Gilgamesh Intro + Tablets 1-3

Andrew Brown 004

It has been a long time (about 10 years) since I last read the Epic of Gilgamesh. The biggest difference I notice in rereading it is the wealth of information presented in the Introduction. While 40 pages is certainly a lot, the introduction goes a long, long way to help explain many of the lacunae in the tablets. Additionally, it is very helpful to get a historical context for the story and a bit of background on the Mesopotamian gods.
I found the explanation of the temple in the introduction very helpful. It goes a bit beyond Liverani’s exploration of the degree to which Southern Mesopotamians were subject to the religious influences of the temple. The assertion that multiple temples existed begs the question of “How?” It makes sense that the largest temple would be dedicated to the primary god, while smaller temples were for lesser gods. However, because George does not address the collection and redistribution of barley within Southern Mesopotamia, I wonder if every temple was involved in receiving barley or if certain temples were designated for other purposes.
Another interesting topic revealed in Gilgamesh’s introduction is the Uruk Wall that Gilgamesh, famously, rebuilt. It seems logical that a wall would be required for a large civilization with, perhaps, envious neighbors. However, I am a bit skeptical because Liverani makes no mention of a wall in Uruk and says, additionally, that war was infrequent. It seems that rebuilding the wall around Uruk was more important in linking Gilgamesh to the semi-divine elders that first built the wall; the wall is more important for explaining Gilgamesh’s importance than for its functional necessity.
Enkidu is created by the gods as a response to the complaints of the people of Uruk about Gilgamesh’s tyranny (droit de seigneur, relentless labor imposed on the men of Uruk, and ‘the games’). That is why I find it very interesting that Enkidu becomes Gilgamesh’s close companion; it is as if the gods created Enkidu to tame Gilgamesh, rather than defeat him.

Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablets I-III)

Ronak Patel

Near Eastern Studies R1B

Response Paper; Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablets I, II, III)

While reading the first three tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh I began to think about why Gilgamesh behaved the way he did. He is depicted as a mighty person who has no equal and he does vile deeds like sleeping with the wives of newly wedded couples, but at the same time he also wants to prove himself superior when he becomes aware of Enkidu, someone who is his equal. From the events that have unfolded thus far, I believe that a key message of this tale is that one who posses seemingly unbound powers becomes entrenched in lustful behavior of wanting more.

This point is made obvious from the beginning where the first tablet talks about Gilgamesh sleeping with every new groom’s wife. “[Gilgamesh] lets [no] girl go free to her [bridegroom]” (Gilgamesh, 4). Gilgamesh is not one to be satisfied with just one woman, but instead wants to have them all. His kingly status and the belief that no one can do anything about this is what lead him to such vile behavior. Another example of Gilgamesh’s lustful behavior for more becomes evident when he send Shamat the harlot out to bring Enkidu out since “[her allure is a match] for even the mighty (Gilgamesh, 6). First, Gilgamesh plays on the weakness of Enkidu, and then he challenges Enkidu to a battle because he wants to prove himself more superior. This is one way for him to claim more power by demonstrating that even those who are considered equal to himself shall fall short before him. Furthermore, his friendship with Enkidu only seems to be for his own greedy use. Even when Enkidu tells him not to go to the Forest of Cedar in search of eternal life because he will have to face an unknown enemy in Humbaba, Gilgamesh does not listen, but instead tells Enkidu to utter such “spineless words” (Glgamesh, 19). His lust for more keeps drawing him to seek something greater.

Gilgamesh does not seem to realize that he is not a godly figure, but instead a human, and this may lead to his ultimate downfall.

Response Paper - Gilgamesh (Intro, I-III) - Ritik Malhotra

Ritik Malhotra

Near Eastern Studies R1B Lecture 4

Response Paper: The Epic of Gilgamesh (Introduction, Tablets I-III)

In the epic tale, The Epic of Gilgamesh originally authored by Shin-eqi-unninni and translated by Andrew George, Gilgamesh is presented as the heroic, yet cruel, figure responsible for creating the city of Uruk. Seemingly invincible to mortals, Gilgamesh is presented as a powerful leader who is known to rape women at will and rule his kingdom with fierce, brutal power. He is unchallenged until the creation of Enkidu, a being almost as powerful in strength as Gilgamesh. After engaging in fierce combat with one another, Gilgamesh and Enkidu form a friendship that sets them apart from mere mortals. I contend that this relationship is exemplary of their strength, showing them both as equals, and is used to glorify and escalate their characters in the poem to show them as heroic figures in the tale that are capable of doing more than just the regular mortal has power to do.

