Talk:Ziusudra

Material relating to the Sumerian tablet.

Proposal for splitting the material related to the Flood story to the article on the tablet, rather than having both the person and the story/tablet on the same page. It's two topics, like Gilgamesh and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Sumerophile (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are four separate issues involved:

• 1. The first issue is whether there is a need for two separate articles, one for Ziusudra the person, and one for the Epic of Ziusudra story/tablet. I agree that a new article that expands on the Ziusudra story/tablet would be appropriate. It could be based on Prof. Civil's article on the Ziusudra tablet (inserted on pages 138-139 in the book Atrahasis by Profs W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard). English translations of the tablet of Ziusudra could be included in the new Wiki article, because the surviving text of the Ziusudra tablet is short.
• 2. The second issue is what to name the new article. The name Sumerian Origin Legend suggests a legend about the origins of the Sumerians, which would be a worthy article to write, but is not what you meant. Such an origins article could be based on the first chapter of Gwendolyn Leick's Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City.
• 3. The third issue is what to do about the Ziusudra article. Since there are only a few lines that summarize the Ziusudra flood myth, you don't mean split; you mean expand in another article. The Ziusudra article fills a need to summarize, on one page, the various versions of the Ancient Near East flood myth.
• 4. The fourth issue is the title of the Ziusudra article. The earlier discussion in the summer of 2006 shows the compromise that was reached. I preferred to name it the Sumerian flood myth, but the other people wanted the hero's name as the name of the article, so we agreed on Ziusudra because Utnapishtim would have been a worse choice.

Since your new article will expand on the Epic of Ziusudra story/tablet, why not call the new article the "Epic of Ziusudra"? In the Ziusudra article it would say "Main article: Epic of Ziusudra".

Greensburger (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go point by point:

• 1) The tablet, an important and well-known archaeological document, covers more characters and topics than just Ziusudra the person/king/hero, and Ziusudra is mentioned in more places than just the tablet. These are two intersecting topics, rather than being the same thing, or one topic being a subtopic of the other.

The tablet article should firstly be based on the the tablet itself. It's translation is available here from Oxford ([1]).

• 2) I am proposing the title "Sumerian origin legend", not "The origins of Sumer". The book you cite is covered under the History of Sumer.

• 3) Ziusudra will be a shorter article, but he was mentioned in other sources as well, and his place in the flood legend will be given. The different versions of the flood myth can be covered under the Legacy topic in story's article.

• 4) The title of the Ziusudra article will remain Ziusudra. The flood material, however, should be included in the story's article, not the hero's article. Utnapishtim would not be appropriate at all, because that's just a later translation of Ziusudra. Although a flood story was inserted at one point into the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ziusudra story only exists, at this point, within the narrative of this tablet.

Sumerophile (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I'm working on this, something else is concerning me, and perhaps you can shed some light on this, Greensburger: I am not aware of Ziusudra being listed on any of the original Sumerian-language versions of the Sumerian king list, only on later Babylonian/Assyrian/Akkadian-language versions. It suggests that the name was added in at some point to account for the Flood story, because the king list mentions a flood.

Sumerophile (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ziusudra is missing in WB-444 and is present only in WB-62 and Berossus. That does not prove that Ziusudra was a later interpolation, but it does reduce confidence in all of the lists. During the JN and ED I-II periods, king list PNs may have been mostly represented as cylinder and stamp seals, logograms, and pictographs, plus archaic numbers. Syllabic PNs had to wait until the ED IIIa period when syllabic writing was invented. By then, many of the orally transmitted PNs had been forgotten and the surviving PNs may be mostly placeholder names. "Dimuzi the shepherd" may be an example of this transition where shepherd was the logogram name and Dumuzi was one of the few orally transmitted syllabic names. The Egyptian king lists of Manetho have a similar problem and omit Akhetaten. This is probably because Akhetaten's name was erased from monuments. Later story tellers and scribes felt free to coin different placeholder names for the flood hero: (Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, etc). Likewise, the Genesis 5 names are placeholder names. When the Sumerian temples were destroyed in 2004 BCE, the soldiers may have been ordered to destroy all tablets they found, for the same reason that modern revolutionaries destroy records: to prevent landowners from claiming their ancestral land, to prevent taxes and debts from being enforced by creditors, and to prevent proof of royal ancestry. Although it is comforting to imagine that each generation of scribes carefully preserved and added to the Sumerian king list, the surviving Sumerian king lists may be reconstructions by Babylonian scribes from Sumerian tablets that were student exercises written from memory, sometimes faulty memory, and survived in nearly undamaged condition only because they were much more numerous than official records and had been buried centuries earlier after baking in the sun with other trash.

