received by Email on April 25, 2010
Anunnaki e Igigi are two recurring terms
in Mesopotamia mythology, describing what we now consider as having
been Sumerian and Akkadian deities.
These terms, particularly Anunnaki, are used in both Sumerian and Babylonian literature, this latter using the Sumerian words and glyphs instead of the proper Babylonian ones. This makes hard to determine what or who the Anunnaki really were, because the etymology of the word is uncertain.
In some other myths we find the Anunnaki waging battles against each others, occasionally with the partnership of certain human kings.
Translating the Nefilim as ‘the one who have descended’ or ‘the ones who descend’, we can integrate this meaning with the name Anunnaki, that involves the two Sumerian terms:
But are the Nephilim ALL the Anunnaki? The answer should be ‘NO’.
The Nephilim are only a part of the Anunnaki, and I consider it may be significant to identify them with the Igigi.
Most scholars translate Anunnaki as ‘Sons of Anu’ or ‘The heirs of Anu’, with Anu being the chief deity of the Sumerian pantheon, by dividing the term as An.un[na]. But this translation and the concept it expresses leaves out the fundamental particle KI.
As we see, the particle KI is completely ignored. In the first definition the final -K is translated as a genitive case, and in the second one Halloran proposes that KI would actually be KE4-NE, another genitive form as reported in his Lexicon:
Another theory says that Anunnaki must be transliterated as A.nun.ak.e, where AK is a genitive (this based on Thorkild Jacobsen’s material).
The fact that this form is used in Akkadian Cuneiform makes it easy to understand that it may not be an error, because the term occurs as a non-subordinated form.
One who says that the term AK is always a genitive, and the term Anunnaki is the genitive case of Anunna, is indirectly saying that every time the Akkadian scribes used the cuneiform for Anunnaki, rendering the KI, they were mistaking Sumerian grammar and writing. This is impossible, because Akkadian grammar was more complex and had more subordinating particles than Sumerian grammar.
An error of this matter could only be made in the opposite case, when we render a more complex language in a simpler one, because we go to a higher grade of abstraction.
The already mentioned Sumerian Lexicon has:
By using these rendering and transliteration, we can extend the ‘young man’ meaning to talk about the younger gods, or the ‘to surround/besiege’ can be a validation of the concept that Igigi were described as the gods that remained in the sky, surrounding the earth.
In fact reduplication of particles was often used as a plural or to mean an emphasis, like we find in the Flood Tale when the boat of Ziusudra is called:
In this case, the emphatic use of IGI
reduplicated is consistent with the meaning of ‘The
Watchers’, the same term used in the Bible to identify