Gilgamesh is initially presented as a character that “lets no girl go free to her bridegroom” (Tablet I, page 4) indicating that he lusts women that are pure. He feels the need to be the first to touch them and take their virginity before the bridegroom even gets a chance to do anything of the sort, which further exemplifies Gilgamesh’s lust for not only women, but also power; however, it is important to note that Gilgamesh is not picky with the women that he sleeps with, but rather, is open to sleeping with everyone out there, showing that he doesn’t hold any true care for the women. But eventually, because of these cruel activities, “the goddesses [pays] heed” to “the warrior’s daughter” and the “young man’s bride” (Tablet I, 4) which leads to the creation of Enkidu, an equal to Gilgamesh.

Enkidu eventually ends up challenging Gilgamesh after hearing about his cruel activities, but just barely loses the battle. They realize that they are equal in strength and decide to team up, “kissing each other and forming a friendship” (Tablet II, page 17) to exemplify this newfound relationship. This action is one of importance as it shows two strong male figures forming an erotic relationship with one another. Gilgamesh sleeps with many different women in the city, yet only forms an intimate relationship with one man – Enkidu – which sets Enkidu apart as a figure of power and someone worthy of such a relationship. This exclusivity exemplifies Gilgamesh and Enkidu and is symbolic in the sense that it elevates the two characters as ones with special privileges, thereby foreshadowing that they have heroic powers and will do something to make an impact stronger than just a mortal.

Similarities Across Time

With ancient works of literature like Homer’s Odyssey or the Bible, often just as interesting as the stories and themes themselves are the parallels between cultures long dead and those alive today. From the reading we have done so far, it is apparent that The Epic of Gilgamesh is full of bits and pieces that demonstrate similarities between humans and their culture three and a half thousand years ago and now.

When I was reading the introduction I prepared myself to have to use the information to help me decode an alien culture from a “damaged masterpiece,” as George puts it. This notion was perhaps because the introduction served in part to fill the reader in on disparities between our culture and the culture of Gilgamesh, explaining religion and folk beliefs, and demonstrating just how ancient the work is. However, jumping into the epic itself I felt right at home with the many of the themes and interactions between people.

The very first problem we encounter is essentially that Gilgamesh is too cocky because he doesn’t have an equal. Too many times have I seen people, often friends, lose themselves to at least some arrogance when they are engaged in something that they excel at. I myself can remember times when my ego got out of check as a track runner, and feel that the only thing that kept me tolerable was a teammate I consider to be an equal. And like Gilgamesh and Enkidu become quick and close friends, I share a deep friendship with my old teammate because of how he challenged me, and the level on which we related.

We see similar defining qualities of masculinity, a topic of great concern here, in these first tablets as we see in the present day: physical strength, bravery, experience, and a bit humorously length of time one can lie with a woman. “Why, my friend, do you speak like a weakling,” is a phrase that pops up, in slightly different wording, amongst my male friends frequently, especially when discussing treacherous and unwise adventures: an almost uncanny similarity in male friendship interactions across a vast extent of time. These similarities across time make the reading of ancient works incredibly interesting and telling.

Enkidu and Shamhat

On my second time through this portion of Gilgamesh, I was able to look more into the details between Enkidu and Shamhat. It is interesting that the hunters father would immediately think to lure Enkidu out of the wild by way of prostitute, something that I do not think would come to mind so quickly today. By bringing Enkidu out of the wild, Shamhat is acting as a motherly figure to Enkidu, though disregard all the sex. This is most apparent when Shamhat brings Enkidu to Uruk, but had him cleaned up a bit first: 'The barber groomed his body so hairy, anointed with oil he turned into a man"(Epic II:106). This clearly displays Enkidu becoming a man, and the grooming and cleaning represent his bringing into life by Shamhat, as she brought him out of the wild. Shamhat also taught Enkidu to eat just as a mother does her child, by saying 'Eay the bread, Enkidu, essential to life/drink the ale, the lot of the land!'(The Epic II:65). Enkidu is as a child because he is so unsure of how to act while not in the wild so Shamhat must team him to eat the brand and to drink. She must also guide him on his mission because he does not know the way. Shamhat is consistently acting as a mother towards Enkidu, and it is clear that she represents the figurative mother that brought Enkidu into civilization and out of the wild.

Gilgamesh Intro, I-III

Throughout the introduction to and the first three tablets of The Epic of Gilgamesh, there are already a number of parallels that arise in regards to another ancient text, the Bible. These similarities include the significance and prevalence of the number seven as well as the creation and subsequent defiling of Enkidu.

The number seven appears numerous times within the first three tablets. Whether it is Enkidu making love to Shamhat for six days and seven nights (I, I 193), Enkidu drinking seven goblets of ale (II, P 100), the seven gates of Uruk (II, Y 172), or Ninsun bathing seven times (III, III 37), the number seven appears often and in a variety of circumstances. The constant repetition of the number suggests a monumental significance and perhaps spiritual association with the value as all of the instances represent significant ideas or concepts. Enkidu’s drinking of the ale and making love to Shamhat shows his transformation from a god of the animals to a man. The seven gates of Uruk represent the bastion of the city and Gilgamesh’s accomplishments while Ninsun’s bathing seven times occurs just before she invokes a prayer to Shamash to protect Gilgamesh. The number seven also carries with it a point of significance in the Bible, one such example being in the myth of Creation as God was said to have created the world in a span of seven days. There are countless other instances of the number seven having Biblical significance, paralleling the prevalence of the number in Gilgamesh.

