Review: A Sumerian "Urgeschichte"

Author(s): Leroy Waterman

Review by: Leroy Waterman
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Apr., 1920),
pp. 246-248
Published by: University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528129
Accessed: 01-02-2016 03:22 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 37.155.63.61 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:22:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

blebwo

10ook

A SUMERIAN "URGESCHICHTE"
The fascinatingtitle of Vol. X, No. 1, of the publicationsof the Babylonian Sectionof the UniversityMuseumat Philadelphia'stirs the imagination and forcibly remindsthe readerof the race solidaritythat should be.
Laying aside all predilections,however, the study of this text by a considerablegroup of eminent Sumerianscholarsleaves no reasonabledoubt
about it: the title is unfortunate,not to say misleading.
This outcome places beyond the scope of this survey the 65 pages of
introduction,rich as it is in illustrativematerialrelatingto the title; and it
confinesour attention to the 20 pages of transliteratedand translatedtext,
and 2 autographedplates.
Owingto the damagedconditionof the tablet, the lacunaeare so extensive that the actuialtheme of the text may long remaina matter of doubt.
The unity of the originalis scarcely clear from the printed title, and it is
much more obscurein the exegesis of the editor. The present writer has
suggested a viewpoint from which possibly unity might be secured.2 Professor Jastrow's "SumerianMyths of Beginnings"3covers the most of its
contents.
The correctand completeanalysisof the subject-matteris not, however,
the primaryconsiderationin a textualvolumelike the present. The accuracy
of the text is the fundamentalconcern,and there seems to be some need of
emphasizingthis apparenttruism in the present instance. If there is one
criticismof the notablework of elucidatingthis text, it is that theorieshave
sometimestaken precedenceover textual facts.
The printed text is confessedly inaccurate. The editor has made
numerousmodificationsin various journals.4 More correctionshave been
made by others,5but the list is nowhere complete or harmonious. The
difficultyis more deep-seated. Langdon'sown correctionshave been made
with the confidentassertionthat they were not considerableenoughto shake
his first theory of the poem. Divergentreadingsby othershave been made,
1 The Sumerian Epic of Paradise, The Flood and The Fall of Man. By Stephen
Langdon.
Philadelphia: University Museum, 1915. Pp. 97+5 autographed plates.
2 See JAOS, XXXIX,
322-28.
s AJSL, XXXIII, 91-144.
4 See JAOS, XXXVI (1916), 140-45; AJSL, XXXIII (1917), 245-49; ET (1918),
pp. 218 f.
6 See especially Jastrow, AJSL, XXXIII, 94-95; cf. Chiera's list, above, pp. 232 ff.

246

This content downloaded from 37.155.63.61 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:22:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

247

BOOK REVIEWS

more especiallywherethe text appearedto be manifestlyagainstthe theory

of the title. In the same connectionit is not infrequentlythe case, where
the sign value is correctly given by Langdon,that the sign itself is inaccurately reproduced. The sign gi is a case in point. It occurs at least
seven times on the tablet, in the majority of instancesclearly written with
two perpendicularwedges, and perhapsit was so intendedin all. Langdon
with one exceptionrepresentsit with only one uprightwedge, which brings
it into partial resemblanceto md&. There are many similar phenomena.
Takenas a wholethese variationsof copyingand readingare remarkable
and requireexplanationin so practiceda copyist as the editor. They are
readilyaccountedfor when we learn that most of the text was copiedfroma
photographicreproduction. Even a cursoryglanceat the originalmakesit
evident that nothing short of omnisciencecould have accomplishedwhat
the editor essayed to do.
The first need, therefore,is that the entire text be restudiedas a whole
and correctly reproduced. No sure progressin the interpretationcan be
hopedfor till that is accomplished-one theory being about as uncertainas
another. It is disappointing,therefore,when the editor apparentlyseeks to
shake off the controversyby urging more importanttasks. This may be
true, but it is safe to say that whoeverfurnishesa reasonablyreliabletext
of this tablet will performquite as importanta service as the production
of the present copy. It may not be amiss to add that the tablet shows
many marks of disintegration,which make it imperativethat the task be
done without too much delay.
It is accordinglynot yet feasible to review the text as a whole, and the
limitationsof space will permit only a limited discussionof details.
ProfessorsPrince'and Jastrow2have probablydone the most important
pioneeringwork on the poem; and the latter has without doubt made the
most brilliant single contributionto the true apprehensionof its meaning.
In the basic passage, 'obv. II 24 ff., however, Professor Luckenbill has
rightly pointedout3 two of Jastrow'sreadingsthat are improbable.
In obv. II 24 e-a in Langdon is read dirig by Jastrow. Langdon's
reproductionof the text at this point is exact even to the representation
of the erasuretraces underlyingthe a of e-a. In additionthe scribeshows
no marked peculiaritieswhen he employs dirig elsewhere;cf. obv. III 9.
In obv. II 25 Langdon'sgi is interpretedas md4 by Jastrow. The writing
of gi is uniform with the exception noted above, which only confirmsthe
readingin this instance. mdn itself is made quite differently;cf. obv. I 17.
The first sign in obv. II 25 is, however,incorrectlyreproducedby Langdon, but neitherin the transcribedtext nor the originalis Sumeriand possible.
There is a defect in the tablet near the base and at the left of the upright
1 See JAOS, XXXVI,

