Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The Sumerian deluge myth is inscribed on a six-colume Nippur tablet in the University Museum, of which only the lower third is preserved. It was first published by Arno Poebel in 1914, in PBS V no. 1, and was edited by him with exemplary detail, care, and circumspection in the same year in PBS IV pp. 9–70. In 1950, I published a new translation of the text in ANET pp. 42–4 – except for a few modifications, it was based entirely on Poebel's edition. In more recent years, two scholars have made serious attempts to retranslate and reinterpret the text. In 1969, Miguel Civil published a new transliteration and translation of the myth in Lambert and Millard's atrahasis pp. 138–45 (philological notes ibid. pp. 167–74). In 1981, Thorkild Jacobsen published a new transliteration, translation and interpretation of the composition which he entitled “The Eridu Genesis”, in JBL 100/4 pp. 513–29. Both Civil and Jacobsen have made a number of significant and useful lexicographical, grammatical and interpretative suggestions. But neither of them have resolved the baffling difficulties and obscurities that abound in the text, and much of its contents still remains puzzling and enigmatic, especially the first part of the myth relating the events leading up to the divine decision to destroy mankind by sending a devastating flood on the land.
1 In addition to the long frustrating lacunae that darken and obscure the meaning of much of the composition, note the following partial list of crucial, critical difficulties that remain unresolved: (1) the identity of the deity speaking in lines 37–46; 85 7, 251; (2) the meaning of such key words and complexes as ki-ùr (line 40), uru-me-a and ki-eš-me-a (lines 41 43); (3) the rather abrupt introduction of a new creation in lines 47–49, and its relationship to what preceded; (4) the meaning of níg-gil (line 46) and níg-gil-ma (lines 253 and 259); (5) the meaning of kab-dug4-ga in lines 93, 98, 202; the reading and meaning of line 99.
1a Cf. my “Sumerian Literature and the British Museum”, PAPS Vol. 124 pp. 299 ffGoogle Scholar.
2 The surmise that this missing portion of the myth may have included the depiction of a calamitous dispersal of mankind over the face of the earth, was prompted by Thorkild Jacobsen's suggestion (loc. cit. pp. 213–14) that the small fragment UET VI no. 61, is a duplicate inscribed with a considerably varying version of our myth. If that should turn out to be the case – and admittedly this is rather dubious – it would follow that the obverse of the Ur fragment contains a portion of the first lacuna on the Nippur tablet (lines 1–36 of the myth). Now as already noted in the Introduction to UET VI sub Nos. 61–3, the obverse of this fragment includes the first part of the “Golden Age” – “Babel of Tongue” passage in “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta” (cf. my “The Babel of Tongues” in JAOS 88 pp. 108–11)Google Scholar, according to which Enki confounded the speech of man because of his jealousy of Enlil. And though this is not explicitly stated in the text, it may be that he thus brought about the dispersion of mankind over the face of the earth, a calamity which he may have come to rue in the course of time – hence his determination to halt the imminent extinction of “his” mankind and to return the people from their (dispersed) habitations. Note finally that the fragmentary lines preceding the “Golden Age” passage in the Ur piece (lines 1–10) probably depict mankind's prosperity and well-being (not “his miserable way of life”, cf. Jacobsen, loc. cit. p. 516) – for the restoration of the first two lines cf. note 14 of this article, and the probability that the verbal forms in lines 3–10 may be positive rather than negative (as suggested by Jacobsen).
3 In the translation I have incorporated those suggestions of Civil and Jacobsen that seemed convincing to me – these will be indicated in the notes. The line numbering follows that of Civil.
4 It is difficult to surmise what preceded and what followed im-gá-gá.
5 “Halt” is no more than a dubious surmise. “There” in this and the following lines must refer to some locality, perhaps to Sumer.
6 This translation assumes that níg-dim-dim-ma-mu is an anticipatory genitive parallel to nam-lú-lú6-mu in the preceding line, and that the unrestorable broken complex that followed, ended in -bi, like the second complex of the preceding line. The real meaning and implication of this line are quite uncertain, it may echo in some way “the creation of man” myth in which these two deities played contesting roles (cf. C. A. Benito “Enki and Ninmah”).