The creation and spurning of Enkidu from a pure being into imperfect man reflects the concept of Original Sin. While man was supposedly created from clay mixed with the flesh of a rebellious god, the source of man’s life and flaws (xl), Enkidu was created from only clay (I, I 101-104). As a result, Enkidu can be thought of as pure and uncorrupted unlike men, as perhaps Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before they were tempted by the serpent. And like the figures in the Bible, it is not until Enkidu is tempted and corrupted by the sexual pleasures of Shamhat that he loses his original purity, reflected in his being spurned by the herd of gazelles by whom he was raised (I, I 195-202).

Gilgamesh Introduction and Tablets 1-3

In the introduction of Gilgamesh, Andrew George discusses the tablets that the epic was written on in depth. The tablets were found in many different areas, including the Mesopotamian areas, the Levant, Anatolia, etc. Also, the tablets were written in Sumerian as well as Akkadian. The locations that these tablets were found in show the large sphere of influence that the Mesopotamians had; the epic was read and/or written in many places. Also, it seems like the epic itself evolved over many years because of how many different tablets were found. However, while I was reading the introduction, I could not help but wonder how the translators were able to “assemble” a linear and somewhat coherent story out of the many broken tablets that were found in many different regions in the modern Middle East.

Also, I found the similarity between the story of the flood in the epic of Gilgamesh and the Biblical flood very interesting. The flood in Gilgamesh also destroyed all of mankind, much like the biblical flood. Also, a parallel could be drawn between how humans were said to be created “out of clay” by the Gods in the epic and how in the Qur’an Adam and Eve are said to also be made of clay.

Also interesting was that although the main character, Gilgamesh, himself is two parts God and one part human, the epic talks mainly about what it means to be human than to be a God. This is also what differentiates the epic from a myth. The epic talks about Gilgamesh’s humanly achievements, rather than his Godly ones, an example being how he finds solace in his achievements rather than looking to the Gods for help.

Reading response to the Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet 1-3

I’m fairly surprised that the story line is actually carried out pretty clearly in just the first three tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I didn’t quite expect to read a story because the way the book was written seemed really fragmented at the first glance. One thing that really interested me while reading that was, though this book is believed to be written by the great king, Gilgamesh, himself, he was portrayed very negatively at the beginning of the chapter.

So Gilgamesh is believed to be the creator of the city of Uruk; he built the walls for the city and virtually created everything for the city. He has, or at least he believes that he has, the most power and strength, and everything he does in correct and unchallengeable. So it seems a bit contradicting when Gilgamesh was depicted as a complete tyrant in the first tablet. He starts wars when he feels like it and sleeps with all men’s wives if he wants to. If the story was told by Gilgamesh himself, why would he depict himself like that? Or is this implying that, later on in the story, he would be “transformed” by his company of destiny, Enkidu?

I always noted that, Gilgamesh’s mother seems to take a great part of the story, she’s always present to give Gilgamesh advices and urge him to do the right thing. But Gilgamesh’s father was not talked about at all so far in the book. This is especially strange considering the fact that the society back in the ancient time was most likely patriarchal, or dominated by male. Since Gilgamesh’s mother was a minor goddess, I would imagine that his father is also some sort of god. The story seems a little unconvincing because the existence of Gilgamesh was not explained. There’s little background information about him such as how he became what he is and why he decided to build the city of Uruk.

Gilgamesh and Maslow's Hierarchy

While reading the first three tablets of The Epic of Gilgamesh for the second time, I thought a lot about the role of human nature in the story. The gods are completely super-human, Gilgamesh is uniquely two-thirds god, one-third human, and thus Enkidu is really the only main character that is completely human (limited to Tablets I-III). While considering Enkidu’s maturation in this beginning section of the Epic, I related a lot of my observations to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Many of the behaviors in the Epic of Gilgamesh are a reflection of Maslow’s principle of the hierarchy of needs. This is despite the fact that the Epic was written thousands of years ago by humans of ancient civilizations, and Maslow was a psychologist who proposed his theory in 1943.

Maslow’s hierarchy consists of four basic levels: biological needs, safety, love/friendship, and lastly esteem/self-actualization. Once an individual meets one of the needs they can then move on to achieving the next level. When Enkidu is first created by the gods he is characterized to be extremely animalistic. “Coated in hair like the god of the animals, with the gazelles he grazes on grasses, joining the throng with the game at the water-hole, his heart delighting with the beasts in the water,” (Epic I 109). Later, Enkidu is “lured” by the breasts of a woman reflecting his sexual desires. At this point his hair, his body, his behavior, and everything about him is that of an animal whose primary goal is to meet biological needs. Enkidu does not need to fear for his safety at this point because his strength is superior to other creatures.