Greensburger (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the later interpolation of "Ziusudra" in the WB-62 text reduces confidence in the WB-62 text itself, not in all the other, basically consistent texts that have come down to us. And Berossus is a Helenistic writer, after even the Bible. You yourself have been critiquing his writing in Wikipedia.

Can you give me more information the WB-62 text/tablet(s)? A quick on-line search told me that it's provinence was unknown (i.e. that it has no archeological context). One online site even listed the pre-dynastic kings as given on WB-62, and listed Ziusudra's predecessor as "Suruppak" - that's the city of the last kingship before the flood, not a person. Does the WB-62 really say this?? Has this tablet been translated and published?

I would also like to point out that nobody thinks that the Chinese cannot remember personal names (PNs) or need placeholders, and they have a logographic script.

And please don't use "may be" and "may have been" arguments here. That is original research.

Sumerophile (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the name Ziusudra appeared in a total of only two (very late, and possibly questionable) sources out of the many?

Sumerophile (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

> Can you give me more information the WB-62 text/tablet(s)?

I don't know the source of WB-62, but it was published in: S. Langdon, "The Chaldean Kings Before the Flood", Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1923), pages 251-259 in The Weld-Blundell Collection, II Historical Inscriptions Containing Principally the Chronological Prisma. It was also published on page 366 in Gerhard F. Hasel, "Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and their alleged Babylonian Background", Andrews University Seminary Studies, 16 (1978), pages 361-374.

> ...The pre-dynastic kings given on WB-62, and listed Ziusudra's predecessor as "Suruppak" - that's the city of the last kingship before the flood, not a person.

This is what Prof Andrew George said in his The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform, pages 154-155:

"In one list of antediluvian kings, however, this twosome is accidently developed into a family of three generations:

Šuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu: 28,800 years;

Ziusudra, son of Šuruppak: 36,000 years;

two kings [in] Šuruppak...

The first of these lines may incidently be the source of SB Gilgames XI 23: "O man of Šuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu" The development of the genealogy from one of two generations to one of three generations appears to have taken place as a result of the misunderstanding of the toponym Šuruppak. The name Ubar-Tutu is of a type common in the earliest Akkadian onomasticon and means 'friend of the god Tutu'."

[end of quote from Prof. George]

Note his word "accidently". A scribe accidently read the first line as: "Šuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu" instead of "O man of Šuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu", thus by implication, making the next king Ziusudra a son of Shuruppak.

Also note that Ubar-Tutu is not a personal name but rather is an epithet of an unnamed king in WB-444. But the king is named Su-Kur-Lam in WB-62. (see Langdon, cited above, page 258, in note 5 in which Langon says: "Written SU-KUR-LAM").

> Has the name Ziusudra appeared in a total of only two (very late, and possibly questionable) sources out of the many?

How many times does the name Akhetaten appear in the Egyptian king lists of Manetho? If most of the records containing the names Su-Kur-Lam and Ziusudra were destroyed in the river flood of 2900 BCE, that does not make the only surviving record and a later Greek copy worthless. Does the one surviving copy of the Ziusudra Epic become worthless because only one copy survived?

Greensburger (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So Ziusudra was only mentioned in a questionable Hellenistic source and on one tablet with no provinence that is so faulty as to in fact list Shuruppak as a king. And the original research that somehow turns Shuruppak into Su-kur-lam isn't allowed at Wikipedia. It sounds like "Ziusudra" should simply be an asterisk in the Tablet article.

Sumerophile (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The scribe did not list Shuruppak as a king. The scribe accidently omitted the words "man of" before the word Shuruppak and that caused modern scholars to mistranslate the error. Even if you disregard Langdon, George's explanation is that a scribe made a small error and the first Shuruppak king was not a son of Shuruppak. But he was a friend of the god [dingir] Tutu. Having said that, Langdon can then be cited as a source that the first Shuruppak king was Su-Kur-Lam. To quote two different scholars commenting on the same line of text is not original research. Langdon and George did the research.

