Hello Jonathon - Welcome to the board.
Well, the passage you have selected is certainly among the more interesting passages of Sumerian literature that I have encountered. I think Sheshki has given some good advice thus far. Before moving to the problem of cuneiform signs, I think it would be best to examine the text once more and we could consider again what does the it really mean, and what is its significance in terms of world literature?
I actually don't think it compares well with the Old Testament confusion of tongues at all. This comparison is only possible if outdated (and in all likelihood, inaccurate) translations are relied on. The second of the links you provided is preferable to the first, as at least this link cites the source of its translation. Despite being a LDS resource, it does go so far as to list a more recent and (I think) preferable translation done be Vanstiphout. But LDS is mainly concerned with the Kramer translation, of course, because this translation allows for an intriguing comparison with the Old Testament. Samuel Kramer was the godfather of modern Sumerology, a giant in the field, the man who traveled to the museums of the world, painstakingly piecing together the thousands of fragments and tablets that together form much of what is today the modern corpus of Sumerian literature. That doesn't mean, however, that we should now depend on his pioneering interpretations of some 60 years ago, because the field has improved its command of the material to an extent since that time. Kramer has already formed his notion of 'the Namshub of Enki' (variously 'the Spell of Nudimmud' with Nidimmud being another name for Enki) (lines 114-155 of the text Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta) in his 1956 work "History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History". Like other pioneers of the field, Kramer also sought to popularize Sumerian culture when academically permissible, meaning any opportunity to draw comparisons with the Bible was eagerly (and really, overzealously) seized upon.
The Cuneiform writing system is, unfortunately, sometimes ambiguous when it comes to articulating the fine details of Sumerian grammar. Differences of interpretation often result and this has to do with modern scholars differing knowledge and application of grammatical theory. But it may also relate to a modern scholars conception of the text and its Sitz im Leben (place in life, or function in society). In my opinion, the understandings of Vanstiphout are more convincing and represent the current understanding of the field - we can see this as the translation available at ETCSL (Sheshki linked this) is closer to Vanstiphout's version. ETCSL was the project from Oxford university, active in the 2000s, which published in widely available English translations all of the best and most authoritative Sumerological work on the Sumerian literary corpus at that time. It is the current 'gold standard' of Sumerian translation (even as small nuances can always be, and will always be, debated).
One must recall that Uruk, one of the oldest cities in Sumer, enjoyed a period of high political importance in the Early Dynastic period. From the Sumerian King List, we see that, in the first dynasty of Uruk, four consecutive kings ruled from approx. 2700-2600 BC: Enmerker, Lugalbanda, Dumuzi and Gilgamesh. These four kings are some of the best known today because they became legends in a literature written down later, in the Ur III period (2150 BC). The kings of the Ur III period, Sumerians, rule after the Akkadian period in which all of Sumer was subjected to the rule of Semitic interlopers, Sargon and his descendants. Hence, when the Sumerians again come to power in the Ur III period, their epics and legends tell the story of great Early Dynastic Sumerian rulers of the Uruk I dynasty, perhaps it is something of a 'national' revival of sorts. The Ur III kings elevate their own prestige by identifying with the Sumerian kings of old, and by commissioning great literary works in their memory. It is from this point of view, that of the kings of the Ur III period, that Vanstiphout contextualizes Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta (which contains the passage the Namshub of Enki). It is from this field of reference that the Sitz im Leben of the text must be assessed. As I wrote on this topic here at enenuru, 12 years ago:
enenuru.proboards.com/thread/67/literary-magic-black-spell-nudimmudThe other epic tale related to the above, again features a rivalry between Aratta and Unug, and a demand for submission. In his first challenge to Aratta, Enmerker instructs his messenger to relay a number of demands and in addition to recite before the Lord of Aratta the "Spell of Nudimmud." This is somewhat paradoxical and obscure and readings are in dispute evidently, Vanstiphout's interpretation is very interesting though as he renders this spell in the future tense (as oppose to the past tense as elsewhere). It reads this way as:
"It is the spell of Nudimmud!
"One day there will be no snake, no scorpion,
"There will be no hyena, nor lion,
there will be neither (wild) dog nor wolf.
"And thus there will be neither fear nor trembling,
"For man will then have no enemy.
"On that day the lands of $uber and Hamazi,
"As well as twin-tongued Sumer-great mound of the power of lord-ship-
"Together with Akkad-the mound that has all that is befitting-
"And even the land Martu, resting in the green pastures,
"Yea, the whole world of well-ruled people,
"Will be able to speak to Enlil in one language!
"For on that day, for the debates between lords and princes and
kings
"Shall Enki, for the debates between lords and princes and kings,
"For the debates betweens lords and princes and kings,
"Shall Enki, Lord of abundance, Lord of steadfast decisions,
"Lord of wisdom and knowledge in the Land,
"Expert of the gods,
"Chosen for wisdom, Lord of Eridug,
"Change the tongues in their mouth, as many as he once placed there
"And speech of mankind shall be truly one!'"
Hence, now the Spell of Nudimmud is an incantation sent from Unug to Aratta, and in the future (if not by virtue of the magic of the incantation itself) tongue's will become one, presumably given the source of the magic, Sumerian. In his explanation of the "Intention and Message" of these epics, the Vanstiphout says they have an explicit aim to praise the glorious past of Sumer, while at the same time, they "unmistakably have in mind the glory of the Ur III state" (the period in which they were composed and written down.) The composers of Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta refer to the superiority of Sumer over Aratta in a number of ways, most prominently that the formers technological advancements, and superiority in trade give them claim to the latter's raw materials (precious stones/metals) - "but there is more: by the globalization of the use of their language (The Spell of Nudimmud!) and by the invention of writing they also control this international trade." This explanation also fits well with the fact Enmerker's final challenge to the Lord of Aratta carried with it an explanation of how writing was invented, for that very message even, which Vanstiphout see's as a "parallel of sorts" to the first challenge - as knowing 'Sumerian was equivalent to knowing how to write' or at least 'compliments the notion of Sumerian as the international language."
The Spell of Nudimmud would seem to be a literary device used largely for propagandistic purpose's then, and its possible there would be little actual correlation between the concerns of the composer and those of the incantation specialist.
Perhaps with that in mind, we could now turn to the question of signs.
