Jump to content

Talk:Gilgamesh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.191.150.36 (talk) at 20:02, 15 September 2015 (Undid revision 681076507 by 71.246.145.127 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gilgamesh Prologues

The Gilgamesh Prologues are mentioned on Talk:Lilith, does anyone know what these are and if so maybe write a bit in this article or even make a new article for these Prologues?

Something like: The twenty-six lines of the hymnic prologue that opens the Epic's Standard version— established by the mid-first millennium BCE— praising Gilgamesh for the great knowledge he had acquired in his travels and explicitly identifying Utnapishtim's story of the flood as something that had been "secret" (ni sirtu) and "hidden" (kat mu) before, are proleptic in character, as is the priestess Shamhat's speech inviting Enkidu to be king in Uruk. They have been inserted by a later editor into the Gilgamesh text. --Wetman 09:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enkidu was Gilgamesh's better half, his wild self, his alter ego. Enkidu takes over the throne from Gilgamesh. He kills Gilgamesh in battle. There are no standard versions of gilgamesh, there are a ton of different versions of the same epic, then there are other storys of gilgamesh's exploits, each one a hand written copy of the other likely having other story elements added in by the scribe. the "standard" version you speak of is just a few versions that have more in common with each other. The story of lilith likely comes from various legends floating around in the mid east, as some of the rejected books of the bible, and i think even hebrew lore mention her. - DAFONZ

Importance

Is it not important to mention the similarities between Noah's arc in the bible and the great flood within the texts of Gilgamesh along with the dating of each book. Gilgamesh is about a larger story, but even the history channel emphasizes the aforementioned similarities bewteen both books and the fact that Gilgamesh precedes the writing of the Bible. Not everyone knows this, however most history erudites do.

I'd say its very important to mention that, unless it is considered too religious . . .

Gilgamesh story shares some similarities with the Bible and that should be also precised. I will come up with details later. Regards, Saggiga

There are no similarities with the bible, the story mentions a survivor of the flood, considering that gilgamesh himself is of the same stock as the early hebrews he would have heard the same legends and both peoples would have experianced the same things, as a result both the sumerians and early hebrews experianced the supposed flood. (The flood story is probably as old as modern humans in the area and could relate to the sudden increase in moisture after the last ice age ended, which would have resulted in catastrophic flooding all over the mediterrainian)

The archeologist Dr. David P. Livingston, argues that Gilgamesh is the biblical Nimrod (descendat of Noah) http://www.ancientdays.net/nimrod.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.148.238 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Biography"

Please talk more about Gilgamesh's life and not about summerian (Anon.)

Cobbling together a "biography" out of various mutually non-conforming texts is a long-standing Christian tradition. It can't be applied here. There is no authentic "biography" of Gilgamesh outside his epic. --Wetman 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its not a christian tradition, its a normal one, all cultures do it. It has been theorized that the Epic itself was cobbled together by a single writer from various earlier myths and turned into one fluid story. Also, Gilgamesh had a life outside of the epic, and was one of the earliest post flood sumerian kings, i think the 3rd or fifth, so a simple biography would be this:

"Gilgamesh was the ruler of the city of Uruk on the Euphrates river around 2650 BC, He was the subject of many legends and storys, including the first known work of liturature in the history of humanity, the 'Epic of Gilgamesh', in historical records of the kings of Sumeria, he is listed as the 5th king of Uruk. That is, part of the 5th generation after the flood."

wasnt that hard was it? -DAFONZ

is it not important to understand and explain why it is written that Gilgamesh undertook a journey to meet the gods and passed through the Gate of the Sun(Tiahuanaco,South America)? how was he able to do this,the gate of the sun is in Tiahuanaco still to this day,is it not then archeological evidence which cannot be ignored,that must point to some kind of intercontinental travel in pre history?how is this possible considering the level of technology from the era(2000-3000 BC)?also how did a chronicler in the middle east know that such a place existed? surely these are more perplexing questions. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.74.21 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deification

"Gilgamesh is written with the determinative for divine beings (DINGIR)" The reason this is so and there is no gilgamesh cult is because he was not a god, in the epic it states that he was part god part man, 2 thirds god, 1 third man, as a result his name would have been written to signify his deity heritage. - DAFONZ


Facts

Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk around year 2650 BC.
He was son of Lugalbanda and the goddess Rimat Ninsun.
He made his people work very much to build new monuments and became then a tyrant.
When he meets Enkidu, he stops being a tyrant.
With his friend, he killed the king Huwawa and a giant Bull.
When Enkidu died, he was afraid to die and searched for the plant of immortality.
After bringing it from the waters of death, a snake ate the plant.
Gilgamesh died lying next to his beloved friend Enkidu.

Why don't you tell the story of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, as I resumed here above ?
I can add it to the article if you agree.

