MANKIND’S BITTER FATE: THE WISDOM DIALOG BM 79111+ Michael P. Streck (Universität Leipzig) and Nathan Wasserman (he Hebrew University, Jerusalem) Two fragments of a dialog, another vestige of ancient Mesopotamian wisdom and moral deliberation, were joined by W. G. Lambert, whose scientiic work contributed so much to our understanding of Mesopotamian literature and religion. We dedicate this article to his memory. The Tablet he tablet edited here was joined from two fragments: BM 79111+ 80065 (Bu. 89-4-26,408 + 89-1014,612).1 Only the upper part of the tablet is preserved, measuring 12.6 × 5 cm. he tablet had at least three, perhaps four columns on each side. he separation line between columns ii and iii is clearly visible, but the separation between columns i and ii is less clear. here is an empty broken space that originally might have contained a similar line. On the bottom of the reverse, a horizontal separation line sets apart the last three lines that are not a colophon; they may form a new section in the text, or less likely, a catchline to the following tablet. Outline of the Text he text contains a learned dialog in the Akkadian language between a certain Mannu-utār-issu and a man named PU-UT-TI. he relation between the two is not made explicit in this text. It is unclear whether the word ebrum, “friend,” in the broken line 12′ on the reverse, refers to them or to another person. On this point see further the paragraph on the Yale prism below. he present dialog resembles in its structure and tone another fragmentary dialog between a fellow and his friend published by Streck and Wasserman (2009–11: 120–23 [BM 95431]). In col. i Mannu-utār-issu is talking to PU-UT-TI about mankind’s duties and fate. he regular morning ofering has been established for providing the temple (obv. i 2–3). Although not explicitly mentioned, it is clear that feed- This article was written in the framework of the project Sources of Early Akkadian Literature (SEAL) funded by the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientiic Research and Development. The SEAL text corpus is published on the website www.seal.uni-leipzig.de. We thank the Trustees of the British Museum for the photos and the permission to publish the tablet. Suzanne Herbordt is thanked for correcting our English. The text was copied by Nathan Wasserman. After we had inished this paper and sent it to the editor, Andrew George kindly sent to us a scan of a rough copy of the fragment BM 80065 (Bu. 89-10-14,612), made by W. G. Lambert (no. 1541 of his unpublished folios). A careful comparison of his copy and our edition did not improve much our understanding of the text; but see the commentary on obv. ii 7, below. 1. The text was mentioned in the catalogue of Wasserman 2003: 188 as no. 12. 39 JCS 66 (2014) 40 MICHAEL P. STRECK AND NATHAN WASSERMAN ing the gods with oferings is the constant duty of mankind. A parallel to this idea is provided by a Late Babylonian incantation for building a temple: ilī ina šubat tūb libbi ana šūšubi amēlūti ibtani (Ambos 2004: 202 ll. 19–20) “He (Ea) created mankind to let the gods dwell in the abode of (their) choice.” See also [i]bni šarru ana zāninū[tiki?] [ibn]i amēlūti ana itabbul[u …] “He (Ea) created the king for [your(?) (the brick’s)] car[e, creat]ed mankind for providin[g the temple(?)]” (Ambos 2004: 182 ll. 35–36, from a building ritual). Mannu-utār-issu continues with the statement that mankind cannot reasonably act without divine consent (lamassum, lit. “protective spirit”) and attention (obv. i 4–5). he following metaphor of the regular lood in the river (obv. i 6–7) is open to several interpretations. It may refer to the constantly changing mind of mankind or the futile attempt of humanity to change its fate. Men and women cannot escape various plagues like famine (obv. i 8–9) and will die in due time just as the cane falls (obv. 10–11); for cane as an image for mankind see Streck and Wasserman 2009–11: 188 § 7.2. Another speech of Mannu-utār-issu opens in obv. ii 1. Again he expresses a pessimistic view of human nature. he gods created man (obv. ii 2–3), but mankind does not act according to divine will: its behavior is untrustworthy and its speech is unreliable (obv. ii 4–5, ii 9). Similar ideas about the immoral behavior of humans are expressed elsewhere, for example, in a dialog between a fellow and his friend: mīnšu lā wēdu iliššu dābib mīšārim [m]ukīl kīnātim [kī?] raggi lū šakin “Why does not (even) a single (man), towards his god, speak justice (and) be truthful, (but) indeed behaves like a wicked one?” (Streck and Wasserman 2009–11: 121 ii 11′–14′). See also he Babylonian heodicy: šarkū ana amēlutu etguru dabāba sarrātu u lā kīnātu išrukūšu santakku “hey (the gods) endowed humanity with crooked speech. hey endowed them forever with lies, not truth” (Lambert 1960: 88, ll. 279–280), or in the Epic of Gilgameš: raggat amēlūtu “Mankind is deceitful” (George 2003: 716, l. 220). Apparently variants of both the river metaphor of obv. i 6–7 and the cane metaphor of obv. i 10–11 are repeated again (obv. ii 6, ii 8). In the beginning of col. iii we are introduced to a third character, a wise man (emqum) called HU.NUMUN. he next lines (obv. iii 12–13) describe immoral behavior against a young man and probably a woman. An evil person (rag[gam]) is mentioned in obv. iii 14. he reverse is too broken to get any clear idea about its contents, but HU.NUMUN is mentioned again (rev. 5′). PU-UT-TI answers with a short speech to a friend (ebrī rev. 12′). his speech of three lines is regrettably mostly broken (rev. 11′–13′). The Yale Prism Parallel Surprisingly enough, a partial parallel to our text is provided by an unpublished prism kept for more than hundred years in the Babylonian Collection of Yale University. It was Eckart Frahm of Yale who pointed out to us this important parallel and we turned to Benjamin Foster who has been working for years on this diicult text. He most kindly provided us with his preliminary edition of this prism. he Yale composition also contains a long wisdom dialog between the same characters present in our text, PU-UT-TI and Mannu-utār-issu. In the Yale prism they are clearly a father and son. Moreover, lines obv. i 6–12 of our text have parallels in the prism. his parallel made it clear to us that the obverse of our tablet contains at least three columns and not two wide columns, as we irst thought. As far as we can see, no further parallels between the Yale prism and the BM tablet exist. herefore, the texts don’t seem to be full duplicates but compositional variants, similar to the love dialogs ZA 49, 151–94 and CUSAS 10 10 and the love incantations YOS 11 87 and CUSAS 10 11. However, a better understanding of the relation between these two texts must await the publication of the Yale text. Orthography and Dating he text does not contract the vowel sequence /i-a/, see ma-si-a-kum (obv. ii 13) and an-ni-⌈a⌉-a[m] (rev. 11′). his points to an OB date, also conirmed by paleography. However, mimation is oten not written: ḫu-ša-⌈aḫ⌉- THE WISDOM DIALOG BM 79111+ 41 Fig. 1. BM 79111+80065 (copy by N. Wasserman). ḫu ne-eb-ri-tu (obv. i 8), qá-nu and a-pí (obv. i 10), ra-bu-ti (obv. ii 8), ⌈ši-it⌉-nu-na and at-ma-⌈a⌉ (obv. ii 9). his feature, as well as at-ma-⌈a⌉ for atwâ and perhaps also the use of sa instead of sà in obv. iii 72 (but note sú- in obv. i 8), point to a later phase of the OB period. Vowels are sometimes spelled plene: ma-ta-a-tim (obv. ii 3), ru-ub-bu-ú and a-wi-lu-ú-tim (obv. ii 6; but see awi-lu-tam obv. ii 2), ut-te-e-e[r] (obv. ii 7), ki-i-ma (rev. 13′), and the unexpected mu-du-ta-a-am (obv. i 5). he orthography shows mixed “southern” and “northern” characteristics. It uses “southern” ta (obv. i 5, rev. 10′) and ti (obv. i 8) but “northern” pí (obv. i 2, ii 4, 8) and te4 (obv. ii 12). he text uses both sí (obv. i 5, ii 12) and si (obv. ii 13). Note the rare use of ni7 (obv. ii 4) for which see Akk. Syll. no. 251 and YOS 11, 19: 14. 2. In the middle OB period one would expect ZA- for / -/ in word initial position; see Streck 2006: 219. 42 MICHAEL P. STRECK AND NATHAN WASSERMAN Fig. 2. BM 79111+80065. Obverse top, reverse bottom. he text uses the logograms SÁ.DUG4 (obv. i 3), ÍD (obv. i 6) and DUG4 (obv. ii 9). To this list one could also add the names—if to be read logographically—mGÍD.UD.TI (obv. i 2, 6, 12, rev. 11′) and mHU.NUMUN (obv. iii 8, rev. 5′). Transliteration Obv. i 1 2 3 4 5 [mM]a-⌈an-nu-ú-ta-ar-is-sú⌉ it?-bé⌉-e-ma ⌈ x⌉ [x x] [mP]U-UT-TI ki-ma e-pé-er gi-gu-un-ne-em! {IM!} [(x)] a-di ša-ar-⌈ma!?⌉ SÁ.DUG4 šu-ut i-na še20-er-⌈te⌉-e[n?] ḫu-sú-ub uz-nam ša la la-ma-as-s[í-im] ḫu-sú-ub mu-du-ta-a-am ša la i-na-at-ta-lu s[é-r]u!?-šu THE WISDOM DIALOG BM 79111+ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ta-mu-ur mPU-UT-TI i-na ÍD mi-lam a-la-⌈ak-šu⌉ 6-šu í[s?]-si-am-ma 7-šu ut-te-e-e[r] sú-un?-[qu]m ḫu-ša-⌈aḫ⌉-ḫu ne-eb-ri-tu ù mi-⌈ti⌉-[tu] ba-li-il ⌈it⌉-ti ni!-⌈ši!⌉-⌈ma⌉ la-bi-ri-⌈iš⌉ ba-ši qá-nu ⌈i-na⌉ a-pí lu-ub-⌈bu⌉-r[u]-⌈um⌉ ⌈i⌉-m]a-⌈aq⌉-qú-ut ki-ma g[i-l[u?] ⌈se⌉-eḫ-ru-u[m (i-)il-la-kam] ⌈a-di⌉ UD-mi-šu m PU-UT-T[I …] ⌈GA/BI⌉-x-x […] Obv. ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [ (x) x x x x] ⌈x⌉ mMa-an-nu-ú-ta!-ar-is-⌈sú⌉ [(x) x x x i]b-nu-ú a-wi-lu-tam [(x) x x x]-nu i-na ma-ta-a-tim [sa?-ar?-r]a-at-ma ša-ni7(NIM) ši-pí-ir-ša [i -p]a?-ra-as-ma qá-bu-ša it-ku-ur ⌈ù?⌉ x-KU-ú ru-ub-bu-ú ša {ŠA} a-wi-lu-ú-tim ⌈x-e?⌉-⌈šu/ša⌉ ma-li-ma ši-im-ta-ša mu!-ru-ur ⌈x⌉ MA? it-ma x ZU a-pí-i ra-bu-ti ⌈x⌉ it-ma DUG4 ⌈ši-it⌉-nu-⌈na ù⌉ at-ma-⌈a⌉ ⌈la⌉ ki-nam [x] ⌈x x⌉ GI?-na? x iš-ku-un [x x x] ⌈x⌉ bi-⌈x⌉ li-mu-ru e-li-ia [x x x x] x is?-sé-ri te4-em-ki-na sa-ab-ta [x x x x x] ú-ul šu-šu-ra ma-si-a-kum [x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ ú-ul šu-ú? ⌈x x⌉ [x x x] ⌈x⌉ ⌈ti⌉ Obv. iii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 broken broken a […] GA? […] i-l[i …] em-qum [… ] sa-ar-ra-t[i?-im …] em-qum mHU.NUMUN ⌈x⌉[…] qá-du ki-im-ti[m?] ù šu-ú i-de i-na[…] ḫa-bi-il et-lum […] ⌈ša⌉-ag-ša-at w[a?-ar?-da?-tum? …] a-na ma-an-ni-im […] ⌈li⌉-bi-il ra-ag-[ga-am …] [x x] ⌈x x⌉ […] Rev. 1′ 2′ 3′ 4′ […] […] ⌈i⌉-[…] x […] m m 43 44 5′ 6′ 7′ 8′ 9′ 10′ 11′ 12′ 13′ MICHAEL P. STRECK AND NATHAN WASSERMAN HU.NUMUN ⌈x⌉ […] i-nam la ba-ki-t[am …] i-na-šu AH?-nu-⌈ni?⌉ ⌈x⌉ […] lu ud-du-ú x […] šum-ma te-te-[pu?-uš? …] ta-ba-ḫu […] ———————————————————————— iš-me-ma mPU-UT-TI an-ni-⌈a⌉-a[m …] i-na-aḫ eb-ri ša ⌈x⌉-[…] [i]l-la-ak ki-i-⌈ma⌉ ⌈x⌉ […] m Translation Obv. i 1 [M]annu-utār-issu⌉ arose(?) and …: 2 3 “Oh PU-UT-TI, in order to provide for the temple the regular oferings, those in the morni[ng], exist forever. 4 5 He is deprived of wisdom, he who is without protective spir[it]. He is deprived of knowledge, at whom he (the protective spirit) does not look. 6 7 You have seen, oh PU-UT-TI, the lood in the river, its advancing: Six times it receded(?) and seven times it was turned bac[k]. 8 9 Hun[ge]r, famine, want and los[s] is mixed up with the (fate of) people and lasts for a long time. 10 11 he cane in the canebrake will fall down in old (age), just as the young gillu(?) cane will reach its (destined) day.” 12 13 14 PU-UT-TI … … … Obv. ii 1 […] Mannu-utār-issu: 2 3 [“he gods …] have [crea]ted mankind. [hey …] in the lands. 4 5 6 [(Mankind) is treach]erous and its behavior is strange. [It keeps lyi]ng(?) and its speech is not understood. [An]d(?) risen(?) are the waves of mankind.” 7 He was full of his/its … and was made bitter by its (mankind’s) fate: THE WISDOM DIALOG BM 79111+ 8 9 “… vast canebrakes. It (mankind) has sworn a contentious speech and an unreliable word. 10 11 … he established, … so that they look upon me. 12 13 14 … take your (pl. f.) decision! … they (people?) are not on the right way. Enough for you (sg. m.)!” … Obv. iii 1–5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Broken he wise […] Fals[e …] he wise HU.NUMUN […] With the fami[ly(?) …] And he knows in […] he young man is treated unjustly […] [he young woman(?)] is murdered […] To whom [ …] May he bring the e[vil …] Broken Rev. 1′–4′ 5′ 6′ 7′ 8′ 9′ 10′ 11′ 12′ 13′ 45 Broken “HU.NUMUN […] An eye not weepin[g …] His eyes … […] May they know […] If you [do(?) …] To slaughter […]” ———————————————————————— PU-UT-TI heard this […]: “My friend has become tired, he who […] He walks like a […]” Commentary Obv. i 1: Mannu-utār-issu “Who can turn away his arm?.” Pious names starting with mannu are common but we did not ind a parallel to this name. “His arm” refers to the power of a god. Obv. i 2: he reading of the name PU-UT-TI is unclear. It might be syllabically read as Putti; see, for example, puttu, “ruler,” (CAD P, 546, attested only in Malku) and the Hurrian(?) name of a king of Simurrum, mPu-ut-ti-mada-al, attested in a version of he Great Revolt against Narām-Sîn (Westenholz 1997: 242:29, we thank E. Frahm for the latter reference). A logographical, learned reading as GÍD.UD.TI, perhaps Arik-ūm-balātim “Long-lasting is the time of (his) life,” is not excluded. Although such a reading of the name does not have a direct parallel it reminds one of the name of the famous hero of the Sumerian lood story, Z i-u 4-sud-rá, “Life of long days,” 46 MICHAEL P. STRECK AND NATHAN WASSERMAN (George 2003: 153). Compare perhaps the name Ud-ĝu 10-u l “My day is far” in Enki and Ninmaḫ 88, probably referring to a baby (Kilmer 1976: 265). Obv. i 3: See adi šāri CAD Š/2, 36 šār 2a. For the dual šērtēn see CAD Š/3, 322 šērtu A 1b. Obv. i 4–5: ḫasābu “to break of reeds or twigs,” here used metaphorically. Another example of a nonliteral use of ḫasābum is found in the love-lyric CUSAS 10 10:9: ḫusbī ezbī tašt[aknī? q]ūlī “Beat it, leave! You ma[de me speech]less.” Obv. i 6: he Yale prism has a question instead: mPU-UT-TI ú-ul ta-mu-ur “Oh PU-UT-TI, did you not see …?”. Obv. i 7: For the formula “six-seven” in literary texts see, e.g., ša bašmim šeššet pīšu sebēt lišānūšu “Six are the mouth of the serpent, seven his tongues” (TIM 9 65:9 // 66:17–19). If read correctly, the broken form issīʾamma derives from nesû in the meaning “to recede (said of water).” he Yale prism has iš-ši-a-am-ma instead, a form deriving from našûm. Obv. i 8: he reading mi-⌈ti⌉-[tu] was suggested by E. Frahm. Obv. i 10: he Yale prism has qá-nu-ú i-na. Obv. i 11: he Yale prism has ki-ma gi-li se-eḫ-ri i-il-la-kam a-di UD-mi-šu “Like a young gillu-reed it (the old reed) it will reach its day.” he word gillu has hitherto been attested only once lexically (CAD G, 73; AHw 288 and 1556). Obv. ii 3: Restore probably [išku]nū or [ukin]nū “they established”. Obv. ii 4: See šanī šipirša nukkur “Her work is diferent (and) strange” (Agušaya A vi 24′). Obv. ii 5: We thank M. Krebernik for the reading -as-ma. Obv. ii 6: At the beginning of the line we expect a stative form of našû or šaqû, but the signs do not easily yield to such a reading. Obv. ii 7: Ater a misshapen mu-, the scribe started to write another mu- but did not inish the sign and continued with -ru-. Lambert’s copy (see n. 1, above) shows i-UB-ru-ur; a reading i-ár-ru-ur, however, is excluded since ár is only used late and the verb arāru “to fear” makes no sense here. Or should one read i!-{x}-ru-ur “he cursed”? Obv. ii 9: Compare atwâm lā kīnam ītanappalūšu “hey will always answer him an unreliable word” YOS 10 20:6. Obv. ii 11: We thank M. Krebernik for the reading -mu-. Obv. iii 7: We thank M. Krebernik for the reading sa-. Obv. iii 8: he name mHU.NUMUN is unclear to us. Is it an abbreviation for (A)ḫu-zēram-(iddinam etc.) “he brother (has given, etc.) an ofspring”? For the abbreviation (a)ḫu in personal names from Ebla (but only in the middle of the name) see Krebernik 1988: 30. See also the aphaeresis in the OB name Salluḫum, an abbreviation of a name composed with the god’s name Asalluhi (Stol 1991: 210). References Ambos, C. 2004 Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Dresden: ISLET. George, A. R. 2003 he Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kilmer, A. D. 1976 Speculations on Umul, the First Baby. Pp. 265–70 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, and Å. W. Sjöberg. AOAT 25. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Krebernik, M. 1988 Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte. Eine Zwischenbilanz. BBVO 7. Berlin: Reimer. Lambert, W. G. 1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. THE WISDOM DIALOG BM 79111+ 47 Stol, M. 1991 Old Babylonian Personal Names. SEL 8: 191–12. Streck, M. P. 2006 Sibilants in the Old Babylonian Texts of Hammurapi and of the Governors in Qattunān. Pp. 215–51 in he Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the hird and Second Millennium BC, ed. g. deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. Uitgaven van het Nederlands instituut voor het Nabije oosten te leiden 106. leiden: Nederlands instituut voor het Nabije oosten. 2009–11 schilf. RlA 12, 183–89. streck, m. P., and wasserman, N. 2011 dialogues and Riddles: hree old babylonian wisdom texts. Iraq 73: 117–25. wasserman, N. 2003 Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Cm 27. leiden, boston: styx. westenholz, J. g. 1997 Legends of the Kings of Akkade. winona lake, iN: eisenbrauns.