The Epic of Gilgamesh (16 page)

(i) The Sumerian poem ‘Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living'; text from fourteen tablets found at Nippur, one at Kish, and two of unknown provenance, giving 175 lines extant. All date from the first half of the second millennium. The following incidents are covered: the friendship of the Lord Gilgamesh and his servant Enkidu, the need to set up a lasting name, entreaty of Utu (Shamash), who appoints supernatural helpers, arming of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, departure with fifty companions, felling of the cedar, Gilgamesh overcome with weakness, dusk on the mountain, dialogue with Enkidu, Huwawa (Humbaba) found in his house, Gilgamesh uproots trees, goes to the house of Huwawa who pleads for his life and is refused on the advice of Enkidu, Huwawa is killed and his body presented to a furious Enlil. Here the Sumerian text breaks off.

(ii) The Sumerian ‘Death of Gilgamesh' is still very fragmentary and it is not clear what is its relation to the other Gilgamesh poems, and especially to ‘Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living'. The text followed here is taken from the three tablets found at Nippur, dated to the first half of the second millennium. Two fragments, ‘A' and ‘B', give Enlil's ‘Destiny' of Gilgamesh, and the lament for the dead king and account of the funeral offerings; but recently Professor Kramer has identified other fragments which indicate that the ‘Death' was inscribed on a tablet with at least 450 lines.

(iii) Old Babylonian versions, dating from the first dynasty of Babylon, first half of the second millennium: the so-called ‘Pennsylvania Tablet' gives the coming of Enkidu and the dreams of Gilgamesh concerning him. The ‘Yale Tablet' has the preparation for the forest journey up to the departure from Uruk.The ‘Meissner' fragment, from Sippar, gives the Siduri episode and the meeting with the ferryman Sursunabu (Urshanabi). An independent publication of the Old Babylonian material was made by M. Jastrow and A. T. Clay in 1920 as
An Old Babylonian Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Recently another Old Babylonian fragment from Tell Iščali has been published by T. Bauer (see now
Ancient Near Eastern Texts referring to the Old Testament
). It deals with the death of Humbaba and does not differ from the Sumerian account so much as do the later Akkadian versions. From the Ur tablets in the British Museum (UET VI), we now have a slightly fuller Middle Babylonian version of Enkidu's sickness: C. J. Gadd,
Iraq
, 28, 1966, 105—21 and Old Babylonian fragments (published by A. R. Millard,
Iraq
, 26, 1964, 99) provide some additions to Tablet IX.

(iv) Hittite version, from tablets found at Boghazköy in central Anatolia, dated to the middle of the second millennium; these contain fragments of the description of Gilgamesh and of his endowments, the forest episode with the felling of the cedar, Enkidu's dream when he is sick and dying, and part of the journey to find Utnapishtim with the Siduri incident and the meeting with Urshanabi. From this point the story appears to diverge widely from other versions. The translation was published by J. Friedrich in the
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
, 39, 1929, and H. Otten,
Instanbuler Mitteilungen
8, 1958, 93—125. Another fragment from the Hittite tablets from Boghazköy (KUB VIII, 48, 1924) published now by R. Stefanini,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
, 28, 1968, gives a slightly different version of the Council of Gods in Enkidu's deathbed dream.

(v) A Hurrian language fragment, also from Boghazköy, gives part of the journey to Utnapishtim. It was published in the
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
, 35, 1923.

(vi) Semitic versions. An Akkadian version was used in the Hittite Empire and fragments have been found at Boghazköy; but the fullest of all versions is the Assyrian. Originally it was written on twelve tablets of six columns and approximately three hundred lines to each tablet; parts of all twelve still exist. Nearly all are from the palace library at Nineveh, and are seventh century B.C. Based on earlier material, these cover all the incidents of the story up to the return from the search for Utnapishtim. The material is divided as follows: Tablet I, the descriptions of Gilgamesh and of Enkidu up to the end of Gilgamesh's second dream concerning Enkidu. Tablet II, very fragmentary, probably covered the encounter of Gilgamesh and Enkidu and the first mention of the cedar forest. Tablet III, also very fragmentary, probably has Gilgamesh's interviews with the counsellors, with Ninsun, and the commission to Enkidu. Tablet IV, of which only a few lines survive, probably covered the journey to the forest and the arrival at the gate. Tablet V had the description of the forest, the dreams on the mountain, and probably the meeting with and killing of Humbaba.Tablet VI had the encounter of Gilgamesh and Ishtar, the incident of the Bull of Heaven, and the beginning of Enkidu's sickness.Tablet VII had Enkidu's sickness continued, his dreams and death. Tablet VIII had the lament over Enkidu and probably a description of the funeral.Tablet IX covers Gilgamesh's journey to find Utnapishtim up to the meeting with Sidur.Tablet X covers the Siduri incident, Urshanabi, and the finding of Utnapishtim. Tablet XI is the fullest and best preserved of all, with over three hundred extant lines. It describes the Deluge, the testings of Gilgamesh, and his return to Uruk. There is no death of Gilgamesh in the Assyrian recension, and the twelfth and last tablet recounts a separate incident, an alternative to the death of Enkidu as recounted in Tablet VII. Tablet XII is a direct translation from a Sumerian original, which has also survived in part. The relationship between the two has been discussed by Prof. Kramer in the
Journal of the American Oriental Society
, 64, 1944; and by several writers, especially L. Matouš in
Gilgameš et sa légende.

(vii) The Sultantepe Akkadian fragment. This was excavated by Mr Seton Lloyd and Bay Nuri Gökçe in 1951. Two one-column tablets were found, one a fragment with Enkidu's sickness, and the other with Gilgamesh's lament over Enkidu; and probably also a description of the funeral, and the statue of Enkidu raised by Gilgamesh. Although very short, both fragments fill gaps in the Nineveh recension from which they differ slightly, and Dr Gurney, who has published them in the
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
, 8, 1954, and
Anatolian Studies
, II, 1952, thinks they are schoolboys' work with characteristic mistakes.