The Capture of Agga by Gilgameš (Ga 81 and 99)Author(s): Jacob KleinSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 1, Studies in Literature fromthe Ancient Near East, by Members of the American Oriental Society, Dedicated to SamuelNoah Kramer (Jan. - Mar., 1983), pp. 201-204Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/601874 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 14:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CAPTURE OF AGGA BY GILGAME9 (GA 81 and 99)

JACOB KLEIN

BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY

A CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF SUMERIAN EPIC LITER-

ATURE is the frequent repetition of entire strophes, which may represent a vow and its fulfillment, or a message and its report, and so on.' A repetition of this kind is attested in the epic of Gilgames and Agga, where a lengthy direct speech, addressed by Girisihur- dura to Agga (11. 70-81), is partly and verbatim repeated by the narrator toward the end of the compo- sition (11. 92-99). The two strophes under discussion read as follows:2

A. 70 1u-se lugal-mu in-nu 71 1u-se lugal-mu the-me-a 72 sag-ki-hug-a-ni he-me-a 73 igi-alim-ma-ka-a-ni he-me-a 74 SU6-na4za-ghn-na-ka-a-ni he-me-a 75 gu-si-sa6-ga-ni he-me-a 76 sar-ra la-ba-an-sub-bu-us sar-ra la-

ba-an-zi-ge-es 77 sar-ra sahar-ra la-ba-an-da-9ar-re-eg 78 kur-kur diu-a-bi la-ba-an-da-s u-a 79 ka-ma-da-ka sahar-ra la-ba-da-an-si 80 si-Oma'-gur8-ra-ka la-ba-ra-an-ku5 81 ag-ga lugal-kigki-a sa-eren-na-ka-ne

gaga (LOXGANA-tenu')-a la-ba-ni-in-ak B. 92 lu-se lugal-mu i-me-a

93 bi-in-dull-ga-gin7-nam 94 sar-ra ba-an-gub-bu-ug sar-ra ba-an-

z i-ge-es 95 sar-ra sahar-ra ba-an-da-gar-re-eg 96 kur-kur diu-a-bi ba-an-da-s u 97 ka-ma-da-ka salhar-ra ba-da-an-si 98 si-91ma'-gu r8-ra-ke4 ba-n i-in-ku5

99 ag-ga lugal-kigki-a gh-eren-na-ka-ne saga (LOXGANA-tenui)-a ba-ni-in-ak

When in 1949 Kramer published his editio princeps of Gilgameg and Agga, relatively little was understood of the above two difficult strophes.3 The concluding lines in these two parallel passages, which also consti- tute the climax of the epic, namely 11. 81 and 99, were rendered by Kramer as follows:

81 "Agga, the king of Kish, restrained not his soldierly heart."

99 "Agga, the king of Kish, restrained his soldierly heart."

Kramer's translation of these lines, although gram- matically defendable, makes little sense contextually, and deprives our epic of a crucial piece of information, without which the dramatic and unconventional end of the story (11. 100 ff.) is incomprehensible, namely that Agga was captured by Gilgameg and his troops. Consequently, the transition to the dialogue between Gilgameg and Agga in 11. 100 ff. becomes abrupt and rather unexpected.4

The first substantial contribution to the correct inter- pretation of these passages was made by Jacobsen, in 1957, who contended that "Gilgamesh and Enkidu make a successful sortie from beleaguered Uruk, pene- trate the boat-camp of the attackers and take the leader Agga of Kish captive."5 Accordingly, Jacobsen read LUXGANA-tenu-a, in 1. 99, as gagax-a, and cor- rectly translated this line as follows:

' See e.g. A. Berlin, Enmerkar and Ensuhke~danna, 1979, 24 f.; J. Klein, Three Sulgi Hymns, 1981, 55; 62 ff.; G. Komor6czy, A Sumer Irodalmi Hagyomdny, 1979, 41; C. Wilcke, AS 20 (1975), 212 f.

2 See W. H. Ph. Rbmer, Das sumerische Kurzepos >Bilgameg und Akka<, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980 (=AOAT 209/1), pp. 33 ff. Our eclectic transliteration is based pri- marily on text L.

3 "Gilgamesh and Agga," AJA 53 (1949), 1 ff. (cf. also A NET, pp. 44-47).

4 Kramer, in his edition, already felt that the passages under discussion "are of utmost importance for the under- standing of the plot of the tale," and surmised that "in some way Agga has been induced to take a more friendly attitude and probably to lift the siege (11. 68-99)" (cf. ibid., 6).

