Gilgamesh and Agga

Abstract

ROBABLY the most significant piece of creative writing in the ancient Near East is the long known Semitic epic poem commonly called The Epic of Gilgamesh. Divided over twelve tablets, its text originally consisted of more than three thousand lines written in the cuneiform script and in the Semitic language now usually designated as Accadian. It is particularly remarkable for its plot-structure; a number of episodes in the restless, adventurous life of the hero are integrated with no little skill into a relatively long and intricate epic tale, probably the first of such size apd complexity in the history of epic literature. Moreover, this Babylonian product was current all over the ancient Near East; fragments of the epic written in the Accadian, Hittite, and Hurrian languages have been excavated in Boghaz Keui, in central Anatolia. In modern days, quite a number of cuneiformists have devoted much of their time and effort to the copying, translating, and interpreting of the poem; among the better known of these are George Smith and Paul Haupt, Peter Jensen and Campbell Thompson. Now while on the whole the Epic of may be accurately described as a Semitic literary creation, not a little of its contents goes back to sources. Available at present, wholly or in part, are the texts of five epic tales concerned with the deeds and adventures of the hero Gilgamesh; an analysis of their contents reveals that, while there was no original for the Babylonian Epic of as a whole, several of the individual episodes and motifs can be traced back to prototypes.1 However, by no means all of the tales concerned with were utilized by the Semitic authors and redactors of the Epic of Gilgamesh; it is one of these tales, an epic poem of which there is not a trace in the Semitic work, that forms the basis of the present study. This poem, which for reasons that will soon become obvious may be entitled Gilgamesh and Agga, is one of the shortest of all epic tales; it consists of no more than 115 lines of text. In spite of its brevity, however, it is of unusual significance from several points of view. In the first place, its plot deals with humans only; unlike the rest of the epic tales, it introduces no mythological motifs involving any of the deities. Secondly, it is of considerable historical importance since it provides a number of hitherto unknown facts concerning the early struggle between the cities of Kish and Erech. More important still is the implication of these new bits of data for modern historical methodology, for, interestingly enough and quite unintentionally of course, they help the present-day Orientalist to evaluate more intelligently his ancient source material and recognize some of its hidden pitfalls. Thus, one of the most important documents for the reconstruction of the earlier history of Sumer is the so-called Sumerian King List.'2 According to this document, the first dynasty in Lower Mesopotamia immediately following