Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
The story of the encounters of Gilgamesh with the ‘Ale-wife’ and with Ur-shanabi the ferry-man, in his quest for the secret of immortality, is partly preserved on tablets from the Nineveh libraries and from Babylon, and partly on a fragment of Old Babylonian date. This last was purchased, from among a group of tablets said to come from Sippar (Abu Habba), by Bruno Meissner, for the Berlin Museum in 1902. It provided the first tangible evidence of the existence of a text earlier than the ‘canonical’ Assyrian and, by overlapping part of the story already known, revealed something of the literary changes which had taken place during the intervening centuries. More recent discoveries have shown that there were several Old Babylonian text-types.
The Meissner Fragment is the lower part of a tablet with four columns, two on either face, containing fifteen and fourteen lines of the obverse and fifteen and fourteen of the reverse. Translations of the text may be found in the late Alexander Heidel's book and in A.N.E.T. The first column narrates the care of Shamash for Gilgamesh, probably included in Tablet IX of the ‘canonical’ version. In columns two and three the hero explains his search to the Ale-wife, who attempts to dissuade him with her famous carpe diem speech, a speech not inappropriate to one of that profession.
1 V.A.T. 4105; Meissner, B., M.V.A.G. VII, pp. 1–15 Google Scholar; cf. M.A.O.G. VIII (1934). p. 28 Google Scholar. Pinches, T. G. published a copy and study of his own in P.S.B.A. XXV (1903), pp. 113–122, 195–201 Google Scholar.
2 For studies of the text see the Bibliography in Garelli, P. (ed.), Gilgameš et sa légende, Paris, 1960 Google Scholar, and especially von Soden, W., Z.A.n.F. XIX (1959), pp. 209–235 Google Scholar.
3 The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 2nd ed., Chicago, 1949, pp. 69–71 Google Scholar.
4 On the sabītum see recently Wiseman, D. J., Tyndale House Bulletin XIV (1964), pp. 8–9 Google Scholar.
5 As reconstructed by Thompson, R. Campbell, The Epic of Gilgamish, Oxford, 1930 Google Scholar.
6 B.M. 34193 + 35413, D. J. Wiseman in P. Garelli, op. cit., pp. 128–131.
7 The measurements of B.M. 96974 were compared with those of V.A.T. 4105 by W. G. Lambert during a visit to Berlin, a courtesy which resulted in virtual certainly that the pieces belong to the same tablet.
8 A copy of B.M. 96974 will be published as no. 16 in C.T. XLVI. Thanks are due to the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to publish this study in advance.
9 Cf. Landsberger, B., W.O. III (1964), p. 73 Google Scholar.
10 The restoration proposed by W. von Soden, loc. cit., p. 231, is supported by line 12 of the new text.
11 For an explanation of the ú, see D. J. Wiseman, loc. cit., p. 130, n. 2.
12 The restorations and translations offered in C.A.D. A.1, p. 61, seem over bold. The coincidence assumed between the lines of the Assyrian fragments and the late Babylonian (following Wiseman) cannot be proven and the resulting sense is hardly consistent with the remainder of the narrative; had the stone things magical properties, there is no evidence that they were animate and could become ‘frightened’ (instead of pu-lu(?)-ḫ[u-ma x x] some form of belû, II, ‘to extinguish, destroy’ might be posited) or that the boat could or did move without its master; nor is there any other hint that Gilgamesh attacked Ur-shanabi.
13 Salonen, A., Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien, Helsingfors, 1939, pp. 131–2Google Scholar.
14 Friedrich, J., Z.A.n.F. V (1930), p. 26, Bo.2773.3Google Scholar.
15 So J. Friedrich, ibid., pp. 58–60.
16 Op. cit., p. 85; cf. his translation, The Epic of Gilgamish, London, 1928, p. 46, n. 3Google Scholar, where he allows the possibility of ‘paddles’.
17 Cf. D. J. Wiseman, loc. tit., p. 130, n. 2.
18 Meier, G., O.L.Z. XLIII (1940), col. 305, n. 3Google Scholar; Landsberger, B., quoted by Kraus, F. R., J.C.S. IV (1950), p. 151, n. 23Google Scholar.
19 There was a technical expression for a rowlock, ṣerret parīsi, Ḫar.ra:ḫubullu IV.409; M.S.L. V, p. 184 Google Scholar.
20 No example is noticed in C.A.D. A.1, pp. 10, 24–27.
21 The urnu associated with the šūt abnim does not clarify their function. It is usually identified as a species of snake ( Landsberger, B., Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien, Leipzig, 1935, pp. 51, 63 Google Scholar; M.S.L. V1II.2, pp. 7, 45 Google Scholar) although no purpose can be envisaged apart from the talismanic. Could urnu be a tree, a very tall tree, furnishing wood for paddles (cf. A.R.M. VI, no. 63, r. 5′; C.A.D. Ṣ, p. 108, ‘pine tree’)?
22 Cf. C.A.D. Ṣ, p. 250, and the adjective ṣuppu, pp. 248–249.
23 ṣerretu appears to be generally a ‘leash’ (C.A.D. Ṣ, pp. 134–136 ‘leading rope’ etc.) and if the proffered translation be right, would be either a flexible handle or a binding to prevent splits.