The next thing he seeks is love/friendship. After copulating with a prostitute for days, she mentions the glory of Gilgamesh and, “he knew by instinct he should seek a friend,” (Epic I 214). He is then domesticated by other men (learns how to eat and drink, and cleans himself up) and moves past biological needs. After fighting with Gilgamesh, “They kissed and formed a friendship,” (Epic II Y17). When they become even closer, Ninsun adopts Enkidu, and they become brothers officially. The last level of the hierarchy is esteem/self actualization. This means to achieve something that goes beyond the individual. This is displayed in the Epic of Gilgamesh when Gilgamesh decides to embark on a dangerous journey for the simple reward of glory. Gilgamesh is willing to risk safety but Enkidu is extremely reluctant. This may be because Gilgamesh is mostly a god, and Enkidu is only a human, so they live by different standards of safety. But Gilgamesh in the third tablet claims, “As for man his days are numbered,” and “I will establish forever a name eternal!” Because he has everything except for self-actualization he wishes to attempt a dangerous mission for fame and glory, things that are not essential for biological survival or reproduction in any way.

A Woman's Power

The first three tablets of Gilgamesh demonstrate the power women have in ancient Mesopotamia. They did not have direct political power like that of men, but had the ability to influence the opinion of men and thus their actions. Although their power is a secondary one, it has the ability to move demi- gods like Gilgamesh and powerful beasts like Enkidu.

In the first tablet, the god Anu paid heed to the complaints of “the warrior’s daughter, [and] the young man’s bride”, and thus took action against Gilgamesh’s tyranny in Uruk. This demonstrates the woman’s role of praying to the gods to ensure the happiness and safety of their love ones. This seemingly inconsequential form of power is actually a vital one to ancient Mesopotamian civilization because religion plays an important role in a person’s everyday life and a source of a king’s power.

Another form of power a woman has, which is not quite as respectable, is sex. In tablet one, Shamhat, a prostitute, is the one the men summon to lure Enkidu from the herd and bring him to Gilgamesh. Sex is the thing that civilizes Enkidu, and gives him “reason and wide understanding” (8). This seems to imply that only a woman can civilize a man. However, troublingly, Shamhat is merely following the king’s and shepherd’s orders to use her body to do “work” and is not expressing any thoughts of her own. This brings into question the power of a prostitute. They have the power to change to change men, but they also hold very little respect from society.

A more dignified form of power women have is that of mother’s power over her son. This is demonstrated in Tablet III, where Gilgamesh went to seek his mother’s advice on his and Enkidu’s journey to the Forest of Cedar. Gilgamesh says to Enkidu, “Let us go to Queen Ninsun. Ninsun is clever and wise, well versed in everything, she will set our feet in steps of goo counsel” (23). However, the mother’s power is still limited. In this case, Ninsun could not order her son to not go on such a perilous journey, but she can advise him on his decision. Ninsun also adopts the orphan Enkidu. Although her adoption may be an altruistic gesture, it also further seals Enkidu’s responsibility to protect Gilgamesh, now his brother, during the journey. She uses the power a mother has on Enkidu.

-Ruby Lin

Gilgamesh and the Gods

The epic of Gilgamesh begins with the introduction of Gilgamesh, a tyrannical king whose oppressive rulership causes his subjects to turn to the gods for help. In response, the gods create a man named Enkidu as Gilgamesh’s equal. Interestingly enough, the poet, instead of having the gods create a more powerful being than Gilgamesh who would vanquish Gilgamesh, chose to have the gods create a figure equal to Gilgamesh and involve them into a cooperative relationship instead of an antagonistic relationship. By doing this, the unknown poet, instead of suggesting that humans must follow the gods’ every word or be punished severely, implies that humans can fairly govern themselves, but at the same time, gods reserve the right to discipline kings if they govern tyrannically.

When the gods create Enkidu, they intend for him to be the “equal to Gilgamesh” (George, 4). Enkidu is described as almost being the “image of Gilgamesh” (George, 15). When Enkidu and Gilgamesh first encounter each other, they fight, though no one emerges as the victor. Instead of becoming mortal enemies, however, they become close-knit friends, with Enkidu becoming a sort of mentor to the young and reckless Gilgamesh, trying to get him to change his tyrannical ways. One of the first instances of the mentor-student relationship between Enkidu and Gilgamesh is shown by how Enkidu advises Gilgamesh not to embark on a dangerous quest to slay Humbaba in the Forest of Cedar.

The epic of Gilgamesh, with its numerous references to various deities, shows that religion did play a significant role in ancient Near Eastern society. Nevertheless, it seems that the poet did not intend to portray religion as having as large of a role in the ancient Near East as modern scholars tend to give it credit for, for example, in the temple-city of Uruk. It appears that the poet was trying to convey the idea that even though ideology was quite important during that time period, humans were not necessarily at the whim of the gods. In the vein of ‘fictional royal autobiography’ mentioned in the introduction, perhaps the unknown author of the epic of Gilgamesh was trying to suggest that rulers should listen to the gods, but should not act as their puppets.

Shamhat the Harlot

In the Epic of Gilgamesh I was surprised by a character that to me seemed quite crucial to the entire story but whose background in today’s society would be looked down on. I am of course talking about Shamhat the harlot, or prostitute. In the Epic, Shamhat was the one who civilized Enkidu by making love to him, thus making him less like an animal and more willing to start interacting with humankind, specifically Gilgamesh. All thanks to this prostitute. Could it be possible that prostitutes had a better social reputation back then compared to now? I believe so. When the hunter first discovers Enkidu, and brings the news over to his father, the quick response was to get Shamhat, who was immediately able to “fix” Enkidu. The Epic just gave a lot of credit to Shamhat that was even recognized by the so called great Gilgamesh, who was the one who recommended her. Not only that, the prostitute also gets lines in the story, truly making her mark. This indicates that prostitution was recognized by the culture in which the Epic was born, and seemingly accepted into the culture.

But of course, Shamhat still did not hold the status of any of the men in the story. Even Enkidu, though he barely became truly human. (Shown when Shamhat compares Enkidu to a god, thus making him higher status then her.) This lower status is evident in the line where the hunter tells Shamhat to “do for the man the work of a woman!” (Tablet I, line 185) This implies that womens work is meant to satisfy men. This woman even seems a bit stupid. This can be seen when she begins to tell Enkidu how great of a man Gilgamesh is, how he is “fair in manhood, dignified in bearing, graced with charm in his whole person.” (Tablet I lines 235) This contradicts how Gilgamesh is depicted later on as a ruthless tyrant. So yes, Shamhat was a crucial role in converting Enkidu but was definitely not wise, like the other female figure the Wild-Cow Ninsun, Gilgamesh’s mother. Seems that although prostitutes were recognized as a job available for the women to do in that culture, they were still not as wise as men or even higher up women. Much can be learned about the social setting during Gilgamesh’s time, and I look forward to what the rest of the tablets will reveal.

The Role of Women in Gilgamesh I-III

The importance of women and marriage in the Uruk culture is shown in the first three chapters of “The Epic of Gilgamesh” as translated by George. In face, according to the beginning of the book, the treatment of women is one of the main reasons for the gods creating Enkidu in the first place. It says that “Gilgamesh lets no girl go free to her bride[groom]” (4). It’s not the only reason that the gods intervened, but it is clear that it is a main reason. Chapter one says “[The women voiced] their [troubles to the goddesses,] [they brought their] complaint before [them]” ( 3). Even after Enkidu is created by the gods, he only goes to Gilgamesh and fulfills the purpose he was created for after hearing about the way the king treated women who were about to get married. He stopped Gilgamesh right before he was about to deflower a young bride, and challenges the king, earning his respect and friendship.

The people of Uruk seem to discuss women as if they have a power over men. The way that both the hunter and King Gilgamesh plan to get Enkidu “tame” is by sending the prostitute in order to lure him to them. Enkidu didn’t know what a woman was when he was placed on the earth, he was raised by animals. However, these people thought that Shamhat would be able to please and welcome him, which she did. This just shows the power that they viewed women as having. Although this power is not given in the best way, it is still control.

In addition to that, one of the most highly regarded women in their society was the goddess Ninsun who ends up adopting Enkidu. The roles of men and women have clearly never really changed. The men ruled and got the food while the women took care of the home and had power over their men because of their sexuality. It’s interesting to see the approach that Enkidu is shown having towards women by his protection over the bride. He wasn’t even raised in their society but he already knows that it’s wrong for the king to deflower them right before their husbands are able to. This shows on what level women were valued in their culture.

Laney Homet

Tablets I-III

It is interesting that the Epic of Gilgamesh begins with the introduction of Gilgamesh, but focuses more on the advent of Enkidu for the first tablet and a half. But by looking Enkidu and the snippets of Gilgamesh shows the type of person Gilgamesh is by the descriptions of the “equal” Enkidu and the cries of the people of Uruk.

For a man who is two-thirds god, Gilgamesh does not act as a demigod would rule. He isn't a true god that rules over people, but acts as if he does have that power. It shows the cruelty of the gods in this story and their lack of concern to the people, who continue to faithfully obey. The character of Gilgamesh shows arrogance and stubbornness due to his position as king of Uruk. Even to defying the elders and voices of the people to go to the Forest of Cedar to fight the Humbaba. It shows his overbearing presence on the people of Uruk. He places so much on the line just for his own self. He is on bad terms with the people of Uruk, whom he is called to overlook and protect, as well as the elders who are his supporters. Even his friend, Enkidu does not want Gilgamesh to embark on his journey. The portrait that Gilgamesh paints for himself in the first three tablets show how thick-headed he is and how unwilling he is to listen and basks in his own self-glory and arrogance.

The Epic of Gilgamesh shows a parallelism with Sophocles' “Oedipus Rex”, in which an arrogant ruler who is disillusioned with power can influence the people around him. Gilgamesh's obsession with maintaining a eternal fame on this earth shows how prideful such a person can be. His pride directly affects the people around him.

The introduction of Enkidu is interesting because he is to be an equal to Gilgamesh, but Enkidu's appearance is opposite to that of Gilgamesh's. Enkidu is first seen as a primitive, uncivilized, and bestial human who is physically strong like that of Gilgamesh, but does not have the god-like appearance. If Enkidu is Gilgamesh's equal, then it shows that Gilgamesh himself is bestial and uncivilized in character. Through reading the epic, we can see that Gilgamesh's pride ties in with the uncivilized nature that comes in pride. So there is a relation between Enkidu and Gilgamesh shows that they are equals, despite the fact that Gilgamesh is a demigod and Enkidu is a primitive man. This relationship between the two companions show the equality they both share even though Gilgamesh is considered to be better than Enkidu.

The Likeness of Gilgamesh & Rama

In my last post, I considered the possibility, without any further knowledge on the matter, that Uruk, as the first great city of the world could have also encountered the first forms of “government” corruption. Now after reading the first 50 pages of The Epic of Gilgamesh (as translated by Andrew George), it is come to my delightful surprise that this tale revolves around the life of the “tyrant” ruler of Uruk! Alas, my theory that the power of the concentrated temple leaders would become debauched seems to be very much possible. According to the ancient tablets of lapis lazuli, Gilgamesh had the reputation of being a “terrible” oppressor, one who engaged in droit de seigneur and “lets no girl go free to her bride[groom]” (4). In a way, he reminds me of another ruler in another equally beloved epic of ancient history, the Valmiki Ramayana. Last semester, I took an awesome course on the introduction to Hindu Mythology and one of things that really stuck with me was the story of Rama. Assuming that you, the reader, are familiar with the Valmiki Ramayana, I would like to point out a few intriguing similarities between these two epics. Perhaps the likeness of these two tales (especially between the two protagonists), suggest the possibility that different cultures and religions are interconnected in a way that enable them to share ideas or simply have similar beliefs.

First off, the heroes of both of these epics are thought to possess some fraction of the divine character: Rama is thought to be an incarnation of the great god, Vishnu, while Gilgamesh is composed of “two-thirds god and one third human” (2). They are both rulers (or will be lords) of their kingdoms: Ayodhya for Rama and Uruk for Gilgamesh. So far into the reading of The Epic of Gilgamesh, it seems to me that one of the first perils that Gilgamesh will confront is the “ferocious” guardian of the Cedar Forest, Humbaba (20). Likewise, Rama takes a quest to destroy the 10-headed demigod Ravana to rescue his kidnapped wife, Sita (but as we later find out, he undertakes such a task in an effort to save face). In addition, each hero is accompanied by a companion (or two) as they embark on their voyage to achieve greatness: Rama has Sita and his brother, Lakshman; Gilgamesh has Enkidu.

The similarities that I acknowledged are undeniable, but apparently, I am not the only one who took notice. Upon traversing through the pages of the Internet, I stumbled upon a few articles that also pay attention to the striking comparisons of The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Valmiki Ramayana. One such article, written by a Yahoo! contributor, points out other similarities that I have yet to come across in my reading. According to Andrew Brusnhan (the author of the article), the “monster” and mortal enemy of Gilgamesh is not Humbaba, but instead, it is Enkidu, his counterpart of the gods’ creation. Later on in the epic, Gilgamesh takes a trek to find a magical plant that will make him immortal, only to lose it to a dubious serpent. Likewise, Rama embarks on a quest to rescue his wife, only to shun her for sleeping in the house of another man. According to Brusnhan, “both Gilgamesh and Rama departed on adventures, ultimately seeking something that they wanted badly. However in the end, they both end up losing what they have sought for so long.” (It may surprise you as it did me to learn that these profound comparisons were written about by an 18-year old contributor!)

The fact that The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Valmiki Ramayana share so many common story features does not suggest that either of them “stole” from the other. Instead, it only asserts the idea that people from the respective regions of India and Mesopotamia have in some way come in contact and have shared their different beliefs. According to Alf Hiltebeitel, a professor of religion and whose works I have used before in research: “The comparison of Indian and ancient near Eastern and Mediterranean traditions concerning the goddess is by no means a new one. It is widely held that such similarities as have been found result, in some combination of factors, from the common Neolithic background, the agricultural revolution, the rise of the great river-based urban civilizations (including the “Harappan”), and the mutual contacts and diffusions that were a result of rated and the movement of peoples (187).


Resources

Brusnahan, Andrew. “Comparing, Contrasting The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Ramayana.” Yahoo Contributor Network. Yahoo!, 7 Dec. 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.

Hiltebeitel, Alf. “Rama and Gilgamesh: The Sacrifices of the Water Buffalo and the Bull of Heaven.” History of Religions. The University of Chicago Press, 1980. 187-188. Print.

Loyalty to the Oppressor

The beginning of the epic reveals a strong positive value associated with a homeland while casting a negative glance towards the foreign. George’s introduction states how the epic may provide a lesson for how a king should rule. Aside from fighting battles and maintaining law, the duty of a Babylonian King includes overseeing the temples’ stock of foodstuffs and treasure (xlii). With Liverani’s text in mind, sufficient stock of temple wealth is to be redistributed throughout the homeland territory. This brings a sense of the loyalty expected from Gilgamesh, since adequate sustenance for the city may depend on his presence as King.

The hunter that initially discovers Enkidu returns to his father with gloomy features. The hunter’s sorrowful disposition allows so that “his face resembled [one come from] afar” (I120). This may foreshadow the negative fate of anyone wandering too far from his or her homeland. Enkidu, born without a home, is depicted as a wild man that requires taming for civilization. Until he is lured with help of Shamhat, he is considered unapproachable and possibly dangerous. He is not of value to Gilgamesh and Uruk until officially being adopted by Ninsun. This adoption marks his acquiring of a homeland and final riddance of foreign association.

It is only after Enkidu’s adoption into Uruk that he may guide Gilgamesh to Humbaba. Thus Enkidu acts as a liaison between Uruk and the foreign. He would not have been granted such an honor had he still been a foreigner, as not only is he to guide Gilgamesh but also represent the homeland. Before sending the heroes off, the city mentions to Enkidu, ‘in our assembly we place the King in your care: you bring him back and replace him in ours’ (III 12). Although Gilgamesh is a tyrant to his city it seems Uruk is highly worried about the King’s foreign journey. They are hoping for his safe return, and seem to have forgotten their earlier complaints of his tyranny. The idea of homeland loyalty with foreign aversion and the important duties of a Babylonian king (including overseeing the temple’s stock of wealth), allow for me to understand why the city is so concerned about the wellbeing of their oppressor.

The Epic of Gilgamesh: Introduction, Tablets I, II, and III

Amazing. This word sums up my reaction in reading the introduction and the first three tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The epic indeed seems to have become more “perfected” over the generations as the story was told from one generation to another, each probably altering the story slightly to make it more interesting. Nonetheless, as Andrew George, the translator of this particular version, suggests, we should not entirely treat this as a myth. While many parts of the stories—regarding the gods or some legends—are obviously mythical, King Gilgamesh was possibly a real king during the period of Uruk. The first three tablets were in fact very entertaining but unfortunate because the original tablets are damaged, and we could not completely decipher the missing parts. This, too, reminds me of how ancient and distant the story actually is. The epic survived over four millennia, a definitely amazing time span, so we should rather be grateful that we could find—and translate—the tablets in spite of their antiquity. What fascinates me the most is the purpose of the epic is not only to tell the myths of the period down to future generations, but also to be “a document of ancient humanism”, as put by the Assyoriologist William L. Moran. The story of Gilgamesh’s journey clearly intends to show a struggle of an “unwise” man to defeat mortality and end up wise in knowing there is no escape it.

Moreover, the epic also draws parallels with many other ancient, classical literatures, such as those Greek and Latin masterpieces, or even the Bible. I found this to be very interesting as, for instances, both the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible refer to the flood that obliterated much of mankind, or both have similar teachings (for example, advice to “do your duty in the embrace of your woman”). The existence of different gods for certain aspects, such as the supreme triad—the Sky God Any, Enlil, and Ea—are very similar to, but not exactly the same as, the ancient Greek gods Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. This parallelism and common themes interest me because they suggest the influence of one literature on another, and though each had its own original characteristics, there exists continuity in the people over the millennia.

