back to he cedar forest

7242019 Back to He Cedar Forest

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullback-to-he-cedar-forest 122

69

BACK O HE CEDAR FORESHE BEGINNING AND END OF ABLE V

OF HE SANDARD BABYLONIANEPIC OF GILGAMEŠ

F N H Al-Rawi and A R George (SOAS University o London)

In memory o W G Lambert who led the way

Te fifh tablet o ša naqba īmuru the Standard Babylonian Epic o Gilgameš tells the story o Gilgameš andEnkidursquos encounter with H umbaba the guardian o the Cedar Forest how the two heroes entered his realm tookhim captive laid waste to his trees and returned home bearing his head as a trophy Te tablet is securely rep-resented by two manuscripts one Neo-Assyrian rom Nineveh and the other Late Babylonian rom Uruk In thecritical edition these are given the sigla MS H and MS dd respectively (George 2003 602ndash3) Tey are identified asmanuscripts o ablet V because both bear as catch-line the verse imsi malecircšu ubbiba tillēšu which is the incipit oa part o the poem identified by colophons as ablet VI and because the colophon o MS dd itsel identifies it asablet V im 5 ka mm a (George 2003 741)

Te two manuscripts differ in their point o onset Te incipit o MS H ismdashas we read itmdash izzizūma inappatūqišta1 that o MS dd H umbāba pacircšu īpušma iqabbi izakkara ana Gilgāmeš It was proposed accordingly that MS Hrom Nineveh and MS dd rom Uruk represented two different textual traditions one current in Assyria the otherin Uruk (von Weiher 1980 90) or in Babylonia generally (George 2003 403) A tablet identified in 2011 by FaroukAl-Rawi in Suleimaniyah in Iraq in the territory o the Kurdistan Regional Government reutes that propositionor it is Neo-Babylonian and commences with the same incipit as Assyrian MS H

Beore describing the new tablet it is necessary to consider the place o two other ragments rom Ninevehthe large piece MS AA and a small ragment that duplicates part o it MS DD In the sequence o ragments thatdescribe Gilgameš and Enkidursquos approach to the Cedar Forest and their entry within the place o MSS AA andDD in respect to MS H has not been settled beyond doubt despite the near unanimity o scholars throughout thelast century It was clear rom a physical inspection that MSS H and AA are very similar and can be attributed tothe same scribe (George 2003 402) In Georgersquos description o the manuscripts o the Standard Babylonian poemthey are both categorized as ype D manuscripts probably older than the seventh century (George 2003 384) MS

H contains a passage in which Gilgameš and Enkidu arrive at the Cedar Forest and admire its luxuriance one othe rare passages o Babylonian narrative poetry that is given over to the description o nature MS AA contains aconversation in which Gilgameš exhorts Enkidu to prepare or combat Most scholars have placed the text o MS

1 Or izzizūma ina-pattu qišti (most recently Streck 2007 413ndash14)

JCS 66 (2014)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at httpwwwjstororgactionshowPublicationjournalCode=jcunestudYou may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription See httpwwwasororgmembershipindividualhtml for more information



70 F N H AL983085RAWI AND A R GEORGE

AA beore that o MS H but a ew have placed it afer Part o the history o scholarship on this point has beensummarized in the critical edition (George 2003 402 n 65) but a uller account will be instructive

George Smith the pioneering Assyriologist who in the 1860s and 1870s identified many ragments o theGilgameš epic in the British Museumrsquos Kuyunjik collection gave the world a first glimpse o the poem in transla-tion in his Chaldean Account o Genesis (1876) MSS H and AA were among his discoveries and he translatedthem in that order H first and AA second as the opening o ablet V remarking that ldquoabout 10 linesrdquo were lost be-tween them in col i (Smith 1876 214) Tis remark can only have been made as a consequence o Smithrsquos physicalcomparison o the two pieces or there was no textual basis or it At that juncture MS AA lacked the right-handragment that has ten lines o another column o text so that or col ii o his ablet V Smith had only the veryragmentary lines o MS H col ii

By the time Paul Haupt published the first cuneiorm copies o MSS H and AA in the first volume o Das baby-

lonische Nimrodepos (1884) the ragment lacking in 1876 had been joined to MS AA as its col ii (H = Haupt 188424ndash26 no 11 AA = 27ndash28 no 12) In an annotation to MS AA Haupt accordingly identified this piece as holdingthe ends o the first two columns o ablet V He agreed with Smith that MS AA ollowed MS H afer a short gapldquoDem Anschein nach schloss sich dieses Stuumlck ziemlich genau an Nr 11 K 3252 [= MS H] an so dass zwischen

der letzten Zeile (17) von Nr 11 Col I au S 24 und der ersten Zeile (25) der hier olgenden Stuumlckes [= MS AA]etwa 9 Zeilen weggebrochen sindrdquo (Haupt 1884 27) Tus the two scholars who did most to reconstruct and pub-lish the text o Gilgameš in the nineteenth century agreed that MS H col i was succeeded by MS AA col i afer ashort break o nine or ten lines Further on the grounds o their physical appearance Haupt considered that theywere both parts o the same original six-column tablet

Haupt collated his published copies in 1890 On this occasion he noted that the last-preserved line o MS AAcol i was the same as the first line o MS H col i (Haupt 1890 110) Tis discovery led him to consider a contraryopinion that MS AA col i might instead preserve the end o ablet IV with the last line acting as the catch-line oablet V Tis arrangement o the text would mean that what he had identified in 1884 as MS AA col i was actuallycol vi and what he had understood to be col ii was really col v Again the text was too ragmentary to solve thematter but Haupt concluded that such a reordering o the passages was extremely dubious (ldquoaumlusserst zweielhafrdquo)His reluctance to adopt it seems to have stemmed rom his (very accurate) observation that the surviving writtensurace o MS AA is flat and thus part o the tabletrsquos obverse ace He adds opaquely ldquoOb die beiden Columnen von

K 8591 [= MS AA] der Vorderseite oder Ruumlckseite angehoumlren laumlsst sich nur angesichts des Originals entscheidenrdquo(1890 110) One senses that someone who had not seen the tablets as Smith and Haupt had had concluded romHauptrsquos copies that i MS AA ldquoi 45rdquo = MS H i 1 then i MS H was ablet V MS AA must necessarily be rom thereverse o ablet IV that this person had communicated this conclusion to Haupt with some orce and that Hauptelt obliged to air it in print even though he knew it to contradict what he had observed with his own eyes that K8591 was an obverse ragment

Te first scholar to publish a transliteration o the whole poem o Gilgameš as then extant was Peter Jensen inhis extraordinary anthology o Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen (1900 116ndash265) Jensen did not acceptSmith and Hauptrsquos consensus that MS H and MS AA were both parts o ablet V Adopting instead the very notionthat Haupt considered but repudiated in 1890 he placed the large piece o MS AA at the end o ablet IV (1900156ndash59) On the advice o C H W Johns Jensen rejected the join o the small right-hand ragment to MS AApublished by Haupt in 1884 (p 28) and on grounds o content lef it in ablet V (1900 153 159) Johnsrsquo advice toJensen was alse the join that he denied was confirmed by later copyists Te placing o MS AA in ablet IV instead

o ablet V however had taken root in Gilgameš scholarshipTe next serious translator o Gilgameš was Arthur Ungnad He ollowed Jensenrsquos ordering o MSS H and AA

but because the join that Johns and Jensen repudiated had already been proved correct (probably by Pinches) hewas naturally obliged also to place the text o MS AArsquos right-hand column in ablet IV (Ungnad 1911 25ndash27) In arare excursion into Assyriology entitled ldquoEinige Bemerkungen zur Einreihung der Gilgamešragmenterdquo the emi-nent Old estament scholar Sigmund Mowinckel ollowed suit (Mowinckel 1916 264ndash65) Campbell Tompsonrsquos




ABLE V OF HE SB EPIC OF GILGAMEŠ 71

edition o 1930 agreed with Jensen Ungnad and Mowinckel in placing MS AA in ablet IV (Tompson 193034ndash35) His cuneiorm copy added slightly to knowledge by amalgamating the right-hand column o MS AA with

the text o the previously unpublished duplicate MS DD (1930 pl 15 K 8591 ldquocol vrdquo K 13525)Schottrsquos German translation o 1934 (1934a) or the mass-market publisher Reclam was dedicated to Jensen and

justified in an extensive article entitled ldquoZu meiner Uumlbersetzung des Gilgameš-Eposrdquo (1934b) His opening wordson ablet IV were an emphatic restatement o Jensenrsquos position ldquoDazu gehoumlrt mit voller Sicherheit K 8591 [= MSAA] und sein Duplikat K 13525 [= MS DD] die Fangzeile von K 8591 = Zl 1 v K 3252+8561 [= MS H]rdquo (Schott1934b 113) Schottrsquos ldquocomplete certaintyrdquo is a noteworthy rejection o Hauptrsquos ldquoextreme doubtrdquo Influential trans-lations also ollowed Jensen and Schott among them were Contenaursquos in French (1939 97ndash98) and in EnglishHeidelrsquos first published in 1946 (Heidel 1963 44ndash45) and Speiserrsquos which graced Pritchardrsquos anthology o Ancient

Near Eastern exts Relating to the Old estament first published in 1950 (Speiser 1969 82) Schottrsquos translationwas itsel revised by von Soden who kept the Reclam translation abreast o new discoveries o text or hal a cen-tury (Schott and von Soden 1982) In his article ldquoBeitraumlge zum Verstaumlndnis des babylonischen Gilgameš-Eposrdquo acounterpart to Schott 1934b von Soden maintained Schottrsquos position regarding the placing o MSS AA and DD inablet IV (von Soden 1959 224)

A paper given in 1958 to the 7e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale by J V Kinnier Wilson and publishedin the proceedings (Kinnier Wilson 1960) revived the case or placing MS AA in ablet V afer MS H citingcontent and physical appearance Kinnier Wilsonrsquos comments on the physical appearance o MS AA were in agree-ment with those two others who had actually examined the ragment that is Smith and Haupt and more stronglystated ldquoK 8591 [= MS AA] is a certain Obverse Te preserved surace o the ragment does not exhibit any degreeo curvaturerdquo (1960 105) Te correctness o this observation can now be verified without travelling to Londonrom the photographs posted online at the Cuneiorm Digital Library Initiative (wwwcdliuclaeduP273227) ocircumvent the problem caused by the appearance o the incipit o ablet V at the bottom o MS AA that is wellinto ablet V Kinnier Wilson proposed that there were two recensions o ablet V one beginning with K 3252+(MS H) i 1 izzizūma inappatū qišta and another in which this same line ell ldquosome 40 to 50 linesrdquo later In this wayhe reconciled the ragmentsrsquo physical properties with Jensenrsquos ordering o the passages o text inscribed on themKinnier Wilsonrsquos arguments were subsequently rejected by Landsberger who in his study o ablets IV and VIIreasserted the position by this time orthodox that MS AA belonged in ablet IV (Landsberger 1968 104ndash5 n 27)

Strengthened by Landsbergerrsquos intervention the orthodoxy persisted throughout the remainder o the twen-tieth century inorming the many translations that were published in its last our decades A lone voice o doubtwas Johannes Renger (1987 321) who criticized Landsbergerrsquos rejection o Kinnier Wilsonrsquos argument but didnot find a definitive solution to the conundrum set by the appearance o the incipit o ablet V at the bottom othe lef-hand column o MS AA Te critical edition that took Gilgameš studies into the new millennium adoptedthe conventional ordering o the passages but with some reservation noting in regard to MS AA the ldquoflatness oits suracerdquo and remarking ldquoprovisionally then MS AA remains in ablet IV but more text is needed to clariythe succession o episodesrdquo (George 2003 402 with n 65) Tat desire is now amply met with the Neo-Babylonianmanuscript o ablet V identified by Farouk Al-Rawi

Tis long history o scholarship on the order and relationship o the ragments MSS H and AA provides a salu-tary lesson Te new manuscript presented here demonstrates that Smithrsquos and Hauptrsquos instincts were right or itproves incontestably that the text o MS AA continues that o MS H afer a short gap and that both are witnesses ocols i and ii o ablet V as it was known at Nineveh It thus confirms what the ragment MS AA told Smith Haupt

and Kinnier Wilson when they interpreted it as an archaeological object and identified it as part o an obverseUnderstanding cuneiorm tablets as archaeological objects is a practice that had ew exponents or much o the

twentieth century when Assyriologists too ofen gave all their attention to the inscribed text as a sel-containedintellectual resource disembodied rom the medium on which it was written Te customary technique o pen-and-ink drawing o the inscribed suracemdashand ofen only the inscribed suracemdashin two dimensions made it easyor scholars to ignore the physical properties o the object on which that inscribed surace appeared But even





those whose eyes told them that MS AA must be an obverse ragment ailed to alight on an explanation o how itcould contain the apparent incipit o ablet V in the last line o its lef-hand column

Tere is a simple explanation Te line at the bottom o the column on MS AA that apparently repeats the in-cipit o ablet V the line that rom Jensen onward most scholars took or a catch-line o ablet IV is not the sameline at all or it occurs fify-two lines later in the poem I it is identical to the line in question izzizūma inappatū

qišta it is a repetition o the line that had previously occurred as the incipit Repeated lines eature strongly in thecomposition o Babylonian narrative poetry (Hecker 1974 146ndash60) Te present instance o repetition would serveto reassert the atmosphere o wonder that was initiated by the incipit However the line on MS AA is damaged sothat the first word is entirely missing and the second not completely certain [hellip] inapattū() qišta It may yet bethat this line is similar to the incipit o ablet V but not a verbatim repetition

Now that Smith and Haupt are vindicated in their respective placing o MSS H and AA it is sel-evident thatthe two ragments should be treated as Haupt proposed as upper and lower ragments rom the lef part o thesame six-column tablet Te cuneiorm copies made or the critical edition and published there on separate pages(George 2003 pls 70 and 72) are thereore republished here together in their proper relation and with a new linenumbering (fig 1) Since they are parts o the same manuscript the two ragments should henceorth bear the

sigla H1 (K 3252+ ormerly H) and H2 (K 8591 ormerly AA)

The New Tablet

Te tablet presented here is the lef hal o a six-column tablet inscribed in a fine and delicate Neo-Babylonianhand with a copy o ablet V o the Standard Babylonian Epic o Gilgameš It was acquired by Suleimaniyah Mu-seum in the jurisdiction o the Kurdish Regional Government in 2011 with other Babylonian antiquities o thekind ound in southern Iraq its exact provenance is thereore unknown Te script and circumstances o acquisi-tion make it highly probable that it was unearthed at a Babylonian site Te tablet measures 110 (h) times 95 (w) times 30(thickness) cm and now bears the Suleimaniyah Museum number 1447

Te tablet was identified in November 2011 by Farouk Al-Rawi who quickly communicated to George hisphotographs preliminary decipherment and hand copy Te present article is the ruit o a collaboration that cul-

minated in a joint study o the tablet in Suleimaniyah in November 2012 Over five days we read the tablet togetheradjusted the copy and transliteration and took new photographs Te revised drawings and new photographs arepresented here as figs 2ndash5

For the opportunity to study and publish this important new addition to Gilgameš the authors wish to thankHer Excellency Hero Ibrahim Ahmad the First Lady o Iraq Her generous patronage o the Directorate o Antiq-uities in Suleimaniyah underpins its activities and supports Farouk Al-Rawirsquos travel to Suleimaniyah and his workthere Our collaboration owes much in addition to the kind help ready hospitality and warm riendship reelygiven by Kamal Rashid Rahim Director o Antiquities in Suleimaniyah by Hashim Hama Abdullah Director othe Suleimaniyah Museum and by the staff o the museum especially its cuneiorm section2

As already revealed what remains o the obverse (cols indashii) o 1447 duplicates the Neo-Assyrian ragmentsMSS H (now H

1) AA (now H

2) and DD o the critical edition allowing them to be placed in order and plugging

the gaps between them It also shows that the recension o ablet V that begins with izzizūma inappatū qišta wascurrent in Babylonia as well as in Assyria Te reverse (cols vndashvi) duplicates parts o the reverse (cols ivndashvi) o

MS dd the Late Babylonian tablet excavated at Uruk that begins with the incipit H umbāba pacircšu īpušma iqabbi

2 In addition Georgersquos travel to Iraqi Kurdistan was partly offset by a research fund made available to him by the School of Oriental

and African Studies University of London In working on the text of T1447 he beneted much from reading it with London colleagues and

visitors in the London Cuneiforum and again in Heidelberg with Prof Dr Stefan M Maul Errors remain the responsibility of the authors





Fig 1 SB Gilgameš ablet V from Nineveh MS H1 (+) H

2 (formerly H and AA) adapted from

George 2003 pls 70 and 72





izakkara ana Gilgāmeš Te revised reconstruction o ablet V yields a text that is nearly twenty lines longer thanormerly supposed3

Te most interesting addition to knowledge provided by the new source is the continuation o the descriptiono the Cedar Forest one o the very ew episodes in Babylonian narrative poetry when attention is paid to land-scape Te cedars drip their aromatic sap in cascades (ll 12ndash16) a trope that gains power rom cedar incensersquosposition in Babylonia as a rare luxury imported rom aar Te abundance o exotic and costly materials in abulouslands is a common literary moti Perhaps more surprising is the revelation that the Cedar Forest was in the Baby-lonian literary imagination a dense jungle inhabited by exotic and noisy auna (17ndash26) Te chatter o monkeyschorus o cicada and squawking o many kinds o birds ormed a symphony (or cacophony) that daily entertainedthe orestrsquos guardian H umbaba Te passage gives a context or the simile ldquolike musiciansrdquo that occurs in very bro-ken context in the Hittite versionrsquos description o Gilgameš and Enkidursquos arrival at the Cedar Forest4 H umbabarsquos jungle orchestra evokes those images ound in ancient Near Eastern art o animals playing musical instruments5 H umbaba emerges not as a barbarian ogre and but as a oreign ruler entertained with music at court in the mannero Babylonian kings but music o a more exotic kind played by a band o equally exotic musicians

Another passage (61ndash72) though consisting only o hal lines seems to confirm the point already known rom

MS dd i 5 (ormerly V 89 now V 119) that Enkidu had spent time with H umbaba in his youth H umbaba havingbecome aware o the presence o intruders in his domain appears to guess that it must be Enkidu returned homeperhaps even to be excited by the thought o the coming reunion I it is right to read into these ragmentary linesa tender reerence to their earlier lie together then H umbabarsquos subsequent betrayal by Enkidu who has broughtwith him a hostile alien the king Gilgameš becomes all the more poignant

Te afermath o the heroesrsquo slaying o H umbaba is now better preserved (300ndash308) Te previously availabletext made it clear that Gilgameš and Enkidu knew even beore they killed H umbaba that what they were doingwould anger the cosmic orces that governed the world chiefly the god Enlil Teir reaction afer the event isnow tinged with a hint o guilty conscience when Enkidu remarks rueully that [ ana] tušār ništakan qišta ldquowehave reduced the orest [to] a wastelandrdquo (303) Te anxiety about offending the gods seems to a modern readercompounded by ecological regret Enkidu goes on to imagine the angry questions that Enlil will ask them whenthey arrive home minucirc uzzakunūma tarah h is ā qišta ldquowhat was this wrath o yours that you went trampling theorestrdquo (306) In the theme o the angry gods the poems about H umbaba in both Sumerian and Akkadian already

displayed an ethical ambivalence toward the expedition to his Cedar Forest arising rom what one commentatorhas called the ldquodouble naturerdquo o the orestrsquos guardian as ogre and servant o Enlil (Forsyth 1981 21) Tis newlyrecovered speech o Enkidu adds to the impression that to the poetsrsquo minds the destruction o H umbaba and histrees was morally wrong

It is unsurprising then that the pair immediately kill the only witnesses to their crime the ldquoseven sons oH umbabardquo (307) Te ldquoseven sonsrdquo are a productive moti in ancient Mesopotamia most ofen occurring in themythology o Enmešarra (see now Lambert 2013 213ndash14) Enmešarra was a divine ancestor whose insurrectionwas suppressed by a junior god (Ninurta later Marduk) who killed both him and his seven sons Te myth inormslearned expository texts (Livingstone 1986 152ndash53) and is elaborated in two newly edited Babylonian narrativepoems (Lambert 2013 281ndash98 ldquoEnmešarrarsquos Deeatrdquo 326ndash29 ldquoTe Deeat o Enutila Enmešarra and Qingurdquo) InGilgameš the moti personalizes the orces known elsewhere in the poem as H umbabarsquos seven melemmū ldquoaurasrdquo pulh ātu ldquoterrorsrdquo or namrirrū ldquoradiant beamsrdquo which in one Old Babylonian ragment are lef running around inthe orest afer their ownerrsquos capture (OB Ishchali 16primendash17prime ed George 2003 262) Only here in SB V 307 are these

3 The synoptic transliterations (ldquoscoresrdquo) of SB Gilgameš IV and V posted online at wwwsoasacukgilgamesh have been revised to take

account of the advances in knowledge afforded by MS ff and show for Tablet V a reconstructed text of 324 ll (previously 302)

4 As translated by Beckman 2001 160 A transliterated text and translation are online at the Hethitologie Portal (httpwwwhethiternet

CTH 341III1) in the edition by E Rieken (2009 sect18PrimePrime 132) I owe knowledge of this resource to Mark Weeden

5 With particular reference to monkey musicians see Dunham 1985 Spycket 1998





supernatural orces part demon part tree called H umbabarsquos ldquosonsrdquo When they are slain later in the same OldBabylonian ragment the line differs materially rom SB V 307 only and precisely in the lack o the word mārēšu

ldquohis sonsrdquo (OB Ishchali 35primeb ištūma sebet inērū ldquoas soon as he had slain (all) sevenrdquoTe use o the moti o the Seven Sons in the episode o Gilgamešrsquos combat with H umbaba lends a mythological

gloss to the story encouraging it to be read in the knowledge o the myth o Enmešarra Te comparison revealsa subtext in establishing a new world-order avorable to human society the hero must necessarily do away withthe old order personified by a hoary victim and his seven sons Tis view in which H umbaba is considered notan innocent victim but a repository o evil who must be destroyed or the common good inorms other passageso the poem (eg SB III 54 mimma lemnu ša tazerru uh allaq ina māti ldquohe will annihilate rom the land the EvilTing that you haterdquo) It expresses exactly the opposite o the idea raised in the preceding speech o Enkidu thatthe two heroes do wrong in killing H umbaba

Te interpolation o the word ldquohis sonsrdquo in SB V 307 vis-agrave-vis OB Ishchali 35primeb is perhaps a deliberate ploy tomake explicit the allusion to the mythology o Enmešarra In just a ew lines H umbaba makes the transition rominnocent victim to wicked terror-maker Tere is a psychological insight at work or the transition matches thedevelopment o a guilty partyrsquos thoughts understanding that he has murdered the murderer justifies what he has

done by finding his victim deserving o death Te passage o Enkidursquos speech and the immediately ollowing linethus mark the poet out as a shrewd observer o the human mind and add to the poemrsquos reputation or insight intothe human condition

In continuation o the scheme o sigla employed in the critical edition (George 2003 531ndash34) the new manu-script is hereinafer reerred to by the siglum MS ff Te ollowing transliteration conorms to the text o MS ffwith restorations rom the other extant manuscripts o ablet V A synoptic transliteration (ldquoscorerdquo) o the all themanuscripts line by line is posted online at wwwsoasacukgilgamesh





ransliteration o Suleimaniyah Museum 1447 = SB Gilg V MS ff

1 [iz-zi-zu-ma i-nap-pa-at-tu gi

]š

qišta(tir)2 [šaacute gišerēni(eren) it-ta-nap-la-su mi-l ]a-a-šu

3 [šaacute gišqišti(tir) it-ta-nap-la-suacute neacute-re]b-šu

4 [a-šar dh um-ba-ba] lceilit-tal-larceil-[ku] lceilšaacute-kinrceil kib-su

5 [h ar-ra-na-a-tu š ]u-te-šu-ra-ma t [u-u]b-bat girru(kaskal)6 [im-ma-ru šaducirc(kur)]uacute gišerēni(eren) 7 mu-šab lceililī (dingir)mešrceil pa-rak dir-ni-ni

8 [ina pa-an ma]-ti-im-ma gišerēnu(eren) na-ši h i-s ib-šu

9 [t a-a-bu] s il-la-šu ma-li ri-šaacute-a-lceiltirceil

10 [šu-te-l ]u-up lceil girceil-is -s u h i-it-lu-pat gišqištu(tir)11 [x x- pu gi]šerēnu(eren) giššimballukkum(MUG)-ma neacute-re-bi ul i-ši

12 [x x] pa-pal-la ana bērā(danna)agravem lceilgišrceilerēnu(eren)13 [x ]x-uacute giššurmēnu(šurmigraven) ana ši-ni-pat bēr (d[an]na)

14 [a-dina š ]u-uš-ši me-le-e lceilkirceil-is -ra la-i-lceilibrceil gi[šerē]nu([ere]n)15 [i-h u]l-ma h i-lu kīma(gim) zunni(šegraveg) i-za-an-lceilnunrceil

16 [il-la]k-ma ub-ba-lu h ar-[r ]u17 [i-na ku]l-lat gišqišti(tir) is -s u-lceilrurceil i-s a-an-bur

18 [x x] lceilirceil-tap-pa-la i-[h ab-b]u-bu rig -lceilmurceil

19 [e-du-uacute] zi-za-nu lceilši-si-tuacuterceil uacute-na-rsquo-lceilirceil

20 [x x ]x-uacute il-tam-ma-ru lceilx (x)-burceil uacute-šah -la[l ]21 [i-dam-m]u-um ur-šaacute-nu sukanninu(tukur

4)mušen i-tap-pal

22 [x x x] raq-raq-qu i-raš gišqištu(tir)23 [x x x] tarlugallu(darlugal)mušen i-lceilraš rceil qištu(tir) nuh ša(heacutenun)24 [ pa-ga-t ]i lceiliš rceil-tam-ma-ra mi-ra-nu pa-gi-i lceilirceil-lab-bu

25 [kīma(gim) ki-s i]r na-a-ri u ti-gi-i 26 u4

-mi-lceilšamrceil-ma ur-ta-s a-nu ina pa-lceilnirceil dh um-ba-ba

27 [id-di-m]a s il-la-šu gišerēnu(eren)28 [ pu-lu]h -ti im-ta-qut eli(ugu) dGIŠ-giacutem-maš

29 [man-gu is ]-bat i-di-šuacute 30 ugrave lu-rsquo-ti im-ta-qut eli(ugu) bir-ki-šuacute

mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash31 [den-ki-dugrave p]a-a-šuacute īpuš (dugrave)-ma iqabbi(dug

4ga) izakkara(mu)ra ana dGIŠ- giacutem-maš

32 [i nit-tar ]-da a-na qeacute-reb gišqišti(tir)33 [qat-ka pi]-te-ma i niš-kun tuk-ka

mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash34 [dGIŠ-giacutem-maš p]a-a-šuacute īpuš (dugrave)-ma iqabbi( dug

4ga) izakkara(mu)ra ana den-lceilkirceil-dugrave

35 [am-me-ni ib-ri] pi-is-nu-lceilqiš rceil NU-šub-ba-[a]m-ma

36 [x x x ni]-lceilterceil-ti-qa ka-li-šuacute-nu h ur-sa-a-ni

37 [x x (x) x x-t ]a-ti i-na pa-ni-ni

38 [x x x x x x]-ri-is 6 nim-mar nu-uacute-ra

6 Seemingly incompatible with H2 lceillarceil-ma ni-lceilit-tah rceil-su [ ]





ranslation using all extant manuscripts

1 Tey stood there marvelling at()7

the orest12

2 observing the height o the cedars3 observing the way into the orest4 Where H umbaba came and went there was a track5 the paths were in good order and the way was well trodden6 Tey were gazing at the Cedar Mountain7 dwelling o gods throne-dais o goddesses8 [on the] ace o the land the cedar was proffering its abundance9 sweet was its shade ull o delight10 [All] tangled was the thorny undergrowth the orest a thick canopy11 cedars (and) ballukku-trees were [so entangled] it had no ways in12 For one league on all sides cedars [sent orth] saplings13 cypresses [hellip] or two-thirds o a league

14 Te cedar was scabbed with lumps (o resin) [or] sixty (cubitsrsquo) height15 resin [oozed] orth drizzling down like rain16 [flowing reely()] or ravines to bear away17 [Trough] all the orest a bird began to sing18 [hellip] were answering one another a constant din was the noise19 [A solitary()] tree-cricket set off a noisy chorus20 [hellip] were singing a song making the hellip pipe loud21 A wood pigeon was moaning a turtle dove calling in answer22 [At the call o] the stork the orest exults23 [at the cry o] the rancolin the orest exults in plenty24 [Monkey mothers] sing aloud a youngster monkey shrieks25 [like a band()] o musicians and drummers()26 daily they bash out a rhythm in the presence o H umbaba

27 As the cedar [cast] its shadow28 [terror] ell on Gilgameš29 [Stiffness took] a grip o his arms30 and eebleness beset his legs31 [Enkidu] opened his mouth to speak

saying to Gilgameš32 ldquo[Let us go] into the midst o the orest33 [set] to it and let us raise (our battle) cryrdquo34 [Gilgameš] opened his mouth to speak saying to Enkidu35 ldquo[Why] my riend are we trembling like weaklings36 [we] who came across all the mountains37 [Shall hellip] hellip beore us

38 [hellip] shall we see the lightrdquo813

7 Or ldquoat the edge ofrdquo

8 So ff H2 has a line beginning ldquoBefore we have withdrawn helliprdquo





39 [ib-ri mu-du]-uacute tu-qu-un-tu

40 [šaacute tāh āza(megrave) et ]-mu-ru ul id-dar mu-tu

41 [da-me tal-tap-pit-ma] ul ta-dar lceilmurceil-tu42 [ki-mil-ma ki-i a-pi-l ]im-ma š [u-un-ni t egrave-e]n-ka

43 [ki-ma li-li-su lu-uacute šaacute-pu ri-gim-ka ]44 [li-s i man-gu šaacute i-di-ka u lu-rsquo-tuacute lit-ba-a ina bi]r-ki-ka

45 [ti-is -bat ib-ri iš-te-niš nit -x x ]46 [lid-bu-ub ligraveb-ba-ka tu-qu-un-t ]uLacuna61 dh um-ba-ba u[š-tam-ma ana ligraveb-bi-šu a-ma-ta i-qab-bi]62 lceilul il-likrceil muš -[ ]63 ul il-lik u[š- ] mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash64 me-na-a ud-du-ru [ ]65 me-na-a at-tu-uacute-[a ]

