Bin šar dadmē: edition and analysis of the Akkadian Anzu poem

130 Pages·1988·5.253 MB·English

by  Marianna Egberdina Vogelzang

RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN
BIN SAR DADME
Edition and Analysis of the Akkadian Anzu Poem
ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Letteren
aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Dr. S. K. Kuipers
in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 21 april1988
des namiddags te 4.00 uur
door
MARIANNA EGBERDINA VOGELZANG
geboren te Ter Ape1
GRONINGEN
STYX PUBLICATIONS
1988
Promotores : Prof. Dr. J. H. Hospers
Prof. Dr. J. S. Cooper
Referent : Dr. H. L. J. Vanstiphout
STELLINGEN BEHORENDE BIJ HET PROEFSCHRPT VAN M.E.VOGELZANG.
1. Ondanks het feit dat in Enuma Elish I 49-85 de tekst slecht bewaard is, kan met zekerheid
worden aangenomen, dat na het tweede gevecht tegen Tiamat er geen sprake is van nog een
derde gevecht voordat Marduk de strijd tegen haar opneemt: Anshar zelf verklaart in I1 53-54
wie hij heeft uitgezonden: Anum en Nudimmud (tegen Lambert, in: Berliner Beitrage zum
Vorderen Orient, Band 6, Berlin 1986, p.56).
2. De term Mesopotamische mythen en epen dient vermeden te worden. Het verdient
aanbevelingd eze dubbele term tevervangen door wellicht drie aan elkaar gerelateerde termen:
narratieve dichtwerken met respectievelijk mythologische, legendarische of folkloristische
inhoud of achtergrond. Individuele epische composities kunnen vaak een combinatie van deze
drie abstracte onderscheidingen vertonen (tegen Jensen, A.s.g*risch-Babylonische M'.then und
Epen, Berlin 1900, en vele anderen).
3. Het verdient aanbeveling om gedurende de studie Assyriologie de student reeds in een vroeg
stadium vertrouwd te maken met het direkt kopieren van Meitabletten.
4. Het is noodzakelijk om bij het bestuderen en besprekenvan discordantie tussen OB recencies
en SB recensies te verrnijden dat automatisch afwijkingen ten nadele van de latere recensies
worden uitgelegd (tegen Moran, JCS 31,1979, p.67, note 7 and pp.74-75).
5. De mogelijkheid dat het tekstfragment 79-7-5, 194 = CT 46,26 behoort tot "Gilgamesh en
de EJuluppuboom" of tot "Etana" is waarschijnlijker dan dat het zou behoren tot "Anzu" (tegen
LandsbergerJZA 62, p.123).
6. Het Aramese hapax legomenon TWJin de Sfire stele I A, r.28 is mogelijk venvant aan het
Akkadische tibiitu(m), dat ondermeer gebruikt wordt om een zwerm van insecten (zoals
CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG
sprinkhanen) aan te duiden.
Vogelzang, M. E.
Bin Sar DadmE: edition and analysis of the Akkadian 7. Het belang van de Mesopotamische literatuur voor de ontwikkeling en geschiedenis van de
letterkunde in het algemeen wordt niet voldoende onderkend.
Anzu poem / M. E. Vogelzang. - Groningen: Styx
Proefschrift Groningen. - Met lit. opg. - Met samenvatting 8. Het actief bevorderenvan deelnamevanvrouwena an de wetenschapsbeoefeningz ouwellicht
een meer onrniddellijk gunstig effect hebben op de positie van de vrouw in de wetenschap dan
in het Nederlands.
het aanstellen van emancipatie-functionarissen.
ISBN 90-72371-01-1
SISO semi 851 UDC 892.1
Trefw. : Akkadische letterkunde.
0
M. E. Vogelzang
Preface
The research leading to the present study was supported by a
grant from the University Research Committee of Groningen State
University, which enabled me to be appointed as Assistant-in-
Research to Dr .H.L.J .Yanstiphout at the Institute of Semitic
Studies. Groningen State University, from 1-2-1983 to 31-1-1987.
It is a pleasant duty to thank the many people who have
contributed in their own way to this study.
First of all I wish to thank Dr.H.L.J.Vanstiphout under whose
guidance as referent this study was completed. I am very
grateful to him for having been my teacher for so many years,
for his stimulating ideas. critical attitude and for his never
ceasing wi 1 lingness to devote so much of his valuable time to
keep me going.
I wish to thank my promotors Prof .Dr.J .S .C ooper of the Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA, for reading the ms. with me
during my stay in Baltimore in May 1987 and for his critical
remarks which were of inestimable value; and Em.P rof .Dr.J .H .