2 JAOS,

XXXVI,

90-114, 269-73.

122-35,

s See AJTh, XXIII,

274-99;

AJSL,

XXXIII,

91-144.

103, n. 3.

This content downloaded from 37.155.63.61 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:22:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

248

THE

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF SEMITIC

LANGUAGES

wedge. There are two, not three, horizontalstrokes. There is only one
certain diagonalwedge, and when comparedwith us above and below there
seemsto be no reasonabledoubtthat the samecharacteris intendedherealso.
These changes do not necessarily alter the significanceof Jastrow's
interpretation;indeed, they may rather enhance it. The objectionmight
be broughtagainstJastrow'stranslation,as it stands,that the coitus (cf. obv.
II 25) occurstoo soon; cf. line 30. Langdon'srenderingof e-a (obv. II 24)
might still stand, but this use of e ought not to be pressed till the more
usual equivalentshave been found to be irrelevant. e-a signifies"cohabitation" (Sumer.Glos., pp. 1, 31). gi (1. 25), i.e., ge, interchangingwith ge,
signifies"turn, bring back, restore," here applied to erection. kad in the
same line regularlymeans "be fiery" (Sumer.Glos.,p. 116). Lines 24-26
would accordingly read: "His member of [i.e., for] cohabitation he
uncovered. His member he erected. It became violently inflamed. His
member,large and firm, he would not draw aside."
In rev. II 44 the third sign has been a matter of some doubt and controversy (cf. AJSL, XXXIII, 139,.n. 3). The sign consists of two clearly
written perpendicularwedges. There is not the slightest trace discernible
that wouldfavor the readinga. This is a matter of some importancein the
renderingof this difficultpassage. Most of the renderingsproposedwould
seem to be considerablyaffectedby it, includingthat of Albright(cf. JAOS,
XXXIX, 93).1 ProfessorT. J. Meek, of MeadvilleTheologicalSchool,was
good enough to collate the foregoingpassagesat the same time that I had
that privilege,and he confirmsthe readingshere suggested.
The first sign in rev. II 46 has no tangibleresemblanceto gir(Langdon),
nor is it 'd (Barton), nor pi (Albright). The traces are difficult,but a
comparisonwith sag just above shows that they rather readily lend themselves to ka 'mouth.' As I try to show elsewhere, this should help to
eliminatesome possibilities.
I forego a discussion of the elusive character TAK.KU. Professor
Barton (cf. AJTh, XXI, 571 ff.) has thrown the most light on its true
nature. Cf. also Langdon(ET, XXIX, 22) and Albright (JAOS, XXXIX,
80 ff.) (Dr. Albright has assuredme in conversationthat the true reading
of the name has been discovered. The resultshave not yet been published.)
Langdon'scopy is a marvelouspiece of work to have been made from a
photograph,but the methodis, nevertheless,fatal to that fidelity demanded
in the reproductionof originaldocuments.
The title, thoughborderingon the fanciful,has arouseda truly justifiable
interest in a work embodyinga view of things as instructiveas it is naive,
as primitiveas it is diversefrom the earliestlegendsof Israel.
LEROY WATERMAN
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1For my own proposal see JA OS, XXXIX,

322 ff.

This content downloaded from 37.155.63.61 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:22:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions