THE MATTER OF ARATTA1: AN OVERVIEW 0. One of the characteristic features of the classical Sumerian literary system, which may be taken roughly to coincide with the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods2, is that it shows a number of rather well-defined clusters of compositions dealing with related or identical subject matter, and treating these matters in a typologically or generically comparable way3. One of these clusters may be called the Matter of Aratta4. This Matter of Aratta consists of three or four5 relatively long nar- rative poems treating the conflict between the House of Uruk and the House of Aratta, or between their respective rulers viz. Enmerkar and EnSUÎkesdana6. In every case the tale is really about the resolution, by peaceful means, of this conflict. 1 The gist of this contribution was first presented to students of Assyriology at the Department of Near Eastern Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, on December 2, 1993. I wish to thank Prof. dr. J.S. Cooper and his department for his gracious invita- tion and the students for their helpful responses. 2 There is no encompassing history or even more or less complete overview of this clas- sical Sumerian literature. Apart from a rather old and very succinct check-list by M. Lambert (in RA 55 (1961) 177-96 and 56 (1962) 81-90, 214), a few articles by W.W. Hallo, listed in his “Toward a History of Sumerian Literature” (Studies Jacobsen, Chicago 1975, 181- 203), an excellent though unsystematic (from the point of view of literary history and crit- icism) overview by J. Krecher (“Sumerische Literatur” in W. RÖLLIG (ed.), Altorientali- sche Literaturen, Wiesbaden 1978, 101-50), one can use the relevant chapters in general presentations of Sumerian culture and history (e.g. S.N. Kramer’s The Sumerians. Their History etc., Chicago 1963 and his History Begins at Sumer, Philadelphia 19813 passim) as well as a number of encyclopaedia articles under the appropriate headings of Sumerian Literature or the like. Very useful are the introductions and explanatory matter in recent collections of translated texts, such as J. BOTTÉRO & S.N. KRAMER, Lorsque les dieux fai- saient l’homme, Paris 1989; Th. JACOBSEN, The Harps that Once … Sumerian Poetry in Translation, Yale UP 1987; S.N. KRAMER & J. MAIER, Myths of Enki, The Crafty God, New York 1989. A number of features are treated by different authors in M.E. VOGEL- ZANG & H. VANSTIPHOUT (eds.), Mesopotamian Epic Literature: Oral or Aural, Lewiston 1992. The periods are roughly 2100-2000 (Ur III) and 2010-1600 (Old Babylonian). 3 Such as historical laments, the Dumuzi-Inana cycle of poems about love, death and betrayal, the Inana hymns, myths of procreation and organization, royal odes, disputa- tions, sketches from school life, Gilgamesh tales etc. 4 Referring, of course, to Jehan de Bodel’s division of heroic narrative into three ‘matières’: France, Britanny, and Rome. 5 The ‘or’ does not imply uncertainty as to the exact number. See below, section 1.3. 6 Enmerkar appears in the Sumerian King List as a ruler of the Dynasty of Uruk. The ruler of Aratta’s name might be read better as En-mús-kesda-ana, since the combination mús “diadem” and kesda “to bind” is a frequent one. 6 H.L.J. VANSTIPHOUT 1. The material we possess for these tales is much alike in shape, quality and distribution. What we have is mainly Old Babylonian, but at least one tale had a version or a forerunner in Ur III times7. The compo- sitions were in high regard: there are well-written exemplars of the complete text, as well as partial editions on good four column or single columns tablets; there are very few exercise extracts. The material comes mainly from Nippur, although Ur has given some fine pieces as well, and Kish provided a few very important fragments8. The obvious way to start a discussion of these tales is, of course, to present them in abbreviated form. 1.1. The first story, called Enmerkar and EnSUÎkesdana (hence- forth: EnEn)9 runs as follows: The ruler of Aratta sends an insulting challenge to the ruler of Uruk in order to make him submit. Enmerkar of Uruk refuses and denies the insulting charges. The ruler of Aratta submits Uruk’s reply to his assem- bly. Although the assembly advises against this, the ruler wants to subdue Uruk manu militari. His chief counsel then presents a sorcerer-priest to him, who promises to force Uruk into submission by witchcraft. The sor- cerer sets out for the city of Eres and bewitches its temple cattle, great and small, to wihhold their milk. There is great consternation and fear among herdsmen and shepherds. Now a wise woman intervenes in order to protect life. She challenges the sorcerer to a contest of magic. The sor- cerer throws some fish spawn10 into the river, and pulls out a full-grown fish. The woman pulls out an eagle, who catches the fish and flies off into the mountains. The sequence is repeated with five other pairs of animals; the woman’s animal always catches the sorcerer’s animal as its prey. In the end, the sorcerer has to admit that he has been beaten, and he asks the wise woman for mercy. She cannot grant this; he is killed, and his corpse is laid out on the river bank. The ruler of Aratta, having thus learned that he cannot match Uruk’s magical powers, submits. 7 The poem here indicated as LB I (see below, section 1.3a). Remark that its twin, LB II, has two (bilingual) fragments from the Kuyunjik collection. This might seem expected in view of the enduring fame of Enmerkar in later tradition, but in fact it happens only very rarely that a classical Sumerian composition survives the Kassite(?) literary revolution. 8 The extant material is given under the headings of the individual tales where necessary. 9 Edited by A. BERLIN: Enmerkar and EnsuÌkesdanna. A Sumerian Narrative Poem. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund, 2. Philadelphia, University Museum 1979. See also the reviews by H. Behrens [AfO 29/30 (1983) 98-103] and W. Heimpel [JAOS 101 (1981) 404-07]. One piece ( N 6495 = ll. 61-66) is to be added to the list of MSS as given by Behrens op. cit. pp. 99-100. MS C is to be joined to L. The composition is about 280 lines long. 10 The Sumerian word is agargara — but it is written with the sign NUN. Since nunu is Akkadian for fish, we have bilingual punning here. THE MATTER OF ARATTA 7 Apart from other features to be discussed later, the main thrust of this poem is apparently in showing Sumer’s moral supremacy: the magical battle is, after all, between black magic (withholding of the life-giving substance: milk) and white magic (providing food, in the form of prey, for sundry animals). Incidentally such an interpretation also explains why the sorcerer must die: life-threatening force, or the negation of life- giving force, is evil — perhaps the nearest to absolute evil in Meso- potamian thinking — and must consequently be totally destroyed. This conceptual frame is reinforced, by the way, by making the sorcerer’s opponent a Wise Woman, a figure which in many cultures and traditions is helpful and necessary at the birthing process. 1.2. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (henceforth ELA) is the title by which our second tale is generally known. It was one of the first major Sumerian compositions ever to appear in an adequate edition11; it has caused a considerable amount of secondary literature and comment. And an exciting story it is. 11 S.N. KRAMER, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: A Sumerian Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran, Philadelphia, University Museum, 1952. See also the reviews and/or review articles by M. Lambert in Syria 30 (1953) 137-43, L. Matous in OLZ 1953 11/12 519-23, R. Jestin in RHR 151 (1957) 145-200, and the revised edition by S. COHEN, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation 1973. The text is about 640 lines. The text material now (December 1993) stands as follows: Nippur early campaigns: A=Ni 9601+UM 29-13-194 +N 3623 (ISET 2 28-39+Kr.’s ed. pl. xvii-xviii+Kr.’s ed. pl. xii; lines 2-636;12 col. tablet); B=Ni 13191+N 4130 (ISET 2 42+Kr.’s ed. pl. xix; i: 9-22; ii: 66-72; 4 col. tablet?); C=Ni 2359 (SRT 34; i: 10-13; ii: 71-80; 4 col. tablet?); D=UM 29-16-422 +UM 29-16-456+N 6277 (Kr.’s ed. pls. xiv & xx +unpublished+Kr.’s ed. xxi; i: 25-39; ii: 76-93; iii: 131-150; 4 col. tablet); E=CBS 10435+Ni 4529+N 7256 (SEM 14+ISET 2 40+ unpubl.; i: 55-86p; ii:127-140; iii:192-220;iv: 246-277; 4 col. tablet); F=CBS 13676 (unpublished; i: 70-74; ii: 125-129;4 col. tablet?); G=Ni 9700 (Kr.’s ed. xiii; iii: 103-106; iv: 230-236; 4 col. tablet?); H=CBS 14232 (Kr.’s ed. xxiv & PBS 13 8; ii: 105-111; iii: 112-119; 4 col. tablet?); I=UM 29-16-442 (unpublished; 139-157; single col. extract); J=N 3236 (Kr.’s ed. xxiv;157-166; 167-175; single col. extract?); K=CBS 10436 (SEM 16; i: 167-174; ii: 215-239; iii: 268-306; iv: 318-360; v: 389-418; 6 col. tablet?); L=Ni 4361+Ni 4440 (Kr.’s ed.