Uruk ch 3-5

Andrew Brown 004
In chapters 3 – 5 of Uruk, Liverani goes into more depth on the nature of the economy, which increased in complexity as time passed, and the eventual reduction of Uruk’s spectrum of economic dominance and cultural influence due to the collapse of the temple. Apparently, however, while this marks the end of his book, the collapse of the early system in Lower Mesopotamia was followed by a reorganization that produced at least one more period of prosperity. As to whether the second period of prosperity was driven by mercantilism and militarism, Liverani does not go into much depth.
The simplicity of the regulation of the early economy in Uruk left plenty of room for personal profit. In barley, textiles, and trade, the government usually demanded flat-rate compensation for goods moving about the state; whatever happened outside the bounds of the Fertile Crescent, or after the quota had been met, was the business of the individual. With the advent of writing, however, which was used by scribes to standardize the system of weights and measures, the movement of goods and services within the state was put under a much more watchful eye. I believe that this increase in regulation of the economy, which, most importantly, ensured that rounding benefitted the state instead of the individual, caused the incredible expansion and diversification of the Uruk economy.
The grain-production of Lower Mesopotamia was key to the stability of the state and grain turned out to be a much more useful resource to the people of peripheral lands. What the state had too much of (grain), it traded easily with peripheral peoples for timber, stone, and precious metals. In the end, however, the extent of Uruk’s influence shrunk dramatically, Liverani says, due to the collapse of the temple. As can be seen from later times, during which the more egalitarian design of Uruk was abandoned, the temple was the main force driving social accumulation and redistribution of wealth. In Lower Mesopotamia, where organized agriculture necessitated administration, the temple remained side-by-side with the palace. In other areas, where, presumably, the temple had had less influence from the beginning, the palace became the new face of secondary peripheral states. I believe the weakening of centralized authority allowed these secondary states to arise because their total purpose was no longer for the sustenance of the central city.

Uruk, Chapters 3-5

In Chapters 3-5 of Uruk: The First City, Mario Liverani discusses a lot about the economic forces that allowed the city of Uruk to grow in population and expand in complexity. He points out the vital importance of the crop barley which was not only a source of food but a commodity used as money because of its abundance and ability to be preserved and stored. The other major important resource was sheep as they allowed for the production of wool, textiles, and ready made clothes. Liverani claims the supervision of this production was done by the central agency. His proposals have a lot to do with the regulation done by this central administration. The temple at the center of Uruk collected surpluses from the people and controlled the economy. But this creates the question of, how were they able to do so? How could they convince the average people to sacrifice the resources that they work so hard to produce?

Liverani argues that the answer to this question is simply ideology. A unified religious belief system that brings people together is what caused the temple to gain power through “ideological persuasion”. Liverani explains, “The extraction of resources was less painful if it was done for the benefit of a super-human entity endowed with superior powers and with functions that were essential for the survival of the community, than if it was done for the direct benefit of a chief, whom all could see to be human like everyone else.” Some may argue against Liverani’s claims because they make it seem like the common people were a bit too generous or too submissive to the temple. Also the temple did not seem to ever need to defend against any resistance from the common people who were giving up their own resources and labor, so this does not seem to add up. I tend to agree with Liverani’s conclusions about the effect of ideology, because I believe in the supreme power of psychology. It is important to note the historical context in which these events occurred. Six or seven thousand years ago, people were not as resistant to taxation or economic regulation as say a modern day American. This is mainly because they had no education and didn’t live in a world where they knew any better. Religion was also different. If they truly believed in whatever religion was being planted in them, then they would easily submit to the commands of a temple. In the ancient days religion was not just a system of moral values or traditions, it was a way of life, and it was exploited by some as a means to gain power.

Uruk Ch 3-5

These chapters of the book were very informative. I found it useful to learn about the type of economy that developed and how it grew and differed in the various regions. It was interesting to learn that barley was a main crop in Lower Mesopotamia because of its attributes. They include that “it matures very fast and it is very tolerant of saline solids”. It was also resistant to threats in growing conditions. Another aspect of the economy that was covered and I found captivating was how wealth was determined. It is interesting to note that depending on how much land or goods one was able to grow, one’s wealth was assigned. For example, if one had people work their fields, one was considered well off. On the other hand, if one was only able to grow enough food for oneself, one was poorer. Also, I found the explanation about why barley was such a fruitful staple compared to other goods, such as fruit and onions useful. The characteristic of not rotting or molding too quickly and ability to transport easily was important. Furthermore, I found the explanation about wool captivating. It explained a lot about traditions. For example, “children took the sheep to pasture, men sheared, [and] women and girls spun and wove. Liverani writes that women and children “were considered better fit for domestic activity”. I also found it significant to note how people were paid and goods were rationed. As Liverani explains, “the size of food rations corresponded in a very rough way to bodily weight, [so] they were less for women and children than for men”. In addition, it was engaging to read about the developments in the textile industry and how the specialization of crafts is “an element that qualifies, if not directly generates, the emergence of a socio-economic organization of the complex type”. In some communities, everyone grew their own goods, while in others, producers of food maintained specialists. Overall, these chapters contained a lot of useful information and encouraged me to consider different aspects of the area, including its economy and the factors that influenced it.