Antediluvian Cities

Author(s): William W. Hallo

Source: Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1971), pp. 57-67
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359183
Accessed: 29/08/2010 09:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Cuneiform Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

ANTEDILUVIAN
WILLIAMW. HALLO
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut
When1 the divine Seven are presented to Irra
as his irresistible weapons, they urge him into
battle in the following words:
Arise, get up!
Are you perhaps going to dwell in the city like a
paralyzed old man?
Are you going to dwell in the house like a feeble
baby?
Are we to eat women's bread like one who will
not take the field?
Are we to fear and tremble as if we did not know
battle?
Taking to the field of manhood is like a holiday!
The city-dweller, though he be a prince, can
never eat enough
He is despised and slandered in the talk of his
own people
How is he to match his strength with him who
takes the field?
Let the prowess of the city-dweller be ever so
enormous-
How is he to overpower the one who takes the
field?
The finest city food cannot compare with field
rations
The sweestest light beer cannot compare with
water from the goatskin
The palace (erected on) a high terrace cannot
compare with the [warrio]r'spallet
Warlike Irra, take the field, brandish your
weapons.2
With these resounding phrases, a relatively late
Babylonian poet silhouetted the contrast between
1. Presented to the 180th meeting of the American
Oriental Society, Baltimore, Maryland, April 14, 1970
for the symposium on "Asian Cities in History."
2. Tablet I lines 46-60; translation mine. For the
latest edition of the text, see now L. Cagni, L'Epopea di
Erra (= Studia Semitici 34, Rome, 1969).
To the memory of
Ferris J Stephens
(1893-1969)
CITIES
the debilitating security of the city and the manly
challenge of the open field. I am not concerned
with his particular scheme of values- though it
is almost unique in cuneiform literature3-but
with the contrast between town and country
which is stressed in the native sources from the
very beginning. It is the consciousness of this
contrast, as enshrined in the lexical and literary
evidence, which entitles us to regard the city as a
phenomenological reality for the ancient Meso-
potamians, and to study it as such. In my brief
remarks here this morning, I am going to draw on
this internal evidence, leaving it to other occa-
sions or other investigators to employ the many
alternative and often newer approaches by which
the nature and origins of urbanism can validly be
studied in the Ancient Near East.
For some of the innumerable omissions in my
presentation, I will simply refer interested readers
to the many authoritative surveys of recent vin-
tage. I may single out here (in chronological
order): R. M. Adams and Carl Kraeling, eds.,
City Invincible: a Symposium on urbanization and
cultural development in the Ancient Near East
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960);
A. J. Jawad, The Advent of the Era of Townships
in Northern Mesopotamia (Leiden, Brill, 1965);
Robert M. Adams, The Evolution of Urban So-
ciety: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico
(Chicago, Aldine, 1966, ix + 191 pp.); Paul
Lampl, Cities and Planning in the Near East (New
York, George Braziller, 1968, 128 pp.); Ira M.
Lapidus, ed., MfiddleEastern Cities: a Symposium
(Berkeley, University of California Press, 1970,
3. Cf. A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1964)
110f. and now also apud Ira M. Lapidus, ed., Middle
Eastern Cities (1970) 7 on the general absence of an anti-
urban bias in Mesopotamia.
57
58 JOURNALOF CUNEIFORMI
STUDIES, VOL. 23 (1970)

225 pp.) especially the contributions by Oppen- contrasts with the situation in other Ancient Near
heim and Adams.4 Eastern languages, e.g. in Hebrew where 'Tr,
To begin, then, with the lexical evidence, it is mdahb, qeret, and qiryd, as well as the later kdrak,
worth noting that the concept "city" is expressed mdtd (from the Akkadian) and polls (from the
by a single term throughout virtually all the long Greek) compete for the role." It contrasts even
history of cuneiform; u r u in Sumerian, dlu more conspicuously with the situation, in cunei-
in Akkadian and happiras in Hittite.5 True, a form itself, as regards the antonyms of u r u
dozen ostensible synonyms for the Akkadian term and dlu, which are legion. I can do no more here
are provided by the canonical synonym list.6 than to sum up the evidence.
But with the possible exception of mahdzu (cf. In literary Sumerian, the contrast "town and
Aramaic mdhoza)7 these never occur in connected country" is commonly expressed by the pair
contexts in the sense of "city". Some are learned uru and a - d a m, literally "town and pas-
loan-words from technical Sumerian terms for ture"; when used in an additive sense, the pair
foundation (kiz;ru; cf. also durussu8) or border implies the totality of human settlement.12 An
(kisurru); others are terms for "herd" or "pas- expanded version of this cliche occurs in the
ture" that in context occur mostly as antitheti- phrase "town, pasture, and encampments"
cally paired with city (uru, nawu, nammassu); (uru a-dam mas-gana or uru
one is simply the word for the inhabited world mas-gana a-dam).13 Here the Akka-
(dadme), explained more accurately as "(all) the dian loan-word ma s-gana reflects Sar-
lands" or as "sum-total of all cities" elsewhere in gonic administrative terminology where "town
the same source (lines 191 and 204 respectively). and encampment" (mas-ga-na) were employed as
The rest are rare and probably foreign equivalents a contrasting pair,14 a usage still attested as late
with which the synonym lists are typically filled as the Amarna letters.15
out (addsu, qunnabru, silaqqu). As for Sumerian, While one can only speculate about the etymol-
the single lexically attested synonym for u ru ogy of a- dam, other Sumerian antonyms
is t i r, 9 and even this word for "forest" is at for the city put transparent stress on the hydraulic
best restored in a Hittite vocabulary- a genre basis of the cultivated countryside. In contrast
not always noted for its accuracy.10 to the city, it is "that which is fructified with
This unanimity of designation in cuneiform water" (a- r i- a, -ri-a); it is "the
moistened ground" ( - d u r u )16 or the
4. Cf. also D. Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of
Northern Iraq (London, Oxford University Press, 1968) "irrigation district" ( a - g a r, literally per-
and the studies of individual Mesopotamian cities such haps the "water pocket"). Most of these terms
as Babylon (Unger, van der Meer, Moran) or Assur
(Andrae, Frankena, van Driel) on the basis of the liter- gal sa-si -u -gal/K A L .u .u -e
ary or archaeological remains or both. i.e.: The palace is a forest/The king, a lion,/The goddess
5. Cf. H. Hoffner, An English-Hittite Glossary (= of the palace (Nin-egal) a great net/which....
RHA 25, 1967) 30. Originally, the word meant "market" However, e - g a 1 here may have the actual sense of
according to J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Worterbuch (1952) "royal bivouac" as in C. Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos (1969)
55. lines 291 and 322. Note that the equation TIR = subtum
6. Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, "The first tablet of 'mal- in the same vocabulary has a possible parallel in Antagal
ku = sarru'," JAOS 83 (1963) 428, lines 193-204. III (CT 18:34 a 9). In Gilgames XI 95 (and 79?), E.GAL
7. On mahdzu cf. now in detail E. Y. Kutscher, is used to describe the ark.
Leshonenu 34 (1969-70) 6-18 (in Hebrew) and M. C. 11. By contrast, Biblical Hebrew has remarkably few
Astour, "Ma'hadu, the harbor of Ugarit," JESHO 13 synonyms for the countryside; cf. M. Haran, JBL 80
(1970) 113-127. (1961) 49f. for some of them (haser, migras, ah?uza).
8. The fact that both kifru and durussu are equated 12. W. H. Ph. R6mer, SKIZ 61:112 and add now UET
with alum and that k i - u r = both kiuru and durussu 8:86:51 and perhaps van Dijk, JCS 19 (1965) 8:139. Cf.
makes it highly probable that kifru I and III in von also Kramer, FTS 162 ii 12 and the names of Rim-Sin's
Soden, AHw 496, should be identified. 25th and 30th years.
9. MSL 3:87:5'. 13. Cf. A. Falkenstein, SGL 1 (1959) 41.
10. Cf. Hoffner, JAOS 87 (1967) 300ff. and now also 14. Ibid., note 36, quoting I. J. Gelb, MAD 3:269 ad
Otten and von Soden, Das akkadisch-hethitische Voka- de Sarzec, DC II p. lvii (= SAKI 170 b), a stele tenta-
bular . . . (1968). If correctly restored and entered here, tively assigned to Rimus by H. Hirsch, AfO 20 (1963) 33
the passage may go back to some such metaphoric usage note 372.
as is illustrated in the unpublished proverb YBC 9871: 15. Knudtzon, EA 306:30, cited CAD A/1:381 d.
- gal tir-ra/l u g al ur -ma h - e/d N i n - - 16. Cf. D. 0. Edzard, ZA 54 (1961) 262f.
 HALLO:ANTEDILUVIAN
CITIES
passed with little change as loan words into
Akkadian (eduru, ugaru). So did other Sumerian
terms which reflected the urban point of view that
the countryside was that part of the world which
lay within the jurisdiction of the city. Thus a
variety of terms for boundary (n a n g a,
ki-sur-ra, bulug) and theirAkkadian-
ized versions or equivalents (nagiZ, kisurru,
pulluku, kudurru) came to mean district or area,
especially that surrounding the city. In the high
literary idiom, the green belt of arable territory
which surrounded the city or temple in a con-
centric circle like a "corona"17was referred to
graphically as m u s or m i s , which other-
wise has the meaning of crown18or mask19;the
Akkadian lexicographers translated it by the more
prosaic mdtu (territory) or by ttsaru20 which, if
derived from w?r,21 may mean simply "left-over
land, unclaimed, inalienable"22 like the ezibtu-
land which occurs in Sippar real estate transac-
tions23;if related to tisaru/isaru, it may represent
a substrate word for temple real estate.24 Ak-
kadian also borrowed from West Semitic (ta-
humu)25or added some native terms of its own in
the sense of boundary (pdtu, misru), and others
for hinterland (seru) or for the land around a city
(liwzutu,battebatte,tamirtu)26,outside a city (kidu,
ahdt dli, kawu)27or even between cities (birtt dli).28
In place of the rich irrigation terminology of
17. A. L. OppenheimapudLapidus,op. cit., 6, speaks
of the outer city (uru-bar-ra) or suburb as
"that coronaof fieldsand gardenswateredby the river
or canalon whichlay the city." Cf. id., AncientMeso-
potamia(1964)116.
18. Cf. Falkenstein,SGL 1 (1959)96f.
19. Cf. Hallo,CR Renc.Assyr.Int. 17 (1970)132n.l.
20. A. Sjoberg,TCS 3 (1969)56.
21. W.von Soden,GAG?56k.
22. Cf. Bezold, Glossar,76 b.
23. OppenheimapudLapidus,op. cit. 15.
24. Cf. B. Landsbergerand K. Balkan, Belleten14
(1950)237f. Cf. also CAD I 206s.v. isaru (orisaru).
25. Now epigraphicallyattestedon seven "boundary-
stones" from Gezer inscribed THWM
GZR: R. A. Stewart
Macalister,TheExcavationsof Gezer1902-1905 and1907-
1909I (1912)37-40and III (1917)pls. X-XI.
26. Cf. also tamirtu,translated "commons,.. .the
field and arablelandsheld in commonby the citizensof
the city" by Jacobsen,OIP 24 (1935)33 n.7, who com-
pares OB amirtufor which, however,CAD s.v. prefers
the meaning"(landof one's)choice."
27. All three have the Sumerianequivalent b a r,
"outside." For ahat dli = u r u - b a r - r a, cf.
CAD A/1:190f.;for kzduandkawacf. AHws.vv.
28. Oppenheim,Ancient Mesopotamia,112, adds,
pan seri, talbltu.
59
Sumerian, Akkadian furnishes rather colorless
common Semitic words for land, field or ground
(qaqqaru, eqlu, midru,29 ersetu) or a number of
terms whose exact meaning and etymology are
still uncertain (bamdtu, isru, sehpu; cf. perhaps
also itu, qapsu). From the language of nomadic
Amorites, Akkadian borrowed the term for
"flock" (nawa) and made it do service for pasture-
land30, a semantic development probably paral-
leled by several other words (namassu31, isru32).
It would be impossible to document here all the
descriptive data that these terms provide in the
context of the literary and administrative sources.
Suffice it to summarize the lexical evidence in its
own right: on the one side a diffuse, subjective,
functional diversity of descriptive terms for the
countryside, reflecting the urban point of view and
a succession of different linguistic strata; on the
other a single term for the city, reflecting a basic
common distinctiveness that apparently out-
weighed whatever external differences divided the
cities of one age or place from another.33 M1\esopo-
tamian thought is often accused (in my opinion
unjustly) of inability to generalize. But the
lexical evidence is thus one indication, on one
level of generalization, that the city had achieved
identifiable, conceptual status. Other peculiarly
Mesopotamian techniques of generalization or
conceptualization could be cited to the same effect:
that the city was occasionally deified, both in the
onomasticon34 and in the hymnography35; that
29. Note the contrastof midruwith alu in the inscrip-
tion of Ilusuma,for which cf. Edzard, ZZB (1957)90.
For the South Semitic cognates of midru, cf. also W.
Leslau,JAOS89 (1969)20 end.