Greensburger (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A scribe not knowing what Shuruppak was and making two lines of omissions and errors that turn a city name into a king and Ziusudra into the son of that city name is exactly what makes this text unreliable.

And you can't just use a 1923 pronounciation of the cuneiform symbols to create a new king Su-kur-lam, when currently the word is read Shuruppak.

Sumerophile (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile, what is your point? As Greensburger told you, to quote two different scholars commenting on the same line of text is not original research. Langdon and George did the research. You seem to be the one being argumentative here, while all Greensburger is doing is pointing to academic literature.

dab (𒁳) 12:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Greensburger created a new king (Su-kur-lam) using a 1923 translation of the WB-62 tablet, which was not well understood at the time so the translator had to guess at the pronounciation (and meaning) of many of the cuneiform symbols. The word is now recognized to read "Shuruppak", the city (as per George, the 2003 source quoted above), which the scribe who wrote the tablet mistakenly added as a king. Using an outdated translation of a text to create a king that never existed is original research.

Sumerophile (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

no, it's a reference to a dated source. Your claim that it is "outdated" is what needs attribution. If you cite some more recent paper saying it is outdated, we can handled the outdated form accordingly, such as, duh, labelling it as outdated. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any more recent translation of a text in a growing field like Assyriology outdates the previous ones. Our knowledge of the language has grown over the last 80 years, with cumulative archaeological finds and continued research. A 1923 text on an archaeological dig would still have currency today. A translation of a cuneiform tablet would not.

And just because somebody quotes academic sources, doesn't mean that they are academic or that their theories are sound. This is not a case of an outdated academic view; this a fringe POV [2] making selective use of academic materials for its basis.

Sumerophile (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Ziusudra into Eridu Genesis

Proposal to merge the Ziusudra article into the Eridu Genesis article.

Sumerophile (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

um, correct me, but right above you argued for a split into two articles, and now you are arguing to merge them again? What is going on here? --dab (𒁳) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the split tag, and updated the merge tag to direct to Eridu Genesis.

I also put all the material we that have on Ziusudra in the in the "Ziusudra and Xisuthros" section of the Eridu Genesis article.

The Ziusudra article digresses considerably from the topic at hand, and includes original research to promulgate a fringe theological POV: that Noah was Ziusudra and was the king of Shuruppak in 2900 BC when the Sumerian river flood occurred. Details on this POV, and its book [3], which is referenced in this article, can be found at its website [4].

Sumerophile (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I will redirect the page tomorrow. Sumerophile (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I finally see where you are coming from, but you are completely mistaken. I fail to see any suggestion that "Noah was Ziusudra" or of any identifiable historical flood in this article. All that it discusses is that one myth was influenced by the other. I do not think this should be redirected to Eridu Genesis. If anything, if you feel Eridu Genesis shouldn't stand on its own, merge it back here. dab (𒁳) 17:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Myth comparisons don't belong in a "Ziuzudra" article. Comparing and contrasting themes between the Flood myths should be discussed in the Deluge (mythology) article. And these textual comparisons don't even make sense: a 6-day flood is compared to the Biblical 40-day flood, and the concept of sacrificing to the god(s) and the god(s) smelling the sweet savor are found throughout the Bible and throughout mythology. Atra-hasis, Utnapishtim, Noah and Xisuthros synopses are already under their respective articles. His "re-interpretation" of ancient numbers in Xisuthros is original research and should not be in Wikipedia. His discussion of river floods under Atra-hasis is trivial and serves only to support part of his theories.

And the key to his entire theory hinges on Ziusudra's inclusion in one faulty king list, discussed above and in the "Eridu Genesis" article. This is stated in this paragraph, in the article:

The importance of Ziusudra's name on the king list is that it links the flood mentioned in the Epics of Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, etc. to river flood sediments in Shuruppak, Uruk, and Kish that have been radio carbon dated as 2900 BC. So scholars conclude that the flood hero was king of Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (3000-2900) which ended with the river flood of 2900 BC.[5]

That's an "identifiable historic flood in this article".