Hospers of Groningen State University, not only for critically
reading the manuscript. but also for his kindness in helping me
out with regard to the labyrinth of administrative rules and
regu iations surrounding a dissertation.
1 would also like to acknowledge the help I received from Em.
Prof .Dr.O.R.Gurney of the Oxford University, who sent me his
photographs of the Sultantepe tablets. originally excavated and
published by him, and kindly collated some readings for me
during his stay in Turkey in september 1986.
I owe a special word of thanks to Dr.F.Leemhuis who taught me
how to use the computer as a word-processor, facing the special
problems of ancient Semitic languages: to Drs.G.Haayer for his
indjspensable assistance as editor. and to all my colleagues at
the Institute.
Finally. I thank the Trustees of the British Museum for the ONTENTS
permission to study the texts from their collection in october PaRe
1983; Mme.B.Andr6e-Leicknam for her kind cooperation and Preface ......................................... I .I 1
permission to copy and publish the two Old Babylonian tablets in Contents ....................................... I11 .V I
the Louvre museum; and Mrs.U.Kasten of the Sterling Memorial Introduction .................................... 1 .4
Library of the Yale University in New Haven. USA. for her kind Part I .......................................... 5 .1 32
cooperation and permission to study the Neo Babylonian tablet in Chapter I ....................................... 5 .2 6
the Yale collection; and the Trustees of the Groningen State 1 . Copies and Collations of the Tablets ........ 5 .6
University for subsidizing my research and my stay in Paris and 2 . List of the Manuscripts ..................... 7
Baltimore . 3 . The Manuscripts ............................. 8
A . Tablet I ................................. 8 .1 2
Groningen. october 1987 . M .E . Voge lzang 1 . Ms.a .................................. 8 .1 0
2 . M5.E ................................. 10 .1 1
3 . Ms.C ................................. 11
4. Ms.! ................................. 11 .1 2
.
5 . M3.D ................................. 12
B . Tablet I1 ............................... 12 .1 5
1 . Ms.8 ................................. 13
.
2 . Ms.F ................................. 13 .1 4
3 . Ms.b .................................. 14
4. M s . ~.. ............................. 14 .1 5
5 . Ms.& ............................... 15
6 . Ms.i ............................... 15
C . Tablet I11 .............................. 16 .1 7
1 . Ms.G ................................. 16 .1 7
Conclusion ............................... 17 .1 8
D . The Old Babylonian Tablets .............. 18 .1 9
E . The Manuscripts and M ................. 19 .2 3
Notes to Chapter I ......................... 24 .2 6
Chapter I1 ..................................... 27 .1 10
1 . The Manuscripts of Tablet I ............. 27
2 . Earlier Studies ......................... 28 .2 9
3 . Transcription ........................... 30 .3 9 Part I1 ........................................ 133- 234
4. Translation ............................. 40 .4 7
5 . The Manuscripts of Tablet I1 ............ 48 Chapter I ...................................... 133- 144
6 . Earlier Studies ......................... 49
7. Transcription ........................... 50 - 61 Thestory: A.OutlineofthePlot ............ 133
8 . Translation ............................. 62 - 67 B . Articulation: the Episodes ..... 133- 139
9 . The Manuscript of Tablet I11 ............ 68 Notes to Chapter I ................ 140- 144
10 . Earlier Studies ......................... 68 Chapter I1 ..................................... 145- 169
11 . Transcription ........................... 69 - 70 Internal Structure: A . The Main Oppositions ... 145- 148
12 . Translation ............................. 71 72 B . The Opponent: the Anzu-
.