30. Edzard, "Altbabylonischnawrm," ZA 53 (1959)
168-173.
31. Note these correspondences:
adurtu = URU.DIDLI(CAD A s.v.)
namass` = URU.DIDLI(ibid.)
a - d a m = namassa(AHws.v.)
- d a m = nawtt (CADD 58c)
a - r i - a , e - r i - a = nawi (AHws.v.)
32. Cf. MSL2:104ff.
33. This is not to deny or overlookthe existence of
qualifyingterms for special kinds of settlements that
weremorethan villages thoughless than cities -mili-
tary fortresses or outposts for example (birtu, duru,
halau,dimtu,etc.; fordunnusee below).
34. Cf. Gelb,MAD3 (1957)4f.
35. This is implicitin an a d a b -hymnwhichapos-
trophizesUr instead of, as elsewhere,the deifiedking
(Hallo, JCS 17, 1963, 115 n.59), as well as in scattered
passageslike line 98 of the Flood Story (below)where
u r u is treatedlike a nounof the animateclassorwhere
it is in appositionto d i n g i r (van Dijk, orally).
60 JOURNAL OF CUNEIFORM STUDIES, VOL. 23 (1970)
the word for city served as a semantic indicator or
"determinative"; that city and country were
antagonists in literary disputations, or at least in
comparable sections of other genres.
But I wish to turn my attention to still another
index of conceptualization, one which may be
loosely described as aetiological. A peculiarity of
the mythopoeic mode of thought was to describe
identifiably isolated phenomena in terms of their
origins, as though a single imaginary event in past
time were the necessary and sufficient explanation
of any given phenomenon in the observed pres-
ent.36 The city, too, had its aetiology, though as
it happens the mythical versions of urban origins
seem to refer to the first cities as "capital cities"
according to the latest translations. I must
therefore extend my conceptual inquiry beyond
that of the city in general and briefly examine
whether the Mesopotamian experience recognized
the notion of a capital city in particular.
Now it is clear that in the classical age of the
city-state such as characterized the third millen-
nium, city and state were largely synonymous, and
a city such as Lagas was ipso facto the center of a
land or province called Lagas. And contrariwise,
the larger kingdoms that grew up, especially
under Amorite influence in the second millennium,
reflected the multiplicity of separate cities within a
given state, differentiating by name between the
royal residence and the kingdom as a whole.
Thus in modern terms we can regard the city of
Esnunna as the capital of the kingdom of
War'um,37or the city of Terqa as the capital of
the land of Hana.38 But again I prefer to let the
native documentation, and particularly the lexical
evidence, speak for itself. And here we find,
oddly enough, quite a number of different terms
with the meaning "capital city," or for which this
meaning has, in recent studies, been claimed.
The first of these is the unadorned word for city
by itself. There is little doubt that, given an
unambiguous context, this could be interpreted as
"the city," i.e. the chief city in the speaker's range
of interest. As such the word has been identified
as applying respectively to Ur or Nippur in the
neo-Sumerian period39 and thereafter to Assur,
36. I havedealtwith this pointat greaterlengthin an
unpublishedessay on the Adapamyth.
37. Cf. Edzard,AfO20 (1963)152.
38. Cf. e.g. J.-R. Kupper,RA41 (1947)156.
39. E. Sollberger,JCS10 (1956)20 (top).
Isin, Larsa, Babylon,40 as it could, in Hebrew, to
Jerusalem.41
But the sense of a city above the ordinary could
also be expressed by adding a qualifying epithet to
the generic term. Lexical texts inform us that
there were at least four Sumerian technical terms
which were all equated with Akkadian &lumel'm,
high or upper city (uru-UL42, urlu-sag-
ga-ba, uru-bad-da, uru-sukud-
d a )43. The importance attached to the alti-
tude of a city is well known from the opening
entry of the great terrestrial omen-series: "If a
city is situated on a height, it will not be well with
those who dwell in its midst (downtown?)" and
vice versa.44 But at least two of the indicated
Sumerian terms allude not only to the high loca-
tion but to the exalted status of a city. We will
return to u r u - u 1 presently, and consider
fornow uru-sag.
U r u - s a g means literally head-city, Haupt-
stadt, and has been explained as an asyndetic con-
struction meaning as much as "city which is the
head."45 A late bilingual text translates it simi-
larly into Akkadian (dlu reta).46 The word is
first attested in Sargonic administrative termi-
nology in the sense of "district capital" or "district
centre."47 In neo-Sumerian personal names, the
term seems to refer to the imperial capital at Ur,48
though the contemporary cult of d L u g a 1 -
uru-sag(a) appears to be at home in
Su'ara49,i.e. (for practical purposes) Eridu.50 By
40. Hallo,JCS18 (1964)66 ?15andnotes 18-21.
41. Cf. most recently S. Paul, "Jerusalem- a City
of Gold,"IEJ 17 (1967)259-263,esp. note 27.
42. OBGTXI v 16. Landsberger,MSL4 (1956)117,
reads u r u - d u7, perhaps to avoid confusion with
the place-name u r u - u 1 ( a ) , for whichsee below,
note 100. A. Sjoberg, however,reads u r u- ul on
the analogy of h u r - s ag-ul which varies with
h u r - s a g - il in Temple-HymnNo. 9:119;cf. TCS
3 (1969)76f.
43. Cf. CAD A/1 379as.v. alu and CAD E 11id s.v.
el2 B.
44. F. Notscher,Or.o.s. 31 (1928)42f.
45. J. Krecher,Sumerische Kultlyrik(1966)84f.
46. Ibid.,referringto IV R 19:3:35.
47. In the stele cited above, note 14. Cf. the com-
ments by Falkenstein,An.Or.30 (1966)41 and by I.
Diakonoff,MIO15 (1969)528.
48. H. Limet, L'anthroponymie sum4rienne (1968)
212f.
49. Falkenstein,An.Or.30 (1966)41 n.6 on the basis
of TCL2 (1911)5482rev. 23and5514rev. 12.
50. Cf. below,note 79.
 HALLO: ANTEDILUVIANCITIES
Early Old Babylonian times, the word occurs in
the names or epithets of a number of other deities
(nin-uru-sag-ga, ama-uru-sag-
ga, gasan-uru-sag-ga, umun-
ur -sag-g) 51 and alludes, in at least
some of these divine names, either to the political
capital at Isin or the religious capital at Nippur.
In the great lament over Isin (SK 25), u r u-
s a g seems to refer to that city, as does the
lament as a whole.52
Now this u r u - s a g has been equated by
van Dijk with another u r u - s a g ,, written
with a different sign whose reading is much dis-
puted.53 It occurs in a Sin-iddinam date for-
mula54together with a word for "villages,"55and
again in the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian
flood story. I therefore pass over still another
term, g u - gal, which has sometimes been
translated "capital city"56 and on at last to the
titular subject of my talk.