I don't think Greensburger is so naive as to spell out "Noah was Ziusudra" in Wikipedia, but this article's only purpose is to make his case for it.

Everything belonging in Wikipedia is in the Eridu Genesis article.

Sumerophile (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile, I appreciate your scepticism, but you need to watch your approach. You are most welcome to show certain references cited fall under WP:UNDUE, but you cannot expect everyone to just take your word for it. You want to represent scholarly consensus? Then WP:CITE scholarly consensus. I don't care if Greensburger privately thinks that "Noah was Ziusudra", the important thing is that he recognizes that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It was you who split the Eridu Genesis article off this one. If you now changed your mind and think that specific text doesn't warrant a full article, I invite you to revert yourself and redirect it back here. If you want wider input on this, I invite you to post the issue at WP:FTN. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No I think Ziusudra does not warrent a full article.

This article diverges from the topic of Ziusudra. Atra-hasis, Utnapishtim, Xisuthros, Noah all have their own articles. What's left is covered under the Ziusudra and Xisuthros section of the Eridu Genesis article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumerophile (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

References:

Current Oxford translation of the Eridu Genesis: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature

Current standard compilation of king lists from Oxford: ETCSL

Xisuthros

Atra-Hasis

Epic of Gilgamesh

Noah

WP:RS

WP:Original research

WP:POV

WP:Fringe

Sumerophile (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, how about we settle for an all-inclusive title like Sumerian Flood myth? dab (𒁳) 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two thoughts about the title:

• The tablet and its text have been labelled the Eridu Genesis, but I think that makes it sound derivative of a later work.
• The tablet also includes a Creation myth, and I think just labelling it Flood myth would gloss over that. Usually Flood myths are a part of Creation myths, rather than the other way around, so I'd suggest rather Sumerian Creation myth.

However I'm not that picky about the title, just the Fringe POV. Sumerophile (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved Eridu Genesis to Sumerian Creation myth and redirected Ziusudra. Sumerophile (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Xisuthros

These two articles seem to discuss the same person; they should be merged. Neelix (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ziusudra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060829004437/http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com:80/parallels.htm to http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110130213932/http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk:80/section1/tr174.htm to http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr174.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicated content on other flood myths

This is the wrong page to discuss in detail other flood myths - the correct page for comparitive analysis is Flood myth

There was a large amount of detail on other flood myth characters - telling their story is not the point of this article. (eg why we have a cleanup template Template:Duplication)

I've put the removed text below, in case someone needs easy access to it.

Specifically If all 4 myths are being compared it should be done in Flood myth, or its own specific article - there is no good reason why to cover it (in so much detail) here .. (unless there is good reason to belief that the myths are about the same person - in which case the article would be merged - there isn't)

..If there is enough content a specific article (on compartive mythology of flood legends) could be made.

More detail -the sections on Atrahasis and Utnapishtim seem to have no (zero) directly relavent content on Ziusudra. The section on Noah had/has some comparisons of lines between different myths - so some content relavent to Ziusudra - this however should be dealt with at a higher level article as it is not specific to the topic covered on this page.

(See also the coverage at Noah#Comparative_mythology)

Atrahasis

Main article: Atrahasis

The Akkadian Atrahasis Epic tells how the god Enki warns the hero Atrahasis ("Extremely Wise") to build a boat to escape a flood. The Epic of Ziusudra does not make it absolutely clear whether the flood was a river flood or something else, although it does state that mankind, along with all of the antediluvian cities, will be destroyed. According to one scholar, the Epic of Atrahasis tablet III iv, lines 6–9 identifies the flood as a local river flood: "Like dragonflies they [dead bodies] have filled the river. Like a raft they have moved in to the edge [of the river]. Like a raft they have moved in to the riverbank."

It should be noted, however, that most other authorities interpret the Atrahasis flood as universal. A. R. George, and Lambert and Millard make it clear that the gods' intention in Atrahasis is to "wipe out mankind". The flood destroys "all of the earth". In the context of the larger story, it is difficult to see how a local river flood could accomplish these purposes. The use of a comparable metaphor in the Gilgamesh epic suggests that the reference to "dragonflies [filling] the river" is simply an evocative image of death rather than a literal description of the flood Moreover, the very preceding line in Atrahasis mentions "the sea", which in the context of "the river" could mean the Euphrates River and the Persian Gulf.

The Epic of Atrahasis provides additional information on the flood and flood hero that is omitted in Gilgamesh XI and other versions of the Ancient Near East flood myth. Likewise, the Gilgamesh XI flood text provides additional information that is missing in damaged portions of the Atrahasis tablets.

At lines 6 and 7 of tablet RS 22.421 we are told "I am Atrahasis. I lived in the temple of Ea [Enki], my Lord." Prior to the Early Dynastic period, kings were subordinate to priests, and often lived in the same temple complex where the priests lived.

Tablet III,ii lines 55–56 of the Atrahasis Epic state that "He severed the mooring line and set the boat adrift." This is consistent with a river flood, specifically the Euphrates River. If Atrahasis severed the mooring line at Shuruppak when the rain storm began, the runaway boat could float down the Euphrates River into the Persian Gulf.

The Sumerian word kur for hill could also mean mountain or country or land, depending on context. The kur sign (shadu in Akkadian) also meant hill or mountain, and therefore the information in Gilgamesh that the craft came to rest upon a mountain, could alternatively mean it came to rest on a hill at the west end of the Persian Gulf. This hill or mound may have been underwater at high tide when the ark grounded there.

Utnapishtim

Main article: Utnapishtim

In the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim "the faraway" is the wise king of the Sumerian city state of Shuruppak who, along with his unnamed wife, survived a flood sent by Enlil to drown every living thing on Earth. Utnapishtim was secretly warned by the water god Ea of Enlil's plan and constructed a great boat or ark to save himself, his family and representatives of each species of animal. When the flood waters subsided, the boat was grounded on the mountain of Nisir. When Utnapishtim's ark had been becalmed for seven days, he released a dove, who found no resting place and returned. A swallow was then released who found no perch and also returned, but the raven which was released third did not return. Utnapishtim then made a sacrifice and poured out a libation to Ea on the top of mount Nisir. Utnapishtim and his wife were granted immortality after the flood. Afterwards, he is taken by the gods to live forever at "the mouth of the rivers" and given the epithet "faraway".

The Babylonian myth of Utnapishtim (meaning "He found life", presumably in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods) is matched by the earlier Epic of Atrahasis, and by the Sumerian version, the Epic of Ziusudra. In fact, we now know that Utnapishtim and Atrahasis are one and the same. Atrahasis' name was simply changed to Utnapishtim after he was granted immortality. This explains why the name Atrahasis occurs in the Gilgamesh flood story even though the character is introduced as Utnapishtim.

Noah

Main article: Noah

The similarities between the story of Noah's Ark, the Sumerian story of Ziusudra, and the Babylonian stories of Atrahasis and Utnapishtim are shown by corresponding lines in various versions:

"the storm had swept...for seven days and seven nights" — Ziusudra 203

"For seven days and seven nights came the storm" — Atrahasis III,iv, 24

"Six days and seven nights the wind and storm" — Gilgamesh XI, 127

"rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights" — Genesis 7:12

"Ziusudra made an opening in the large boat" — Ziusudra vi, 207

"I opened the window" — Gilgamesh XI, 135

"Noah opened the window of the ark" — Genesis 8:6

"he pried open a portion of the boat" — Berossus.

"He offered a sacrifice" — Atrahasis III,v, 31

"And offered a sacrifice" — Gilgamesh XI, 155

"offered burnt offerings on the altar" — Genesis 8:20

"built an altar and sacrificed to the gods" — Berossus.

"The gods smelled the savor" — Atrahasis III,v,34

"The gods smelled the sweet savor" — Gilgamesh XI, 160

"And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." — Genesis 8:21

The Hebrew flood story of Genesis 6–9 dates to at least the 5th century BC. According to the documentary hypothesis, it is a composite of two literary sources J and P that were combined by a post-exilic editor, 539–400 BC.

Swiss scholar Hans Heinrich Schmid believes both the J material and the P material were products of the Babylonian exile period (6th century BC) and were directly derived from Babylonian sources (see also Panbabylonism).

References