5 ZA 52(1957), 116, n. 55.

201

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202 Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.1 (1983)

"Agga, king of Kish, at his (place in the) center of the army he took captive."'

The above rendering cleared the way to the under- standing of the end of the plot. As Jacobsen rightly pointed out, Gilgameg, having captured Agga, acted the generous hero, and set him free, as a sign of gratitude for a "previous benefaction," on Agga's part.7

The next attempt at an interpretation of the above passages in our epic was again made by Kramer, who in 1963 translated that part of Girighurdura's speech, wherein the verbal form he-me-a is constantly re- peated (11. 71-75), as a series of irrealis, hypothetical wishes: "Would that that man were my king,! That it were his strong forehead" and so on 8 However, Kramer still did not ascribe 11. 76-81 to Girighurdura's direct address, and at this time he translated 11. 81 and 99 of our epic as follows:

81 "Agga, the king of Kish, restrained not his troops."

99 "Agga, the king of Kish, restrained his troops."9

A major step toward the correct understanding of the above passages was subsequently taken by Falken- stein, who in 1966, pointed out that the recurring t6- me-a in 11. 71-75 marks a series of irrealis conditional sentences; and that 11. 76-80 of our epic are also part of Girighurdura's direct speech, addressed to Agga, to be interpreted as rhetorical questions, anticipating the poet's narration in 11. 89 ff., in a prophetical fashion. Accordingly, Falkenstein translated 11. 70-80 as follows:

"'Der Mann da ist nicht mein Kdnig. Ware der Mann da mein Konig, so ware (doch) sein wilder grimmiger Blick,

sein Wisenstier Auge, sein Lapislazuli-Bart, sein ghickbringender Finger (zu sehen)! Wurden da nicht (die Gegner) zu Tausenden

hinzusturzen, (andere) zu Tausenden (zum Kampfe) aufstehen,

(dann aber ebenfalls) zu Tausenden sich im Staube walzen?!

Waren dadurch nicht die Lander insgesamt gestUrzt,

der Mund des Landes mit Erde geftillt, die 'Horner' (Steven) der Transportschiffe abgerissen?! ' "'1

In spite of the fact that the verbal form la-ba-ni- in-ak, in 1. 81; just like the verbal forms in the preceding lines (76-80), is a negative one, prefixed by the morphemes la-ba-, Falkenstein failed to recognize that syntactically line 81 must be a natural continua- tion of the lines preceding it, and hence to be part of Girighurdura's direct speech. Consequently, and be- cause of grammatical considerations, he interpreted 1. 81, as the narrator's comment, and translated it similarly to Kramer's first rendering in his editio princeps, as follows:

"Agga, Konig von Kis, unterdruckte nicht seinen Zorn als Krieger."'"

However, since he understood that 11. 94-98, further on, clearly describe the crushing victory of the troops of Unug over the troops of Kis, he was forced to assume that the subject of 1. 99 is Gilgames (or Enkidu), rather than Agga, translating the above line quite artificially as follows:

"Gegenuber Agga, dem Konig von Kis, unter- druickte er (d. i. Gilgames) seinem Zorn als Krieger."'2

Romer, in his revised edition of our epic,13 reaches the conclusion that Falkenstein's interpretation of sa-

6 Ibid., 117. 7 Ibid., 117-18. According to Jacobsen's conclusions, the

outcome of the political strife between Gilgame? and Agga was that the former reacknowledged the latter as his liegelord (ibid., 118). For our disagreement with this hypothesis see n. 20-21 below.

8 The Sumerians, 189. 9 Ibid., 189 f. Apparently, Kramer translated sA-er&n-na-

ka-ni LOJXGANA-tena-a (la-)ba-ni-in-ak literally: "he cap- tured (not) the heart of his soldiers," and understood this as an idiomatic expression for "he restrained (not) his soldiers."

'0 AfO21 (1966),48. 1 Ibid., 49. Falkenstein admits that according to his render-

ing, we would expect here *ag-ga lugal-ki iki-a-ke4, i.e. a complex ending with an agentive suffix.

12 Ibid., with n. 24. The supposition that the subject of this line could be Enkidu, is totally incredible, in the light of Enkidu's brutal and cruel behaviour, in the episode of the slaying of Huwawa (see Klein, AOA T25, 290, n. 25).