7 “(Dispersed) habitations” is an attempt to render the much discussed ki-ùr (cf. Civil's comment to this line); for ki-ùr as the habitation of mountain-kids and snakes, cf. Jacob Klein, Three Sulgi Hymns in the index sub ki-ùr and muš-ki-ùr-ra – to judge from those passages, ki-ùr would refer to habitations in the sparsely settled wild countryside as opposed to city dwellings. As for the rendering “we would return” (instead of “I would return”), this assumes that the verb ga-ba-ni-ib-gur-ru-dè is the first person plural ga-ba-ni-ib-gur-e(n)de(n), and that the subject is not Enki alone, but Enki and Nintu.
8 The rendering “me-endowed cities” is a surmise for the ambiguous uru-me-a, literally perhaps “the cities of the me” the final -bu of ga-ba-ab-dúb-bu seems unjustified.
9 The unintelligible ki-eṧ seems to be parallel to the uru of the preceding lines.
10 The rendering of this line follows that suggested by Civil, but remains quite uncertain.
11 The rendering of this line follows that of Civil.
12 Following Enki's speech which presumably ended with line 46, one might have expected the text to continue with the execution of his expressed wishes, that is, the returning of the people from their ki-ùr, and the building of the cities endowed with divine rites and me, where they could live in prosperity and well-being. Instead, the text introduces what seems to be a new creation, this time of “the blackheads”, by the four leading deities of the pantheon. The nature and manner of this creation are not described, and it is even uncertain whether “the blackheads” refers only to the Sumerians or to mankind as a whole. Nor is it clear how the creation of “the blackheads” is related to Enki's creation of mankind mentioned in lines 38–9. Note finally that it is not altogether impossible that Enki's soliloquy ended with line 87, and not with line 46. But all this does not help to resolve the difficulties, and the interpretation of this part of the myth and its plot-structure remain uncertain and unclear.
13 The meaning of the crucial níg-gil (cf. line 253 where it is followed by -ma, accidentally omitted in Civil's transliteration, as well as line 259 where it is also followed by -ma) remains uncertain. It may be of some interest to note that line 3 of the gišal hymn reads: den-líl numun-kalam-ma ki-īa e11-dè (cf. UET VI no. 26 and duplicates) where numun-kalam-ma rise out of the earth, just like the níg-gil-(ma) of our line.
14 With this line cf. line 349 of the myth EWO (= “Enki and Inanna: the Organization of the Earth and Its Cultural Processes”) which reads: máš-anše an-edin-na mu-ni-lu-lu me-te-aš bí-ib-gál “He (Enki) multiplied herds of animals in the high steppe (and) he brought them into existence there as is befitting” Note that UET VI No. 61 obv. 1 that begins with máš-anše (not nam-lú as suggested by Jacobsen loc. cit. p. 516, note 7) may probably be restored to read in accordance with line 50 of our text, and that obv. 2 of the Ur piece may be restored to read: an-edin-[na su 6na4za-gìn àm-lá muš-na4 za-gìn àm-kéš] “On the high steppe [he (Enki) fastened a lapis-lazuli beard, he made it don a lapis lazuli tiara(?)]”, that is, he made the high steppe bloom with greenery (cf. EWO line 347).
15 The rendering of this line and the next follows in part that suggested by Civil.
16 The restoration of this line is based on line 45.
17 The rendering of this line is based on a restoration that reads [uru-me-a sig4-bi ki-kù-ga im-m]a-an-da-šub (cf. line 42).
18 The use of the locative infix -ni- instead of the dative infix -na- in the verbal form of this line and the four following lines, seems rather strange; so, too, is the omission of -ra following the name of the deity in this line and lines 95 and 96. If Enki is the god who named the cities and assigned them to the various deities, one would have to assume that Nudimmud is not identical with Enki in our text.
19 This rendering follows an interesting, but not altogether convincing suggestion by Jacobsen (loc. cit. p. 518, note 7); note that the sign following 2-kam-ma is a clear TÚG and therefore cannot be read -šè (cf. photograph).
20 The reading of the god's name as Pabilsag follows a suggestion by Civil; the assumption that the sign HUR is a scribal error seems reasonable, but is not altogether assured.
21 The reading and rendering of this line are quite uncertain. The first two signs are certainly ÍD and IM (as correctly read by Jacobsen, loc. cit. p. 518); the reading a-gi 4 is incorrect (the copy is misleading, cf. photograph); the third sign is GUN or DAR (not LA, unless a scribal error is involved); the fourth sign is MA (not BA, as read by both Civil and Jacobsen, cf. both photograph and copy); so, too, the sign following im- and preceding -al-la, is not BA but MA (the complex therefore reads im-ma-al-la, a word whose meaning is uncertain and difficult to fit into the context).
22 The three dot s stand for the difficult níg-ḫur-ḫur.
23 Jacobsen's rendering “Nintur wept over her creatures” which is based on the restoration of the second half of the line as níg-dím-dím-a-[ni-še i-še 8-še 8] is probably erroneous; there is hardly room for the restored signs, not to mention the fact that -dím-dím-a would be a most unusual writing for -dím-dím-ma.
24 That is, Enki was already devising a plan to save mankind.
25 Presumably the four leading deities of the pantheon made the other gods of heaven and earth swear that they would abide by the cruel decision whether they liked it or not.
26 The general drift of the contextual meaning and interpretation of lines 145–50, is fairly clear; they depict Ziusudra as a pious god-fearing king who consults the gods and communicates with them in various ways. But in case of lines 147–50, only the first part of each is extant, and these seem to contain only participial verbal forms — the end of the lines which may have consisted of finite verbal forms is missing. One such finite verb seems to be required at the end of line 150, but if so, its restoration is rather hopeless at present.
27 The objects fashioned are described by the complex AN-sag-nigin which according to Jacobsen may be rendered as “the god of giddiness” that is, Ziusudra made statues of this deity perhaps to induce ecstatic inspiration. This is an interesting interpretation to keep in mind for future corroboration.
28 This rather crucial line is difficult to read, translate and interpret. To judge from da-bi “its side”, in the line following, it may have specified the place where the gods met in assembly. But the first complex is hardly ki-ùr-šè as read by both Civil and Jacobsen (as the photograph shows, the traces of the first sign do not point to KI, and even the -šè is somewhat doubtful). Nor can the signs following dingir-re-e-ne be read with certainty.
29 The speaker is probably Enki, but this is nowhere stated.
30 The Sumerian for the line probably reads: uru(!?)-me-a a-ma-ru ugu-kab-du[g 4-ga-ba] ba [-ùr-ùr-re].
31 The rendering “thus it has been decreed” assumes that the end of the line is to be restored to read ḫur-gim nam ba-tar (cf. Jacobsen, loc. cit. p. 522 for a somewhat different suggestion).
32 For the restoration and translation of these three lines, with the help of parallels in the “Lamentation Over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur” cf. Jacobsen, loc. cit. p. 522.
33 “The heart is aggrieved” attempts to render the rather difficult šà- kúš-ù-dè, the last complex in the line.
34 “And gales” follows Civil's rendering.
35 “Drilled an opening” follows Civil's and Jacobsen's rendering.
36 The rendering of this line follows that of Civil.
37 The translation, interpretation, and implication of these two lines are quite uncertain. To judge from the precative verbal form ḫé-im-da-lá in the first line, and the simple indicative verbal form im-da-lá in the second, the first line consists of a request by some deity, perhaps Enki, which was actually fulfilled according to the second line. I therefore render the second line as if it read: an-den-líl (-le) zi-an-na zi-ki-a i-pà-dè-eš (instead i-pà-dè-zé-en) za-ne-ne-da (instead of za-da-ne-ne); note that in the first line, too, za-zu-da might have been expected to read za-zu-ne-ne-da. As for the meaning of za in these complexes, it is quite uncertain it seems hardly likely that it is the second person pronoun.
38 The translation and interpretation of this line are uncertain because of the obscure níg-gil-ma. So, too, is its contextual relationship to the lines immediately preceding.
39 The full meaning of this crucial line remains uncertain because of the obscure níg-gil-ma.
