Is that the same Namma that equates to Tiamat?
It might be convenient to equate these two watery primordial mother goddesses, but can this be proven?
Tiamat, the absolute state of tâmtu, means "sea."
Kramer in his Sumerian Mythology happens to equate Namma with the sea (p. 39): In a tablet which gives a list of the Sumerian gods, the goddess Nammu, written with the ideogram for "sea," is described as "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth." Heaven and earth were therefore conceived by the Sumerians as the created products of the primeval sea.
Jacobsen in his 'Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article' in Toward the Image of Tammuz [originally published in JNES 5] rejects this (p. 116): Returning to Dr. Kramer's treatment of the speculations centering in the goddess Nammu, it must be pointed out that the sign with which her name is written does not - as Dr. Kramer avers - mean "sea." "Sea" is a-abba(k) in Sumerian; the sign with which Nammu's name is written denotes - if read engur - primarily the body of sweet water which the Mesopotamians believed lay below the earth, feeding rivers and wells but best observable in the watery deep of the marshes. Nammu is therefore the "watery deep" of the Mesopotamian marshes extending below the surface of the earth as the water-bearing strata. She is not the sea.
Apart from both goddesses being the the primordial mothers, and both being closely associated with the Apsu, the fact that they represent different bodies of water might be a deal breaker.
[and on June 11th]
It might be convenient to equate these two watery primordial mother goddesses, but can this be proven?
Perhaps instead of looking for strict lexical equivalences, an answer could be found in Mesopotamian mythological speculation. The Akkadian Apsû, most commonly written with the sign ENGUR, happens to be equated with the sea in a first millennium Babylonian explanatory work, as shown in Livingstone's Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works p. 191:
Anu [is present] as himself.
Enlil is present as Lugaldukuga, (that is) Enmešarra. Enmešarra is Anu.
Ea is present as the Apsû. The Apsû is the sea(Tâmtu). The sea is Ereškigal.
Livingstone explains: Apsû and tâmtu(Tiāmat) are similar in that both are watery regions; as mythological figures they were husband and wife. Finally, Ereškigal is equated with Tiāmat, perhaps because both are underworld deities.
Jacobsen dismisses this and remains adamant that engur is wholly distinct from "sea," n. 21 to 'Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article': However, as anyone conversant with theological texts of the type of TC, VI, 47 will know, such associations are important rather for what they tell about Mesopotamian speculative thought than as precise contributions to lexicography.
One could join the dots and present a hypothetical link between Namma and Tiamat, but, as far as I am aware, a direct equation of the two does not exist.
enenuru论坛 2008年帖子
很难说明两者是指同一种东西。
It might be convenient to equate these two watery primordial mother goddesses, but can this be proven?
Tiamat, the absolute state of tâmtu, means "sea."
Kramer in his Sumerian Mythology happens to equate Namma with the sea (p. 39): In a tablet which gives a list of the Sumerian gods, the goddess Nammu, written with the ideogram for "sea," is described as "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth." Heaven and earth were therefore conceived by the Sumerians as the created products of the primeval sea.
Jacobsen in his 'Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article' in Toward the Image of Tammuz [originally published in JNES 5] rejects this (p. 116): Returning to Dr. Kramer's treatment of the speculations centering in the goddess Nammu, it must be pointed out that the sign with which her name is written does not - as Dr. Kramer avers - mean "sea." "Sea" is a-abba(k) in Sumerian; the sign with which Nammu's name is written denotes - if read engur - primarily the body of sweet water which the Mesopotamians believed lay below the earth, feeding rivers and wells but best observable in the watery deep of the marshes. Nammu is therefore the "watery deep" of the Mesopotamian marshes extending below the surface of the earth as the water-bearing strata. She is not the sea.
Apart from both goddesses being the the primordial mothers, and both being closely associated with the Apsu, the fact that they represent different bodies of water might be a deal breaker.
[and on June 11th]
It might be convenient to equate these two watery primordial mother goddesses, but can this be proven?
Perhaps instead of looking for strict lexical equivalences, an answer could be found in Mesopotamian mythological speculation. The Akkadian Apsû, most commonly written with the sign ENGUR, happens to be equated with the sea in a first millennium Babylonian explanatory work, as shown in Livingstone's Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works p. 191:
Anu [is present] as himself.
Enlil is present as Lugaldukuga, (that is) Enmešarra. Enmešarra is Anu.
Ea is present as the Apsû. The Apsû is the sea(Tâmtu). The sea is Ereškigal.
Livingstone explains: Apsû and tâmtu(Tiāmat) are similar in that both are watery regions; as mythological figures they were husband and wife. Finally, Ereškigal is equated with Tiāmat, perhaps because both are underworld deities.
Jacobsen dismisses this and remains adamant that engur is wholly distinct from "sea," n. 21 to 'Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article': However, as anyone conversant with theological texts of the type of TC, VI, 47 will know, such associations are important rather for what they tell about Mesopotamian speculative thought than as precise contributions to lexicography.
One could join the dots and present a hypothetical link between Namma and Tiamat, but, as far as I am aware, a direct equation of the two does not exist.
enenuru论坛 2008年帖子
很难说明两者是指同一种东西。