Textual Notes: Tablet I ............... 73 .8 0 bird .................. 148- 153
Tablet I1 .............. 81 .8 9 C . The Medlator .......... 153- 157
Tablet I11 ............. 90 D . The Figure of Ninurta in
13 . The Old Babylonian Manuscripts .......... 91 the Anzu Story ........ 157- 162
14. Earlier Studies ......................... 91 Notes to Chapter I1 ...... 163- 169
15 . Copies .................................. 92 - 95 Chapter I11 .................................... 170- 176
16 . Transcription ........................... 96 .1 00 A Specific Structure of the Ninurta Combat Myths 170- 174
17 . Translation ............................. 101- 105 Notes to Chapter I11 .......................... 175- 176
Textual Notes: Tablet 11 ............. 106- 108 Chapter IV ..................................... 177- 183
Tablet I11 ............. 108- 110 Narrative Techniques: Olrik's Laws ............. 177- 182
Chapter I11 .................................... 111- 118 Notes to Chapter IV ........................... 183
Excursus on the Texts from Susa: Chapter V ...................................... 184- 189
1 . General Observations ..................... 111 Literary Structures: The Ma~orS tructural Llne .. 184- 188
2 . General Features of the Susa Texts ....... 112- 115 Notes to Chapter V ............................ 189
3 . Problems of Dating and Orthography ....... 115- 118 Chapter VI ..................................... 190- 201
Chapter IV ..................................... 119- 132 A . Differences between the OB text and the SB
1 . Manuscripts L and M: Earlier Studies ...... 119 text ....................................... 190- 197
2 . Transcription ............................ 120- 123 i . Different Grammatical and Lexical Forms of
3 . Translation .............................. 124- 126 the Same Words ......................... 190- 191
Textual Notes ............................ 127- 132 ii . Synonyms or Words Functioning Similarly . 192- 193
iii . Added Words or Phrases .................. 193- 195
iv . Expansion by Parallelism ................ 195- 196
v . Reformulations .......................... 197
B. Evaluation of the Variants .................. INTRODUCTION
Notes to Chapter VI ........................
Chapter VII .................................... The purpose of this study is a complete edition of all the
Narrative Devices I: Symmetry and Repetition .. available tablets and fragments, with an analysis of the
Notes to Nar.Dev.1 ...... essential characteristics, of a literary text which may be
Narrative Devices 11: Texture .................. called after its incipit Bin 9ar dadm5 "The Son of the King of
i. Ea's tactical advice .... Habitations".
ii. BGlet-ili's Speech to
Ninurta ................. The earliest known fragment of this narrative poem (K.3454) was
iii. The Mss.S, and M ......... published in 1876 by G.Smith in his famous Chaldean Account
Notes to Nar.Dev.11 ..... of Genesis. E.Harper (1894) added K.3935 to this tablet and
Bibliography ................................... the small fragment DT.292 was finally joined thereto by E.Reiner
Dutch Suwnary .................................. (1954). Another fragment, from Nineveh (K.7257). was also
published by E.Reiner (1957). It is not a regular manuscript of
the story, but part of a collection of extracts or a practice
tablet. More small fragments have been published since then
(Sm.1 807+2195 and BM 121087) , but the most important
contribution was the publication of the Yale tablet (YBC 9842)
by W.W.Hallo and W.L.Moran (19791, shedding light especially on
the beginning and end of Tablet I and its Old Babylonian
counterpart. In 1952 E.Ebeling published a Middle Assyrian text
(LKA 1) of Tablet I1 and in 1954 E.Reiner published a
Neo Babylonian fragment, found in Nineveh (K.3008); two small
fragments (K.18740 and K.19368) were recently added to it by
W.G .Lambert (1980) . The most important contribution to the
second tablet formed the publication, in copy only, of the
famous Sultantepe tablets by 0.R.Gurney and J.J.Finkelstein
(1957).In 1965 W.G.Lambert identified K.11565 + 7923 + Sm.454 as
belonging to Tablet 111; and in 1980 a small piece (K.14211) was
joined to it by the same author.
V.Schei1 was the first to publish two single column tablets from
Susa (1938), containing an Old Babylonian version. They were
re-edited by J.Nougayr-01 (1952).
The most recent treatment of the full story is offered by
B-HruSka (1975) . The merit of this book is that it treats after
a genera 1 introduction ( pp. 17-34) : "Anzu in der The Old Babylonian version is treated separately. Special
altmesopotamische Literatur" (pp.35-40); "Anzu als gute/bose attention is devoted to the problems of dating and orthography
mythische Gestalt" (pp.41-105); "Der babylonische Mythos uber of the 0B texts. Both tablets have been copied anew and the
Anzu und den Raub von Schicksalstafeln" (containing the copies are given here. Of all the other manuscripts excellent
transcription and translation of all the available texts known copies are available and it was therefore not deemed necessary
to him then; pp. 107-1751 , and a short analysis (pp.1 82-1871 . A to republish them here. The actual transcription of every Tablet
drawback of the book is that after 1975 new pieces of later is preceded by a bibliography of major treatments of the text or
versions have been published. so that his transcriptions. some aspects of it. Also a first attempt has been made to
translations and conclusions are no longer valid in every translate the duplicates STT 23 and 25. I hope to have shown
respect. that they do not belong to our Anzu story. HruSka listed them
All this material, scattered in various studies. needed to be among the Neo-Assyrian material belonging to our story, although
collected, arranged and edited anew thus creating the he did not explicitly state that they form a part of it, and he
possibility of analysing the essential characteristics of the did not attempt a translation, but only presented an
text as a narrative poem in its present state of completeness - "interpretation". As far as I have been able to ascertain
for it remains a pity that the end of the story is lost both in Wiggermann (1982) was the first to doubt their being part of our
the Old Babylonian (OBI version and in the Standard Babylonian text. In my view they represent one of the other traditional
(SB) version. Nevertheless, the present study offers a stories about Ninurta's battles with monsters or demons.
