over and sorting
the collections as they were prepared for study. Professor Clay,
Professor Barton, Dr. Langdon, Dr. Edward Chiera, and Dr. Arno
Poebel have all participated in the work. But the lion s share
has fallen to the last-named scholar, who was given leave of
absence by Johns Hopkins University in order to take up a
temporary appointment at the Pennsylvania Museum. The
result of his labours was published by the Museum at the end of
1914. 2 The texts thus made available for study are of very
varied interest. A great body of them are grammatical and
represent compilations made by Semitic scribes of the period of
Hammurabi s dynasty for their study of the old Sumerian tongue.
Containing, as most of them do, Semitic renderings of the
Sumerian words and expressions collected, they are as great
a help to us in our study of the Sumerian language as they were
to their compilers; in particular they have thrown much new
light on the paradigms of the demonstrative and personal
pronouns and on Sumerian verbal forms. But literary texts are
also included in the recent publications.
When the Pennsylvania Museum sent out its first expedition,
lively hopes were entertained that the site selected would yield
material of interest from the biblical standpoint. The city of
1 Hilprecht, Explorations, p. 555 f.
2 Poebel, Historical Texts and Historical and Grammatical Texts (Univ. of
Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol. IV, No. 1, and Vol. V), Philadelphia, 1914.
22 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
;s .Nippur, as we have seen, was one of the most sacred and most
ancient religious centres in the country, and Enlil, its city-god^
was the head of the Babylonian pantheon. On such a site it
seemed likely that we might find versions of the Babylonian
legends which were current at the dawn of "history before the
city of Babylon and its Semitic inhabitants came upon the scene.
This expectation has proved to be not unfounded, for the literary
texts include the Sumerian Deluge Version and Creation myth
to which I referred at the beginning of the lecture. Other texts
of almost equal interest consist of early though fragmentary lists
of historical and semi-mythical rulers. They prove that Berossus
and the later Babylonians depended on material of quite early
origin in compiling their dynasties of semi- mythical kings. In
them we obtain a glimpse of ages more remote than any on
which excavation in Babylonia has yet thrown light, and for the
first time we have recovered genuine native tradition of early
date with regard to the cradle of Babylonian culture. Before
we approach the Sumerian legends themselves, it will be as well
to-day to trace back in this tradition the gradual merging of
history into legend and myth, comparing at the same time the
ancient Egyptian s picture of his own remote past. We will also
ascertain whether any new light is thrown by our inquiry upon
Hebrew traditions concerning the earliest history of the human
race and the origins of civilization.
In the study of both Egyptian and Babylonian chronology
there has been a tendency of late years to reduce the very early
dates that were formerly in fashion. But in Egypt, while the
dynasties of Manetho have been telescoped in places, excavation
has thrown light on predynastic periods, and we can now trace
the history of culture in the Nile Valley back, through an un
broken sequence, to its neolithic stage. Quite recently, too, as
I mentioned just now, a fresh literary record of these early
predynastic periods has been recovered, on a fragment of the
famous Palermo Stele, our most valuable monument for early
Egyptian history and chronology. Egypt* presents a striking
contrast to Babylonia in the comparatively small number of
written records which have survived for the reconstruction of her
history. "We might well spare much of her religious literature,
enshrined in endless temple-inscriptions and papyri, if we could
but exchange it for some of the royal annals of Egyptian
Pharaohs. That historical records of this character were com
piled by the Egyptian scribes, and that they were as detailed and
HISTORY, LEGEND, AND MYTH 23
precise in their information as those we have recovered from
Assyrian sources, is clear from the few extracts from the annals
of Thothmes Ill s wars which are engraved on the walls of the
temple at Karnak. 1 As in Babylonia and Assyria, such records
must have formed the foundation on which summaries or
chronicles of past Egyptian history were based. In the Palermo
Stele it is recognized that we possess a primitive chronicle of
this character.
Drawn up as early as the Vth Dynasty, its historical summary
proves that from the beginning of the dynastic age onward a yearly
record was kept of the most important achievements of the reigning
Pharaoh. In this fragmentary but invaluable epitome, recording
in outline much of the history of the Old Kingdom, 2 some inter
esting parallels have long been noted with Babylonian usage.
The early system of time-reckoning, for example, was the same
in both countries, each year being given an official title from
the chief event that occurred in it. And although in Babylonia
we are still without material for tracing the process by which
this cumbrous method gave place to that of reckoning by regnal
years, the Palermo Stele demonstrates the way in which the
latter system was evolved in Egypt. For the events from which
the year was named came gradually to be confined to the fiscal
numberings of cattle and land. And when these, which at
first had taken place at comparatively long intervals, had become
annual events, the numbered sequence of their occurrence
corresponded precisely to the years of the king s reign. On the
stele, during the dynastic period, each regnal year is allotted its
own space or rectangle," arranged in horizontal sequence below
the name and titles of the ruling king.
The text, which is engraved on both sides of a great block of
black basalt, takes its name from the fact that the fragment
hitherto known has been preserved since 1877 in the Museum of
Palermo. Five other fragments of the text have now been pub
lished, of which one undoubtedly belongs to the same monument
as the Palermo fragment, while the others may represent parts of
one or more duplicate copies of that famous text. One of the four
Cairo fragments 4 was found by a digger for sebakk at Mitrahineh
Breasted, Ancient Records, I, p. 4, II, pp. 163ft .
- Op. c//., 1, pp. 57 ff.
The spaces are not strictly rectangles, as each is divided vertically from
tin- next by the Egyptian hieroglyph for year .
4 See Gautier. Le Mns, e Egyptien, III (1915), pp. 29 ff., pi. xxivff., and
24 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
(Memphis) ; the other three, which were purchased from a dealer,
are said to have come from Minieh, while the fifth fragment, at-
University College, is also said to have come from Upper Egypt, 1
though it was purchased by Professor Petrie while at Memphis.
These reports suggest that a number of duplicate copies were
engraved and set up in different Egyptian towns, and it is
possible that the whole of the text may eventually be recovered.
The choice of basalt for the records was obviously dictated by a
desire for their preservation, but it has had the contrary effect ;
for the blocks of this hard and precious stone have been cut up
and reused in later times. The largest and most interesting of
the new fragments has evidently been employed as a door-sill,
with the result that its surface is much rubbed and parts of its
text are unfortunately almost undecipherable. We shall see that
the earliest section of its record has an important bearing on our
knowledge of Egyptian predynastic history and on the traditions
of that remote period which have come down to us from the
history of Manetho.
Prom the fragment of the stele preserved at Palermo we
already knew that its record went back beyond the 1st Dynasty
into predynastic times. For part of the top band of the inscrip
tion, which is there preserved, contains nine names borne by
kings of Lower Egypt or the Delta, which, it had been conjec
tured, must follow the gods of Manetho and precede the Wor
shippers of Horus , the immediate predecessors of the Egyptian
dynasties.- But of contemporary rulers of Upper Egypt we had
hitherto no knowledge, since the supposed royal names discovered
at Abydos and assigned to the time of the Worshippers of
Horus are probably not royal names at all. 3 With the possible
exception of two very archaic slate palettes, the first historical
memorials recovered from the south do not date from an earlier
period than the beginning of the 1st Dynasty. The largest of
the Cairo fragments now helps us to fill in this gap in our
knowledge.
On the top of the new fragment 4 we meet the same band of
Foucart, Bulletin de Tlnstitut Fran$ais d Archeologie Orientale, XII, ii (1916),
pp. 161 ff. ; and cf. Gardiner, Journ. of Egypt. Arch., Ill, pp. 143 ff., and
Petrie, Ancient Egypt, 1916, Pt. Ill, pp. 114 if.
1 Cf. Petrie, op. tit., pp. 115, 120.
2 See Breasted, Anc. Rec., I, pp. 52, 57.
3 Cf. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 99 f.
4 Cairo No. 1 ; see Gautier, Mus. Egypt., Ill, pi. xxiv f.
NEW EECOED OF THE PEEDYNASTIC AGE 25
rectangles as at Palermo, 1 but here their upper portions are
broken away, and there only remains at the base of each of
them the outlined figure of a royal personage, seated in the
same attitude as those on the Palermo stone. The remarkable
fact about these figures is that, with the apparent exception of
the third figure from the right, 2 each wears, not the Crown of the
North, as at Palermo, but the Crown of the South. We have
then to do with kings of Upper Egypt, not the Delta, and it is
no longer possible to suppose that the predynastic rulers of the
Palermo Stele were confined to those of Lower Egypt, as reflecting
northern tradition. Eulers of both halves of the country are
represented, and Monsieur Gautier has shown, 3 from data on the
reverse of the inscription, that the kings of the Delta were
arranged on the original stone before the rulers of the south
who are out^ned upon our new fragment. Moreover, we have
now recovered definite proof that this band of the inscription
is concerned with predynastic Egyptian princes ; for the car
touche of the king, whose years are enumerated in the second
band immediately below the kings of the south, reads Athet, a
name we may with certainty identify with Athothes, the second
successor of Menes, founder of the 1st Dynasty, which is already
given under the form Ateth in the Abydos List of Kings. 4 It is
thus quite certain that the first band of the inscription relates to
the earlier periods before the two halves of the country were
brought together under a single ruler.
Though the tradition of these remote times is here recorded on
a monument of the Vth Dynasty, there is no reason to doubt its
general accuracy, or to suppose that we are dealing with purely
mythological personages. It is perhaps possible, as Monsieur
Foucart suggests, that missing portions of the text may have
1 In this upper band the spaces are true rectangles, being separated by
vertical lines, not by the hieroglyph for year as in the lower bands ; and each
rectangle is assigned to a separate king, and not, as in the other bands, to a
year of a king s reign.
2 The difference in the crown worn by this figure is probably only apparent
and not intentional ; M. Foucart, after a careful examination of the fragment,
concludes that it is due to subsequent damage or to an original defect in
the stone ; cf. Bulletin, XII, ii, p. 162.
3 Op. cit., p. 321.
4 In Manetho s list he corresponds to Kfi/KfVf??, the second successor of Menes
according to both Africanus and Eusebius, who assign the name Athothis to
the second ruler of the dynasty only, the Teta of the Abydos List. The form
Athothes is preserved by Eratosthenes for both of Menes immediate successors.
26 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
carried the record back through purely mythical periods to Ptah
and the Creation. In that case we should have, as we shall see,
a striking parallel to early Sumerian tradition. But in the first
extant portions of the Palermo text we are already in the realm
of genuine tradition. The names preserved appear to be those
of individuals, not of mythological creations, and we may
assume that their owners really existed. For though the inven
tion of writing had not at that time been achieved, its place
was probably taken by oral tradition. We know that with
certain tribes of Africa at the present day, who possess no
knowledge of writing, there are functionaries charged with the
duty of preserving tribal traditions, who transmit orally to their
successors a remembrance of past chiefs and some details of
events that occurred centuries before. 1 The predynastic
Egyptians may well have adopted similar means for preserving
a remembrance of their past history.
Moreover, the new text furnishes fresh proof of the general
accuracy of Manetho, even when dealing with traditions of this
prehistoric age. On the stele there is no definite indication that
these two sets of predynastic kings were contemporaneous rulers
of Lower and Upper Egypt respectively ; and since elsewhere the
lists assign a single sovereign to each epoch, it has been suggested
that we should regard them as successive representatives of the
legitimate kingdom. 2 Now Manetho, after his dynasties of gods
and demi-gods, states that thirty Memphite kings reigned for 1,790
years, and were followed by ten Thinite kings whose reigns
covered a period of 350 years. Neglecting the figures as obviously
erroneous, we may well admit that the Greek historian here
alludes to our two pre-Menite dynasties. But the fact that he
should regard them as ruling consecutively does not preclude
the other alternative. The modern convention of arranging
lines of contemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had not
been evolved in antiquity, and without some such method of
distinction contemporaneous rulers, when enumerated in a list,
can only be registered consecutively. It would be natural to
assume that, before the unification of Egypt by the founder of
the 1st Dynasty, the rulers of North and South were inde-
1 M. Foucart illustrates this point by citing the case of the Bushongos, who
have in this way preserved a list of no less than a hundred and twenty-one of
their past kings; op. cit., p. 182, and cf. Tordey and Joyce, Les Bushongos ,
in Annales du Musee du Congo Beige, ser. Ill, t. If, fasc. i (Brussels, 1911).
2 Foucart, Joe. cit.
MANETHO AND BEROSSUS 27
pendent princes, possessing no traditions of a united throne
on which any claim to hegemony could be based. On the
assumption that this was so, their arrangement in a con
secutive series would not have deceived their immediate suc
cessors. But it would undoubtedly tend in course of time to
obliterate the tradition of their true order, which even at the
period of the Vth Dynasty may have been completely forgotten.
Manetho would thus have introduced no strange or novel con
fusion ; and this explanation would of course apply to other
sections of his system where the dynasties he enumerates appear
to be too many for their period. But his reproduction of two
lines of predynastic rulers, supported as it now is by the early
evidence of the Palermo text, only serves to increase our confi
dence in the general accuracy of his sources, while at the same
time it illustrates very effectively the way in which possible
inaccuracies, deduced from independent data, may have arisen in
quite early times.
In contrast to the dynasties of Manetho, those of Berossus are
so imperfectly preserved that they have never formed the basis
of Babylonian chronology. 1 But here too, in the chronological
scheme, a similar process of reduction has taken place. Certain
dynasties, recovered from native sources and at one time regarded
as consecutive, were proved to have been contemporaneous ; and
archaeological evidence suggested that some of the great gaps, so
freely assumed in the royal sequence, had 110 right to be there.
As a result, the succession of known rulers was thrown into
truer perspective, and such gaps as remained were being partially
filled by later discoveries. Among the latter the most important
find was that of an early list of kings, recently published by
Pere Scheil 2 and subsequently purchased by the British Museum
shortly before the war. This had helped us to fill in the gap
between the famous Sargon of Akkad and the later dynasties,
but it did not carry us far beyond Sargoii s own time. Our
1 While the evidence of Herodotus is extraordinarily valuable for the details
he gives of the civilizations of both Egypt and Babylonia, and is especially full
in the case of the former, it is of little practical use for the chronology. In
Egypt his report of the early history is confused, and he hardly attempts one
for Babylonia. It is probable that on such subjects he sometimes misunderstood
his informants, the priests, whose traditions were more accurately reproduced
by the later native writers Manetho and Berossus. For a detailed comparison
of classical authorities in relation to both countries, see Griffith in Hogarth s
Authority and Archaeology, pp. 161 ff.
2 See Comptes rewlus, 1911 (Oct.), pp. 606 if., and Rev. iV Attain ., IX (1912), p. 69.
28 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
archaeological evidence also comes suddenly to an end. Thus
the earliest picture we have hitherto obtained of the Sumerians
has been that of a race employing an advanced system of writing
and possessed of a knowledge of metal. We have found, in short,
abundant remains of a bronze-age culture, but no traces of pre
ceding ages of development such as meet us on early Egyptian
sites. It was a natural inference that the advent of the Sumerians
in the Euphrates Valley was sudden, and that they had brought
their highly developed culture with them from some region of
Central or Southern Asia.
The newly published Nippur documents will cause us to modify
that view. The lists of early kings were themselves drawn up
under the Dynasty of Nisin in the twenty-second century B. c.,
and they give us traces of possibly ten and at least eight other
* kingdoms before the earliest dynasty of the known lists. 1 One
of their novel features is that they include summaries at the
end, in which it is stated how often a city or district enjoyed
the privilege of being the seat of supreme authority in Babylonia.
The earliest of their sections lie within the legendary period, and
though in the third dynasty preserved we begin to note signs of
a firmer historical tradition, the great break that then occurs in
the text is at present only bridged by titles of various king
doms which the summaries give ; a few .even of these are
missing and the relative order of the rest is not assured. But in
spite of their imperfect state of preservation, these documents
are of great historical value and will furnish a framework for
future chronological schemes. Meanwhile we may attribute to
some of the later dynasties titles in complete agraement with
Sumerian tradition. The dynasty of Ur-Engur, for example,
which preceded that of Nisin, becomes, if we like, the Third
Dynasty of Ur. Another important fact which strikes us after
a scrutiny of the early royal names recovered is that, while
two or three are Semitic, 2 the great majority of those borne
1 See Poebel, Historical Texts, pp. 73 ff. and Historical and Grammatical Texts,
pi. ii-iv, Nos. 2-5. The best preserved of the lists is No. 2 ; Nos. 3 and 4 arc
comparatively small fragments ; and of No. 5 the obverse only is here published
for the first time, the contents of the reverse having been made known some
years ago by Hilprecht (cf. Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological Tablets,
p. 46 f., pi. 30, No. 47). The fragments belong to separate copies of the
Sumerian dynastic record, and it happens that the extant portions of their
text in some places cover the same period and are duplicates of one another.
2 Cf., e. g., two of the earliest kings of Kish, Galumum and Zugagib (see
below, p. 34). The former is probably the Semitic-Babylonian word kalumum,
THE GODS ON EARTH 29
by the earliest rulers of Kish, Erech, and Ur are as obviously
Sumerian.
It is clear that in native tradition, current among the Sume-
rians themselves before the close of the third millennium, their
race was regarded as in possession of Babylonia since the dawn
of history. This at any rate proves that their advent was not
sudden nor comparatively recent, and it further suggests that
Babylonia itself was the cradle of their civilization. 1 It will be
the province of future archaeological research to fill out the
missing dynasties and to determine at what points in the list
their strictly historical basis disappears. Some, which are
fortunately preserved near the beginning, bear on their face
their legendary character. But for our purpose they are none
the worse for that.
In the first two dynasties, which had their seats at the cities
of Kish and Erech, we see gods mingling with men upon the
earth. Tammuz, the god of vegetation, for whose annual death
Ezekiel saw women weeping beside the Temple at Jerusalem, is
here an earthly monarch. He appears to be described as a
hunter , a phrase which recalls the death of Adonis in Greek
mythology. According to our Sumerian text he reigned in Erech
for a hundred years.
Another attractive Babylonian legend is that of Etana, the
prototype of Icarus and hero of the earliest dream of human
flight. 2 Clinging to the pinions of his friend the Eagle he beheld
the world and its encircling stream recede beneath him ; and he
flew through the gate of heaven, only to fall headlong back to
earth. He is here duly entered in the list, where we read that
Etana, the shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued all
lands , ruled in the city of Kish for 635 years.
The god Lugal-banda is another hero of legend. When the
young animal, lamb, the latter zukakibum, scorpion ; cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts,
p. 111. The occurrence of these names points to Semitic infiltration into
Northern Babylonia since the dawn of history, a state of things we sho.uld
naturally expect. I , is improbable that on this point Sumerian tradition should
have merely reflected the conditions of a later period.
1 See further, p. 119, n. 1.
a The Egyptian conception of the deceased Pharaoh ascending to heaven as
a falcon and becoming merged into the sun, which first occurs in the Pyramid
texts (see Gardiner in Cumont s Etudes Syricnnes, pp. 109 ff.), belongs to a
different range of ideas. But it may well have been combined with the Etana
tradition to produce the funerary eagle employed so commonly in Roman
Syria in representations of the emperor s apotheosis (cf. Cumont, op. cit.,
pp. 37 ff., 115).
30 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
hearts of the other gods failed them, he alone recovered the
Tablets of Fate, stolen by the bird-god Zu from Enlil s palace.
He is here recorded to have reigned in Erech for 1.200 years.
Tradition already told us that Erech was the native city of
i Gilgamesh, the hero of the national epic, to whom his ancestor
Ut-napishtim related the story of the Flood. Gilgamesh too is
in our list, as king of Erech for 126 years.
We have here in fact recovered traditions of Post-diluvian
kings. Unfortunately our list goes no farther back than that,
but it is probable that in its original form it presented a general
correspondence to the system preserved from Berossus, which
enumerates ten Antediluvian kings, the last of them Xisuthros,
the hero of the Deluge. Indeed, for the dynastic period, the
agreement of these old Sumerian lists with the chronological
system of Berossus is striking. The latter, according to Syn-
cellus, gives 34,090 or 34,080 years as the total duration of the
historical period, apart from his preceding mythical ages, while
the figure as preserved by Eusebius is 33,091 years. 1 The com
piler of one of our new lists, 2 writing some 1.900 years earlier,
reckons that the dynastic period in his day had lasted for 32,243
years. Of course all these figures are mythical, and even at the
time of the Sumerian Dynasty of Nisin variant traditions w x ere
current with regard to the number of historical and semi-
mythical kings of Babylonia and the duration of their rule. For
the earlier writer of another of our lists, 3 separated from the one
already quoted by an interval of only sixty-seven years, gives
28,876 4 years as the total duration of the dynasties at his time.
But in spite of these discrepancies, the general resemblance
presented by the huge totals in the variant copies of the list to
the alternative figures of Berossus, if we ignore his mythical
period, is remarkable. They indicate a far closer correspondence
of the Greek tradition with that of the early Sumerians them
selves than was formerly suspected.
Further proof of this correspondence may be seen in the fact
1 The figure 34,090 is that given by Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p. 147) ; but it is
34,080 in the equivalent which is added in sars , &c. The discrepancy is
explained by some as due to an intentional omission of the units in the second
reckoning ; others would regard 34,080 as the correct figure (cf. Hist, of Bab.,
p. 114f.). The reading of ninety against eighty is supported by the 33,091 of
Eusebius (Chron. lib. pri. t ed. Schoene, col. 25).
2 No. 4. s No< 2 .
4 The figures are broken, but the reading given may be accepted with some
confidence ; see Poebel, Hist. Inset:, p. 103.
SUMEKIAN AND HELLENISTIC TRADITIONS 31
that the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge story, which I pro
pose to discuss in the second lecture, gives us a connected account
of the world s history down to that point. The Deluge hero is
there a Sumerian king named Ziusudu, ruling in one of the
newly created cities of Bab3 lonia and ministering at the shrine
of his city-god. 1 He is continually given the royal title, and the
foundation of the Babylonian kingdom is treated as an essential
part of Creation.- We may therefore assume that an Ante
diluvian period existed in Sumerian tradition as in Berossus. 3
And I think Dr. Poebel is right in assuming that the Nippur
copies of the Dynastic List begin with the Post-diluvian period. 4
Though Professor Barton, on the other hand, holds that the
Dynastic List had no concern with the Deluge, his suggestion
1 See below, pp. 65 ft . 2 See below, p. 58 ; and cf. p. 69.
3 Of course it does not necessarily follow that the figure assigned to the
duration of the Antediluvian or mythical period by the Sumerians would show
BO close a resemblance to that of Berossus as we have already noted in their
estimates of the dynastic or historical period. But there is no need to assume
that Berossus huge total of a hundred and twenty sars (432,000 years) is
entirely a product of Neo-Babylonian speculation ; the total 432,000 is ex
plained as representing ten months of a cosmic year, each month consisting
of twelve ears , i.e. 12x3600 = 43,200 years. The Sumerians themselves
had no difficulty in picturing two of their dynastic rulers as each reigning for
two ners (1,200 years), and it would not be unlikely that sars were dis
tributed among still earlier rulers ; the numbers were easily written. For the
unequal distribution of his hundred and twenty sars by Berossus among his
ten Antediluvian kings, see Appendix II, p. 144, n. 4.
* The exclusion of the Antediluvian period from the list may perhaps be
explained on the assumption that its compiler confined his record to king
doms , and that the mythical rulers who preceded them did not form a
kingdom within his definition of the term. In any case we have a clear
indication that an earlier period was included before the true kingdoms*, or
dynasties, in an Assyrian copy of the list, a fragment of which is preserved in
the British Museum from the Library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh; see Chron.
cone. Early Bab. Kings (Studies in East. Hist., II f.), Vol. I, pp. 182 ff., Vol. II,
pp. 48 ft ., 143 f. There we find traces of an extra column of text preceding that
in which the first Kingdom of Kish was recorded. It would seem almost certain
that this extra column was devoted to Antediluvian kings. The only alterna
tive explanation would be that it was inscribed with the summaries which
conclude the Sumerian copies of our list. But later scribes do not so transpose
their material, and the proper place for summaries is at the close, not at the
beginning, of a list. In the Assyrian copy the Dynastic List is brought up to
date, and extends down to the later Assyrian period. Formerly its compiler
could only be credited with incorporating traditions of earlier times. But the
correspondence of the small fragment preserved of its Second Column with
part of the First Column of the Nippur texts (including the name of Enmen-
nunna ) proves that the Assyrian scribe reproduced an actual copy of the
Sumerian document.
32 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
that the early names preserved by it may have been the original
source of Berossus Antediluvian rulers l may yet be accepted in
a modified form. In coming to his conclusion he may have been
influenced by what seems to me an undoubted correspondence
between one of the rulers in our list and the sixth Antediluvian
king of Berossus. I think few will be disposed to dispute the
equation
Adwros iToifji^v = Etana, a shepherd.
Each list preserves the hero s shepherd origin and the correspon
dence of the names is very close, Daonos merely transposing the
initial vowel of Etana. 2 That Berossus should have translated
a Post-diluvian ruler into his Antediluvian dynasty would not
be at all surprising in view of the absence of detailed corre
spondence between his later dynasties and those we know actually
occupied the Babylonian throne. Moreover, the inclusion of
Babylon in his list of Antediluvian cities 3 should make us
hesitate to regard all the rulers he assigns to his earliest dynasty
as necessarily retaining, in his list their original order in
Sumerian tradition. Thus we may with a clear conscience seek
equations between the names of Berossus Antediluvian rulers
and those preserved in the early part of our Dynastic List,
although we may regard the latter as actually Post-diluvian in
Sumerian belief.
This reflection, and the result already obtained, encourage us
to accept the following further equation, which is yielded by a
renewed scrutiny of the lists :
A/ji/^wz; = Enmenunna.
Here Ammenon, the fourth of Berossus Antediluvian kings,
presents a wonderfully close transcription of the Sumerian name.
The n of the first syllable has been assimilated to the following
1 See the brief statement he makes in the course of a review of Dr. Poebel s
volumes in the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, XXXI,
April 1915, p. 225. He does not compare any of the names, but he promises a
study of those preserved and a comparison of the list with Berossus and with
Gen. iv and v. It is possible that Professor Barton has already fulfilled his
promise of further discussion, perhaps in his Archaeology and the Bible, to the
publication of which I have seen a reference in another connexion (cf. Journ*
Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI, p. 291) ; but I have not yet been able to obtain
sight of a copy.
2 The variant form Auo>s is evidently a mere contraction, and any claim it
may have had to represent more closely the original form of the name is to be
disregarded in view of our new equation.
8 See further, p. 62.
ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS 33
consonant in accordance with a recognized law of euphony, and
the resultant doubling of the m is faithfully preserved in the
Greek. Precisely the same initial component, Ennie, occurs in
the name Enmeduranki, borne by a mythical king of Sippar,
who has long been recognized as the original of Berossus seventh
Antediluvian king, Evedwpaxo*. 1 There too the original n has
been assimilated, but the Greek form retains no doubling of the
m and points to its further weakening.
I do not propose to detain you with a detailed discussion of
Sumerian royal names and their possible Greek equivalents. I will
merely point out that the two suggested equations, which I ven
ture to think we may regard as established, throw the study of
Berossus mythological personages upon a new plane. No equi
valent has hitherto been suggested for Aaon-os ; but A/m/xlwoj/ has
been confidently explained as the equivalent of a conjectured
Babylonian original, Ummanu, lit. * Workman V 2 The fact that
we should now have recovered the Sumerian original of the
name, which proves to have no^ connexion in form or meaning
with the previously suggested Semitic equivalent, tends to cast
doubt on other Semitic equations proposed. Perhaps A/x?}Aa>r or
A^AAapos may after all not prove to be the equivalent of Amelu,
Man , nor A^^tvos that of Amel-Sin. Both may find their
true equivalents in some of the missing royal names at the head
of the Sumerian Dynastic List. There too we may provisionally
seek "AAcopos, the first king , whose equation with Aruru, the
Babylonian mother-goddess, never appeared a very happy sug
gestion. 3 The ingenious proposal, 4 on the other hand, that his
successor, AAaTrapoy, represents a miscopied AbAirapos, a Greek
rendering of the name of Adapa, may still hold good in view of
Etana s presence in the Sumerian dynastic record. Ut-napishtim s
1 Var. Eve3u)po-^.>t ; the second half of the original name, Enmeduranki, IB
more closely preserved in Edoranchus, the form given by the Armenian trans
lator of Eusebius. See further, pp. 38 and 61. 2 Cf. p. 38, n. 1.
3 Dr. Poebel (Hist. Inset:, p. 42, n. 1) makes the interesting suggestion that
"AAwpos; may represent an abbreviated and corrupt form of the name Lal-ur-
alimma, which has come down to us as that of an early and mythical king of
Nippur; see Rawlinson, W. A. /., IV, 60 (67). V, 47 and 44, and cf. Sev. Tabl. of
Great., Vol. I, p. 217, No. 32574, Rev., 1. 2 f. It may be added that the sufferings
with which the latter is associated in the tradition are perhaps such as might
have attached themselves to the first human ruler of the world ; but the
suggested equation, though tempting by reason of the remote parallel -it would
thus furnish to Adam s fate, can at present hardly be accepted in view of the
possibility that a closer equation to*AXo>poy may be forthcoming.
4 Hommel, Proc. Soc. Bill. Arclt., Vol. XV (1893), p. 243.
K. D
34 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
title, Khasisatra or Atrakhasis, the Very Wise , still of course
remains the established equivalent of EtVouflpos; but for Una/my?
(? Q-rrdprns), a rival to Ubar-Tutu, Ut-napishtim s father, may
perhaps appear. The new identifications do not of course dispose
of the old ones, except in the case of Ummanu ; but they open
up a new line of approach and provide a fresh field for conjecture. 1
Semitic, and possibly contracted, originals are still possible for
unidentified mythical kings of Berossus ; but such equations will
inspire greater confidence, should we be able to establish Sumerian
originals for the Semitic renderings, from new material already
in hand or to be obtained in the future.
But it is time I read you extracts from the earlier extant
portions of the Sumerian Dynastic List, in order to illustrate
the class of document with which we are dealing. From them
it will be seen that the record is not a tabular list of names
like the well-known Kings Lists of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It is cast in the form of an epitomized chronicle and gives under
set formulae the length of each king s reign, and his father s name
in cases of direct succession to father or brother. Short phrases
are also sometimes added, or inserted in the sentence referring to
a king, in order to indicate his humble origin or the achievement
which made his name famous in tradition. The head of the First
Column of the text is wanting, and the first royal name that is
completely preserved is that of Galumum, the ninth or tenth
ruler of the earliest kingdom , or dynasty, of Kish. The text
then runs on connectedly for several lines :
Galumum ruled for nine hundred years.
Zugagib ruled for eight hundred and forty years.
Arpi, son of a man of the people, ruled for seven hundred and
twenty years.
Etana, the shepherd who ascended to heaven, who subdued
all lands, ruled for six hundred and thirty-five years. 2
Pili . . ., son of Etana, ruled for four hundred and ten years.
Enmenunna ruled for six hundred and eleven years.
Melamkish, son of Enmenunna, ruled for nine hundred years.
Barsalnunna, son of Enmenunna, ruled for twelve hundred
years.
Mesza[ . . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . . .] years.
[. . . .], son of Barsalnunna, ruled for [. . . .] years.
A small gap then occurs in the text, but we know that the last
1 See further Appendix IT, pp. 144 ff.
2 Possibly 625 years.
SUMERIAN PATRIARCHS 35
two representatives of this dynasty of twenty-three kings are
related to have ruled for nine hundred years and six hundred
and twenty-five years respectively. In the Second Column of
the text the lines are also fortunately preserved which record
the passing of the first hegemony of Kish to the * Kingdom of
Eanna , the latter taking its name from the famous temple of
Ann and Ishtar in the old city of Erech. The text continues :
The kingdom of Kish passed to Eanna.
In Eanna, Meskingasher, son of the Sun-god, ruled as high
priest and king for three hundred and twenty-five years.
Meskingasher entered into [.] and ascended to [. . . .1.
Enmerkar, son of Meskingasher, the king of Erech who built
t. . .] with the people of Erech, 2 ruled as king for four
undred and twenty years.
Lugalbanda, the shepherd, ruled for twelve hundred years.
Dumuzi, 3 the hunter (?), whose city was . . . ., ruled for a
hundred years.
Gishbilgames, 4 whose father was A, 5 the high priest of Kullab,
ruled for one hundred and twenty-six G years.
1 The verb may also imply descent into.
2 The phrase appears to have been imperfectly copied by the scribe. As it
stands the subordinate sentence reads the king of Erech who built with the
people of Erech . Either the object governed by the verb has been omitted, in
which case we might restore some such phrase as * the city ; or perhaps, by a
slight transposition, we should read the king who built Erech with the people
of Erech . In any case the first building of the city of Erech, as distinguished
from its ancient cult-centre Eanna, appears to be recorded here in the tradition.
This is the first reference to Erech in the text; and Enmerkar s father was
high priest as well as king. See further, pp. 36 and 59.
3 i.e. Tammuz. * i.e. Gilgamesh.
* The name of the father of Gilgamesh is rather strangely expressed by the
single sign for the vowel a and must apparently be read as A. As there is a
small break in the text at the end of this line, Dr. Poebel not unnaturally
assumed that A was merely the first syllable of the name, of which the end
was wanting. But it has now been shown that the complete name was A ; see
Fortsch, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., Vol. XVIII, No. 12 (Dec., 1915), col. 367 ff. The read
ing is deduced from the following entry in an Assyrian explanatory list of gods
(Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., Pt. XXIV, pi. 25, 11. 29-31) : The god A, who is also
equated to the god Dubbisaguri (i. e. " Scribe of Ur "), is the priest of Kullab ; his
wife is the goddess Ninguesirka (i. e. " Lady of the edge of the street "). A, the
priest of Kullab and the husband of a goddess, is clearly to be identified with A,
the priest of Kullab and father of Gilgamesh, for we know from the Gilgamesh
Epic that the hero s mother was the goddess Ninsun (see below, p. 39, n. 3).
Whether Ninguesirka was a title of Ninsun, or represents a variant tradition
with regard to the parentage of Gilgamesh on the mother s side, we have in
any case confirmation of his descent from priest and goddess. It was natural
that A should be subsequently deified. This was not the case at the time our
text was inscribed, as the name is written without the divine determinative.
" Possibly 186 years.
36 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
[. . .]lugal, son of Gishbilgames, ruled for [-.-.] years.
This group of early kings of Erech is of exceptional interest.
Apart from its inclusion of Gilgamesh and the gods Tammuz and
Lugalbanda, its record of Meskingasher s reign possibly refers to
one of the lost legends of Erech. Like him Melchizedek, who
comes to us in a chapter of Genesis reflecting the troubled times
of Babylon s First Dynasty, 1 was priest as well as king. 2 Tradition
appears to have credited Meskingasher s son and successor,
Enmerkar, with the building of Erech as a city around the first
settlement Eanna, which had already given its name to the
kingdom . If so, Sumerian tradition confirms the assumption
of modern research that the great cities of Babylonia arose around
the still more ancient cult-centres of the land. We shall have
occasion to revert to the traditions here recorded concerning the
parentage of Meskingasher, the founder of this line of kings, and
that of its most famous member, Gilgamesh. Meanwhile we
may note that the closing rulers of the Kingdom of Eanna are
wanting. When the text is again preserved, we read of the
hegemony passing from Erech to Ur and thence to Awan :
The k[ingdom of Erech 3 passed to] Ur.
In Ur Mesannipada became king and ruled for eighty years.
Meskiagnunna, son of Mesannipada, ruled for thirty years.
Elu[. . .] ruled for twenty-five years.
Balu[. . 7] ruled for thirty-six years.
Four kings (thus) ruled for a hundred and seventy-one years.
The kingdom of Ur passed to Awan.
In Awan
With the Kingdom of Ur we appear to be approaching a
firmer historical tradition, for the reigns of its rulers are recorded
in decades, not hundreds of years. But we find in the summary,
which concludes the main copy of our Dynastic List, that the
kingdom of Awan, though it consisted of but three rulers, is
credited with a total duration of three hundred and fifty-six
years, implying that we are not yet out of the legendary stratum.
Since Awan is proved by newly published historical inscriptions
1 Cf. Hist, of Bab., p. 159 f. 2 Gen. xiv. 18.
8 The restoration of Erech here, in place of Eanna, is based on the absence
of the latter name in the summary ; after the building of Erech by Enmerkar,
the kingdom was probably reckoned as that of Erech.
THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 37
from Nippur to have been an important city of Elam at the time
of the Dynasty of Akkad, 1 we gather that the * Kingdom of
Awan represented in Sumerian tradition the first occasion on
which the country passed for a time under Elamite rule. At
this point a great gap occurs in the text, and when the detailed
dynastic succession in Babylonia is again assured, we have passed
definitely from the realm of myth and legend into that of
history. 2
What new light, then, do these old Sumerian records throw
on Hebrew traditions concerning the early ages of mankind?
I think it will be admitted that there i s something strangely
familiar about some of those Sumerian extracts I read just now.
We seem to hear in them the faint echo of another narrative,
like them but not quite the same.
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
thirty years : and he died.
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat
Enosh : and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred
and seven years, and begat sons and daughters : and all
the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years :
and he died.
. . . and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five
years : and he died.
., . . and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten
years : and he died.
... and all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety
and five years: and he died.
. . . and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and
two years : and he died.
, . . and all the daj 7 s of Enoch were three hundred sixty and
five, years : and Enoch walked with God : and he was not ;
for God took him.
. . . and all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty
and nine years : and he died.
. . . and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy
and seven years : and he died.
And Noah was five hundred years old : and Noah begat Shem,
Ham, and Japheth.
Throughout these extracts from the book of the genera
tions of Adam , :{ Galumum s nine hundred years 4 seem to run
1 Poebel, /to*. /scr., p. 128. 2 See further, Appendix II, p. 146.
3 Gen. v. 1 ff. (P).
4 The same length of reign is credited to Melamkish and to one and perhaps
two other rulers of that first Sumerian kingdom .
38 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
almost like a refrain ; and Methuselah s great age, the recognized
symbol for longevity, is even exceeded by two of the Sumerian.
patriarchs. The names in the two lists are not the same, 1 but in
both we are moving in the same atmosphere and along similar
lines of thought. Though each list adheres to its own set
formulae, it estimates the length of human life in the early ages
of the world on much the same gigantic scale as the other. Our
Sumerian records are not quite so formal in their structure as the
Hebrew narrative, but the short notes which here and there
relieve their stiff monotony may be paralleled in the Cainite
genealogy of the preceding chapter in Genesis. 2 There Cain s
city-building, for example, may pair with that of Enmerkar ;
and though our new records may afford no precise equivalents to
Jabal s patronage of nomad life, or to the invention of music and
metal-working ascribed to Jubal and Tubal-cain, these too are
quite in the spirit of Sumerian and Babylonian tradition, in their
attempt to picture the beginnings of civilization. Thus Enme-
duranki, the prototype of the seventh Antediluvian patriarch of
Berossus, 3 was traditionally revered as the first exponent of
divination. 4 It is in the chronological and general setting,
1 The possibility of the Babylonian origin of some of the Hebrew names in
this genealogy and its Cainite parallel has long been canvassed ; and consider
able ingenuity has been expended in obtaining equations between the Hebrew
names and those of the Antediluvian kings of Berossus by tracing a common
meaning for each suggested pair. It is unfortunate that our new identification of
Apfj.va>v with the Sumerian Enmenunna should dispose of one of the best parallels
obtained, viz. A/upe i/ow = Bab. ummdnu, workman || Cain (f^>), Kenan (f^Pi?)
