Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:31:01.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Gilgamesh Epic Fragment from Nimrud

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

D. J. Wiseman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The excavation of a group of tablets, regrettably mainly broken, from the Ezida temple of the Nabû complex of buildings at Kalhu (Nimrud) has been described with evidence of their provenance by the excavator M. E. L. Mallowan. In a summary of the then identified texts given by me in 1968 one of these fragments was seen to be “a Gilgamesh epic type” text. The text ND 4405/4, now in the Iraq Museum (IM.67577), has subsequently been cleaned and a new copy made and collated (Plate XXXVII; with a photograph on Plate XXXVIII). During a recent seminar on the series ša naqba īmuru this tablet was identified as providing the missing section of the Epic of Gilgamesh tablet I, column i, fines 17–52 with traces of the beginning of I ii, ll. 40–44, 49–50, iii 1–3. There is sufficient overlap with the already known text of Gilgamesh I, i. 17–20, which lines are repeated at the end of the epic (XI, 304–307), for the location of this new part to be made with certainty and thus for the development of the opening of the epic to be traced despite the unfortunate break in the left side of the tablet. Since the new text provides twenty-five additional lines it justifies publication without further delay.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1975 , pp. 157 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

ll. 17–21 restored from K.2252 +; K.8517+ (=Gilg. XI, 304–307; cf. Thompson, R. C., The Epic of Gilgamish (1930)Google Scholar, Pl. 54).

20. Or pi-[it-ru]; there seems insufficient space for pi-[ti-ir É dištar].

21 . ta[m-hu] so Thompson, op. cit. Pl. 54; could this be tam-mar “find after searching” (frequently of foundation documents) ?

22. Or GiŠ.DUB.ŠEN.NA. Cf. šennu, a receptacle made of metal usually copper (AHw, 995), as here probably to contain tablets rather than the tablet itself (Jensen, KB VI 556Google Scholar; cf. Gurney, O. R., An. St. 5 (1955), 113Google Scholar, l. 149 (“ivory(?) tablet”); A. Ungnad and E. Ebeling in Gressmann, AOTB, (“Erztafel”).

23. Restoration, ?[pe-te-]e. hargallu is the lock-ring usually put down (nadû) to fasten the door (Maqlu VII, 10Google Scholar; K.3200, 16 (R. C. Thompson, Gilgamish, Pl. 59). The hargallu was sometimes made of bronze (HSS 13 174: 11Google Scholar; RA 36 (1939), 159Google Scholar.

24. Restoration ?[ri-ki-]is, but verb would be expected.

25. Restoration possibly [šu-ṣi-a]-ma; cf. še-ṣi-a-ma lū nīmur, “release (the documents) that we may read (them)” (ATHE 35: 14Google Scholar). šitassi: šasū “to read aloud” (JNES 11 (1952), 133Google Scholar n. 6; cf. BASOR (1946) 103, 12Google Scholar). It is used of reading a rediscovered foundation document (AKA 171 r. 13).

26. ittallaku; cf. it-ta-al-la-ku ka-lu mar-ṣa-a-tim (Gilgamesh X, ii 1, 3Google Scholar (OB)).

27. šá-nu-u'-ú-du: cf. šanûdu=qanādu (malku = šarru; JAOS 83 (1963), 435Google Scholar l. 95, 425 l. 22). For bēl gatti cf. l. 48.

29. ina pāni alāku; cf. Gilg. III, i. 6; V, 146, 251.

31. Restoration [sa]-par-ru, according to a suggestion of Aaron Shaffer. Alternatively [giš]-par-ru (suggestion E. Reiner). This may be possible as the sky is so described (Etana, , Bab 12Google Scholar, Pl. 4. 11), and a gišparru-trap being made of wood (CAD 5, 106Google Scholar) could be designated dannu. A reading zabrīšu is unlikely because of the spacing; this as part of the body (CAD 21, 9Google Scholar, sub zabru) could be the chest, a vital aspect of the divers' equipment (Gilg. XI, 276 where reading kibrīšu is uncertain).

32 [a]gû ezzu is an epithet of Ashur. Cf. Gilg. VI, 39Google Scholar, pīlu mu' abbit BÀD abni; Maqlû II, 141Google Scholar, dGirra mu'abbit BÀD abni.

33. Restoration. Could this be [e]-mu with the meaning of “son”, as UET I, 167.4Google Scholar? Otherwise li-pu? or ligimû would be expected. The epithet gitmalu emuqi is frequently used of Gilgamesh, e.g. I, iv 38, 45.

34. For Rimat-Ninsun see I. vi. 17 (BM 38538 r. 2′, Garelli, P. (ed.), Gilgamesh et sa Légende, 125–6Google Scholar).

36. Restoration [pe-tu]-ú is probably to be preferred to [ba-a]-ú or to [e-lu]-ú (suggestion R. Borger). Cf. nērebēti ša KUR-i in Gilg. IX, i 8 (CT 20, 491Google Scholar).

37. Restoration [he-ru]-ú since Gilgamesh and Enkidu dug a well (Gilgamesh IV, i 5; cf. iii 268).

38. A.AB.BA tâmtu is used of the Flood waters (Gilg.XI,138); for the crossing of the sea cf. Gilg.X,ii 21–27.

39. Restoration [ha]-a-iṭ; cf. Haupt, , NE, no. 53, 3Google Scholar.

40–41. The restorations and readings at the beginnings of these two lines are uncertain.

40. For the doubtful dannussu, cf. the forms listed in GAG § 147b. For the phrase kašādu dannussu, cf. Luckenbill, , OIP 2, 75Google Scholar l. 97.

42–45. mannumma … ša …, ša …, ša …: restoration suggested by J. D. Hawkins. Cf. Gilg. VI, 182 f.; En. el. VI 23 f.

45. The reading na-bu, as opposed to my original šu-pu “excelled”, is to be preferred.

46. Cf. Gilg. IX, ii. 16; I ii. 1.

47. Reading uṣ-ṣi[r] is suggested by W. G. Lambert.