hypothesis as to how the story might have ended, based upon the In the second part a construction of the mythological
available llterary material. framework 1s given as it appears from these texts. The literary
To my regret it has proved impossible to make use of the "Mosul- structures are discussed and comparisons are made to other
fragment" (cf. W.G.Lambert. 1980) fo be published by H.Saggs. combat myths In which Ninurta plays the leading part, as
Our efforts to incorporate this fragment, of which the Lugal-e, An-gim dim-ma and the UET 6/1 2 text.
importance cannot be evaluated as long as it remains Next, the narrative techniques and devices are examined with
unpublished, were fruitless. special attention to parallelism and symmetry; also the
differences between the OB and the SB versions are discussed in
The study consists of two parts: the first part contains a detall in this light.
discussion of all the available manuscripts, followed by The problems concerning the phonetical realisation and the
transcriptions and translations. The SB manuscripts are philological analysis of the name /-/ will not be treated.
presented in score format. Since the different recensions (MA, There is already plenty of "literature" about this subject and
NA and NB) show very little variation, they represent the same the reading Anzu in stead of 0 may now be taken as
text, for which reason I felt it unnecessary to make up a generally accepted; however, a selective list of relevant
composite text which is always partly hypothetical anyway. It literature is added at the end of the Bibliography.
goes without saying that the translation is composite. As my intention was primarily to present a complete edition of
Important variations are registered in the notes, and discussed all the available manuscripts of one literary text and an
where useful. analysis of this composition, it is clear why I felt I should
not contribute to the discussion concerning the "problems" of Part I.
the identity of Ningirsu and Ninurta. In these texts it is not a
matter of virtual identity but of exact identity, and therefore Chapter I
the name Ningirsu/Ninurta is considered to denote one and the
same divine figure. However interesting such a discussion might 1. Copies and collations of the tablets
turn out to be, it is a subject for a different study requiring
analyses of many more Mesopotamian texts of literary as well as All British Museum tablets have been collated. At my request new
religious content. photographs were made. Recopying seemed less necessary in view of
(a
the excellent copies by L.W.King 15.39-40) and W.G.Larnbert
(a
46, 36-42; AfO 27 (1980) ,p.81-82). The (very few)
corrections deriving from the collations have been indicated in
the textual notes.
For ms.&, E.Ebelinglsc opies were used as published in
46,1959, pp.25-41, and 1, 1953. He made them after
excavation photographs and from photographs from the Staatliche
Museum in East Berlin (parts of the original tablet, wnich has
apparently fallen apart since, are now in the museum of
Istanbul). The photographs cannot now be located. With the aid of
the copies from Sultantepe (mss.h_,i,i)a nd K.3008 + 18740 +
19368 (ms.b) and BM.121060 uncertain readings could be improved.
A few still questionable readings have been indicated in the
textual notes.
For the Sultantepe tablets use was made of the copies by
0.R.Gurney. He kindly sent me the available photographs of
tablets nr. 19 (ms-h), 21 (ms.i), 22 (ms.2, 23 (ms.L) and
25 (ms.M). The photographs were made before the tablets were
baked and cleaned and are therefore very difficult to read.
Prof-Gurney collated some uncertain readings for me during a stay
in Turkey (autumn 1986) and the new readings have been indicated
in the textual notes (indicated as priv(ate)~mm(unication).
I also collated tablet YBC 9842 (ms.a) in the Yale Babylonian
Collection in New Haven, USA. Recopying was not necessary for the
copy made by W.W.Hallo in the JCS 31, 1979, pp.106-115, proved 2. List of the Manuscripts
to be excellent.