Saggiga

Couldn't you just add it on? --I wanna fly 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Enkidu ought to be mentioned at least once somewhere in this article. It's ridiculous that his name is entirely missing, given his significance in all the extant texts regarding Gilgamesh. And yes, I could do it, but it's well outside my area of expertise. I came to the article to find cited info on Gilgamesh and Enkidu. --75.16.161.119 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Enkidu isn't mentioned at all. He should be. 99.174.92.174 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In pop culture?

Wow this article is just utterly ridiculous. The pop culture overshadows the rest of the article, yet a long bibligraphy is included, which makes zero sense, w/ the pop culture being the main focal point of the entire article. I can tell you there is plenty of info on Gilgamesh to fill this article to its capicity, w/out the needence of an pop culture section. Whoever, included this long book list of bibliography but filled the article up with pop culture nonsense is an idiot. I don't think the article barely references the biblio section, theres like one or two paragraphs and thats it on the actual Gilgamesh and I am pretty sure that what is said in those paragraphs does not even come close to using that many books to do so.

I mean for starters, one could count the differences in various versions and translations of Gilgamesh! That alone could fill this article up.

This article is in dire need of love and care. I expect way better than this from wikpedia and than editors on such a high profile, important, and popular myth as Gilgamesh. I mean I have seen bad articles in my time, but I think this is the worst.

Xuchilbara 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was pretty generic and uncited, so removal was better for now. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It shouldn't even be up there. We have a seperate page for those kind of things. Its trivial and of little importance to the historical Gilgamesh. Xuchilbara (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is of no importance. I would say it is not of enormous importance. There should be this In Pop Culture section although it should not be big. I think, too, that this article is too small. 75.48.30.93 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 BCE??

It states in the Biography that Gilgamesh might have ruled during the 26th century B.C.E.. This is incorrect information. The correct information is that he might have ruled in 2650 B.C.E.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.56.101 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe they found a tablet or brick with his name on it, that would be part of the evidence. If you have a source then you could add it too. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Problems

Most scholars agree that Gilgamesh was a fictional figure, much like Odysseus, but this article's tone suggests that the epic is based on a real historical figure. Perhaps revision is needed to help prevent this misconception?

67.171.69.95 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which "most scholars" would those be? I've never heard of any archaeologists or historians who held that view... as opposed to Christian theologians with agendas, who are about as credible as evolution deniers who say dinosaur fossils were placed by god as a test of faith. --75.16.161.119 (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which "evolution deniers" would those be? I've never heard of any who held that view... But really, that has absolutely zero to do with this topic, right? A real gratuitous non sequitur to get your digs in?... More on topic - ever since it was archaeologically confirmed that other kings mentioned in the Gilgamesh Epic like Enmebaragesi were apparently real, there has been much more openness to the possibility that Gilgamesh too was not just fictional. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much to be added to this article. I would love to offer some editing ideas. Rachida10z (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I though that there is a builing or some mud bricks attributed to him. Either from the current life period or later period after death by someone else. I will look into it. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't his heritage impossible? I just tried his heritage out to great-great-great-great grandfathers/mothers and it doesn't evenly split into thirds. Are they rounding?

207.172.203.54207.172.203.54 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: ⅓ isn't a dyadic fraction. I'd always assumed it involved having two fathers. (When you're a god, you don't have to obey the laws of genetics. Especially if you're from a culture that doesn't know them.)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Gilgamesh

The reining kings of the Third dynasty of Ur (2111-2004 B.C.) universally avowed themselves and their city as descended from the semi-divine heroes Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh, who lived around 2700 B.C. Their tales were originally transmitted orally, and later modified by successive generations. During the Third Dynasty they may have been first codified, written down, and then spread abroad. The earliest discovered versions come from 18th and 17th centuries B.C. The Epics of Enmerkar and Lugalbanda deal with historical events of the 4th and 3rd millennia B. C. (4th millennia = 3999 to 3000 B.C., 3rd 2999-2000 B. C.) These historical epics describe relations between Mesopotamia and Iran. Most scholars accept these as having some remote yet valid historical sources. From what I have researched it appears that Gilgamesh himself was indeed a very real historical person, the leader of a proto-literate Uruk of around 2700 B.C. Rachida10z (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to identify Bilgamesh with the biblical patriarch Peleg, mainly because 'mesh' means 'young man' in many Semitic languages, and Peleg/Bilga is likely to be a triliteral root, typical of Semitic languages. Peleg means division or brook in Hebrew, and one explanation given for this name is that Peleg lived at a time when the world was being divided up by the survivors of the Great Flood. 76.191.150.36 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deluge