In lines 88-98 of the Sumerian Flood Story as
newly translated by Civil we read
[When the ... ] of kingship had come down from
heaven,
After the lofty crown and the throne of kingship
had come down from heaven,
[... ] perfected [... ],
Founded [... ] cities in [... ],
Gave them their names, apportioned the
capitals;
The first of these cities, Eridu, he gave to the
leader Nudimmud,
The second, Badtibira, he gave to the 'nugig',
The third, Larag, he gave to Pabilsag,
The fourth, Sippar, he gave to the hero Utu,
51. Krecher, loc. cit. For a m a - u r u (or: e r i m)
s a g - g a (= Nintinugga of Isin) cf. also P. Bergmann,
ZA 56 (1964) 31.
52. Cf. the review of Krecher's edition by G. Gragg in
Orientalia 37 (1968) 373f.
53. J. J. A. van Dijk, JCS 19 (1965) 19f.
54. His fifth, according to A. Goetze, JCS 4 (1950)99.
Note however the variant in YBC 10446 (ibid. p. 111).
55. Van Dijk's translation of u r u - d i di (lit-
erally "individual towns") by "villages" is confirmedby
the comparable Sumu-el date-formula: m u u r u
Sa-bu-umKI u uru-didli ba-dib-dib
14 [in preparation] passim; cf. YOS 7:104) for
which YOS 14:284 has the variant u r u Sa-bu-umKI
u uru-tur-turKI (literally "small towns").
also above, note 31.
56. M. Lambert, Sumer 6 (1950)162, cited by Sjoberg,
Nanna-Suen (1960) 120 ad TCL 15:12:2. Cf. now also
idem, TCS 3 (1969)99 ad Temple-Hymns line 240.
61
The fifth, Suruppak, he gave to Sud.
He gave the names to these cities, apportioned
the capitals.57
In this translation, all five of the traditional
antediluvian cities are regarded as capital cities,
whereas in van Dijk's interpretation only the first
of them, Eridu, is so identified.58 The question
is, however, whether either Civil's KAB- d u 1i - g a
or van Dijk's u r u - s a g refers in this con-
text to a priority of rank. It may well be that it
alludes rather to a priority of time, for the cities in
question are not in fact outstanding in importance,
with the possible exception of Sippar,59to which
we will revert presently. They are distinguished,
rather, for their antiquity. This antiquity is, for
the most part, well attested in the archeological
evidence. My purpose here is to adduce, not this,
but the literary evidence to the same effect.
There is, it is true, considerable vagueness and
contradiction in cuneiform literature about the
antediluvian traditions. This is not unexpected,
even in the light of the latest discoveries. These
now make it seem possible that a specific historic
flood provided the original inspiration for the
Mesopotamian versions of the deluge, and that
this particular flood occurred about 2900 B.C.59a
At the same time, the beginnings of Sumerian
literature (and thus of all literature) can now be
traced back as far as the finds from Fara and Abu
Salabikh, which I am inclined to date no later than
2600 or 2500 B.C. Fara is the site of ancient
Suruppak, last of the antediluvian cities and home
of the hero of the flood story. Abu Salabikh has
not yet been identified with any ancient city,60but
its many literary tablets include a version of the
"Instructions of Suruppak" in which the father of
57. Apud W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-
hasTs (1969) 141.
58. The latter interpretation would agree with the
notion that the cult of dLugal -ru-sag(a)
was at home in Su'ara (Eridu); cf. above, note 49.
59. In fact, however, Sippar is a relatively small, in-
significant and atypical city, a fact sometimes obscured
(YOS by the abundance of documentation which it has pro-
vided, as R. M. Adams notes apud Lapidus, op. cit., 16f.
59a. M. E. L. Mallowan, "Noah's Flood Reconsidered,"
Cf.
Iraq 26 (1964) 62-82; R. L. Raikes, ibid. 28 (1966) 52-63;
S. N. Kramer, Expedition 9/4 (1967) 12-18.
60. Kes has been hinted at in this connection; cf. e.g.
G. B. Gragg, TCS 3 (1969)164note 27.
62 JOURNAL OF CUNEIFORMSTUDIES, VOL. 23 (1970)
the flood-hero6' appears under the name of his
city. Thus the gap between the antediluvian
period and its first reflexes in cuneiform literature
has been narrowed down to three or four hundred
years. This is no small achievement if we recall
the three or four millennia that separated earlier
estimates of the date of the Flood from the first
intimations - Hellenistic and Neo-Assyrian- of
native traditions about it.
Three or four centuries are, of course, still
enough to account for the legendary aura that
surrounds even the earliest cuneiform allusions to
the flood and the flood-hero, and for the confusions
and contradictions concerning the antediluvian
tradition. Such inconsistencies characterize in
the first place the number, the names, the order
and the lengths of reign of the antediluvian
kings.62 They apply in the second place to the
tradition of the seven antediluvian sages, which is
first attested in the Irra Epic (I 147 and 162) and
then in a late medical text (AMT 105:22).63 They
apply in the third place to the secondary uses to
which the antediluvian traditions were put.
To begin with the antediluvian sages, all seven
were originally linked with Eridu as early as Old
Babylonian times, as is clear from the Temple
Hymn for Su'ara.64 Later texts have references
to the "seven sages of Eridu"65and to individual
sages: not only the first one, Adapa, is called sage
(NUN.ME) of Eridu66 or purification priest (ME)
of Eridu,67but the latter title is also attested for
the sixth sage, An-Enlilda.68 The first explicit
linkage between sage and king in antediluvian
times is provided by a recently published Neo-
Assyrian text from Sultan Tepe. This is an
"apocryphal letter" of "Adapa the sage" to
Alulu, the first antediluvian king.69 In Hellenis-
61. Strictly speaking, the father of a certain UR.AS,
but in later versions of Ziusudra; cf. Civil and Biggs,
RA 60 (1966)2.
62. J. J. Finkelstein, "The antediluvian kings: a Uni-
versity of California tablet," JCS 17 (1963)39-51.
63. Erica Reiner, Or. 30 (1961)9f. The original date
of the Irra Epic is presumably about the end of the sec-
ond millennium.
64. Sj6berg, TCS 3:25 No. 10; cf. already van Dijk,
La Sagesse (1953)20 note 56.
65. K 8444 (unpubl.), cited ibid.; LKA 146:5 as read
by W. G. Lambert, Bi. Or. 13 (1956)144.
66. PBS 1/2: 113ii58 = IV R 58 i 24.
67. Reiner, Or. 30 (1961) 2:1'f.
68. LKA 146:11;cf. van Dijk, UVB 18 (1962)48.
69. STT 2:176:14ff.; cf. Lambert and Millard, Atra-
hasts (1969) p. 27. For the identity of Adapa and u4-d60
(u'an = Oannes) see Hallo, JAOS83 (1963)176.
tic times, the linkage was systematized by asso-
ciating each of the seven antediluvian sages with
one of the first seven antediluvian kings. This
final stage in the process has long been known in a
corrupt form from Berossos,70 and was more
recently confirmed by a cuneiform text from Uruk
dated 165 B.C.71 Implicitly, this scheme also in-
volves a link between the antediluvian sages and
the first three or four antediluvian cities, exclud-
ing Suruppak (and perhaps Larak) and ending
with Sippar (cf. below, p. 63), but it was only the
post-diluvian apkallu's who were each explicitly
linked with cities of their own in the various
cuneiform traditions (cf. below, note 103).
So much for the development of the apkallu-
tradition. The history of the antediluvian royal
names is also instructive. In Mesopotamia itself,
they were simply added, by way of prologue to the
Sumerian King List.72 But in the Hebrew Bible,
the antediluvians re-emerge as ancestors one of the
other and of all of post-diluvian humanity in
turn.73 The Biblical recasting74of the traditions
is quite in keeping with the genealogical orienta-
tion that makes its appearance in the Ancient
70. Berossos in fact does not assign each sage to a
different king but rather one to the first, one to the third
(or fourth in another version), four to the sixth and one
to the seventh.
71. Van Dijk, UVB 18 (1962)44ff.
72. Hallo, JCS 17 (1963)54.
73. Cf. the notion that Enmenduranna of Sippar was
the ancestor of all diviners, Lambert, JCS 21 (1967[1969])
127.
74. The older Babylonian traditions neither explicitly
claim the total destruction of mankind at the Flood nor,
in consequence, that all of humanity therefore descended
from the lone survivor. The "annihilation" in the Atar-
hasis Epic version of the Flood is expressed by a word
(gamirtu) for which this meaning is claimed nowhere
else, which may be no more than hyperbole anyway, and
which is replaced by simple "evil (deed)" in the Gilga-
mesh Epic version of the Flood; cf. Lambert and Millard,
Atra-hasis 158 ad II viii 34. In the Sumerian Flood
Story, Civil finds a reference to "destruction"
(nig-gi 6 -ma; cf. on this also Sollberger, JCS
21:280 line 3 and note 12) in the same line which refers to
Ziusudra as "the preserver of the seed of mankind" (1.
259; cf. his discussion apud Lambert and Millard, op. cit.,
ad line 49), but the whole line remains vague at best. In
the "Lagas King List" there is an allusion to the seed of
mankind surviving the Flood, but at the same time the
implication that man was newly created thereafter; cf.
Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967[1969])280:4 and 282 note 13.
In both Atar-hasis (III vi 10, viii [10]) and Gilgames
(XI 173) at least one man escaped the premeditated
destruction (kardsu), but we are not told how the world
was repopulated.
 HALLO: ANTEDILUVIANCITIES
Near East with the coming of the Amorites. It is
reflected in Mesopotamian King Lists of the Old
Babylonian period as these have recently been
recovered or reinterpreted: the Assyrian King List
by Kraus,74 the genealogy of the Hammurapi
dynasty by Finkelstein,75the Larsa Date List as I
would interpret it,76 and most recently the geneal-
ogy of the rulers of Lagas which Sollberger has
elucidated as a veritable parody on the Sumerian
King List.77
In the light of all these vagaries of the other
antediluvian traditions, the relative unanimity of
the tradition of antediluvian cities emerges as the
more impressive.78 This unanimity applies to
the number, the names and the sequence of cities,
in approximately that order. The number of the
cities is five in all the most reliable texts where
these are completely preserved (Sumerian King
List [WB 444], Sumerian Flood Story) and this
number can probably be restored where they are
not (Ni 3195 [SKL], Bilingual Flood Story [CT
46:5]). It is increased by one in a Larsa version
of the Sumerian King List (WB 62) where local
pride apparently dictated the insertion of Larsa.
It is decreased by one in a casual school-boy's
version, apparently through simple omission
(UCBC 9-1819). It is decreased by two or more
in the late Hellenistic versions tradited under the
name of Berossos.
The names of the antediluvian cities are Eridu,
Bad-tibira (or Pa-tibira), Larak, Sippar and
Suruppak in the earliest traditions. The substi-
tution of Su'ara (HA.A.KI) for Eridu in one version
may be no more than a pars-pro-toto usage if
Su'ara was simply a subdivision of Eridu,79as it
was later of Babylon. This in turn may explain
the late replacement of Eridu by Babylon. The
addition of Larsa has already been noted.
As for the order, this is relatively fixed as to the
first and last members of the series. No doubt
this is due to firm notions, preserved outside the
75. JCS 20 (1966) 95-118.
76. In a forthcominghistory of the Ancient Near
East.
77. "The rulersof Lagas,"JCS 21 (1967[1969])279-
291.
78. See the summaryof the evidenceby Finkelstein,
JCS 17 (1963)45f. and Table I, to which add now the evi-
dence of W 20030, 7, published by van Dijk, UVB 18
(1962)44-52, and of K 11261+ 11624,published by Lam-
bert and Millard,CT 46 (1965)5. Note that Ni. 3195
was published(in transliteration)by F. R. Kraus, ZA
50 (1952)31.
79. Hallo apud Finkelstein, loc. cit. note 22.
63
antediluvian schemes, as to the first of all cities80
and as to the home of the flood-hero. The maxi-
mum divergence occurs in the middle of the
sequence, which seems to be arranged more or less
at random. The analogy of similar discrepancies
in post-diluvian historiography suggests that here
too we are to see the three cities as more or less
contemporary, rather than successive. This
solution recommends itself if, as I tend to suppose,
Mesopotamian urbanism was only some two
centuries old at the time of the flood, i.e. at the
beginning of Early Dynastic times.81
This notion admittedly flies in the face of the
native chronology attached to the antediluvian
traditions, but this chronology, measured in
millennia, is obviously fantastic and, it may now
be added, most likely a secondary development.
The more reasonable chronology here proposed
can, moreover, claim some support from archaeol-
ogy, as well as some unexpected reinforcement
from outside Mesopotamia. Early Phoenician
traditions associated with the name of Sanchunja-
thon of Byblos include the notion of the emergence
of cities as one of the signal achievements of the
semi-divine "culture-heroes" who resemble the
antediluvian sages of Mesopotamia.82 Sanchun-
jathon may prove to be something of a bridge to
Biblical traditions. As is well-known, Genesis 4
and 5 preserve two separate but parallel traditions
concerning the generations before the Flood.
These can no longer be regarded simply as variants
of a single source. Rather they reflect, respec-
tively, the two separate but parallel Mesopo-
tamian traditions of antediluvian sages and ante-
diluvian kings whose distinct histories we have
already traced.83 (Indeed, they reflect their
80. For example,the late bilingual "creationtext"
CT 13:35f. (cf. Heidel, Babylonian Genesis1, 1942, 49ff.),
now recognized as part of the mouth-washing ritual (G.
Meier, AfO 20, 1963, 82), lists the order of cities as Eridu,
Babylon, Nippur and Uruk; cf. Poebel, PBS 4 (1914).
Cf. also below, p. 65.
81. The Atar-hasis Epic seems to reflect a native
understanding of the antediluvian chronology in similar
terms with its repeated assertion that "twice 600 years
had not yet passed" since the creation of man (i.e., of
cities and civilization?) before mankind provoked the
Deluge; cf. Lambert and Millard, Atra-hasis (1969) p.
66f., 70f., 72f. and their comments p. 20.
82. Carl Clemen, Die phonikische Religion nach Philo
von Byblos (= MVAG 42/3, 1939) p. 26 ?19.
83. See most recently Finkelstein, JCS 17 (1963) 50 n.
41. The point had been largely ignored previously
though adumbrated by Zimmernalready in 1902apud E.
Schrader, KAT3, 530-543; cf. idem, ZA 35 (1924) 151-154
64 JOURNALOF CUNEIFORM
STUDIES,VOL. 23 (1970)
partial conflation, a process that can be detected
independently on the Mesopotamian side as well.)
What then of the even older Mesopotamian tradi-
tion of antediluvian cities? Has this, too, left its
traces in the Biblical account? I would suggest
that the peculiar phrasing of Genesis 4:17 is one
clue to this effect. It does not simply say that
Cain built a city, but that he was or became "the
builder of a city" (wayahzbone 'ir). In the con-
text of the Kenite genealogy, which stresses the
novelty of the arts and sciences attributed to this
line of "culture-heroes," this can only imply that
he became the first builder of a city, i.e. that the
building of cities began with him whereas, before
that, he and his brother had known only the
domestication of plants and animals, for they had
been the archetypical "tiller of the soil" and
"shepherd of the flock" respectively (Gen. 4:2).
In modern terms, we would have here in capsule
form the doctrine of the agricultural revolution
followed by the urban revolution. Parentheti-
cally, it is interesting to note that the Biblical
account derives incipient urbanism from the
domestication of plants, not of animals.
But verse 17 has more to reveal, for it tells us
that Cain called this first city "like the name of his
son Enoch" (HNWK). In Hellenistic wisdom
literature, this Enoch (or perhaps his namesake in
the Sethite chronology of chapter 5)s4was widely
equated with the Oannes of Berossos,85the same
Oannes who according to Berossos taught men to
build cities. Both Enoch86 and Oannes87were
regarded as the fountain-head of human wisdom,
especially astrology. Indeed, it would be possible
to suggest similar etymologies for both names, for
Oannes is the Graecized form of Sumerian u4-an
which, in late texts, tended to be (playfully)
equated with Akkadian ummdnu, "sage,
teacher,"88 while HNWK is derived from a root
and ZDMG 78, 1924, 27f. E. Reiner, Or. 30 (1961) 6, on
the contrary, blames Zimmern'sfirst article as the source
of the misconception regarding "the assumed identity of
the 'wise men' - or some of them - with the early
kings."
84. We may ignore here still other Enochs who figure
in Midianite and other genealogies elsewhere in the
Bible; cf. most recently Koch, Vetus Testamentum 19
(1969) 58.
85. B. Wachholder, HUCA 34 (1963)97 note 86.
86. Ibid.
87. JAOS 83 (1963) 176.
88. Ibid. note 83. My reading of HABL 923 is not,
however, followed in the latest translations; cf. Biggs,
ANET3 (1969)606f.; CAD A/2 (1968) 172d.
meaning to "train, educate." It would be harder
to derive HNWKfrom the name of an antediluvian
city, as the Biblical text suggests.
Or as it seems to suggest. Cassuto has noted,
however, that Gen. 4:17 is a close parallel to Gen.
4:1-2.89 These verses state: "And the man knew
Eva his wife and she conceived and bore Cain...
and she continued to bear Abel his brother, and
Abel became a shepherd of the flock while Cain
became a tiller of the soil." Just so, the first part
of our verse should then be understood as "Cain
knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch,
who became a city-builder."90 If, then, it was
Enoch who built the (first) city, it follows (though
Cassuto does not draw this consequence) that it
was Enoch who named it after his son, Irad. This
name, and its parallel Yered in the Sethite line,
has defied all explanations to date so far as I am
aware.91 I therefore propose to see in it, if not in
Enoch, a name equal to that of an antediluvian
city, specifically Eridu. That the Mesopotamian
city name was pronounced thus at least as early
as Old Babylonian times is now known from a
newly published text.92
As to the third and fourth names in this portion
of the Kenite genealogy, corresponding roughly to
the first and fourth in the Sethite line, I make no
claim to connect them phonetically with any ante-
diluvian city-name. They are clearly intended as
personal names, and in the case of Methusalem,
the Sethite chronology even adds a biographical
touch, for this longest-lived of all the antediluvians
died precisely in the year of the Flood, that is in
1656 according to the Era of Creation.93
The last of the five names in both Biblical ver-
sions, by contrast, offers a multiple choice of con-
tacts with the Mesopotamian traditions. On the
phonetic level, Hebrew LMK bears comparison
with cuneiform Larak, especially if allowance is
made for the uncertain spelling and pronunciation
89. U. Cassuto, A Commentaryon the Book of Genesis,
Part I: From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem, 1961) 228-230.
90. Ibid.
91. Apart from Midrashic etymologies such as that
Miriam called Moses Jered because she descended (YRD)
to the Nile to ascertain his fate; L. Ginzberg, Legendsof
the Jews 2 (1910) 269f.
92. UET 6/2 (1966) 388 col. b, lines 2f.; cf. my edi-
tion of this text (with duplicates) in the forthcoming
Comptes Rendus of the Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale held at Brussels in 1969 (1970).
93. Cf. R. H. Pfeiffer, "The era of creation in the Old
Testament," 23rd Int. Congr. of Or. (1954) 105f.
 HALLO: ANTEDILUVIANCITIES
of the latter name.94 As father of Noah or the
virtually synonymous Na'amah, Lamek invites
comparison with Suruppak, father of Ziusudra and
at the same time last of the antediluvian cities in
the cuneiform traditions. As father of Tubal-
cain, the inventor of copper and iron implements,
he recalls Bad-tibira, the fortress (or canal) of the
metalworkers,95 or Sippar, the city of bronze.
Sippar deserves some further attention.
Alone among the antediluvian cities, Sippar
boasted a sustained importance that matched its
hoary antiquity. Though rarely the seat of an
independent kingdom in historic times, it was
firmly and exclusively linked, in the cuneiform
sources,96to the antediluvian king Enmeduranki
(or Enme(n)duranna), hero of a considerable
number of independent traditions,97 and some-
times linked to the Biblical Enoch by the latter's
solar symbolism. Sippar alone was spared by the
Deluge (Irra IV 50) and it was there that, accord-
ing to Berossos, the revealed wisdom of the ante-
diluvian sages was buried for safekeeping during
the flood. The destruction of Sippar was there-
fore regarded as particularly outrageous. Such a
destruction is recorded both in a historical inscrip-
tion of Simbar-sihu98 and, in what may be a
literary recasting of the same event, in the Irra
Epic with which we opened. For Irra finally
94. SeemostrecentlyKrecher,SKly (1966)86f.andn.
215. KrecherignoresPoebel'sargumentsfor the inter-
changeof 1,n andr in earlygeographicalnamesandfor a
possible reading L a7 - a7 - a k (PBS 4, 1914, 43),
for whichone can also cite CT 12:6:33b. This in spite of
Deimel, who declares thatla-a/uD ( !)MI N (i.e.
u t - t U - )) / Sd UD.UD.AK.KI [UR] means that the first
UDhas the pronunciation"la" (SL381:383);in fact it is
often the patternof the series A-Ato explainthe second
sign of a compoundlogogramthus (SchusterZA 44,
1938,249). Krecheralso overlooksthe fact that Nin-
isina is identifiedboth with Nin-Larak(Kraus,JCS 3,
1951,79f.) andwith Ninkarak(ib. 69), possiblypointing
to an originalpronunciationNin-Lakrak. ForNin-isina
in connection with Larak, cf. also Letter-prayerD4
(Hallo,JAOS88, 1968,89 andn. 118).
95. Cf. J. Lewy, "Tabor,Tibar, Atabyros,"HUCA
23/1 (1950-51)357-386,with complete literature. Cf.
esp. 365f. "it appears that Hebrew tubal and tdbor,
Assyrian taburaand tabira, and Sumeriantibira and
dibiraarebut variantsof one andthe sametermmeaning
'metal-worker'."Like Landsberger (Dil ve Tarih-
CografyaFakultesi Dergisi2, 1943/4,436) he considers
libiraa pre-Sumerian(substrate)word.
96. Only Berossosdivergeshere.
97. See most recently Lambert, "Enmedurankiand
relatedmatters,"JCS 21 (1967[1969]) 126-138.
98. Goetze,JCS 19 (1965)121-135.
65
responded to the urgings of his weapons and a
number of cities were put to the sword as a result.
But the destruction of Sippar was particularly
inexcusable, for in both the sources mentioned as
well as in others9, it is called the u r u - u 1,
dl sati. This is not to be confused with u r u -
u 1 in the sense of "lofty city" (dlu elt) which
we have already disposed of (above, note 42), nor
with the topographic name "Field of uru-ul-la"
known from Lagas.100 Rather Sippar is described
here as the "eternal city," and it is to this concept
that I now turn.
At least three other cities share the epithet with
Sippar, though more rarely. They are Babylon,101
Nippur and Uruk102, cities which repeatedly
replace the antediluvian ones in a variety of
later systemizations.103 But its most intriguing
occurrence is in the divine name dE n- u r u -
u 1 -1 a, the "lord of the eternal city," a mani-
festation of the supreme god An. According to
a very suggestive hypothesis of van Dijk,l04 the
reference here is to a mythical "univers embryon-
naire," a condition before the creation of sun and
moon, before the separation of earth and sky, the
emergence of gods and men, the introduction of
agriculture or, what is more to the point here, of
cities. He has essayed the first edition of an
enigmatic fragment from pre-Sargonic Lagas
variously described as a hymn to Sun or a lamen-
tation over the destruction of Lagasl05but which
is in fact one of the oldest pieces of Sumerian
mythology, if not the oldest, yet known.106
Paraphrasing his translation,107we read:
The reptiles verily descend
99. CAD S 118c. Add the date formulafor Hammu-
rapi's last year!
100. Cf. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966) 38:127; Petti-
nato, UNL 1/2 (1967)224f.:843;Sollberger, TCS 1 (1966)
34:113;Fish, MCS 8 (1958) 15:193.
101. Cf. K. Balkan, Kassitenstudien I (= AOS 37,
1954) 119.
102. Sj berg, TCS 3:58f.
103. Cf. e.g. the creation legend mentioned above, n.
80, and the late schematic link of the seven apkallu's with
Ur, Nippur, Kullab (Uruk), Kesi and Lagas in addition
to antediluvian Eridu and Suruppak; cf. Hallo, JAOS
83:175 n. 75. Lambert, JCS 11 (1957) 8f., theorizes that
the Nazimaruttas colophon (hemerology) is based on
still another (postdiluvian) apkallu tradition, namely
Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, Larsa, Ur, Uruk, Eridu.
104. Ac. Or. 28 (1964) 20, 42.
105. Sollberger, 22nd Int. Congr. of Or. (1957) 33.
106. Cf. JAOS 83 (1963) 167 n. 11.
107. Ac. Or. 28 (1964)39-44.
66 JOURNALOF CUNEIFORM
STUDIES,VOL. 23 (1970)
The earth verily makes its ... (breast?) appear
resplendent
It is the garden, it is the foundation-terrace
(Which) the earth-hole for its part fills with
water
An (Heaven) is the lord, he is stationed like a
young hero
Heaven and Earth cry out together
At that time Enki and Eridu had not appeared
Enlil did not exist
Ninlil did not exist
Brightness was dust
Vegetation was dust
The daylight did not shine
The moonlight did not emerge.
The parallels with both versions of creation in
Genesis which this tantalizing fragment evokes are
too numerous to go into here. I cite it as evidence
for the antiquity of the mythopoeic tradition
which dates the foundation of Eridu and its sister
cities in relation to the Creation, as we have previ-
ously seen it dated in relation to the Flood. In
the Bible, the tradition of the antediluvian cities
remained embedded, and for practical purposes
concealed, within the context of the primeval
history of mankind. The same fate would likely
have befallen the tradition in Mesopotamia had
it been confined to the myths we have cited, each
of them known to date from no more than a single
fragmentary example. By being spliced into the
framework of the Sumerian King List,108however,
it was saved from this fate. Indeed, that List
should more properly be called the "Sumerian
City List" in terms of its own summary.109 In
its fullest form, the List begins with (the building
of) Eridu and ends with (the destruction of) Isin,
that is, it records the entire history of "The
City."