66 ina ut -tu-tum ana gu-u[l - ]67 mi-na-a-ma ib-x[ ]97

68 ina gišerši(nuacute)-ia-ma [ ]69 lceilmigravenrceil-de-e-ma den-[ki-dugrave ]70 ina du-un-qu i[t - ]71 šum-ma a-mat a-na [ ]72 den-liacutel li-iz-z [ur-šu ] mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash73 den-ki-dugrave pa-a-šuacute īpuš (dugrave)-[ma iqabbi izakkara ana dGIŠ-giacutem-maš ]74 ib-ri dh um-ba-[ba ]75 ib-ri iš-teacuten iš-[teacuten-ma ši-na ši-na-ma]76 lu-uacute ma-ku-ma 2-t [a ]108

77 lu-uacute muš-h al-s i-[tugravem-ma ul 2 mu- ]

78 om79 aacuteš-lu šu-uš-lu-[šuacute ]80 1 kalba(urgi

7) dan-nu [2 mi-ra-nu-šuacute ]

81 iš-di-ki kin-m[a ]82 ib-ri šil-t [a-h u us -s u ]83 h ar-ra-an ta-rak-[ka-bu ]84 lceilkirceil-i lceilnirceil-tah -s[u ]85 lceilma-lirceil na-ši [ ]86 x-me-šaacute šit-ta [ ]87 ib-ri eli(ugu) šāri(im) šaacute dša[maš (u[tu]) ]88 aacuter-kaacutet-su me-h u-um-ma [ pa-na-as-su šaacute-a-ru]89 qiacute-bi-ma a-na dšamaš (utu) lid-[di-ik-ku ]90 iš-ši re-ši-šu dGIŠ-giacutem-[maš ana pa-an dšamaš (utu) i-bak-ki]

91 ana pa-an šaacute-ru-ri šaacute dšamaš (utu) i[l-la-ka di-ma-a-šuacute]

9 H1 begins differently x-du [hellip]

10 Differently H1 [2] lceillurceil-ba-ra-tu-ma [hellip]





Enkidu replies

39 ldquoMy [riend] is one who is experienced in combat

40 one who has been in battle has no ear o death41 You have been smeared in [blood] so you need not ear death42 [wax] wrathul and like a very dervish go into a renzy43 Let [your shout] boom loud [like] a kettledrum44 Let stiffness leave your arms and eebleness arise [rom] your legsrdquoGilgameš

45 ldquoake hold o me my riend as one we shall [hellip]46 [Let] your mind dwell on combatrdquoLacuna

61 H umbaba [talked with himsel speaking a word]62 ldquoDid not a hellip go [ ]63 Did not [ go ]64 Why are [hellip] perturbed [and hellip ]

65 Why are my own [ ]66 In terror() or hellip [ ]67 How indeed hellip [ ]68 In my very bed [ ]69 For sure Enkidu() [ ]70 In goodwill he [ ]71 I a word to [ ]72 May Enlil curse [him ]rdquo73 Enkidu opened his mouth [to speak] [saying to Gilgameš]74 ldquoMy riend H umbaba [ ]75 one riend is one alone but [two are two]76 Tough they be weak two [ ]1114

77 [though one alone cannot climb] a glacis slope two [hellip]78 wo triplets [ ]79 a three-ply rope [is not easily broken]80 As or a strong dog [its] two pups [will overcome it()]81 Fix firm your stance [ ]82 My riend an arrowrsquos dart [ ]83 Te journey that you are [making ]84 When we have departed [ ]85 hellip is borne [ ]86 Its two [ ]87 My riend on the winds() that Šamaš [hellip]88 His rear is a tempest [his ront is wind]89 Speak to Šamaš that he may [give you his thirteen winds()]rdquo

90 Gilgameš lifed up his head [weeping beore Šamaš]91 [his tears] flowing beore the rays o the sun

11 So ff H1 ldquo[Two] garments indeed [ ]rdquo





92 an-nu-uacute u4-mu dšamaš (utu) šaacute at-ka-lak-[ku e tam-ši]129

93 e-nin-na-ma i-ziz-za-am-m[a ]

94 eli(ugu)d

GIŠ-giacutem-maš perrsquou(nunuz) šaacute [ligraveb-bi urukki

s il-la-ka šu-kun]95 dšamaš (utu) iš-ma-a zi-kir [ pi-i-šuacute]96 ul-tu ul-la-nu-um-ma t [uk-ku ul-tu šamecirc(an)e il-ta-na-sa-aacuteš-šuacute]97 e tap-lagraveh i-ziz-za-aacuteš-šuacute la [ir-ru-ub ana šub-ti-šuacute]98 la ur-rad a-na h al-bi-im-ma [la ]99 la-am ih -h al-pu 7 tuacutegnah lapāti(guacute[egrave])[meš-šu šaacute nam-ri-ri]100 lceil1-et rceil h a-lip 6 šaacute-h i-it 101 š [u-nu ]102 lceilki-marceil ri-me kad-ri i[t-ku-pu ]103 [i]t-til-ti is-si-m[a ma-li pi-rit-ta]Lacuna247 x[ ]248 x x[ ]

mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash249 den-k[i-dugrave pa-a-šuacute īpuš-ma iqabbi izakkara ana dGIŠ-giacutem-maš ]250 ib-r [i is s ūra bār-ma]251 lceilerceil-šaacute-am [illakū atmūšu]252 dh um-ba-[ba ]253 e-ka-am lceilil rceil-[la-ku ]254 e-ka-am il -l [a-ku ]255 iš-me-ma dh um-b[a-ba šaacute den-ki-dugrave qa-ba-a-šuacute]256 iš-ši re-ši-šuacute dh um-[ba-ba ana pa-an dšamaš i-bak-ki]257 ana pān(igi) šaacute-lceilru-rirceil šaacute dšamaš (utu) [il-la-ka di-ma-a-šuacute]258 lceillurceil te-ru-ub den-k[i-dugrave ]259 lceilirceil-na ši-it-mur giškakki(tukul) m[a-li-ku x x x]260 lceilu a-na aacuteš rceil-šaacute-bu šaacute bīti(eacute)-š [uacute gi-ra-a-tum x (x) x ]

261 [aacuteš-ba-ta ki-ma rērsquoicirc (sipa) ma-h ar-šuacute]262 u ki-i a-gi-ir pi-šuacute t [a-x x x]263 e-nin-na-ma den-ki-dugrave itti(ki)[-ka šaacute-kin ru-um-mu-rsquo-a u x x x]264 qiacute-bi-ma a-na dGIŠ-giacutem-[maš napištī (zi)tim li-t i-ir ] mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash265 den-ki-lceildugrave pa-a-šuacuterceil īpuš (dugrave)-ma iqabbi(du[g

4ga]) [izakkara(mu)ra ana dGIŠ- giacutem-maš ]

266 ib-ri dh um-ba-ba ma-[as -s ar gišqišti(t[ir]) erēni]267 guacutem-mir-šuacute ner-šu-ma t [egrave-en-šuacute h ul-liq]268 dh um-ba-lceilba ma-s ar rceil gišqišti(tir) g [uacutem-mir-šuacute ner-šuacute t egrave-en-šuacute h ul-liq]269 la-am iš-mu-uacute a-šaacute-[re-du den-liacutel ]270 u lib-ba-ti-ni im-[lu-uacute ilū(dingir)meš rabucircti(gal)meš]271 om272 om

273 iš-lceilme-(e)-ma dh umrceil-ba-b[a u i- ]274 iš-š [i-ma re-ši-šuacute] lceildh umrceil-[ba-ba ana pān(igi) dšamaš (utu) i-bak-ki]275 lceilanarceil pān(igi) lceilšaacuterceil-[ru-ri šaacute dšamaš (utu) il-la-ka di-ma-a-šuacute]

12 DD has a different line [u4-ma šaacute ligraveb-b]i urukki taq-bu-[ni e tam-ši]





92 ldquo[Do not orget] that day O Šamaš that I placed my trust in you1315

93 Now come to my aid and [ ]

94 Upon Gilgameš scion rom Urukrsquos midst [place your protection]rdquo95 Šamaš heard what [he] had spoken96 straight away a voice [cried to him rom the heavens]97 ldquoFear not stand against him He must not [enter his dwelling]98 he must not go into the grove he must not [ ]99 beore he has wrapped himsel 14 in his seven cloaks [o radiance]16