I corrected the link to "Deluge myth", but, since that article contains many other deluge myths, I would like the link to go to the section specifically referring to the Babylonian Flood. Can anyone make that happen, or is it impossible? Here are two URLs to the section I want to link to, the first being the URL of the section, and the second being the URL to edit the section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth#Babylonian_.28Epic_of_Gilgamesh.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deluge_myth&action=edit&section=4

Thanks! Taquito1 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Epic hero" versus "protagonist"

I think the change from "epic hero" to "protagonist" is not good. Gilgamesh is, after all, the very archetype of the epic hero! I will revert it sooner or later if someone does not persuade me otherwise. Taquito1 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, but "protagonist" sounded a bit too much like a high school literature essay. Taquito1 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh Saga

The following is a translation of an article in the Brazilian language newspaper "Jornal do Brasil" that appeared 2 Feb 1993, pg 9.

Gilgamesh Saga

Ruins Reveal Details About the Assyrian Hero

ROME—An Italian archeologist managed to decipher a series of clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions found close to Baghdad. The discovery of the tablets in the ruins of an ancient library in Sippar revealed new details about the adventures of the mythological hero Gilgamesh. The results of this research appear in the book “The Saga of Gilgamesh,” that went on sale yesterday in Milan by archeologist Giovanni Pettinato, who holds the Assyriology chair at the La Sapienza University in Rome. Gilgamesh was the main mythological hero of the civilizations in Sumeria, Assyria and Babylon. He was a man of great knowledge who tried to penetrate the mysteries of the universe. The main new concept in the recently deciphered tablets is the notion that a man can become a god by eating the flesh of a dead god. This idea of the Mesopotamian culture has similarities in the bible story about the tree of life. According to the serpent’s promise, Adam and Eve would become gods if they ate the forbidden fruit of the tree. The clay tablets were discovered in 1988 by a group of Iraqi archeologists who were working in the ancient city of Sippar, close to the temple dedicated to the sun god, Shamash. Within a hermetically sealed chamber there were more than a thousand tablets placed on shelves carved into the walls. The tablets date back to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, who oppressed the Jews and was king of Babylon in 604 B.C. In addition to the mythological story there are works on medicine, mathematics, history and legal texts. (Jornal do Brasil, 2 Feb 1993, pg 9)

What is the best way to make reference to this in the main article? I wish I could include a link to the original article but it does not appear to be archived on the web.

Cuneiform name?

How was Gilgamesh's name written in cuneiform? Inanna and Enki, for example, have their names written in cuneiform. It would be helpful to have his name in cuneiform as well. 130.101.167.35 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mosaicism or chimerism

There was a sentence in the introduction: "Gilgamesh is described as two parts god and one part man (the figure of two-thirds divine inheritance is highly specific in the ancient work and has recently been revealed to possibly represent the genetic conditions of mosaicism or chimerism)<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ashrafian H |title=Ancient genetics--was Gilgamesh a mosaic? |journal=[[Genet Med]] |volume=10 |issue=11 |pages=843 |year=2008 |pmid=18941417 |doi= |url=}}</ref>."
It is a very ridiculous thing to interpret a single detail like "two-thirds divine inheritance" as suggesting something like mosaicism or chimerism. Unfortunately I seem not to be able to find even an abstract of the cited article. Maybe there is something interesting enough to be included, therefor I moved the reference here. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tomdo08 that the claim advanced in the quoted sentence is highly suspect. Are we expected to believe that genetic medicine was known to the Sumerians? Are we expected to believe even that just because a line of descent not divisible by two is ascribed to Gilgamesh that he, as a quasi-historical figure, actually exhibited mosaicism? Does Ashrafian point to any other aspects of Gilgamesh's character that suggests he had a genetic disorder of any kind? Good question--because I am having difficulty finding even an abstract of the cited article. I have found this link: http://journals.lww.com/geneticsinmedicine/Citation/2008/11000/Ancient_genetics_Was_Gilgamesh_a_mosaic_.10.aspx but I do not have access to the database. Another thing--is "Genetics in Medicine" (Genet Med) a credible, peer-reviewed journal? One thing that I have established is that it is not "Journal of Genetics in Medicine" (J Genet Med), which seems to be a more widely cited publication. Perhaps someone who has access to the article, and has the requisite knowhow, can assess the credibility of this claim. As it stands, apparently the claim has been returned to the text of the article after Tomdo08 removed it, so I am loath to remove it a second time. However, because the claim is extraordinary, and as stated above raises some serious red flags re: its implications for the state of Sumerian genetic technology, (here I would like to mention that some inheritance systems, e.g. the traditional Shi'a system, create situations where an individual might inherit a one-sixth or one-third share of an estate, just to suggest an alternate possibility to the Ashrafian reading, however undeveloped mine might be) I am now saying that if someone does not come forward within, say, 15 days of today (that is, by 25 June 2011), to defend the mosaicism assertion, I will take it upon myself to remove it. KASchmidt (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a dead link, you might just as well remove it.Mannanan51 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51[reply]
Yeah, I'm thinking ten days was probably plenty. Considering that nobody's stepped forward to support this assertion, I'm going to take it out. KASchmidt (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious assertion that Berossus listed "Gilgamesh" as a king