= smith . Another satisfactory pair suggested is A/^Xcov = Bab. amelu,
1 man [| Enosh (BH3K) = * man ; but the resemblance of the former to amelu
may prove to be fortuitous, in view of the possibility of descent from a quite
different Sumerian original (see above, p. 33). The alternative may perhaps
have to be faced that the Hebrew parallels to Sumerian and Babylonian
traditions are here confined to chronological structure and general contents, and
do not extend to Hebrew renderings of Babylonian names. It may be added
that such correspondence in meaning between personal names in different
languages is not very significant by itself. The name of Zugagib of Kish (see
above, p. 28 f., n. 2), for example, is paralleled by the title borne by one of the
earliest kings of the 1st Dynasty of Egypt, Narmer, whose carved slate palettes
have been found at Hierakonpolis ; he too was known as the Scorpion .
2 Gen. iv. 17ff. (J).
3 See above, p. 33.
4 See below, p. 61. It may be noted that an account of the origin of divina
tion is included in his description of the descendants of Noah by the writer of
the Biblical Antiquities of Philo, a product o\ the same school as the Fourth
Book of Esdras and the Apocalypse of BarucX; see James, The Biblical Anti
quities of Philo, p. 86.
TEADITIONAL ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION 39
rather than in the Hebrew names and details, that an echo seems
here to reach us from Sumer through Babylon.
I may add that a parallel is provided by the new Sumerian
records to the circumstances preceding the birth of the Nephilim
at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Genesis. 1 For in them
also great prowess or distinction is ascribed to the progeny of
human and divine unions. We have already noted that, according
to the traditions the records embody, the Sumerians looked back
to a time when gods lived upon the earth with men, and we have
seen such deities as Tammuz and Lugalbanda figuring as rulers
of cities in the dynastic sequence. As in later periods, their
names are there preceded by the determinative for divinity.
But more significant still is the fact that we read of two
Sumerian heroes, also rulers of cities, who were divine on the
father s or mother s side but not on both. Meskingasher is
entered in the list as son of the Sun-god , 2 and no divine parentage
is recorded on the mother s side. On the other hand, the human
father of Gilgamesh is described as the high priest of Kullab,
and we know from other sources that his mother was the goddess
Ninsun. 3 That this is not a fanciful interpretation is proved by
a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic itself, 4 in which its hero is
described as two-thirds god and one- third man. We again find
ourselves back in the same stratum of tradition with which the
Hebrew narratives have made us so familiar.
What light then does our new material throw upon tradi
tional origins of civilization ? We have seen that in Egypt a new
fragment of the Palermo Stele has confirmed in a remarkable
way the tradition of the predynastic period which was incor
porated in his history by Manetho. It has long been recognized
that in Babylonia the sources of Berossus must have been refracted
by the political atmosphere of that country during the preceding
1 Gen. vi. 1-4 (J).
- The phrase recalls the familiar Egyptian royal designation son of the
Sun , and it is possible that we may connect with this same idea the Palermo
Stele s inclusion of the mother s and omission of the father s name in its record
of the early dynastic Pharaohs. This suggestion does not of course exclude the
possibility of the prevalence of matrilineal (and perhaps originally also of
matrilocal and matripotestal) conditions among the earliest inhabitants of
Egypt. Indeed the early existence of some form of mother-right may have
originated, and would certainly have encouraged, the growth of a tradition of
solar parentage for the head of the state.
3 Poebel, Hist. Inscr., p. 124 f. ; and see above, p. 35, n. 5.
4 Tablet I, Col. ii, 1. 1 ; and cf. Tablet IX, Col. ii, 1. 16.
40 EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE
nineteen hundred years. This inference our new material
supports ; but when due allowance has been made for a resulting
disturbance of vision, the Sumerian origin of the remainder of
his evidence is notably confirmed. Two of his ten Antediluvian
kings rejoin their Sumerian prototypes, and we shall see that
two of his three Antediluvian cities find their place among
the five of primitive Sumerian belief. It is clear that in Baby
lonia, as in Egypt, the local traditions of the dawn of history,
current in the Hellenistic period, were modelled on very early lines.
Both countries were the seats of ancient civilizations, and it is
natural that each should stage its picture of beginnings upon its
own soil and embellish it with local colouring.
It is a tribute to the historical accuracy of Hebrew tradition
to recognize that it never represented Palestine as the cradle of
the human race. It looked to the East rather than to the South
for evidence of man s earliest history and first progress in the
arts of life. And it is in the East, in the soil of Babylonia, that
we may legitimately seek material in which to verify the sources
of that traditional belief.
The new parallels I have to-day attempted to trace between
some of the Hebrew traditions, preserved in Gen. iv-vi, and
those of the early Sumerians, as presented by their great Dynastic
List, are essentially general in character and do not apply to
details of narrative or to proper names. If they stood alone, we
should still have to consider whether they are such as to suggest
cultural influence or independent origin. But fortunately they
do not exhaust the evidence we have lately recovered from the
site of Nippur, and we will postpone formulating our conclusions
with regard to them until the whole field has been surveyed.
From the biblical standpoint by far the most valuable of our new
documents is one that incorporates a Sumerian version of the
Deluge story. "We shall see that it presents a variant and more
primitive picture of that great catastrophe than those of the
Babylonian and Hebrew versions. And what is of even greater
interest, it connects the narrative of the Flood with that of
Creation, and supplies a brief but intermediate account of the
Antediluvian period. How then are we to explain this striking
literary resemblance to the structure of the narrative in Genesis,
a resemblance that is completely wanting in the Babylonian
versions ? But that is a problem we must reserve for the next
lecture.
LECTUEE II
DELUGE STORIES AND THE NEW
SUMERIAN VERSION
IN the first lecture we saw how, both in Babylonia and Egypt,
recent discoveries had thrown light upon periods regarded as
prehistoric, and how we had lately recovered traditions concern
ing very early rulers both in the Nile Valley and along the
lower Euphrates. On the strength of the latter discovery we
noted the possibility that future excavation in Babylonia would
lay bare stages of primitive culture similar to those we have
already recovered in Egyptian soil. Meanwhile the documents
from Nippur had shown us what the early Sumerians themselves
believed about their own origin, and we traced in their tradition
the gradual blending of history with legend and myth. We saw
that the new Dynastic List took us back in the legendary
sequence at least to the beginning of the Post-diluvian period.
Now one of the newly published literary texts fills in the gap
beyond, for it gives us a Sumerian account of the history of
the world from the Creation to the Deluge, at about which
point, as we saw, the extant portions of the Dynastic List take
up the story. I propose to devote my lecture to-day to this
early version of the Flood and to the effect of its discovery
upon some current theories.
The Babylonian account of the Deluge, which was discovered
by George Smith in 1872 on tablets from the Eoyal Library at
Nineveh, is, as you know, embedded in a long epic o twehv
Books recounting the adventures of the Old Babylonian hero
Gilgamesh. Towards the end of this composite tale, Gilgamesh,
desiring immortality, crosses the Waters of Death in order to
beg the secret from his ancestor Ut-napishtim, who in the past
had escaped the Deluge and had been granted immortality by
the gods. The Eleventh Tablet, or Book, of the epic contains
the account of the Deluge which Ut-napishtim related to his
kinsman Gilgamesh. The close correspondence of this Baby-
Ionian story with that .contained in Genesis is recognized by
42 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
every one and need not detain us. You will remember that in
some passages the accounts tally even in minute details, such,
for example, as the device of sending out birds to test the abate
ment of the waters. It is true that in the Babylonian version
a dove, a swallow, and a raven are sent forth in that order,
instead of a raven and the dove three times. But such slight
discrepancies only emphasize the general resemblance of the
narratives.
In any comparison it is usually admitted that two accounts
have been combined in the Hebrew narrative. I should like to
point out that this assumption may. be made by any one, what
ever his views may be with regard to the textual problems of
the Hebrew Bible and the traditional authorship of the Penta
teuch. And for our purpose at the moment it is immaterial
whether we identify the compiler of these Hebrew narratives
with Moses himself, or with some later Jewish historian whose I s
name has not come down to us." Whoever he was, he has "
scrupulously preserved his two texts, and, even when they differ,
he has given each as he found it. Thanks to this fact, any one
by a careful examination of the narrative can disentangle the
two versions for himself. He will find each gives a consistent
story. One of them appears to be simpler and more primitive
than the other, and I will refer tp them as the, earlier and the
later Hebrew Versions. 1 The Babylonian text in the Epic of
Gilgamesh contains several peculiarities of each of the Hebrew
versions, though the points of resemblance are more detailed in
the earlier of the two.
Now the tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh inscribed
with the Gilgamesh Epic do not date from an earlier period
than the seventh century B. c. But archaeological evidence has
1 In the combined account in Gen. vi. 5-ix. 17, if the following passages be
marked in the margin or underlined, and then read consecutively, it will be
seen that they give a consistent and almost complete account of the Deluge :
Gen. vi. 9-22; vii. 6, 11, 13-16 (down to as God commanded him ), 17 (to
upon the earth ), 18-21, 24 ; viii. 1, 2 (to were stopped ), 3 (from * and after )
-5, 13 (to from off the earth ), 14-19; and ix. 1-17. The marked passages
represent the later Hebrew Version . If the remaining passages be then read
consecutively, they will be seen to give a different version of the same events,
though not so completely preserved as the other ; these passages substantially
represent the earlier Hebrew Version . In commentaries on the Hebrew text
they are, of course, usually referred to under the convenient symbols J and P,
representing respectively the earlier and the later version. For further details,
see any of the modern commentaries on Genesis, e.g. Driver, Book of Genesis,
pp. 85 ff. ; Skinner, Genesis, pp. 147 ff. ; Ryle, Genesis, p. 96 f.
THE SEMITIC VERSIONS 43
long shown that the traditions themselves were current during
all periods of Babylonian history ; for Gilgamesh and his half-
human friend Enkidu^were favourite subjects for the seal en
graver, whether he lived in Sumerian times or under the
Achaemenian kings of Persia. We have also, for some years
now, possessed two early fragments of the Deluge narrative,
proving that the story was known to the Semitic inhabitants
of the country at the time of Hammurabi s dynast} . 1 Our
newly discovered text from Nippur was also written at about
that period, probably before 2100 B.C. But the composition
itself, apart from the tablet on which it is inscribed, must go
back very much earlier than that. For instead of being com
posed in Semitic Babylonian, the text is in Sumerian, the lan
guage of the earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia, whom
the Semites eventually displaced. This people, it is now recog
nized, were the originators of the Babylonian civilization, and
we saw in the first lecture that, according to their own traditions,
they had occupied that country since the dawn of history.
The Semites as a ruling race came later, though the occurrence
of Semitic names in the Sumerian Dynastic List suggests very
early infiltration from Arabia. 2 After a long struggle the
immigrants succeeded in dominating the settled race ; and in
the process they in turn became civilized. They learnt and
adopted the cuneiform writing, they took over the Sumerian
literature. Towards the close of the third millennium, when
our tablet was written, the Sumerians as a race had almost
ceased to exist. They had been absorbed in the Semitic popula
tion and their language was no longer the general language of
the country. But their ancient literature and sacred texts were
1 The earlier of the two fragments is dated in the eleventh year of Aramiza-
duga, the tenth king of Hammurabi s dynasty, i.e. in 1967 B.C. ; it was pub
lished by Scheil, Recueil de travaux, Vol. XX, pp. 55 ff. Here the Deluge story
does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, but is recounted in the second
tablet of a different work ; its hero also bears the name Atrakhasis, as in
the variant version of the Deluge from the Nineveh library. The other and
smaller fragment, which must be dated by its script, was published by Hil-
precht (Babylonian Expedition, series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1, pp. 33 ff.), who assigned
it to about the same period ; but it is probably of a considerably later date.
The most convenient translations of the legends that were known before the
publication of the Nippur texts are those given by Rogers, Cuneiform
Parallels to the Old Testament (Oxford, 1912), and Dhorme, Choix de textes
religieux Assyro-Babyloniens (Paris, 1907).
2 See above, p. 28 f., n. 2.
44 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
carefully preserved and continued to be studied by the Semitic
priests and scribes. So the fact that the tablet is written in the
old Sumerian tongue proves that the story it tells had come
down from a very much earlier period. This inference is not
affected by certain small differences in idiom which its lan
guage presents when compared with that of Sumerian building-
inscriptions. 1 Such would naturally occur in the course of
transmission, especially in a text which, as we shall see, had
been employed for a practical purpose after being subjected to
a process of redaction to suit it to its new setting.
When we turn to the text itself, it will be obvious that the
story also is very primitive. But before doing so we will
inquire whether this very early version is likely to cast any
light on the origin of Deluge stories such as are often met
with in other parts of the world. Our inquiry will have an
interest apart from the question itself, as it will illustrate the
views of two divergent schools among students of primitive
religious literature and tradition. According to one of these
views, in its most extreme form, the tales which early or
primitive man tells about his gods and the origin of the world
he sees around him. are never to be regarded as simple stories,
but are to be consistently interpreted as symbolizing natural
phenomena. It is, of course, quite certain that, both in Egypt
and Babylonia, mythology in the later periods received a strong
astrological colouring ; and it is equally clear that some legends
deriv^ their origin from nature myths. But the theory in the
hands of its more enthusiastic adherents goes farther than that.
For them a complete absence of astrological colouring is no
deterrent from an astrological interpretation ; and, where such
colouring does occur, the possibility of later embellishment is
discounted, and it is treated without further proof as the base
on which the original story rests. One such interpretation of
the Deluge narrative in Babylonia, particularly favoured by
recent German writers, would regard it as reflecting the passage
of the Sun through a portion of the ecliptic. It is assumed that
the primitive Babylonians were aware that in the course of
ages the spring equinox must traverse the southern or watery
region of the zodiac. This, on their system, signified a sub
mergence of the whole universe in water, and the Deluge myth
would symbolize the safe passage of the vernal Sun-god through
that part of the ecliptic. But we need not spend time over that
1 See further, p. 49.
ASTROLOGICAL THEORIES 45
view, as its underlying conception is undoubtedly quite a late
development of Babylonian astrology.
More attractive is the simpler astrological theory that the
voyage of any Deluge hero in his boat or ark represents the
daily journey of the Sun-god across the heavenly ogean, a con
ception which is so often represented in Egyptian sculpture and
painting. It used to be assumed by holders of the theory that
this idea of the Sun as the god in the boat was common among
primitive races, and that that would account for the widespread
occurrence of Deluge-stories among scattered races of the world.
But this view has recently undergone some modification in
accordance with the general trend of other lines of research.
In recent years there has been an increased readiness among
archaeologists to recognize evidence of contact between the
great civilizations of antiquity. This has been particularly the
case in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean ; but the possibility
has also been mooted of the early use of land-routes running
from the Near East to Central and Southern Asia. The dis
covery in Chinese Turkestan, to the east of the Caspian, of
a prehistoric culture resembling that of Elam has now been
followed by the finding of similar remains by Sir Aurel Stein
in the course of the journey from which he has lately returned. 1
They were discovered in an old basin of the Helmand River in
Persian Seistan, where they had been laid bare by wind-erosion.
But more interesting still, and an incentive to further explora
tion in that region, is another of his discoveries last year, also
made near the Afghan border. At two sites in the Helmand
Delta, well above the level of inundation, he came across frag
ments of pottery inscribed in early Aramaic characters, 2 though,
for obvious reasons, he has left them with all his other collections
in India. This unexpected find, by the way, suggests for our
problem possibilities of wide transmission in comparatively early
times.
The synthetic tendency among archaeologists has been reflected
in anthropological research, which has begun to question the
separate and independent origin, not only of the more useful arts
and crafts, but also of many primitive customs and beliefs. It is
suggested that too much stress has been laid on environment ;
and, though it is readily admitted that similar needs and
1 See his Expedition in Central Asia , in The Geographical Journal, Vol.
XLVII (Jan.-June, 1916), pp. 358ft .
2 Op. cit., p. 363.
46 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
experiences may in some cases have given rise to similar expedients
and explanations, it is urged that man is an imitative animal and
that inventive genius is far from common. 1 Consequently the
wide dispersion of many beliefs and practices, which used
generally to be explained as due to the similar and independent
working of the human mind under like conditions, is now often
provisionally registered as evidence of migratory movement or
of cultural drift. Much good work has recently been done in
tabulating the occurrence of many customs and beliefs, in order
to ascertain their lines of distribution. Workers are as yet in
the collecting stage, and it is hardly necessary to say that
explanatory theories are still to be regarded as purely tentative
and provisional. At the meetings of the British Association
during the last few years, the most breezy discussions in the
Anthropological Section have undoubtedly centred around this
subject. There are several workers in the field, but the most
comprehensive theory as yet put forward is one that concerns us,
as it has given a new lease of life to the old solar interpretation
of the Deluge story.
In a land such as Egypt, where there is little rain and the sky
is always clear, the sun in its splendour tended from the earliest
period to dominate the national consciousness. As intercourse
increased along the Nile Valley, centres of Sun-worship ceased to
be merely local, and the political rise of a city determined the
fortunes of its cult. From the proto-dynastic period onward, the
King of the two Lands had borne the title of Horus as the
lineal descendant of the great Sun-god of Edfu, and the rise of
Ea in the Vth Dynasty, through the priesthood of Heliopolis,
was confirmed in the solar theology of the Middle Kingdom.
Thus it was that other deities assumed a solar character as forms
of Ea. Amen, the local god of Thebes, becomes Amen-Ea with
the political rise of his city, and even the old Crocodile-god,
Sebek, soars into the sky as Sebek-Ea. The only other move
ment in the religion of ancient Egypt, comparable in importance
to this solar development, was the popular cult of Osiris as God of
the Dead, and with it the official religion had to come to terms.
Horus is reborn as the posthumous son of Osiris, and Ea gladdens
his abode during his nightly journey through the Underworld.
1 See, e.g., Maretfc, Anthropology (2nd ed., 1914), Chap, iv, Environment,
pp. 122 ff. ; and for earlier tendencies, particularly in the sphere of mythological
exegesis, see S. Reinach, Cultes, Mylhes et Religions, t. IV (1912), pp. 1 ff.
EGYPTIAN SOLAR THEOLOGY 47
The theory with which we are concerned suggests that this
dominant trait in Egyptian religion passed, with other elements
of culture, beyond the bounds of the Nile Valley and influenced
the practice and beliefs of distant races.
This suggestion has been gradually elaborated by its author,
Professor Elliot Smith, who has devoted much attention to the
anatomical study of Egyptian mummification. Beginning with
a scrutiny of megalithic building and sun-worship, 1 he has subse
quently deduced, from evidence of common distribution, the
existence of a culture-complex, including in addition to these two
elements the varied practices of tattooing, circumcision, ear-
piercing, that quaint custom known as couvade, head-deformation,
and the prevalence of serpent-cults, myths of petrifaction and
the Deluge, and finally of mummification. The last ingredient
was added after an examination of Papuan mummies had dis
closed their apparent resemblance in points of detail to Egyptian
mummies of the XXIst Dynasty. As a result he assumes the
existence of an early cultural movement, for which the descriptive
title heliolithic has been coined. 2 Starting with Egypt as its
centre, one of the principal lines of its advance is said to have
lain through Syria and Mesopotamia and thence along the coast-
lands of Asia to the Far East. The method of distribution and
the suggested part played by the Phoenicians have been already
criticized sufficiently. But in a modified form the theory has
found considerable support, especially among ethnologists inter
ested in Indonesia. I do not propose to examine in detail the
evidence for or against it. It will suffice to note that the Deluge
story and its alleged Egyptian origin in solar worship form one
of the prominent strands in its composition.
One weakness of this particular strand is that the Egyptians
themselves possessed no tradition of a Deluge. Indeed the annual
inundation of the Nile is not such as would give rise to a legend
of world-destruction ; and in this respect it presents a striking
contrast to the Tigris and Euphrates. 3 The ancient Egyptian s
conception of his own gentle river is reflected in the form he
gave the Nile-god, for Hapi is represented as no fierce warrior
or monster. He is given a woman s breasts as a sign of his
1 Cf. Elliot Smith, The Ancient Egyptians, 1911.
2 See in particular his monograph On the significance of the Geographical
Distribution of the Practice of Mummification in the Memoirs of the Manchester
Literary aitd Philosophical Society, 1915.
3 See below, pp. 95 ff.
48 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
fecundity. The nearest Egyptian parallel to the Deluge story
is the Legend of the Destruction of Mankind , which is en
graved on the walls of a chamber in the tomb of Seti I. 1 The
late Sir Gaston Maspero indeed called it a dry deluge myth ,
but his paradox was intended to emphasize the difference as much
as the parallelism presented. It is true that in the Egyptian
myth the Sun-god causes mankind to be slain because of their
impiety, and he eventually pardons the survivors. The narra
tive thus betrays undoubted parallelism to the Babylonian and
Hebrew stories, so far as concerns the attempted annihilation of
mankind by the offended god, but there the resemblance ends.
For water has no part in man s destruction, and the essential
element of a Deluge story is thus absent. 2 Our new Sumerian
1 It was first published by Monsieur Naville, Trans. Soc. Bibl.Arch., IV (1874),
pp. 1 if. The myth may be most conveniently studied in Dr. Budge s edition in
Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, Legends of the Gods (1912), pp. 14 ff., where the
hieroglyphic text and translation are printed on opposite pages; cf. the
summary, op. cit., pp. xxiiiff., where the principal literature is also cited. See
also his Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. I, chap, xii, pp. 388 ff.
2 The undoubted points of resemblance, as well as the equally striking points
of divergence, presented by the Egyptian myth when compared with the
Babylonian and Hebrew stories of a Deluge may be briefly indicated. The
impiety of men in complaining of the age of Ra finds a parallel in the wicked
ness of man upon the earth (J) and the corruption of all flesh (P) of the Hebrew
Versions (see above, p. 42, n. 1). The summoning by Ra of the great Helio-
politan cosmic gods in council, including his personified Eye, the primaeval
pair Shu and Tefnut, Keb the god of the earth and his consort Nut the sky-
goddess, and Nu the primaeval water-god and originally Nut s male counterpart,
is paralleled by the pufyur ildni, or assembly of the gods *, in the Babylonian
Version (see Gilg. Epic, XI. 1. 120 f., and cf. 11. 10 ff.); and they meet in the
Great House , or Sun-temple at Heliopolis, as the Babylonian gods deliberate
in Shuruppak. Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hebrew narratives all agree in the
divine determination to destroy mankind and in man s ultimate survival. But
the close of the Egyptian story diverges into another sphere. The slaughter of
men by the Eye of Ra in the form of the goddess Hathor, who during the night
wades in their blood, is suggestive of Africa ; and so too is her drinking of men s
blood mixed with the narcotic mandrake and with seven thousand vessels of beer,
with the result that through drunkenness she ceased from slaughter. The latter
part of the narrative is directly connected with the cult-ritual and beer-drinking
at the Festivals of Hathor and Ra ; but the destruction of men by slaughter in
place of drowning appears to belong to the original myth. Indeed, the only
suggestion of a Deluge story is supplied by the presence of Nu, the primaeval
water-god, at Ra s council, and that is explicable on other grounds. In any
case the points of resemblance presented by the earlier part of the Egyptian
myth to Semitic Deluge stories are general, not detailed ; and though they
may possibly be due to reflection from Asia, they are not such as to suggest an
Egyptian origin for Deluge myths.
RA AND THE DESTRUCTION OF MANKIND 49
document, on the other hand, contains what is by far the earliest
example yet recovered of a genuine Deluge tale ; and we may
thus use it incidentally to test this theory of Egyptian influence,
and also to ascertain whether it furnishes any positive evidence
on the origin of Deluge stories in general.
The tablet on which our new version of the Deluge is inscribed
was excavated at Nippur during the third Babylonian expedition
sent out by the University of Pennsylvania ; but it was not until
the summer of 1912 that its contents were identified, when the
several fragments of which it is composed were assembled and
put together. It is a large document, containing six columns of
writing, three on each side ; but unfortunately only the lower
half has been recovered, so that considerable gaps occur in the
text. 1 The sharp edges of the broken surface, however, suggest
that it was damaged after removal from the soil, and the
possibility remains that some of the missing fragments may yet
be recovered either at Pennsylvania or in the Museum at Con
stantinople. As it is not dated, its age must be determined
mainly by the character of its script. A close examination of
the writing suggests that it can hardly have been inscribed as
late as the Kassite Dynasty, since two or three signs exhibit
more archaic forms than occur on any tablets of that period ; 2
and such linguistic corruptions as have been noted in its text
may well be accounted for by the process of decay which must have
already affected the Sumerian language at the time of the later
kings of Nisin. Moreover, the tablet bears a close resemblance
to one of the newly published copies of the Sumerian Dynastic
List from Nippur ; 3 for both are of the same shape and com
posed of the same reddish-brown clay, and both show the same
peculiarities of writing. The two tablets in fact appear to have
been written by the same hand, and as that copy of the Dynastic
List was probably drawn up before the latter half of the First
Dynasty of Babylon, we may assign the same approximate date
for the writing of our text. 4 This of course only fixes a lower
limit for the age of the myth which it enshrines.
That the composition is in the form of a poem may be seen at
1 The breadth of the tablet is 5f in., and it originally measured about 7 in.
in length from top to bottom ; but only about one-third of its inscribed surface
is preserved.
8 Cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, pp. 66 ff.
3 No. 5 ; see above, p. 28, n. 1.
4 See above, p. 43.
K. E
50 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
a glance from the external appearance of the tablet, the division
of many of the lines and the blank spaces frequently left between
the sign-groups being due to the rhythmical character of the
text. The style of the poetry may be simple and abrupt, but
it exhibits a familiar feature of both Semitic-Babylonian and
Hebrew poetry, in its constant employment of partial repetition
or paraphrase in parallel lines. The story it tells is very
primitive and in many respects unlike the Babylonian Versions of
the Deluge which we already possess. Perhaps its most striking
peculiarity is the setting of the story, which opens with a record
of the creation of man and animals, goes on to tell how the first
cities were built, and ends with a version of the Deluge, which is
thus recounted in its relation to the Sumerian history of the
world. This literary connexion between the Creation and Deluge
narratives is of unusual interest, in view of the age of our text.
In the Babylonian Versions hitherto known they are included
in separate epics with quite different contexts. Here they are
recounted together in a single document, much as they probably
were in the history of Berossus and as we find them in the
[/ present form of the Book of Genesis. This fact will open up
some interesting problems when we attempt to trace the literary
descent of the tradition.
But one important point about the text should be emphasized
at once, since it will affect our understanding of some very
obscure passages, of which no satisfactory explanation has yet
been given. The assumption has hitherto been made that the
text is an epic pure and simple. It is quite true that the greater
part of it is a myth, recounted as a narrative in poetical form.
But there appear to me to be clear indications that the myth
was really embedded in an incantation. If this was so, the
mythological portion was recited for a magical purpose, with the
object of invoking the aid of the chief deities whose actions in
the past are there described, and of increasing by that means
the potency of the spell. 1 In the third lecture I propose to treat
in more detail the employment and significance of myth in
magic, and we shall have occasion to refer to other instances,
Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian, in which a myth has
reached us in a magical setting.
In the present case the inference of magical use is drawn from
1 It will be seen that the subject-matter of any myth treated in this way has
a close connexion with the object for which the incantation was performed ;
see further, p. 126 f.
MYTH IN MAGICAL EMPLOYMENT 51
certain passages in the text itself, which appear to be explicable
only on that hypothesis. In magical compositions of the later
period intended for recitation, the sign for Incantation is
usually prefixed. Unfortunately the beginning of our text is
wanting ; but its opening words were given in the colophoD, or
title, which is engraved on the left-hand edge of the tablet, and
it is possible that the traces of the first sign there are to be read
as EN. * Incantation . l Should a re-examination of the tablet
establish this reading of the word, we should have definite proof
of the suggested magical setting of the narrative. But even if
we assume its absence, that would not invalidate the arguments
that can be adduced in favour of recognizing the existence of a
magical element, for they are based on internal evidence and
enable us to explain certain features which are inexplicable on
Dr. Poebel s hypothesis. Moreover, we shall later on examine
another of the newly published Sumerian compositions from
Nippur, which is not only semi-epical in character, but is of
precisely the same shape, script, and period as our text, and is
very probably a tablet of the same series. There also the opening
signs of the text are wanting, but far more of its contents are
preserved and they present unmistakable traces of magical use. 2
Its evidence, as that of a parallel text, may therefore be cited in
support of the present contention. It may be added that in
Sumerian magical compositions of this early period, of which we
have not yet recovered many quite obvious examples, it is
possible that the prefix Incantation was not so invariable as in
the later magical literature, j^
It has already been remanded that only the lower half of our
tablet has been recovered, and that consequently a number of
gaps occur in the text. On the obverse the upper portion of each
of the first three columns is missing, while of the remaining
three columns, which are inscribed upon the reverse, the upper
portions only are preserved. This difference in the relative
positions of the textual fragments recovered is due to the fact
^ Cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 63, and Hist, and Gram. Texts, pi. i. In the
photographic reproduction of the edges of the tablet given in the latter volume,
pi. Ixxxix, the traces of the sign suggest the reading EN (= Sera. Mjttfu,
incantation ). But the sign may very possibly be read AN. In the latter
case we may read, in the traces of the two sign-groups at the beginning of the
text, the names of both Anu and Enlil, who appear so frequently as the two
presiding deities in the myth ; see further, p. 53.
3 See below, p. 125 f.
52 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
that Sumerian scribes, like their later Babylonian and Assyrian
imitators, when they had finished writing the obverse of a tablet,
turned it over from bottom to top not, as we should turn a sheet
of paper, from right to left. But in spite of the lacunae, the
sequence of events related in the mythological narrative may be
followed without difficulty, since the main outline of the story
is already familiar enough from the versions of the Semitic-
Babylonian scribes and of Berossus. Some uncertainties naturally
remain as to what exactly was included in the missing portions
of the tablet ; but the more important episodes are fortunately
recounted in the extant fragments, and these suffice for a definition
of the distinctive character of the Sumerian Version. In view of
its literary importance it may be advisable to attempt a somewhat
detailed discussion of its contents, column by column ; l and the
analysis may be most conveniently divided into numbered
sections, each of which refers to one of the six columns of the
tablet. The description of the First Column will serve to estab
lish the general character of the text. Throughout the analysis
of the tablet parallels and contrasts will be noted with the
Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. It will then be possible to
summarize, on a surer foundation, the literary history of the
traditions, and finally to estimate the effect of our new evidence
upon current theories as to the origin and wide dispersion of
eluge stories.
The following headings, under which the six numbered sections
may be arranged, indicate the contents of each column and show
at a glance the main features of the Sumerian Versi.o n :
I. Introduction to the Myth, and account of Ol-eation.
II. The Antediluvian Cities.
III. The Council of the -Gods, and Ziusudu s /piety.
IV. The Dream-Warning.
V. The Deluge, the Escape of the Great Boat, and the Sacrifice
to the Sun-god.
VI. The Propitiation of the Angry Gods, and Ziusudu s Immor
tality.
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE MYTH, AND ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The
beginning of the text is wanting, and the earliest lines preserved
of the First Column open with the closing sentences of a speech,
1 In the lecture as delivered the contents of each column were necessarily
summarized rather briefly, and conclusions were given without discussion of the
evidence ; see Preface, p. v.
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUMERJAN TEXT 53
probably by the chief of the four creating deities, who are later
on referred to by name. In it there is a reference to a future
destruction of mankind, but the context is broken ; the lines in
question begin :
As for my human race, from (or in) its destruction will I cause
it to be [. . . .],
For Nintu my creatures [...-] will I . .[. .].
From the reference to my human race it is clear that the
speaker is a creating deity ; and since the expression is exactly
parallel to the term * my people used by Ishtar, or Belit-ili, the
Lady of the gods , in the Babylonian Version of the Deluge story
when she bewails the destruction of mankind, 1 Dr. Poebel assigns
the speech to Ninkharsagga, or Nintu, 2 the goddess who later in
the column is associated with Anu, Enlil, and Enki in man s
creation. But the mention of Nintu in her own speech is hardly
consistent with that supposition, 3 if we assume with Dr. Poebel,
as we are probably justified in doing, that the title Nintu is
employed here and elsewhere in the narrative merely as a synonym
of Ninkharsagga. 4 It appears to me far more probable that one
of the two supreme gods, Anu or Enlil, is the speaker, 6 and addi
tional grounds will be cited later in support of this view. It is
indeed possible, in spite of the verbs and suffixes in the singular,
that the speech is to be assigned to both Anu and Enlil, for in
the last column, as we shall see, we find verbs in the singular
following references to both these deities. 6 In any case one of
the two chief gods may be regarded as speaking and acting on
1 See below, p. 63 f.
2 Op. cit., p. 21 f. ; and cf. Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions, p. 336.
3 It necessitates the taking of (dingir) Nin-tu-ra as a genitive, not a dative,
and the very awkward rendering my, Nintu s, creations .
4 Another of the recently published Sumerian mythological compositions
from Nippur (see above, p. 51) includes a number of myths in which Enki is
associated first with Ninella, referred to also as Nintu, the Goddess of Birth ,
then with Ninshar, referred to also as Ninkurra, and finally with Ninkhar
sagga (see further, p. 125 f.). This text exhibits the process by which separate
traditions with regard to goddesses originally distinct were combined together,
with the result that their heroines were subsequently often identified with one
another. There the myths have not been subjected to a very severe process of
editing, and in consequence the welding is not so complete as in the Sumerian
Version of the Deluge.
6 If Enlil s name should prove to be the first word of the composition (see
above, p. 51, n. 1), we should naturally regard him as the speaker here and as
the protagonist of the gods throughout the text, a role he also plays in the
Semitic-Babylonian Version.
See below, p. 86.
54 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
behalf of both, though it may be that the inclusion of the second
name in the narrative was not original but simply due to a com
bination of variant traditions. Such a connate use of Anu-Enlil
would present a striking parallel to the Hebrew combination
Yahweh-Elohim, though of course in the case of the former pair
the subsequent stage of identification was never attained. But
the evidence furnished by the text is not conclusive, and it is
preferable here and elsewhere in the narrative to regard either
Anu or Enlil as speaking and acting both on his own behalf and
as the other s representative.
This reference to the Deluge, which occurs so early in the text,
suggests the probability that the account of the Creation and of
the founding of Antediluvian cities, included in the first two
columns, is to be taken merely as summarizing the events that
led up to the Deluge. And an almost certain proof of this may
be seen in the opening words of the composition, which are pre
served in its colophon or title on the left-hand edge of the tablet.
We have already noted that the first two words are there to be
read, either as the prefix f Incantation followed by the name
Enlil , or as the two divine names Anu (and) Enlil . l Now
the signs which follow the traces of Enlil s name are quite
certain ; they represent Ziusudu , which, as we shall see in the
Third Column, is the name of the Deluge hero in our Sumerian
Version. He is thus mentioned in the opening words of the text,
in some relation to one or both of the two chief gods of the sub
sequent narrative. But the natural place for his first introduction
into the story is in the Third Column, where it is related that at
that time Ziusudu, the king did so-and-so. The prominence
given him at the beginning of the text, at nearly a column s
interval before the lines which record the creation of man, is
sufficient proof that the Deluge story is the writer s main interest,
and that preceding episodes are merely introductory to it.
What subject then may we conjecture was treated in the
missing lines of this column, which precede the account of Crea
tion and close with the speech of the chief creating deity ? Now
the Deluge narrative practically ends with the last lines of the
tablet that are preserved, and the lower half of the Sixth Column
is entirely wanting. We shall see reason to believe that the
missing end of the tablet was not left blank and uninscribed, but
contained an incantation, the magical efficacy of which was
ensured by the preceding recitation of the Deluge myth. If that
1 See above, p. 51, n. 1.
REASON FOR MAN S CREATION 55
were so, it would be natural enough that the text should open
with its main subject. The cause of the catastrophe and the
reason for man s rescue from it might well be referred to by one
of the creating deities in virtue of the analogy these aspects of
the myth would present to the circumstances for which the in
cantation was designed. A brief account of the Creation and of
Antediluvian history would then form a natural transition to the
narrative of the Deluge itself. And even if the text contained
no incantation, the narrative may well have been introduced in
the manner suggested, since this explanation in any case fits in
with what is still preserved of the First Column. For after his
reference to the destruction of mankind, the deity proceeds to fix
the chief duty of man, either as a preliminary to his creation, or
as a reassertion of that duty after his rescue from destruction by
the Flood. It is noteworthy that this duty consists in the
building of temples to the gods in a clean spot , that is to say
in hallowed places . The passage may be given in full, including
the two opening lines already discussed : .
As for my human race, from (or in) its destruction will I cause
it to be [. . . .],
* For Nintu my creatures [. . . .] will I . . [. .].
* The people will I cause to .... in their settlements,
* Cities .... shall (man) build, in their protection will I cause
him to rest,
That he may lay the brick of our houses in a clean spot,
That in a clean spot he may establish our 7 . . . !
In the reason here given for man s creation, or for his rescue
from the Flood, we have an interesting parallel to. the Sixth
Tablet of the Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series. At the open
ing of that tablet Marduk, in response to the word of the gods ,
is urged by his heart to devise a cunning plan which he imparts
to Ea, namely the creation of man from his own divine blood
and from bone which he will fashion. And the reason he gives
for his proposal is precisely that which, as we have seen, prompted
the Sumerian deity to create or preserve the human race. For
Marduk continues :
I will create man who shall inhabit f. . . .1,
That the service of the gods may be established and that
their shrines may be built. l
1 See The Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.
56 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VEESION
We shall see later, 1 from the remainder of Marduk s speech,
that the Semitic Version has been elaborated at this point in
order to reconcile it with other ingredients in its narrative,
which were entirely absent from the simpler Sumerian tradition.
It will suffice here to note that, in both, the reason given for
man s existence is the same, namely, that the gods themselves
may have worshippers. 2 The conception is in full agreement
with early Sumerian thought, and reflects the theocratic con
stitution of the earliest Sumerian communities. The idea was
naturally not repugnant to the Semites, and it need not surprise
us to find the very words of the principal Sumerian Creator put
into the mouth of Marduk, the city-god of Babylon.
The deity s speech perhaps comes to an end with the declara
tion of his purpose in creating mankind or in sanctioning their
survival of the Deluge ; and the following three lines appear
to relate his establishment of the divine laws in accordance with
which his intention was carried out. The passage includes
a refrain, which is repeated in the Second Column :
The sublime decrees he made perfect for it.
It may probably be assumed that the refrain is employed in
relation to the same deity in both passages. In the Second
Column it precedes the foundation of the Babylonian kingdom
and the building of the Antediluvian cities. In that passage
there can be little doubt that the subject of the verb is the chief
Sumerian deity, and we are therefore the more inclined to
assign to him also the opening speech of the First Column,
rather than to regard it as spoken by the Sumerian goddess
whose share in creation would justify her in claiming mankind
as her own. in the last four lines of the column we have a brief
record of the Creation itself. It was carried out by the three
greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil and Enki,
with the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga ; the passage reads :
When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga
Created the blackheaded (i. ermaTlMTnijr^"
The niggil(ma) of the earth they caused the earth to produce (?^
The animals, the four-legged creatures of the field, they
artfully called into existence.
1 Cf. Lecture III, p. 115f.
2 It may be added that this is also the reason given for man s creation in the
introduction to a text which celebrates the founding or rebuilding of a temple ;
see below, p. 110.
I
CBEATION OF MAN AND ANIMALS 57
The interpretation of the third line is obscure, but there is no
doubt that it records the creation of something which is repre
sented as having taken place between the creation of mankind
and that of animals. This object, which is written as nig-gil or
nig-gil-ma, is referred to again in the Sixth Column, where the
Sumerian hero of the Deluge assigns to it the honorific title,
Preserver of the Seed of Mankind . It must therefore have
played an important part in man s preservation from the Flood ;
and the subsequent bestowal of the title may be paralleled in the
early Semitic Deluge fragment from Nippur, where the boat in
which Uta-napishtim escapes is assigned the very similar title
Preserver of Life .* But niggilma is not the word used in the
Sumerian Version of Ziusudu s boat, 2 and I am inclined to suggest
a meaning for it in connexion with the magical element in the
text, of the existence of which there is other evidence. On that
assumption, the prominence given to its creation may be paral
leled in the introduction to a later magical text, which described,
probably in connexion with an incantation, the creation of two
small creatures, one white and one black, by Nin-igi-azag, The
Lord of Clear Vision , one of the titles borne by Enki or Ea.
The time of their creation is indicated as after that of cattle,
beasts of the field and creatures of the city , and the composition
opens in a way which is very like the opening of the present
passage in our text. 3 In neither text is there any idea of giving
a complete account of the creation of the world, only so much
of the original myth being included in each case as suffices for
the writer s purpose. Here we may assume that the creation
of mankind and of animals is recorded because they were to be
saved from the Flood, and that of the niggilma because of the
part it played in ensuring their survival.
The discussion of the meaning of niggilma may best be post
poned till the Sixth Column, where we find other references to
1 See Hilprecht, Babylonian Expedition, Series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1, plate, Rev.,
1. 8 ; the photographic reproduction clearly shows, as Dr. Poebel suggests (Hist.
Texts, p. 61, n. 3), that the line should read : {(im}elippu] Si-i lu (isu)ma-gu> -
gur-ma um-Xa lu na-si-rat na-pi$-tim, That ship shall be a magurgiwu (giant
boat), and its name shall be " Preserver of Life" (lit. "She that preserves life ).
2 See below, p. 79.
3 See Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff. The text opens with the
words * When the gods in their assembly had made [the world], and had created
the heavens, and had formed the earth, and had brought living creatures into
being . . . , the lines forming an introduction to the special act of creation
with which the composition was concerned.
58 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
the word. Meanwhile it may be noted that in the present
passage the creation of man precedes that of animals, as it did
in the earlier Hebrew Version of Creation, and probably also in
the Babylonian Version, though not in the later Hebrew Version.
It may be added that in another Sumerian account of the
Creation l the same order, of man before animals, is followed.
II. THE ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES. As we saw was the case with
the First Column of the text, the earliest part preserved of the
Second Column contains the close of a speech by a deity, in
which he proclaims an act he is about to perform. Here we
may assume with some confidence that the speaker is Anu or
Enlil, preferably the latter, since it would be natural to ascribe
the political constitution of Babylonia, the foundation of which
is foreshadowed, to the head of the Sumerian pantheon. It
would appear that a beginning had already been made in the
establishment of the kingdom , and, before proceeding to his
further work of founding the Antediluvian cities, he follows the
example of the speaker in the First Column of the text and lays
down the divine enactments by which his purpose was accom
plished. The same refrain is repeated :
The sub[lime decrees] he made perfect for it.
The text then relates the founding by the god of five cities,
probably in clean places , that is to say on hallowed ground.
He calls each by its name and assigns it to its own divine patron
or city-god :
[In clean placejs he founded [five] cit[ies].
And after he had called their names and they had been
allotted to divine rulers (?),
The .... of these cities, Eridu, he gave to the leader, Nu-
dimmud,
Secondly, to Nugira (?) he gave Bad- . . . , 2
Thirdly, Larak he gave to Pabilkharsag,
Fourthly, Sippar he gave to the hero, the Sun-god,
Fifthly, Shuruppak he gave to f the God of Shuruppak ,
After he had called the names of these cities, and they had
been allotted to divine rulers (?),
The completion of the sentence, in the last two lines of the
column, cannot be rendered with any certainty, but the passage
1 Cf. Sev. TabL, Vol. I, p. 184 f. ; but the text has been subjected to editing,
and some of its episodes are obviously displaced. See further Lecture III, p. 123.
2 In Semitic-Babylonian the first component of this city-name would read
<Dur\
CREATION OF THE SUMERIAN KINGDOM 59
appears to have related the creation of small rivers and pools.
It will be noted that the lines which contain the names of the
five cities and their t patron gods l form a long explanatory
parenthesis, the preceding line being repeated after their
enumeration.
As the first of the series of five cities is Eridu, the seat of
Nudimmud or Enki, who was the third of the creating deities,
it has been urged that the upper part of the Second Column
must have included an account of the founding of Erech, the
city of Ami, and of Nippur, Enlil s city. 2 But the numbered
sequence of the cities would be difficult to reconcile with the
earlier creation of other cities in the text, and the mention of
Eridu as the first city to be created would be quite in accord
with its great age and peculiarly sacred character as a cult-
centre. Moreover the evidence of the Sumerian Dynastic List
is definitely against any claim of Erech to Antediluvian exis
tence. For when the hegemony passed from the first Post
diluvian * kingdom to the second, it went not to Erech but to
the shrine Eanna, which gave its name to the second * kingdom ;
and the city itself was apparently not founded before the reign
of Enmerkar, the second occupant of the throne, who is the first
to be given the title King of Erech . 3 This conclusion with
regard to Erech incidentally disposes of the arguments for
Nippur s Antediluvian rank in primitive Sumerian tradition,
which have been founded on the order of the cities mentioned
at the beginning of the later Sumerian myth of Creation. 4 The
evidence we thus obtain that the early Sumerians themselves
regarded Eridu as the first city in the world to be created,
increases the hope that future excavation at Abu Shahrain may
reveal Sumerian remains of periods which, from an archaeological
standpoint, must still be regarded as prehistoric.
1 The precise meaning of the sign-group here provisionally rendered divine
ruler is not yet ascertained.
Cf. Poebel, op. tit., p. 41.
8 See above, p. 35. That record, by the way, illustrates the meaning of the
phrase in clean places when applied to the Antediluvian cities. For Erech,
though of Post-diluvian origin, was also founded in a clean spot , namely
around the ancient cult-centre of Eanna.
4 See Lecture III, p. 123 f. The city of Nippur does not occur among the first
four kingdoms of the Sumerian Dynastic List (see above, pp. 34 ff. ) ; but we
may probably assume that it was the seat of at least one early kingdom , in
consequence of which Enlil, its city-god, attained his later pre-eminent rank
in the Sumerian pantheon.
60 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMEEJAN VEESION
It is noteworthy that no human rulers are mentioned in con
nexion with Eridu and the other four Antediluvian cities ; and
Ziusudu, the hero of the story, is apparently the only mortal
whose name occurred in our text. But its author s principal
subject is the Deluge, and the preceding history of the world is
clearly not given in detail, but is merely summarized. In view
of the obviously abbreviated form of the narrative, of which we
have already noted striking evidence in its account of the Crea
tion, 1 we may conclude that in the fuller form of the tradition
the cities were also assigned human rulers, each one the repre
sentative of his city-god. These would correspond to the Ante
diluvian dynasty of Berossus, the last member of which was
Xisuthros, the later counterpart of Ziusudu.
In support of the exclusion of Nippur and Erech from the myth,
it will be noted that the second city in the list is not Adab, 2
which was probably the principal seat of the goddess Ninkhar-
sagga, the fourth of the creating deities. The names of both
deity and city in that line are strange to us. Larak, the third
city in the series, is of greater interest, for it is clearly Larankha,
which according to Berossus was the seat of the eighth and
ninth of his Antediluvian kings. In. commercial documents
of the Persian period, which have been found during the excava
tions at Nippur, Larak is described as lying on the bank of the
Old Tigris , a phrase which must be taken as referring to the
Shatt el-Hai, in view of the situation of Lagash and other early
cities upon it or in its immediate neighbourhood. The site of
the city should perhaps be sought on the upper course of the
stream, where it tends to approach Nippur. It would thus have
lain in the neighbourhood of Bismaya, the site of Adab. Like
Adab, Lagash, Shuruppak, and other early Sumerian cities, it was
probably destroyed and deserted at a very early period, though
it was reoccupied under its old name in Neo-Babylonian or
Persian times. Its early disappearance from Babylonian history
perhaps in part accounts for our own unfamiliarity with Pabil-
kharsag, its city-god, unless we may regard the name as a variant
1 See above, p. 57.
2 The site of Adab, now marked by the mounds of Bismaya, was partially
excavated by an expedition sent out in 1903 by the University of Chicago, and
has provided valuable material for the study of the earliest Sumerian period ;
see Reports of the Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund (Babylonian
Section of the University of Chicago), and Banks, Bismya (1912). On grounds
of antiquity alone we might perhaps have expected its inclusion in the myth.
THE FIVE ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES 61
form of Pabilsag ; but it is hardly likely that the two should be
identified.
In Sippar, the fourth of the Antediluvian cities in our series,
we again have a parallel to Berossus. It has long been recog
nized that Pantibiblon, or Pantibiblia, from which the third,
fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh of his Antediluvian kings all
came, was the city of Sippar in Northern Babylonia. For the
seventh of these rulers, EveSwpaxo?, is clearly Enmeduranki, 1 the
mythical king of Sippar, who in Babylonian tradition was
regarded as the founder of divination. In a fragmentary com
position that has come down to us he is described, not only as
king of Sippar, but as * beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki , the
three creating gods of our text ; and it is there recounted how
the patron deities of divination, Shamash and Adad, themselves
taught him to practise their art. 2 Moreover, Berossus directly
implies the existence of Sippar before the Deluge, for in the
summary of his version has have been preserved Xisuthros,
under divine instruction, buries the sacred writings concerning
the origin of the world in Sispara , the city of the Sun-god, so
that after the Deluge they mignt be dug up and transmitted to
mankind. Ebabbar, the great Sun-temple, was at Sippar, and it
is to the Sun-god that the city is naturally allotted in the new
Sumerian Version.
The last of the five Antediluvian cities in our list is Shurup-
pak, in which dwelt Ut-napishtirn, the hero of the Babylonian
version of the Deluge. Its site has been identified with the
mounds of Fara, in the neighbourhood of the Shatt el-Kar, the
former bed of the Euphrates ; and the excavations that were
conducted there in 1902 have been most productive of remains
dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture. 3 Since
our text is concerned mainly with the Deluge, it is natural to
assume that the foundation of the city from which the Deluge-
hero came would be recorded last, in order to lead up to the
central episode of the text. The city of Ziusudu, the hero of
the Sumerian story, is unfortunately not given in the Third
Column, but, in view of Shuruppak s place in the list of Ante
diluvian cities, it is not improbable that on this point the Sume
rian and Babylonian Versions agreed. In the Gilgamesh Epic
Shuruppak is the only Antediluvian city referred to, while in
1 See above, p. 33.
2 Of. Ziminern, Beitrtige zur Kenntniss der Bab. Kelig., pp. 116 ff.
3 See Hist, of Sum. and Akk., pp. 24 ff.
62 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
the Hebrew accounts no city at all is mentioned in connexion
with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not recorded, but as
his father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that
city as his in the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only
Antediluvian cities according to Berossus were Babylon and
Sippar, and the influence of Babylonian theology, of which we
here have evidence, would be sufficient to account for a dis
turbance of the original traditions. At the same time it is not
excluded that Larak was also the scene of the Deluge in our text,
though, as we have noted, the position of Shuruppak at the close
of the Sumerian list points to it as the more probable of the two.
It may be added that we cannot yet read the name of the deity
to whom Shuruppak was allotted, but as it is expressed by the
city s name preceded by the divine determinative, the rendering
1 the God of Shuruppak will meanwhile serve.
The creation of small rivers and pools, which seems to have
followed the foundation of the five sacred cities, is best explained
on the assumption that they were intended for the supply of
water to the cities and to the temples of their five patron gods,
The creation of the Euphrates and the Tigris, if recorded in our
text at all, or in its logical order, must have occurred in the
upper portion of the column. The fact that in the later Sumerian
account their creation is related between that of mankind and
the building of Nippur and Erech cannot be cited in support of
this suggestion, in view of the absence of those cities from our
text and of the process of editing to which the later version has
been subjected, with a consequent disarrangement of its episodes.
III. THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS, AND ZIUSUDU S PIETY. From
the lower part of the Third Column, where its text is first pre
served, it is clear that the gods had already decided to send
a Deluge, for the goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga, here referred
to also as * the holy Innanna , wails aloud for the intended
destruction of { her people . That this decision had been decreed
by the gods in council is clear from a passage in the Fourth
Column, where it is stated that the sending of a flood to
destroy mankind was the word of the assembly [of the gods] V
The first lines preserved in the present column describe the
effect of the decision on the various gods concerned and their
action at the close of the council.
In the lines which described the Council of the Gods, broken
1 See below, p. 70.
THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS 63
references to the people and a flood l are preserved, after
which the text continues :
At that time Nintu [ ] like a [ ],
The holy Innanna lamentfed] on account of her people.
Enki in his own heart [held] counsel ;
Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga [. . . .].
The gods of heaven and earth in[voked] the name of Anu and
Enlil.
It is unfortunate that the ends of all the lines in this column
are wanting, but enough remains to show a close correspondence
of the first two lines quoted with a passage in the Gilgamesh
Epic where Ishtar is described as lamenting the destruction of
mankind. 2 This will be seen more clearly by printing the two
couplets in parallel columns :
SUMERIAN VERSION. SEMITIC VERSION.
At that time Nintu [....] like Ishtar cried aloud like a
a [...], woman in travail,
The holy Innanna lament[ed] Belit-ili lamented with a loud
on account of her people. voice.
The expression Belit-ili, the Lady of the Gods , is attested as
a title borne both by the Semitic goddess Ishtar and by the
Sumerian goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga. In the passage in
the Babylonian Version, the Lady of the Gods has always been
treated as a synonym of Ishtar, the second half of the couplet
being regarded as a restatement of the first, according to a
recognized law of Babylonian poetry. We may probably assume
that this interpretation is correct, and we may conclude by
analogy that the holy Innanna in the second half of the Sume
rian couplet is there merely employed as a synonym of Nintu. 3
When the Sumerian myth was recast in accordance with Semitic
ideas, the rdle of creatress of mankind, which had been played
by the old Sumerian goddess Ninkharsagga or Nintu, was natu
rally transferred to the Semitic Ishtar. And as Innanna was
one of Ishtar s designations, it was possible to make the change
by a simple transposition of the lines, the name Nintu being
replaced by the synonymous title Belit-ili, which was also shared
by Ishtar. Difficulties are at once introduced if we assume with
Dr. Poebel that in each version two separate goddesses are
1 See below, p. 70, n. 2. * Gilg. Epic, XI, 1. 117f.
8 Cf. also Jastrow, Hfbr. and Bab. Trad., p. 336.
64 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMEKIAN VERSION
represented as lamenting, Nintu or Belit-ili and Innanna or
Ishtar. For Innanna as a separate goddess had no share in the
Sumerian Creation, and the reference to * her people is there
only applicable to Nintu. Dr. Poebel has to assume that the
Sumerian names should be reversed in order to restore them to
their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian Version
has preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary.
In the Semitic Version Ishtar definitely displaces Nintu as the
mother of men, as is proved by a later passage in her speech
where she refers to her own bearing of mankind. 1 The necessity
for the substitution of her name in the later version is thus
obvious, and we have already noted how simply this was effected.
Another feature in which the two versions differ is that in
the Sumerian text the lamentation of the goddess precedes the
sending of the Deluge, while in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occa
sioned by the actual advent of the storm. Since our text is not
completely preserved, it is just possible that the couplet was
repeated at the end of the Fourth Column after mankind s
destruction had taken place. But a further apparent difference
has been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the goddess at
once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from Ishtar s words
in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods she had
at any rate concurred in it. 2 On the other hand, in Belit-ili s
later speech in the Epic, after Ut-napishtim s sacrifice upon the
mountain, she appears to ascribe the decision to Enlil alone. 5
The passages in the Gilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory,
for they can be interpreted as implying that, while Enlil forced
his will upon the other gods against Belit-ili s protest, the goddess
at first reproached herself with her concurrence, and later stig
matized Enlil as the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic
narrative thus does not appear, as has been suggested, to betray
traces of two variant traditions which have been skilfully com
bined, though it may perhaps exhibit an expansion of the Sume
rian story. On the other hand, most of the apparent discrepancies
between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions disappear, on
1 Gilg. Epic, XI, 1. 123.
2 Cf. 1. 121 f., Since I commanded evil in the assembly of the gods, (and)
commanded battle for the destruction of my people \
3 Cf. 11. 165 if., * Ye gods that are here ! So long as I forget not the (jewels of)
lapis lazuli upon my neck, I will keep these days in my memory, never will 1
forget them ! Let the gods come to the offering, but let not Enlil come to the
offering, since he took not counsel but sent the deluge and surrendered my
people to destruction.
LAMENTATION OF THE GODDESSES 65
the recognition that our text gives in many passages only an
epitome of the original Sumerian Version.
The lament of the goddess is followed by a brief account of
the action taken by the other chief figures in the drama. Enki
holds counsel with his own heart, evidently devising the project,
which he afterwards carried into effect, of preserving the seed
of mankind from destruction. Since the verb in the following
line is wanting, we do not know what action is there recorded
of the four creating deities ; but the fact that the gods of heaven
and earth invoked the name of Anu and Enlil suggests that it
was their will which had been forced upon the other gods. We
shall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil are the ulti
mate rulers of both gods and men.
The narrative then introduces the human hero of the Deluge
story :
At that time Ziusudu, the king, .... priest of the god [. . . .],
Made a very great .,..,[....].
In humility he prostrates himself, in reverence [....],
Daily he stands in attendance [. . . .].
A dream, 1 such as had not been before, comes forth 2 []>
By the Name of Heaven and Earth he conjures [. . . .].
The name of the hero, Ziusudu, is the fuller Sumerian equiva
lent of Ut-napishtim (or Uta-napishtim), the abbreviated Semitic
form which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic. For not only are
the first two elements of the Sumerian name identical with those
of the Semitic Ut-napishtim, but the names themselves are
equated in a later Babylonian syllabary or explanatory list of
words. 3 We there find Ut-napishte given as the equivalent of
the Sumerian Zisuda , evidently an abbreviated form of the
name Ziusudu ; 4 and it is significant that the names occur in the
1 The word may also be rendered dreams .
9 For this rendering of the verb e-de, for which Dr. Poebel does not hazard a
translation, see Rawlinson, W. A. L, IV, pi. 26, 1. 24f.(a), nu-e-de = Sem. la
us-su-u (Pres.) ; and cf. Briinnow, Classified List, p. 327. An alternative ren
dering is created is also possible and would give equally good sense ; cf.
nu-e-de = Sem. la $u-pu~u, W. A. /., IV, pi. 2, 1. 5 (a), and Briinnow, op. cit. t
p. 328.
5 Cf. Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., Ft. XVIII, pi. 30, 1. 9 (a).
4 The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebel as Ziugiddu, but
there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern s suggestion, based on the form
Zisuda, that the third syllable of the name should be read as su. On a
fragment of another Nippur text, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the name as
K. F
66 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VEKSION
syllabary between those of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, evidently in
consequence of the association of the Deluge story by the Baby
lonians with their national epic of Gilgamesh. The name
Ziusudu may be rendered He who lengthened the day of life
or He who made life long of days V which in the Semitic form
is abbreviated by the omission of the verb. The reference is
probably to the immortality bestowed upon Ziusudu at the close
of the story, and not to the prolongation of mankind s existence
in which he was instrumental. It is scarcely necessary to add
that the name has no linguistic connexion with the Hebrew
name Noah, to which it also presents no parallel in meaning.
It is an interesting fact that Ziusudu should be described
simply as the king , without any indication of the city or area
he ruled ; and in three of the five other passages in the text in
which his name is mentioned it is followed by the same title
without qualification. In most cases Berossus tells us the cities
from which his Antediluvian rulers came ; and if the end of the
line had been preserved it might have been possible to determine
definitely Ziusudu s city, and incidentally the scene of the Deluge
in the Sumerian Version, by the name of the deity in whose
service he acted as priest. We have already noted some grounds
for believing that his city may have been Shuruppak, as in the
Babylonian Version ; 2 and if that were so, the divine name read
as the God of Shuruppak should probably be restored at the
end of the line. 3
Zi-u-sud-du (cf. Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90,
pi. iv a) ; the presence of the phonetic complement du may be cited in favour
of this reading, but it does not appear to be supported by the photographic
reproductions of the name in the Sumerian Deluge Version given by Dr. Poebel
(Hist, and Gram. Texts, pi. Ixxxviii f.). It may be added that, on either
alternative, the meaning of the name is the same.
1 The meaning of the Sumerian element u in the name, rendered as utu in
the Semitic form, is rather obscure, and Dr. Poebel left it unexplained. It is
very probable, as suggested by Dr. Langdon (cf. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XXXVI,
1914, p. 190), that we should connect it with the Semitic uddu ; in that case, in
place of breath , the rendering he suggests, I should be inclined to render it
here as day , for uddu has the meaning dawn and the sign UD is employed
both for urru-, day-light , and umu, * day .
2 See above, p. 61 f.
3 The remains that are preserved of the determinative, which is not com
bined with the sign EN, proves that Enki s name is not to be restored. Hence
Ziusudu was not priest of Enki, and his city was probably not Eridu, the seat
of his divine friend and counsellor, and the first of the Antediluvian cities.
Sufficient reason for Enki s intervention on Ziusudu s behalf is furnished by the
fact that, as God of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposed method of
A EOYAL AND PRIESTLY DELUGE-HERO 67
The employment of the royal title by itself accords with the
tradition from Berossus that before the Deluge, as in later
periods, the land was governed by a succession of supreme rulers,
and that the hero of the Deluge was the last of them. In the
Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, Ut-napishtim is given no
royal nor any other title. He is merely referred to as a man of
Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu , and he appears in the guise of
an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal power. On
this point Berossus evidently preserves the original Sumerian
tradition, while the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-
Babylonian narrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of
supreme Antediluvian rulers is of course merely a reflection
from the historical period, when the hegemony in Babylonia
was contested among the city-states. The growth of the
tradition may have been encouraged by the early use of lugal,
4 king , which, though always a term of secular character, was
not very sharply distinguished from that of patesi and other
religious titles, until, in accordance with political development,
it was required to connote a wider dominion. In Sumer, at the
time of the composition of our text, Ziusudu was still only one in
a long line of Babylonian rulers, mainly historical but gradually
receding into the realms of legend and myth. At the time of
the later Semites there had been more than one complete break
in the tradition and the historical setting of the old story had
become dim. The fact that Hebrew tradition should range itself
in this matter with Babylon rather than with Sumer is important
as a clue in tracing the literary history of our texts.
The rest of the column may be taken as descriptive of Ziusudu s
activities. One line records his making of some very great object
or the erection of a huge building ; * and since the following lines
are concerned solely with religious activities, the reference is
possibly to a temple or some other structure of a sacred character.
Its foundation may have been recorded as striking evidence of
man s destruction. His rivalry of Knlil, the God of the Earth, is implied in the
Babylonian Version (cf. Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 39-42), and in the Sumerian Version
this would naturally extend to A.nu, the God of Heaven.
1 The element gur-gur, very large or huge , which occurs in the name of
this great object or building, an-sag-gur-gur, is employed later in the term for
the huge boat , (gish}ma-gur-gut\ in which Ziusudu rode out the storm (see
below, p. 79, n. 3). There was, of course, even at this early period a natural
tendency to picture on a superhuman scale the lives and deeds of remote
predecessors, a tendency which increased in later times and led, as we shall see,
to tho elaboration of extravagant detail ; see further, p. 81 f., n. 2.
F 2
68 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
his devotion to his god ; or, since the verb in this sentence
depends on the words at that time in the preceding line, we
ma} r perhaps regard his action as directly connected with the
revelation to be made to him. His personal piety is then
described : daily he occupied himself in his god s service, pro
strating himself in humility and constant in his attendance at the
shrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), such as had not been
before , appears to him, and he seems to be further described as
conjuring by the Name of Heaven and Earth ; but as the ends
of all these lines are broken, the exact connexion of the phrases
is not quite certain.
It is difficult not to associate the reference to a dream, or
possibly to dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki
reveals the purpose of the gods. For the later versions prepare
us for a reference to a dream. 1 If we take the line as describing
Ziusudu s practice of dream-divination in general, such as had
not been before , he may have been represented as the first
diviner of dreams, as Enmeduraiiki was held to be the first
practitioner of divination in general 2 But it seems to me more
probable that the reference is to a particular dream, by means of
which he obtained knowledge of the gods intentions. On the
rendering of this passage depends our interpretation of the whole
of the Fourth Column, where the point will be further discussed.
Meanwhile it may be noted that the conjuring by the Name of
Heaven and Earth , which we may assume is ascribed to Ziusudu,
gains in significance if we may regard the setting of the myth as
a magical incantation, 8 an inference in support of which we shall
note further evidence. For we are furnished at once with the
grounds for its magical employment. If Ziusudu, through con
juring by the Name of Heaven and Earth, could profit by
the warning sent him and so escape the impending fate of
mankind, the application of such a myth to the special needs
of a Suinerian in peril or distress will be obvious. For should
he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and Earth, he might
look for a similar deliverance ; and his recital of the myth
itself would tend to clinch the magical effect of his own
incantation. 4
The description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnishing
us with a close parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew
1 See below, p. 71 f. 3 See above, p. 61.
s See above, p. 50 f. * See further, p. 86 f.
THE PIETY OF ZIUSUDU 69
Versions. For in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus this
feature of the story is completely absent. We are there given
no reason why Ut-napishtim was selected by Ea, nor Xisuthros
by Kronos. For all that those versions tell us, the favour of
each deity might have been conferred arbitrarily, and not in
recognition of, or in response to, any particular quality o*r action
on the part of its recipient. The Sumerian Version now restores
the original setting of the story and incidentally proves that, in
this particular, the Hebrew Versions have not embroidered a
simpler narrative for the purpose of edification, but have
faithfully reproduced an original strand of the tradition.
IV. THE DREAM- WABNING. The top of the Fourth Column of
the text follows immediately on the close of the Third Column,
so that at this one point we have no great gap between the
columns. But unfortunately the ends of all the lines in both
columns are wanting, and the exact context of some of the
phrases preserved and their relation to each other are conse
quently doubtful. This materially affects the interpretation of
the passage as a whole, but the main thread of the narrative
may be readily followed. Ziusudu is here warned that a flood
is to be sent to destroy the seed of mankind ; the doubt
that exists concerns the manner in which the warning is con
veyed. In the first line of the column, after a reference to * the
gods , a building seems to be mentioned, and Ziusudu, standing
beside it, apparently hears a voice, which bids him take his
stand beside a wall and then conveys to him the warning of
the coming flood. The destruction of mankind had been
decreed in the assembly [of the gods] and would be carried out
by the commands of Anu and Enlil. Before the text breaks off
we again have a reference to the kingdom and its rule ,
a further trace of the close association of the Deluge with the
dynastic succession in the early traditions of Sumer. 1
In the opening words of the warning to Ziusudu, with its
prominent repetition of the word wall , we must evidently
trace some connexion with the puzzling words of Ea in the
Gilgamesh Epic, when he begins his warning to Ut-napishtim.
The warnings, as given in the two versions, are printed below
in parallel columns for comparison. 2 The Gilgamesh Epic, after
1 See above, p. 31.
3 Col. IV, 11. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 19-31.
70 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
relating how the great gods in Shuruppak had decided to send
a deluge, continues as follows in the right-hand column :
SUMERIAN VEKSION. SEMITIC VERSION.
For [..].. the gods a .... Nin-igi-azag, 1 the god Ea,
[....]; sat with them,
Ziusudu standing at its side (20) And he repeated their word
heard [....]: to the house of reeds :
At the wall on my left Reed-hut, reed-hut!
side take thy stand Wall, wall!
and [. . . .],
At the wall I will speak reed-hut, hear! Owall,
a word to thee [. . . .]. understand !
(5) my devout one .... Thou man of Shuruppak,
[ ], son of Ubar-Tutu,
By our hand (?) a flood 2 * Pull down thy house,
....[....] will be build a ship,
[sent].
To destroy the seed of (25) Leave thy possessions,
mankind [....] take heed for thy life,
Is the decision, the word Abandon thy property,
of the assembly 3 [of and save thy life,
the gods].
1 Nin-igi-azag, The Lord of Clear Vision , a title borne by Enki, or Ea, as
God of Wisdom; cf. p. 57.
2 The Sumerian term amaru, here used for the flood and rendered as rain
storm by Dr. Poebel, is explained in a later syllabary as the equivalent of the
Semitic-Babylonian word aMbu (cf. Meissner, S.A.I., No. 8909), the term em
ployed for the flood both in the early Semitic version of the Atrakhasis story
dated in Ammizaduga s reign (see above, p. 43, n. 1) and in the Gilgamesh
Epic. The word dbubu is often conventionally rendered deluge , but should
be more accurately translated flood . It is true that the tempests of the Sume
rian Version probably imply rain ; and in the Gilgamesh Epic heavy rain in
the evening begins the flood and is followed at dawn by a thunderstorm and
hurricane. But in itself the term dbubu implies flood, which could take place
through a rise of the rivers unaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annual
rainfall in Babylonia to-day is on an average only about 8 in., and there have
been years in succession when the total rainfall has not exceeded 4 in. ; and
yet the dbubu is not a thing of the past (see below, p. 97 f.).
3 The word here rendered assembly is the Semitic loan-word buhrum, in
Babylonian puhrum, the term employed for the assembly of the gods both
in the Babylonian Creation Series and in the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment
in the Sumerian Version, in place of its Sumerian equivalent ukkin, is an
interesting example of Semitic influence. Its occurrence does not necessarily
imply the existence of a recognized Semitic Version at the period our text
was inscribed. The substitution of buhrum for ukkin in the text may well date
from the period of Hammurabi, when we may assume that the increased im
portance of the city-council was reflected in the general adoption of the Semitic
term (cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 53).
THE DEEAM- WARNING 71
SUMERIAN VERSION. SEMITIC VERSION.
The commands of Anu And bring living seed of
(and) En[lil . . . .] every kind into the
ship.
(10) Its kingdom, its rule As for the ship, which
[....] thou shalt build,
To his [ ] Of which the measure
ments shall be care
fully measured,
[ ] (30) Its breadth and length
shall correspond.
[ ] In the deep shalt thou
immerse it;
In the Semitic Version Ut-napishtim, who tells the story in
the first person, then says that he * understood , and that, after
assuring Ea that he would carry out his commands, he asked
how he was to explain his action to the city, the people, and
the elders ; and the god told him what to say. Then
follows an account of the building of the ship, introduced by
the words As soon as the dawn began to break . In the Sume-
rian Version the close of the warning, in which the ship was
probably referred to, and the lines describing how Ziusudu
carried out the divine instructions are not preserved.
It will be seen that in the passage quoted from the Semitic
Version there is no direct mention of a dream ; the god is
represented at first as addressing his words to a house of reeds
and a wall , and then as speaking to Ut-napishtim himself.
But in a later passage in the Epic, when Ea seeks to excuse his
action to Enlil, he says that the gods decision was revealed to
Atrakhasis through a dream. 1 Dr. Poebel rightly compares the
direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in the passage quoted
above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu receives in the
Sumerian Version. But he would have us divorce the direct
warning from the dream-warning, and he concludes that no
less than three different versions of the story have been worked
together in the Gilgamesh Epic. In the first, corresponding to
that in our text, Ea communicates the gods decision directly
to Ut-napishtim ; in the second he sends a dream from which
Atrakhasis, the Very Wise one , guesses the impending peril;
while in the third he relates the plan to a wall, taking care that
1 Cf. 1. 195 f . : I did not divulge the decision of the great gods. I caused
Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thus he heard the decision of the gods.
72 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
Ut-napishtim overhears him. 1 The version of Berossus, that
Kronos himself appears to Xisuthros in a dream and warns him,
is rejected by Dr. Poebel, who remarks that here the original
significance of the dream has already been obliterated . Conse
quently there seems to him to be * no logical connexion between
the dreams or dream mentioned at the close of the Third Column
and the communication of the plan of the gods at the beginning
of the Fourth Column of our text. 2
So far from Berossus having missed the original significance
of the narrative he relates, I think it can be shown that he
reproduces very accurately the sense of our Sumerian text ; and
that the apparent discrepancies in the Semitic Version, and the
puzzling references to a wall in both it and the Sumerian Ver
sion, are capable of a simple explanation. There appears to me
no justification for splitting the Semitic narrative into the
several versions suggested, since the assumption that the direct
warning and the dream-warning must be distinguished is really
based on a misunderstanding of the character of Sumerian
dreams by which important decisions of the gods in council
were communicated to mankind. "We fortunately possess an
instructive Sumerian parallel to our passage. In it the will of
the gods is revealed in a dream, which is not only described in
full but is furnished with a detailed interpretation;- and as it
seems to clear up our difficulties, it may be well to summarize
its main features.
The occasion of the dream in this case was not a coming
deluge but a great dearth of water in the rivers, in conse
quence of which the crops had suffered and the country was
threatened with famine. This occurred in the reign of Gudea,
patesi of Lagash, who lived some centuries before our Sumerian
document was inscribed. In his own inscription 3 he tells us
that he was at a loss to know by what means he might restore
prosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream ; and
1 Cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 51 f. With the god s apparent subterfuge in the
third of these supposed versions Sir James Frazer (Ancimt Stories of a Great
Flood, p. 15) not inaptly compares the well-known story of King Midas s servant,
who, unable to keep the secret of the king s deformity to himself, whispered it
into a hole in the ground, with the result that the reeds which grew up there by
their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the world (Ovid, Metamorphoses, xi,
174 ff.) ; see further, p. 76, n. 1.
2 Op. cit., p. 51 ; cf. also Jastrow, Heb. and Bab. Trad., p. 346.
3 See Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et d Akkad, Cyl. A, pp. 134 ff.,
Germ, ed., pp. 88 if. ; and cf. King and Hall, Eg. and West. Asia, pp. 196 ff.
INTERPRETATION OF 8UMERIAN DREAMS 73
it was in consequence of the dream that he eventually erected
one of the most sumptuously appointed of Sumerian temples
and thereby restored his land to prosperity. Before recounting
his dream he describes how the gods themselves took counsel.
On the day in which destinies were fixed in heaven and earth,
Enlil, the chief of the gods, and Ningirsu, the city-god of
Lagash, held converse ; and Enlil, turning to Ningirsu, described
the sad condition of Southern Babylonia, and remarked that
1 the decrees of the temple Eninnfi should be made glorious in
heaven and upon earth , or, in other words, that Ningirsu s
city-temple must be rebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not
communicate his orders directly to Gudea, but conveyed the
will of the gods to him by means of a dream.
It will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation
to that in the Deluge story. A conference of the gods has been
held ; a decision has been taken by the greatest god, Enlil; and,
in consequence, another deity is anxious to inform a Sumerian
ruler of that decision. The only difference is that here Enlil
desires the communication to be made, while in the Deluge
story it is made without his knowledge, and obviously against
his wishes. So the fact that Ningirsu does not communicate
directly with the patesi, but conveys his message by means of
a dream, is particularly instructive. For here there can be no
question of any subterfuge in the method employed, since Enlil
was a consenting party.
The story goes on to relate that, while the patesi slept, a vision
of the night came to him, and he beheld a man whose stature
was so great that it equalled the heavens and the earth. By the
diadem he wore upon his head Gudea knew that the figure
must be a god. Beside the god was the divine eagle, the
emblem of Lagash ; his feet rested upon the whirlwind, and
a lion crouched upon his right hand and upon his left. The
figure spoke to the patesi, but he did not understand the meaning
of the words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose from
the earth ; and he beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure
reed, and she carried also a tablet on which was a star of
the heavens, and she seemed to take counsel with herself.
While Gudea was gazing, he seemed to see a second man, who
was like a warrior ; and he carried a slab of lapis lazuli, on
which he drew out the plan of a temple. Before the patesi
himself it seemed that a fair cushion was placed, and upon the
cushion was set a mould, and within the mould was a brick.
74 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
And on the right hand the patesi beheld an ass that lay upon
the ground. Such was the dream of Gudea, and he was troubled
because he could not interpret it. 1
To cut the long story short, Gudea decided to seek the help of
Nina, the child of Eridu , who, as daughter of Enki, the God of
Wisdom, could divine all the mysteries of the gods. But first
of all by sacrifices and libations he secured the mediation of his
own city-god and goddess, Ningirsu and Gatumdug ; and then,
repairing to Nina s temple, he recounted to her the details of his
vision. When the patesi had finished, the goddess addressed
him and said she would explain to him the meaning of his
dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand that she spoke
through the mouth of her chief priest. And this was the inter
pretation of the dream. The man whose stature was so great,
and whose head was that of a god, was the god Ningirsu, and the
words which he uttered were an order to the patesi to rebuild
the temple Eninnu. The Sun which rose from the earth was
the god Ningishzida, for like the Sun he goes forth from the
earth. The maiden who held the pure reed and carried the
tablet with the star was the goddess Nisaba ; the star was the
pure star of the temple s construction which she proclaimed.
The second man, who was like a warrior, was the god Nidub ;
and the plan of the temple which he drew was th-o plan of
Eninnu. The brick which rested in its mould upon the cushion
was the sacred brick of Eninnu ; and the ass that lay upon the
ground was the patesi himself. 2
The essential feature of the vision is that the god himself
appeared to the sleeper and delivered his message in words. That
is precisely the manner in which Kronos warned Xisuthros of
the coming Deluge in the version of Berossus ; while in the
Gilgamesh Epic the apparent contradiction between the direct
warning and the dream-warning at once disappears. It is true
that Gudea states that he did not understand the meaning of the
god s message, and so required an interpretation ; but he was
equally at a loss as to the identity of the god who gave it,
although Ningirsu was his own city-god and was accompanied
1 The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalyptic visions of a later
period is interesting, as evidence of the latter s remote ancestry, and of the
development in the use of primitive material to suit a completely changed
political outlook. But those are points which do not concern our problem.
2 The symbolism of the ass, as a beast of burden, was applicable to the patesi
in his task of carrying out the building of the temple.
MEANING OF MESSAGE AND VISION 75
by his own familiar city-emblem. We may thus assume that the
god s words, as words, were equally intelligible to Gudea. But
as they were uttered in a dream, it was necessary that the patesi,
in view of his country s peril, should have divine assurance that
they implied no other meaning. And in his case such assurance
was the more essential, in view of the symbolism attaching to
the other features of his vision. That this is sound reasoning is
proved by a second^ vision vouchsafed to Gudea by Ningirsu.
For the patesi, though hetegan to prepare for the building of
the temple, was not content even with Nina s assurance. He
offered a prayer to Ningirsu himself, saying that he wished to
build the temple, but had received no sign that this was the will
of the god ; and he prayed for a sign. Then, as the patesi lay
stretched upon the ground, the god again appeared to him and
gave him detailed instructions, adding that he would grant the
sign for which he asked. The sign was that he should feel his
side touched as by a flame, 1 and thereby he should know that he
was the man chosen by Ningirsu to carry out his commands.
Here it is the sign which confirms the apparent meaning of the
god s words. And Gudea was at last content and built the
temple. 2
We may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of
the Deluge we have traced a logical connexion between the direct
warning to Ziusudu in the Fourth Column of the text and the
reference to a dream in the broken lines at the close of the Third
Column. ^As in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, here too
tKeTgod s warnmgls conveyed in a dream ; and the accompany-
ing~reference to conjuring by the Name of Heaven and Earth
probably represents the means by which Ziusudu was enabled to
1 Cyl. A., col.xii, 1. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit.,p. 150f.,Gerin.ed.,p.l02f.
The word translated side may also be rendered as hand ; but * side is the
more probable rendering of the two. The touching of Gudea s side (or hand)
presents an interesting resemblance to the touching of Jacob s thigh by the
divine wrestler at Peniel in Gen. xxxii. 24 ff. (J or JE). Given a belief in the
constant presence of the unseen and its frequent manifestation, such a story as
that of Peniel might well arise from an unexplained injury to the sciatic
muscle, while more than one ailment of the heart or liver might perhaps
suggest the touch of a beckoning god. There is of course no connexion between
the Sumerian and Hebrew stories beyond their common background. It may
be added that those critics who would reverse ther<5/es of Jacob and the wrestler
miss the point of the Hebrew story.
2 Even so, before starting on the work, he took the further precautions of
ascertaining that the omens were favourable and of purifying hia city from all
malign influences.
76 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
verify its apparent meaning. * The assurance which Gudea ob
tained through the priest of Nina and the sign, the priest-king
Ziusudu secured by his own act, in virtue of his piety and prac
tice of divination. And his employment of the particular class
of incantation referred to, that which conjures by the Name of
Heaven and Earth, is singularly appropriate to the context. For
by its use he was enabled to test the meaning of Enki s words,
which related to the intentions of Aim and Enlil, the gods
respectively of Heaven and of Earth. The symbolical setting of
Gudea s vision also finds a parallel in the reed-house and wall of
the Deluge story, though in the latter case we have not the
benefit of interpretation by a goddess. In the Sumerian Version
the wall is merely part of the vision and does not receive a direct
address from the god. That appears as a later development in
the Semitic Version, and it may perhaps have suggested the
excuse, put in that version into the mouth of Ea, that he had
not directly revealed the decision of the gods. 1
The omission of any reference to a dream before the warning
in the Gilgamesh Epic may be accounted for on the assumption
that readers of the poem would naturally suppose that the usual
method of divine warning was implied ; and the text does indi
cate that the warning took place at night, for Gilgamesh proceeds
to carry out the divine instructions at the break of day. The
direct warning of the Hebrew Versions, on the other hand, does
not carry this implication, since according to Hebrew ideas
direct speech, as well as vision, was included among the methods
by which the divine will could be conveyed to man.
V. THE FLOOD, THE ESCAPE OF THE GREAT BOAT, AND THE
SACRIFICE TO THE SUN-GOD. The missing portion of the Fourth
Column must have described Ziusudu s building of his great
boat in order to escape the Deluge, for at the beginning of the
Fifth Column we are in the middle of the Deluge itself. The
column begins :
All the mighty wind-storms together blew,
The flood . . . raged.
When for seven days, for seven nights,
The flood had overwhelmed the land,
1 In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazer (see above, p. 72,
n. 1) between the reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, now regarded as
a medium of communication, and the whispering reeds of the Midas story
would still hold good.
THE COMING OF THE FLOOD 77
(5) When the wind-storm had driven the great boat over the
mighty waters,
The Sun-god came forth, shedding light over heaven and
earth.
Ziusudu opened the opening of the great boat ;
The light of the hero, the Sun-god, (he) causes to enter into
the interior (?) of the great boat.
Ziusudu, the king,
( 1 0) Bows himself down before the Sun-god ;
The king sacrifices an ox, a sheep he slaughters (?).
The connected text of the column then breaks off, only a sign
or two remaining of the following half-dozen lines. It will
be seen that in the eleven lines that are preserved we have
several close parallels to the Babylonian Version and some
equally striking differences. "While attempting to define the
latter, it will be well to point out how close the resemblances
are, and at the same time to draw a comparison between the
Sumerian and Babylonian Versions of this part of the story and
the corresponding Hebrew accounts.
Here, as in the Babylonian Version, the Flood is accompanied
by hurricanes of wind, though in the latter the description is
worked up in considerable detail. We there read l that at the
appointed time the ruler of the darkness at eventide sent a heavy
rain. Ut-napishtim saw its beginning, but fearing to watch the
storm, he entered the interior of the ship by Ea s instructions,
closed the door, and handed over the direction of the vessel to
the pilot Puzur-Amurri. Later- a thunder-storm and hurricane
added their terrors to the deluge. For at early dawn a black
cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-god thundering"
in its midst, and his heralds, Nabu and Sharru, flying over moun
tain and plain. Nergal tore away the ship s anchor, while Ninib
directed the storm ; the Anunnaki carried their lightning-torches
and lit up the land with their brightness ; the whirlwind of the
Storm-god reached the heavens, and all light was turned into
darkness. The storm raged the whole day, covering mountain
and people with water. 2 No man beheld his fellow ; the gods
themselves were afraid, so that they retreated into the highest
heaven, where they crouched down, cowering like dogs. Then
1 Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 90 ff.
- In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign of Ammizaduga (see above,
p. 43, n. 1), Col. 1, 1. 5, contains a reference to the cry of men when Adad, the
Storm-god, slays them with his flood.
78 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VEESION
follows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference has already
been made, l the goddess reproaching herself for the part she had
taken in the destruction of her people. This section of the Semitic
narrative closes with the picture of the gods weeping with her,
sitting bowed down with their lips pressed together.
It is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion
of its Fourth Column, contained some account of Ziusudu s
entry into his boat ; and this may have been preceded, as in the
Gilgamesh Epic, by a reference to the living seed of every
kind , or at any rate to * the four-legged creatures of the field , 2
and to his personal possessions, with which we may assume he
had previously loaded it. But in the Fifth Column we have no
mention of the pilot or of any other companions who may have
accompanied the king ; and we shall see that the Sixth Column
contains no reference to Ziusudu s wife. The description of the
storm may have begun with the closing lines of the Fourth
Column, though it is also quite possible that the first line of the
Fifth Column actually begins the account. However that may
be, and in spite of the poetic imagery of the Semitic Babylonian
narrative, the general character of the catastrophe is the same in
both versions.
We find an equally close parallel, between the Sumerian and
Babylonian accounts, in the duration of the storm which accom
panied the Flood, as will be seen by printing the two versions
together : 3
SUMERIAN VERSION. SEMITIC VERSION.
When for seven days, for For six days and nights
seven nights,
The flood had overwhelmed The wind blew, the flood,
the land, the tempest over
whelmed the land.
(5) When the wind-storm had. (130) When the seventh day
driven the great boat drew near, the tern-
over the mighty waters, pest,-the flood, ceased
from the battle
In which it had fought
like a host.
The Sun-god came forth Then the sea rested and
shedding light over was still, and the
heaven and earth. wind-storm, the flood,
ceased.
1 See above, p. 63 f. * See above, p. 56 f.
3 Col. V, 11. 3-6 are here compared with OHlg. Epic, XI, 11. 128-32.
SUMERIAN AND SEMITIC PARALLELS 79
The two narratives do not precisely agree as to the duration of
the storm, for while in the Stimerian account the storm lasts
seven days and nights, in the Semitic-Babylonian Version it
lasts only six days and nights, ceasing at dawn on the seventh
day. The difference, however, is immaterial when we compare
these estimates with those of the Hebrew Versions, the older of
which speaks of forty days rain, while the later version represents
the Flood as rising for no less than a hundred and fifty days. 1
The close parallel between the Sumerian and Babylonian
Versions is not, however, confined to subject-matter, but here
even extends to some of the words and phrases employed. It has
already been noted that the Sumerian term employed for flood
or * deluge is the attested equivalent of the Semitic word ; 2 and
it may now be added that the word which may be rendered
great boat or * great ship in the Sumerian text is the same
word, though partly expressed by variant characters, which occurs
in the early Semitic fragment of the Deluge story from Nippur. 3
In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, the ordinary ideogram
for vessel or ship 4 is employed, though the great size of the
vessel is there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew
Version, by detailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian
and Semitic verbs, which are employed in the parallel passages
quoted above for the overwhelming of the land, are given as
synonyms in a late syllabary, while in another explanatory text
the Sumerian verb is explained as applying to the destructive
action of a flood. 5 Such close linguistic parallels are instructive
1 See Appendix I, p. 142 f. ; and cf. p. 131.
J See above, p. 70, n. 2.
3 The Sumerian word is (yish)ma-fjur-<jur, corresponding to the term written
in the early Semitic fragment, 1. 8, as (isu)ma-yur-gur, which is probably to be
read under its Semitized form magurgurm ; see above, p. 57, n. 1. In 1. 6
of that fragment the vessel is referred to under the synonymous expression
(isu)elippu ra-be-tu, a great ship .
1 i. e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word, read in Semitic-
Babylonian as elippu, ship ; when employed in the early Semitic fragment it
is qualified by the adj. ra-be-tu, l great (see above, n. 3). There is no justifi
cation for assuming, with Prof. Hilprecht, that a measurement of the vessel
was given in 1. 7 of the early Semitic fragment.
6 The Sumerian verb wr, which is employed in 1.2 of the Fifth Column in
the expression ba-an-da-ab-tir-ur, translated as * raged (see above, p. 76),
occurs again in 1. 4 in the phrase kalnm-ma ha-ur-ra, had overwhelmed the
land . That we are justified in regarding the latter phrase as the original of
the Semitic i-sap-pan mata (Gilg. Epic, XI, 1. 129) is proved by the equation
Sum. ur-ur = Sem. sa-pa-nu (Rawlinson, W. A. /., Vol. V, pi. 42, 1. 54 c) and by
the explanation Sum. r-ur = Sem. $a-ba-tu sa a-bu-bi, i.e. ur-ur = to smite, of
80 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
as furnishing additional proof, if it were needed, of the depen
dence of the Semitic-Babylonian and Assyrian Versions upon
Sumerian originals.
It may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of
the text, in order to inquire what kind of boat it was in which
Ziusudu escaped the Flood. It is only called a great boat or
a great ship in the text, and this term, as we have noted, was
taken over, semitized, and literally translated in an early Semitic-
Babylonian Version. 1 But the Gilgamesh Epic, representing the
later Semitic-Babylonian Version, supplies fuller details, which
have not, however, been satisfactorily explained. Either the
obvious meaning of the description and figures there given has
been ignored, or the measurements have been applied to a central
structure placed upon a hull, much on the lines of a modern
house- boat or the conventional Noah s ark. 2 For the latter
interpretation the text itself affords no justification. The state
ment is definitely made that the length and breadth of the vessel
itself are to be the same ; 3 and a later passage gives ten gar for
the height of its sides and ten gar for the breadth of its deck. 4
This description has been taken to imply a square box-like
structure, which, in order to be seaworthy, must be placed on
a conjectured hull.
I do not think it has been noted in this connexion that a vessel,
approximately with the relative proportions of that described in the
Gilgamesh Epic, is in constant use to-day on the lower Tigris and
Euphrates. A kuffah? the familiar pitched coracle of Baghdad,
would provide an admirable model for the gigantic vessel in which
Ut-napishtim rode out the Deluge. Without either stem or stern,
quite round like a shield* so Herodotus described the Jcuffah
of his day ; 6 so, too, is it represented on Assyrian slabs from
a flood (Gun. Texts, Pt. XII, pi. 50, Obv., 1. 23) ; cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 54,
n. 1.
1 See above, p. 79, n. 3f.
2 Cf., e,g., Jastrow, Htbr. and Bab. Trad., p. 329.
3 Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 28-30 ; see above, p. 71.
4 L, 58 f. The gar contained twelve cubits, so that the vessel would have
measured 120 cubits each way; taking the Babylonian cubit, on the basis of
Gudea s scale, at 495 mm. (cf. Thureau Dangin, Journal Asiatique, Dix. Ser.,
t. XIII, 1909, pp. 79 ff., 97), this would give a length, breadth, and height of
nearly 195 ft. For the measurements in the later Hebrew Version and in
Berossus, see below, p. 81 f., n. 2.
5 Arab, kuffdh, pi. kufaf; in addition to its common use for the Baghdad
coracle, the word is also employed for a large basket.
6 Herodotus, I, 194.
THE PROTOTYPE OF NOAH S ARK 81
Nineveh, where we see it employed for the transport of heavy
building material ; 1 its form and structure indeed suggest a pre
historic origin. The kuffah is one of those examples of perfect
adjustment to conditions of use which cannot be improved.
Any one who has travelled in one of these craft will agree that
their storage capacity is immense, for their circular form and
steeply curved side allow every inch of space to be utilized.
It is almost impossible to upset them, and their only disadvantage
is lack of speed. For their guidance all that is required is a steers
man with a paddle, as indicated in the Epic. It is true that the
larger kuffah of to-day tends to increase in diameter as compared
to height, but that detail might well be ignored in picturing the
monster vessel of Ut-napishtim. Its seven horizontal stages and
their nine lateral divisions would have been structurally sound in
supporting the vessel s sides ; and the selection of the latter un
even number, though prompted doubtless by its sacred character,
is only suitable to a circular craft in which the interior walls
would radiate from the centre. The use of pitch and bitumen
tor smearing the vessel inside and out, though unusual even in
Mesopotamian shipbuilding, is precisely the method employed
in the kuffah s construction.
We have no detailed description of Ziusudu s great boat ,
beyond the fact that it was covered in and had an opening, or
light-hole, which could be closed. But the form of Ut-napishtim s
vessel was no doubt traditional, and we may picture that of
Ziusudu as also of the kuffah type, though smaller and without its
successor s elaborate internal structure. The gradual development
of the huge coracle into a ship would have been encouraged by
the Semitic use of the term * ship to describe it; and the attempt-
to retain something of its original proportions resulted in pro
ducing the unwieldy ark of later tradition. 2
1 The kuffah is formed of wicker-work coated with bitumen. Some of those
represented on the Nineveh sculptures appear to be covered with skins; and
Herodotus (I, 194) states that the boats which come down the river to
Babylon are circular and made of skins . But his further description shows
that he is here referring to the kelek or skin-raft, with which he has combined
a description of the kuffah. The late Sir Henry Rawlinson had never seen or
heard of a skin-covered kuffah on either the Tigris or Euphrates, and there can
be little doubt that bitumen was employed for their construction in antiquity,
as it is to-day. These craft are often large enough to carry five or six horses
and a dozen men.
- The description of the ark is not preserved from the earlier Hebrew
Version (J), but the later Hebrew Version (P), while increasing the length of
the vessel, has considerably reduced its height and breadth. Its measurements
K. a
82 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
SUMERIAN VERSION.
We will return now to the text and resume the comparison we
were making between it and the Gilgamesh Epic. In the latter
no direct reference is made to the appearance of the Sun-god
after the storm, nor is Ut-napishtim represented as praying to
him. But the sequence of events in the Sumerian Version is
very natural, and on that account alone, apart from other reasons,
it may be held to represent the original form of the story. For
the Sun-god would naturally reappear after the darkness of the
storm had passed, and it would be equally natural that Ziusudu
should address himself to the great light-god. Moreover, the
Gilgamesh Epic still retains traces of the Sumerian Version, as
will be seen from a comparison of their narratives, 1 the Semitic
Version being quoted from the point where the hurricane ceased
and the sea became still.
SEMITIC VERSION.
When I looked at the
storm, the uproar had
ceased,
And all mankind was
turned into clay ;
(135) In place of fields there
was a swamp.
I opened the opening (lit.
hole ), and daylight
fell upon my counte
nance.
The light of the hero, the
Sun-god, (he) causes
to enter into the in
terior (?) of the great
boat.
Ziusudu, the king,
(10) Bows himself down before
the Sun-god ;
The king sacrifices an ox,
a sheep he slaugh
ters (?).
I gazed upon the quarters
(of the world) all (?)
was sea.
are there given (Gen. vi. 15) as 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in breadth, and
30 cubits in height ; taking the ordinary Hebrew cubit at about 18 in., this
would give a length of about 450 ft., a breadth of about 75 ft., and a height of
about 45 ft. The interior stories are necessarily reduced to three. The vessel
in Berossus measures five stadia by two, and thus had a length of over three
thousand feet and a breadth of more than twelve hundred.
1 Col. V, 11. 7-11 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 133-9.
Ziusudu opened the open
ing of the great boat ;
(137) I bowed myself down and
sat down weeping ;
Over my countenance
flowed my tears.
THE SACRIFICE TO THE SUN-GOD 83
It will be seen that in the Semitic Version the beams of the
Sun-god have been reduced to daylight , and Ziusudu s act of
worship has become merely prostration in token of grief.
Both in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus the sacrifice
offered by the Deluge hero to the gods follows the episode of the
birds, and it takes place on the top of the mountain after the
landing from the vessel. It is hardly probable that two sacrifices
^weTe~Tecounted in the Sumerian Version, one to the Sun-god in
the boat and another on the mountain after landing ; and if we
are right in identifying Ziusudu s recorded sacrifice with that of
Ut-napishtini and Xisuthros, it would seem that, according to
the Sumerian Version, no birds were sent out to test the abate
ment of the waters. This conclusion cannot be regarded as quite
certain, inasmuch as the greater part of the Fifth Column is
wanting. We have, moreover, already seen reason to believe that
the account on our tablet is epitomized, and that consequently
the omission of any episode from our text does not necessarily
imply its absence from the original Sumerian Version which it
follows. But here at least it is clear that nothing can have been
omitted between the opening of the light-hole and the sacrifice,
for the one act is the natural sequence of the other. On the
whole it seems preferable to assume that we have recovered
a simpler form of the story.
As the storm itself is described in a few phrases, so the cessa
tion of the flood may have been dismissed with equal brevity ;
the gradual abatement of the waters, as attested by the dove, the
swallow, and the raven, may well be due to later ^elaboration or
to combination with some variant account. Under its amended
form the narrative leads naturally up to the landing on the
mountain and the sacrifice of thanksgiving to the gods. In the
Sumerian Version, on the other hand, Ziusudu regards himself as
saved when he sees the Sun shining ; he needs no further tests
to assure himself that the danger is over, and his sacrifice too is
one of gratitude for his escape. The disappearance of the Sun-
god from the Semitic Version was thus a necessity, to avoid an
anti-climax ; and the hero s attitude of worship had obviously to
be translated into one of grief. Au indication that the sacrifice
was originally represented as having taken place on board the
boat may be seen in the lines of the Gilgamesh Epic which
recount how Enlil, after acquiescing in Ut-napishtim s survival
of the Flood, went up into the ship and led him forth by the
hand, although, in the preceding lines, he had already landed
84 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
and had sacrificed upon the mountain. The two passages are
hardly consistent as they stand, but they find a simple explana
tion if we regard the second of them as an unaltered survival
from an earlier form of the story.
If the above line of reasoning be sound, it follows that, while
the earlier Hebrew Version closely resembles the Gilgamesh Epic,
the later Hebrew Version, by its omission of the birds, would
offer a parallel to the Sumerian Version. But whether we may
draw any conclusion from this apparent grouping of our authori
ties will be best dealt with when we have concluded our survey
of the new evidence.
As we have seen, the text of the Fifth Column breaks off with
Ziusudu s sacrifice to the Sun-god, after he had opened a light-
hole in the boat and had seen by the god s beams that the storm
was over. The missing portion of the Fifth Column must have
included at least some account of the abatement of the waters,
the stranding of the boat, and the manner in which Anu and
Enlil became apprised of Ziusudu s escape, and consequently of
the failure of their intention to annihilate mankind. For in the
Sixth Column of the text we find these two deities reconciled to
Ziusudu and bestowing immortality upon him, as Enlil bestows
immortality upon Ut-napishtim at the close of the Semitic
Version. In the latter account, after the vessel had -grounded on
Mount Nisir and Ut-napishtim had tested the abatement of the
waters by means of the birds, he brings all out from the ship and
offers his libation and sacrifice upon the mountain, heaping up
reed, cedar- wood, and myrtle beneath his seven sacrificial vessels.
And it was by this act on his part that the gods first had know
ledge of his escape. For they smelt the sweet savour of the
sacrifice, and gathered like flies over the sacrificer . 1
It is possible in our text that Ziusudu s sacrifice in the boat was
also the means by which the gods became acquainted with his
survival ; and it seems obvious that the Sun-god, to whom it was
offered, should have continued to play some part in the narrative,
perhaps by assisting Ziusudu in propitiating Anu and Enlil. In
the Semitic-Babylonian Version, the first deity to approach the
sacrifice is Belit-ili or Ishtar, who is indignant with Enlil for
what he has done. When Enlil himself approaches and sees the
ship he is filled with anger against the gods, and, asking who
has escaped, exclaims that no man must live in the destruction.
Thereupon Ninib accuses Ea, who by his pleading succeeds in
1 Gilg. Epic, XI, 1. 162.
ETHICAL CONTRAST OF VERSIONS 85
turning Enlil s purpose. He bids Enlil visit the sinner with his
sin and lay his transgression on the transgressor ; Enlil should
not again send a deluge to destroy the whole of mankind, but
should be content with less wholesale destruction, such as that
wrought by wild beasts, famine, and plague. Finally he con
fesses that it was he who warned Ziusudu of the gods decision by
sending him a dream. Enlil thereupon changes his intention, and
going up into the ship, leads Ut-napishtim forth. Though Ea s
intervention finds, of course, no parallel in either Hebrew version,
the subject-matter of his speech is reflected in both, jn the
^earlier Hebrew Version Yahweh smells the sweet savour of Noah s
burnt offering and says in his heart he will no more destroy
every living creature as he had done ; while in the later Hebrew
Version Elohim, after remembering Noah and causing the waters
jto abate, establishes his covenant, to the same effect, and, as a__
sign of the covenant, sets his bow in the clouds.
In its treatment of the climax of the story we shall see that
the Sumerian Version, at any rate in the form it has reached us,
is on a lower ethical level than the Babylonian and Hebrew
Versions. Ea s argument that the sinner should -bear his own
sin and the transgressor his own transgression in some measure
forestalls that of Ezekiel ; * and both the Hebrew Versions repre
sent the saving of Noah as part of the divine intention from the
beginning. But the Sumerian Version introduces the element of
magic as the means by which man can bend the will of the gods
to his own ends. How far the details of the Sumerian myth at
this point resembled that of the Gilgamesh Epic it is impossible
to say, but the general course of the story must have been the
same. In the latter Enlil s anger is appeased, in the former that
of Anu and Enlil ; and it is legitimate to suppose that Enki, like
Ea, was Ziusudu s principal supporter, in view of the part he
had already taken in ensuring his escape.
VI. THE PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY GODS, AND ZIUSUDU S
IMMORTALITY. The presence of the puzzling lines, with which
the Sixth Column of our text opens, was not explained by
Dr. Poebel; indeed, they would be difficult to reconcile with his
assumption that our text is an epic pure and simple. But if, as
is suggested above, we are dealing with a myth in magical em
ployment, they are quite capable of explanation. The problem
these lines present will best be stated by giving a translation of
1 Cf. Ezek. xviii, passim, esp. xviii. 20 ; and for a comparison of Ezek. xiv.
12-20, with Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 180-94, see below, pp. 132 if.
86 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
the extant portion of the column, where they will be seen with
their immediate context in relation to what follows them :
By the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth, shall ye
conjure him,
That with you he may . . . . ! l
Ann and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of
Earth, shall ye conjure,
And with you will he . . . . ! l
(5) The niggilma of the ground springs forth in abun
dance (?) !
Ziusudu, the king,
Before Anu and Enlil bows himself down.
Life like (that of) a god he gives 1 to him,
An eternal soul like (that of) a god he creates for him.
(10) At that time Ziusudu, the king,
The name of the niggilma (named) Preserver of the Seed
of Mankind .
In a ... land, 2 the land 2 of Dilmun (?), they caused him
to dwell.
The first two lines of the column are probably part of the
speech of some deity, who urges the necessity of invoking or
conjuring Anu and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of
Earth , in order to secure their support or approval. Now Ann
and Enlil are the two great gods who had determined on man
kind s destruction, and whose wrath at his own escape from
death Ziusudu must placate. It is an obvious inference that
conjuring by the Soul of Heaven and by the Soul of Earth
is either the method by which Ziusudu has already succeeded in
appeasing their anger, or the means by which he is here enjoined
to attain that end. Against the latter alternative it is to be
noted that the god is addressing more than one person ; and,
further, that Ziusudu is evidently already pardoned, for, so far
from following the deity s advice, he immediately prostrates him
self before Anu and Enlil and receives immortality. We may
conjecture that at the close of the Fifth Column Ziusudu had
already performed the invocation and thereby had appeased the
1 For the probable" explanation of these verbs in the singular, see above,
p. 53 f.
2 Possibly to be translated mountain . The rendering of the proper name
as that of Dilniun is very uncertain. For the probable identification of Dilmun
with the island of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf, cf. Rawlinson, Joiirn. Roy. As,
Soc., 1880, pp. 20 if. ; and see further, Meissner, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., XX, No. 7,
col. 201 ff.
* The traces of the signs preserved in 1. 13 are not clear.
PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY GODS 87
divine wrath ; and that the lines at the beginning of the Sixth
Column point the moral of the story by enjoining on Ziusudu and
his descendants, in other words on mankind, the advisability of
employing this powerful incantation at their need. The speaker
may perhaps have been one of Ziusudu s divine helpers the Sun-
god to whom he had sacrificed, or Enki who had saved him from
the Flood. But it seems to me more probable that the words are
uttered by Ann and Enlil themselves. 1 For thereby they would
be represented as giving their own sanction to the formula, and
as guaranteeing its magical efficacy. That the incantation, as
addressed to Anu and Enlil, would be appropriate is obvious,
since each would be magically approached through his own
sphere of control. 2
It is significant that at another critical point of the story we
have already met with a reference to conjuring by the Name of
Heaven and Earth , the phrase occurring at the close of the Third
Column after the reference to the dream or dreams. 3 There, as
we saw, we might possibly explain the passage as illustrating one
aspect of Ziusudu s piety : he may have been represented as con
tinually practising this class of incantation, and in that case it
would be natural enough that in the final crisis of the story he
should have propitiated the gods he conjured by the same means.
Or, as a more probable alternative, it was suggested that we might
connect the line with Enki s warning, and assume that Ziusudu
interpreted the dream-revelation of Anu and Enlil s purpose by
means of the magical incantation which was peculiarly associated
with them. On either alternative the phrase fits into the story
itself, and there is no need to suppose that the narrative is
interrupted, either in the Third or in the Sixth Column, by an
address to the hearers of the myth, urging them to make the
invocation on their own behalf.
On the other hand, it seems improbable that the lines in
question formed part of the original myth ; they may have been
inserted to weld the myth more closely to the magic. Both
incantation and epic may have originally existed independently,
and, if so, their combination would have been suggested by their
contents. For while the former is addressed to Anu and Enlil, in
the latter these same gods play the dominant parts : they are the
two chief creators, it is they who send the Flood, and it is their
1 One of them may have been the speaker on behalf of both ; see above,
p. 53 f.
1 See above, p. 66 f., n. 3. 3 See above, pp. 65 and 68.
88 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
anger that must be appeased. If once combined, the further step
of making the incantation the actual means by which Ziusudu
achieved his own rescue and immortality would be a natural
development. It may be added that the words would have been
an equally appropriate addition if the incantation had not existed
independently, but had been suggested by, and developed from,
the myth.
In the third and eleventh lines of the column we have further
references to the mysterious object, the creation of which appears to
have been recorded in the First Column of the text between man s
creation and that of animals. The second sign of the group com
posing its name was not recognized by Dr. Poebel, but it is quite
clearly written in two of the passages, and has been correctly
identified by Professor Barton. 1 The Sumerian word is, in fact,
to be read nig-gil-ma? which, when preceded by the determina
tive for pot , jar , or bowl , is given in a later syllabary as the
equivalent of the Semitic word mashlchalu. Evidence that the
word mashJchalu was actually employed to denote a jar or vessel
of some sort is furnished by one of the Tell el-Amarna letters,
which refers to * one silver mashkhalu and one (or two) stone
mashJchalu . 3 In our text the determinative is absent, and it is
possible that the word is used in another sense. Professor Barton,
in both passages in the Sixth Column, gives it the meaning
curse ; he interprets the lines as referring to the removal of a
curse from the earth after the Flood, and he compares Gen. viii. 21,
where Yahweh declares he will not again curse the ground for
man s sake . But this translation ignores the occurrence of the
word in the First Column, where the creation of the niggilma is
apparently recorded ; and his rendering the seed that was
cursed in 1. 11 is not supported by the photographic reproduc
tion of the text, which suggests that the first sign in the line is
not that for seed , but is the sign for name , as correctly read by
Dr. Poebel. In that passage the niggilma appears to be given by
Ziusudu the name Preserver of the Seed of Mankind , which we
have already compared to the title bestowed on Uta-napishtim s
ship, * Preserver of Life . 4 Like the ship, it must have played an
important part in man s preservation, which would account not
1 See American Journal of Semitic Languages, Vol. XXXI, April 1915, p. 226.
2 It is written nig-gil in the First Column ; see above, p. 56 f.
3 See Winckler, El-Amarna, pi. 35 f., No. 28, Obv., Col. II, 1. 45, Rev., Col. I,
1. 63, and Knudtzon, El-Am. Taf., pp. 112, 122 ; the vessels were presents from
Amenophis IV to Burnaburiash. * See above, p. 57.
PRESERVEK OF THE SEED OF MANKIND 89
only for the honorific title but for the special record of its
creation.
If we may connect the word with the magical colouring of the
myth, we might perhaps retain its known meaning, * jar or
bowl , and regard it as employed in the magical ceremony which
must have formed part of the invocation by the Soul of Heaven,
by the Soul of Earth . But the accompanying references to the
ground, to its production from the ground, and to its springing
up, if the phrases may be so rendered, suggest rather some kind
of plant ; l and this, from its employment in magical rites, may
also have given its name to a bowl or vessel which held it. A
very similar plant was that found and lost by Gilgamesh, after his
sojourn with Ut-napishtim ; it too had potent magical power and
bore a title descriptive of its peculiar virtue of transforming old
age to youth. Should this suggestion prove to be correct, the
three passages mentioning the niggilma must be classed with
those in which the invocation is referred to, as ensuring the
sanction of the myth to further elements in the magic. In accord
ance with this view, the fifth line in the Sixth Column is probably
to be included in the divine speech, where a reference to the
object employed in the ritual would not be out of place. But it
is to be hoped that light will be thrown on this puzzling word
by further study, and perhaps by new fragments of the text ;
meanwhile it would be hazardous to suggest a more definite
rendering.
With the sixth line of the column it is clear that the original
narrative of the myth is resumed. 2 Ziusudu, the king, prostrates
himself before Anu and Enlil, who bestow immortality upon him
and cause him to dwell in a land, or mountain, the name of
which may perhaps be read as Dilmun. The close parallelism
between this portion of the text and the end of the myth in the
Gilgamesh Epic will be seen from the following extracts, 3 the
magical portions being omitted from the Surnerian Version :
1 The references to the ground , or the earth , also tend to connect it
peculiarly with Enlil. Enlil s close association with the earth, which is, of
course, independently attested, is explicitly referred to in the Babylonian
Version (cf. Gilg. Epic, XI, 11. 39-42). Suggested reflections of this idea have
long been traced in the Hebrew Versions; cf. Gen. viii. 21 (J), where Yahweh
says he will not again curse the ground, and Gen. ix. 13 (P), where Elohim
speaks of his covenant between me and the earth .
2 It will also be noted that with this line the text again falls naturally into
couplets.
Col. VI, 11.6-9 and 12 are there compared with Gilg. Epic. XI, 11. 198-205.
90 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
SUMERIAN VERSION. SEMITIC VERSION.
Then Enlil went up into
the ship ;
(6) Ziusudu, the king, He took me by the hand
and led me forth.
(7) Before Anu and Enlil bows (200) He brought out my wife
himself down. and caused her to
bow down at my side ;
He touched our brows,
standing between us
and blessing us :
(8) Life like (that of) a god he Formerly was Ut-napish-
gives to him. tim of mankind,
(9) An eternal soul like (that But no wlet Ut-napishtim
of) a god he creates for be like the gods, even
him. us !
And let Ut-napishtim
dwell afar off at the
mouth of the rivers !
(12) In a ... land, the land (205) Then they took me and
of 1 Dilmun(?), they afar off, at the mouth
caused him to dwell. of the rivers, they
caused me to dwell.
The Sumerian Version thus apparently concludes with the
familiar ending of the legend which we find in the Gilgamesh
Epic and in Berossus, though it here occurs in an abbreviated form
and with some variations in detail. In all three versions the
prostration of the Deluge hero before the god is followed by the
bestowal of immortality upon him, a fate which, according to
Berossus, he shared with his wife, his daughter, and the steers
man. The Gilgamesh Epic perhaps implies that Ut-napishtim s
wife shared in his immortality, but the Sumerian Version
mentions Ziusudu alone. In the Gilgamesh Epic Ut-napishtim
- is settled by the gods at the mouth of the rivers, that is to say
at the head of the Persian Gulf, while according to a possible
rendering of the Sumerian Version he is made to dwell on Dilmun,
an island in the Gulf itself. The fact that Gilgamesh in the
Epic has to cross the sea to reach Ut-napishtim may be cited in
favour of the read ing Dilmun ; and the description of the sea as
the Waters of Death , if it implies more than the great danger
of their passage, was probably a later development associated
with CJt-napishtim s immortality. It may be added that in
neither Hebrew version do we find any parallel to the concluding
1 Or, On a ... mountain, the mountain of, &c.
THE HERO S IMMORTALITY 91
details of the original story, the Hebrew narratives being brought
to an end with the blessing of Noah and the divine promise to, ,
or covenant with, mankind.
Such then are the contents of our Sumerian document, and
from the details which have been given it will have been seen that
its story, so far as concerns the Deluge, is in essentials the same
as that we already find in the Gilgamesh Epic. It is true that
this earlier version has reached us in a magical setting, and to
some extent in an abbreviated form. In the next lecture I shall
have occasion to refer to another early mythological text from
Nippur, which was thought by its first interpreter to include a
second Sumerian Version of the Deluge legend. That suggestion
has not been substantiated, though we shall see that the contents
of the document are of a very interesting character. But in view
of the discussion that has taken place in the United States over
the interpretation of the second text, and of the doubts that have
subsequently been expressed in some quarters as to the recent
discovery of any new form of the Deluge legend, it may be well
to formulate briefly the proof that in the inscription published
by Dr. Poebel an early Sumerian Version of the Deluge story
has actually been recovered. Any one who has followed the
detailed analysis of the new text which has been attempted in the
preceding paragraphs will, I venture to think, agree that the
following conclusions may be drawn :
(i) The points of general resemblance presented by the narrative
to that in the Gilgamesh Epic are sufficiently close in themselves
to show that we are dealing with a Sumerian Version of that
story. And this conclusion is further supported () by__the
occurrence throughout the text of the attested Sumerian equivalent
of the Semitic word, employed in the Babylonian Versions, for
the Flood or * Deluge , and (b) by the use of precisely the same
term for tie hero s great boat , which is already familiar to us
from an early Babylonian Version.
(ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of
the Sumerian legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the
one version was ultimately derived from the other, j^nd this
conclusion in its turn is confirmed (a) by the identity in
meaning of the Sumerian and Babylonian names for the Deluge
hero, which are actually found equated in a late explanatory
text, and (b) by small points of difference in the Babylonian
form of the story which correspond to later political and reli
gious developments, and suggest the work of Semitic redactors.
92 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
The cumulative effect of such general and detailed evidence is
overwhelming, and we may dismiss all doubts as to the
validity of Dr. Poebel s claim. "We have indeed recovered a very
early, and in some of its features a very primitive, form of the
Deluge narrative which till now has reached us only in Semitic
and Greek renderings ; and the stream of tradition has been
tapped at a point far above any at which we have hitherto
approached it. What evidence, we may ask, does this early
Sumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and 4iterary
history of the Hebrew Versions ?
The general dependence of the biblical Versions upon the
Babylonian legend as a whole has long been recognized, 1 and **
needs no further demonstration ; and it has already been observed
that the parallelisms with the version in the Gilgamesh Epic are
on the whole more detailed and striking in the earlier than in the
later Hebrew Version. 2 In the course of our analysis of the
Sumerian text its more striking points of agreement or diver
gence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions, were noted under
the different sections of its narrative. It was also obvious that,
in many features in which the Hebrew Versions differ from the
Gilgamesh Epic, the latter finds Sumerian support. These facts
confirm the conclusion, which we should naturally base on grounds
of historical probability, that while the Semitic-Babylonian
Versions were derived from Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were
equally clearly derived from Babylon. But there are one or two ^
pieces of evidence which are apparently at variance with this
conclusion, and these call for some explanation.
Not too much significance should be attached to the apparent
omission of the episode of the birds from the Sumerian narrative,
in which it would agree with the later as against the earlier
Hebrew Version ; for, apart from its epitomized character, there is
so much missing from the text that the absence of this episode
cannot be regarded as established with certainty. And in any
case it could be balanced by the Sumerian order of Creation,
of men before animals, which agrees with the earlier Hebrew
Version against the later. But there is one very striking point
in which our new Sumerian text agrees with both the Hebrew
Versions as against the Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus ; and that
/is in the character of Zipisudu, which presents so close a parallel
to the piety of Noah. As we have already seen, the latter is due
1 See above, p. 2 f.
2 For details, see especially Skinner, Genesis, pp. 177 ff.
GROUPING OF AUTHORITIES 93
to no Hebrew idealization of the story, but represents a genuine
strand of the original tradition, which is completely absent from
the Babylonian Versions. But the Babylonian Versions are the
media through which it has generally been assumed that the
tradition of the Deluge reached the Hebrews. What explanation
have we of this fact ?
This grouping of Sumerian and Hebrew authorities, against
the extant sources from Babylon, is emphasized by the general
framework of the Sumerian story. For the literary connexion
which we have in Genesis between the Creation and the Deluge
narratives has hitherto found no parallel in the cuneiform texts. In
Babylon and Assyria the myth of Creation and the Deluge legend
have been divorced. From the one a complete epic has been
evolved in accordance with the tenets of Babylonian theology, the
Creation nryth being combined in the process with other myths
of a somewhat analogous character. 1 The Deluge legend has sur
vived as an isolated story in more than one setting, the principal
Semitic Version being recounted to the national hero Gilgamesh,
towards the close of the composite epic of his adventures which
grew up around the nucleus of his name. It is one of the chief
surprises of the newly recovered Sumerian Version that the
Hebrew connexion of the narratives is seen to be on the lines of
very primitive tradition. Noah s reputation for piety does not
stand alone. His line of descent from Adam, and the thread of
narrative connecting the creation of the world with its partial
destruction by the Deluge, already appear in Sumerian form at ^
a time when the city of Babylon itself had not secured its later
power. How then are we to account for this correspondence of
Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on points completely wanting
in our intermediate authorities, from which, however, other
evidence suggests that the Hebrew narratives were derived ?
At the risk of anticipating some of the conclusions to be drawn
in the next lecture, it may be well to define an answer now.
It is possible that those who still accept the traditional author
ship of the Pentateuch may be inclined to see in this correspon
dence of Hebrew and Sumerian ideas a confirmation of their own
hypothesis. But it should be pointed out at once that this is not
an inevitable deduction from the evidence. Indeed, it is directly
contradicted by the rest of the evidence we have summarized,
while it would leave completely unexplained some significant
features of the problem. It is true that certain important details
1 See further, Lecture III, pp. 114ft .
94 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
,pf the Sumerian tradition, while not affecting Babylon and
Assyria, have left their stamp upon the Hebrew narratives ; but
that is not an exhaustive statement of the case. For we have
also seen that a more complete survival of Sumerian tradition
has taken place in the history of Berossus. There we traced the
same general framework of the narratives, with a far closer
correspondence in detail. The kingly rank of Ziusudu is in
complete harmony with the Berossian conception of a series
of supreme Antediluvian rulers, and the names of two of the
Antediluvian cities are among those of their newly recovered
Sumerian prototypes. There can thus be no suggestion that the
Greek reproductions of the Sumerian tradition were in their turn
due to Hebrew influence. On the contrary we have in them a
parallel case of survival in a far more complete form.
The inference we may obviously draw is that the Sumerian
narrative continued in existence, in a literary form that closely
resembled the original version, into the later historical periods.
In this there would be nothing to surprise us, when we recall the
careful preservation and study of ancient Sumerian religious
texts by the later Semitic priesthood of the country. Each
ancient cult-centre in Babylonia continued to cling to its own
local traditions, and the Sumerian desire for their preservation,
which was inherited by their Semitic guardians, was in great
measure unaffected by political occurrences elsewhere. Hence it
was that Ashur-bani-pal, when forming his library at Nineveh,
was able to draw upon so rich a store of the more ancient literary
texts of Babylonia. The Sumerian Version of the Deluge and
of Antediluvian history may well have survived in a less
epitomized form than that in which we have recovered it ; and,
like other ancient texts, it was probably provided with a Semitic
translation. Indeed its literary study and reproduction may
have continued without interruption in Babylon itself. But
even if Sumerian tradition died out in the capital under the
influence of the Babylonian priesthood, its re-introduction may
well have taken place in Neo-Babylonian times. Perhaps the
antiquarian researches of Nabonidus were characteristic of his
period ; and in any case the collection of his country s gods into
the capital must have been accompanied by a renewed interest
in the more ancient versions of the past with which their cults were
peculiarly associated. In the extant summary from Berossus we
may possibly see evidence of a subsequent attempt to combine
NILE, TIGRIS, AND EUPHRATES 95
with these more ancient traditions the continued religious
dominance of Marduk and of Babylon.
Our conclusion, that the Sumerian form of the tradition did
not die out, leaves the question as to the periods during which
Babylonian influence may have acted upon Hebrew tradition in
great measure unaffected ; and we may therefore postpone its
further consideration to the next lecture. To-day the only ques
tion that remains to be considered concerns the effect of our new
evidence upon the wider problem of Deluge stories as a whole.
What light does it throw on the general character of Deluge
stories and their suggested Egyptian origin ?
One thing that strikes us forcibly in reading this early text
is the complete absence of any trace or indication of astrological
motif. It is true that Ziusudu sacrifices to the Sun-god ; but the
episode is inherent in the story, the appearance of the Sun after
the storm following the natural sequence of events and furnish
ing assurance to the king of his eventual survival. To identify
the worshipper with his god and to transfer Ziusudu s material
craft to the heavens is surely without justification from the
simple narrative. We have here no prototype of Ra sailing the
heavenly ocean. And the destructive flood itself is not only of
an equally material and mundane character, but is in complete
harmony with its Babylonian setting.
In the matter of floods the Tigris and Euphrates present
a striking contrast to the Nile. It is true that the life-blood of
each country is its river-water, but the conditions of its use are
very different, and in Mesopotamia it becomes a curse when out
of control. In both countries the river- water must be used for
maturing the crops. But while the rains of Ab3 ssinia cause the
Nile to rise between August and October, thus securing both
summer and winter crops, the melting snows of Armenia and
the Taurus flood the Mesopotamian rivers between March and
May. In Egypt the Nile flood is gentle ; it is never abrupt, and the
river gives ample warning of its rise and fall. It contains just
enough sediment to enrich the land without choking the canals;
and the water, after filling its historic basins, may when necessary
be discharged into the falling river in November. Thus Egypt re
ceives a full and regular supply of water, and there is no difficulty
in disposing of any surplus. The growth in such a country of
a legend of world -wide destruction by flood is inconceivable.
In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the floods, which come too
late for the winter crops, are followed by the miiiless summer
96 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
months ; and not only must the flood-water be controlled, but
some portion of it must be detained artificially, if it is to be
of use during the burning months of July, August, and
September, when the rivers are at their lowest. Moreover,
heavy rain in April and a warm south wind melting the snow
in the hills may bring down such floods that the channels cannot
contain them ; the dams are then breached and the country
is laid waste. Here there is first too much water and then too
little.
The great danger from flood in Babylonia, both in its range
of action and in its destructive effect, is due to the strangely
flat character of the Tigris and Euphrates delta. 1 Hence after
a severe breach in the Tigris or Euphrates, the river after
inundating the country may make itself a new channel miles
away from the old one. To mitigate the danger, the floods may
be dealt with in two ways by a multiplication of canals to
spread the water, and by providing escapes for it into depressions
in the surrounding desert, which in their turn become centres of
fertility. Both methods were employed in antiquity ; and it may
be added that in any scheme for the future prosperity of the
country they must be employed again, of course with the increased
efficiency of modern apparatus. 2 But while the Babylonians suc
ceeded in controlling the Euphrates, the Tigris was never really
tamed, 3 and whenever it burst its right bank the southern plains
1 Baghdad, though 300 miles by crow-fly from the sea and 500 by river, is
only 120 ft. above sea-level.
2 The Babylonians controlled the Euphrates, and at the same time provided
against its time of low supply , by escapes into two depressions in the
western desert to the NW. of Babylon, known to-day as the Habbaniyah
and Abu Dis depressions, which lie S. of the modern town of Ramadi and
N. of Kerbela. That these depressions were actually used as reservoirs
in antiquity is proved by the presence along their edges of thick beds of
Euphrates shells. In addition to canals and escapes, the Babylonian system
included well-constructed dikes protected by brushwood. By cutting an
eight-mile channel through a low hill between the Habbaniyah and Abu Dis
depressions and by building a short dam 50 ft. high across the latter s narrow
outlet, Sir William Willcocks estimates that a reservoir could be obtained
holding eighteen milliards of tons of water. See his work The Irrigation of
Mesopotamia (E. and F. N. Spon, 1911), Geographical Journal, Vol. XL, No. 2
(Aug., 1912), pp. 129 ff., and the articles in The Near East cited on p. 97, n. 1,
and p. 98, n. 2. Sir William Willcocks s volume and subsequent papers form
the best introduction to the study of the Babylonian Deluge tradition on its
material side.
5 Their works carried out on the Tigris were effective for irrigation ; but the
Babylonians never succeeded in controlling its floods as they did those of the
FLOODS IN MESOPOTAMIA AND EGYPT 97
were devastated. We could not have more suitable soil for the
growth of a Deluge story.
It was only by constant and unremitting attention that disaster
from flood could be averted ; and the difficulties of the problem
were and are increased by the fact that the flood-water of the
Mesopotamian rivers contains fiye_times^ as... much sediment as
the Nile. In fact, one of the most pressing of the problems the
Sumerian and early Babylonian engineers had to solve was the
keeping of the canals free from silt. 1 What the floods, if left
unchecked, may do in Mesopotamia, is well illustrated by the
decay of the ancient canal-system, which has been the immediate
cause of the country s present state of sordid desolation. That
the decay was gradual was not the fault of the rivers, but was
due to the sound principles on which the old system of control
had been evolved through many centuries of labour. At the
time of the Moslem conquest the system had already begun to
fail. In the fifth century there had been bad floods ; but worse
came in A. D. 629, when both rivers burst their banks and played
havoc with the dikes and embankments. It is related that the
Sassanian king Parwiz, the contemporary of Mohammed, crucified
Euphrates. A massive earthen dam, the remains of which are still known as
Nimrod s Dam , was thrown across the Tigris above the point where it entered
its delta ; this served to turn the river over hard conglomerate rock and kept
it at a high level so that it could irrigate the country on both banks. Above
the dam were the heads of the later Nahrwan Canal, a great stream 400 ft. wide
and 17 ft. deep, which supplied the country east of the river. The Nar Sharri or
1 King s Canal , the Nahar Malkha of the Greeks and the Nahr el-Malik of the
Arabs, protected the right bank of the Tigris by its own high artificial banks,
which can still be traced for hundreds of miles ; but it took its supply from
the Euphrates at Sippar, where the ground is some 25 ft. higher than on the
Tigris. The Tigris usually flooded its left bank ; it was the right bank which
was protected, and a breach here meant disaster. Cf. Willcocks, op. cit., and
The Near East, Sept. 29, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 282), p. 522; and see below,
p. 98, n. 2.
1 Cf. Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. Ill, pp. xxxvi ff. ; it was the duty of every
village or town upon the banks of the main canals in Babylonia to keep its
own section clear of silt, and of course it was also responsible for its own
smaller irrigation-channels. While the invention of the system of basin
irrigation was practically forced on Egypt, the extraordinary fertility of
Babylonia was won in the teeth of nature by the system of perennial irriga
tion, or irrigation all the year round. In Babylonia the water was led into
small fields of two or three acres, while the Nile Valley was irrigated in great
basins each containing some thirty to forty thousand acres. The Babylonian
method gives far more profitable results, and Sir William Willcocks points out
that Egypt to-day is gradually abandoning its own system and adopting that of
its ancient rival ; see The Near East, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 521.
K. H
98 DELUGE STORIES AND THE SUMEEIAN VERSION
in one day forty canal-workers at a certain breach, and yet
was unable to master the flood. 1 All repairs were suspended
during the anarchy of the Moslem invasion. As a consequence
the Tigris left its old bed for the Shatt el-Hai at Kut, and
pouring its own and its tributaries waters into the Euphrates
formed the Great Euphrates Swamp, two hundred miles long
and fifty broad. But even then what was left of the old system
was sufficient to support the splendour of the Eastern Caliphate.
The second great blow to the system followed the Mongol
conquest, when the Nahrwan Canal, to the east of the Tigris,
had its head swept away by flood and the area it had irrigated
became desert. Then, in about the fifteenth century, the Tigris
returned to its old course ; the Shatt el-Hai shrank, and much
of the Great Swamp dried up into the desert it is to-day. 2
Things became worse during the centuries of Turkish misrule.
But the silting up of the Hillah, or main, branch of the Euphrates
about 1865, and the transference of a great part of its stream
into the Hindiyah Canal, caused even the Turks to take action.
They constructed the old Hindiyah Barrage in 1890, but it gave
way in 1903 and the state of things was even worse than before ;
for the Hillah branch then dried entirely. 3
From this brief sketch of progressive disaster during the later
1 See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 27.
2 This illustrates the damage the Tigris by itself is capable of inflicting on
the country. It may be added that Sir William Willcocks proposes to control
the Tigris floods by an escape into the Tharthar depression, a great salt pan
at the tail of Wadi Tharthar, which lies 14 ft. below sea-level and is 200 ft.
lower than the flood-level of the Tigris some thirty-two miles away. The
escape would leave the Tigris to the S. of Samarra, the proposed Beled Barrage
being built below it and up-streani of * Ninirod s Dam . The Tharthar escape
would drain into the Euphrates, and the latter s Habbaniyah escape (see
above, p. 96, n. 2) would receive any surplus water from the Tigris, a second
barrage being thrown across the Euphrates up-stream of Fallujah, where there
is an outcrop of limestone near the head of the Sakhlawiyah Canal. The
Tharthar depression, besides disposing of the Tigris flood-water, would thus
probably feed the Euphrates ; and a second barrage on the Tigris, to be
built at Kut, would supply water to the Shatt el-Hai. When the country is
freed from danger of flood, the Baghdad Railway could be run through the
cultivated land instead of through the eastern desert ; see Willcocks, The Neat-
East, Oct. 6, 1916 (Vol. XI, No. 283), p. 545 f.
3 It was then that Sir William Willcocks designed the new Hindiyah
Barrage, which was completed in 1913. The Hindiyah branch, to-day the
main stream of the Euphrates, is the old low-lying Pallacopas Canal,
which branched westward above Babylon and discharged its waters into the
western marshes. In antiquity the head of this branch had to be opened in
high floods and then closed again immediately after the flood to keep the main
SUMERIAN FLOOD ON LATER HORIZONS 99
historical period, the inevitable effect of neglected silt and flood,
it will be gathered that the two great rivers of Mesopotamia
present a very strong contrast to the Nile. For during the same
period of misgovernment and neglect in Egypt the Nile did not
turn its valley and delta into a desert. On the Tigris and
Euphrates, during ages when the earliest dwellers on their
banks were struggling to make effective their first efforts at
control, the waters must often have regained the upper hand.
Under such conditions the story of a great flood in the past
would not be likely to die out in the future; the tradition
would tend to gather illustrative detail suggested by later
experience. Our new text reveals the Deluge tradition in Meso
potamia at an early stage of its development, and incidentally
shows us that there is no need to postulate for its origin any con
vulsion of nature or even a series of seismic shocks accompanied
by cyclone in the Persian Gulf.
If this had been the only version of the story that had come
down to us, we should hardly have regarded it as a record of
world-wide catastrophe. It is true the gods intention is to
destroy mankind, but the scene throughout is laid in Southern
Babylonia. After seven days storm, the Sun comes out, and the
vessel with the pious priest-king and his domestic animals on
board grounds, apparently still in Babylonia, and not on any
distant mountain, such as Mt. Nisir or the great mass of Ararat
in Armenia. These are obviously details which tellers of
the story have added as it passed down to later generations.
When it was carried still farther afield, into the area of the
Eastern Mediterranean, it was again adapted to local conditions.
Thus Apollodorus makes Deucalion land upon Parnassus, 1 and
the pseudo-Lucian relates how he founded the temple of Derketo
at Hierapolis in Syria beside the hole in the earth which/
swallowed up the Flood. 2 To the Sumerians who first told the-
story, the great Flood appeared to have destroyed mankind, for
Southern Babylonia was for them the world. Later peoples who
heard it have fitted the story to their own geographical horizon,
stream full past Babylon, which entailed the employment of an enormous
number of men. Alexander the Great s first work in Babylonia was cutting
a new head for the Pallacopas in solid ground, for hitherto it had been in
sandy soil ; and it was while reclaiming the marshes farther down-stream that
he contracted the fever that killed him.
1 Hesiod is our earliest authority for the Deucalion Flood story. For its
probable Babylonian origin, cf. Farnell, Greece and Babylon (1911), p. 184.
2 De Syria dea, 12 f.
H 2
100 DELUGE STOEIES AND THE SUMERIAN VERSION
and in all good faith and by a purely logical process the
mountain-tops are represented as submerged, and the ship, or
ark, or chest, is made to come to ground on the highest peak
known to the story-teller and his hearers. But in its early
Sumerian form it is just a simple tradition of some great inunda
tion, which overwhelmed the plain of Southern Babylonia and
was peculiarly disastrous in its effects. And so its memory
survived in the picture of Ziusudu s solitary coracle upon the
face of the waters, which, seen through the mists of the Deluge
tradition, has given us the Noah s ark of our nursery days.
Thus the Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek Deluge stories re
solve themselves, not into a nature myth, but into an early legend,
which has a basis of historical font, in ^Q -T^r^f^y alley.
And it is probable that we may explain after a similar fashion the
occurrence of tales of a like character at least in some other parts
of the world. Among races dwelling in low-lying or well- watered
districts it would be surprising if we did not find independent
stories of past floods from which few inhabitants of the land
escaped. It is only in hilly countries such as Palestine, where
for the great part of the year water is scarce and precious, that
we are forced to deduce borrowing ; and there is no doubt that
both the Babylonian and the biblical stories have been responsible
for some at any rate of the scattered tales. But there is no need
to adopt the theory of a single source for all of them, whether
in Babylonia or, still less, in Egypt. 1
I should like to add, with regard to this reading of our new
evidence, that I am very glad to know Sir James Frazer holds
a very similar opinion. For, as you are doubtless all aware,
Sir James is at present collecting Flood stories from all over the
world, and is supplementing from a wider range the collections
already made by Lenormant, Andree, "Winternitz, and Gerland.
When his work is complete it will be possible to conjecture with
far greater confidence how particular traditions or groups of
tradition arose, and to what extent transmission has taken place.
Meanwhile, in his recent Huxley Memorial Lecture, 2 he has
suggested a third possibility as to the way Deluge stories may
have arisen.
1 This argument is taken from an article I published in Professor Headlam s
Church Quarterly Review, Jan., 1916, pp. 280 ff., containing an account of
Dr. Poebel s discovery.
3 Sir J. G. Frazer, Ancient Stories of a Great Flood (the Huxley Memorial
Lecture, 1916), Roy. Anthrop. Inst,, 1916,
TEANSMISSION OR INDEPENDENCE 101
Stated briefly, it is that a Deluge story may arise as a popular
explanation of some striking natural feature in a country,
although to the scientific eye the feature in question is due to
causes other than catastrophic flood. And he worked out the
suggestion in the case of the Greek traditions of a great deluge,
associated with the names of Deucalion and Dardanus. Deucalion s
deluge, in its later forms at any rate, is obviously coloured by
Semitic tradition; but both Greek stories, in their origin, Sir
James Frazer would trace to local conditions the one suggested
by the Gorge of Tempe in Thessaly, the other explaining the
existence of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. As he pointed
out, they would be instances, not of genuine historical traditions,
but of what Sir James Tylor called observation myths . A
third story of a great flood, regarded in Greek tradition as the
earliest of the three, he would explain by an extraordinary
inundation of the Copaic Lake in Boeotia, which to this day is
liable to great fluctuations of level. His new theory applies
only to the other two traditions. For in them no historical
kernel is presupposed, though gradual erosion by water is not
excluded as a cause of the surface features which may have
suggested the myths.
This valuable theory thus opens up a third possibility for our
analysis. It may also, of course, be used in combination, if in
any particular instance we have reason to believe that trans
mission, in some vague form, may already have taken place.
And I would with all deference suggest the possibility that, in
view of other evidence, this may have occurred in the case of
the Greek traditions. With regard to the theory itself we may
confidently expect that further examples will be found in its
illustration and support. Meanwhile in the new Sumerian
Version I think we may conclude that we have recovered beyond
any doubt the origin of the Babylonian and Hebrew traditions
and of the large group of stories to which they in their turn
have given rise.
LECTURE III
CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE
PROBLEM OF BABYLONIAN PARALLELS IN
HEBREW TRADITION
IN our discussion of the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge
story we came to the conclusion that it gave no support to any
theory which would trace all such tales to a single origin,
whether in Egypt or in Babylonia. In spite of strong astro
logical elements in both the Egyptian and Babylonian religious
systems, we saw grounds for regarding the astrological tinge of
much ancient mythology as a later embellishment and not as
primitive material. And so far as our new version of the Deluge
story was concerned, it resolved itself into a legend, which had
a basis of historical fact in the Euphrates Valley. It will be
obvious that the same class of explanation cannot be applied to
narratives of the Creation of the World. For there we are
dealing, not with legends, but with mjths, that is, stories exclu
sively about the gods. But where an examination of their earlier
forms is possible, it would seem to show that many of these tales
also, in their origin, are not to be interpreted as nature myths,
and that none arose as mere reflections of the solar system. In
their more primitive and simpler aspects they seem in many
cases to have been suggested by very human and terrestrial
experience. To-day we will examine the Egyptian, Sumerian,
and Babylonian myths of Creation, and, after we have noted the
more striking features of our new material, we will consider
the problem of foreign influence upon Hebrew traditions concern
ing the origin and early history of the world.
In Egypt, as until recently in Babylonia, we have to depend
for our knowledge of Creation myths on documents of a com
paratively late period. Moreover, Egyptian religious literature
as a whole is textually corrupt, and in consequence it is often
difficult to determine the original significance of its allusions.
Thanks to the funerary inscriptions and that great body of
MYTHOLOGICAL CONCEPTIONS OF UNIVEESE 103
magical formulae and ritual known as f The Chapters of Coming
forth by Day , we are very fully informed on the Egyptian
doctrines as to the future state of the dead. The Egyptian s
intense interest in his own remote future, amounting almost to
an obsession, may perhaps in part account for the comparatively
meagre space in the extant literature which is occupied by myths
relating solely to the past. And it is significant that the one
cycle of myth, of which we are fully informed in its latest stage
of development, should be that which gave its sanction to the
hope of a future existence for man. The fact that Herodotus,
though he claims a knowledge of the sufferings or Mysteries of
Osiris, should deliberately refrain from describing them or from
even uttering the name, 1 suggests that in his time at any rate
some sections of the mythology had begun to acquire an esoteric
character. There is no doubt that at all periods myth played an
important part in the ritual of feast-days. But mythological
references in the earlier texts are often obscure ; and the late
form in which a few of the stories have come down to us is
obviously artificial. The tradition, for example, which relates
how mankind came from the tears which issued from Ra s eye
undoubtedly arose from a play upon words.
On the other hand, traces of myth, scattered in the religious
literature of Egypt, may perhaps in some measure betray their
relative age by the conceptions of the universe which underlie
them. The Egyptian idea that the sky was a heavenly ocean,
which is not unlike conceptions current among the Semitic
Babylonians* and Hebrews," presupposes some thought and
reflection. In Egypt it may well have been evolved from the
probably earlier but analogous idea of the river in heaven, which
the Sun traversed daily in his boats. Such a river was clearly
suggested by the Nile ; and its world-embracing character is
reminiscent of a time when through communication was regu
larly established, at least as far south as Elephantine. Possibly
in an earlier period the long narrow valley, or even a section of
it, may have suggested the figure of a man lying prone upon his
back. Such was Keb, the Earth-god, whose counterpart in the
sky was the goddess Nut, her feet and hands resting at the limits
of the world and her curved body forming the vault of heaven.
Perhaps still more primitive, and dating from a pastoral age,
may be the notion that the sky was a great cow, her body,
1 Herodotus, II, 171.
104 CKEATION AND THE DBAGON MYTH
speckled with, stars, alone visible from the earth beneath. Refer
ence has already been made to the dominant influence of the Sun
in Egyptian religion, 1 and it is not surprising that he should so
often appear as the first of created beings. His orb itself, or
later the god in youthful human form, might be pictured as
emerging from a lotus on the primaeval waters, or from a marsh-
bird s egg, a conception which influenced the later Phoenician
cosmogony. The Scarabaeus, or great dung-feeding beetle of
Egypt, rolling the ball before it in which it lays its eggs, is an
obvious theme for the early myth-maker. And it was natural
that the Beetle of Khepera should have been identified with the
Sun at his rising, as the Hawk of Ra represented his noonday
flight, and the aged form of Atum his setting in the west.
But in all these varied conceptions and explanations of the
universe it is difficult to determine how far the poetical imagery
of later periods has transformed the original myths which may
lie behind them.
As the Egyptian Creator the claims of E/a, the Sun-god of
Heliopolis, early superseded those of other deities. On the other
hand, Ptah of Memphis, who for long ages had been merely the
god of architects and craftsmen, became under the Empire the
architect of the universe and is pictured as a potter moulding
the world-egg. A short poem by a priest of Ptah, which has
come down to us from that period, exhibits an attempt to develop
this idea on philosophical lines. 2 Its author represents all gods
and living creatures as proceeding directly from the mind and
thought of Ptah. But this movement, which was more notably
reflected in Akhenaten s religious revolution, died out 1 in political
disaster, and the original materialistic interpretation of the
myths was restored with the cult of Amen. How materialistic
this could be is well illustrated by two earlier members of the
XVIIIth Dynasty, who have left us vivid representations of
the potter s wheel employed in the process of man s creation.
When the famous queen Hatshepsut, after the return of her
expedition to Punt in the ninth year of her young consort
Thothmes III, decided to build her temple at Deir el-Bahari in
the necropolis of "Western Thebes, she sought to emphasize her
claim to the throne of Egypt by recording her own divine origin
upon its walls. We have already noted the Egyptians belief in
1 See Lecture II, p. 46 f.
2 See Breasted, Zeitsdirift fur Aegyptische Sprache, XXXIX, pp. 39 ff., and
History of Egypt, pp. 356 ff.
MATERIALISTIC INTEEPEETATIONS 105
the solar parentage of their legitimate rulers, a myth that goes
back at least to the Old Kingdom and may have had its origin in
prehistoric times. 1 With the rise of Thebes, Amen inherited the
prerogatives of Ra ; and so Hatshepsut seeks to show, on the north
side of the retaining wall of her temple s Upper Platform, that
she was the daughter of Amen himself, * the great God, Lord of
the sky, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, who resides at
Thebes . The myth was no invention of her own, for obviously
it must have followed traditional lines, and though it is only
employed to exhibit the divine creation of a single personage, it
as obviously reflects the procedure and methods of a general
Creation myth.
This series of sculptures shared the deliberate mutilation that
all her records suffered at the hands of Thothmes III after her
death, but enough of the scenes and their accompanying text has
survived to render the detailed interpretation of the myth quite
certain. 2 Here, as in a general Creation myth, Amen s first act
is to summon the great gods in council, in order to announce to
them the future birth of the great princess. Of the twelve gods \
who attend, the first is Menthu, a form of the Sun-god and J
closely associated with Amen. 3 But the second deity is Atum, /
the great god of Heliopolis, and he is followed by his cycle of/
deities Shu, the son of Ea ; Tefnut, the Lady of the sky ;
Keb, the Father of the Gods ; Nut, the Mother of the Gods ;
Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Set, Horus, and Hathor. "We are here in j
the presence of cosmic deities, as befits a projected act of creation.
The subsequent scenes exhibit the Egyptian s literal interpreta^.
tion of the myth, which necessitates the god s bodily presence
and personal participation. Thoth mentions to Amen the name
of queen Aahmes as the future mother of Hatshepsut, and we
later see Amen himself, in the form of her husband, Aa-kheper-
ka-Ea (Thothmes I), sitting with Aahmes and giving her the
Ankh, or sign of Life, which she receives in her hand and inhales
through her nostrils. 4 God and queen are seated on thrones
above a couch, and are supported by two goddesses. After
leaving the queen, Amen calls on Khnum or Khnemu, the flat-
1 See above, p. 39, n. 2.
8 See Naville, Deir el-Bahari, Ft. II, pp. 12 ff., plates xlviff.
3 See Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. 11, pp. 23 ff. His chief cult-centre was
Hermonthis, but here as elsewhere he is given his usual title Lord of Thebes .
4 PL xlvii. Similar scenes are represented in the birth-temples at Denderah,
Edfu, Philae, Esneh, and Luxor ; see Naville, op. cit., p. 14.
106 CBEATION AND THE DBAGON MYTH
horned ram-headed god, who in texts of all periods is referred to
as the builder of gods and men j 1 and he instructs him to create
the body of his future daughter and that of her Ka, or double ,
which would be united to her from birth.
The scene in the series, which is of greatest interest in the
present connexion, is that representing Khnum at his work of
creation. He is seated before a potter s wheel which he works
with his foot, 2 and on the revolving table he is fashioning two
children with his hands, the baby princess and her double . It
was always Hatshepsut s desire to be represented as a man, and
so both the children are boys. 3 As yet they are lifeless, but the
symbol of Life will be held to their nostrils by Heqet, the divine
Potter s wife, whose frog-head typifies birth and fertility. When
Amenophis III copied Hatshepsut s sculptures for his own series
at Luxor, he assigned this duty to the greater goddess Hathor,
perhaps the most powerful of the cosmic goddesses and the
mother of the world. The subsequent scenes at Deir el-Bahari
include the leading of queen Aahmes by Khnum and Heqet to
the birth-chamber; the great birth scene where the queen is
attended by the goddesses Nephthys and Isis, a number of divine
nurses and midwives holding several of the * doubles of the
baby, and favourable genii, in human form or with the heads of
crocodiles, jackals, and hawks, representing the four cardinal
points and all bearing the gift of life ; the presentation of the
young child by the goddess Hathor to Amen, who is well pleased
at the sight of his daughter ; and the divine suckling of Hatshep-
sut and her doubles . But these episodes do not concern us, as
of course they merely reflect the procedure following a royal
birth. But Khnum s part in the princess s origin stands on a
different plane, for it illustrates the Egyptian myth of Creation
by the divine Potter, who may take the form of either Khnum
or Ptah. Monsieur Naville points out the extraordinary resem
blance in detail which Hatshepsut s myth of divine paternity
bears to the Greek legend of Zeus and Alkmene, where the god
1 Cf. Budge, op. cit. y Vol. II, p. 50.
2 This detail is not clearly preserved at Deir el-Bahari ; but it is quite clear
in the scene on the west wall of the Birth-room * in the Temple at Luxor,
which Amenophis III evidently copied from that of Hatshepsut.
8 In the similar scene at Luxor, where the future Amenophis III is repre
sented on the Creator s wheel, the sculptor has distinguished the human child
from its spiritual double by the quaint device of putting its finger in its
mouth.
THE POTTER AT WORK 107
takes the form of Amphitryon, Alkmene s husband, exactly as
Amen appears to the queen ; l and it may be added that the
Egyptian origin of the Greek story was traditionally recognized
in the ancestry ascribed to the human couple. 2
The only complete Egyptian Creation myth yet recovered is
preserved in a late papyrus in the British Museum, which was
published some years ago by Dr. Budge. 3 It occurs under two
separate versions embedded in The Book of the Overthrowing of
Apep, the Enemy of Ra . Here Ra, who utters the myth under
his late title of Neb-er-tcher, * Lord to the utmost limit , is self-
created as Khepera from Nu, the primaeval water ; and then
follow successive generations of divine pairs, male and female,
such as we find at the beginning of the Semitic-Babylonian
Creation Series. 4 Though the papyrus was written as late as the .
year 311 B.C., the myth is undoubtedly early. For the first two
divine pairs Shu and Tefnut, Keb and Nut, and four of the
latter pair s five children, Osiris and Isis, Set and Nephthys,
form with the Sun-god himself the Greater Enneajj of Helio-
polis, which exerted so wide an influence on Egyptian religious
speculation. The Ennead combined the older solar elements
with the cult of Osiris, and this is indicated in the myth by a
break in the successive generations, Nut bringing forth at a single
birth the five chief gods of the Osiris cycle, Osiris himself and
his son Horus, with Set, Isis, and Nephthys. Thus we may see
in the myth an early example of that religious syncretism which
is so characteristic of later Egyptian belief.
The only parallel this Egyptian myth of Creation presents to
the Hebrew cosmogony is iii its picture of the primaeval water,
corresponding to the watery -chaos" of Genesis i. But the resem
blance is of a very general character, and includes no etymo
logical equivalence such as we find when we compare the Hebrew
1 See Naville, op. cit., p. 12.
2 Cf., e.g., Herodotus, II, 43.
3 See Archaeologia, Vol. LII (1891). Dr. Budge published a new edition of the
whole papyrus in Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum (1910), and the
two versions of the Creation myth are given together in his Gods of the Egyptians,
Vol. I (1904), Chap. VIII, pp. 308 ff., and more recently in his Egyptian Litera
ture, Vol. I, Legends of the Gods (1912), pp. 2 ff. An account of the papyrus
is included in the Introduction to Legends of the Gods , pp. xiii ff.
* In Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. I, Chap. VII, pp. 288 ff., Dr. Budge gives
a detailed comparison of the Egyptian pairs of primaeval deities with the very
similar couples of the Babylonian myth. For the Sumerian origin of the latter,
see below, pp. 120 ff.
J
108 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
account with the principal Semitic-Babylonian Creation narra
tive. 1 The application of the Ankh, the Egyptian sign for Life,
to the nostrils of a newly-created being is no true parallel to
the breathing into man s nostrils of the breath of life in the
earlier Hebrew Version, 2 except in the sense that each process
was suggested by our common human anatomy. We should
naturally expect to find some Hebrew parallel to the Egyptian
idea of Creation as the work of a potter with his clay, for
that figure appears in most ancient mythologies. The Hebrews
indeed used the conception as a metaphor or parable, 3 and it
also underlies their earlier picture of man s creation. I have
not touched on the grosser Egyptian conceptions concerning
the origin of the universe, which we may probably connect
with African ideals ; but those I have referred to will serve to
demonstrate the complete absence of any feature that presents
a detailed resemblance to Hebrew tradition.
When we turn to Babylonia, we find there also evidence of
conflicting ideas, the product of different and to some extent
competing religious centres. But in contrast to the rather
confused condition of Egyptian mythology, the Semitic Creation
myth of the city of Babylon, thanks to the latter s continued
political ascendency, succeeded in winning a dominant place in
the national literature. This is the version in which so many
points of resemblance to the first chapter of Genesis have long been
recognized, especially in the succession of creative acts and their
relative order. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version the creation
of the world is represented as the result of conflict, the emergence
of order out of chaos, a result that is only attained by the personal
triumph of the Creator. But this underlying dualism does not
appear in the more primitive Sumerian Version we have now
recovered. It will be remembered that in the second lecture
I gave some account of the myth, which occurs in an epito
mized form as an introduction to the Sumerian Version of the
Deluge, the two narratives being recorded in the same document
and connected with one another by a description of the Ante
diluvian cities. 4 We there saw that Creation is ascribed to the
1 See below, p. 130. For the wide diffusion, in the myths of remote peoples,
of a vague theory that would trace all created things to a watery origin, see
Farnell, Greece and Babylon, p. 180.
2 Gen. ii. 7 (J).
3 Cf., e.g., Isaiah xxix. 16, xlv. 9 ; and Jeremiah xviii. 2f.
4 See above, pp. 52 ft .
EGYPTIAN AND HEBEEW CONCEPTIONS 109
three greatest gods of the Sumerian pantheon, Ann, Enlil, and
Enki, assisted by the goddess Ninkharsagga.
It is significant that in the Sumerian Version no less than
four deities are represented as taking part in the Creation. For
in this we may see some indication of the period to which its
composition must be assigned. Their association in the text
suggests that the claims of local gods had already begun to
compete with one another as a result of political combination
between the cities of their cults. To the same general period
we must also assign the compilation of the Sumerian Dynastic
record, for that presupposes the existence of a supreme ruler
among the Sumerian city-states. This form of political consti
tution must obviously have been the result of a long process
of development, and the fact that its existence should be regarded
as dating from the Creation of the world indicates a comparatively
developed stage of the tradition. But behind the combination
of cities and their gods we may conjecturally trace anterior
stages of development, when each local deity and his human
representative seemed to their own adherents the sole objects for
worship and allegiance. And even after the demands of other
centres had been conceded, no deity ever quite gave up his local
claims.
Enlil, the second of the four Sumerian creating deities, even
tually ousted his rivals. It has indeed long been recognized that
the role played by Marduk in the Babylonian Version of Creation
had been borrowed from Enlil of Nippur ; and in the Atrakhasis
legend Enlil himself appears as the ultimate ruler of the world
and the other gods figure as his sons . Ann, who heads the
list and plays with Enlil the leading part in the Sumerian narra
tive, was clearly his chief rival. And though we possess no
detailed account of Ann s creative work, the persistent ascription
to him of the creation of heaven, and his familiar title, ; the
Father of the Gods , suggest that he once possessed a correspond
ing body of myth in Eanna, his temple at Erech. Enki, the third
of the creating gods, was naturally credited, as God of "Wisdom,
with special creative activities, and fortunately in his case we
have some independent evidence of the varied forms these could
assume.
: According to one tradition that has come down to us, 1 after
Anu had made the heavens, Enki created Apsft or the Deep,
1 See Weissbach, Babyhnische Miscellen, pp. 32 ff.
*
110 CEEATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
his own dwelling-place. Then taking from it a piece of clay 1 he
proceeded to create the Brick-god, and reeds and forests for the
supply of building material. From the same clay he continued
to form other deities and materials, including the Carpenter-god ;
the Smith-god ; Arazu, a patron-deity of building ; and moun
tains and seas for all that they produced ; the Goldsmith-god,
the Stone-cutter-god, and kindred deities, together with their
rich products for offerings ; the Grain-deities, Ashnan and
Lakhar ; Siris, a Wine-god ; Ningishzida and Ninsar, a Garden-
god, for the sake of the rich offerings they could make ; and
a deity described as the High priest of the great gods , to lay
down necessary ordinances and commands. Then he created the
King , for the equipment probably of a particular temple, and
finally men, that they might practise the cult in the temple so
elaborately prepared.
It will be seen from this summary of Enki s creative activities,
that the text from which it is taken is not a general Creation
myth, but in all probability the introductory paragraph of
a composition which celebrated the building or restoration of
a particular temple ; and the latter s foundation is represented, on
henotheistic lines, as the main object of creation. Composed
with that special purpose, its narrative is not to be regarded as
an exhaustive account of the creation of the world. The inci
dents are eclective, and only such gods and materials are men
tioned as would have been required for the building and adorn
ment of the temple and for the provision of its offerings and
cult. But even so its mythological background is instructive.
For while Anu s creation of heaven is postulated as the necessary
precedent of Enki s activities, the latter creates the Deep,
vegetation, mountains, seas, and mankind. 2 Moreover, in his
character as God of Wisdom, he is not only the teacher but the
creator of those deities who were patrons of man s own con
structive work. From such evidence we may infer that in his
temple at Eridu, now covered by the mounds of Abu Shahrain
in the extreme south of Babylonia, and regarded in early
Sumerian tradition as the first city in the world, 3 Enki himself
was once celebrated as the sole creator of the universe.
1 One of the titles of Enki was the Potter ; cf. Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.,
Pt. XXIV, pi. 14f.,ll. 41, 43.
8 For the development of what was probably a later conception, that Enki s
creative activities, like those of Marduk, were preceded by conflict, see below,
p. 116 f. 3 See above, p. 59.
SUMERIAN CREATOKS AND THEIR HELPER 111
The combination of the three gods Anu, Enlil, and Enki, is
persistent in the tradition; for not only were they the great
gods of the universe, representing respectively heaven, earth,
and the watery abyss, but they later shared the heavenly sphere
between them. It is in their astrological character that we find
them again in creative activity, though without the co-operation
of any goddess, when they appear as creators of the great light-
gods and as founders of time divisions, the day and the month.
This Sumerian myth, though it reaches us only in an extract or
summary in a Neo-Babylonian schoolboy s exercise, 1 may well
date from a comparatively early period, but probably from a time
when the Ways of Anu, Enlil, and Enki had already been fixed
in heaven and their later astrological characters had crystallized.
The idea that a goddess should take part with a god in man s
creation is already a familiar feature of Babylonian mythology.
Thus the goddess Aruru, in co-operation with Marduk, might be
credited with the creation of the human race, 2 as she might also
be pictured creating on her own initiative an individual hero
such as Enkidu of the Gilgamesh Epic. The role of mother of
mankind was also shared, as we have seen, 3 by the Semitic
Ishtar. And though the old Sumerian goddess, Ninkharsagga,
the Lady of the Mountains , appears in our Sumerian text for
the first time in the character of creatress, some of the titles we
know she enjoyed, under her synonyms in the great God List of
Babylonia, already reflected her cosmic activities. 4 For she was
known as
j The Builder of that which has Breath ,
4* The Carpenter of Mankind ,
v^ The Carpenter of the Heart ,
* The Coppersmith of the Gods ,
_jThe Coppersmith of the Land \ and
" VThe Lady Potter .
1 Sec TheSeven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 124 ff. The tablet gives extracts
from two very similar Sumerian and Semitic texts. In both of them Anu, Enlil,
and Knki appear as creators * through their sure counsel . In the Sumerian
extract they create the Moon and ordain its monthly course, while in the
Semitic text, after establishing heaven and earth, they create in addition to
the New Moon the bright Day, so that men beheld the Sun-god in the Gate of
his going forth .
2 Op. cit., p. 134 f.
;1 See above, p. 63 f.
4 Cf. Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., Pt, XXIV, pi. 12, 11. 32, 26, 27, 25, 24, 23,
and Pocbel, Hist. Texts, p. 34.
112 CREATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
In the myth we are not told her method of creation, but from
the above titles it is clear that in her own cycle of tradition
Ninkharsagga was conceived as fashioning men not only from
clay but also from wood, and perhaps as employing metal for
the manufacture of her other works of creation. Moreover, in
the great God List, where she is referred to under her title
Makh, Ninkharsagga is associated with Anu, Enlil, and Enki ;
she there appears, with her dependent deities, after Enlil and
before Enki. We thus have definite proof that her association
with the three chief Sumerian gods was widely recognized
in the early Sumerian period and dictated her position in the
classified pantheon of Babylonia. Apart from this evidence,
the important rank assigned her in the historical and legal
records and in votive inscriptions, 1 especially in the early period
and in Southern Babylonia, accords fully with the part she here
plays in the Sumerian Creation myth. Eannatum and Gudea
of Lagash both place her immediately after Anu and Enlil,
giving her precedence over Enki ; and even in the Kassite
Kudurru inscriptions of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries,
where she is referred to, she takes rank after Enki and before
the other gods. In Sumer she was known as the Mother of the
Gods , and she was credited with the power of transferring the
kingdom and royal insignia from one king to his successor.
Her supreme position as a goddess is attested by the relative
insignificance of her husband Dunpae, whom she completely over
shadows, in which respect she presents a contrast to the goddess
Ninlil, Enlil s female counterpart. The early clay figurines found
at Nippur and on other sites, representing a goddess suckling
a child and clasping one of her breasts, may well be regarded as
representing Ninkharsagga and not Ninlil. Her sanctuaries
were at Kesh and Adab, 2 both in the south, and this fact suffi
ciently explains her comparative want of influence in Akkad,
where the Semitic Ishtar took her place. She does indeed
appear in the north during the Sargonic period under her own
name, though later she survives in her synonyms of Ninmakh,
the Sublime Lady , and Nintu, the Lady of Child-bearing .
It is under the latter title that Hammurabi refers to her in his
Code of Laws, where she is tenth in a series of eleven deities.
But as Goddess of Birth she retained only a pale reflection of
1 See especially, Poebel, op. cit. t pp. 24 ff.
8 See above, p. 60.
RECONCILIATION OF RIVAL CLAIMS 113
her original cosmic character, and her functions were gradually
specialized. 1
From a consideration of their characters, as revealed by inde
pendent sources of evidence, we thus obtain the reason for the
co-operation of four deities in the Sumerian Creation. In fact
the new text illustrates a well-known principle in the develop
ment of myth, the reconciliation of the rival claims of deities,
whose cults, once isolated, had been brought from political causes
into contact with each other. In this aspect myth is the medium
through which a working pantheon is evolved. Naturally all
the deities concerned cannot continue to play their original parts
in detail. In the Babylonian Epic of Creation, where a single
deity, and not a very prominent one, was to be raised to pre
eminent rank, the problem was simple enough. He could retain
his own qualities and achievements while borrowing those of
any former rival. In the Sumerian text we have the result of
a far more delicate process of adjustment, and it is possible
that the brevity of the text is here not entirely due to com
pression of a longer narrative, but may in part be regarded as
evidence of early combination. As a result of the association
of several competing deities in the work of creation, a tendency
may be traced to avoid discrimination between rival claims.
Thus it is that the assembled gods, the pantheon as a whole, are
regarded as collectively responsible for the creation of the uni
verse. It may be added that this use of ildni, the gods , forms
an interesting linguistic parallel to the plural of the Hebrew
divine title Elohim.
It will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the
account of Creation is not given in full, only such episodes being
included as were directly related to the Deluge story. 2 No
doubt the selection of men and animals was suggested by their
subsequent rescue from the Flood ; and emphasis was purposely
laid on the creation of the niggilma because of the part it played
in securing mankind s survival. 3 Even so, we noted one striking
parallel between the Sumerian Version and that of the Semitic
Babylonians, in the reason both give for man s creation. 4 But
in the former there is no attempt to explain how the universe itself
1 Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under one of her later
synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr. Poebel suggests, with the Mylitta of
Herodotus.
2 See above, p. 56 f. 3 See above, p. 57.
4 See further, p. 115 f.
K. I
114 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
had come into being, and the existence of the earth is presupposed
at the moment when Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninkharsagga under
take the creation of man. The Semitic-Babylonian Version, on the
other hand, is mainly occupied with events that led up to the
acts of creation, and it concerns our problem to inquire how far
those episodes were of Semitic and how far of Sumerian origin.
A further question arises as to whether some strands of the
narrative may not at one time have existed in Sumerian form
independently of the Creation myth.
The statement is sometimes made that there is no reason to
assume a Sumerian original for the Semitic-Babylonian Version,
as recorded on the Seven Tablets of Creation ; l and this remark,
though true of that version as a whole, needs some qualification.
The composite nature of the poem has long been recognized, and
an analysis of the text has shown that no less than five principal
strands have been combined for its formation. These consist of
(i) The Birth of the Gods ; (ii) The Legend of JEa_and Apsu ; (iii)
The principal Dragon Myth j~ (iv) The actual account of Creation ;
and (v) The Hymn to Marduk under his fifty titles. 2 The
Assyrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which considerable
portions of its text are restored, quote throughout a Sumerian
original, and explain it word for word by the phrases of the
Semitic Version ; 3 so that for one out of the Seven Tablets a
Semitic origin is at once disproved. Moreover, the majority of
the fifty titles, even in the forms in which they have reached us
in the Semitic text, are demonstrably Sumerian, and since many
of them celebrate details of their owner s creative work, a Sume
rian original for other parts of the version is implied. Enlil and
Ea are both represented as bestowing their own names upon
Marduk,* and we may assume that many of the fifty titles were
originally borne by Enlil as a Sumerian Creator. 5 Thus some
portions of the actual account of Creation were probably derived
from a Sumerian original in which * Father Enlil figured as the
hero.
For what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves
responsible ? It seems to me that, in the * Seven Tablets , we
Cf., e.g., Jastrow, Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI (1916), p. 279.
See The Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. Ixvi ff. ; and cf. Skinner, Genesis,
43 If.
Cf. Sev. TabL, Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.
Cf. Tabl. VII, 11. 116 ff.
The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed for Enlil s name.
SEMITIC REDACTORS OF SUMERIAN MYTHS 115
may credit them with considerable ingenuity in the combination
of existing myths, but not with their invention. The whole poem
in its present form is a glorification of Marduk, the god of
Babylon, who is to be given pre-eminent rank among the gods
to correspond with the political position recently attained by his
city. It would have been quite out of keeping with the national
thought to make a break in the tradition, and such a course
would not have served the purpose of the Babylonian priesthood,
which was to obtain recognition of their claims by the older cult-
centres in the country. Hence they chose and combined the more
important existing myths, only making such alterations as would fit
them to their new hero. Babylon herself had won her position
by her own exertions ; and it would be a natural idea to
give Marduk his opportunity of becoming Creator of the world
as the result of successful conflict. A combination of the Dragon
myth with the myth of Creation would have admirably served
their purpose ; and this is what we find in the Semitic poem.
But even that combination may not have been their own inven
tion ; for, though, as we shall see, the idea of conflict had no part
in the earlier forms of the Sumerian Creation myth, its com
bination with the Dragon motif may have characterized the local
Sumerian Version of Nippur. How mechanical was the Baby
lonian redactors method of glorifying Marduk is seen in their
use of the description of Tiamat and her monster brood, whom
Marduk is made to conquer. To impress the hearers of the poem
with his prowess, this is repeated at length no less than four
times, one god carrying the news of her revolt to another.
Direct proof of the manner in which the later redactors have
been obliged to modify the original Sumerian Creation myth, in
consequence of their incorporation of other elements, may be
seen in the Sixth Tablet of the poem, where Marduk states the
reason for man s creation. In the second lecture we noted how
the very words of the principal Sumerian Creator were put into
Marduk s mouth ; but the rest of the Semitic god s speech finds
no equivalent in the Sumerian Version and was evidently
inserted in ordfc*%to reconcile the narrative with its later ingre
dients. This will best be seen by printing the two passages in
parallel columns : l
1 The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in the lower part of
the First Column (see above, p. 55 f.), is here compared with the Semitic-
Babylonian Creation Series, Tablet VI, 11. 6-10 (see Seven Tablets, Vol. I, pp. 86ff.).
The comparison is justified whether we regard the Sumerian speech as a direct
I 2
116 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
SUMERIAN VERSION. SEMITIC VERSION.
The people will I cause to (6) I will make man, that
in their settlements, man may [....].
Cities .... shall (man) build, c I will create man who
in their protection will shall inhabit [....]
I cause him to rest,
That he may lay the brick That the service of the
of our houses in a clean gods may be estab-
spot, lished, and that [their]
shrines [may be DuiltJ.
That in a clean spot he may But I will alter the ways
establish our ....! of the gods, and I will
change [their paths] ;
(10) Together shall they be
oppressed, and unto
evil shall [they....]!
The welding of incongruous elements is very apparent in the
Semitic Version. For the statement that man will be created in
order that the gods may have worshippers is at once followed by the
announcement that the gods themselves must be punished and
their ways changed. In the Sumerian Version the gods are
united and all are naturally regarded as worthy of man s worship.
The Sumerian Creator makes no distinctions ; he refers to our
houses , or temples, that shall be established. But in the later
version divine conflict has been introduced, and the future head
of the pantheon has conquered and humiliated the revolting
deities. Their ways must therefore be altered before they are
fit to receive the worship which was accorded them by right in
the simpler Sumerian tradition. In spite of the epitomized
character of the Sumerian Version, a comparison of these passages
suggests very forcibly that the Semitic-Babylonian myth of
Creation is based upon a simpler Sumerian story, which has been
elaborated to reconcile it with the Dragon myth.
The Semitic poem itself also supplies evidence of the indepen
dent existence of the Dragon myth apart from the process of
Creation, for the story of Ea and Apsft, which it incorporates, 1 is
merely the local Dragon myth of Eridu. Its inclusion in the story
is again simply a tribute to Marduk ; for though Ea, now become
Marduk s father, could conquer Apsu, he was afraid of Tiamat and
turned back . 2 The original Eridu myth no doubt represented
preliminary to man s creation, or as a reassertion of his duty after his rescue
from destruction by the Flood ; see above, p. 55.
1 See above, p. 114.
1 Tabl. Ill, 1. 54, &c. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, the third of the
INCONGRUOUS ELEMENTS IN SEMITIC POEM 117
Enki as conquering the watery Abyss, which became his home ;
but there is nothing to connect this tradition with his early
creative activities. We have long possessed part of another
local version of the Dragon myth, which describes the conquest
of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk ; and the fight is
there described as taking place, not before Creation, but at a time
when men existed and cities had been built. 1 Men and gods
were equally terrified at the monster s appearance, and it was to
deliver the land from his clutches that one of the gods went out
and slew him. Tradition delighted to dwell on the dragon s
enormous size and terrible appearance. In this version he is
described as fifty beru 2 in length and one in height ; his mouth
measured six cubits and the circuit of his ears twelve ; he
dragged himself along in the water, which he lashed with his
tail ; and, when slain, his blood flowed for three years, three
months, a day and a night. From this description we can see
he was given the body of an enormous serpent. 3
A further version of the Dragon myth has now been identified
on one of the tablets recovered during the recent excavations at
Ashur, 4 and in it the dragon is not entirely of serpent form, but
is a true dragon with legs. Like the one just described, he is a
male monster. The description occurs as part of a myth, of which
the text is so badly preserved that only the contents of one
column can be made out with any certainty. In it a god, whose
name is wanting, announces the presence of the dragon : In
the water he lies and ![....]! Thereupon a second god cries
successively to Aruru, the mother-goddess, and to Pallil, another
apocryphal additions to Daniel, we have direct evidence of the late survival of
the Dragon motif apart from any trace of the Creation myth ; in this connexion
see Charles, Apocrypha and Psetidepigrapha,Vol. I (1913), p. 653 f.
1 See Seven Tablets, Vol. I, pp. 116 if, Ixviiif. The text is preserved on an
Assyrian tablet made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal.
2 The b&m was the space that could be covered in two hours travelling.
3 The Babylonian Dragon had progeny in the later apocalyptic literature,
where we find very similar descriptions of the creatures size. Among them we
may perhaps include the dragon in the Apocalypse of Baruch, who, according
to the Slavonic Version, apparently every day drinks a cubit s depth from the
sea, and yet the sea does not sink because of the three hundred and sixty
rivers that flow into it (cf. James, Apocrypha Anecdote , Second Series, in
Armitage Robinson s Texts and Studies, V, No. 1, pp. lix ff.). But Egypt s
Dragon motif was even more prolific, and the Pistis Sophia undoubtedly
suggested descriptions of the Serpent, especially in connexion with Hades.
4 For the text, see Ebeling, Assurtexte I, No. 6 ; it is translated by him in
Orient. Lit.-Zeit., Vol. XIX, No. 4 (April, 1916).
118 CEEATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
deity, for help in his predicament. And then follows the
description of the dragon :
In the sea was the Serpent cre[ated].
Sixty beru is his length ;
Thirty beru high is his he [ad]. 1
For half (a beru) each stretches the surface of his ey[es] ; 2
For twenty beru go [his feet]. 3
He devours fish, the creatures [of the sea],
He devours birds, the creatures [of the heaven],
He devours wild asses, the creatures [of the field],
He devours men, 4 to the peoples [he ....].
The text here breaks off, at the moment when Pallil, whose
help against the dragon had been invoked, begins to speak. Let
us hope we shall recover the continuation of the narrative and
learn what became of this omnivorous monster.
There are ample grounds, then, for assuming the independent
existence of the Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the
versions recovered have come to us in Semitic form, there is no
doubt that the myth itself existed among the Sumerians. The
dragon motif is constantly recurring in descriptions of Sumerian
temple-decoration, and the twin dragons of Ningishzida on
Gudea s libation-vase, carved in green steatite and inlaid with
shell, are a notable product of Sumerian art. 5 The very names
borne by Tiamat s brood of monsters in the Seven Tablets are
stamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent, and Kingu,
whom she appointed as her champion in place of Apsu, is equally
1 The line reads : 30 b&*u Sa-ka-a ri-[Sav-8u]. Dr. Ebeling renders H-Sa-a as
* heads (Kdpfe), implying that the dragon had more than one head. It may be
pointed out that, if we could accept this translation, we should have an interest
ing parallel to the description of some of the primaeval monsters, preserved
from Berossus, as o-oyta ^Iv %\ovras *v, mtyaXas 5e dvo. But the common word for
head is kakkadu, and there can be little doubt that riSA is here used in its
ordinary sense of head, summit, top when applied to a high building.
8 The line r,eads : a-na \-ta-am la-bu-na li-bit 6n\A-8u\. Dr. Ebeling translates,
auf je eine Halfte ist ein Ziegel [ihrer] Auge[n] gelegt . But libittu is clearly
used here, not with its ordinary meaning of brick Y which yields a strange
rendering, but in its special sense, when applied to large buildings, of founda
tion, floor-space, area 1 , i.e. surface . Dr. Ebeling reads end-$u at the end of
the line, but the sign is broken ; perhaps the traces may prove to be those of
uzndSu, his ears , in which case li-bit uz\nd-lu} might be rendered either as
* surface of his ears , or as base (lit. foundation) of his ears .
3 i.e. the length of his pace was twenty b$ru.
* Lit. the black-headed .
6 See E. de Sarzec, D&ouvertes en Chaldee, pi. adiv, Fig. 2, and Heuzey, Cata
logue des antiquites chald&nnes, p. 281.
AN OMNIVOROUS MONSTER 119
Sumerian. It would be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not
evolved a Dragon myth, 1 for the Dragon combat is the most
obvious of nature myths and is found in most mythologies of Europe
and the Near East. The trailing storm-clouds suggest his serpent
form, his fiery tongue is seen in the forked lightning, and, though
he may darken the world for a time, the Sun-god will always
be victorious. In Egypt the myth of the Overthrowing of Apep,
the enemy of Ra presents a close parallel to that of Tiamat ; 2 but
of all Eastern mythologies that of the Chinese has inspired in
art the most beautiful treatment of the Dragon, who, however,
under his varied forms was for them essentially beneficent.
Doubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions of
the Dragon combat, both before and after their arrival on the
Euphrates, but the particular version which the priests of Babylon
wove into their epic is not one of them.
1 In his very interesting study of Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Begin
nings , contributed to the Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI (1916),
pp. 274 ff., Professor Jastrow suggests that the Dragon combat in the Semitic-
Babylonian Creation poem is of Semitic not Sumerian origin. He does not
examine the evidence of the poem itself in detail, but bases the suggestion
mainly on the two hypotheses, that the Dragon combat of the poem was
suggested by the winter storms and floods of the Euphrates Valley, and that
the Sumerians came from a mountain region where water was not plentiful.
If we grant both assumptions, the suggested conclusion does not seem to me
necessarily to follow, in view of the evidence we now possess as to the remote
date of the Sumerian settlement in the Euphrates Valley (see Lecture I, pp. 27 ff.).
Some evidence may still be held to point to a mountain home for the proto-
Sumerians, such as the name of their early goddess Ninkharsagga, the Lady of
the Mountains . But, as we must now regard Babylonia itself as the cradle of
their civilization, other data tend to lose something of their apparent signifi
cance. It is true that the same Sumerian sign means land and mountain ;
but it may have been difficult to obtain an intelligible profile for land without
adopting a mountain form. Such a name as Ekur, the Mountain House of
Nippur, may perhaps indicate size, not origin ; and Enki s association with
metal- working (see above, p. 110) may be merely due to his character as God of
Wisdom, and is not appropriate solely to a god whose home is in the mountains
where metals are found (op. cit., p. 295). It should be added that Professor
Jastrow s theory of the Dragon combat is bound up with his view of the origin
of an interesting Sumerian myth of beginnings , to which reference is made
later ; see below, p. 127.
2 Cf. Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. I, pp. 324 ff. The inclusion of the two
versions of the Egyptian Creation myth, recording the Birth of the Gods (see
above, p. 107), in the Book of the Overthrowing of Apep , does not present a
very close parallel to the combination of Creation and Dragon myths in the
Semitic-Babylonian poem, for in the Egyptian work the two myths are not
really combined, the Creation Versions being inserted in the middle of the
spells against Apep, without any attempt at assimilation (see Budge, Egyptian
Literature, Vol. I, p. xvi).
120 CEEATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
We have thus traced four out of the five strands which form
the Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to a Sumerian ancestry.
And we now come back to the first of the strands, the Birth of
the Gods, from which our discussion started. For if this too
should prove to be Sumerian, it would help to fill in the gap in
our Sumerian Creation myth, and might furnish us with some
idea of the Sumerian view of beginnings , which preceded the
acts of creation by the great gods.jTt will be remembered that
the poem opens with the description of a time when heaven and
earth did not exist, no field or marsh even had been created, and
the universe consisted only of the primaeval water-gods, Apsu,
Mummu, and Tiamat, whose waters were mingled together.
Then follows the successive generation of two pairs of deities,
Lakhmu and Lakhamu, and Anshar and Kishar, long ages sepa
rating the two generations from each other and from the birth of
the great gods which subsequently takes place. In the summary
of the myth which is given by Damascius l the names of the
various deities accurately correspond to those in the opening
lines of the poem ; but he makes some notable additions, as will
be seen from the following table :
DAMASCIUS. SEVEN TABLETS I.
Apsu Tiamat
MCOV//IS Mummu
e s 2 Aa\ri 2 Lakhmu Lakhamu
Ao-ero)po s Kto-o-apTJ Anshar Kishar
, Ao? Anu, [ ], Nudimmud ( = Ea)
In the passage of the poem which describes the birth of the
great gods after the last pair of primaeval deities, mention is
duly made of Anu and Nudimmud (the latter a title of Ea),
corresponding to the Avos and Ac s- of Damascius ; but there
appears to be no reference to Enlil, the original of "lAAi^o?. It is
just possible that his name occurred at the end of one of the
broken lines, and, if so, we should have a complete parallel to
Damascius. But the traces are not in favour of the restoration ; 3
1 Quaestiones de primis principiis, cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 384.
2 Emended from the reading Aa^^ icnl Aa^oi/ of the text.
8 Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time at the beginning
THE GODS AND DAMASCIUS 121
and the omission of Enlil s name from this part of the poem may
be readily explained as a further tribute to Marduk, who definitely
usurps his place throughout the subsequent narrative. Anu and
Ea had both to be mentioned because of the parts they play in
the Epic, but Enlil s only recorded appearance is in the final
assembly of the gods, where he bestows his own name * the Lord
of the World l upon Marduk. The evidence of Damascius
suggests that Enlil s name was here retained, between those of
Anu and Ea, in other versions of the poem. But the occurrence
of the name in any version is in itself evidence of the antiquity
of this strand of the narrative. It is a legitimate inference that
the myth of the Birth of the Gods goes back to a time at least
before the rise of Babylon, and is presumably of Sumerian origin.
Further evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu,
Enlil, and Ea (i.e. Enki), who are here created together, are the
three great gods of the Sumerian Version of Creation ; it is they
who create mankind with the help of the goddess Ninkharsagga,
and in the fuller version of that myth we should naturally expect
to find some account of their own origin. The reference in
Damascius to Marduk (BrjAoj) as the son of Ea and Damkina
(AauKr?) is also of interest in this connexion, as it exhibits a
goddess in close connexion with one of the three great gods,
much as we find Ninkharsagga associated with them in the
Sumerian Version. 2 Before leaving the names, it may be added
that, of the primaeval deities. Anshar and Kishar are obviously
Sumerian in form.
It may be noted that the character of Apsft and Tiamat in this
portion of the poem 3 is quite at variance with their later actions.
Their revolt at the ordered way of the gods was a necessary
preliminary to the incorporation of the Dragon myths, in which
Ea and Marduk are the heroes. Here they appear as entirely
beneficent gods of the primaeval water, undisturbed by storms,
in whose quiet depths the equally beneficent deities Lakhmu and
of a line, and the three lines following the reference to Nudiummd are entirely
occupied with descriptions of his wisdom and power. It is also probable that
the three preceding lines (11. 14-16), all of which refer to Anu by name, were
entirely occupied with his description. But it is only in 11. 13-16 that any
reference to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of their second
halves do not suggest the restoration.
1 Cf. Tabl. VII, 1. 116.
2 Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki ; and Ninkharsagga is associated
with Enki, as his consort, in another Sumerian myth (see above, p. 53, n. 4).
3 Tabl. 1,11. 1-21.
122 CEEATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
Lakhamu, Anshar and Kishar, were generated. 1 This interpre
tation, by the way, suggests a more satisfactory restoration for
the close of the ninth line of the poem than any that has yet
been proposed. That line is usually taken to imply that the gods
were created in the midst of [heaven] , but I think the follow
ing rendering, in connexion with 11. 1-5, gives better sense :
When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not bear a name,
And the primaeval Apsft who begat them, 2
And Mummu, and Tiamat who bore them 2 all,
(5) Their waters were mingled together,
(9) Then were created the gods in the midst of [their waters], 3
Lakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being . . .
If the ninth line of the poem be restored as suggested, its
account of the Birth of the Grods will be found to correspond
accurately with the summary from Berossus, who, in explaining
the myth, refers to the Babylonian belief that the universe
consisted at first of moisture in which living creatures, such as
he had already described, were generated. 4 The primaeval
waters are originally the source of life, not of destruction, and it
is in them that the gods are born, as in Egyptian mythology ;
1 We may perhaps see a survival of Tiamat s original character in her control
of the Tablets of Fate. The poem does not represent her as seizing them
in any successful fight ; they appear to be already hers to bestow on Kingu,
though in the later mythology they are not his by right (cf. Tabl. 1, 11. 137 ff.,
and Tabl. IV, 1. 121).
2 i.e. the gods.
8 The ninth line is preserved only on a Neo-Babylonian duplicate (Seven
Tablets,Vol. II, pi. i). I suggested the restoration ki-rib $[a-ma-mi], in the midst
of heaven , as possible, since the traces of the first sign in the last word of the
line seemed to be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of &a. The restoration
appeared at the time not altogether satisfactory in view of the first line of the
poem, and it could only be justified by supposing that Samdmu, or heaven , was
already vaguely conceived as in existence (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3, n. 14). But the
traces of the sign, as I have given them (op. cit., Vol. II, pi. i), may also possibly
be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of the sign me ; and I would now restore
the end of the line in the Neo-Babylonian tablet as ki-rib m[e-e~$u-nu], in the
midst of [their waters] *, corresponding to the form mu-u-Su-nu in 1. 5 of this
duplicate. In the Assyrian Version me(pl}-$u-nu would be read in both lines.
It will be possible to verify the new reading, by a re-examination of the traces
on the tablet, when the British Museum collections again become available for
study after the war.
* vypov yap OVTOS ToC navros KOI o>a>v tv avroi yfytvvi]^tvu)v [rotaivSe] *crX. His
creatures of the primaeval water were killed by the light ; and terrestrial
animals were then created which could bear (i.e. breathe and exist in) the air.
THE BIRTH OF THE GODS 123
there Nu, the primaeval water-god from whom Ka was self-
created, never ceased to be the Sun-god s supporter. The change
in the Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the
combination of the Dragon myth with that of Creation, 1 a com
bination that in Egypt would never have been justified by the
gentle Nile. 2 From a study of some of the names at the begin
ning of the Babylonian poem we have already seen reason to
suspect that its version of the Birth of the Gods goes back
to Sumerian times, and it is pertinent to ask whether we have
any further evidence that in Sumerian belief water was the
origin of all things.
For many years we have possessed a Sume rian myth of
Creation, which has come to us on a late Babylonian tablet as
the introductory section of an incantation. It is provided with
a Semitic translation, and to judge from its record of the building
of Babylon and Esagila, Marduk s temple, and its identification
of Marduk himself with the Creator, it has clearly undergone
some editing at the hands of the Babylonian priests. Moreover,
the occurrence of various episodes out of their logical order, and
the fact that the text records twice over the creation of swamps
and marshes, reeds and trees or forests, animals and cities,
indicate that two Sumerian myths have been combined. Thus
we have no guarantee that the other cities referred to by name
in the text, Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, are mentioned in any
significant connexion with each other. 3 Of the actual cause of
Creation the text appears to give two versions also, one in its
present form impersonal, and the other carried out by a god.
But these two accounts are quite unlike the authorized version of
Babylon, and we may confidently regard them as representing
genuine Sumerian myths. The text resembles other early
accounts of Creation by introducing its narrative with a series of
negative statements, which serve to indicate the preceding non-
existence of the world, as will be seen from the following extract : 4
1 See below, p. 128 f. * Cf. p. 95.
5 The composite nature of the text is discussed by Professor Jastrow in his
Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions, pp. 89 if. ; and in his paper in the Jonrn.
Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 279 if., he has analysed it into two main
versions, which he suggests originated in Eridu and Nippur respectively. The
evidence of the text does not appear to me to support the view that any refer
ence to a watery chaos preceding Creation must necessarily be of Semitic
origin; see above, p. 119, n. 1. For the literature of the text (first published
by Pinches, Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc., Vol. XXIII, pp. 393 ff.), see Sev. Tab!.,
Vol. I, p. 130. * Obv., 11. 5-12.
124 CREATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
No city had been created, no creature had been made,
Nippur had not been created, Ekur had not been built,
Erech had not been created, Eanna had not been built,
Apsu had not been created, Eridu had not been built,
Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had
not been created.
All lands l were sea.
At the time when a channel (was formed) in the midst of the
sea,
Then was Eridu created, Esagila was built, etc.
Here we have the definite statement that before Creation all the
world was sea. And it is important to note that the primaeval
water is not personified ; the ordinary Sumerian word for sea
is employed, which the Semitic translator has faithfully rendered
in his version of the text. 2 The reference to a channel in the
sea, as the cause of Creation, seems at first sight a little obscure;
but the word implies a drain or * water-channel , not a current
of the sea itself, and the reference may be explained as suggested
by the drainage of a flood-area. No doubt the phrase was
elaborated in the original myth, and it is possible that what
appears to be a second version of Creation later on in the text
is really part of the more detailed narrative of the first myth.
There the Creator himself is named. He is the Sumerian god
Gilimma, and in the Semitic translation Marduk s name is sub
stituted. To the following couplet, which describes Gilimma s
method of creation, is appended a further extract from a later
portion of the text, there evidently displaced, giving additional
details of the Creator s work :
(17) Gilimma bound reeds in the face of the waters,
(18) He formed soil and poured it out beside the reeds. 3
1 Sum. nigin kur-kur-ra-ge, Sem. nap-har ma-ta-a-tu, lit. * all lands , i. e.
Sumerian and Babylonian expressions for the world .
2 Sum. a-ab-ba, sea , is here rendered by tdmtum, not by its personified
equivalent Tiamat.
3 The suggestion has been made that amu, the word in the Semitic version
here translated reeds , should be connected with ammatu, the word used for
earth or dry land in the Babylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, 1. 2, and given
some such meaning as expanse . The couplet is thus explained to mean that"
the god made an expanse on the face of the waters, and then poured out dust
on the expanse . But the Semitic version in 1. 18 reads itti ami, beside the
. , not ina ami, on the a. ; and in any case there does not seem much
significance in the act of pouring out specially created dust on or beside land
already formed. The Sumerian word translated by amu is written gi-dir, with
A MESOPOTAMIAN METHOD OF CREATION 125
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
"He] l filled in a dike by the side of the sea,
He . . . .] a swamp, he formed a marsh.
....], he brought into existence,
Reeds he formjed, 2 trees he created.
Here the Sumerian Creator is pictured as forming dry land i/
from the primaeval water in much the same way as the early
cultivator in the Euphrates Valley procured the rich fields for
his crops. The existence of the earth is here not really pre
supposed. All the world was sea until the god created land out
of the waters by the only practical method that was possible in
Mesopotamia.
In another Sumerian myth, which has been recovered on one of
the early tablets from Nippur, we have a rather different picture
of beginnings. For there, though water is the source of life, the
existence of the land is presupposed. But it is bare and deso
late, as in the Mesopotamian season of low water . The under
lying idea is suggestive of a period when some progress in
systematic irrigation had already been made, and the filling of
the dry canals and subsequent irrigation of the parched ground
by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but eagerly desired.
The myth is only one of several that have been combined to
form the introductory sections of an incantation ; but in all of
them Enki, the god of the deep water, plays the leading part,
though associated with different consorts. 3 The incantation is
the element gi. reed , in 1. 17, and though in the following line it is written
under its variant form a-dir without gi, the equation gi-a-dir = amu is elsewhere
attested (cf. Delitzsch, Handworterbuch, p. 77). In favour of regarding amu as
some sort of reed, here used collectively, it may be pointed out that the
Sumerian verb in 1. 17 is keida, to bind , accurately rendered by rakdsu in the
Semitic version. Assuming that 1. 34 belongs to the same account, the creation
of reeds in general beside trees, after dry land is formed, would not of course
be at variance with the god s use of some sort of reed in his first act of creation.
He creates the reed-bundles, as he creates the soil, both of which go to form
the first dike ; the reed-beds, like the other vegetation, spring up from the
ground when it appears.
1 The Semitic version here reads the lord Marduk ; the corresponding
name in the Sumerian text is not preserved.
2 The line is restored from 1. 2 of the obverse of the text.
3 Cf. supra, p. 53, n. 4. See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect., Vol.
X, No. 1 (1915), pi. i f., pp. 69 ft. ; Journ. Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp.
140 ff. ; cf. Prince, Jourti. Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI, pp. 90 ff. ; Jastrow, Journ.
Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. XXXVI, pp. 122 ff., and in particular his detailed study of
the text in Amer, Journ. Semit. Lang., Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ft . Dr. Langdon s
first description of the text, in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Vol. XXXVI (1914),
pp. 188 if., was based on a comparatively small fragment only; and on his
126 CREATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
directed against various diseases, and the recitation of the
closing mythical section was evidently intended to enlist the aid
of special gods in combating them. The creation of these
deities is recited under set formulae in a sort of refrain, and the
divine name assigned to each bears a magical connexion with
the sickness he or she is intended to dispel. 1
We have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in
magic, which was common in both Egypt and Babylonia ; 2 and
to illustrate its employment against disease, as in the Nippur
document, it will suffice to cite a well-known magical cure for
the toothache which was adopted in Babylon. 3 There toothache
was believed to be caused by the gnawing of a worm in the gum,
and a myth was used in the incantation intended to relieve it.
The worm s origin is traced from Anu, the god of heaven, through
a descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the earth,
rivers, canals and marshes are represented as each giving rise to
the next in order, until finally the marshes produce the worm.
The myth then relates how the worm, on being offered tempting
food by Ea in answer to her prayer, asked to be allowed to drink
the blood of the teeth, and the incantation closes by invoking
the curse of Ea because of the worm s misguided choice. It is
clear that power over the worm was obtained by a recital of her
completion of the text from other fragments in Pennsylvania, Professor Sayce
at once realized that the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth could not be
sustained (cf. Expos. Times, Nov., 1915, pp. 88 ff.). He, Professor Prince, and
Professor Jastrow independently showed that the action of Enki in the myth in
sending water on the land was not punitive but beneficent ; and the preceding
section, in which animals are described as not performing their usual activities,
was shown independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to have
reference, not to their different nature in an ideal existence in Paradise, but,
on familiar lines, to their non-existence in a desolate land. It may be added
that Professor Barton and Dr. Peters agree generally with Professor Prince and
Professor Jastrow in their interpretation of the text, which excludes the
suggested biblical parallels ; and I understand from Dr. Langdon that he very
rightly recognizes that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a subject for con
gratulation that the discussion has materially increased our knowledge of this
difficult composition.
1 Cf. Col. VI, 11. 24 ff. ; thus Ab-u was created for the sickness of the cow (db) ;
Nin-fr/Z for that of the flock (u-tul) ; Nin-fca-u-tu and Nin-fra-si for that of the
mouth (ka) ; Na-zi for that of the na-zi (meaning uncertain) ; Da-zt-ma for that
of the da-zi (meaning uncertain) ; "Sin-til for that of til (life) ; the name of the
eighth and last deity is imperfectly preserved.
8 See above, pp. 50 f., 57, 107 ; and cf. pp. 68, 86 f., 119, n. 2.
8 See Thompson, Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, Vol. II, pp. 160 ff. ; for
a number of other examples, see Jastrow, J. A. 0. S., Vol. XXXVI, p. 279, n. 7.
MYTH AND THE CURE OF DISEASE 127
creation and of her subsequent ingratitude, which led to her
present occupation and the curse under which she laboured.
When the myth and invocation had been recited three times
over the proper mixture of beer, a plant, and oil, and the mixture
had been applied to the offending tooth, the worm would fall
under the spell of the curse and the patient would at once gain
relief. The example is instructive, as the connexion of ideas
is quite clear. In the Nippur document the recital of the crea
tion of the eight deities evidently ensured their presence, and a
demonstration of the mystic bond between their names and the
corresponding diseases rendered the working of their powers
effective. Our knowledge of a good many other myths is due
solely to their magical employment.
Perhaps the most interesting section of the new text is one in
which divine instructions are given in the use of plants, the fruit
or roots of which may be eaten. Here Usmu, a messenger from
Enki, God of the Deep, names eight such plants by Enki s orders,
thereby determining the character of each. As Professor Jastrow
has pointed out, the passage forcibly recalls the story from
Berossus, concerning the mythical creature Oannes, who came
up from the Erythraean Sea, where it borders upon Baby
lonia, to instruct mankind in all things, including * seeds and the
gathering of fruits .* But the only part of the text that concerns
us here is the introductory section, where the life-giving flood,
by which the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured as following the
union of the water-deities, Enki and Ninella. 2 Professor Jastrow
is right in emphasizing the complete absence of any conflict in
this Sumerian myth of beginnings ; but, as with the other Sume-
rian Versions we have examined, it seems to me there is no need
to seek its origin elsewhere than in the Euphrates Valley.
Even in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation
had been superseded by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never
ceased to be regarded as the source of life and the creator of
all things. And this is well brought out in the following intro-
1 Cf. Jastrow, J. A. 0. S., Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and A.J.S.L., Vol. XXXIII.
p. 134 f. It may be added that the divine naming of the plants also presents a
faint parallel to the naming of the beasts and birds by man himself in Gen.
ii. 19 f.
Professor Jastrow (A. J. S. ,., Vol. XXXIII, p. 115) compares similar myths
collected by Sir James Frazer (Magic Art, Vol. II, chap, xi and chap, xii, 2).
He also notes the parallel the irrigation myth presents to the mist (or flood) of
the earlier Hebrew Version (Gen. ii. 5 f.). But Enki, like Ea, was no rain-god ;
he had his dwelling in the Euphrates and the Deep (see below, p. 128).
128 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
ductory lines of a Semitic incantation, of which we possess two
Neo-Babylonian copies : l
thou River, who didst create all things,
When the great gods dug thee out,
They set prosperity upon thy banks.
Within thee Ea, King of the Deep, created his dwelling.
The Flood they sent not before thou wert !
Here the river as creator is sharply distinguished from the
Flood ; and we may conclude that the water of the Euphrates
Valley impressed the early Sumerians, as later the Semites, with
its creative as well as with its destructive power. The reappear
ance of the fertile soil, after the receding inundation, doubtless
suggested the idea of creation out of water, and the stream s
slow but automatic fall would furnish a model for the age-long
evolution of primaeval deities. When a god s active and arti
ficial creation of the earth must be portrayed, it would have been
natural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the Creator working
as he himself would work when he reclaimed a field from flood.
We are thus shown the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling reed-
bundles in the water and heaping up soil beside them, till the
ground within his dike dries off and produces luxuriant vege
tation. But here there is a hint of struggle in the process, and
we perceive in it the myth-redactor s opportunity to weave in
the Dragon motif. No such excuse is afforded by the other
Sumerian myth, which pictures the life-producing inundation as
the gift of the two deities of the Deep and the product of their
union.
But in their other aspect the rivers of Mesopotamia could be
terrible ; and the Dragon motif itself, on the Tigris and Euphrates,
drew its imagery as much from flood as from storm. When
therefore a single deity must be made to appear, not only as
Creator, but also as the champion of his divine allies and the
conqueror of other gods, it was inevitable that the myths attaching
to the waters under their two aspects should be combined. This
may already have taken place at Nippur, when Enlil became the
head of the pantheon ; but the existence of his myth is conjec
tural. 2 In a later age we can trace the process in the light of
1 Cf. Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, p. 128 f. For striking evidence of the
survival of the cult of the Euphrates into the Roman period, see Cumont,
Etudes Syriennes, pp. 247 ff.
2 The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is emphasized in Tablet VII
MYTHOLOGY AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
history and of existing texts. There Marduk, identified wholly
as the Sun-god, conquers the once featureless primaeval water,
which in the process of redaction has now become the Dragon
of flood and storm.
Thus the dualism, which is so characteristic a feature of the
Semitic-Babylonian system, though absent from the earliest
Sumerian ideas of Creation, was inherent in the nature of the
local rivers, whose varied aspects gave rise to or coloured separate
myths. Its presence in the later mythology may be traced as
a reflection of political development, at first probably among the
warring cities of Sumer, but certainly later in the Semitic
triumph at Babylon. It was but to be expected that the con
queror, whether Sumerian or Semite, should represent his own
god s victory as the establishment of order out of chaos. But
this would be particularly in harmony with the character of the
Semitic Babylonians of the First Dynasty, whose gemus for
method and organization produced alike Hammurabi s Code of
Laws and the straight streets of the capital.
We have thus been able to trace the various strands of the
Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins ; and
in the second lecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with
regard to the Semitic- Babylonian Version of the Deluge pre
served in the Epic of Gilgamesh. We there saw that the literary
structure of the Sumerian Version, in which Creation and Deluge
are combined, must have survived under some form into the Nep-
Baby Ionian period, since it was reproduced by Berossus. And
we noted the fact that the same arrangement in Genesis did
not therefore prove that the Hebrew accounts go back directly to
early Sumerian originals. In fact, the structural resemblance
presented by Genesis can only be regarded as an additional proof
that the Sumerian originals continued to be studied and trans
lated by the Semitic priesthood, although they had long been
superseded officially by their later descendants, the Semitic epics.
A detailed comparison of the Creation and Deluge narratives
in the various versions at once discloses the fact that the con-
of the Babylonian poem of Creation (see above, p. 114). It is significant that
his first title, Asari, should be interpreted as Bestower of planting , Founder
of sowing , Creator of grain and plants , He who caused the green herb to
spring up (cf. Seven Tablets, Vol. I, p. 92 f.). These opening phrases, by which
the god is hailed, strike the key-note of the whole composition. It is true that,
as Sukh-kur, he is Destroyer of the foe ; but the great majority of the titles
and their Semitic glosses refer to creative activities, not to the Dragon myth.
K. K
130 CREATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
nexion between those of the Semitic Babylonians and the Hebrews
is far closer and more striking than that which can be traced
when the latter are placed beside the Sumerian originals. 1 We
may therefore regard it as certain that the Hebrews derived their
knowledge of Sumerian tradition, not directly from the Sumerians
themselves, but through Semitic channels from Babylon.
It will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points
of resemblance that are admitted to exist between the Hebrew
account of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis and that
preserved in the Seven Tablets . 2 It will suffice to emphasize
two of them, which gain in significance through our newly
acquired knowledge of early Sumerian beliefs. It must be l
admitted that, on first reading the poem, one is struck mo"rg~by
the differences^ than by tne paralle lH I but tflal is due to tne
polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention wherT~~
compared with the severe and dignified monotheism of the
Hebrew writer. And if allowance be made for the change
in theological standpoint, the material points of resemblance
are seen to be very marked. The outline or general course
of events is the same.* In both we have an abyss of waters
at the beginning denoted by almost the same Semitic word^
the Hebrew tehom, translated the deep in Gen. i. 2, being
the equivalent of the Semitic- Babylonian Tiamat, the mon
ster of storm and flood who presents so striking a contrast
to the Sumerian primaeval water. 3 The second act of Creation
in the Hebrew narrative is that of a firmament , which divided
the waters under it from those above. 4 But this, as we have
seen, has no parallel in the early Sumerian conception until it
was combined with the Dragon combat in the form in which
we find it in the Babylonian poem. There the body of Tiamat
is divided by Marduk, and from one half of her he constructs a
covering or dome for heaven, that is to say a firmament , to
keep her upper waters in place. These will suffice as test
passages, since they serve" to point out quite clearly the Semitic
1 See the comparative table of Versions given as Appendix I, p. 142 f. .
2 See Seven Tablets, Vol. I, pp. Ixxxiff., and Skinner, Genesis, pp. 45 ff.
3 The invariable use of the Hebrew word tehdm without the article, except in
two passages in the plural, proves that it is a proper name (cf. Skinner, op. cit.,
p. 17); and its correspondence with Tiatnat makes the resemblance of the
versions far more significant than if their parallelism were confined solely to
ideas (see above, p. 108, n. 1).
4 Gen. i. 6-8.
PRIMITIVE ANCESTEY OF THE TRADITIONS 131
source to which all the other detailed points of Hebrew resem
blance may be traced.
In the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a demonstra
tion is not possible, since we have no similar criterion to apply.
And on one point, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve am
original Sumerian strand of the narrative that was not woven
into the Gilgamesh Epic, where there is no parallel to the piety of \
Noah, But from the detailed description that was given in the
second lecture, it will have been noted that the Sumerian account
is on the whole far simpler and more primitive than the other
versions. It is only in the Babylonian Epic, for example, that
the later Hebrew writer finds material from which to construct
the ark, while the sweet savour of Ut-napishtim s sacrifice, and
possibly his sending forth of the birds, though reproduced in
the earlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the Sumerian
account. 1 As to the general character of the Flood, there is no
direct reference to rain in the Sumerian Version, though its
presence is probably implied in the storm. The heavy rain of
the Babylonian Epic has been increased to forty days of rain
mjbhe earlier Hebrew Version, which would be suitable to a
country where local rain was the sole cause of flood. But the
later Hebrew writer s addition of the fountains of the deep
to * the windows of heaven certainly suggests a more intimate
knowledge of Mesopotamia, where some contributary cause other
than local rain must be sought for the sudden and overwhelming
catastrophes of which the rivers are capable.
/ Thus, viewed from a purely literary standpoint, we are now
enabled to trace back to a primitive age the ancestry of the
traditions, which, under a very different aspect, eventually found
their way into Hebrew literature. And in the process we may
note the changes they underwent as they passed from one race
to another. The result of such literary analysis and comparison,
so far from discrediting the narratives in Genesis, throws into
still stronger relief the moral grandeur of the Hebrew text,
We come then to the question, at what periods and by what
process did the Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian
ideas ? The tendency of the purely literary school of critics has
been to explain the process by the direct use of Babylonian
1 For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented by the Hebrew
Versions J and P to the account in the Gilgamesh Epic, see Skinner, op. cit. t
p. 177 f. ; Driver, Genesis, p. 106 f.; and Gordon, Early Traditions of
(1907), pp. 38 ff.
K 2
132 CKEATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
documents wholly within exilic times. If the Creation and
Deluge narratives stood alone, a case might perhaps be made
out for confining Babylonian influence to this late period. It
is true that durijig_the Captivity the Jews were directly exposed
to such influence. They had the life and civilization of their
captors immediately before their eyes, and it would have been
only natural for the more learned among the Hebrew scribes
and priests to interest themselves in the ancient literature of
their new home. And any previous familiarity with the myths
of Babylonia would undoubtedly have been increased by actual
residence in the country. We may perhaps see a result of such
acquaintance with Babylonian literature, after Jehoiachin s de
portation, in an interesting literary parallel that has been pointed
I out between_EzeEriav. 12-20 ancTaTspeech in the Babylonian
Epic^XT^TL. 180-1947*
The passage in Ezekiel occurs within chaps, i-xxiv, which corre
spond to the prophet s first period and consist in the main of his
utterances in exile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in fact,
the introduction to the prophet s announcement of the coming
of four sore judgements upon Jerusalem , from which there
shall be left a remnant that shall be carried forth . 2 But in
consequence, here and there, of traces of a later point of view, it is
generally admitted that many of the chapters in this section may
have been considerably amplified and altered by Ezekiel himself
in the course of writing. And if we may regard the literary
parallel that has been pointed out as anything more than for
tuitous, it is open to us to assume that chap, xiv may have been
worked up by Ezekiel many years after his prophetic call at
Tel-abib.
In the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already sent the
Flood and had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon
remonstrates with him, and he urges that in future the sinner
only should be made to suffer for his sin ; and, instead of again
causing a flood, let there be discrimination in the divine punish
ments sent on men or lands. While the flood made the escape of
1 See Daiches, Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the Deluge , in the
Jewish Quarterly Review, April 1905. It has of course long been recognized
that Ezekiel, in announcing the punishment 01 the king of Egypt in xxxii. 2ff.,
uses imagery which strongly recalls the Babylonian Creation myth. For he
/ compares Pharaoh to a sea-monster over whom Yahweh will throw his net (as
1 Marduk had thrown his over Tiamat) ; cf. Loisy, Les myihes babylonims et les
premiers chapitres de la Genese (1901), p. 87.
1 Ezek. xiv. 21 f.
EZEKIEL AND THE GILGAMESH EPIC
133
the deserving impossible, other forms of punishment would affect
the guilty only. In Ezekiel the subject is the same, but the
point of view is different. The land the prophet has in his
mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah, and his desire is to explain
why it will suffer although not all its inhabitants deserved to
share its fate. The discrimination, which Ea urges, Ezekiel
asserts will be made ; but the sinner must bear his own sin, and
the righteous, however eminent, can only save themselves by
their righteousness. The general principle propounded in the
Epic is here applied to a special case. But the parallelism
between the passages lies not only in the general principle but
also in the literary setting. This will best be brought out by
printing the passages in parallel columns.
Gilg. Epic, XI, 180-194.
(180) Ea opened his mouth and
spake,
He said to the warrior
Enlil:
Thou director of the
gods ! warrior !
Why didst thou not take
counsel but didst cause
a flood ?
On the sinner lay his sin,
(185) On the transgressor lay
his transgression !
Be merciful, so that (all)
be not destroyed !
Have patience, so that
(all) be not [cut off] !
Instead of causing a
flood,
Let lions 1 come and
diminish mankind !
Instead of causing a
flood,
(190) Let leopards 1 come and
diminish mankind !
Instead of causing a
flood,
Let famine be caused and
let it [smite] the land !
Instead of causing a
flood,
Ezek. xiv. 12-20.
12 And the word of the Lord
came unto me, saying,
13 Son of man, when a land
sinneth against me by
committing a trespass, and
I stretch out mine hand
upon it, and break the
staff of the bread thereof,
and send famine upon it,
and cut off from it man
and beast ; 14 though
these three men, Noah,
Daniel, and Job, were in
it, they should deliver
but their own souls by
their righteousness, saith
the Lord God.
15 If I cause noisome beasts to
pass through the land, and
they spoil it, so that it be
desolate, that no man
may pass through because
of the beasts ; 16 though
these three men were in
it, as I live, saith the
Lord God, they shall de
liver neither sons nor
daughters ; they only
shall be delivered, but the
land shall be desolate.
1 Both Babylonian words are in the singular, but probably used collectively,
as is the case with their Hebrew equivalent in Ezek. xiv. 15.
134 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
(194) Let the Plague-god come 17 Or if I bring a sword upon
and fslay I mankind ! that land, and say, Sword,
go through the land ; so
that I cut off from it man
and beast ; 18 though
these three men were in
it, as I live, saith the Lord
God, they shall deliver
neither sons nor daugh
ters, but they only shall
be delivered themselves.
19 Or if I send a pestilence into
that land, and pour out
my fury upon it in blood,
to cut off from it man and
beast; 20 though Noah,
Daniel, and Job, were in
it, as I live, saith the Lord
God, they shall deliver
neither son nor daughter ;
they shall but deliver
their own souls by their
righteousness.
It will be seen that, of the four kinds of divine punishment
mentioned, three accurately correspond in both compositions.
Famine and pestilence occur in both, while the lions and leopards
of the Epic find an equivalent in noisome beasts . The sword
is not referred to in the Epic, but as this had already threatened
Jerusalem at the time of the prophecy s utterance its inclusion
by Ezekiel was inevitable. Moreover, the fact that Noah should
be named in the refrain, as the first of the three proverbial
examples of righteousness, shows that Ezekiel had the Deluge in
his mind, and increases the significance of the underlying parallel
between his argument and that of the Babylonian poet. 1 It may
1 This suggestion is in some measure confirmed by the Biblical Antiquities of
Philo, ascribed by Dr. James to the closing years of the first century A.D. ; for
its writer, in his account of the Flood, has actually used Ezek. xiv. 12 ff. in
order to elaborate the divine speech in Gen. yiii. 21 f. This will be seen from
the following extract, in which the passage interpolated between verses 21 and
22 of Gem viii.is enclosed within brackets: And God said: I will not again
curse the earth for man s sake, for the guise of man s heart hath left off (sic)
from his youth. And therefore I will not again destroy together all living as
I have done. [But it shall be, when the dwellers upon earth have sinned,
I will judge them by famine or by the sword or by fire or by pestilence (lit. death),
and there shall be earthquakes, and they shall be scattered into places not
inhabited (or, the places of their habitation shall be scattered). But I will not
HEBREW PRE-EXILIC FLOOD STORY 135
be added that Ezekiel has thrown his prophecy into poetical
form, and the metre of the two passages in the Babylonian and
Hebrew is, as Dr. Daiches points out, not dissimilar.
It may of course be urged that wild beasts, famine, and pesti
lence are such obvious forms of divine punishment that their
enumeration by both writers is merely due to chance. But the
parallelism should be considered with the other possible points
of connexion, namely, the fact f.ln|fr ftfrf.h writer is dealing with
discrimination in divine punishments of a wholesale character,
and that while the one is inspired by the Babylonian tradition of
the Flood, the other takes the hero of the Hebrew Flood story as
the first of his selected types of righteousness. It is possible that
Ezekiel may have heard the Babylonian Version recited after his
arrival on the Chebar. And assuming that some form of the
story had long been a cherished tradition of the Hebrews them
selves, we could understand his intense interest in finding it
confirmed by the Babylonians, who would show him where their
Flood had taken place. To a man of his temperament, the one
passage in the Babylonian poem that would have made a special
appeal would have been that quoted above, where the poet urges
that divine vengeance should be combined with mercy, and that
all, righteous and wicked alike, should not again be destroyed.
A problem continually in Ezekiel s thoughts was this very
question of wholesale divine punishment, as exemplified in the
case of Judah ; and it would not have been unlikely that the
literary structure of the Babylonian extract may have influenced
the form in which he embodied his own conclusions.
( But even if we regard this suggestion as unproved or improbable,
Ezekiel s reference to Noah surely presupposes that at least some
version of the Flood story was familiar to the Hebrews before
the Captivity./ And this conclusion is confirmed by other Baby
lonian parallels in the early chapters of Genesis, in which ^oral
^radition rather than documentary borrowing must have played
ttiejgajing part. 1 Thus JJabyl01lRm-pr^ITeIsmay be cited for
again spoil the earth with the water of a flood, and] in all the days of the earth
seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and autumn, day and night shall
not cease . . . ; see James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, p. 81, iii. 9. Here
wild beasts are omitted, and fire, earthquakes, and exile are added ; but famine,
sword, and pestilence are prominent, and the whole passage is clearly suggested
by Ezekiel. As a result of the combination, we have in the Biblical Antiquities
a complete parallel to the passage in the Gilgamesh Epic.
1 See Loisy, Les mythes babyloniens, pp. lOff., and cf. S. Reinach, Cultes,
Mythfs et Religions, t. II, pp. 386 ff.
136 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
many features in the story of Paradise, 1 though no equivalent of
the story itself has been recovered. In the legend of Adapa, for
example, wisdom and immortality are the prerogative of the
gods, and the winning of immortality by man is bound up with
eating the Food of Life and drinking the "Water of Life ; here
too man is left with the gift of wisdom, but immortality is with
held. And the association of winged guardians with the Sacred
Tree in Babylonian art is at least suggestive of the Cherubim and
the Tree of Life. The very site of Eden has now been identified
in Southern Babylonia by means of an old boundary-stone
acquired by the British Museum a year or two ago. 2
But I need not now detain you by going over this familiar
ground. Such possible echoes from Babylon seem to suggest
pre-exilic influence rather than late borrowing, and they surely
justify us in inquiring to what periods of direct or indirect
contact, earlier than the Captivity, the resemblances between
Hebrew and Babylonian ideas may be traced. One point, which
we may regard as definitely settled by our new material, is that
these stories of the Creation and of the early history of the world
were not of Semitic origin. It is no longer possible to regard
the Hebrew and Babylonian Versions as descended from common
Semitic originals. For we have now recovered some of those
originals, and they are npt Semitic but Sumerian. The question
thus resolves itself into an inquiry as to periods during which
the Hebrews may have come into direct or indirect contact with
Babylonia.
There are three pre-exilic periods at which it has been sug
gested the Hebrews, * or the ancestors of the race, may have
acquired a knowledge of Babylonian traditions. The earliest of /i \
these is the age of the patriarchs, the traditional ancestors of the
Hebrew nation. The second period is that of the sejjijlgment in
Cajmaji, which we may put from 1200 B. c. to the establishment
of David s kingdom at about 1000 B. c. The third period is that
of the la/terJudaean^monftrchy, from 734 to 586 B. c., the date of ^
the fall of Jerusalem ; and in this last period there are two
1 Cf. especially Skinner, Genesis, pp. 90 ff. For the latest discussion of the
Serpent and the Tree of Life, suggested by Dr. Skinner s summary of the
evidence, see Frazer in Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway (1913),
pp. 413 if.
2 See Babylonian Boundary Stones in the British Museum (1912), pp. 76 ff., and
cf. Geographical Journal, Vol. XL, No. 2 (Aug., 1912), p. 147. For the latest
review of the evidence relating to the site of Paradise, see Boissier, La situation
du paradis terrestre , in Le Globe, t. LV, Memoires (Geneva, 1916).
PEOBLEM OF BABYLONIAN PARALLELS 137
reigns of special importance in this connexion, those of Ahaz
(734-720 B. c.) and Manasseh (693-638 B. c.).
With regard to the earliest of these periods, those who support
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may quite consistently
assume that Abraham heard the legends in Ur of the Chaldees.
And a simple retention of the traditional view seems to me a far
preferable attitude to any elaborate attempt at rationalizing it.
It is admitted that Arabia was the cradle of the Semitic race ;
and the most natural line of advance from Arabia to Aram and
thence to Palestine would be up the Euphrates Valley. Some
writers therefore assume that nomad tribes, personified in the
traditional figure of Abraham, mayTiave camped ^br a time in
the neighbourhood pf Ur and Babylon ; and that they may have
carried the Babylonian stories with them in their wanderings, and
continued to preserve them during their long subsequent history.
But, even granting that such nomads would have taken any
interest in traditions of settled folk, this view hardly commends
itself. For stories received from foreign sources become more
and more transformed in the course of centuries. 1 The vivid
Babylonian colouring of the Genesis narratives cannot be recon
ciled with this explanation of their source.
A far greater number of writers hold that it was after their
arrival in Palestine that the Hebrew patriarchs came into contact
with Babylonian culture. It is true that from an early period
Syria was the scene of Babylonian invasions, and in the first
lecture we noted some newly recovered evidence upon this point.
Moreover, the dynasty to which Hwgmurabi belonged came
originally from the north-eastern bonier of Canaan arid Hammu
rabi himself exercised authority in the west. Thus a plausible
case could be made out by exponents of this theory, especially as
many parallels were noted between the Mosaic legislation and
that contained in Hammurabi s Code. But it is now generally
recognized that the features common to both the Hebrew and
the Babylonian legal systems may be paralleled to-day in the
Semitic East and elsewhere, 2 and cannot therefore be cited as
1 This objection would not of course apply to M. Naville s suggested solution,
that cuneiform tablets formed the medium of transmission. But its author
himself adds that he does not deny its conjectural character ; see The Text of
the Old Testament (Schweich Lectures, 1915), p. 32.
2 See Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi, p. 281 f. ; Driver,
Genesis, p. xxxvi f. ; and cf. Johns, The Laws of Babylonia and the Laws of the
Hebrew Peoples (Schweich Lectures, 1912), pp. 50 if.
138 CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH
evidence of cultural contact. Thus the hypothesis that the
Hebrew patriarchs were subjects of Babylon in Palestine is not
required as an explanation of the facts ; and our first period
still stands or falls by the question of the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch, which must be decided on quite other grounds.
Those who do not accept the traditional view will probably be
content to rule this first period out^-
During the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan,
\ the Hebrews came into contact with a people who had used the
Babylonian language as the common medium of communication
throughout the Near East. It is an- interesting fact that among
the numerous letteo^ found at Tell^eL-Amarna were two texts of
quite a different character. These were legends, both in the form
of school exercises, which had been written out for practice in
the Baby Ionian tongue. One of them was the legend of Adapa,
in which we noted just now a distanTriesemblance to the Hebrew
story of Paradise. It seems to me we are here standing on
rather firmer ground ; and provisionally we might place the
beginning of our process after the time of Hebrew contact with
the Canaanites.
Under the earlier Hebrew monarchy there was no fresh influx
of Babylonian culture into Palestine. That does not occur till
our last main period, the later Judaean monarchy, when, in con
sequence of the westward advance of Assyria, the civilization of
Babylon was once more carried among the petty Syrian states.
Israel was first drawn into the circle of Assyrian influence, when
Ahab fought as the ally of Benhadad of Damascus at the battle
of Karkar in 854 B. c. ; and from that date onward the nation
was menaced by the invading power. In 734 B. c., at the invita
tion of Ahaz of Judah, Tiglath-pileser IV definitely intervened
in the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help against the
allied armies of Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish war.
Tiglath-pileser threw his forces against Damascus and Israel, and
Ahaz became his vassal. 1 To this period, when Ahaz, like
Panammu II, ran at the wheel of his lord, the king of Assyria ,
we may ascribe the first marked invasion of Assyrian influence
over Judah. Traces of it may be seen in the altar which Ahaz
caused to be erected in Jerusalem after the pattern of the Assy
rian altar at Damascus. 2 "We saw in the first lecture, in the
monuments we have recovered of Panammu I and of Bar-rekub,
how the life of another small Syrian state was inevitably changed
1 2 Kings xvi. 7 ff. 2 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.
THE INFLUENCE OF BABYLON AND EGYPT 139
and thrown into new channels by the presence of Tiglath-pileser
and his armies in the West.
Hezekiah s resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence
on Judah for a time. But it was intensified under his son
Manasseh, when Judah again became tributary to Assyria, and
in the house of the Lord altars were built to all the host of
heaven. 1 Towards the close of his long reign Manasseh himself
was summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to Babylon. 2 So when in the
year 586 B. c. the Jewish exiles came to Babylon they could not\
have found in its mythology an entirely new and unfamiliar]
subject. They must have recognized several of its stories as akin
to those they had assimilated and now regarded as their own.
And this would naturally have inclined them to further study
and comparison.
The answer I have outlined to this problem is the one that
appears to me most probable, but I do not suggest that it is the
only possible one that can be given. What I do suggest is that
the Hebrews must have gained some acquaintance with the
. legends of Babylon in pre-exilic times. And it depends on our
reading of the evidence intd which of the three main periods the
beginning of the process may be traced.
So much, then, for the influence of Babylon. We have seen
that no similar problem arises with regard to the legends of
Egypt. At first sight this may seem strange, for Egypt lay^
nearer than Babylon to Palestine, and political and commercial
intercourse was at least as close. We have already noted how
Egypt influenced Semitic art, and how she offered an ideal, on /
the material side of existence, which was readily adopted by her
smaller neighbours. Moreover, the Joseph traditions in Genesis
give a remarkably accurate picture of ancient Egyptian life ; and
even the Egyptian proper names embedded in that narrative
may be paralleled with native Egyptian names of a later period
than that to which the traditions refer. Why then is it that
the actual myths and legends of Egypt concerning the origin
of the world and its civilization should have failed to impress
the Hebrew mind, which, on the other hand, was so responsive
\ to those of Babylon ?
One obvious answer would be, that it was Nebuchadnezzar II,
and not Necho, who carried the Jews captive. And we may
readily admit that the Captivity must have tended to perpetuate
and intensify the effects of any Babylonian influence that may
1 2 Kings xxi. 5. Cf. 2Chron. xxxiii. 11 if.
140 CREATION AND THE DEAGON MYTH
have previously been felt. But I think there is a wider and in
that sense a better answer than that.
I do not propose to embark at this late hour on what ethnolo
gists know as the Hamitic problem. But it is a fact that many
striking parallels to Egyptian religious belief and practice have
been traced among races of the Sudan and East Africa. These
are perhaps in part to be explained as the result of contact and
cultural inheritance. But at the same time they are evidence
of an African, but non-Negroid, substratum in the religion of
ancient Egypt. In spite of his proto-Semitic strain, the ancient
Egyptian himself never became a Semite. The Nile Valley,
at any rate until the Moslem conquest, was stronger than its
invaders ; it received and moulded them to its own ideal. This
quality was shared in some degree by the Euphrates Valley.
But Babylonia was not endowed with Egypt s isolation; she
was always open on the south and west to the Arabian nomad,
who at a far earlier period sealed her Semitic type.
To such racial division and affinity I think we may confidently
trace the influence exerted by Egypt and Babylon respectively
upon Hebrew tradition.
APPENDIXES
I. COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMEEIAN, SEMITIC-
BABYLONIAN, HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VER
SIONS OF CREATION, ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY,
AND THE DELUGE
II. THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND
THE SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST
142
APPENDIX I
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-
BABYLONIAN, HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS
OF CREATION, ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE
DELUGE
N.B. Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are printed in heavy type.
SUMERIAN VERSION
SEVEN TABLETS
GlLGAMEBH EPIC, XI
[No heaven or earth
First Creation from
primaeval water with
out conflict ; cf. Later
Sumerian Version]
The great gods :
Anu, Enlil, Enki, and
Ninkharsagga, creating
deities
Reason for man s crea
tion : worship of god^
Creation of man
Creation of animals
Creation of kingdom
5 Antediluvian cities :
Eridu, Bad.., Larak,
Sippar, Shuruppak
Gods decree mankind s
destruction by flood,
Nintu protesting
Ziusudu, n*ero of Deluge,
king and priest
Ziusudu s piety
Warning of Ziusudu
by Enki in dream
Ziusudu s vessel a huge
ship
Flood and
7 days
storm for
Sacrifice to Sun-god in
ship
Anu and Enlil appeased
[by Heaven and Earth ]
Immortality of Ziusudu
No heaven or earth
Primaeval water-gods :
Apsu-Tiamat, Mummu
Generation of:
Lakhmu-Lakhamu
Ansh ar-Kish ar
Birth of great gods :
Anu,Nudimmud( =Ea)
Apsu and Tiamat revolt
Conquest of Apsu by Ea
Conquest of Tiamat by
Marduk as Sun-god
Creation of covering for
heaven from half of
Tiamat s body, to keep
her waters in place
Creation of luminaries
[Creation of vegetation]
Reason for man s crea
tion : worship of gods
Creation of man from
Creator s blood and
from bone
[Creation of animals]
Hymn on Seventh Tab
let
Antediluvian city:
Shuruppak
Gods decree flood, the
goddess Ishtar protest
ing
Ut-napishtim, hero of
Deluge
Warning of Ut-napish
tim by Ea in dream
Ship: 120xl20xl20cu-
bits; 7 stories; 9 divisions
All kinds of animals
Flood from heavy rain
and storm for 6 days
Ship on Mt. Nisir
Abatement of waters
tested by birds
Sacrifice with sweet
savour on mountain
Ea s protest to Enlil
Immortality of Ut-na
pishtim and his wife _
APPENDIX I continued
143
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN SEMITIC-
BABYLONIAN, HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS
OF CREATION, ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE
DELUGE
N.B. Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are printed in heavy type.
BEROSSUS [ DAMASCIUS]
EARLIER HEB. VERS. (J)
LATER HEB.VERSION(P)
Darkness and water
Creation of earth and
Earth without form and
^Primaeval water-gods :
heaven
void ; darkness on face
ATraoxop-Taii^e, Mcou/^is
No plant or herb
of tehom, the prim
Generation of:
Ground watered by mist
aeval water
An^os-Aa;^
(or flood)
Divine spirit moving
\\iro-etptis- Ki<T<rapf)
[cf. Sumerian irriga
(hovering, brooding)
Birth of great gods :
tion myth of Creation]
upon face of waters
Avos, "IXXtvos, A6s
\\6s-AavKi], BfjAos 1 ]
Conquest of O/iopxa,
Creation of light
Or ea/xre, by EijXos
Creation of heaven and
Creation of firmament,
earth from two halves
or heaven, to divide
of body of Thamte
waters ; followed by
emergence of land
Creation of luminaries
,
Creation of vegetation
(probable order)
Creation of luminaries
Creation of animals
Creation of man from
Creation of man from
Creation of man in
Creator s blood and
dust and Creator s
image of Creator, to
from earth
breath of life
have dominion
Creation of animals
Creation of vegetation,
able to bear the air
animals, and woman
Rest on Seventh Day
10 Antediluvian kings
The line of Cain
Antediluvian patriarchs
3 Antediluvian cities :
The Nephilim
[cf. Sumerian Dynastic
Babylon, Sippar, Lar-
ankha
[cf. Sumerian Dynastic
List]
List]
Destruction of man
Destruction of all flesh
decreed, because of his
decreed, because of its
wickedness
corruption
Ai(rov6pos ( = Khasisatra),
Noah, hero of Deluge
Noah, hero of Beluge
hero of Deluge, king
Noah s favour
Noah s righteousness
Warning of Xisuthros
Warning of Noah, and
by Kronos in dream
instructions for ark
Size of ship : 5x2
Instructions to enter ark
Size of ark : 300 x 50 x
stadia
30 cubits ; 3 stories
All kinds of animals
7 ( x 2) clean, 2 unclean
2 of all animals
Flood
Flood from rain for 40
Flood ; founts, of deep
days
and rain, 150 days
Abatement of waters
Abatement of waters
Ark on Ararat
tested by birds
tested by birds
Abatement of waters
Ship on mountain
through drying wind
Sacrifice to gods, after
Sacrifice with sweet
Landing from ark [after
landing and paying
savour after landing
year ( 4 10 days)]
adoration to earth
Divine promise to Noah
Divine covenant not a-
Apotheosis of X., wife,
not again to curse the
gain to destroy earth
daughter, and pilot
ground
by flood ; bow as sign
APPENDIX II
THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND THE
SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST
IT may be of assistance to the reader to repeat in tabular form the
equivalents to the mythical kings of Berossus which are briefly dis
cussed in Lecture I. In the following table the two new equations,
obtained from the earliest section of the Sumerian Dynastic List, are
printed in heavy type. 1 The established equations to other names are
printed in ordinary type without brackets, while those for which we
should possibly seek other equivalents are enclosed within brackets. 2
Aruru has not been included as a possible equivalent for "AAwpos. 8
1. "AAwpos
2. AAaTrapos [? ASctTrapos], Ala- [Adapa]
poms, Alapaurus
3. A.pr]\<av, AiJii\\apo<s,Almelon [Amelu]
4. A/x/*ev<ov Enmenunna
5. MeyaAapos, McyaAavo?, Ame-
galarus
6. Aacovo?, Aacos Etana
7. EveSwpaxo?, Eve8a>pe<rxos, Enmeduranki
Edoranchus
8. A/Ae/>u/avos, Amemphsinus [Amel-Sin]
9. finals p ^Tra^s] [Ubar-Tutu]
10. Erov0po9, 2rov0po5, 2icri0pog Khasisatra, Atrakhasis 4
1 See above, pp. 31 ff. For the royal names of Berossus, see Euseb. chron.
lib. pri., ed. Schoene, cols. 7 f, 31 ff. The latinized variants correspond to forms
in the Armenian translation of Eusebius.
2 For the principal discussions of equivalents, see Hommel, Proc. Soc. BibL
Arch., Vol. XV (1893), pp. 243 ff., and Die altorientalischen Denkmaler und das
Alte Testament (1902), pp. 23 ff.; Zimmern, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament, 3rd ed. (1902), pp. 531 ff. ; and cf. Lenormant, Les origines de
Vhistoire, I (1880), pp. 214 ff. See also Driver, Genesis, 10th ed. (1916), p. 80 f. ;
Skinner, Genesis, p. 137 f. ; Ball, Genesis, p. 50 ; and Gordon, Early Traditions
of Genesis, pp. 46 ff.
3 For the suggested equation of Lal-ur-alimma with "AAcopoy, see above,
p. 33, n. 3.
4 The hundred and twenty sars , or 432,000 years assigned by Berossus for
the duration of the Antediluvian dynasty (see above, p. 31, n. 3), are distributed
as follows among the ten kings ; the numbers are given below first in sars ,
followed by their equivalents in years within brackets : 1. Ten sars (36,000) ;
2. Three (10,800) ; 3. Thirteen (46,800) ; 4. Twelve (43,200) ; 5. Eighteen
(64,800) ; 6. Ten (36,000) ; 7. Eighteen (64,800) ; 8. Ten (36,000) ; 9. Eight
(28,800) ; 10. Eighteen (64,800).
APPENDIX II 145
For comparison with Berossus it may be useful to abstract from the
Sumerian Dynastic List the royal names occurring in the earliest
extant dynasties. They are given below with variant forms from
duplicate copies of the list, and against each is added the number of
years its owner is recorded to have ruled. The figures giving the total
duration of each dynasty, either in the summaries or under the separate
reigns, are sometimes not completely preserved ; in such cases an x
is added to the total of the figures still legible. Except in those cases
referred to in the foot-notes, all the names are written in the Sumerian
lists without the determinative for god .
KINGDOM OP KISH.
(28 kings ; 18.000 + # years, 3 months, 3 days)
8. I. ."I
900 (?) years
\
9. Galumum, Kalumum
900
10. Zugagib, Zugakib
840
11. Arpi, Arpiu, Arbum
720
12. Etana*
635 (or 625)
years
13. Pili . . .
410 years
14. Enmenunna, Enmennunna 4
611
15. Melamkish
900
1G. Barsalnunna
1,200
17. Mesza[. . .J
[..-]
.
...
5
22
900 years
23.
625
KINGDOM OF EANNA (ERECH).
(About 10-12 kings ; 2,171 +x years)
1. Meskingasher 325 years
2. Enmerkar 420
3. Lugalbanda 7 1,200
1 Gap of seven, or possibly eight, names.
2 The name Etana is written in the lists with and without the determinative
for god .
3 The reading of the last sign in the name is unknown. A variant form of
the name possibly begins with Bali.
* This form is given on a fragment of a late Assyrian copy of the list ; cf.
Studies in Eastern History, Vol. Ill, p. 143, and see above, p. 31, n. 4.
Gap of four, or possibly three, names.
8 Eanna was the great temple of Erech. In the Second Column of the
list the kingdom is recorded to have passed from Kish to Eanna, but the
latter name does not occur in the summary ; for the probable change in the title
of the kingdom, see above, p. 36, n. 3.
7 The name Lngalbanda is written in the lists with and without the deter
minative for god .
K. L
146 APPENDIX II
4. Duinuzi l (i. e. Tammuz) 100 years
6. Gishbilgames * (i.e. Gilgamesh) 126 (or 186) years
6. [. . .Jlugal [. . .] years
KINGDOM OF UB.
(4 kings ; 171 years)
1. Mesannipada 80 years
2. Meskiagnunna 30 ,,
3. Elu[. . . 25
4. Balu[. . .] 36
KINGDOM OF AWAN.
(3 kings ; 356 years)
At this point a great gap occurs in our principal list. The names of
some of the missing kingdoms may be inferred from the summaries,
but their relative order is uncertain. Of two of them we know the
duration, a second Kingdom of Ur containing four kings and lasting
for a hundred and eight years, and another kingdom, the name of
which is not preserved, consisting of only one king who ruled for
seven years. The dynastic succession only again becomes assured with
the opening of the Dynastic chronicle published by Pere Scheil and
recently acquired by the British Museum. 5 It will be noted that with
the Kingdom of Ur the separate reigns last for decades and not
hundreds of years each, so that we here seem to approach genuine
tradition, though the Kingdom of Awan makes a partial reversion to
myth so far as its duration is concerned. The two suggested equations
with Antediluvian kings of Berossus both occur in the earliest King
dom of Kish and lie well within the Sumerian mythical period. The
second of the rulers concerned, Enmenunna (Ammenon), is placed in
Sumerian tradition several thousand years before the reputed succession
of the gods Lugalbanda and Tammuz and of the national hero Gilga-
mesh to the throne of Erech. In the first lecture 6 some remarkable
points of general resemblance have already been pointed out between
Hebrew and Sumerian traditions of these early ages of the world.
1 The name Dumuzi is written in the list with the determinative for god .
2 The name Gishbilgames is written in the list with the determinative for
god*.
8 Gap of about four, five, or six kings.
4 Wanting.
6 See above, pp. 27, 36 f. 6 See above, pp. 37 ff.
INDEX
I. GENERAL.
A, priest and father of Gilgamesh, 35.
Aahmes, queen, 105 f.
Aa-kheper-ka-Ra, 105; see also Thoth-
mes I.
Abu, deity, 126.
Abu Dis depression, 96.
Abu Shah rain, 59, 110.
Abydos, in Mysia, 14 ; in Upper Egypt,
Abydos List of Kings, 25.
Abyssinia, 95.
Abba, 13 f.
Abdul Hamid, Sultan, 21.
Abraham, 137.
Abram, 3.
Abseli, 13.
Achaemenian kings, 43.
Adab, 60, 112.
Adad, god, 61, 77.
Adam, 33, 37, 93; book of the genera
tions of, 37.
Aclapa, 33, 144 ; legend of, 136, 138.
Adonis, 29.
Afej marshes, 19 ; tribesmen, 19.
Afghan border, 45.
Africa, 4, 48 ; tribes of, 26 ; East, 140.
African ideals, 108 ; loin-girdles, 7 ;
strain in Egyptian religion, 140.
Africanus, 25.
Ahab, 138.
Ahatbu, 18.
Ahaz, 137f.
Akhenaten, 104 ; see also AmenophisIV.
Akkad, 8, 112 ; Dynasty of, 37.
Alapaurus, king, 144.
Alaporus, 144 ; see Alapaurus.
Alexander the Great, 12, 99.
Alkmene, 106.
Almelon, king, 144.
Amanus, 9.
Amegalarus, king, 144.
Arn6l-Sin, 33, 144.
Amelu, 83, 144.
Amemphsinus, king, 144.
Amen, god, 46, 105-7 ; cult of, 104.
Amen-Ra, god, 46.
Amenophis III, 106.
Araenophis IV, 9, 88 ; see also Akhena
ten.
America, 1, 21.
American excavations at Nippur, 20.
Ammenon, 32, 146 ; see Enmenunna.
Ammizaduga, king, 48, 70, 77.
Amphitryon, 107.
Amrith, 17.
Anath, goddess, 12.
Andree, R., 100.
Animals, creation of, 66-8, 92, 142 f.
Ankh, 105, 108.
Anshar, primaeval deity, 120-2, 142.
Antediluvian cities, 58-62, 142 f. ; kings,
30-3, 67, 144, 146 ; period, 31, 40; see
also Berossus.
Anti-Lebanon, 4.
Antioch, 15; plain of, 9.
Anu, god, 51, 53 f., 58 f., 63, 65, 67, 69,
71, 84-7, 89 f., 109-12, 114, 120 f., 126,
142 ; as creator, 56, 109 f. ; temple of,
85 ; Way of, 111.
Anu-Enlil, conflate use of, 54.
Anunnaki, gods, 77.
Apep, 119; Book of the Overthrowing
of, 107, 119.
Apocalypse, the, 6 ; of Baruch, 38, 117.
Apocalyptic literature, 117 ; visions, 74.
Apollodorus, 99.
Apotheosis, of Roman emperors, 29; of
Xisuthros, 143.
Apsu, personified, 114, 116, 118, 120,
122, 142 ; original character of, 121 ;
the Deep, 109, 124.
Arabah, 4f.
Arabia, evidence of early infiltration
from, 43.
Arabian nomad, 6, 140 ; plateau, 4.
Aram, 137.
Aramaean gravestones, 13 f. ; popula
tion of Syria, 14 ; settlement, 13.
Aramaic characters, 14, 45 > inscriptions,
14 f. ; language, 14.
Ararat, 99, 143.
Arazu, god, 110.
Arbum, 145; see Arpi.
Ark, 131, 143 ; original form of Noah s,
80 f. ; measurements of, 81 f. ; see also
Noah s ark.
Armageddon, 5.
Armenia, 95, 99.
Arpi, king, 34, 145.
Arpiu, 145; see Arpi.
Aruru, goddess, 33, 111, 117.
Arvad, 17.
Asari, divine title, 129.
Ashnan, grain-deity, 110.
Ashtart, 12 ; see Astarte.
Ashur, excavations at, 117.
L2
148
INDEX
Ashur-bani-pal, 139 ; library of, 81, 94,
117.
Ashur-nasir-pal, king, 15.
Asia, 4, 28, 47 f. ; Central and Southern,
45.
Asiatic costume, 13 ; empire of Egypt,
10.
Ass, symbolism of, 74.
Assyria, westward advance of, 17, 138.
Assyrian influence in Syria, 15-17 ;
sculpture, 17.
Astarte, 12.
Astrological theories, 44 f.
Astrology, Babylonian, 45.
Astronomy, Babylonian and Greek, 18.
Ateth, 25 ; see Athet.
Athet, king, 25.
Athothes, 25 ; see Athet, JTeta.
Athothis, 25 ; see Teta.
Atrakhasis, 34, 43, 71, 144 ; legend, 109 ;
version of Deluge, 43, 70, 77.
Atum, god, 104 f.
A wan, 36 ; kingdom of, 36 f., 146.
Ba al, god, 12 ; of Harran, 16.
Babylon, in Hebrew tradition, 4 ; in
Berossus, 32, 62, 143 ; Semitic triumph
at, 129 ; building of, 123 ; First Dy
nasty of, 20, 36, 49, 129.
Babylonia, danger from flood in, 96;
Southern, 8.
Babylonian chronology, 22, 27 ; civiliza
tion, cradle of, 22, 29, 119 ; influence,
18, 131-9 ; language, 10.
Bad . . ., Antediluvian city, 58, 142.
Baghdad, 80, 96 ; Railway, 98.
Bahrein, 86.
Bali . . ., king, 145.
Ball, C. J., 144.
Balu[. . .], king, 36, 146.
Banks, E J., 60.
Bar-rekub, king, 15 f., 138.
Barsalnunna, king, 34, 145
Bar-sur, of Ya di, 15
Barton, Prof. G. A., 21, 31 f , 88, 126.
Baruch, Apocalypse of, 38, 117.
Basin-irrigation, 97
Beersheba, 5
Beetle of Khepera, 104.
Bel and the Dragon, 116.
Belit-ili, goddess, 53, 63 f., 84
Ben<5dite, G., 7.
Benhadad II, 138.
Berossus, 22, 52, 129; Antediluvian
cities of, 40, 60 f., 66, 143 ; Antediluvian
kings of, 81-4, 38, 40, 60 f., 144, 146 ;
chronological system of, 30-2 ; Crea
tion myth of, 122 ; Deluge version of,
72, 74 f., 79, 82 f., 90; dynasties of,
27 ; history of, 50, 94 ; monsters of,
118 ; sources of, 39 ; Sumerian paral
lels to, 60 f., 66 f., 90, 127, 142 f.
Bevan, E. K., 14
Bint el-Emir, mound, 19.
Birds in Deluge story, 83 f., 92, 131,
142 f.
Birth, of the gods, 114, 120-3 ; a royal,
106 ; goddess of, 53, 112.
Birth-temples, 105.
Bismaya, 60.
Bitumen, 81.
Blood, drinking of, 48.
Boats, of the Sun, 103 ; representations
of ancient, 7.
Boeotia, 101.
Boissier, A., 136.
Bosphorus, 101.
Bow, divine, 85, 143.
Breasted, Prof. J. H., 23 f., 104.
Brick-god, 110.
British Association, 10, 46.
British Museum, 27, 81, 107, 122, 136,
146.
Bronze-age culture, 28.
Briinnow, R. E., 65.
Budge, Dr. E. A. Wallis, 48, 105-7, 119.
Burnaburiash, king, 88.
Burney, Prof. C. F., 10.
Bushongos, 26.
Byblos, 9, 12; < Mistress of, 12.
Cain, 38, 143.
Cainite genealogy, 38.
Cairo, 23 f. ; Museum, 13.
Caliphate, Eastern, 98.
Canaan, 3. 10, 136-8.
Canaanite civilization, 10; population,
Canaanites, 138.
Cappadocia, 14.
Carchemish, 16 f.
Carmel, 5.
Carpenter-god, 110.
Carpentras Stele, 14.
Caspian, 45.
Cedar Forest, 8 f. ; mountains, 9.
Cedars of Lebanon, 8.
1 Chapters of Coming Forth by Day , 103.
Charles, Canon R. H., 117.
Chebar, 20 f., 135.
Cherubim, 20, 136.
Chicago, University of, 60.
Chiera, Dr. Edward, 21.
Child-bearing, Lady of, 112.
Chinese mythology, 119.
Chinese Turkestan, 45.
Chronicles, Second Book of, 139.
Chronology, 22, 27.
Cilician coast, 9.
Circumcision, 47.
City council, Semitic, 70.
Civilization, traditional origins of, 39 f.
Clay, Prof. A. T., 21.
Code of Hammurabi ; see Hammurabi.
Constantinople, 12, 21, 49.
Cook, S. A., 12, 137.
Cooke, Prof. G. A , 14 f.
Copaic Lake, 101.
Copper, 8.
Cosmic year, 31.
Cosmogony ; see Creation.
Couvade, 47.
INDEX
149
Creation, Babylonian poem of, 114-23 ;
Egyptian myth of, 102 f., 119 ; Sume-
rian account of, 52, 55-7 ; later Sume-
rian myth of, 123-5; see also Hebrew
Versions.
Crescent, as emblem, 16.
Crocodile-god, 46.
Crowns. Egyptian, 12, 25.
Cultural drift, 46.
Cumont, Franz, 29, 128.
Curse of Ea, 126.
Curses, Phoenician, 12.
Cyprus, 8.
Daiches, Dr. S., 132, 135.
Damascius, 120 f.
Damascus, 5, 16, 138.
Damkina, goddess, 121.
Daniel, 133 f. ; Book of, 117.
Daonos, king, 32 ; see Etana.
Daphnae, 13.
Dardanelles, 101.
Dardanus, 101.
David, 136.
Dazima, deity, 126.
Dead, future state of, 103 ; god of, 46.
Dead Sea, 4 f.
Death, Waters of, 40, 90.
Deep, fountains of the , 131 ; see also
Apsu.
Deir el-Bahari, 104, 106.
Delitzsch, Friedrich, 125.
Deluge, stories of, 41 ff., 100 f. ; Sume-
rian Version of, 49 S. ; growth of tra
dition of, 99 f. ; see also Flood.
Denderah, 105.
Derketo, goddess, 99.
Deucalion, 99, 101.
Dhorme, Fere Paul, 43.
Diaspora, 13.
Dilmun, 86, 89 f.
Disease, myth in treatment of, 126 f.
Disk, Egyptian winged, 12 f., 17 ; of
Hathor, 12.
Divination, origin of, 38 ; founder of, 61.
Diwaniyah, 19.
Dragon, 117 f., 129 ; combat, 119, 130 ;
motif, 115,117-19, 128; myths, 114-19,
121, 123, 129.
Dream divination, 68 ; warning, of
Deluge, 69 ff.
Dreams, interpretation of Sumerian,
72 ff.
Driver, the late Canon S. K, 2 f., 14, 42,
131, 137, 144.
Dubbisaguri, god, 35.
Dumuzi, god and king, 35, 146 ; see
Tarn muz.
Dunpae, god, 112.
Dynastic List, Sumerian, 31, 34-6, 40,
43, 49, 59.
Dynasties, Egyptian, 24 ; 1st, 24-6, 38 ;
Illrd, 8 ; Vth, 23, 25 f., 46 ; XVIIIth,
10, 104 ; XXIst, 47 ; Babylonian, 27 ;
Sumerian, 28 ff. ; see also Berossus,
Manetho.
Ea, god, 120 f., 142; dwelling of, 127 f. ;
speech of, 132 f. ; title of, 67 ; in
Deluge narrative, 09 ff., 76 f., 84 f. ;
and Marduk, 55 ; and|Apsu, 114, 116 ;
and the Worm, 126 f.
Eagle, friend of Etana, 29 ; funerary,
29 ; as city-emblem, 73.
Eanna, 35, 109, 124 ; kingdom of, 36 f.,
69, 145.
Eannatum, patesi, 112.
Ear-piercing, 47.
Earth, Name of, 65, 68, 76 f., 87 ; Soul
of, 86, 89 ; in Deluge versions, 89,
142 f.
Earth-gods, 67, 89, 103.
East, Far, 47; Near, 45 ; Way of the , 5.
Ebabbar, 61.
Ebeling, E., 117 f.
Ecliptic, 44.
Eden, site of, 136.
Edfu, 46, 105.
Edom, 6.
Edoranchus, 33, 144 ; see Enmeduranki.
Egg, creation from, 104.
Egypt, 1, 6, 10, 39 f., 47 ; Upper, 6,
24-7 ; Lower, 24-7 ; in Hebrew tra
dition, 4 ; Dragon motif of, 117 ; isola
tion of, 140 ; Sun-worship in, 46 f. ;
Syrian cults in, 12 ; system of irriga
tion in, 97 ; Ezekiel and, 132.
Egyptian chronology, 22; civilization,
6-8; influence, 2, 12 ff., 16, 49, 139 f. ;
kings, early, 8, 24-7 ; literature, 2,
102 ; mythology, 48, 103 f ., 122 ; pre
historic art, 7.
Egyptians, 13.
Ekur, 19, 119, 124.
El, Syrian god, 16.
Elam, 37, 45.
Elamites, 7.
Elephantine, 103 ; papyri, 13.
Elohim, 85, 89, 113.
Elu[. . .], king, 36, 146.
Eninnu, 73 f.
Enki, god, 63, 65 f., 68, 74, 85, 87, 114,
119, 121, 142 ; as creator, 53, 56, 109 f.,
117 ; in pantheon, 112 ; irrigation
myth of, 125-8; messenger of, 127;
seat of, 59 ; title of, 57, 70 ; Way
of, 111.
Enkidu, 43, 68, 111.
Enlil,god, 8, 22, 51, 58 f., 64 f., 67, 69, 71,
73, 83-7, 89 f., 109, 111 f., 114, 120 f.,
132 f., 142 ; association of, with Anu,
63 f., 66 ; as creator, 66 ; Creation
myth of, 128 f. ; palace of, 30; temple-
tower of, 19; Way of, 111.
Enmeduranki, king, 83, 38, 61, 68, 144.
Enmennunna, 31 ; see Enmenunna.
Enmenunna, king, 32, 34, 144-6.
Enmerkar, king, 35 f., 38 , 69, 145.
Ennead, of Heliopolis, 107.
Enoch, 37.
Enosh, 87 f.
Environment, 46 f.
Eratosthenes, 26.
150
INDEX
Erech, 30, 59 f., 62, 109, 123 f., 145 f. ;
building of, 35 f. ; early kings of, 29,
35 f. ; { kingdom of, 29, 36.
Eridu, 60, 66, 74, 110, 123 f., 142; foun
dation of, 58 f. ; Dragon myth of, 116.
Erythraean Sea, 127.
Esagila, 123 f.
Esdraelon, plain of, 5.
Esdras, Fourth Book of, 38.
Eshmun- azar II, 11 f., 18.
Esneh, 105.
Etana, god and king, 29, 32-4, 144 f.
Euphrates, creation of, 62 ; as creator,
127 f. ; Graeco-Roman cult of, 128 ;
contrasted with Nile, 47, 99 ; changes
in bed of, 19, 61, 98 ; rise of, 95 f. ;
floods of, 95-8; control of, 96 f . ;
swamps of, 19, 98; Valley, influence
of, 140.
Eusebius, 25, 30,33, 144.
Evans, Sir Arthur, Presidential Address
of, at British Association, 10.
Exodus, Book of, 3.
Eye of Ra, 48.
Ezekiel, 20, 29 ; and the Gilgamesh Epic,
85, 132-5 ; Book of, 20, 85, 132-5.
Falcon, deceased Pharaoh as, 29.
Fallujah, 98.
Fara, 61.
Farnell, Dr. L. R., 99, 108.
Fate, Tablets of, 30, 122.
Fire-altar, 13.
Firmament, 130.
Fisher, C. S., 20.
Flint knife, 7 f.
Flood, Sumerian description of, 76 ff. ;
Semitic-Babylonian accounts of, 77 f. ;
Hebrew accounts of, 131 ; words for,
70 ; see also Deluge.
Food of Life, 136.
Fortsch, W., 35.
Foucart, G., 24-6.
Frazer, Sir James G., 72, 76, 100 f., 127,
136.
Galumum, king, 28, 34, 37, 145.
Garden-god, 110.
Gardiner, Dr. Alan H., 24, 29.
Gatumdug, goddess, 74.
Gautier, H., 23-5.
Gebel el- Arak, 7.
Genesis, Book of, 2 f., 18, 36-41, 50, 75,
82, 88 f., 93, 107 f., 127, 129 f., 135.
Gerjin, 15.
Gerland, G., 100.
Gilgamesh, 13, 30, 35 f., 39, 41, 68, 93,
146 ; with lions, 7 ; on seals, 43 ;
magical plant of, 89.
Gilgamesh Epic, 39, 41-3 ; quoted, 63 f.,
70 f., 78, 82, 90, 133 f.
Gilimma, god, 124, 128.
Gishbilgames, god and king, 35 f., 146 ;
see also Gilgamesh.
God List, 112.
Gods, Birth of the, 120-3 ; Mother of the,
112 ; on earth, 29, 39.
Goldsmith-god, 110.
Gordon, Dr. A. R., 131, 144.
Gordon, Dr. G. B., 21.
Grain-deities, 110.
Gravestones, Aramaean, 13 f.
Greek mythology, 29 ; traditions of
floods, 99-101.
Greeks, in Egypt, 13 ; in Syria, 6 ; and
Babylonians, 18.
Griffith, F. LI., 27.
Gudea, patesi, 9, 72 f., 75 f., 112 ; dream
of, 73 f., 76; sign of, 75; libation-
vase of, 118.
Habbaniyah depression, 96 ; escape. 98.
Hadad, god, 15.
Hades, 117.
Hajj route, Syrian, 5.
Hall, H. R., 24, 72.
Ham, 37.
Hamitic problem, 140.
Hammurabi, 137; Code of, 112, 129,
137 ; dynasty of, 21, 43, 137 ; period
of, 70.
Hapi, god, 47.
Harran, 16.
Hathor, goddess, 12, 48, 105 f. ; Festi
vals of Ra and, 48.
Hatshepsut, queen, 104-6.
Hauran, 5.
Hawk of Ra, 104.
Head-deformation, 47.
Headlam, Prof. A. C., 100.
Heaven, gate of, 29 ; Name of, 65, 68,
75 f., 87 ; Soul of, 86, 89.
Hebrew Versions, of Deluge, 42, 48, 69,
76, 79, 81, 84 f., 89 ff., 92 ff., 131 ; of
Creation, 58, 108, 130 ; of Creation
and Deluge, 136 ; settlement in
\ Canaan, 10 ; magical inscriptions, 20.
Hebron, 5.
Heliopolis, 46, 48, 104 f. ; Great Enneud
of, 107.
Hellenistic civilization, 13; period, 11,
40.
Hellespont, 14.
Helmand River, 45.
Heqet, goddess, 106.
Hermon, 5.
Hermonthis, 105.
Hero, 14.
Herodotus, 27, 80 f., 103, 107, 113.
Hesiod, 99.
Heuzey, L6on, 118.
Hezekiah, 139.
Hierakonpolis, 38.
Hierapolis, 99.
Hill, G. F., 13.
Hillah branch of Euphrates, 19, 98.
Hilprecht, H. V., 20 f., 28, 43, 57, 79.
Hindiyah Barrage, 98 ; Canal, 98.
Hittite immigrants into Syria, 14 ; in
scriptions, 17.
Hittite- Aramaean monuments, 17.
INDEX
151
Hogarth, D. G., 4, 17, 27.
Hommel, P., 38, 144.
Horned head-dress in Syria, 15.
Horus, god, 46, 105, 107 ; as royal title,
46 ; Worshippers of, 24.
larimmuta, 9 ; see larmuti.
larimuta, 9 ; see larmuti.
larmuti, 8 f.
Ibla, 8 f.
Icarus, 29.
Imkharsag, 19.
Immortality, 85 f., 90, 136, 142.
Incantations, Sumerian, 50 f.. 54, 125 f.
India, 45.
Indonesia, 47.
Innanna, goddess, 62-4.
Irrigation, systems of, 97.
Isaiah, Book of, 108.
Ishtar, goddess, 53, 63 f., 78,84, 111 f.,
142 ; temple of, 35.
Isis, goddess, 14, 105-7 ; platonized cult
of, 13.
Israel, 138.
Jabal, 38.
Jacob, 75.
James, Dr. M. R., 38, 117, 134 f.
Japheth, 37.
Jared, 37.
Jastrow, Prof. Morris, 53, 63, 72, 80, 114,
119, 123, 125-7.
Jehoiachin, 132.
Jeremiah, 13 ; Book of, 108.
Jerusalem, 29, 134, 138 f. ; fall of, 13,
132, 136; judgements upon , 132;
orthodoxy of, 13.
Jewish colony, 13; exiles, 20, 132, 139.
Job, 133 f.
Johns, Dr. C. H. W., 137.
Johns Hopkins University, 21.
Jordan, 5 ; Valley, 4.
Joseph, 3, 18 ; traditions of, 139.
Joshua, Book of, 3.
Joyce, T. A., 26.
Jubal, 38.
Judaean hills, 4 ; monarchy, 18, 136, 138.
Judah, 10, 135, 138 f.
Ka, or < double , 106.
Kabaru Canal, 20.
Kalumum, 145 ; see Galumum.
Karkar, battle of, 138.
Karnak, 23.
Kassite Dynasty, 49.
Keb, god, 48, 103, 105, 107.
Kelek, or skin-raft, 81.
Kenan, 37 f.
Kerbela, 96.
Kesh, 112.
Khabiri, 10.
Khasisatra, 34, 143 f . ; see Atrakhasis.
Khepera, god, 104, 107.
Khnum, god, 105 f.
King, as early title, 67 ; creation of a, 110.
Kingdom, creation of Babylonian, 31, 58.
King s Gate, at Carchemish, 17 ; Canal,
see Nar Sharri.
Kings, Second Book of, 138f.
Kings Lists, 34.
Kingu, god, 118, 122.
Kish, first kingdom of, 29, 31, 34 f.,
145 f.
Kishar, primaeval deity, 120-2, 142.
Knuckle-bones, 17.
Knudtzon, J. A., 88.
Kopp, J., 120.
Koptos, 7.
Kronos, 69, 72, 74, 143.
Kudurru-inscriptions, 112.
Kuffah, or coracle, 80 f.
Kullab, 35, 39.
Kut, 98.
Lagaah, 60, 72 f., 112.
Lakhamu, primaeval deity, 120, 122, 142.
Lakhar, grain-deity, 110.
Lakhmu, primaeval deity, 120-2, 142.
Laluralimma, king, 33, 144.
Lamech, 37.
Langdon, Dr. S., 21, 65 f., 125 f.
Larak, 58, 60, 62, 142.
Larankha, 60, 62, 143.
Leander, 14.
Lebanon, 4, 8 f.
Lenormant, Fra^ois, 100, 144.
Le Strange, G., 98.
Libyan tribes, 8.
Life, Food of, 136 ; Preserver of, 57,
88 ; symbol of, 105, 108 ; Tree of, 136 ;
Water of, 136.
Light-gods, creation of, 111.
Lion-weight, 14.
Loisy, A., 132, 135.
Lotus, creation from, 104.
Louvre, 7, 11.
Lower Egypt ; see Egypt.
Lower Sea, or Persian Gulf, 8.
Lugal-banda, god and king, 29, 35 f., 39,
145 f.
Luschan, F. von, 15.
Luxor, 105 f.
Magic, 50 f., 85-9, 126 f.
Mahalalel, 37.
Makh, goddess, 112.
Manasseh, king, 137, 139.
Mandaean magical inscriptions, 20.
Mandrake, 48.
Manetho, 2, 24 f., 27, 39 ; dynasties of,
22, 26 f. ; accuracy of, 26 f.
Man, creation of, 56 ff., 92 ; reason for
creation of, 55 f., 115 f.
Mankind, Legend of Destruction of,
48 ; Preserver of the Seed of, 57, 86,
88.
Mar ash, 15.
Marduk, god, 13, 55 f., 95, 109-11, 115-7,
121, 124, 130 ; as creator, 123-5; as Sun-
god, 129, 142 ; titles of, 114 ; templo of,
123 ; net of, 132 ; hymn to, 114.
Marett, Dr. R. R., 46.
152
INDEX
Mari, 8f.
Maspero, the late Sir Gaston, 48.
Mediterranean, 4, 8 ; Eastern, 45, 99.
Megalithic building, 47.
Megiddo, 5.
Meissner, B., 70, 87.
Melamkish, 34, 37, 145.
Melchizedek, 36.
Memphis, 24, 104.
Memphite kings, 26.
Menes, king, 25.
Menthu, god, 105.
Mesannipada, king, 36, 146.
Meskiagnunna, king, 36, 146.
Meskingasher, king, 35 f., 39, 145.
Mesopotamian rivers, character of, 95-9 ;
myths from, 128 f.
Mesza[. . .] kin g> 34, 145.
Metal-working, patron deity of, 119.
Methuselah, 37 f.
Midas, 72, 76.
Minieh, 24.
Mitrahineh, 23.
Moab, 4 f.
Moabite Stone, 16.
Mohammed, 97.
Mongol conquest, 98.
Montgomery, J. A., 20.
Moon, creation of, 111 ; as emblem, 16.
Moon-worship, 16.
Moses, 42.
Mosaic legislation, 137.
Moslem conquest, of Egypt, 140 ; of
Mesopotamia, 97 f. ; of Syria, 6.
Mother-right, 39.
Miiller, W. M., 12 f.
Mummification, 47.
Mummu, primaeval water-god, 120, 122,
142.
Mylitta, 113.
Myres, Prof. J. L., 4.
Mysia, 14.
Mysteries of Osiris. 103.
Myth, and legend, 102 ; and poetical
imagery, 104 ; as reflection of political
development, 129 ; in evolution of
pantheon, 113; in magical employ
ment, 50 f., 85-9, 126 f.; in ritual,
103 ; philosophical development of,
104 ; materialistic interpretation of,
104 f.
Myth -redactors, 115, 128.
Mythology, astrological elements in, 44.
Nabonidus, 94.
Nabu, god, 77.
Naga Hamadi, 7.
Nahar Malkha, 97.
Nahr el-Malik, 97.
Nahrwan Canal, 97 f.
Nar Sharri, 97.
Naram-Sin, king, 9, 20.
Narmer, king, 38.
Nature myths, 44, 102.
Naville, Prof. Edouard, 48, 105-7, 137.
Nazi, deity, 126.
Neb-er-tcher, 107.
Nebuchadnezzar II, 139.
Necho, 139.
Neolithic culture, 22.
Nephilim, 39, 143.
Nephthys, goddess, 14, 105-7.
Nergal, god, 77.
Nidub, god, 74.
Niffer, 18 ; see also Nippur.
Nile, inundation of, 47, 95 ; contrasted
with Tigris and Euphrates, 99, 123 ; in
heaven, 103 ; Valley, 46, 140 ; irriga
tion of, 97.
Nile-god, 47.
Nimrod s Dam, 97 f.
Nina, goddess, 74-6.
Ninella, goddess, 53, 127.
Nineveh, 31, 41-3, 81. 94.
Ningirsu, god, 73-5.
Ningishzida, god, 74, 110; dragons of.
118.
Ninguesirka, goddess. 35.
Ninib, god, 77, 84.
Nin-igi-azag, 57, 70.
Ninkasi, deity, 126.
Ninkautu, deity, 126.
Ninkharsagga, goddess, 53, 60, 62 f., 121,
142 ; as creatress, 56 ; character of,
111-14, 119.
Ninkurra, goddess, 58.
Ninlil, goddess, 112.
Ninmakh, goddess, 112.
Ninsar, god, 110.
Ninshar, goddess, 53.
Ninsun, goddess, 35, 39.
Nintil, deity, 126.
Nintu, goddess, 53, 55, 62-4, 112, 142.
Nintul, deity, 126.
Nippur, 22, 33, 49, 59 f., 62, 109, 123 f. ;
site of, 18-20 ; Jewish element in
population of, 20 f. ; Creation myth of,
115, 128 ; historical inscriptions from,
8, 36 f. ; Sumerian mythological texts
from, 51, 65, 125 ; Semitic Deluge story
from, 79.
Nisaba, goddess, 74.
Nisin, Dynasty of, 28, 30 ; later kings of,
49.
Nisir, Mt., 84, 99, 142.
Noah, 37, 62, 66, 68, 85, 91, 131, 133-5,
143 ; descendants of, 38 ; Sumerian
parallel to piety of, 68 f., 92 f.
Noah s ark, 100 ; original form of, 80 f. ;
see also Ark.
Nu, primaeval water-god, 48, 107, 123.
Nudimmud, 58, 120 f., 142.
Nuflfar, 18 ; see also Nippur.
Nugira(?), deity, 58.
Numberings, fiscal, 23.
Numismatic evidence on Syrian cults, 18.
Nut, goddess, 48, 103, 105, 107.
Cannes, 127.
Observation myths, 101.
Ocean, heavenly, 103.
Oil. Syrian trade in, 8.
INDEX
153
Omens, 75.
Oral tradition, 135 ; before invention of
writing, 26.
Orontes, 9.
Ovid, 72.
Osiris, 14, 105, 107 ; cult of. 46, 107 ; in
Persian period, 13 ; Mysteries of, 103 ;
Aramaean converts to, 14 ; platonized
cult of, 13.
Pabilkharsag, god, 58, 60.
Pabilsag, god, 61.
Palermo Stele, 22-6, 39 ; new fragments
of text of, 22-7.
Palestine, 3, 40, 100, 137-9 ; roads
through, 5 ; population of, 6.
Palettes, archaic slate, 24.
Pallacopas Canal, 98 f.
Pallil, deity, 117f.
Panammu I, 15 f., 138.
Panammu II, 15 f., 138.
Pantheon, 113.
Pantibiblia, 61.
Pantibiblon, 61.
Papuan mummies, 47.
Paradise, 136, 138.
Parnassus, 99.
Parwiz, king, 97.
Patesi, as religious title, 67.
Patriarchs, Hebrew, 37 f., 136-8; Su-
merian, 34 f., 37 f.
Pelusiac branch of Nile. 13.
Pelusium, 5.
Peniel. 75.
Penptah, 12.
Pentateuch, 3, 93, 137 f.
Pennsylvania, 126 ; University of, 49 ;
Museum, 21, 49.
Persia, 43.
Persian dress, 12; period, 11, 13-15, 20,
60.
Persian Gulf, 8, 86, 90, 99.
Persian Seistan, 45.
Peters, Dr. J. P., 126.
Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, 24.
Petrifaction, myths of, 47.
Philae, 105.
Philistines, Way of the , 5.
Philo. Biblical Antiquities of, 88, 134 f.
Phoenician art, 18 ; cosmogony, 104 ;
inscriptions, 11 f. ; monuments, 17 ;
settlement, 13.
Phoenicians, 47.
Pili . . ., king, 34, 145.
Pillar, sacred, 13.
Pinches, T. G., 123.
Pistis Sophia , 117.
Plague-god, 134.
Plants, divine instructions in use of,
127.
Plutarch, 13.
Poebel, Dr. A., 8f., 21, 28-33, 35, 37, 39,
49, 51, 53, 57, 59, 68-6, 70-2, 80, 85,
88, 91 f., 100, 111-13.
Poetry, Sumerian, 50.
Post-diluvian kings, 80 ; period, 81.
Potter, in creation-myths, 104, 106. 108 ;
as divine title, HOf.
Potter s wheel, 104, 106.
Pottery, witli early Aramaic characters,
45.
Predynastic kings of Egypt, 25-7 ;
periods, 22.
Priest-kinga, 35 f., 65, 76.
Primaeval water, 107 f., 121 f., 124 ; con
verted to Storm-dragon, 129.
Prince, Prof. J. Dyneley, 125f.
Prophets, Hebrew, 10. *
Proto-Elamite art, 8.
Proto-Sumerians, 119.
Pseudo-Lucian, 99.
Ptah, god, 26, 104, 106.
Ptolemaic period, 13.
Punt, 104.
Puzur-Amurri, 77.
Pyramid texts, 29.
Qadesh, goddess, 12.
Qaral, of Ya di, 15.
Queen, creation of a, 104-6.
Ra, god, 48, 95, 103-5, 107, 119, 128; as
creator, 104 ; Festivals of, 48 ; Hawk
of, 104.
Rainfall in Babylonia, 70.
Ramadi, 96.
Rawlinson, the late Sir H.C., 33, 65, 79,
81, 86.
Reclus, E., 4.
Red Sea, 6 f.
Redactors, Semitic, 115, 128.
Reed-huts, 19, 70.
Reinach, S., 46, 135.
Rekub-el, god, 15.
Reshef, god, 12, 15.
Reshpu, god, 12 ; see Reshef.
Rib- Adda, of Byblos, 9.
River, in heaven, 108.
Robinson, Dr. J. Arrnitage, 117.
Rogers, Prof. R. W., 43.
Roman Syria, 29.
Ryle, Dr. H. E., Dean of Westminster,
3, 42.
Sacred Tree, 136.
Sacrifice after Flood, 77, 88 f.
Sakhlawiyah Canal, 98.
Sakje-Geuzi, 16.
Sam al, 15 f.
Samaritan hills, 5.
Samarra, 98.
Saqqarah, 14.
Sargon, of Akkad, 8 f., 27.
Sarzec, E. de, 118.
Sassanian period, 20.
Sayce, Prof. A. H., 7, 126.
Scarabaeus, 104.
Scheil, Pere V., 27, 43, 146.
Schoeue, A., 80, 144.
Schweich Lectures, 2, 10, 187.
Scorpion as proper name, 38.
Scott-Moncrieff, P. D., 18.
154
INDEX
Scribe, Syrian representation of Egyp
tian, 16.
Sculpture, Assyrian, 17; Semitic, 11.
Seals, 7.
Sebek, god, 46.
Sebek-Ra, god, 46.
Seistan, 46.
Semites in Babylonia, 29, 43.
Semitic art, 11, 139 ; deities, 12 ; race, 6.
Serpent, 117 f.
Serpent-cults, 47.
Set, god, 105, 107.
Seth, 37.
Seti I, 48.
Seven Tablets of Creation , composite
character of, 114 ff. ; quoted, 55, 116,
122.
Shalmaneser III, 15.
Shamash, god, in Babylonia, 61 ; in
Syria, 15 ; see also Sun-god.
Shammar, 19.
Sharru, god, 77.
Sharru-kin, king, 8 ; see also Sargon.
Shatt el-Hai, 60, 98.
Shatt el-Kar, 61.
Shatt en-Nil, 19.
Shem, 37.
Shu, god, 48, 105, 107.
Shuruppak, 48, 60-2, 66 f., 70, 142 ;
foundation of, 58 ; God of, 58, 62, 66.
Sidon, 11 f.
Sidonians, 12.
Silver Mountains, 8 f.
Sinai, 8.
Sippar, 33, 61 f., 97, 142 f. ; foundation
of, 58.
Sispara, 61 ; see Sippar.
Siris, god, 110.
Skinner, Dr. J., 3, 42, 114, 130 f., 136,
144.
Smith, George, 41.
Smith, Sir George Adam, 4, 6.
Smith, Prof. G. Elliot, 47.
Smith, W. Robertson, 6.
Smith-god, 110.
Sneferu, king, 8.
Solar theology, 46 f. ; parentage of
Egyptian kings, 39, 104.
Solomon, 17.
Sphinxes, Hittite-Aramaean, 16.
Spinning-tops, 17.
Stein, Sir Aurel, 45.
Stone-cutter-god, 110.
Storm-god, 77.
Sudan, 140.
Sukh-kur, 129.
Sumer, 89, 129.
Sumerian art, 118 ; language, 43 ; Dy
nastic List, 28 ff. ; Version of Creation
and Deluge, 49 ff. ; later Version of
Creation, 123-5 ; irrigation myth,
125-7 ; traditions, 94 f.
Sumerians, 43 ; original home of, 119.
Sun, river of the, 103 ; son of the , 89.
Sun-god, 119; Babylonian, 44, 111, 129,
142 ; Sumerian, 85, 89, 58, 77 f., 82-4,
87, 95, 142 ; Egyptian, 48, 104, 123 ;
of Edfu, 46 ; city of, 61 ; Gate of, 111.
Sun-temples, 48, 61.
Sun-worship, 46 f.
Suq el- Afej, 19.
Susa, 7.
Symbolism in dreams, 74 f.
Syncellus, 30.
Syria, 4-6, 14 f., 47, 137 ; as land-bridge,
4, 8 ; communications through, 4 f. ;
population of, 6, 14 ; Assyrian influ
ence in, 15-17 ; flood-tradition in, 99.
Syriac magical inscriptions, 20.
Syrian coast, 9 ; cults, 13 ; states, 138.
Syro-Ephraimitish war, 138.
Swamp, the Great, 98.
Taba, 14.
Tablet Hill, at Nippur, 20.
Tabnith, king, 12.
Tahapi, 14.
Tahpanhes, 13.
Tammuz,29, 35f., 39, 146; see alsoDumuzi.
Tattooing, 47.
Taurus, 4, 8 f., 95.
Tefnut, goddess, 48, 105, 107.
Tel-abib, 20 f., 132.
Tell el-Amarna, letters, 9 f., 88; legends,
138.
Tell Defenneh, 13.
Telloh, 7.
Tempe, Gorge of, 101.
Temple at Jerusalem, 17 f., 29.
Teta, king, 25.
Thamte, 143.
Tharthar depression, 98.
Thebes, 46, 105 ; Western, 104.
Thessaly, 101.
Thinite kings, 26.
Thompson, R. C., 126.
Thoth, god, 105.
Thothmes I, 105.
Thothmes III, 5, 23, 104 f.
Thunder, Syrian god of, 12.
Thureau-Dangin, F., 9, 72, 75, 80.
Tiamat, primaeval deity, 115 f., 119 f.,
122, 124, 132, 142 ; original character
of, 121 f.
Tiglath-pileser IV, 15 f., 138 f.
Tigris, creation of, 62 ; changes in bed
of, 98 ; rise of, 95 f. ; floods of, 95-8 ;
control of, 96 f. ; contrasted with Nile,
99; < the Old , 60.
Timber, traffic in, 8.
Time-divisions, divine founders of, 111 ;
systems of, 18.
Time-reckoning, systems of, 23.
Toothache, magical cure for, 126 f.
Tordey, E., 26.
Trade, Syrian, 8.
Tree of Life, 186.
Tubal-cain, 88.
Turkestan, 45
Turks, 98.
Tyre, 12.
Tyrian craftsmen, 17.
INDEX
165
Ubar-Tutu, 34, 67, 70, 144.
Underworld, 46.
Universe, conceptions of, 108 f.
University College, London, 24.
Upper Egypt ; see Egypt.
Upper Sea, Mediterranean, 8.
Ur, first kingdom of, 36, 146 ; early
kings of, 29 ; second kingdom of,
146 ; Third Dynasty of, 28 ; of the
Chaldees , 137.
Ur-Engur, king, 28.
Uraeus, 17.
Usmu, god, 127.
Uta-napishtim, 57 ; see Ut-napishtim.
Ut-napishte, 65 ; see Ut-napishtim.
Ut-napishtim, hero of Babylonian De
luge, 30, 33 f., 41, 61, 64 f., 67, 69,
71 f., 77, 82-5, 90, 142 ; form of ship
of, 80 f. ; sacrifice of, 131.
Vatican Stele, Aramaean, 14.
Vegetation, Creator of, 128.
Vulture head-dress, 12.
Wadi Hammamat, 7.
Wadi Tharthar, 98.
War, Syrian god of, 12.
Water, as^ origin of all things, 108, 123 ;
creation out of, 128 ; of Life, 136.
Water-gods, primaeval, 48, 107, 120.
Waters of Death, 41.
Weissbach, F. H., 109.
Willcocks, Sir William, 96-8.
Winckler, Hugo, 15, 88.
Wind-erosion, 46.
Wim>, Syrian trade in, 8.
Wine-god, 110.
Winternitz, M., 100.
Wisdom, God of, 70, 74, 109, 119 ; gift
of, 136.
World, Lord of the , 121.
World-egg, 104.
Worm, myth of the, 126 f.
Writing-palette, Egyptian, 16.
Xerxes, 13.
Xisuthros, 30, 60 f., 69, 72, 74, 88, 143 ;
city of, 62.
Ya di, 16 f.
Yahweh, 85, 88 f. ; net of, 132.
Yahweh-Elohim, 54.
Yehaw-milk. king, 12.
Zenjirli, 15 f.
Zeus, 106.
Zimmern, H., 61, 65, 144.
Zisuda, 65 ; see Ziusudu.
Ziugiddu, 65 ; see Ziusudu.
Ziusudu, king and hero of Sumerian
Deluge, 31, 54, 60 f., 65-71, 75-8, 82-90,
92, 94 f., 142 ; boat of, 57, 79 ff., 100 ;
immortality of, 86 ; meaning of name,
65 f.
Zodiac, 44.
Zu, bird-god, 30.
Zugagib, king, 28, 34, 38, 145.
II. GREEK FORMS OF DIVINE AND ROYAL NAMES.
A8awaps (em.), 38, 144 ; see
s, 33, 144.
, 83, 144.
j, 83, 144.
, 33, 38, 144.
\Hi\\apos, 33, 144.
A/z/xeVa>i/, 32 f., 38, 144.
Ai/os, 120, 143.
Acs, 120, 143.
, 120, 143.
os, 120, 148.
s, 120f., 143.
j, 120f., 143.
?, 120 ; see
Aaxos, 120 ; see
Ada;j/oy, 82 f., 144.
A<ift>s, 82, 144.
s, 88, 61, 144.
Ev65dv><rxos, 33, 144.
a/zrt (em., cod. 0aAaT0), 148.
"l\\ivos, 120, 148.
f 25.
T), 120, 148.
Aax?7 (em.), 120, 148.
Aa X <5s (em.), 120, 143.
MeydAai/os, 144.
144.
, 120, 143.
s, 34, 143 f.
(em., cod. O^o/wuKa), 143.
, 144.
144.
, 120, 143.
Cln&prrjs (em.), 84, 144 ; Bee
, 34, 144.
BINDING SECT. JUN 8 1981
fcO
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
King, Leonard William
530 Legends of Babylon and ligypt
K5 in relation to Hebrew tradition