For in the final analysis, the concepts of eternal
city and first, head or capital city converge, not
only in their common Akkadian equivalent alu
elu, lofty city, but also in the notion of a "pris-
tine heavenly city" (uru-sag-an-na)
named, according to a lexical text, Dunnum.110
108. Cf. above, note 72.
109. The summary begins: "11 [citijes which exercised
kingship"in P2, "11 cities" in P4; cf. Hallo, JCS 17
(1963)56.
110. CAD D 184 ab. The next entry in Antagal
shouldprobablybe readu r u - D un - n u - z a - i -d i =
sd-si-a-im;cf. Hallo, RLA 3 s.v. Gutium?5 (in press).
For various other cities called Dunnum,see Edzard,
ZZB102n. 494;RLA2:239ff.
In historical terms, this otherwise obscure city
was regarded as the "ancient capital" (u r u -
s a g - m a h) of the Isin empire, and its capture
by Larsa in 1795 B.C. was the prelude to the fall
of the whole kingdom of Isin in the following
year."' In mythological terms, however, it was
the cosmic "eternal city" ([uR]U sa-a-tu),ll2 built
by Heaven"3 and Earth themselves. It is their
third and climactic creation in a newly published
myth which begins, sure enough, with "in the
beginning" (i-na re-e[s- ... ]) and continues with a
complicated theogony set in the primordial
past.114 And that is, I daresay, as far back as
even the cuneiform sources will allow us to trace
our urban origins.
Addendum
The current interest in urban studies has left its
mark on Assyriology, and new publications on the
subject appear almost daily, as the following
bibliographical addendum will attempt to show.
For a broadly comparative study of town and
country, see B. Brentjes, "Zum Verhiltnis von
Dorf und Stadt in Altvorderasien.""5l Further
studies on mahdzu (above, note 7) have been con-
tributed by R. Borger"6 and R. Kutscher."7 G.
van Drielll8 and J. N. Postgate"l have inde-
pendently equated u r u - s E and kapru (above,
note 31); for the other Sumerian equivalents to
kapru (6-dur u, a-duir, uru-bar-ra) see
AHw. s.v. Another interesting theophoric use of
a city-name (above, note 34) has been identified in
the personal name N i b r u -t e - .20 J. van
111. See the date-formulas Rim-Sin 29 and 30.
112. Reading thus against the r'al-a-a-tam or per-
haps sa-(pa)-a-tam implied by Lambert's "towers" and
Grayson's "pillars"; cf. below, note 114.
113. Or the otherwise unknown deity dHA.IN ac-
cording to Lambert.
114. The text was first published by Lambert and
Millard as CT 46 (1965) 43, and edited by Lambert and
Walcot, Kadmos 4 (1965) 64-72. Cf. also A. K. Grayson,
ANET3 (1969) 517f.
115. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universitat
Halle 17 (1968) G, H.6, 9-41.
116. "Hebraisch MHWZ (Psalm 107, 30)," Ugarit-
Forschungen 1 (1969) 1-3.
117. "The Sumerian equivalents of Akkadian
mahazu," Leshonenu 34 (1969-70) 267-269 (in Hebrew,
with English summary).
118. Stellingen behorende bij het proefschrift van G.
van Driel, The Cult of Assur, Leiden, November 1969,
No. 4.
119. Iraq 32 (1970) 33.
120. M. Civil, RA 63 (1969) 180, No. 14.
 HALLO: ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES 67

Dijk has now published his views on the "animate familiar NUN.KI.(GA) = Eridu(ga), also the
city" (above, note 35),121as well as a new inter- equation TUR.TUR = e-ri-du in the Group Vo-
pretation of KAB- d Ui - ga in the Sumerian Flood cabulary.128
Story (above, note 57).122 In a newly published CT 12:6:33b (above, note 94) is restored follow-
a d a b -hymn to Nanna on behalf of Isme-Dagan ing B. Landsberger.129 It may be worth noting
of Isin,'23Ur is referred to as "the former capital that the wall of Sippar (above, note 99) was called
city of Sumer, the house 'grown together' with U4- u 1- d u - s a4 - a, "the one named 'built from
Heaven": uri u r ! - s a g124- g a125 ki-en- of old'," and "fortified Sippar" (Sippar duri) was
gi-ra Fe-an J-da-miu-a. therefore sometimes known as z i m b i r - u4 - u 1 -
My edition of UET 6/2:388 and duplicates 1 - aKI.130 The role of the city in the Sumerian
(above, note 92; see also note 19) has meantime King List (above, note 109) had already been
appeared;'26for e-ri-du see line 41 of the recon- stressed by G. Buccellati.13' The newly published
structed text. Previously, the reading of the city- myth cited in conclusion (above, note 114) ap-
name at this early date had to be inferred from pears to belong to the late genre of "cultic and
the dialectal (Eme-sal) spelling.l27 For the later esoteric commentaries" as van Dijk132describes
lexical evidence, compare, in addition to the a neo-Babylonian version of the Death of Anu,133
or to the "secret lore" as Borger134describes its
121. In Sven S. Hartman, ed., Syncretism (1969) 182f.
122. Or. 39 (1970) 304f., n. 2.
neo-Assyrian duplicate.35
123. M. Cig and H. Kizilyay, Sumerian Literary Texts 128. F. Thureau-Dangin, RA 16:166 ii 30 = CT 18:29
and Fragments 1 (1969) p. 97, line 13. ii 25.
124. Cf. above, notes 45-52. 129. JAOS 88/1 (= AOS 53, 1968) 147 ad EA III 147b.
125. For g a 1 in the sense of "former," cf. Hallo, 130. Cf. Hallo, JCS 18 (1964) 66.
Bi.Or. 20 (1963) 138, n. 25, and 141 [2]; the ritual evidence 131. In Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (1964)
mentioned there has since been published by Edwin C. 54.
Kingsbury, HUCA 34 (1963) p. 10, lines 321-323. 132. In Hartman, ed., Syncretism (1969) 176f.
126. In A. Finet, ed., Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre 133. Sumer 13, pl. 25.
Assyriologique Internationale (1970) 116-134. 134. R1A 3/3 (1964) 189.
127. Cf. T. Jacobsen, JCS 21 (1967 [1969]) 102, n. 14. 135. LKA 71.