I have to remove the following assertion that was just added, even though it is sourced:

Berossus, a Babylonian priest writing in the early third century BCE, lists Gilgamesh as the third ruler after the flood. An interesting detail is that Gilgamesh is described as king of Babylon, rather than Uruk /ref/ R. E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus p 119./ref/

I don't know what version of Berossus this source may be referring to, but this is dubious or confused information. The specialist books on the Gilgamesh legend have all done exhaustive searches for any name from classical antiquity bearing the slightest resemblance to "Gilgamesh", and this section already summarizes what they have said on the closest forms they could find. If Berossus indeed had the exact name "Gilgamesh" on his king list, or anything like it, that would indeed be startling news to most specialists in the field of Gilgamesh literature. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Berossus' list of Babylonian kings after the flood is well known to specialists, and contains no mention of Gilgamesh. The first three are named by him as: Evechius, Chomasbelus, and Porus. Gilgamesh' name cannot be recognised in any of the subsequent kings on his list, either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to astrology?

Is it sensible to include mention of Gilgamesh in astrology-related articles? I have found an explanation of the epic in astrological terms in Lewis Spence's Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, 1916. pp.182-183 (facsimile edition can be seen on Google Books). Is this still a current interpretation? Are there any recent scholarly texts that can be used? Many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've took a bash at cleaning up the external links. I've Removed the link to wsu.edu as the link has been dead for quite a long time, if someone wants to search their website to see if it's been moved feel free to do so, the old link was WSU.edu http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM WSU.edu I've Put the Electronic Text Corpus link and combined it as the ETCSL link as it was the same site listed twice, and the version removed lead to a landing page with little information. Added link for R. Campbell Thompson and also added a link to the Complete Academic Works of which he translated. This book is in the Public Sector to my knowledge for the UK and EU, but possibly not so for outside the EU. Re-organised the authors into alphabetical order. Split out the link for "Comparison of The Epic of Gilgamesh to the Genesis flood", as it was not a translation but simply a comparison.

Looking at the notes some background research could really do with being done so that ISBN's for example are added, I might give this a bash myself in the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero King Gilgamesh (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Names

Although not mentioned in the main Wikipedia disambiguation, Gilgamesh was also called "Intestine Face" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson caleb (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King of Heroes?

One of Gilgamesh's alternate names on the pages is listed as "King of Heroes". Is that actually an epitaph of his, or did someone just sneak in some Fate/zero-related material like has been done on several other pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.179.53 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the illustration

The image used as illustration, titled "Gilgamesh as illustrated in The Chaldean Account of Genesis (1876)" is evidently a drawing of the relic uncovered by Paul-Émile Botta and currently exposed at the Louvre, the very same which photograph is currently used as an illustration for Enkidu !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.179.161.157 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

This article is categorized with "monomyth". Since the monomyth is a hypothesis with (as I understand it), no prevalence in academia (i.e. a fringe theory), it should be regarded as just a guess and not a fact. There's a lot of speculations about the meaning of Gilgamesh and other old myths, but I don't see that they have a place in reputable encyclopedias. So I'll delete it if no convincing arguments show up. Devadatta (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help from wiki coding expert to fix the issue of cuneiform figures not showing up at start.

I only see white boxes, I checked back to earlier versions and these white boxes go back many years. I understand that they are meant to show cuneiform figures, but I'm not sure why they don't seem to be working. Here's the code: Akkadian cuneiform: 𒄑𒂆𒈦 [𒄑𒂆𒈦]

Can anyone with this type of wiki coding expertise help fix this problem so we can see the wonderful cuneiform please?Wiki-proofer-and-tagger (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I have the same problem, cuneiform isn't displayed. 58.182.232.192 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this may be a font problem - possibly browser-specific. I can't see the characters either - I'll ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tummal Inscription interpretation mainstream or fringe theory?

I just read the following: " A number of religious analyses of the inscriptions find evidence within the text for a claim of divine intervention"

I'm not qualified to judge this claim. Does anyone know if this this fringe theory?Wiki-proofer-and-tagger (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Gilgamesh's name?

The article has the stress on the first syllable. Andrew George's 1999 Penguin Classics translation indicates stress on the second syllable (but concedes that "in some names the position of the stress is conjectural"). Given that he's prepared a critical edition of the original, I would like to see a citation of equal weight supporting the stress on the first syllable. --Tbanderson (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilgamesh&oldid=681201186"