Ethnopoetry and the Enmerkar Epics

Abstract

AS A FORMER STUDENT OF PROFESSOR SAMUEL NOAH KRAMER, under whose guidance I first read epics, it is a privilege and pleasure to offer here a paper which continues his tradition of comparative studies of epic literature.' It is limited to a discussion of the tales of Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, and addresses itself to ways of viewing these tales from a folkloristic perspective. Little is known about the origin of the epics. An oral stage is assumed, in conformity with current views in comparative literature, but, of course, this is not recoverable.2 Our only knowledge of the epics comes from written texts. There are hints of a written epic tradition from as early as the Fara Period,3 but it is not until the Ur III Period that we find clear evidence of a heroic epic tradition. Furthermore, as has often been noted, the early rulers of Ur III, Urnammu and Shulgi, themselves claim kinship with the ancient heroes of Uruk who are the epic heroes.4 What is the significance of this claim? Since there is a strong likelihood that Urnammu was actually a native of Uruk, Sumerologists often assume that the epics were preserved (or composed-at any rate, took written form) because of Urnammu's personal origin. That is to say, had it not been for this link with Uruk, these epics would not have been preserved; and conversely, there may have been cycles of other cities which were not preserved because the Ur III rulers had no attachments to these cities. This position is stated most unambiguously by J. Renger: The ... heroic epics of Enmerkar and Lugalbanda owe their continuing existence to the fact that . . . the Third Dynasty of Ur originated in Uruk, the city of these epic rulers.5 But this is putting the cart before the horse. It seems more reasonable that the Ur III rulers, whether or not they had actual ties to Uruk, claimed Uruk origins because of the existence and acceptance of the epics. First of all, the epics do not preserve local traditions, as Renger suggests. With the exception of Gilgamesh and Agga, none of them depicts local rivalries, but rather they show Uruk opposed to a foreign enemy. They are thus implicitly nationalistic, in a broad sense, with Uruk symbolizing the entire nation (as will be discussed below). One need not hail from Uruk in order to identify with its past. Uruk as a symbol of national supremacy was reinforced by historical events closer to the time of Ur III; the overthrow of the Gutians and the re-establishment of hegemony is credited to Utuhegal of Uruk (Dynasty V). Thus Uruk became a paradigm of national strength, and its ancient heroes Heroes of Sumer: A New Heroic Age in World History and Literature, PAPS 90 (1946), 120-30; Sumerian Epic Literature, La Poesia Epica e la sua Formazione, 1970, 825-37.