13 See AOAT209/ 1, 40-41; 87 f.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KLEIN: The Capture of Agga by Gilgames 203

eren-na-ka-ni "wird wohl die einzig sinvolle sein," and accordingly he translates 11. 81 and 99 of the epic as follows:

81 "Akka, der Kdnig von Kig, beherrschte nicht seinen Zorn eines Kriegers."

99 "Akka, der Konig von Kig, beherrschte seinen Zorn eines Kriegers."'3

Falkenstein rejected Jacobsen's translation of gh- erin-na-ka-ni in 1. 99-"at his (place in the) center of the army"-for purely grammatical reasons: He ar- gued that according to Jacobsen's rendering we would expect here a "Genetiv ohne Regens," and a locative /-a/ at the end of the complex.'4 We propose here to revert to Jacobsen's rendering of this line with a slight modification, translating it as follows:

"Agga, the king of Kig, was captured at his center-of-the-army. "

This proposal may be supported by the following considerations:

a). As Falkenstein himself admitted, the compound verb gaga(LUXGANA-tena)-a ak never takes ? as its (direct) object.' It normally takes a category of human being as a direct object, and it can only be translated "to capture," "to oppress."16

b). In view of the absence of a clear acting agent in the preceding lines, the only logical subject of our sentence must be "Agga, the king of Kig," and the verbal form must be understood in the passive voice."

c). The complex gh-eren-na-ka-n6 contains an "internal genitive," which normally precedes the pos- sessive pronoun, and seems to end with the locative- terminative suffix /-e/, replacing the expected locative

suffix. Consequently, this complex should be trans- lated: "at his center-of-the-troops," i.e. "at his army- center." The same type of "internal genitive" is attested also in 11. 73 (igi-alim-ma-ka-a-ni) and 74 (su6- na4 za-gin-ha-ka-a-ni)i

d). The above rendering of our line provides us with the climactic event of the plot, namely the capture of Agga, which was the natural outcome of the storm- attack, staged by Enkidu and his commando-troops, under the charismatic inspiration of Gilgameg (11. 84- 98). Gilgameg's subsequent gallant address to Agga (11. 100 ff.) becomes now comprehensible.

If our above rendering of 1. 99 is justified, then the meaning of 1. 81 becomes now clear: this line is to be considered as a syntactically natural continuation of the lines preceding it, i.e., as a rhetorical question, concluding Girighurdura's address to Agga. Accord- ingly, we propose to translate it as follows:

14 I.e., according to Falkenstein, we would expect *?h- eren-na-ka-ka-na; cf. ibid., 48, with n. 20. Falkenstein admits that an idiomatic combination of saga-a aka with gh is unknown from elsewhere, and hence its supposition is somewhat doubtful (ibid., 49).

" See preceding note. 16 For saga(-a) ak see now Rdmer, AOAT 209/1, 87 f.;

J. Klein, Three Sulgi HVmns, 164; J. Krecher, Festschrift Luhor Matou? (1978), II, 57.

17Thus, in spite of the appearance of the personal infix -n- in the verbal form ba-ni-in-ak! Cf. Romer's translation of 11. 95-98 as passives, although their verbal forms exhibit this element universally. For the -n- infix in such contexts see now M. Yoshikawa, JCS 29 (1977), 89 ff.; P. Michalowski, JCS 32 (1980), 95 f.

18 Such "internal genitives" are normally attested in "fos- silized" genitive compounds, such as divine names (e.g. en- ki), personal names (e.g. dur-d nammu), temple names (e.g. &-an-na), and as in the present context, in technical expres- sions. In such compounds, the genitive may be occasionally omitted (cf. J. Klein, Three Sulgi Hymns, 151). Or else, the genitive may appear before the possessive pronoun, and the case marking suffixes. Cf. e.g. Lugalbanda-Hurrum. 95 (=OECT I p1. 19, obv. 12 = TMHNF 11I 10, 95 = CT 42, 46 obv. 9) igi-9gibansur-ra-ka-n& (var. omit -ne) si ba-ni- in-sa-sa-es "they set them up at his front-of-the-table" (Cf. Wilcke, Lugalbanda, p. 55); Lugalb.-Hurrum. 110 (= TMHNF III 10, 1 10 and dupls.) giri-u r-ra-ka-ni (gloss.: pa-tar-9u) "his side-dagger" (cf. Wilcke, ibid., 56); Lugalb.- Hurrum. 68 (=TMHNF III 10, 68 and dupls.) en-ra ka- kesda-igi-bar-ra-ka(-na) mu-na-sug-su8-ge-e? "To the lord they stepped up with his selected troops" (cf. Wilcke, ibid., 49); MLM 12-13 (cf. Civil, JNES 23, 2) dingir-sa6- ga-dag-gi4-a-ka-n6 "the gracious goddess of her (city-) quarter"; SRT 13, 32-33 (=SV) x-alan(?)-u4-sud-rd-mu- da-ri-ka-na mul-an-n6-e?(?) bi-in-giin(?) "His ... statue of long days and everlasting fame he let shine like the heavenly stars." For this "internal genitive" construction in the Gudea inscriptions see Falkenstein, AnOr 28, 87, sub h; AnOr 29, 56 f., sub paragraph 96; Karki, StOr 35, 230 f. According to Falkenstein and Karki, the genitive in these constructions normally has an adjectival function. A similar internal genitive seems to underlie the form a-ui-mu-un-zu "your lordly seed" and a-lugal-mu "my royal seed' (lit. "my-seed-of-the-king") in Enlil and Ninlil, 11. 83 ff. et passim (cf. Behrens, En/il und Ninlil, 183 ff.), in spite of the seeming absence of the genitive suffix /-ak/, in these forms.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204 Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.1 (1983)

"Would then Agga, the king of Kig, not be captured at his center-of-the-army?"

The above interpretation of lines 81 and 99 of the epic seems to clarify Girighurdura's role in the battle. Girighurdura volunteers to go to Agga and confound him (1 1. 55-58). This he indeed accomplishes success- fully, by arousing tension in Agga, by undermining his confidence in his own capacity of leadership, and by shaking his trust in the military superiority of his own troops. Alternatively, his task may have been to divert the attention of Agga and his generals from the city-gate, the point from where Enkidu and his commando-troops planned to launch their attack on the army of Kig.'9 Consequently, the ensuing attack takes the besieging army by surprise, and Agga is captured in the midst of his body-guards, at the most protected place of his military camp, and thus Girisihur- dura's "prophecy" comes true.

As to the end of the story, we agree with Falkenstein and Romer'O that Agga, upon acknowledging Gil- games's superiority (11. 107-111), was released and allowed to return to Ki? (11. 112-113).21

In view of the above considerations, we can now translate lines 70-81 and 92-99 of our epic as follows:

A. 70 "That man is not my king. 71 Would that man be my king, 72 Would that be his fierce forehead, 73 Would that be his bison-like face, 74 Would that be his lapis-like beard, 75 Would those be his fine fingers- 76 Would not then multitudes be felled,

would not multitudes rise (to attack)? 77 Would not multitudes roll in the dust on

account of him? 78 Would not the foreigners, all of them, be

overwhelmed by him? 79 Would not the (people of the) countryside

bite the dust on account of him? 80 Would not the prow(s) of the magur-

boat(s) be cut down? 81 (And) would not Agga, the king of Kig, be

captured at his center-of-the-army?" B. 92 "That man is indeed my king."

93 No sooner had he said this, 94 Multitudes fell, multitudes rose (to attack), 95 Multitudes rolled in the dust on account

of him, 96 The foreigners, all of them, were over-

whelmed by him, 97 The (people of the) countryside bit the

dust on account of him. 98 The prow(s) of the magur-boat(s) were

cut down,22 99 (And) Agga, the king of Kig, was captured

at his center-of-the-army!"

19 One could speculate that Giris1hurdura's speech (11. 70- 81) contained some sort of effective spell or magic, which neutralized Agga and his troops, and brought about the capture of Agga. But such a hypothesis cannot be substan- tiated by the text, and it would be at variance with the literary nature of the whole epic. For, as G. Komor6czy correctly pointed out (cf. his A Sumer Irodalmi Hagyomdny, 40 ff.; 54-55), one of the major characteristics of our epic, indicating its great antiquity, is the conspicuous absence of magical or mythological motives from its plot.

20 AfO 21 (1966), 49 f.; AOAT 209/1, 41, 97 f. 21 As I formerly tried to show, in SO 60, Gilgameg is

praised by Sulgi for having brougt the kingship over from Kis to Unug, A OA T 25, 288.

22 It is not impossible that the epic refers here to only one boat, namely to the royal magur-boat, wherein Agga was standing, as the commander-in-chief of his army. This alleged command-ship, must have been located right in the center of the army.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions