Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations PART 1 - Preliminaries 1 Introduction 1.1 Bitextuality 1.2 The Gilgames Flood story 1.3 Other Mesopotamian Flood stories 1.4 Ea''s message 1.4.1 The manuscripts 1.4.

2 Synoptic transliteration 1.4.3 Composite text and translation 1.5 The problems 1.6 Previous studies 1.6.1 Recovering (most of) the text: George Smith (1872) to Paul Haupt (1883) 1.6.

2 An "infamous lie"? Peter Jensen (1890) and dissenters 1.6.3 Glimmers of puns: Ungnad (1911) etc. 1.6.4 The ''bitextual'' pun of Frank (1925) 1.6.5 Early reception of Frank''s idea 1.

6.6 Thompson (1930)''s reading ina se-er 1.6.7 The golden age of Frank''s bitextual pun 1.6.8 Exit puns: Von Soden (1955) to Millard (1987) 1.6.9 Re-enter puns: Dalley (1989) and others 1.

6.10 Re-exit puns: George (2010) to the present 1.6.11 Summary 1.7 Outline of the argument 1.7.1 Angles not pursued 1.8 Audiences, internal and external 2 ''Interrogating'' Babylonian narrative poetry 2.

1 Is ''interrogation'' appropriate? 2.1.1 Is the poem too ''naïve''? 2.1.2 Is ''interrogation'' precluded by accretion? 2.2 Modelling ancient interpretations 2.2.1 The elusiveness of native meta-discussions 2.

2.2 Did they simply ''know it all''? 2.2.3 Differences between ancient and modern interests 2.2.4 Glimpses of ancient interpretation 2.2.4.

1 Commentaries on narrative poems 2.2.4.2 Commentaries mentioning narrative poems 2.2.4.3 Other commentaries 2.2.

4.4 The ''Marduk Ordeal'' 2.2.4.5 Colophons 2.2.4.6 Self-reflexive comments within poems 2.

2.4.7 Adaptation 2.2.4.8 The ''Catalogue of Texts and Authors'' 2.2.4.

9 A personal response to the Flood story? 2.2.5 Summary: modelling ancient interpretations 2.3 Summary: ''interrogating'' Babylonian narrative poetry 3 ''Identifying'' puns 3.1 Are they ''really there''? - author intention vs audience reception 3.2 Disadvantages of the exclusive focus on authorial intention 3.2.1 Cases where authorial intention is clear 3.

2.2 Obstacles to identifying authorial intention 3.2.3 Rigidity 3.3 Alternatives to the emphasis on authorial intention 3.3.1 ''Ironclad'' vs ''potential'' puns 3.3.

2 A ''high-potential'' bitextual pun in OB Atra-hasis 3.4 Puns and pronunciation 3.5 Summary 4 The high concentration of puns in the Gilgames Flood story PART 2 - Dissecting Ea''s message 5 The lines about the Flood hero 6 Raining ''plenty'': usaznanakkunusi nuhsam-ma 6.1 The positive sense 6.2 The negative sense 6.3 The subject of usaznanakkunusi 6.3.1 Enlil as instigator of the Flood 6.

3.2 Exit Samas 7 The birds: [hiiblt;/P> 1.6.5 Early reception of Frank''s idea 1.6.6 Thompson (1930)''s reading ina se-er 1.6.7 The golden age of Frank''s bitextual pun 1.

6.8 Exit puns: Von Soden (1955) to Millard (1987) 1.6.9 Re-enter puns: Dalley (1989) and others 1.6.10 Re-exit puns: George (2010) to the present 1.6.11 Summary 1.

7 Outline of the argument 1.7.1 Angles not pursued 1.8 Audiences, internal and external 2 ''Interrogating'' Babylonian narrative poetry 2.1 Is ''interrogation'' appropriate? 2.1.1 Is the poem too ''naïve''? 2.1.

2 Is ''interrogation'' precluded by accretion? 2.2 Modelling ancient interpretations 2.2.1 The elusiveness of native meta-discussions 2.2.2 Did they simply ''know it all''? 2.2.3 Differences between ancient and modern interests 2.

2.4 Glimpses of ancient interpretation 2.2.4.1 Commentaries on narrative poems 2.2.4.2 Commentaries mentioning narrative poems 2.

2.4.3 Other commentaries 2.2.4.4 The ''Marduk Ordeal'' 2.2.4.

5 Colophons 2.2.4.6 Self-reflexive comments within poems 2.2.4.7 Adaptation 2.2.

4.8 The ''Catalogue of Texts and Authors'' 2.2.4.9 A personal response to the Flood story? 2.2.5 Summary: modelling ancient interpretations 2.3 Summary: ''interrogating'' Babylonian narrative poetry 3 ''Identifying'' puns 3.

1 Are they ''really there''? - author intention vs audience reception 3.2 Disadvantages of the exclusive focus on authorial intention 3.2.1 Cases where authorial intention is clear 3.2.2 Obstacles to identifying authorial intention 3.2.3 Rigidity 3.

3 Alternatives to the emphasis on authorial intention 3.3.1 ''Ironclad'' vs ''potential'' puns 3.3.2 A ''high-potential'' bitextual pun in OB Atra-hasis 3.4 Puns and pronunciation 3.5 Summary 4 The high concentration of puns in the Gilgames Flood story PART 2 - Dissecting Ea''s message 5 The lines about the Flood hero 6 Raining ''plenty'': usaznanakkunusi nuhsam-ma 6.1 The positive sense 6.

2 The negative sense 6.3 The subject of usaznanakkunusi 6.3.1 Enlil as instigator of the Flood 6.3.2 Exit Samas 7 The birds: [hiibmp;lt;/P> 2.2.3 Differences between ancient and modern interests 2.

2.4 Glimpses of ancient interpretation 2.2.4.1 Commentaries on narrative poems 2.2.4.2 Commentaries mentioning narrative poems 2.

2.4.3 Other commentaries 2.2.4.4 The ''Marduk Ordeal'' 2.2.4.

5 Colophons 2.2.4.6 Self-reflexive comments within poems 2.2.4.7 Adaptation 2.2.

4.8 The ''Catalogue of Texts and Authors'' 2.2.4.9 A personal response to the Flood story? 2.2.5 Summary: modelling ancient interpretations 2.3 Summary: ''interrogating'' Babylonian narrative poetry 3 ''Identifying'' puns 3.

1 Are they ''really there''? - author intention vs audience reception 3.2 Disadvantages of the exclusive focus on authorial intention 3.2.1 Cases where authorial intention is clear 3.2.2 Obstacles to identifying authorial intention 3.2.3 Rigidity 3.

3 Alternatives to the emphasis on authorial intention 3.3.1 ''Ironclad'' vs ''potential'' puns 3.3.2 A ''high-potential'' bitextual pun in OB Atra-hasis 3.4 Puns and pronunciation 3.5 Summary 4 The high concentration of puns in the Gilgames Flood story PART 2 - Dissecting Ea''s message 5 The lines about the Flood hero 6 Raining ''plenty'': usaznanakkunusi nuhsam-ma 6.1 The positive sense 6.

2 The negative sense 6.3 The subject of usaznanakkunusi 6.3.1 Enlil as instigator of the Flood 6.3.2 Exit Samas 7 The birds: [hiib> 3.2.1 Cases where authorial intention is clear 3.

2.2 Obstacles to identifying authorial intention 3.2.3 Rigidity 3.3 Alternatives to the emphasis on authorial intention 3.3.1 ''Ironclad'' vs ''potential'' puns 3.3.

2 A ''high-potential'' bitextual pun in OB Atra-hasis 3.4 Puns and pronunciation 3.5 Summary 4 The high concentration of puns in the Gilgames Flood story PART 2 - Dissecting Ea''s message 5 The lines about the Flood hero 6 Raining ''plenty'': usaznanakkunusi nuhsam-ma 6.1 The positive sense 6.2 The negative sense 6.3 The subject of usaznanakkunusi 6.3.1 Enlil as instigator of the Flood 6.

3.2 Exit Samas 7 The birds: [hiibnstigator of the Flood 6.3.2 Exit Samas 7 The birds: [hiib] iurati 7.1 The restoration ''hi-ib'' 7.2 The positive sense 7.3 The negative sense 7.3.

1 The verb vs the noun 7.3.2 ''Cutting off'', literal and metaphorical 7.3.3 The spheres of use attested for haabu 7.4 An Ur-Namma passage 7.5 Summary 8 The fish: puzur nuni 8.1 What is puzur? 8.

2 The positive sense 8.2.1 The associations of ''covering'' 8.2.2 Fish as comestibles 8.3 The negative sense 8.3.1 Fish-like sages, Assyrian vs Babylonian 8.

4 Summary 9 The harvest: [.] mesr' eburam-ma 9.1 The positive sense 9.2 The negative sense 9.3 Summary 10 ''Cakes at dawn'': ina ser(-)kukki 10.1 The positive sense 10.1.1 kukku ''bread, cake'' 10.

2 The negative sense involving darkness 10.2.1 kukkû ''darkness'' 10.2.2 The relevance of darkness to Ea''s message 10.3 The negative sense involving incantations 10.3.1 The morphological problem 10.

3.1.1 Case endings on manuscript W 10.3.1.2 Case endings on manuscript c 10.3.1.

3 Why is the genitive ending absent? 10.3.2 serkukku as a by-form of serkugû 10.3.3 The meanings of serkugû / serkukku 10.4 Summary 11 ''In the evening'': ina lil'ti 11.1 The positive sense 11.2 The negative sense involving darkness 11.

3 The negative sense involving líl-demonesses 11.4 Summary 12 The ''rain of wheat'': samût kibati 12.1 An incantation-like rhyme? 12.2 The positive sense 12.3 The negative sense of ''a wheat-like rain'' 12.4 Negative senses involving death 12.4.1 Killing wheat 12.

4.2 Wheat stalks symbolising human lives 12.5 Summary 13 Recapitulation 13.1 The message''s various senses 13.2 How alike were the different versions pronounced? 13.3 Why multiple negative meanings? 13.4 The change of meaning with repetition 13.4.

1 Did.