Siglum Provenience
The two OB tablets from Susa, Sb 9470 and Sb 14683 (mss.Aa and
Ab), now in the Louvre Museum in Paris, were copied anew by me Old Babylonian Susa Sb 9470
and at my request excellent photographs of both tablets have been Old Babylonian Susa Sb 14683
made. Tablet I1 (ms. Aa) has apparently been damaged in course of Middle Assyrian Assur 21506w
time. for V.Schei1 copied some signs (RA 35, 1938,pp.20-23) Middle Assyrian Nineveh BM 121087
which are now lost (indicated in my transliteration by an *). Neo Assyrian Nineveh K.7 257
Neo Assyrian Nineveh Sm.1807+2195
Neo Assyrian Nineveh K.3454+3935+DT.292
Neo Assyrian Nineveh? BM 121060
Neo Assyrian Nineveh K.11565+14211+
7923+Sm.454
h Neo Assyrian Sultantepe 52/232
-i Neo Assyrian Sultantepe 51/102A+52/63+70+76
j Neo Assyrian Sultantepe 52/218
a NeoBabylonian ? YBC 9842
b Neo Babylonian Nineveh K.3008+K.18740+K.19368
The Manuscripts not belonging to this Anzu story:
L Neo Assyrian Sultantepe 51/19A+37
-M Neo Assyrian Sultantepe 52/187
The publication spots can be found at the beginning of the
separate treatment of the tablets. The siglum system is based
upon the provenience, except in the case of ms.b, where language
and script are Neo Babylonian. L and M are differentiated
from h. 1 and i because they do not belong to our story.
3.The Manuscripts. bi-riq ur-ha 9[u-kun a-dlan-nu
3 ~;8.3[0].r 21 hf MU.B[II .IM *or: 3 ~iG.2[01. 8?
The most fully preserved version of the Anzu story is the [I ]M re9-tu-6 bi-in [LUIGAL d[a-ad-mi]
Standard Babylonian (SB) one. It was apparently produced during [NU AIL.TIL ki-i KA DUB GA[BA.RI (...)I
the last half or quarter of the second millennium BCE and became [ (. . .) b]&-sip.KI 3&-tir-m[a ba-ril
the canonical version. It differs from the OB version in certain [DUB xlxx m.ba-an-s[ir-ri( ...) 1
aspects, but the differences do not affect the story's basic plot
or format. And despite revision of wording. the SB text and the "Bar the road with lightning, sect a time lilmit".
OB text from Susa correspond to each other so closely that there 212/208 are its lines.
may have been a genetic relationship, although this cannot be First tablet of "Bin 3ar d [admi]" .
stated with certainty. 1) The SB mss.of the text span a period [Not f ilnished; after the content of a tablet, a co[py(. . .) ]
from MA till NA and NB times; at the latest then, the editing and [........ from Blorsippa written and collated.
rewriting that produced the standard version occurred about 1200. [Tablet . I . . of Hang [irri ( . . . ) 1 ".
But the copying of the OB text did not necessarily cease, as our
text from Susa may show, nor did the copying of other traditional No information about its provenience or accession has been found
stories about Ninurta and Anzu, as may be seen from the texts L/M to date. 3) It consists of four columns of about 55 lines for
from Sultantepe. co1.i. ii and iii, thus leaving enough space for the colophon on
We have no means of knowing how many intervening versions of the the lower part of col.iv, which has only about 35 lines.
story or editorial stages of the text - if any at all - there may Of co1.i the full 55 lines are preserved. Maybe one line is
have been between the early version as we have it and the later missing in the break. According to Moran (1979),p.76: "The break
standard text. To reconstruct a stemma does not make much sense in i is not so large as that in iv (...); perhaps only 1 or 2
in this case, for it would show little more than that each lines".
chronological step in the tradition is directly or indirectly Of co 1. ii 18 1 ines are preserved; about 3 lines are missing on
derived from the ones immediately before it. We do not possess a top. Of col.iii 18 lines are preserved; the last line agrees with
Sumerian version of the story, and no ms.comes from outside , the last line of col.iii of ms.E. According to the reconstruction
Mesopotamia except the two OB mss.from Susa. Therefore, very of the whole tablet with the help of the other rnss., 75 lines
little can be said of its textual history. would be missing in the gap between col.ii and col.iii.
0i col . iv 35 1 ines are preserved; theref ore the first tablet
A. Tablet I contained at least 205 lines.
Presumably the break of col . iv contained Mami ' s consent to Ea's
1. The best manuscript of tablet I is ms.n. Preserved are 126 request, the grateful reaction of the gods, and her summons to
lines. According to the colophon it might have had 208 or 212 Ninurta. On the OB tablet (ms.Aa.obv.34-36) this covers three
lines and was written in Borsippa by a scribe whose name might lines. The catchline of the tablet agrees with the first line of
have been Hansirri . 2) ms.; from Assur and ms.i from Sultantepe. which shows that not
only the text but also its articulation into tablets was