100 One he is wrapped in six he has divestedrdquo101 Tey [ ]102 like a fierce wild bull ready to charge [ ]103 He bellowed once and it was (a bellow) ull o terrorLong lacuna

249 Enkidu [opened his mouth to speak saying to Gilgameš]250 ldquoMy riend [catch a bird]

251 and where [can its hatchlings go]252 H umbaba [ ]253 whither will [they go ]254 Whither will [they go ]rdquo255 [H umbaba] heard [what Enkidu said]256 H umbaba lifed up his head [weeping beore Šamaš]257 [his tears flowing] beore the rays o the sun258 ldquoYou did enter O Enkidu [ ]259 in the clashing o weapons a prince [ ]260 But or his palace retainer hostilities [are ]261 you sit beore [him] like (a sheep beore) a shepherd262 and like one at his beck and call you [ ]263 Now Enkidu [my release] rests with you and [ ]264 speak to Gilgameš so he [spares] my lierdquo265 Enkidu opened his mouth to speak saying [to Gilgameš]266 ldquoMy riend H umbaba guardian o the Forest [o Cedar]267 finish him slay him do [away with his power]268 H umbaba the orest guardian finish [him slay him do away with his power1517

269 beore [Enlil] the oremost learns (about it)270 and the great gods become angry with us271 Enlil in Nippur Šamaš in [Larsa ] Establish an eternal [ ]272 how Gilgameš slew [the earsome()] H umbabardquo273 H umbaba heard [ ] and [ ]274 H umbaba lifed [up his head weeping beore Šamaš]275 [his tears flowing] beore the [rays o the sun]

13 So ff DD ldquo[Do not forget the day that] you spoke [to me] in Urukrdquo

14 So ff H ldquo[He must not] wrap himselfrdquo

15 So ff dd omits line





276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna

299 [x x x x]-su uacute-[ 300 [x x x d]GIŠ-giacutem-maš x [x x x] tir301 [x x x] riqqī (šim)h ia gišerēni(eren) šaacute-a-šu ub-ba-lu [ana x x ]x dellil (kur) mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash302 [den-ki-dugrave p]a-a-šuacute īpuš (dugrave)-ma iqabbi(dug


303 [ib-ri ana] tu-šaacute-ar niš-ta-kan gišqišta(tir)304 [me-na]-lceilarceil ina nippuri(nibru)ki ni-ip-pal dellil (kur)305 [ina du]n-ni-ku-nu-ma ma-s a-ra ta-na-ra

306 [m]i-nu-uacute uz-za-ku-nu-ma ta-ra-h i-s a gišqišta(tir)307 [u]l-tu se-bet-ti-šuacute-nu mārē(dumu)meš-šuacute i-na-a-ru

308 [z ]i-za-ni na-i-ru si-mur-ra šaacute-lceilsarceil-a en-qa kap-pah u4-gal-lceillarceil

309 [ p]a-šum 2 biltā(gun)taagravem h a-s i-na-tu-šuacute-nu1610 310 [n]ik-kagraves u 15 uacute-ban ti-rik su-un-gigraven-ni-ši-na

311 dGIŠ-giacutem-maš i-s a i-nak-kis312 lceilurceil den-ki-dugrave iš-te-neacute-rsquo-a h ur-ba-zal-lu

313 den-ki-dugrave pa-a-šuacute īpuš (dugrave)-ma iqabbi(dug4ga) izakkara(mu)ra ana dGIŠ- giacutem-maš

314 ib-ri nit-ta-lceilkisrceil gišerēna(eren) ši-h i

315 šaacute lceilmuh -h a-šuacute šamecirc(an)e nak-purceil

316 [e]-pu-uš-ma giš[dalta(ig) šaacute] 6 nindan me-lu-šaacute lceil2rceil [nindan ru-pu-us-su]317 [1 ammat (kugraveš)] uacute-pu-šuacute [šu-ku-šaacute sa-h ]ir-šuacute u šaacute-[ gam-ma-šuacute šaacute iš-te-en-ma]318 [x x] x d[ellil (50) i-na nippuri(nibru)ki li-bil iacuted pu-rat-tum]319 [x x] x[ ]1711

320 traces321 [ir-tak-su a-m]a lceilit rceil-ta-[du]-lceiluacuterceil [x x x x]322 [ ]x uš-šaacute-lceilabrceil 323 de[n-k]i-dugrave ra-k[ib x x x x]

324 [u dGIŠ- giacutem-maš qaqqad (sagdu)] lceildrceilh [um-ba-b]a ra-kib-m[a x x x x] mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashVI 1 [i]m-s[i ma-le-e-šuacute ub]-bi-lceilibrceil til-l [e-e-šuacute]

colophon vi 26prime [x (x)]x bad [ ] d[GIŠ- giacutem-maš ] vi 27prime [x x x] ma [ ]

unplaced line inserted in the margin between cols v and vi[ ]-ta-ki kad -ra i-ma-h ar-lceilširceil

16 So ff dd has a line ending -d ]u-lceiluacute ib-ta-at rceil-qu-ni

17 The traces cannot be matched with dd ana nippuri(nibru)lceilkirceil li-bil-lu iacuted pu-rat-t [um eli-šu] nippurulceilkirceil l [i-ih -du] H1 also fragmen-

tary ]x aacutet-man [





276 ldquo[O Šamaš rdquoLacuna

300 [hellip] Gilgameš [hellip] orest()301 [hellip] aromatics rom that cedar they were taking [or the hellip o] Enlil302 [Enkidu] opened his mouth to speak

saying to Gilgameš303 ldquo[My riend] we have reduced the orest [to] a wasteland304 [how] shall we answer Enlil in Nippur305 lsquo[In] your might you slew the guardian306 what was this wrath o yours that you went trampling the orestrsquo rdquo307 Afer they had slain his seven sons308 Cricket Screecher yphoon Screamer Crafy hellip Storm-Demonmdash309a Hatchets o two talents each were their axes309b [ ] hellip they cut off310 three and a hal cubits (long) were the woodchips made by the strokes (o their axes)

311 Gilgameš was cutting down the tree312 Enkidu was seeking out the best timber 313 Enkidu opened his mouth to speak saying to Gilgameš314 ldquoMy riend we have cut down a lofy cedar315 whose top abutted the heavens316 Make a doormdashsix rods its height two rods its breadth one cubit its thickness317 its pole its top pivot and its bottom pivot shall be all o a piece318 Let the river Euphrates carry (it) to [Enlil in] Nippur319 [let Nippurrsquos] sanctuary [rejoice over it]rdquo18

320 branches [hellip] cypress together with [hellip ]321 they lashed together a raf they laid [hellip]322 [ ] was sitting()19

323 Enkidu was riding [ ]324 and Gilgameš rode along [bearing()] the head o H umbaba

VI 1 He washed his matted hair he cleaned [his equipment]

Notes on the Text

14 Te noun larsquobu is recognized as sometimes denoting a medical condition marked by disfigurement o theskin (Stol 2007 11) its symptoms were unattractive enough to make a husband break off marital relations (CHsect148) Te cognate verb is customarily supposed to signiy a subjectrsquos ldquoinectionrdquo with larsquobu (or lirsquobu) Te presentpassage suggests instead that it reers to something visible that might even be seen on a tree trunk We would thustake the verb to denote the external symptoms o larsquobu and lirsquobu disease disfigurement o the skin applied figura-

tively in this line to describe the scabby blisters that orm where resin seeps through a cedarrsquos bark In this analysisthe verb belongs to the empirical world o symptoms not the deductive arena o diagnosis

18 So H1 dd ldquoLet the Euphrates carry it to Nippur let Nippur [rejoice over it]rdquo

19 So ff H uncertain dd omits line





19 Te insect zizānu occurs as a eature o the Cedar Forest elsewhere in Gilgameš later in this tablet whereit is the name o one o H umbabarsquos seven sons (V 308) and in broken context in an unprovenanced Old Babylo-

nian tablet (OB IM obv 13 zi-za-na-am ed George 2003 268) It is conventionally understood as a kind o locustor cricket no doubt because classed in Sumerian in the category o buru

5 ldquolocustrdquo (Landsberger 1934 123ndash24)

One variety o zizānu is known to have inhabited trees as reported in the lexical text Urra XIV 235ndash236 buru5

gaacuten-na = zi-za-nu ldquo ganna locustrdquo bur u5gaacuten -(nu) -tir- ra = MIN qiš-tum ldquozizānu o the woodsrdquo Te verb o

present line is to our eyes more probably uacute-na-rsquo-i (lt nurdquoucirc ldquoto wailrdquo = [iacuter] gaacute-gaacute ldquoto lamentrdquo in Kagal A i 8) thanuacute-na-rsquoi-r [a] (despite l 308) Either way the word tells us that these insects made a loud noise in the Cedar Forestand raises the question o whether they were in act cicadas (ofen known in the vernacular as ldquotree cricketsrdquo)Several varieties o cicada occur in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East Te principal characteristics oadult cicadas are that they sit in trees and create a tremendous chorus o noise

29ndash30 Tis pair o narrative lines is a couplet also ound in the Poem o the Righteous Sufferer (Ludlul II 77ndash78)and already noted as related to SB V 44 (ormerly IV 242 George 2003 820) where the mood is precative

35ndash50 Tese sixteen lines o direct speech ollow a standard line which announces that Gilgameš is speaking toEnkidu (V 34) However now it is clear that it is Gilgameš not Enkidu whose strength has ailed him (V 28ndash30)

l 44 cannot sensibly be uttered by him and a change o speaker must have taken place somewhere between ll 36and 44 We suppose that the change is marked by the word ibrī at the beginning o l 39 and that another suchchange is signalled when ibrī recurs in l 45 Repetition o ibrī also occurs in ll 82 and 87 but because the text isragmentary it is not certain that there it has the same unction Changes o speaker that are not indicated by anarrative line occur elsewhere in SB Gilgameš at I 224 and VII 253 note also the unmarked quotation o Enlilrsquoswords by Enkidu newly revealed in V 305ndash6

61 Te line is restored with a standard combination o clauses that is used on two other occasions in SBGilgameš when someone watching the approach o an unidentified person reflects on the identity o the watchedthe ale-wie Šiduri observing Gilgameš arriving at her tavern (IX 11) and Ūta-napištī watching Gilgameš and Ur-šanabi sail towards his shore (X 185)

75 Te line is restored afer one o the ragments rom Ugarit (MB Ug2 b 1prime see George 2007 249)

81 iš-di-ki is or išdīka88 Te line is restored as a proverbial saying that occurs as an apodosis in several lists o physiognomic omens

and is also quoted in an Assyrian scholarrsquos letter (instances collected by Heeszligel 2010 152 we owe both restorationand reerence to Enrique Jimeacutenez)

99 Te restoration o ša namrirrī is suggested by an Ugarit ragment (MB Ug2 c 10prime 21prime see George 2007 251)

250ndash51 Tese two lines are restored afer the Old Babylonian tablet rom Ishchali (15prime ed George 2003 262)ib-ri i-s uacute-ra-am ba-ar-ma e-ša-am i-la-ku wa-at-mu-šu

305ndash6 Tis couplet finds a near parallel in the unprovenanced Old Babylonian tablet now in Baghdad wheresimilar words are spoken by Enkidu to Gilgameš when proposing to make a door or Enli lrsquos temple (OB IM 20ndash21ed George 2003 268ndash69) i-na du-ni-ka-ma ma-s a-ra-am te-neacute-ra-am mi-nu-uacute-um uacute-ba-ša-ka qiacute-iš-tam ša giš šu-neacute-el ldquoBy your strength alone you slew the guardian what can bring you dishonor Te orest o [cedar] woodlay lowrdquo In the present instance the speaker and addressee are the same but the use o the second-person pluralindicates that these words are placed in anticipation in the mouth o the god Enlil Te devastation o the orestis an affront to Enlil and Enkidu is seeking a means to appease him

307 As noted above this line is the counterpart o OB Ishchali 35primeb (George 2003 264) iš-tu-ma se-beacute-et i-ne-

ru308 Elsewhere in SB V simurru is one o the winds that Šamaš sent to immobilize H umbaba (l 162 ormerly

139) but that is ill suited to the present context Enrique Jimeacutenez made the breakthrough with the brilliant sug-gestion that this line contains the names o H umbabarsquos sons (private communication) He compared it with SB V160ndash63 (ormerly 137ndash40) and Enūma eliš IV 51ndash52 where collective descriptions are likewise ollowed by lists onames





References

Beckman Gary 2001 Te Hittite Gilgamesh Pp 157ndash65 in Te Epic o Gilgamesh A New ranslation Analogues Criticism ed B RFoster Norton Critical Editions New York Norton

Contenau Georges 1939 Lrsquoeacutepopeacutee de Gilgamesh texte eacutetabli drsquoapregraves les ragments sumeacuteriens babyloniens assyriens hittiacutetes et hourites Paris

LrsquoArtisan du livreDunham Sally 1985 Te Monkey in the Middle Zeitschrif uumlr Assyriologie 75 234ndash64Forsyth Neil 1981 Huwawa and His rees A Narrative and Cultural Analysis Acta Sumerologica 3 13ndash29George A R

2003 Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic Introduction Critical Edition and Cuneiorm exts 2 vols Oxord Oxord Uni- versity Press

2007 Te Gilgameš Epic at Ugarit Aula Orientalis 25 237ndash54Haupt Paul 1884 Das babylonische Nimrodepos Keilschriftext der Bruchstuumlcke der sogenannten Izdubarlegenden mit dem keilin-

schriflichen Sintfluthberichte Vol 1 Assyriologische Bibliothek 3 Leipzig Hinrichs 1890 Ergebnisse einer erneuten Collation der Izdubar-LegendenBeitraumlge zur Assyriologie 1 94ndash152Hecker Karl 1974 Untersuchungen zur akkadischen Epik Alter Orient und Altes estament Sonderreihe 8 KevelaerNeukirchen-

Vluyn Butzon und BerckerNeukirchener VerlagHeeszligel Nils 2010 Neues von Esagil-kīn-apli Pp 139ndash87 in Assur-Forschungen Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle ldquoEdition literarisch-

er Keilschriftexte aus Assurrdquo der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschafen ed S M Maul and N Heeszligel Wies-baden Harrassowitz

Heidel Alexander 1963 Te Gilgamesh Epic and Old estament Parallels 2nd ed Chicago University o Chicago PressJensen Peter 1900 Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen Keilinschrifliche Bibliothek 6 1 Berlin Reuther amp ReichardKinnier Wilson J V

1960 On the Fourth and Fifh ablets o the Epic o Gilgameš Pp 103ndash11 in Gilgameš et sa legende ed P Garelli Paris

KlincksieckLambert W G

2013 Babylonian Creation Myths Mesopotamian Civilizations 16 Winona Lake IN EisenbraunsLandsberger Benno 1934 Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14 ael der Serie H ar-ra = h ubullu Leipzig S Hirzel 1968 Zur vierten und siebenten ael des Gilgamesch-EposRevue drsquoAssyriologie 62 97ndash135Livingstone Alasdair 1986 Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works o Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars Oxord ClarendonMowinckel Sigmund 1916 Einige Bemerkungen zur Einreihung der GilgamešragmenteZeitschrif uumlr Assyriologie 30 243ndash76Renger Johannes 1987 Zur uumlnfen ael des Gilgameschepos Pp 317ndash26 in Language Literature and History Philological and Historical

Studies Presented to Erica Reiner ed F Rochberg-Halton American Oriental Series 67 New Haven AmericanOriental Society

Rieken Elisabeth

2009 CH 341III1 Hethitologie Portal Mainz httpwwwhethiternet CH 341III1Schott Albert 1934a Das Gilgamesch-Epos Neu uumlbersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Dr Albert Schott Leipzig Philipp Rec-

lam 1934b Zu meiner Uumlbersetzung des Gilgameš-Epos Zeitschrif uumlr Assyriologie 42 92ndash143Schott Albert and von Soden Wolram 1982 Das Gilgamesch-Epos Neu uumlbersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Albert Schott Durchgesehen und ergaumlnzt





von W von Soden 3rd ed Stuttgart Philipp ReclamSmith George 1876 Te Chaldean Account o Genesis London Tomas ScottSoden Wolram von 1959 Beitraumlge zum Verstaumlndnis des babylonischen Gilgameš-Epos Zeitschrif uumlr Assyriologie 53 209ndash35Speiser E A

1969 Te Epic o Gilgamesh Pp 73ndash99 in Ancient Near Eastern exts Relating to the Old estament 3rd ed withSupplement ed J B Pritchard Princeton Princeton University Press

Spycket Agnes 1998 ldquoLe carnaval des animauxrdquo On Some Musician Monkeys rom the Ancient Near East Iraq 60 1ndash10Stol Marten 2007 Fevers in Babylonia Pp 1ndash39 in Disease in Babylonia ed I L Finkel and M J Geller Cuneiorm Monographs 36

Leiden BrillStreck Michael P

2007 Beitraumlge zum akkadischen Gilgameš-Epos Orientalia 76 404ndash23Tompson R Campbell 1930 Te Epic o Gilgamish Oxord ClarendonUngnad Arthur

1911 Das Gilgamesch-Epos Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp RuprechtWeiher Egbert von 1980 Ein Fragment der 5 ael des Gilgameš-Epos aus Uruk Baghdader Mitteilungen 11 90ndash105





Fig 2 Suleimaniyah Museum T1447 = SB Gilg V MS ff obv drawn by Al-Rawi





Fig 3 Suleimaniyah Museum T1447 = SB Gilg V MS ff rev drawn by Al-Rawi





Fig 4 Suleimaniyah Museum T1447 = SB Gilg V MS ff obv





Fig 5 Suleimaniyah Museum T1447 = SB Gilg V MS ff rev




AA beore that o MS H but a ew have placed it afer Part o the history o scholarship on this point has beensummarized in the critical edition (George 2003 402 n 65) but a uller account will be instructive

George Smith the pioneering Assyriologist who in the 1860s and 1870s identified many ragments o theGilgameš epic in the British Museumrsquos Kuyunjik collection gave the world a first glimpse o the poem in transla-tion in his Chaldean Account o Genesis (1876) MSS H and AA were among his discoveries and he translatedthem in that order H first and AA second as the opening o ablet V remarking that ldquoabout 10 linesrdquo were lost be-tween them in col i (Smith 1876 214) Tis remark can only have been made as a consequence o Smithrsquos physicalcomparison o the two pieces or there was no textual basis or it At that juncture MS AA lacked the right-handragment that has ten lines o another column o text so that or col ii o his ablet V Smith had only the veryragmentary lines o MS H col ii

By the time Paul Haupt published the first cuneiorm copies o MSS H and AA in the first volume o Das baby-

lonische Nimrodepos (1884) the ragment lacking in 1876 had been joined to MS AA as its col ii (H = Haupt 188424ndash26 no 11 AA = 27ndash28 no 12) In an annotation to MS AA Haupt accordingly identified this piece as holdingthe ends o the first two columns o ablet V He agreed with Smith that MS AA ollowed MS H afer a short gapldquoDem Anschein nach schloss sich dieses Stuumlck ziemlich genau an Nr 11 K 3252 [= MS H] an so dass zwischen

der letzten Zeile (17) von Nr 11 Col I au S 24 und der ersten Zeile (25) der hier olgenden Stuumlckes [= MS AA]etwa 9 Zeilen weggebrochen sindrdquo (Haupt 1884 27) Tus the two scholars who did most to reconstruct and pub-lish the text o Gilgameš in the nineteenth century agreed that MS H col i was succeeded by MS AA col i afer ashort break o nine or ten lines Further on the grounds o their physical appearance Haupt considered that theywere both parts o the same original six-column tablet

Haupt collated his published copies in 1890 On this occasion he noted that the last-preserved line o MS AAcol i was the same as the first line o MS H col i (Haupt 1890 110) Tis discovery led him to consider a contraryopinion that MS AA col i might instead preserve the end o ablet IV with the last line acting as the catch-line oablet V Tis arrangement o the text would mean that what he had identified in 1884 as MS AA col i was actuallycol vi and what he had understood to be col ii was really col v Again the text was too ragmentary to solve thematter but Haupt concluded that such a reordering o the passages was extremely dubious (ldquoaumlusserst zweielhafrdquo)His reluctance to adopt it seems to have stemmed rom his (very accurate) observation that the surviving writtensurace o MS AA is flat and thus part o the tabletrsquos obverse ace He adds opaquely ldquoOb die beiden Columnen von

K 8591 [= MS AA] der Vorderseite oder Ruumlckseite angehoumlren laumlsst sich nur angesichts des Originals entscheidenrdquo(1890 110) One senses that someone who had not seen the tablets as Smith and Haupt had had concluded romHauptrsquos copies that i MS AA ldquoi 45rdquo = MS H i 1 then i MS H was ablet V MS AA must necessarily be rom thereverse o ablet IV that this person had communicated this conclusion to Haupt with some orce and that Hauptelt obliged to air it in print even though he knew it to contradict what he had observed with his own eyes that K8591 was an obverse ragment

Te first scholar to publish a transliteration o the whole poem o Gilgameš as then extant was Peter Jensen inhis extraordinary anthology o Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen (1900 116ndash265) Jensen did not acceptSmith and Hauptrsquos consensus that MS H and MS AA were both parts o ablet V Adopting instead the very notionthat Haupt considered but repudiated in 1890 he placed the large piece o MS AA at the end o ablet IV (1900156ndash59) On the advice o C H W Johns Jensen rejected the join o the small right-hand ragment to MS AApublished by Haupt in 1884 (p 28) and on grounds o content lef it in ablet V (1900 153 159) Johnsrsquo advice toJensen was alse the join that he denied was confirmed by later copyists Te placing o MS AA in ablet IV instead

o ablet V however had taken root in Gilgameš scholarshipTe next serious translator o Gilgameš was Arthur Ungnad He ollowed Jensenrsquos ordering o MSS H and AA

but because the join that Johns and Jensen repudiated had already been proved correct (probably by Pinches) hewas naturally obliged also to place the text o MS AArsquos right-hand column in ablet IV (Ungnad 1911 25ndash27) In arare excursion into Assyriology entitled ldquoEinige Bemerkungen zur Einreihung der Gilgamešragmenterdquo the emi-nent Old estament scholar Sigmund Mowinckel ollowed suit (Mowinckel 1916 264ndash65) Campbell Tompsonrsquos























The New Tablet






1) AA (now H














































]š














4)mušen i-tap-pal






















the orest12






























Enkidu replies















94 eli(ugu)d



























276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth






















































The New Tablet






1) AA (now H














































]š














4)mušen i-tap-pal






















the orest12






























Enkidu replies















94 eli(ugu)d



























276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth







































































]š














4)mušen i-tap-pal






















the orest12






























Enkidu replies















94 eli(ugu)d



























276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth






































the orest12






























Enkidu replies















94 eli(ugu)d



























276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth






















































Enkidu replies















94 eli(ugu)d



























276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth






































94 eli(ugu)d



























276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth


















































276 [x] x[ ]Lacuna






























Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth











































Notes on the Text
































References














Rieken Elisabeth



























































References














Rieken Elisabeth

































back to he cedar forest

Documents